Mass media: Stop calling Khalid Masood a ‘Radical Islamist’. We do not yet know if he was

Daesh claims Khalid Masood was one of its soldiers.

The second point (below) certainly rings true – just because terrorists claim a crime as one of theirs, that doesn’t make it so.

I wondered why it took the ‘Islamic State’ mob so long to claim responsibility, and I notice that they only said that Masood was answering their call to arms – not that he was an official member.

On Masood’s side, there is no evidence at all to suggest that this is true.

I’m afraid that leads to questions about the behaviour of the mainstream media.

Back in the bad old days of IRA bombings and who-knows-what-else, would they have been so quick to blame an incident on terrorists? Or would they have waited for confirmation before stirring everybody into hysteria?

It all seems extremely suspicious. Doesn’t it?

After lengthy investigation – and it would appear some very reckless and unjustified arrests in a big show of looking ‘in control’ – the police have concluded that the Westminster Attacker, Khalid Masood, acted alone when he took the lives of five people this week.

The media, and many in the wider public, seem to have determined for themselves that Masood, nèe Adrian Ajao, was a Radical Islamic terrorist operating on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq & Levant (ISIL/’Daesh’). That is a perfectly understandable conclusion to draw. Although born and raised a Christian, he converted to Islam at some point probably between 2001 and 2004. His method of killing, involving driving a vehicle into a crowd of people on Westminster Bridge, has very loud echoes of last year’s attacks in Nice and Berlin. And of course Daesh have claimed Masood as one of their own, calling him “a soldier of the Caliphate”.

Firstly, after the aforementioned investigations concluded that Masood acted alone, it is perhaps a little difficult to reason exactly how or when he had been radicalised.

Secondly, it is high time everybody grasped that just because Daesh claim a crime as one of their own, that does not mean that it genuinely is.

The truth is, as yet, no one really knows precisely why Masood did what he did, because he did not appear to leave an explanation behind for it. This may sound like a minor point, but it is fairly important to my mind, because it is where his modus operandi deviates from the norm; it is quite unusual for a Radical Islamist not to leave behind an explanation, usually by video recording, for his actions.

The possibility is that Khalid Masood was just an unstable man who, having spent some years battling to bury old impulses, finally reached the end of his tether. He may simply have been carrying out a mindless act of last-gasp despair similar to the massacre by Derrick Bird in Cumbria a few years ago.

Nobody called Bird a terrorist, or assumed some kind of ideological motive for the Cumbria Shootings. Given Masood was attempting to force a way into Parliament, it seems more likely in his case, but we should at least be cautious about it.

Impatient guessing games will only reveal more about the people playing them than they will ever reveal about Khalid Masood.

Source: Stop calling Khalid Masood a ‘Radical Islamist’. We do not yet know if he was | TheCritique Archives

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


8 thoughts on “Mass media: Stop calling Khalid Masood a ‘Radical Islamist’. We do not yet know if he was

  1. John Spencer-Davis

    My own posting on Facebook today.

    Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu’s latest statement on the tragedy of Westminster and Khalid Masood:

    “We still believe that Masood acted alone on the day and there is no information or intelligence to suggest there are further attacks planned.”

    I believe I predicted that the attacker would turn out to be a loner with no connection to any kind of terrorist group. It’s not certain yet, but the evidence seems to be tending that way.

    “We must all accept that there is a possibility we will never understand why he did this. That understanding may have died with him.”

    In which case, why all this talk about “terrorism”? If we will never understand his motive, then his crimes do not fit the definition of “terrorism”, being violent acts committed for a political motive.

    “Nevertheless, we are determined to understand if Masood was a lone actor inspired by terrorist propaganda or if others have encouraged, supported or directed him.”
    That makes no sense at all. If we may never understand Masood’s motive, how do we know that he was “inspired by terrorist propaganda”?

    Theresa May’s talk of a “plot” seems to be turning out to be vile propagandistic nonsense. The more I see and hear, the more sickened I am by the rush to exploit this appalling occurrence for political capital, by the media, and by the political establishment. If we don’t know why Masood did what he did, then we don’t know that he was a “terrorist” rather than a violent murderer, and it does not honour his victims for May, or anyone else, to seize their deaths in political claws to bolster her own prestige and that of her government and to attempt to whip up apprehension and hatred among the public. It makes me sick.


    1. gfranklinpercival

      Mr Masood, much as Mr Mair, appears to have a very troubled person at the time of his offences. I am glad although I grew up in Kent. I was born in W1.

  2. jeffrey davies

    he was just another crook by all accounts who had mental problems yet that isnt coming out in the news failed by the torys who closing down mental care help perhaps one should ask why armed police in swansea after it hmm are we now to see police armed

  3. Neilth

    He was a convert to Islam. He was an attacker. The one is not a consequence of the other. He was not an immigrant he was UK born and raised. Judging by his birth name and skin tone he may be of West Indian origin but that’s just a guess on my part.

    Daesh have claimed his action was in support of their objectives but not that he was a member. This smacks of typical opportunism of a failing terrorist group.

    What he was was an enemy of the democratic process, just like Anders Brevick in Norway, the coward that killed Jo Cox last year and all the other sly low life’s who attack from under their rocks in a blaze of posthumous publicity after failing in all their objectives and, in all probability bringing out the best in the communities they attack when they gather together in mutual support.

    The ultra right and other pond slime will attempt to blame all Muslims for Mahmouds actions. But this makes as little sense as blaming all White Europeans for Brevick etc.
    They are solitary bigots with serious mental health problems and don’t even represent what they think they do.

  4. David Woods

    It may just as well be he was passed as ‘fit for work’ by ATOS that pushed him ‘over the edge’!
    They would never admit to that!

    1. Florence

      I have been commenting for some time that given the proven effect of the DWP on peoples’ mental health, and that so many have turned to self-harm because of it, it is only a matter of time before someone with a different disposition would become violent as a result of DWP induced psychosis. There is no proof at the moment that this is the case. We do know of people committing crimes to get into custody because of hunger and homelessness.

      We have no proof, and may never have it, about why this awful crime was committed. We may all speculate, but the idea that it was “terrorist” inspired because of his religion is disgusting propaganda that will whip up more moronic acts of hate crime, just like the rise in hate crimes against the disabled every time the govt and their mouthpieces start spouting about benefit scroungers.

      The govt have a policy of division and scapegoating, They are just as opportunistic as ISIL in this case.

Comments are closed.