<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003903.html> UK: Muslim
Terrorism And The British Government

Today, November 09, 2007, 10 hours ago | Giraldus Cambrensis
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003903.html> Go to full
article
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003903.html

This article by Adrian Morgan (Giraldus Cambrensis of Western Resistance)
appeared earlier today in Family
<http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1385251> Security
Matters and is reproduced with their permission.

New Leader, Same Government?

The Labour Party, headed by Gordon Brown since June 27 this year, has been
in power for more than a decade. When Labour was elected in May 1997, Gordon
Brown held the post of chancellor and was regarded as second-in-command of
the government. Islamic extremism was on the rise in British campuses and
mosques when Labour came to power, but little was done to extinguish it.

One of the government's first laws to be introduced was the Human Rights Act
of 1998. This enshrined the terms of the 1950 European Convention on Human
<http://www.pfc.org.uk/legal/echrtext.htm> Rights into British law, trumping
all existing legislation. The 1998 Act has been one of the biggest obstacles
in countering terrorism. Many foreign terrorists have been allowed to seek
asylum in Britain, even though they have been convicted in their home states
for acts of terror that have included fatalities. They have been allowed to
spread their extremism in Britain, and even plot terror acts abroad, with
impunity.

The Human Rights Act has allowed Afghan
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002124.html> terrorists and
their families to be allowed permanent residence in Britain, and has
prevented the deportation of known and suspected terrorists to their home
countries, lest they be subjected to torture - a breach of Article 3 of the
ECHR. Individuals like Abu
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002120.html> Qatada, once
described as "Al Qaeda's ambassador in Europe" remains in detention in
Britain. Yasser
<http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=50035&ver
sion=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20> al-Siri, convicted of terrorism and
causing death in his native Egypt, walks free
<http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=668213>  in Maida Vale,
West London.

In November 2005, the Terrorism Act of
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060011.htm> 2006 was still
undergoing review in the House of Lords (parliament's upper house). Four
clauses of the Terrorism Act were opposed
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1647283,00.html>  by the
Association of Chief Police Officers. The controversial clauses were:


*       Amending human rights legislation to enable easier deportations 

*       Making the glorification of terrorism (including acts of terror
outside the UK) an offense 

*       Automatically refusing asylum to anyone linked to terrorism anywhere


*       Banning Hizb ut-Tahrir and successors to the group Al-Muhajiroun 


The only one of these clauses to remain when the terrorism law was finally
passed was the offense of glorification of terrorism - Schedule 1, section 1
(3) of the Act. The 2006 Terrorism Act introduced penalties for the first
time for engaging in terrorism training, either at home or abroad. 

Even though the Human Rights Act 1998 protects the rights of terrorists and
other criminals who are not even British citizens, a recent legal ruling
declared that old people living in private care homes are not
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/27/ncherie127.
xml> protected by the Human Rights Act.

In this week's Queen's Speech, outlining bills to be introduced during
parliamentary session, a new Terrorism Act was mentioned. In all the
proposed legislation produced by Gordon Brown's government, there are no
reported plans to decrease the terms of the Human Rights Act to make
deportations of terrorists or criminals easier, nor are there measures to
extend the Act to protect vulnerable elderly people in private nursing
homes. The Queen's Speech was widely expected to show Gordon Brown's
promised "vision" for Britain. Various commentators have condemned
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/06/nqueen706.x
ml>  the "lack of vision" in Brown's planned legislation.

When a major terrorism trial came to its conclusion on April 30,
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003726.html> 2007, five
individuals were given life sentences for plotting bombings on the UK
mainland employing ammonium nitrate fertilizer. The most damaging evidence,
which eventually secured convictions, was that produced by secret
surveillance by MI5. Bugs had been placed in an apartment belonging to the
cell's ringleader, Omar Khyam, and also in his car. 

Even though secret electronic and video surveillance evidence is legally
acceptable in a British court of law, evidence gained by phone-tapping is
not allowed. For decades, successive U.K. governments have legally
authorized phone-tapping of individuals. The majority of phone-tapping is
enacted through the Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ), based in
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. 

 GCHQ <http://www.brianmicklethwait.com/culture/gchq.jpg> 

In December 1998, GCHQ monitored conversations made by hook-handed preacher
Abu Hamza al-Masri. These took place on Hamza's newly purchased satellite
telephone. Hamza was in communication with Abu Hassan
<http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/hamza/hostage.htm> , a terrorist in Yemen,
leader of the Islamic Army of Aden-Abyan. Hamza's words to Hassan indicated
the preacher from Finsbury Park Mosque was aware of, and complicit in, the
kidnapping of 16 Westerners in Yemen. During a botched rescue attempt on
December 29 by Yemeni authorities, three Britons and one Australian died.

Though there was recorded evidence of Hamza's apparent involvement in the
kidnapping of the Western tourists, it could not be used in court. The FBI
has stated <http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002257.html>
that the phone evidence will be used against Hamza in a U.S. court, if and
when they succeed in having him extradited from Britain. Hamza remained free
to continue preaching hatred of the West and encouraging international
terrorism until his arrest in August
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1291700,00.html> 26,
2004.

If phone-tapping can be legally authorized by the British government, it is
surprising that it cannot be used in a court of law in serious cases,
particularly those involving acts of terrorism. If phone-tap evidence could
have been submitted before a court, Abu Hamza may conceivably have been
convicted long before he was finally given a seven-year jail sentence for
"soliciting murder" on February 7,
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001617.html> 2006. Stopping
Hamza from preaching may have saved lives that were lost on 7/7.

There are apparently no
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id
=492164&in_page_id=1770> plans in the Queen's Speech to allow phone-tap
evidence in terrorism trials. Brown is known to support
<http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1946327,00.html>  the
notion, even though the security services, unwilling to prepare lengthy
transcripts, have previously objected. Even Liberty
<http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/200
7/lords-consider-control-order-scheme.shtml> , the UK civil rights group,
supports the use of phone tap evidence in court.

Despite this, in July new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith quietly introduced a
law, based on the Regulation of
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/20000023.htm> Investigatory Powers Act
2000, allowing anyone's personal phone details to be recorded. This law came
into force on October
<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414373-details/Big%20Brother%2
0Britain:%20Government%20and%20councils%20to%20spy%20on%20ALL%20our%20phones
/article.do?expand=true> 1, 2007. The details of any British citizen's calls
(though not necessarily the content) are not only available to the
government. The data can be shared by 795 public bodies, including local
councils and unelected organizations such as the National Health Service.
This law was introduced as a decree, with no discussion in the Upper House.

Recent Trials

Hamza's preachings were inspirational to a generation of budding Muslim
radicals. Three individuals who went to hear Hamza preach at Finsbury Park
Mosque were Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay.
These three gained notoriety when they were part of the four-man cell that
carried out the suicide attacks upon three London Underground trains and a
Number 30 bus on July 7, 2005, killing a total of 52 travelers.

Exactly two weeks after the deadly 7/7 bombings, four individuals tried to
identically repeat the attacks. On Thursday, July 21, 2005, on three Tube
trains and a Number 26 bus, four young men attempted to detonate rucksacks
containing an explosive mixture, using TATP as the detonator. This substance
- triacetone triperoxide - was the same explosive used in the 7/7 attacks.
Fortunately, the "chemist" for the group, Yassin Omar, had not prepared the
chemicals properly. Even though members of the cell had purchased more than
208
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/16/nplot116.xm
l> US liquid pints of hydrogen peroxide to create the explosive, Omar's
incompetence led to diluted H2O2 being used in his explosives, which also
contained chapati flour.

 Muktar Ibrahim
<http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/assets_stage/terrorism/MukhtarIbrahim.
gif> 

As a result of the weakened recipe, when the rucksacks were detonated there
was little damage. On one underground train, the mixture in Ramzi Mohemmed's
rucksack spilled out and bubbled on the floor. He claimed
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/17/nplot17.xml
>  to startled passengers: "what's the matter? It is bread, it wasn't me,"
before he fled. On the Number 26 bus in Hackney Road, East London, the
rucksack belonging to Muktar Said Ibrahim (pictured above), the cell's
leader, caused a window to shatter.

Even though Yassin Omar had failed to create full-strength explosive, during
the trial, video
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1506108.ece> evidence
was presented to the court. Quantities of the explosive, weighing the same
amount as those in the bomber's rucksacks, were placed in a quarry while
scientists and legal observes watched from concrete bunkers. The movie
footage of the blasts showed the extent of their devastation. Slowed down, a
visible shock wave emanated from the center. Clifford Todd, principal
forensic investigator from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory, said that
such tests had never been carried out before, and on each occasion the
devices exploded when triggered by detonators. He testified that if the 21/7
bombers' devices had detonated properly, their effects would have been as
destructive as those on 7/7.

The four men who failed to carry out the bombings made their escapes, with
Yassin Omar (who is six foot two inches tall) fleeing to Birmingham dressed
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/21/ntrial21.xm
l> in a burka and carrying a woman's purse. Hussain Osman fled to Italy and
was deported back to Britain on September 23,
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/000184.html> 2005. On July
10,  <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6284350.stm> 2007 at Woolwich Crown
Court after a six-month trial, the four failed suicide bombers - Muktar Said
Ibrahim, 29, Yassin Omar, 26, Ramzi Mohammed, 25, and Hussain Osman, 28,
were found guilty of conspiracy to murder. They were given life sentences.
The jury could not reach a verdict on two other individuals, Manfo Kwaku
Asiedu and Adel Yahya.

 Adel Yahya
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/11/05/nterror.jpg> Two of the
convicted men had been regular
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/16/nplot316.xm
l> visitors to Finsbury Park Mosque while it was under the control of Abu
Hamza. Adel Yahya (pictured) was also a frequent visitor to the Finsbury
Park Mosque. He too had fled Britain after the bomb attacks failed. He was
arrested in Ethiopia in November 2005. On Monday, November
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2814128.ece> 5this
week, 24-year old Adel Yahya was jailed for six years and nine months. He
pleaded guilty to a charge of collecting information likely to be useful to
a person preparing an act of terrorism.

Adel Yahya had pleaded guilty to this charge as it is less serious than
charges he would have faced in a trial which is due to start next week at
Woolwich Crown Court. He and 34-year old Manfo Kwaku Asiedu were to stand
trial on charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions.
Yahya was told by the judge on Monday that as he had served 546 days in
prison and as he will serve only half of his official sentence, he will be
free in 22 and a half months. 

Ghanaian-born Manfo Kwaku Asiedu will be facing a retrial next week on
conspiracy charges. Two of those accused in the 21/7 trial - Muktar Ibrahim
and Yassin Omar - had as their lawyer Mudassar Arani, who also acts as a
lawyer for Abu Hamza and convicted terrorist Dhiren
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003810.html> Barot. Ms Arani
has been accused
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/njudge111.x
ml>  by trial judge Mr Justice Fulford QC of making "relentless and
blistering" and "wholly unjustified" complaints against staff at Belmarsh
prison, where the defendants were in custody, during the 21/7 trial.

During the court case, it was alleged that Ms Arani had sent payments
totaling $1,200 to Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, who was not one of her clients. It
was alleged that she did this to "persuade him to change his case to suit
(Muktar) Ibrahim's." Manfo Kwaku Asiedu's lawyers claimed
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/23/nplot23.xml
>  that while the defendants were in prison during the trial, Muktar Ibrahim
had been threatening Asiedu to make his testimony match his own. Apparently
in Belmarsh jail, Ibrahim would say to Asiedu: "I'm the emir (leader), shut
up."

All of the 21/7 suspects were born in Africa. Muktar Ibrahim was born in
Eritrea and as a child had arrived in Britain with his refugee family. He
was granted British residency in 1992. He hated Britain, and acted as a
thug. He committed street robbery to satisfy his marijuana habit, as part of
a gang. One of the gang members claimed
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/10/nplot310.xm
l>  that: "Muktar never had a girlfriend. He liked white girls but he was
into mistreating them and calling them bitches."

 holiday? <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/01/18/nplot18b.jpg>
In May
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/18/nplot18.xml
> 2004, Muktar Ibrahim had been photographed while attending a terror
training camp in the Lake District in northern England. On two weekends in
May of that year, police had noticed a group of individuals who appeared to
be engaging in "military-style" exercises. MI5 was contacted and the
security agency would later engage in video surveillance of this "camp".
Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorism squad photographed Muktar Ibrahim, Ramzi
Mohammed, Yassin Omar, Hussain Osman, Adel Yahya and others praying at the
farm site on May 3, 2004, shortly before they prepared to leave.

Osama Bin London and Abu Abdallah

 Osama B London
<http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44168000/gif/_44168616_hamid_pa203.gi
f> The apparent jihadist training sessions which Muktar Ibrahim and the
other 21/7 bombers attended are also the subject of another terrorism trial
which began on Wesnesday,
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2630899.ece> October
10, 2007. These training sessions were led by a man named Mohammed Hamid
(now aged 50) who is on trial at Woolwich Crown Court with four other
persons. Hamid admits that he organized trips to Great Langdale in Cumbria,
but denies that they were for the purposes of terror training. 

Mohammed Hamid, from Clapton, East London, had run a stall at Marble Arch
outside Debenhams department store at the end of Oxford Street, central
London. He sold Islamic pamphlets and books, and it was apparently here that
he recruited young men to join him on "camping trips" and to attend Friday
evening meetings at his home in the borough of Hackney. Hamid ran this stall
with Muktar Ibrahim.

 Attila ahmed <http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2006410142,00.jpg>
Another man was also placed on trial at a separate court, who is said to
have been the ringleader behind these training sessions. This man is former
soccer coach Attila Ahmet. After Abu Hamza had been arrested, he took over
the running of Finsbury Park Mosque until evicted in February
<http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_objectid=15164512%26method=full%
26siteid=94762-name_page.html> 2005, when mosque locks were changed. He is
also known by the title Abu
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002839.html> Abdallah. 

Attila Ahmet had been arrested in London with 13 other individuals on
September 1,  <http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002865.html>
2006. His trial is taking place at the Central Criminal Court (the Old
Bailey). He is charged
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002952.html>  on eight
counts, including soliciting to murder (advocating murder of non-Muslims)
and publishing a statement urging people to commit acts of terrorism. On
Monday October 10, 2007, the same day as Mohammed Hamid's trial began,
43-year old Attila Ahmed entered a plea of "guilty" on three
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2187948,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed
=networkfront> counts of soliciting to murder.

What is important about both these ongoing trials - apart from their
connections with Abu Hamza and the 21/7 bombers - is that they are the first
to be brought under the terms of the 2006 Terrorism Act. In Woolwich Crown
Court, Mohammed Hamid and his co-defendants are facing charges connected to
terrorism training. Hamid is accused of providing weapons and terrorist
training, soliciting murder, and possessing terrorist documents.

41-year old Mousa Brown from Walthamstow, East London, is charged with
providing weapons training. 24-year old Kibley da Costa is charged with both
giving and receiving instruction in terrorist training camps. 42-year old
Mohammed Al-Figari and 20-year old Kader Ahmed, both of London, are accused
of attending terror training camps.

The camp in Cumbria where the 21/7 bombers were photographed had been
discovered by accident
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/16/nbombers116
.xml>  by an off-duty policeman while he was jogging.

In October 2004, Mohammed Hamid and Muktar Ibrahim were involved in a
disturbance at their Islamic bookstall. The pair were said to have racially
abused police who arrived at the scene. They had fled, but a member of the
public had tripped up Ibrahim. They insulted two police officers, one a
Hindu and the other of West Indian origin, about their backgrounds. When
arrested, Mohammed said
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2187948,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed
=networkfront>  that he was "Osama bin London."

Prosecuting lawyer David Farrell told the Woolwich Crown Court that on his
way to the police station, "Osama bin London" said to one police officer:
"I've got a bomb and I'm going to blow you all up." Farrell said that the
meetings at the Clapton home of "Osama bin London" were also attended by
Attila Ahmet aka Abu Abdullah. "At meetings held at Hamid's home address and
elsewhere, the methods of Hamid and Ahmet involved the encouragement of the
use of unlawful violence in the name of Islam," Mr Farrell said.

>From September 2005 onwards, Hamid's Clapton home was bugged by police. The
surveillance allowed officers to hear the discussions and lectures that took
place at the house. Hamid also called himself "Al-Quran". He would provide
food for his visitors. The jury heard
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7037525.stm>  surveillance tapes from one of
these meetings.

In this meeting, Hamid was discussing the attacks of 7/7 and asked: "How
many people did they take out?" When told that fifty two people had been
killed, he replied: "That's not even breakfast for me. That's not even
breakfast for me in this country."

Woolwich Crown Court was told
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2641516.ece>  that
Mohammed Hamid had been organizing training camps for 12 years before he was
arrested. On his return from one of his training exercises, Hamid was
passing high-security Paddington Green police station, where terror suspects
are questioned. He shouted to the officers as he drove past: "Here is your
terrorist, I'm here, come and get me."

The court was told that his colleague, Attila Ahmet, used to sing a song to
a Calypso tune, whose lyrics stated: "Come mister Taleban, come implement
Sharia... Come bomb England, before the daylight come."

Video evidence taken from the cellular phone of defendant Kibla da Costa was
shown to the court. It showed footage taken during a training exercise in
the New Forest between April 28 and May 1, 2006. More footage taken secretly
by police camera of the same "session" was shown to the court.

On October
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/17/nterror117.
xml> 18, 2007, an MI5 agent code-named 1259 gave evidence to Woolwich Crown
Court. He described training sessions which had taken place in the Lake
District. Shielded from view, Agent 1259 said: "There were about 10 males
leopard crawling - moving low and flat along the ground. They were doing
press-ups and sit-ups - hard physical activity - and there was an
anti-ambush drill, reacting to effective enemy fire."

When Attila Ahmet and other individuals had been arrested in September 2006,
a search was made of a large school in Mark's Cross, near Crowborough in
Sussex. This building, with more than 100 rooms, had become the Jameah
Islameah boys' school in September 2003, though by 2005 an inspection showed
that only nine pupils were registered. Abu Hamza had tried to purchase
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article628379.ece>  this
building in the late 1990s. He had visited the building five times. He was
also said to have set up camps in the 58 acres of the school grounds.
Additionally, Hamza had considered buying sites for terror training in Wales
and Lancashire before he decided to establish a terror
<http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1283310> training
center in Bly, Oregon.

Four of the people arrested at the same time as Attila Ahmet had also been
reported by Spanish authorities traveling to North Africa in April 2006,
where they were though to have attended training camps. The same individuals
had been in Spain in 2005. They were assumed be intending to set up a terror
recruiting center in Granada province. Whether these four individuals are
among the individuals currently on trial in London remains to be seen.

Errors of Policy

While Tony Blair was prime minister, the Labour government had as its
adviser on Muslim policy issues the Muslim Council
<http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=512264> of Britain
(MCB). This body claims to represent 400 mosques and Islamic institutions
across Britain, even though some of its senior figures support Islamist
groups and the terror group Hamas. In late 2006
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003184.html> , it appeared
that the government had distanced itself from the MCB.

When Gordon Brown became unelected prime minister this year, he told his
cabinet ministers not to mention the war on terrorism, in case it caused
offense to Muslims in Britain. On July 25
<http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12675.asp>  he made a speech in
parliament about security. He spoke of integrating terror watch lists with
those of Interpol, and sharing information with European partners. He said
that "more important even than consensus here in this house is the consensus
we will seek in all the communities across this country." The MCB welcomed
<http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-666>  this
move. It appears that under Gordon Brown, the MCB are again becoming closer
to government.

While Brown was chancellor, the MCB had strongly influenced government
policy. It urged the establishment of a bill
<http://legalit.itproportal.com/?p=1006>  which came into force on October
1, 2007. This was originally intended to outlaw any criticism of religion,
imposing a 7 year jail penalty for such an offence. The upper house neutered
this bill, only outlawing extreme cases of inciting religious hatred. The
MCB argued against clauses in the Terrorism Act 2006, and refused to support
Tony Blair's intention to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. It even caused the government
to abandon <http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002318.html>
plans to outlaw forced marriage.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and also the Metropolitan
police get much of their advice from a group called the Muslim Safety Forum
<http://www.muslimsafetyforum.org/>  (MSF), which was established in the
wake of 9/11. A recent report
<http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/307.pdf>  has highlighted
that four of the Muslim Safety Forum's affiliated organizations have been
found to contain extremist literature. These are the the Regents Park
Mosque, Al-Manaar (The Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre), Al-Muntada
Al-Islami Trust and the UK Islamic Mission (the Euston Mosque).

It is not surprising that ACPO urged the government to withdraw key parts of
the 2006 Terrorism Act, including a clause which would have meant that if a
mosque allowed imams to "glorify terrorism" the mosque could be temporarily
closed down. It is not surprising that the Metropolitan Police, again
influenced
<http://muslimsafetyforum.org/msf-workstreams/counter-terrorism.html>  by
the Muslim Safety Forum, suggested in September
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003026.html> 2006 that
before terrorism raids could take place, they would first need to be
approved by a panel of four Muslim leaders. This proposal was eventually
scrapped this year.

The Metropolitan police and the Charities Commission (which contains many
Muslim charities that support extremist causes) ensured
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4639074.stm>  that after Abu Abdallah (Attila
Ahmet) was evicted from Finsbury Park Mosque, the Muslim Association of
Britain (MAB) took over the running of the mosque. One of the five trustees
is Mohammed Kassem  <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13501930/> Sawalha who was
a former Hamas fundraiser. Sawalha is a leading figure in MAB, a group
founded in  <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=490297> 1997
by senior Muslim Brotherhood member Kemal al-Helbawy. Sawalha was known on
the West Bank by his code-name Abu Abada
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5234586.stm> . Another
senior figure in MAB is Azzam al-Tamimi, who claims to be against terrorism
in Britain, but said in November
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002463.html> 2004 that he
would become a suicide bomber against Israel "if I had the opportunity." MAB
is widely regarded as a Muslim Brotherhood group.

The Labour government has supported engaging the Muslim Brotherhood through
the Engaging
<http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&;
c=Page&cid=1153388310360> With The Islamic World Group (EIWG), a division of
the Foreign
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070124/debtext
/70124-0001.htm> Office. Run by Mockbul
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002679.html> Ali, a former
student Islamist, this group has sponsored
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002569.html>  Yusuf
al-Qaradawi, the MB's spiritual leader and supported him visiting Britain.
EIWG continues to be funded by the government. 

An essential part of national security is to maintain secure border
controls. Labour has failed to secure Britain's borders. By its own
estimates there are 570,000 illegal immigrants in the U.K., though the true
figure is probably 800,000. Labour has not even been able to accurately
<http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/health/politics/immigration-figures-wrong-$
1158407.htm>  give a figure for legal migration. Immigration under the
Labour government has taken place with few restrictions and a recent
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7060487,00.html> poll shows
that 72 percent think that the current administration is doing a "poor job"
of managing this. Under Labour, 10,000 British
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003651.html> passports were
given to fraudulent applicants, with some going to known terrorists.

In Brown's current cabinet, the culture secretary is Hazel Blears. In August
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/03/ndavis103.x
ml> 2005, after Tony Blair had sent her on a fact-finding tour of Muslim
communities, Blears announced that: "What we have discussed today is the
need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love." Ms
Blears announced on October
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2778010.ece> 31 last week
that the government would be donating $140 million to Muslim groups. This is
being done to stop the spread of extremism, with $50 million to be spent on
training imams who can speak English (only six percent
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6275574.stm>  of imams speak English as a
first language) and encouraging citizenship programs in British madrassas.

Already, many of the Muslim groups in Britain that are trusted by the
government, police and the Charities Commission are known
<http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1385183>  to have
extremist literature on their premises, and have leaders who support
extremism. The recently-announced funding makes no mention of which groups
will receive the money, nor if such funding is conditional upon all existing
extremist elements being purged from these organizations.

Labour under Tony Blair has wasted public resources on multicultural
ventures. In December
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003461.html>  last year, it
was found that the Foreign Office had been sending groups of British Muslims
to visit 18 other nations, to "meet other Muslims". A spokesman said: "The
idea is to promote British Muslims overseas, to try to get rid of the myth
that British Muslims are oppressed, and to give Muslims in the UK the
experience of how Muslims in other parts of the world live." 

Poor choices of advisers and poor choices in funding have been the hallmark
of government policy for the past decade.

Gordon Brown announced in November
<http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003390.html> 2006 that he
would donate $910 million to Pakistan. Most of that money was to be spent on
madrassas, even though these establishments have encouraged violent
extremism. It appears that now he is in power, Gordon Brown is prepared to
not only repeat the mistakes of the Labour administration's past, but to
compound them further.

Adrian Morgan

C 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved 

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to