Game Fishing Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Osama bin London’s Country Camps
By Robert Spencer
Tuesday, March 04, 2008

“Fifty-two. That’s not even breakfast for me.�


Those were the words of an Islamic preacher in Britain, Mohammed Hamid, who liked to call himself “Osama bin London.� Hamid was referring to the fifty-two people murdered by Islamic jihadists in the London bombings of July 2005, and was boasting that his own plots would lead to, presumably, lunch and dinner -- far more deaths. One police official, discussing surveillance tapes made of conversations inside Hamid’s home, said, “There was repeated talk of finding and killing nonbelievers.�


Hamid was a member of the “London 7,� a jihadist gang that established training camps in the British countryside, where they prepared for large-scale attacks on British non-Muslims -- and who even planned to open training camps in the U.S. as well. Two of the gang members pleaded guilty to terror charges Tuesday, but this case is far from over. Its implications ought to be studied closely by government and law enforcement officials.


The establishment of jihad training camps in the British hinterlands raises disquieting questions with no easy answers: How many more might be there? How can they be detected? Questions like these should lead to considerations of the wisdom of the current no-holds-barred immigration policy, and of the loyalty of the larger Muslim community in Britain – questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. Exposure to the jihadist, Islamic supremacist ideology, says the self-styled British “former Islamist� Ed Husain, “that radicalism, that extremism, that ‘them-and-us’ mind set -- starts here on our streets in Britain.�


Why does it start on the streets in Britain, and what can be done about that? According to the Associated Press, “Hamid, originally from Tanzania, hand-picked recruits from mainstream mosques, inviting them for radical meetings at his home and then selecting a smaller number to attend the camps, police said.� Yet whenever law enforcement officials have broached the topic of monitoring activity inside mosques, they meet a barrage of indignation and criticism. The core problem is that, for all their ballyhooed condemnations of terrorism, peaceful Muslims in Britain and America have not moved in any great numbers to expose those who hold jihadist sentiments, much less to separate themselves from them and expel them from their mosques. There is no wall of separation in the British or American Muslim community between Muslims who accept Western pluralism and just want to live ordinary lives and those who hold to the same ideology of jihad and the destruction or subjugation of infidels to which “Osama bin London� had dedicated his life. There is no easy or reliable way to distinguish a Muslim who may be working to top the death total of the July 2005 London bombings from one who abhors the very idea.


In such an environment, new methods are needed. Yet in both Britain and America legislators and judges continue to work against legitimate and legal anti-terror initiatives. In Britain in mid-February, a judge overturned the convictions of five Muslims who downloaded pro-jihad material from the Internet. And in America, after House Democrats allowed a surveillance act to expire last week, if telecom companies monitor jihadists’ phone calls as they plot terrorist attacks, jihadists can sue the telecoms and tie them up in the courts. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey wrote last week to the House Intelligence Committee: “We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation.�


Of course, not every Muslim in Britain or the United States will fall prey to the likes of “Osama bin London.� But the London 7 case demonstrates anew that the more law enforcement officials depend on the politically correct assumption that there is little or no sympathy for the global jihad among Muslims in the West, the more they put us all at risk. This week ABC sent two actors – one dressed as a veiled Muslim woman and the other playing the part of an “Islamophobic� store clerk who treated her rudely – into a store in Waco, Texas, in order to gather evidence of American xenophobia and racism. A far more dramatic documentary might be made of the London 7 case – of young Muslims in Britain actually working toward the violent deaths of their non-Muslim fellow citizens. And it didn’t seem to enter into the minds of anyone at ABC that the fact that all too many Muslims go in for such training – even in the West – may be responsible for some of the frustration and resentment that boiled over from a few obnoxious people in their “Islamophobia� documentary.


Muslims in Britain and the U.S. have skillfully portrayed themselves for years now as the victims of unjustified suspicion. The London 7 case is just the latest one to indicate that a good deal more forthrightness, a good deal more honesty, a good deal more transparency, ought to be forthcoming from them, if they really wish to deflect such suspicion. Otherwise, some later “Osama bin London� finally will top the July 2005 death count – and his grisly achievement will stand forever as an assault on innocent people that could have and should have been prevented, and one more step on the way to the disintegration of the West before the jihadist onslaught. This can be prevented. But it is getting late
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
The London 7 case is just the latest one to indicate that a good deal more forthrightness, a good deal more honesty, a good deal more transparency, ought to be forthcoming from them, if they really wish to deflect such suspicion.
We don't know that they don't offer up these kinds of people. Do you expect Homeland Security or Scotland Yard or whoever would tell us if they did?

The fact that we're not seeing regular and increasing terrorist attacks ought to lead the writer to suspect the info gets out to the right people more often than not.

Spooky people can't allow them to be open, transparent and forthcoming, because it would drive the terrorists further underground and make them harder to catch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
He was caught because his house was bugged and this is how they knew about his remarks about the fifty-two not being enough for him.

We just let our snoops get on with the job. If the media gets wind of some snoop job they will have a 'D' notice put on them to stop them telling everybody about what the snoops are doing. Whoa betide any reporter or editor who fails to act on this notice. They will be in jail very quickly and if the judge deems they are responsible for a serious crime then they can get ten years in jail.

There are successes as well as failures, we just haveto hope that they can stop the bad guys/gals before they carry out their crimes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: SJ are you saying that you British are resorting to eavesdropping? That is totally unthinkable, just ask the Democratically controlled House of Representatives in the good ole' USA!!! Oooh wait, you can't, they went on vacation instead of doing their F***ing job and voting on the bill that deals with this exact situation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well it is about phone taps but its still eavesdropping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Let me explain how it happens over here.

Snoops/Police suspect a guy/woman they then ask a judge for a warrant to bug the place/his car/his work place. The judge grants this and then they are free to do whatever they want to get a conviction. If along the way they suspect others they are able to film/listen in to what they are saying and follow them also. Then if they think they are part of the same gang they can then ask for them to be bugged.

Now here is where it turns political, the police detain a guy/woman they are then given 48 hours to question them, then they have to ask the magistrate for permission to question them further. He/she may grant this for another four/seven days. After this time they have to go before him/her again and put their case for more questioning. They are allowed to do this for upto 28 days before they have to charge or release the guy/woman. Whilst he/she is being questioned they will have already got warrants to search any where they think they can find more evidence against them.

Gordon Brown is asking for this time limit to be extended upto 56 days but the pundits think he will lose out once it comes to the vote in Parliament. Tony Blair lost his first vote on ths issue last year and it looks like Gordon will do the same although this time he is asking for a shorter time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
OB-1 said:
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: SJ are you saying that you British are resorting to eavesdropping? That is totally unthinkable, just ask the Democratically controlled House of Representatives in the good ole' USA!!! Oooh wait, you can't, they went on vacation instead of doing their F***ing job and voting on the bill that deals with this exact situation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well it is about phone taps but its still eavesdropping.
Let me see... Some reasonable Muslim finds out there are plots against his country afoot, and tips off the spooks. The spooks in turn, petition for a FISA court to give them permission for eavesdropping... which they receive, even if it's AFTER the eavesdropping takes place.

Perfectly legal and perfectly within the confines of the Constitution. We don't NEED to bypass the process for America to stay safe. If one trusts the spooky people more than the FISA court, they need to have their heads examined.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top