Some News

The Sun is reporting that 5 convicted terrorists have been sent back to prison for breaching their parole conditions within the last few months. We mentioned one of these this time last week. They also report that convicted terrorists will be made to sign a "Terrorists' Offenders Register" and could face prison for five years if they fail to inform authorities when they move house or leave the country. This, like the sex offenders' register, is, I think, wrong. We must surely consider anyone who has served their sentence to now be innocent of all crimes they committed before. (full story here, The Sun)

Expect this to be blown out of proportion by those with an agenda. A house in Swansea has been used for Muslim prayers for 20 years although it only had planning permission to be used for teaching not prayer. They are now expected to get permission to use it for prayer too despite a petition against it. 132 people opposed the plan claiming it would cause traffic and disturbance. Those with an agenda may well claim this as a sign of the powers-that-be bending over backwards to accommodate Islamic extremists (though without providing proof that these people are extremists) while the rest of us should perhaps politely point out that this is not the only such case of planning permission being given to people who have used a property for many years without it and that the claims of increased traffic seem ludicrous when there will not be any actual change in the use of the building. (full store here, the BBC)

Ed Balls apparently wants to ban teachers from being members of the BNP. Though the BNP are racist and vile they are a legal political party in the UK. If the Government bans teachers who are BNP members that is a gross breach of civil liberties and, while we face tough times, we must never surrender those. If it is legal to be a member of the BNP then one must be able to be a member without the State punishing one for it. (full story here, The Independent)

MCB - Scrap Prevent and Change Foreign Policy

A favourite line of Islamists is that all Islamist terrorism is the result of foreign policy and that to end terrorism we must change our foreign policy to fit in with their demands. In short they advocate that we surrender to the demands of the bombers (or at least some of the demands).

The MCB has put on its website its response to the inquiry about Prevent. They essentially call for it to be scrapped and say that it could never work anyway because foreign policy must change. The key bits are paragraphs 7 and 8:

7. Significant amounts of public funds have been invested in the Prevent programme. The monitoring and intelligence gathering agenda of Prevent are matters that best reside within the National Security Strategy. It was an error to have contaminated the way a department like Communities and Local Government is publicly perceived by placing national security concerns in its orbit. Community development and cohesion policies ought to apply to all communities fairly and equitably, based on need.

8. While the focus should be on a criminal and policing strategic response, the MCB appreciates the need to explore the underlying causes. However, there seems to have been an expectation that community bodies, by showing ‘leadership’, can wave a magic wand and ask young people to remain oblivious to international political developments at the root of the frustration – not least the injustice in Palestine that has lasted well-nigh sixty years.

If there's one thing we mustn't do to stop terrorism it is to give in to the demands of the terrorists. And groups that shout from the sidelines that we should surrender should be compared to the bloke who watches his mate punch you in the face then suggests that you should pay up to stop it happening again.

Which is worse, Sky or BBC?

It's a difficult choice in this instance. Sky News managed to get an interview with Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal in Syria. During the discussion Mashaal said that kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was still alive. He also said that the Holocaust was exaggerated by Zionists and, incredibly, that Hamas doesn't deliberately kill anyone.

The BBC also reports that:

Mr Meshaal also urged Israel to agree that civilians should not be part of the current conflict, which has recently seen Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks on Israel by Palestinian militants.

This is some spin on what happened. Here is the Sky News transcript:

TM: It's 2008, can you make an offer that you would only have action against military personnel.

KM: We renew our offer to Israel to let the civilian people from the two sides be free from our conflict. Israel should respond to this offer.

This is an offer which we would like to renew. The problem is on the Israel side.

So which is worse? That Tim Marshall of Sky News considers it an "offer" to not murder civilians deliberately in terrorist attacks or that the BBC spins this "offer" into an urging that Israel stop killing civilians during their targeting of terrorists? It's a close one. But perhaps Sky has an excuse - they were in enemy territory and perhaps they didn't want to end up like Andrew Johnson. What's the BBC's excuse?

Terrorist Released Early and the BBC

The Government confirmed today that they released a convicted terrorist early because of prison overcrowding. Yassin Nassari was convicted of possessing documents likely to be useful to a terrorist. These included blueprints for Qassam rockets as used by Hamas against Israeli civilians. Included with these plans were details on how to construct the rockets, explosives and propellants.

The BBC report is again shocking. For a start the headline reads:

Terrorism convict released early

By normal standards a person convicted of terrorism offences is a terrorist. But apparently the BBC cannot bring itself to use that word even when a court has convicted the individual.

The report also says:

A man convicted of a terrorism offence has been released 17 days early

Given that Mr Nassari was arrested in May 2006 and sentenced to three and a half years in prison that makes his release more than a year and a half early. The point is clarified 9 paragraphs later:

Nassari would have been eligible for release 18 days later, having served enough of his sentence to be considered for parole.

In other words this "man convicted of a terrorism offence" was released 17 days earlier than his early release.

It's difficult to tell what is worse, that the Government is forced to release prisoners earlier than their already early release because they have allowed the situation to become so bad, or that the BBC finds it impossible to call someone a terrorist even when they've been convicted by the courts.

UPDATE: A new story on the BBC site does call him a "terrorist" in the headline. But the old story has not been changed.

Ken's Admission to Letting Londoners Down

Ken Livingstone released his crime manifesto today. Discussing terrorism he says the following:

I will continue my policy of engaging with and seeking support from all community and religious leaders who make clear their unequivocal opposition to terrorist attacks. To do otherwise would be to let Londoners down and increase the risks the city faces.

Indeed it would be. And yet that is precisely what Ken has done. This is the man who invited Yusuf al-Qaradawi to City Hall. Does al-Qaradawi "make clear" his "unequivocal opposition to terrorist attacks"? Of course not. He supports terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. And Ken knows this and knew this before he invited him. And he knew it when he said he would invite him back and he knew it when he wrote that he should not be banned from entering this country.

So, if it "would be to let Londoners down" to not engage with "religious leaders who make clear their unequivocal opposition to terrorist attacks" how much more of a let down would it be to engage with leaders who are equally unequivocal in their support of terrorist attacks?

Court Order Reimposed

The Court of Appeal has overturned an earlier ruling that a court order was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case revolves around an unidentified man who is considered by the Security Services as a recruiter for a terrorist organisation. There isn't enough evidence to prosecute the man but he poses a threat to our national security. As such a control order was put in place to prevent the man from organising terrorist attacks.

In February the High Court ruled that the restriction breached his human rights and overturned the order. They also argued that there was enough evidence to mount a successful trial based on evidence from a Belgian court.

The Court of Appeal, though, overturned that ruling and reimposed the control order, arguing that the restrictions did not contravene his human rights.

A small step in the right direction, or an anomaly?

"Beard Got Me Stopped"

A local paper is reporting that an airline worker was stopped by anti-terror police on his return from Pakistan. They questioned the man for 45 minutes and checked his luggage. One of the questions was why he had taken such a long flight for just a few days.

The man worked at the airport and had a security pass but this didn't prevent his questioning. He also had a friend who works for Special Branch at the airport who didn't stop the questioning. This is as it should be, if the flags are raised then questioning shouldn't be stopped because the man has a 10 year old security pass, or because a friend can vouch for him. The security services have a job to do and they should do it properly.

However, what might turn this into a national story is the man's claim that:

Part of my job relates to aircraft and passenger security and I know for a fact they stopped me just because I have a beard. To be treated in this way because I have a beard is absolutely staggering.

How does he know this as a fact? Has he seen any orders demanding that people with beards be stopped at airports? Wait for the inevitable claims of Islamophobia, that this innocent man was harassed only because he was a Muslim. Don't be surprised to hear the phrase "racial profiling" and then claims that the security services are unfairly targeting Muslims. And all based on an unfounded claim that "my beard got me stopped".

Busy Day at Old Bailey

A total of 19 men are appearing today, at the Old Bailey on different terrorist charges. 13 of them are regarding the plot to destroy aeroplanes flying from Britain to the US. 28 charges are expected in that case.

The other six are in relation to fund raising for terrorist activity abroad. These six are the Al Muhajiroun men arrested a few weeks ago.

Terrorist Has Sentence Cut

Dhiren Barot has had his sentence cut from 40 years to 30. The court of appeal said that the longer term was for, "the terrorist who has been convicted, after trial, of a serious attempt to commit mass murder by a viable method."

The defence had argued that the plot to murder hundreds or thousands was far from completion at the time of arrest. And, it would appear, that the judges agreed.

The Lord Chief Justice also said:

A terrorist who is in the grip of idealistic extremism to the extent that, over a prolonged period, he has been plotting to commit murder of innocent citizens is likely to pose a serious risk for an indefinite period if he is not confined.

Why then did he cut this man's sentence? Do we have to wait for him to actually kill thousands of innocent civilians before we can keep him locked away? With judges like this how are we to fight an effective war against Islamism?

Our Foreign Policy?

The German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, has said that Islamist terror is the biggest threat "to the security and stability of Germany." For those that have forgotten, Germany have not taken part in the war on Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Yet, they are on the receiving end of Islamist terrorism. Can people still argue that this is caused by our foreign policy?

Abu Hamza Extradition

Abu Hamza begins his fight against extradition to the US today. In February he was sentenced to 7 years in prison and, if extradited, will be tried in the US, returned to Britain to finish his sentence here before going back to America to serve whatever sentence he has there.

One thing to remember, the British government only arrested and tried Hamza after America sought his extradition. If they hadn't done so, he would still be inciting hatred freely outside Finsbury Park Mosque with police protection.

IHRC Working For Terrorist Goals

The IHRC has released a press statement regarding the kidnapping of Alan Johnston. Johnston was kidnapped on 12th March but this statement from the IHRC was only produced on 9th May, almost two months later. And what is the purpose of the statement; to express concern about the demands from the kidnappers. The statement says:

The Islamic Human Rights Commission is very concerned about claims on al-Jazeera news that BBC journalist Alan Johnston’s kidnappers are demanding the release of Muslim detainees in Britain in exchange for his release.

IHRC calls for the release of British journalist Alan Johnston and condemns any attempt to link his plight to that of Muslim detainees in Britain.

The point of this statement was to try and remove the link between the kidnapping and the "plight" of Muslims detained in Britain. Why? Well, because the IHRC spends a lot of its time working towards having Muslims released from British prisons, including Abu Qatada who's name was mentioned by the kidnappers.

The IHRC wouldn't like to be seen to be campaigning for the same goals as terrorists. But, that is what they are doing. And this statement will not be able to remove that fact.

Charity Commission Must Do More

A Home Office and Treasury report calls on the Charity Commission to work more closely with the police and security services to prevent organisations abusing charity status to raise money for terrorism. Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty, said, "Disrupting the flow of funds is a key part of the global effort to combat terrorism".

One case in point is the Iqra bookshop in Leeds. It was raided in 2005 because it produced and sold Islamist propaganda encouraging terrorism. It was frequented by Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shezad Tanweer. Just this week Khalid Khaliq a worker there was arrested in connection with the 7/7 attacks. Still, Iqra remains a registered charity despite these revelations. (see here and here)

More Arrests Over 7/7

The police have arrested four more people in connection with the suicide bombings 2 years ago. Those arrested are:

Hasina Patel - wife of Mohammed Siddique Khan
Arshad Patel - brother of Hasina
Imran Motala - related to Hasina and Arshad
Khalid Khaliq - worked in an extremist Islamic bookshop frequented by MSK, and lives on the same road as Shehzad Tanweer. He was a close friend of both MSK and Tanweer.

Islamists' Demands for Johnston

The Islamists who kidnapped the BBC's Alan Johnston have released a tape with their demands. The tape didn't show Johnston only his ID card leaving the question of whether he is still alive.

This tape reveals, yet again, that the cause of terrorism is Islamism. The demands were for Muslim prisoners to be released. Not in Israel, the country that we're told is the target for Palestinian terrorism, but British prisoners. Part of the statement was:

We say to all of them [Western countries] - free our prisoners or we will do the same to you. We won't make an exception for anyone. If you need money to release our prisoners we will give you all you need up to the last dirham we have.

So, it isn't about money either. And, if further proof were needed that the cause of this is Islamism, the tape included readings from the Koran. Can we now start to realise that changing our foreign policy will not stop Islamist violence against us?

MPACUK - It's Foreign Policy, Hamas - It's Islam

MPACUK have reiterated their claim that all Islamic terrorism stems from our foreign policy. In fact, they claim that only the blind cannot see it. And, once again, this is simply not true; MPACUK and most of the Muslim leadership are conflating two issues.

The Iraq war has certainly served to politicise British Muslims. They are far more aware of events around the world and want to do something about it. However, politicised Muslims do not carry out terror attacks and aim to kill non-Muslims, radicalised Muslims do.

The terrorists themselves produce videos stating that they die for Allah, that they will enter heaven, that their religion compels them to act. The only people who cannot see that at the root of Islamic terrorism is a version of Islam are the people who do not want to see it.

This insistence that Islamic terror is because of foreign policy makes it impossible for Muslims to oppose it. By convincing themselves that terrorism is a result of foreign policy opposing it becomes opposing opposition to foreign policy, and they can't do that.

Now, while MPACUK and the British Muslim leadership and the liberals shout that it's foreign policy, Hamas have stated clearly today that it's an ideology based on religion. Ahmed Youssef, an aide to Ismail Haniyeh, has said this clearly in discussion over Alan Johnston's kidnapping. The Scotsman reports:

"It's on the way to being resolved. It's being addressed religiously and ideologically," he said, but would not say whether he expected Mr Johnston to be released in days or weeks.

Mr Youssef said negotiators were trying to convince the kidnappers that the extremist Islamic ideology they used to justify holding westerners is incorrect.

Here we have an Islamic extremist himself telling us that this terrorism is the result of an ideology based on Islam. Any questions?

Mission Statement

A post last Friday mentioned some of the aims of this blog and it became apparent that these aims had never been clearly stated and explained. This post shall do just that.

There are three main aims:

1) To encourage Muslims to publicly oppose violent extremism.

There are two reasons for this aim. First, and foremost, it is because Muslims alone can solve the problem. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is an ideology that interprets Islam as requiring Muslims to kill non-Muslims in an attempt to create an Islamic Caliphate. While many Muslims have become politicised by the Iraq war, those in Britain who become suicide bombers or who aid and abet them, have done so because of the ideology that they have been introduced to. Therefore, since the cause is an interpretation of Islam, the only people who can stop that are Muslims themselves.

Secondly, even if publicly opposing extremism, through demonstrations and ostracising the radical preachers, doesn't have any effect on extremism (which is highly unlikely) it will have a major effect on the British population. The radicalisation of some Muslims in Britain is having a radicalising effect on some British people. The result is that all minority groups are suffering and will suffer. By openly opposing extremism the Muslim community will allay the fears of the British public and will ease the pressure they are under as well as improving the relations of all parts of British society.

2) To fight against racism against Muslims

As has been mentioned, the radicalisation of some Muslims has been mirrored by some Brits. The result of that radicalisation has been the spreading of lies and scare-stories about Muslims and the effect is now seen with increased opposition to all forms of multiculturalism and religious activity. As a blog that deals with Islamic extremism it is likely that people who may already be or heading towards that form of radicalisation will be reading this. Therefore, hopefully, we are in a position to help fight that form of racism too.

NB: The use of the term racism is in its more general sense to include discrimination against identifiable groups of people. It is used as a short-hand for religious discrimination which is just as serious.

3) To highlight and discuss other interesting topics that come to hand.

Up to 4,000 Terror Suspects

Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, suggested that the real figure for the number of terrorists in the UK could be as high as 4,000. MI5 said last week put the figure at 2,000.

Lord Stevens went on to say that the security services were "still too underfunded and undermanned to cope with the task they face in the decades to come. And that's how long this will last."

Two points to note. This will last for decades because this isn't about foreign policy. If Islamic terrorism were caused only by our foreign policy then they would stop the moment our policy changed to be in accord with them. And, equally, would not stop any sooner. However, once we note that their cause is an ideological one, then we will be in this fight until that ideology is defeated, and that will take decades.

Secondly, it is very important to realise that 4,000 amounts to just 0.25% of the Muslims population in Britain. While many Muslims have become politicised over the last decade or more, only a tiny fraction represent a threat to Britain and our values. We must always keep things in perspective.