Now that the trial of Omar Khyam and Co is over, the links between Khyam and 7/7 are allowed to be revealed. As far as the MSM is concerned the main point here is that the leader of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammed Siddique Khan, came up on MI5's radar and they didn't track him.
Really, this is a red herring because at the time there was no indication that Khan was planning anything and who knows how many people came up on the radar during the surveillance of Khyam. However, there is a big connection here: Al Muhajiroun.
Omar Khyam, the ringleader of the fertiliser bomb plot, was first radicalised by Al Muhajiroun. Some of the other members of his group were also radicalised by Al Muhajiroun. The main evidence against these men came from an Islamist in prison in the US called Muhammad Junaid Babar. He too was radicalised by Al Muhajiroun over the Internet and subsequently had training with the fertiliser plotters in Pakistan.
Khyam's links to Mohammed Siddique Khan, the 7/7 leader, are now documented. In 2003 they first men in a training camp in Pakistan. BBC reporter, Richard Watson, in a report from 2005 said that it was Al Muhajiroun that had facilitated Khan's trip there. This is hinted at in a report today on the BBC that says that some unidentified "Luton-based extremist" sent Khan to Pakistan.
The picture here is quite clear - the home-grown terrorists springing up across this country are not acting alone. Al Muhajiroun is radicalising them and sending them on their way to Al Qaeda and terrorism. And even now Al Muhajiroun continue to radicalise young Muslims in Britain. If they are completely shut down we may be one large step towards making Britain safe from the home-grown radicals.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Now that the trial of Omar Khyam and Co is over, the links between Khyam and 7/7 are allowed to be revealed. As far as the MSM is concerned the main point here is that the leader of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammed Siddique Khan, came up on MI5's radar and they didn't track him.
5 men have been found guilty of plotting to bomb Britain. The five men are Omar Khyam, the leader Jawad Akbar, Salahuddin Amin, Waheed Mahmood and Anthony Garcia. The trial has been ongoing for over a year.
The plot centred on 600kg of fertiliser that had been bought to make bombs from. Possible targets included a shopping centre, nightclub and Parliament. Two men were acquitted.
Splashed across the front page of today's Daily Express is a story about Sharia courts in Britain. The express headline reads: "NOW MUSLIMS GET THEIR OWN LAWS IN BRITAIN". Quite obviously, the headline is intended to cause concern. Even the use of the word "Now" is, presumably, designed to imply that this is another step in a process. The question is, though, is there any merit to this story?
The article itself doesn't carry very much new information. It simply tells us that there are Sharia courts operating in the major cities of the UK. We already knew that. Back in November the BBC investigated the Sharia courts of Britain and found them to be little different to the Jewish courts that have operated in this country for decades. They are religious courts of arbitration. Their decisions are legally binding under the Arbitration Act 1996 (not sure what happened before then).
Clearly, so long as these courts are dealing merely with civil cases, and the two parties agree to be bound by the court's decision, there is nothing to discuss. However, should the courts be dealing with criminal cases then this is a different matter. The Express report makes no mention of any criminal cases being judged by these Sharia courts. Certainly, no new laws have been invented for Muslims as the headline implies.
This article appears to nothing other than a cheap attempt to gain readers with an apparently shocking "exclusive". However, there is nothing new in the article. As proof of the purpose and stupidity of this article one need look no further than the following paragraph:
The Daily Express can reveal that one of the controversial courts has been set up in the home town of the 7/7 London bombings ringleader.Is this a revelation? No; it's a pathetic attempt to link a perfectly valid court of arbitration to a terrorist act. There are real problems within the Muslim community, but inventing new ones to sell papers is to do a disservice to the entire country. Shame on them.
Since it emerged that all six men arrested last week were members of Al Muhajiroun, there has been renewed interest in the group. The protest on Friday raises a question - is there a struggle for control of Al Muhajiroun?
At the time we noted that there was apparent confusion as to who organised the protest. The IHT quoted Anjem Choudary as calling on people to rally on behalf of Abu Izzadeen, while the BBC claimed that it was relatives and friends of Rajib Khan who were organising it.
Another article, quotes two men. One is Abu Farooq. He said he was a relative of one of the men but refused to say which one. He is, in fact, a relative of Khan. (This source places him outside his relative's house in Luton after the arrest and Khan was the only one from Luton). The other man quoted is Sayful Islam. He is the head of Al Muhajiroun in Luton and is quoted as the organiser of the event. He claims to be "very close" to Khan. And in this Evening Standard story from 2004 he is apparently quite close to Abdul Haq too.
There is a real possibility that Sayful Islam is trying to place himself as the new leader of Al Muhajiroun. Choudary was Omar Bakri's right hand man - but Bakri is stuck in Lebanon. And with Izzadeen now in prison too there may be room for Islam to make a bid for leadership. So, is there any proof? Well, possibly.
Towards the end of last year there were two notable protest events; the heckling of John Reid and the protest outside Westminster Cathedral. The Westminster Cathedral protest took place a week earlier. Now, at that protest there were two types of placard/poster. The first was a piece of paper with a black line at the bottom containing the words (in white) "The Muslims". These were exactly the same posters used in the heckling of John Reid (see here).
However, there were some other posters at the Westminster Cathedral protest. If you look at the pictures here you'll see that, while most posters are the ones described above, there are others which do not have the black line and are stuck onto a cardboard backing.
Apparently there were two suppliers to that protest. Choudary was connected to the black line posters as he was the second man heckling John Reid holding the same posters (again see here). Now that some photos are available of the Paddington Protest (here) you can see that the placards used for that protest are pieces of paper stuck on cardboard backings with not a black line in sight.
What does all this add up to? Possibly, it means that back in September Choudary was in charge, hence most of the posters were his style, and now he isn't. This could be bad news because when extremists vie for power they tend to score points by who can cause the most mayhem.
And, to be honest, it doesn't matter much who is in charge as they all have one aim - to turn Britain and the world into one giant Islamic Caliphate. They all incite violence and they all need to be shut down.
The six members of Al Muhajiroun arrested last week have all been charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 for raising terrorism funds. Furthermore, Izzadeen, Keeler, Haq and Khan have been charged for incitement, while Haq has also been charged with possession of articles suspected to be connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist act. Note that the man identified as Ibrahim Abdullah Hassan is also known as Abdul Haq.
Hopefully these developments indicate that the police are now (finally) in a position to put an end to Al Muhajiroun's recruitment and incitement.
Friday, April 27, 2007
While the BBC is not reporting much about this protest (yet?) the International Herald Tribune is. No prizes for guessing that it was none other than Anjem Choudary, one of the leaders of Al Muhajiroun, who instigated this protest. No prizes either for guessing the general message.
The crowd chanted "Hands off Muslims" and "UK - You Will Pay". Sound familiar? At Al Muhajiroun / Al Ghurabaa's protest over the Danish cartoons they chanted "Europe - you will pay. When Abu Izzadeen protested John Reid's speech he had a poster proclaiming "John Reid - you will pay". So, they're not very original. Nevertheless, these are serious threats from people who would carry them out if they could.
One of the speakers at the protest, Abu Saliyah, said, "One day, my dear Muslims, the flag of Islam will fly over Downing Street!".
Just as one final point of interest, the Tribune reports the turnout at about 100. This is 1/3rd less than the BBC figure.
UPDATE (18:43) : Forgot to mention another discrepancy. The BBC reported that the protest was organised for Rajib Khan, while the Tribune says it was for Izzadeen. The latter is far more likely as Izzadeen is well known and Rajib isn't.
Yesterday we mentioned that a call had been made for Muslims to protest against the arrest of six Muslims this week. The protest was due to take place outside Paddington Green Police Station from 2:30pm.
The BBC has reported on the protest, the only MSM outlet to do so. However, the BBC report is ambiguous as it first states that the protest is being staged but then that it is being planned, so not sure yet whether it actually took place or not. If you find any more information please let us know.
One interesting point though is that the BBC are reporting that this protest is being organised by relatives and friends of Rajib Khan. He is the one man of the six whose name does not appear to have come up before.
UPDATE (17:19): The BBC are now reporting that about 150 people turned up for the protest some of whom came straight from the Regent's Park Mosque. No pictures as yet or details and, frankly, none are expected.
Nick Johnson, of the Commission for Racial Equality, has warned that the apparent racial segregation of schools in Britain is a "ticking timebomb waiting to explode”. He is quoted in the Daily Express as saying:
“If a Muslim child is educated in a school where the vast majority of other children are also Muslim, how can we expect him to work, live and interact with people from other cultures when he leaves school?”Perhaps, Nick, the same way other people do? Most White Christians are educated in a school where the vast majority of other children are also White Christians and yet, amazingly, they manage to interact fine with people from other cultures. Ah, you say, white people are different because they form the majority and so spend most of their time talking to other people who are part of the majority. So, OK, let's take an example of the oldest segregated minority in Britain; Jews.
The Jews' Free School has been around since 1732 and in over 350 years has only accepted Jewish pupils. Those pupils have been educated solely with other Jews, and yet, there has never been a problem with these pupils interacting with people from other cultures when they left school. So, what's the difference?
The answer is that these are Muslim schools. The fuss about segregation in schools seems to only revolve around Muslim schools. Those making the claims do not seem to have a problem with any other ethnic group. But more than that, the only real grounds for complaint is about religious Muslim schools. A report commissioned by the Home Office indicates that Muslim pupils in majority Muslim, non-religious schools are more tolerant than pupils from predominately white schools.
The question, then, is why the fuss over religious Muslims? To answer this we need only look for the other example of complaints about racial segregation in schools: Northern Ireland. There, during the fighting, people said that there must be no segregation between Catholic and Protestant schoolchildren as this led to more trouble. The same is the case here. What is really concerning the CRE and others is the danger that religious Muslims apparently pose to the West; they just cannot actually bring themselves to be so blunt.
Now, two points. Firstly, is there a problem with all Muslim, religious schools? Who knows? No study has been made that I am aware of, and certainly none are cited by these spokespersons. The second point is more important. Even if there is a problem or potential for a problem is this the right solution?
The answer is no. Since the real issue here is the danger of radicalising Muslims how can preventing them from having their own religious schooling help? It will just make them more radical. Surely the only sensible solution is to ensure that schools are not brainwashing their pupils. Isn't this why we have OFSTED? So, let them do their jobs, let them go into these schools and check that the pupils are not being radicalised.
Remember; the danger of Islamic extremism doesn't come from religious Muslims; it comes from radical Muslims.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
An entry on The Jawa Report is extremely interesting. Posted is a call, taken from a "password protected website", for Muslims to protest tomorrow outside Paddington police station where the six men arrested earlier this week are believed to have been held. The planned protest itself is not so interesting because this has happened before.
However, what is interesting is that this call includes the names of the six men arrested. Up to now the only name mentioned by the MSM has been that of Abu Izzadeen, one of the leaders of the Al Muhajiroun/Al Ghurabaa/ Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah group (they are all the same see here).
The six men on the list are: Sulayman Keeler, Omar Brooks (Abu Izzadeen), Rajib Khan, Shah Jalal Hussain, Omar Zaheer and Ibraheem (Abdul Haq).
These men are all members of Al Muhajiroun (under its different names). Sulayman Keeler was the one who officially founded the "new" group Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Abu Izzadeen is well known. Shah Jalal Hussain is a member whose name came up in a Parliamentary Question from Mr Dismore to the Home Secretary David Blunkett way back in 2001. Omar Zaheer was arrested for his part in the Danish cartoons protest organised by Al Muhajiroun. Abdul Haq is also a spokesman for the group. The only one of the six who did not come up was Rajib Khan but by association it seems likely that he too is a member of this group.
The arrest of these six is a big step towards dealing with this radical group. However, why did it take so long to take action? Yes the group was banned, but this group has been on the radar since 2001 and should have been properly shut down years ago. Even now, Anjem Choudary remains free happily spreading his hate. Hopefully he will be stopped soon, and let's hope that there aren't more people waiting to take their places.
A lot is made about the disparity between British political blogs and their American counterparts. American blogs have hundreds of thousands of visitors while British blogs get just a couple of thousand. The British population, we're told, is only 5 times smaller than the American one and so our blogs should receive around a fifth of the number of hits. Seeing that this isn't the case people desperately seek explanations for it; American politics is more international, American media is less partisan etc etc.
However, I would like to disagree with the essential analysis of the figures. Of course, it is undeniable that American blogs get more hits, but does this matter? The purpose of a blog isn't to make money (where overall sales is all important) it is to influence people. So, any effective measure of blogging power should be a measure of the blogs ability to influence.
Let us establish a measure of this ability and call it "capacity to influence", CI, and let it be a measure of minutes/day spent on a blog. The basis for this measure is that people have to actually read a blog's content in order to be influenced and the more they read the more they will be influenced. And, of course, the amount they read is determined by how long they spend on the blog. So, let us find the CI of some blogs. We can do this by multiplying the average number of hits per day with the average time spent per hit. Here are some results:
Daily Kos: 563,477 hits per day, 2 seconds per hit = 18,782CI
Little Green Footballs: 100,673 hits per day, 9 seconds per hit = 15,100CI
So, British blogs should have CI's roughly equal to one fifth of this, i.e. around 5-6 thousand:
Tim Worstall: 2,577 hits per day, 1 min 29 seconds per hit = 3,822CI
Pickled Politics: 1,919 hits per day, 2 minutes 19 seconds per hit = 4,445CI
As you can see, the British blogs are slightly
behind ahead of their target, but not by that much. The blogs chosen here to represent British blogging are not necessarily the biggest because, for some reason, some British blogs seem to keep those facts hidden.
What we find is that British blogging
isn't far behind is actually ahead of our American cousins. The next question, to be dealt with later, is what is the power of the blogosphere?
A number of blogs have been complaining about the media's reporting of the Israel-Palestine ceasefire and Hamas's decision to officially breach it. Melanie Phillips and Little Green Footballs both mention it linking to an entry on the Honest Reporting blog.
The complaint is that the media continues to report that a ceasefire is in place and, apparently, doesn't treat Palestinian attacks as de-facto breaches of that agreement. Ms Phillips, in her usual hysterical style, concludes:
The inescapable implication of this systematic and mind-twisting denial of Palestinian military aggression and equally systematic concentration on Israeli measures to counter it is that such Palestinian attacks aren’t considered to be attacks at all because their targets are Israelis, whose own self-defence is thus characterised falsely as aggression.
Well not quite, Melanie. There is a very obvious reason why Palestinian attacks do not constitute a breach of the ceasefire - they are not carried out by the Palestinian government.
Supposing a random Israeli, acting on his own, launched an attack in Gaza this would not be a breach. So, neither are attacks by random Palestinians. They only would be if the agreement stipulated as much, which seems unlikely.
Unfortunately for Israel they made a deal with a government that cannot control its population. The reasons for this are many and it's quite likely that Hamas (a terrorist group themselves) weren't too bothered that attacks were continuing. Nevertheless, those attacks aren't reported as breaches of the ceasefire simply because they are not breaches of it.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
This is the headline to an article written yesterday by Munira Mirza for the online political website spiked. In the article Ms Mirza points out that the latest government scheme to tackle extremism amongst young Muslims is just one more in a long list, none of which last and none of which help. Essentially, she argues that schemes to "deal" with Muslims only makes matters worse and that the political parties need to ignore them and allow the young Muslims to attach themselves to other political ideas. She concludes:
Although it seems counterintuitive, the way to ‘deal’ with young Muslims may well be to stop ‘dealing’ with them. The short-term, obsessive focus on them seems to be precisely the thing that alienates them even further. A long-term focus on politics elsewhere might at least remind them that Islamism is not the only game in town.
This argument is correct in one aspect but wrong in its conclusion. It is almost undeniable that the focus of political and public interest on Muslims only serves to make them more defensive, angry and radical. It is also, unfortunately, true that there is almost nothing that the outside British public or government can do about it. Islamic extremism can only be fought by Muslims and only when Muslims decide that they must tackle it.
However, ignoring the problem will not make it go away. For years successive British governments ignored the radicalisation of Muslims in Britain. Even after 9/11 little was done to combat it. Only after 7/7 did the government go into overdrive. Yet, despite the lack of "dealing", Muslims were still being radicalised. The situation we have now is not one that has developed in the 2 years since 7/7 nor in the 5 years since 9/11 but over a decade or more.
So, if we cannot externally stop extremism, and we cannot convince Muslims to tackle it themselves, what can we do? Well, it would seem that the only real option is a policy of containment both at home and abroad. We must continue to confront the Islamist ideology in the Middle East, be it by imposing sanctions or more on Iran; be it by supporting Israel in her defence against Hamas and Hezbollah; be it by taking the necessary military action in trouble spots across the globe.
But, we must also have a policy of containment at home. We must give the police the powers to prevent terrorism and we must ignore the protests and victimisation claims of the Muslim community. True, we must ensure that the police are not abusing their powers, but we shouldn't allow Muslim leaders to dictate what police may do and to whom they may do it.
We must also attempt to undo the damage that excessive multi-culturalism and political correctness has done to British culture. We must ensure that British values are not only upheld but instilled in the next generation. It is right that we should not try to force religion onto the public but we shouldn't be ashamed of it either. We should realise that our history contains some dark chapters but we shouldn't be ashamed of our achievements.
We must ensure that there is a strong British culture in which all Britons may take pride and to which all Britons can show loyalty.
Many readers may wonder why it is that the BNP is treated as an outcast. Some may even have invented neat little conspiracies to answer this question. However, the truth is simple and, for some, hard to swallow; the BNP is a racist organisation.
As has been mentioned before there is a difference between defending British values or citizens and defending the indigenous British people. The former is admirable and necessary and what, one hopes, all political parties are interested in. It doesn't distinguish between different people except along the lines of which country they are citizens of.
The latter of these is racist because it attempts to divide people along ethnic lines. It claims that, in Britain at least, the citizens of Anglo-Saxon descent are more important than the British citizens of other ethnicities.
This is the stance of the BNP. Their mission statement starts as follows:
The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia. We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe. The migrations of the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples have been, over the past few thousands years, instrumental in defining the character of our family of nations.The BNP doesn't seek to secure a future for British culture, but for what they view as the British ethnic people. To divide people along purely racial lines is the very definition of racism. The BNP is racist.
Friday, April 06, 2007
This is an article from Zia Haider Rahman, a writer and lawyer, in The Telegraph. It's worth reading and won't take long. Here is one short paragraph:
This work can only be done if British Muslims take responsibility for what is going on in their midst rather than persisting in pointing the finger of blame at external causes. Radicalisation might well owe something to a perceived culture of criticism of Islam, but a Muslim culture of victimhood will obscure the need for Muslims to take responsibility for those things that they - and they alone - can actually change.The article reiterates what we have said many times before; the responsibility to stop Islamic terrorism lies with Muslims, and only they can truly put an end to it.
Three men have been charged in connection with the 7/7 terrorist attacks. As a result more information has been revealed about the plot.
The Evening Standard reports that the four suicide bombers had thought about attacking Big Ben, The London Eye and even Buckingham Palace, before deciding that the Tube network was the better target.
Peter Clarke, head of Counter Terrorism Command, told the media that he knew "for a fact" that there were more people involved and compared the situation to a puzzle with thousands of pieces. He said:
It's probably fair to describe it as a complicated jigsaw with thousands of pieces. We now have enough of the pieces in the right places for us to see the picture but it is far from complete. Because of that, the search is not over. I firmly believe that there are other people who have knowledge of what lay behind the attack in July 2005 – knowledge that they have not shared with us. In fact I don't only believe it, I know it for a fact.More worryingly, though, he revealed that people in the area where the bombers lived knew more but were being forced to keep silent. He said:
I have a simple appeal to make today. It is for those people who have information and who have not yet spoken to us, mainly in the West Yorkshire area, to come forward. I do understand that some of you will have real concerns about the consequences of telling us what you know. I also know that some of you have been actively dissuaded from speaking to us. Surely this must stop.As The Telegraph puts it:
Winning hearts and minds is one thing. But the police need Muslims to be eyes and ears as well, because it is in their communities that the menace lurks.
Let's hope that the silent majority of Muslims will realise that labelling any attempt to link terrorism and Islam as Islamophobia will only raise suspicions further. Let's hope that Muslims decide that their faith does actually abhor the killing of innocent people. Let's hope that the normal majority will start to stand up to the bullies and reclaim their religion. Because, at the moment, the only people in the world who can effectively stop Islamic terrorism are the Muslim people themselves. It's just a question of whether they want to.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
We are pleased to announce the opening of the Little Bulldogs Forum. We hope that this will be a place to share ideas, concerns and can serve to raise more awareness of the problems this country faces.
A forum is an easy way for readers to take the small step from reading to writing. Its success hinges on your involvement. So, please, get posting and tell others about it too.
The forum is at: http://littlebulldogs.freeforums.org/
The local council has refused to fund the display of an Easter Cross lest it offend. The cross has been displayed every Easter for decades but new EU rules mean that the cost of erecting it now stands at £700. The local council refused to fund it saying:
Lancashire County Council does not give money to any religion. Many taxpayers are non-religious and think it is an improper use of their money to support a religion.
However, the local MP considered this an act of political correctness and said, “It is completely barmy. Do we really think Muslims or Jews will be offended by a cross being put up at Easter time in Britain by Christians? I think not.”
Local residents paid for the cross themselves. See the full story here.
In response to Ruth Kelley's announcement about tackling extremism the Liberal Democrat Shadow Communities Secretary, Andrew Stunell is quoted on the Lib Dem website as saying:
This latest plan is the Government’s usual disastrous mix of good intentions and poor analysis. The Government will not win hearts and minds if it continues to associate the word ‘Muslim’ with terrorism.
What is needed is honest engagement with the some of our most disconnected communities. To tackle these problems in British society we must first address the chronic deprivation that allows extremism to breed.
Perhaps someone should tell the Lib Dems that the terrorism we now face is caused by an interpretation of Islam; not by poverty, not by territory but by ideology. The word "Muslim" is associated with terrorism by the terrorists themselves. Every action they take is done in the name of Islam. At least the government show some understanding of the cause of terrorism, even if the liberal left continue to ally themselves with the extremists.
The government is announcing measures for dealing with the radicalisation of young Muslims. Ruth Kelly will announce today that the Charity Commission will create a new "faith unit" designed to ensure that the leadership of British mosques can and will stand up to extremism. The BBC reports that she is expected to say:
Success will hinge on forging a new alliance against violent extremism. We need to reach out and give greater support to the overwhelming majority who are disgusted by terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam.
Also, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has announced that specialist prosecutors are now beginning work to clamp down on extremist preachers. He said:
For some time I have been concerned that we have not taken sufficiently effective action against a very small minority of extremists among our communities who incite others to terrorism.
The plan is to use ASBO's, according to The Sun, and to prosecute people who promote violence and hatred on the Internet.
Monday, April 02, 2007
A government report has found that schools across Britain are not teaching important historical subjects for fear of the reactions from some Muslim pupils. The report says that subjects such as the Crusades or the Holocaust are being avoided. The Sunday Express reports that:
Some teachers have even dropped the Holocaust completely from lessons over fears that Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic reactions in class. And one school avoided teaching the Crusades because its "balanced" handling of the topic would directly contradict what was taught in local mosques.
The report for the Department of Education and Skills says:
Teachers and schools avoid emotive and controversial history for a variety of reasons, some of which are well-intentioned. Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes.
In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship.
The report cites an example in which a school refused to teach about the Holocaust to GCSE pupils because they feared confronting "anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils".
What has become of our country that teachers will not teach the truth because some pupils have already been taught lies? Surely the whole point of our schools is to educate our young people? Are we surprised that extremism is rife amongst young Muslims when we discover that teachers are too scared to disabuse them of the lies they have been fed? This should be a source of shame for Britain.
EDIT: Bumped due to importance.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Nearly half a million Muslims marched through the streets of London yesterday to protest against Islamic terrorism around the world. Their message was that they will not tolerate Muslims who murder in the name of Islam.
One speaker told the crowd that the Muslim community in Britain will crack-down on extremist clerics and that any who are found will be hounded out of the community. He said that Britain was a tolerant environment and it was time for Muslims to show that they wanted to integrate and stand up to Islamic extremism.
Another speaker said that Muslim anger at the treatment of Palestinians must not spill over into anti-Semitism; and feelings of helplessness over the situation in Iraq must not result in terrorism. The crowd joined him in calling for the immediate release of all kidnap victims in the Muslim world, from the 15 sailors to Alan Johnston to the Israeli soldiers kidnapped last summer.
The last speaker of the day reminded people that mistakes are inevitable during police operations but that Muslims must trust the police and help as much as they can. Vilification of the security services only alienated Muslims more and put them under more suspicion.
A report compiled by MI5 has been leaked to The Telegraph. It reveals that Al Qaeda leaders are training young Muslims in Britain before sending them off to Iraq or Afghanistan. It also showed that large sums of money are being channeled to terrorist groups in Pakistan to fight against Western democracies. The report states:
Security Service and police investigations continue to detect high levels of operational activity by UK-based Islamist extremist networks.
Extremists are engaged in fundraising, radicalisation and training and in providing support to fellow extremists overseas. The purpose of a proportion of this clandestine activity is unclear. The high levels of activity are consistent with the judgment that an attack in the UK is highly likely.
A source told the newspaper that the Internet was now the most powerful tool in recruiting Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda film all their attacks and post the results on the Internet for young people to watch at home and become increasingly radicalised. For more details of Al Qaeda training in Britain see this report from The Sunday Mirror.