Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts

10 May, 2007

Pakistan: An ally in crisis.

Family Security Matters, an American website "created to give Americans like us the tools to become involved citizens and powerful defenders of our homes, our families, and our communities", has been running an interesting three-part series entitled "Pakistan: An Ally in Crisis". The series examines the possible consequences of the increasing influence of radical Islam in Pakistan.

Part 1.

Part 2.

Part 3.

A good introduction to the complexities of Pakistani politics in relation to the War on Terror, although perhaps a caveat should be entered that the reality of the relationships between the various parties is often much more complex than it seems at first sight.

16 April, 2007

Hilary Benn in New York

Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary, is taking his campaign to be deputy leader of the Labour Party to New York, where he will address the lefty think tank, the Centre for International Co-operation. According to the Daily Telegraph, Benn will say that the British government will no longer use the term "war on terror" because it helps to reinforce extremist groups. Benn's logic seems to be that the term "War on Terror" benefits terrorists, whereas the UK government's craven surrender to the Iranian government terrorists does not. The Guardian also has a report.

No doubt a bit of good ol' fashioned Bush-bashing will play well with the Labour left, even more so if it is actually done in America. What a way to run a government. Whatever it is called, the fight against terror has nothing to do with Benn's department, whose policy remit is to abolish poverty by dispensing aid to the Third World, so that dictators can continue to enjoy a life of luxury. Dealing with foreign countries is traditionally the sphere of the Foreign Office. However, as this government descends further and further into chaos, ministers increasingly trample over each other's policy areas in pursuit of the deputy leadership.

Anyway, I have never thought much of the term, "war on terror". As Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, pointed out last October, the war against Islamic terrorists is in fact a war to defend western values against Islam. So let us do away with mealy-mouthed euphemisms such "war on terror" and call the defence of Christendom against the infidels what it really is: a Crusade.

Ranting Stan has a very good piece on the affair, asking if politicians ever listen to themselves. I am not sure but they do not seem to listen to anybody else.

10 April, 2007

The Foreign Office on Iran.

Despite the humiliation of the United Kingdom by Iran, the chaps at the Foreign Office are feeling jolly pleased with themselves. So pleased that, in order to demonstrate how clever they are, they have complied a list of FO statements issued throughout the affair. Moreover, a smug Lord Triesman, (formerly a trade union thicko but now transformed into a sophisticated FO departmental minister) went on the BBC at the weekend and crowed about how wonderfully the Foreign Office dealt with the crisis.

18 February, 2007

Olympic terror.

According to the Sunday Telegraph plans by the Tablighi Jamaat Islamic group,to build a London "super mosque" in connection with the Olympic Games, will be vetoed by the government. Understandable.

As the Telegraph report says, the French security services suspect Tablighi Jammat is a terrorist group. The FBI and MI5 also have an interest in them. Quite rightly: as the Guardian has summarised, they have connections to the 7 July London bombers, the transatlantic aeroplane plot and Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. The clear implication of these connections is that Tablighi Jamaat has close, even systemic, links with the Taliban - al Qaeda axis in western Pakistan.

Still they are allowed to operate in the United Kingdom.

17 February, 2007

Human rights for terrorists.

Earlier this week the Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer, delivered a major policy speech on human rights and terrorism in which he said that the fight against terrorism must be policy led, not dominated by human rights lawyers.

The judiciary was not listening.

Link: European Convention on Human rights.

16 February, 2007

"Muslim Fanatic Works on Trains"

Omar Khayam, a Muslim fanatic, who demonstrated against the Danish cartoons dressed as a suicide bomber, works as an unsupervised train cleaner. According to the Sun, some train drivers are not happy about it. I suspect many passengers will be less than enthusiastic.

15 February, 2007

July 7th Truth Campaign.

As conspiracy theories go, this is a belter.

According to the 7th July Truth Campaign, the London bombings were not a terrorist act. That theory was cooked up by the authorities to cover the truth: a rehearsal for an anti-terrorist operation went wrong and a bus was accidentally blown up, and there was deadly power surge on the underground. At least I think that is what these prize loonies are saying but I may have misunderstood since I glazed over after the first three or four pages.

The campaign wants a public inquiry. Sounds like a job for inquisitor supreme, Lord John Stevens. For under £5m he will lunch well for a year, conclude there was a series of explosions and offer to run a further inquiry into the matter.

I came across the campaign through finding Islamic Networking, thanks to lgf.

On one point they are correct. Nobody has ever been convicted of the attacks, but then we do not put corpses on trial in the UK, whether dismembered or not.

14 February, 2007

Lord Falconer on human rights and terrorism.

Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, has been addressing the Royal United Services Institute on the subject of human rights and terrorism. Here is the full speech.

The speech itself is mostly waffle about the value of this government's human rights legislation and similar worthy sentiments. Falconer's main arguments appears to be three points about the fight against terrorism: it must must be policy led, not dominated by human rights lawyers; it is a struggle for values, so it must involve a hearts and minds campaign; and the Human Rights Act is an essential part of "identifying, defining and protecting" those values.

There is no detailed proposals in the speech, only what the BBC refers to as hints but the press has obviously been briefed. According to the Daily Telegraph report of the speech, the government will attempt to increase the permitted detention period for terrorist suspects from the present 28 days to 56 days; and the police will no longer be prevented from questioning suspects who have already been charged. However, the DT points to Whitehall speculation that nothing will actually be done until Blair has left office.

CIA rendition: the European Parliament report.

The rag tag and bobtail of socialists, eco-nutters and various other surrender monkeys in the European Parliament have approved a report condemning some European countries for allowing the CIA to transport Islamic terrorists through their air space, to destinations where they might be tortured. Click here for an html version, and Word/OO and pdf downloads of "Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners."* Not so much a report, as a long winded motion.

The Parliament has been busy condemning this and deploring that but they have conspicuously failed to answer allegations that their report is largely based on hearsay and rumour, and there is a distinct lack of evidence for the torture allegations. The Parliament is also somewhat miffed that some countries - notably, Austria, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the UK, - did not exactly fall over themselves to assist in the preparation of the report.

The BBC, the Guardian and the Times have early reports. So far the reporting is reasonably factual, but it is a bit early for the real US-bashing. Most senior journos will still be drowning their lunch. No doubt the sanctimonious onslaught will begin in tomorrow's editions.

And the sum total of all this earnest activity of reporting, press conferences and comment: nothing. The European Parliament can stamp its feet till the cows come home, it is not going to affect the policy of the EU member states.

Last November, the Times gave the EU parliament's roll of honour for countries allowing CIA flights stop-over facilities:
  • Germany 336
  • Britain 170
  • Ireland 147
  • Portugal 91
  • Spain 68
  • Greece 64
  • Cyprus 57
  • Italy 46
  • Romania 21
  • Poland 11
The shame of being beaten by Germany.

* It is a typical EU document with many cross-references ( without hyper-links) to other documents, which have to be read to gain a full picture.

Suspected British al Qaeda links in Somalia.

The strange tale of the suspected four British jihadis in Somalia is beginning to unravel.

As recounted in yesterday's Times, four Britons, suspected of fighting in Somalia for the al-Qaeda linked Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), were amongst 10 foreigners deported from Kenya, to whence they had fled after the UIC got a hammering from Somali government forces. The Kenyan authorities sent the quartet sent back to Somalia and, from there, they have been deported to the UK. The four were: Shahajan Janjua, Reza Afsharzadagen, Mohammed Ezzoueck and Hamza Chentouf.

Once back in the UK, the four suspected jihadis were arrested by police under the Terrorism Act, 2000 but, the BBC reports, they have now been released without charge. Not surprisingly, reveals the Daily Telegraph, the terrorist suspects' families have been declaring the men's innocence with, by now, familiar refrains: "My son is innocent. He is not an extremist", said Ezzouecks's mother; and, "'He is not a terrorist. He went there for a friend's wedding", said Janjua's brother.

When attending his friends wedding, Janjua obviously fell into bad company, including two American al Qadea sympathisers, one of whom has been charged with terrorist-related offences by the US authorities. Details from Little Green Footballs.

13 February, 2007

Forest Gate inquiry reports.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has finished inquiring into the police anti-terrorist raids on two houses in Forest Gate, East London in which a man was shot by police. The IPPC press release has links to the reports' findings and recommendations. In fact there were three inquiries and two reports: the earlier Forest Gate 1 related to the shooting; and Forest Gate 2 and 3, which is one report on two investigations into the house raids. Here is a direct link to the pdf file of the reports on the house raids.

In summary, the IPCC finds that the police did nothing wrong but they acted on inaccurate intelligence and they should have apologised more profusely to the offended innocent parties so as not to upset community relations.

According to the BBC, the man shot in the raid, Mohammed Abdulkahar, is said to be suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. A profitable law suit against the police will no doubt provide effective therapy.

Through their lawyers, families involved in the raid have issued a statement; the Guardian gives it in full.

The Times headlines the fact that only 2 out of 153 complaints were upheld by the IPCC, and these were minor matters of failing to supply sufficient painkillers or food to suspects in custody.

12 February, 2007

Steven Lanham - the first British casualty in the War on Terror?

Last Saturday, the Evening Standard ran the curious story of Steven Lanham:

Steven Lanham, it can be revealed, was a hero - the first British agent to give his life in the global war against terror.

Disguised as a dispatch rider, the 39-year-old former soldier was on "close target reconnaissance" when he was killed in mysterious circumstances.
The Standard's stable mate, the Mail on Sunday ran the same story but the rest of the British press seems to have ignored it. Make of it what you will.

10 February, 2007

6th man charged in kidnap plot.

A sixth man has been remanded in custody in connection with the Birmingham kidnap plot. According to the BBC Basiru Gassama,29,has been "charged with withholding information about a potential act of terrorism."

I can find no reaction, as yet, to this possible example of a police state from the fairly well known uncivil rights campaigner, Abu Bakr.

09 February, 2007

Birmingham kidnap plot: man charged. (Updated)

The Guardian has an early report that one man has been charged over the Birmingham kidnap lot, and four more have been named. Parviz Khan...

is accused of is accused of engaging in conduct "to give effect to his intention to kidnap and kill a member of the British armed forces" between November 1 last year and the time of his arrest last week...

...Mr Khan is also charged with attempting to supply equipment for use in terrorism acts and making available funds or property which could be used for terrorism acts.

He was charged last night with Mohammed Irfan, 30, Zahoor Iqbal, 29, Hamid Elasmar, 43, and Amjad Mahmood, 31.
The Daily Telegraph is also quick off the mark.

Update 9/02/07 @ 21:15.

The Guardian has the full text of a Crown Prosecution Service statement on the case, detailing the charges with reference to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which deals with the preparation of terrorist acts:
Preparation of terrorist acts
(1) A person commits an offence if, with the intention of-
(a) committing acts of terrorism, or
(b) assisting another to commit such acts,

he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention.

(2) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the intention and preparations relate to one or more particular acts of terrorism, acts of terrorism of a particular description or acts of terrorism generally.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.


Birmingham kidnap plot charges.

Five men have been charged by the West Midlands Police with a range of offences under the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Terrorism Act 2000. The BBC expects more details of the charges to be given at a conference later today.

The Guardian focuses on Abu Bakr's highly original interpretation of a police state and also offers a mass of links to terrorist related articles, including what looks to be a very useful Islamic terrorism archive.

Just a cynical thought. I have difficulty believing Abu Bakr's allegations that the police subject him to random questioning. Senior detectives are expensively well trained and questioning suspects is one of their areas of expertise. In such an important case, I would be very surprised if they had not followed a strict procedure within an agreed strategy. I cannot but wonder, therefore, if MI5 have turned Bakr and he is trying to divert attention from something else. It would be useful to have such an educated individual on the books.

Update: @ 9:50

In The American Muslim, the British Muslim writer, Emdad Rahman gives his thoughts on the Birmingham case. An interesting article, but wanting cake and also eating it springs to mind. Rahman criticises Islamic "self styled preachers (nutters) of truth" for creating the impression that Muslims support terrorism. He continues,
In a nutshell, it’s a bunch of fanatics who have screwed things up for the rest. The rest of the Muslims were seen to be not doing enough to denounce atrocities seemingly carried out in the name of Islam even though people like the Met Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur called for an independent judicial inquiry into radicalisation of young Muslims after the 7 July bombs. This in turn has led to a quarter of the world’s humans beings being victimized. Non Muslims should also be ashamed for their slumber regarding the policies and acts being implemented and carried out in their names.
No, it is the failure by the Muslim community to denounce terrorist atrocities which is the problem here, not any type of victimisation or discrimination. Moreover, the Muslim community is being targeted by the security services because it is the source of a dangerous, and very real, threat to UK citizens of all religions and none, Muslims included.

08 February, 2007

Abu Izzadeen arrested.

Abu Izzadeen is a Muslim extremist with a homicidal tendency towards those who insult the prophet. Last September, he gained some notoriety by barracking the Home secretary, John Reid. Now Izzadeen's reuptation has no doubt been enhanced by his arrest on terror charges. According to the Times:

It is understood that the arrest is connected to a speech he gave in the West Midlands area - thought to be Birmingham - last year and not to the barracking of John Reid.
The BBC adds that Izzadeen "is being held at a central London police station under Section 1 of the" Terrorism Act 2006, which deals with Encouragement Of Terrorism. So far, the authorities are not saying anything officially.

Actually, Izzadeen is really a West Indian born in Hackney, who converted to Islam when he was 17. His real name is Trevor Brooks.

Reports also from the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph.

UK a police state, moans freed suspect.

Abu Bakr, one of the Muslims arrested in the Birmingham terrorist kidnapping plot has been freed and has been complaining to the BBC that the UK is a "police state for Muslims":

It's not a police state for everybody else because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims and that's quite an open fact," he added.

"So we're the ones who are being locked up, detained and then told to go back to our lives."
Bakr is studying for a PhD in something called Political Islam. If he went back to Pakistan he could research a real police state. For the meantime, leaving aside the fact that Islamic terrorism is the major problem rather than terrorism from everybody else, he might care to consider that a judge ordered his release.

07 February, 2007

Attacking Islamic extremism.

Ruth Kelly, communities secretary is going on the offensive. Here is the press release "detailing" her proposals, which amount to throwing at least £5 million at Muslim groups, to facilitate a load of typically vague initiatives:

* Programmes to work with those who maybe excluded from colleges, schools and mosques and may be vulnerable to extremist messages - giving them the knowledge and confidence to turn their back on extremism.
* New local forums that can take on perverted extremist ideology with strong local leaders and role models promoting shared values, such as the rejection of violence, understanding and belonging.
* Leadership projects with increased training to develop the capacity of key opinion formers in facing down extremist messages.
* Increased training and information for local institutions, such as mosques and madrassahs, on warning signs, extremist tactics and effective responses.
* Programmes to promote greater understanding between faiths such as school twinning programmes and to improve civic and volunteering opportunities for young Muslims to develop a greater sense of shared belonging.
I have no idea what they mean in practice and neither, probably, do ministers.

The Guardian has both the Communities secretary's proposals and Tony Blair's thoughts on them.

The Daily Telegraph focuses on inter-faith schools. Whatever they might be, Acton might be a good place to start, though the extremists there are, at least temporarily, in retreat after the adverse publicity.

The BBC reports that British Muslim Forum, based in the West Midlands, is already squawking for more taxpayers' money.

05 February, 2007

Infantile islamic terrorism.

You are never to young to start hating the Great Satan. The Daily Mail has the story of how a London school, the King Fahad (or Fahd) Academy in Acton is being accused of encouraging terrorists supporters as young as 5. Moreover,

Its sister school of the same name in Bonn has been singled out by the German intelligence services as a meeting place for activists linked to terrorism.
Obviously a job for the brave and fearless leaflet police.

Update 8.2.07

After the publicity, the school is sounding the retreat.

03 February, 2007

More from Mohammed Naseem.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Mohammed Naseem, head man at the Birmingham Central Mosque, thinks "“This unfortunate country is moving towards a police state - the laws being passed are wrong and against the traditions of this country.”

One recent tradition of this country, is for Naseem to compare the UK with Nazi Germany and to dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism as a government plot. Yesterday's Times reports that Naseem has been at it again. For good measure, he added,

“This is a persecuting course of action that the Government has taken. They have invented this perception of a threat. To justify that, they have to maintain incidents to prove something is going on. There is dismay and people feel they are being persecuted unjustly.
Naseem says that the Muslim community is "upset" at all this. Easily remedied. The Muslim community should stop supporting apologists for terrorism, like Naseem.

More Muslims in denial in the Birmingham local press.

Update

You have read Naseem's drivel. Now, thanks to lgf, you can watch it.