While July 7 was the
first time that jihadi terrorism had come to British streets, these were not
the first streets to which British-born Islamists had brought terror. Two years
earlier, two young British men had gone to Mike's Place, a bar in Tel Aviv, and
carried out a suicide bombing. Almost a decade before July 7 - in 1996 - the
man said to have been Britain's first suicide bomber died in Afghanistan,
self-detonating to kill opponents of the Taliban forces he was fighting alongside.
By 2005 British-raised
jihadis had fought around the world, spurred on by radical clerics at home,
backed by British networks and allowed to operate by a government and security
service who believed that this was a problem for other people. It took 10 years
for Britain to extradite to France the Algerian man accused of blowing up the
Paris Metro in 1995. Britain had become a soft touch: a magnet for foreign
jihadis and a hub of home-grown radicalisation.
To coincide with the
fifth anniversary of July 7 this week, the Centre for Social Cohesion is
releasing Islamist Terrorism: the British Connections. It is a 500-page,
telephone directory-sized work that aims to present an overview of every
traceable Islamist convicted of Islamism-inspired terrorist offences and
attacks over the last decade. It also examines the scope of British-linked
Islamism-inspired terrorism threats worldwide since 1993, listing many foreign
combatants and extradition cases and British citizens convicted abroad.
It presents a timeline
of the jihad, a list of the major networks and analysis of the data, presenting
the most accurate picture possible of what makes up a violent British Islamist.
Terrorism expert Marc Sageman has already said it "will become the
indispensable reference for any future inquiry into British neo-jihadi
terrorism". Yet it is a work that neither the Home Office nor the Crown
Prosecution Service, nor any other department of government, has got around to
compiling.
Contrary to government
claims, there are very clear pointers as to what makes up the average
individual convicted of an Islamist-inspired offence. As the profiles of 127
convictions and attacks show, the overwhelming majority of those involved (96
per cent) are men; 68 per cent are under 30; 32 per cent of those convicted
have links to proscribed organisations - 14.5 per cent had links with al-Qaeda,
while the largest number (15 per cent) were linked to the now banned
al-Muhajiroun; and 31 per cent attended terrorist training camps abroad.
The idea that lack of
opportunities, poverty or lack of education are more than an aggravating factor
is not supported by the findings. A minimum of 31 per cent of those convicted
of Islamist-related offences had at some point attended university or a higher
education institute. Among these, as the University College London Christmas
Day bomber reminded us, are people who have attended some of our finest
institutions.
And the idea that a
terrorist cannot to some extent be racially profiled is also wrong. Government
should not ignore facts because they are difficult. Almost half of those
convicted were of south-central Asian ancestry (46 per cent) - though this is
lower than the percentage of Muslims in the UK who have such ancestry. But
apologists for jihadis often try to claim that profiling is counter-productive.
In fact, as one arm of surveillance, it can be very productive indeed.
There
may be many reasons for this oversight, not least that government is now busy
trying to deal with the problem it allowed
to go unchallenged and even fuelled for years. But it may also be because in
the wake of the July 7 bombs a polite fiction has crept into the British body
politic - a fatal unwillingness to deal with facts and unpleasant truths. Our
Security Service's efforts have been hugely successful - since September 11,
2001 a major plot has been thwarted nearly every year - but politically, this
country's policy for dealing with radical Islam has gone off at a terrible
tangent and may actually be storing up problems for the future.
It started with Tony
Blair who, in the wake of the London bombs, said he would change "the
rules of the game". But the rules did not change. Blair could have used
the opportunity to expel foreign clerics, to pursue and lock up those who had
gone to training camps, and to start explaining not how people could understand
Islam better but how Islam should understand Britain better.
Instead of arguing the
case for our values and the non-negotiability of our way of life, Blair and his
colleagues treated the radicalisation of young Muslims as a theological issue.
Via the "Prevent" strategy, millions of pounds were poured into
programmes designed to encourage a different version of Islam from that of some
radical ideologues. But money was spent on grassroots events at which radical
preachers spoke; there was support, too, for organisations affiliated to groups
such as the radical Muslim Brotherhood to carry out proselytising, or dawah,
work. In many cases, both here and abroad, the government decided to ally with
those who were political opponents of violent groups, but who were themselves
only opposed to violence in particular contexts.
Blair's advisory
committees included people who were on record expressing admiration for Osama
bin Laden, people who believe British foreign policy is dictated by Jews and
Freemasons, and those at best equivocal about the use of suicide bombing in
certain contexts. And as usual, once government got involved, it found a way
for itself to get involved more. A whole department dedicated itself to pumping
out the lie that the problem was not Islamist extremism, but "violent
extremism"; not jihadism but what the home secretary at the time of the
Glasgow airport bombing and the attempted bombing in Haymarket, Jacqui Smith,
requested be re-termed "anti-Islamic activity".
This was all part of a
concerted attempt to placate Muslim demagogues who teach grievance, as well as
ordinary Muslims who might feel under pressure, by pretending that absolutely
anybody could become a suicide bomber - a pretence that allows Muslim leaders
and communities off the hook entirely. There are many security threats facing
this country. There are the continuing efforts by Irish republicans who have
not accepted the Good Friday Agreement. There are the so-called
"lone-wolf" white racists like the Brixton, Soho and Brick Lane
bomber David Copeland. But by far and away the greatest security threat, our
Security Service estimates, is the threat of what it terms "al-Qaeda and
al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism". Yet government has been desperate to evade
this fact.
The Security Service
believes that more than 2,000 people in the UK pose a terrorist threat; in
March 2005, it was estimated that up to 200 al-Qaeda operatives were in the UK.
In January of this year the terror threat level was raised from
"substantial" to "severe", meaning an attack is
"highly likely".
Our police and Security
Service continue to do the hard work of preventing actual attacks, and have
been remarkably successful. Yet for the past five years the major political
parties have failed in their principal task, which should be to argue for
British values. MPs who have spoken out frankly have been silenced or reprimanded
by their parties. Outspoken critics of radical Islam have been sidelined or
ignored.
If
you haven't seen it yet, do watch it here. Several times.
The
first question unsettles her. But the second is absolutely devastating. For
years people like Abbott, who have built their careers on the simple chance of
their skin pigmentation, have flung around accusations of "racism" while making
the most outrageously racist comments themselves. Andrew Neil rightly picks Abbott
up for saying that "West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children". A
statement that strongly implies that white mothers, for instance, would
not. As Neil says, turn the comment around and it would be
unthinkable that someone would have got away with saying it.
Rather
courageously, Andrew Neil goes on to ask the follow-up question: why, if her
statement were true, are cases of delinquency among young men of West Indian
origin so very high?
I've
been reading the Rolling Stone magazine piece that brought down General
McChrystal and feel very unnerved by it. I know that the consensus
dictated that, after remarks made largely by members of McChrystal's team, the
General simply had to go. But a number of things occur to me.
Firstly,
is America sure it has enough top generals and is doing so well in Afghanistan
and Iraq that it can simply dispose of any general tripped up in such
a - pretty sneaky - way by the media? I tend not to have much sympathy for
politicians caught like this. They spend their life politicking. But generals,
though it's helpful if they are politically savvy, have another
rather important job on the side.
Secondly,
it isn't at all clear to me that this isn't a shot in the foot for the
coalition in Afghanistan. The Daily Beast is already reporting here
that Taliban commanders are welcoming the sacking as a victory for them.
Thirdly,
as with the Japanese in World War II who insisted their naval
commanders had to go down with their ships, I'm not sure that a huge and
valuable source of knowledge isn't lost irretrievably when commanders are
forced to go down with a story.
I've
just returned from a very brief speaking trip to Brussels and experienced the
familiar fury I feel whenever I have misfortune of being there. The
sanitised hotels seem to be the only businesses in town other than the
Parliament.
My
post-Brussels fury meant I was even more bowled over than normal by the
realisation - highlighted here
by the Taxpayers' Alliance's Mark Wallace - that although in the wake of
the emergency Budget most government departments are quite rightly going to
have to aim for a 25 per cent cut in the next four years, our contributions to
the EU will, wait for it ... rise! As Wallace says:
Even after taking into account the money that the EU graciously
gives back to us (which is often misspent),
the amount we pour into Brussels is going to grow from £6.4bn last year, to
£8.3bn this year and then goes on to peak at an eye-watering £10.3bn in
2014-15.
By any measure this is a disgrace. Does nobody in the Coalition feel that Brussels might be able to do with at least a freeze on our contributions? If there were any Conservatives in this Lib Dem government, perhaps that question would have come up.
]]>However, the system is not ideal, and two facts have emerged
recently which should make the new government pause for thought. First
of all, of the 12 individuals still under control order, 10 are now British citizens.
It is worth remembering that control orders were introduced primarily
for foreign terror suspects that could not be deported (specifically
those detained without trial at Belmarsh prison). The government should
be clear that the home grown threat is
such that control orders are required for British citizens as well.
Secondly, in Lord Carlile's speech, he says that "Getting rid of control orders would be too dangerous in four or five cases. In those cases there is robust intelligence of serious terrorist intent and it would be dangerous to have them uncontrolled and on the streets."
But if getting rid of control orders is only too dangerous in 'four or five cases', does that mean they can be got rid of in the other seven or eight that are still in force? I presume that this is not what Lord Carlile means - and having seen a lot of the control order documentation used in court, I think he understates the problem. The vast majority of those under control order are clearly extremely dangerous.
No amount of political posturing or internal reviews by the new government is going to change this, so if it is going to make good on its pledge to scrap control orders, it needs to have an extremely effective alternative lined up. Allowing intercept evidence is not the answer - government reviews have shown time and time again that it would not make a bit of difference to current control order cases - and we have already shown that we are going to remain in thrall to the European Court of Human Rights. So what is the answer? I'm sure I'm not the only one doubtful the government actually has one.
]]>Shahzad's charges include:
attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, possession of a firearm in
relation to conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempted act of
terrorism transcending national boundaries, conspiracy to commit an act of
terrorism, attempted use of a destructive device in relation to conspiracy to
commit an act of terrorism, and conspiracy to destroy property be fire and
explosives. A 30 year old, naturalized citizen of the United States, Shahzad, will
most likely face a life sentence in prison. The defendant was arrested
attempting to flee the country two days after his failed bomb plot in Times
Square on May 1, 2010.
At his hearing, Shahzad, who
became a US citizen in April 2009, was asked to explain the reasoning behind
his actions. He retold his account of a trip to Pakistan that he took starting
in June 2009. During the trip, he said that he travelled to Waziristan,
Pakistan to join the Taliban, where he received bomb training from the Tehrik-i-Taliban.
It was during this time that he first formulated his attack on Times
Square. It was also around this time
that people close to Shahzad noticed a change in his personality and behaviour.
Shahzad, who was reported as
cooperating well with the authorities since his arrest, was calm and unrepentant
during his hearing. The New York Times
reported Shahzad as saying:
"I
want to plead guilty, and I'm going to plead guilty 100 times over because
until the hour the US pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the
drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of
Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to
its government, we will be attacking US, and I plead guilty to that."
So, do the Conservative Muslim Forum approve of the decision of the Home Secretary? Or do they think the invitation to this now-banned extremist from a charity they praised and financed should have gone ahead? If there is to be agreement within the Conservative Party I think we should probably be told.
And isn't this yet another reminder that groups like the Conservative Muslim Forum within political parties are not merely an embarassment, but a liability?
]]>Mrs May told The Daily Telegraph: "I have excluded Dr Naik from the UK. Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour.
"Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and I am not wiling to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK.
"Exclusion powers are very serious and no decision is taken lightly or as a method of stopping open debate on issues."
Home Office sources said Dr Naik had been filmed on a website making inflammatory comments such as "every Muslim should be a terrorist".
He said: "When a robber sees a policeman he's terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context, every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber."
He has also been filmed saying: "There are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole ... The Koran tells us, as a whole, they will be our staunchest enemy."
In a web posting from 2006 he said: "Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them ... we don't know.
"But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don't know what he's doing. I'm not in touch with him. I don't know him personally. I read the newspaper.
"If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist."
Theresa May is absolutely right. The problem with Zaik is not that he says things that are untrue, though he does. And it is not that he holds political views which are unpalatable, which he does. No, to me, the problem with him is that his comments both "glorify terrorism" and "seek to provoke others to terrorist acts", Britain has quite enough problems as it is without allowing such a person in to import a bunch more.
People will remember Jacqui Smith's lamentable attempt at consistency when she drew up a list of undesirables which included someone about to be in the Dutch cabinet and an American radio host who never expressed any desire to come to the UK in the first place.
It seems so far that Theresa May is steering a clearer path. I hope it continues. After all, our troops are fighting, and some are dying whilst fighting, extremists in Afghanistan. The least that we can do is to stop such people wandering around and preaching the same hatred here at home.
]]>This was undeniably, unequivocally and
inexorably a political ploy and by no means a humanitarian mission to alleviate
the suffering of the people of Gaza. This was a political ploy with the purpose
of provoking Israel into unwarranted aggression, provoking international
outcry, further isolating the country, breaking the siege and causing Israel
unparalleled humiliation.
Indeed, the purpose of this mission could have
not have been more successful in achieving its objectives. It has led to
unmitigated international condemnation from the EU to NATO and for unilateral
calls for an end to the siege on Gaza. It has destroyed Israel's bilateral
relations with Turkey, an important partner in bridging the schism between
Israel and the rest of the Middle East.
It is remarkable how one-sided the criticism
is and how it fails to highlight the context behind Israel's response. Firstly,
Israel repeatedly offered to deliver the aid through Ashdod, using normal
search procedures. The activists rejected the offer. Appeals to Turkey went
unheeded and that country let the flotilla sail and gave its assistance. Israel
also asked the peace militants to transmit a letter to captured IDF soldier
Gilad Schalit, who has been in Hamas custody for almost four years. This was a
mission with the clear intention to delegitimize the State of Israel by drawing
it in to a bloody confrontation. Stopping the flotilla was Israel's right under
international law.
Israel, a nation state, its priority being
the protection of its citizens had to stop the flotilla since no one knew who
the people on the ships were and what exactly they carried. Had the ships been
allowed to go through, others would have followed, perhaps bringing weapons
(and who knows, maybe terrorists) to Hamas, a terrorist organization which has
made its intent to destroy the Jewish state clear.
These activists carefully planned their
ambush. After having said repeatedly that they would only pose passive
resistance, they attacked the soldiers who boarded the ship with guns, iron
bars and knives and led to the dire results they were looking for.
Yet the rapid response of the international
community to condemn Israel's actions has many shortcomings. It fails to
contextualize why a siege is in place and stops short of any condemnation of
Hamas. Since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 it has received
nothing short of over 8,000 rockets fired indiscriminately at its citizens.
This clearly left Israel with no choice other than to block the strip in order
to halt rocket attacks against its citizens. There has also been a chronic lack
of criticism against Hamas's violation of the UN Geneva Conventions following
the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit who has been in captivity for nearly four years.
Again there was little international condemnation of Hamas's brutal and
barbaric suppression of its rival Fatah in the strip in 2006.
Instead of drawing attention to the real
problem, namely Hamas, the international community through its calls for Israel
to end its siege is further entrenching this repugnant regime, encouraging its
terrorism and bringing misery to the people of Gaza and Israel. Indeed, Hamas
spurred on by international sympathy and loathing of Israel launched fresh
attacks by firing rockets into southern Israel. The most effective way in which
the international community and peace activists could help the people of Gaza is
to condemn Hamas terrorism unequivocally. This would discourage its terrorist
activities not only against Israel but its own population which it has brutally
repressed and condemned.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has just passed one of those legal rulings which now occur so often that you become numb to it.
From the BBC:
]]>The alleged leader of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb targets in north-west England has won his appeal against deportation.
A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.
Mr Naseer, 23, was one of 10 Pakistani students arrested last April as part of a massive counter-terrorism operation in Liverpool and Manchester.
Another student, Ahmad Faraz Khan, also 23, won his appeal on similar grounds.
Lawyers for
the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, said they would not be appealing
against the ruling, handed down by the Special Immigration Appeals
Commission.
...
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," the judgement said.
It added: "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."
And yet nothing can be done.
The SIAC are not to blame. They are merely following process. The blame lies with those that have allowed British sovereignty to be eroded to the extent that the Home Secretary no longer has the right to deport national security threats. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights does not even allow the Home Secretary to balance the risk of allowing a national security threat remaining in the country against his potential mistreatment abroad.
These men will now probably be put under control order (which the Conservatives have previously stated they want to scrap). So that's two more al-Qaeda operatives that we are paying to keep here.
A further point - the SIAC ruled that deportation could not take place due to the "long and well-documented history of disappearances" of those who end up in Pakistani prisons. Certainly, they are probably not going to win any best practice examples any time soon.
A couple of recent examples of the conditions in Pakistani jails, however, are worth bearing in mind. Despite being on death row, Omar Sheikh - the former LSE student who masterminded the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl - was ordering assassination attempts against Gen Pervez Musharraf from his Hyderabad jail. Furthermore, another British citizen, Rashid Rauf - al-Qaeda's head of operations in Europe - simply walked out of police custody in Pakistan.
It seems as if the "long and well-documented history of disappearances" in Pakistan prisons can cut both ways.
]]>However, US government policy is to now remove all references to Islam when discussing terrorism. It is one of those British policies that our American allies seem to have unfortunately taken to with some relish. With an almost heroic disconnect from reality, Holder can not bring himself to accept that all those terrorists who say they are acting in the name of Islam are actually terrorists acting in the name of Islam.
It's a painful watch - a bit like trying to persuade a terrified Hogswarts student to say 'Lord Voldemort'. But - as in the Harry Potter series - if you are too afraid to name the enemy, chances are you won't have the will or know-how to defeat it either.
The video can be viewed here.
For anyone looking for some non-election related news, I must point you towards two especially shocking short videos.
The next piece of footage is of an assault - and subsequent celebration of this assault - on the artist Lars Vilks, at a university in Sweden. Vilks has received death threats and a great deal of censorship for producing artwork which portrayed Mohammed (the picture of which can be viewed here).
As I have posted before, and as previous studies have shown, this type of attitude is not uncommon on British campuses. Labour stuck their head in the sand on this issue for years. Let's hope the new government does not.
]]>The European Court of Justice has overturned this, as they have decided that 'it is hard to imagine how those funds could be turned into means that could be used to support terrorist activities'. Perhaps they underestimate how much this government allows the unemployed to claim.
Many of those affected by this ruling will be the foreign national terror suspects that the government has been consistently thwarted in attempting to deport by various courts. We are used to being told that al-Qaeda ideologues and terrorist suspects cannot be removed from the UK if there is the chance they will be mistreated in their country of origin. Yet now we are being told that not only can we not deport them, the taxpayer must also ensure they remain living a life of relative financial comfort.
For years, we have been paying terrorist suspects to live in the UK. When this kind of decadence goes unaddressed, no-one can be surprised that public finances are in the state that they are.
]]>Revolution Muslim, a US-based extremist organisation, has issued death threats against Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the makers of animated sitcom 'South Park', after their latest episode which satirised the ongoing hysteria about depicting Mohammed. In what is yet another example of the ongoing influence Anwar al-Awlaki has on Western jihadism, the religious justification used by the group for killing Stone and Parker was taken from a 2008 Awlaki lecture 'The Dust Will Never Settle Down'.
Our mission is to one day see the Muslims united under one Khalifah and under the commands of Allah (SWT). We focus on educating Muslims and Non-Muslims alike about the actuality of the religion and thereby work to preserve traditional Islamic values for Muslims across the globe. We pray that we may witness the dismantlement of western, secular dominance across the world as we hold it to be pagan and idolatrous in the majority of its presumptions. We seek a resurrection of the just example set forth by centuries of Islamic rule throughout the ages and we hold it to be self evident for the objective soul and mind that Allah is One and that Muhammad ibn Abdullah is His Prophet and that the religion offers the solution to all of the world's ills and afflictions.[emphasis added]
In South Park's 200th episode, a group of celebrities headed by Tom Cruise bring a class action law suit to the town in an attempt to prevent them from continuing their relentless lampooning of the ham actors, washed up sell-outs and megalomaniacs that make up a significant proportion of show business. Cruise tells the town that he would be willing to drop the charges on one condition: that they bring Mohammed to meet him. Cruise and his pals have had enough of being made fun of and want to harness Mohammed's special ability to thwart all forms of mockery. Much of the rest of the episode is a brilliant satire on the debate about depicting Mohammed, with the town finally deciding to allow him to walk around fully covered by a sport mascot's uniform.
Last Thursday, before the show was even aired, Revolution Muslim issued preemptive threats on their website. As well as providing information about where Parker and Stone live, a picture of the murdered film director Theo van Gogh was also posted up with the caption: "Theo Van Gogh - Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?" Further down, the threats continue: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."
Despite the threats, the episode aired, and in response Revolution Muslim posted a video called 'South Park: The Dust Will Never Settle Down' in which pictures of Stone, Parker and other targets including Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie are depicted along with a voiceover of Awlaki's lecture on the Islamic justification for killing anyone who insults or defames the Prophet. In the lecture, Awlaki refers to the the murder of a Jewish poet in Mohammed's time:
The prophet said "If he had calmed down, like others who follow his opinion, are of the same opinion as his, have calmed down, he wouldn't have been assassinated. But he has harmed us and he has defamed us with his poetry and none of you would do this, except we would deal with him with the sword.
[...]
But he spoke against us. He spoke against me and he defamed me with his poetry. And then he made it clear to the Jews - if any one of you, you the Jews, or the polytheists, if any one of you try to defame me through your words, this will be the way we deal with you. There is nothing between us and you except the sword. There will be no dialogue, there will be no forgiveness, there will be no building of bridges, there will be no attempts of reconciliation, there will only be the sword between me and you".
Between 9/11 and the end of 2009, Awlaki produced numerous lectures and essays that have been widely distributed online and have specifically targeted Western, English speaking Muslims. What we are now witnessing, since the Fort Hood and Detroit attacks (both of which Awlaki is directly linked to), is the final product of allowing men like him to operate for years, unhindered, and often supported by western Islamist organisations. It should come as no surprise that he has inspired a group to call for the murder of two programme makers and we can be almost certain that this not the last time we will see homegrown jihadis act on his teachings.
]]>