There Were No ‘Lives Lost’ on 7/7

Should we be marking bloody events such as the UK’s 7/7 or the USA’s 9/11? We do these things, it is said, to ‘honour the dead’. Clearly, those who lost loved ones will never forget, and the gap in their lives will mean every day is a memorial. But the tragically unfortunate souls who died in these events were not bravely running into the face of the enemy. They were going about their everyday business which, in many ways, adds to the tragedy. It certainly focuses the mind along the lines of “this could happen to anyone; hell, it could happen to me”. And that is precisely the point.

The people who planned these attacks will treat the commemorations as their own private celebration. This is what they want. They want us in a constant state of fear and, of course, the commemorations simply keep the events in the public eye. In the case of 7/7, twenty years on. The terrorists want us to live in terror of it happening to us or our family, while the state wants us to think it is doing all it can to prevent these things happening.

The truth is, unwittingly (I hope), the state is working with the terrorists – both to ensure such events continue to be likely through government policy, and to maintain the fear levels among the public so ever greater restrictions to our freedoms can be introduced. Air travel is already a miserable undertaking due to meaningless security measures, and digital ID cards are very likely to be introduced soon. The only reason we have no routine security scanning at rail stations is probably the inordinate expense, on the one hand, and the fact that anyone who matters these days travels by limousine, helicopter or private plane on the other.

The celebrations were marked by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the Grand Mufti of Highgrove (peace be upon him) in remarkably evasive ways. It never ceases to astonish me how our political leaders and our Royal Family can make an event at which over 50 people were deliberately killed by terrorists of an Islamic hue look like it was, in the first place, all our fault.

The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary (ten points if you can name her without checking Google) marked the event with a statement. I scanned this using a word search for the words ‘killed’ or ‘murdered’ in vain. Instead, according to Sir Keir, we should “unite to remember the lives lost”, which does not really cut it. Four of the ‘lives lost’ were fanatical Muslim terrorists who knew that, by the end of the day, they would be splattered in all directions on some part of Transport for London, and thought they would be entering the first of their 72 virgins with another 71 to go.

Mind you, at least they had the decency to wait until they were dead before deflowering their young ladies. More than can be said for their co-religionists in Rotherham, Bradford, Oldham and probably many more UK cities who, at the last count, had deprived a quarter of a million (and counting) young ladies of their virginity, their dignity and any chance of ever leading a normal life.

Which brings me nicely to policy. While I searched the BBC report on the commemoration of 7/7 in vain for the word ‘murder’ it did at least refer to the fact that people had been ‘killed’. The BBC reported the words of King Charles who said, ‘the attacks had shown the importance of “building a society where people of all faiths and backgrounds can live together with mutual respect and understanding.”’

Does anyone check over what our glorious sovereign is going to say on such occasions? Does he ever read things over himself to see if they make an ounce of sense? In whose world do these attacks show the importance of any of the multicultural bollocks to which he aspires are important? The kind of people who pulled the strings on their exploding vests on 7/7 could not give a mullah’s fart about the kind of society we have – unless it is wholly Islamised. They hate us and everything we stand for and are happy to kill as many of us as they can.

Keir Starmer referred to “the values that define us of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.” He cannot, or will not, see that “freedom, democracy and the rule of law” (our law) is simply a shopping list of hate for Islamic fundamentalists. They despise freedom, laugh at the concept of democracy and only recognise sharia law.

Moreover, it is precisely our efforts to build a society where people of “all faiths and backgrounds can live together” that has led to the very problems we are purporting to solve, by bringing more people of other faiths and imposing them on our culture and nearly always on people whose lives are most affected. The King said, “we may take comfort from the way such events rally communities together in solidarity, solace and determination.” It must be so nice to live within the secure environment of Highgrove.

So no, Prime Minister, we did not “lose lives” on 7/7 as if they were tragically misplaced in a bureaucratic mishap. They were murdered—deliberately, violently, and in cold blood—by men who hated what this country stands for. Euphemisms won’t bring back the dead, but they will ensure we learn nothing from their deaths. If we can’t even name the problem, let alone confront it, then we are not honouring the victims—we are forgetting them in the most cowardly way imaginable.

Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us: