HOW BRITISH POLICE COZY UP TO EXTREMISTS IN THE NAME OF ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA AWARENESS’

58504190-58504188jpgBreitbart, by MILO YIANNOPOULOS, Nov. 14, 2014:

British police forces are sharing platforms with Islamic extremists from discredited Islamist organisation MEND, formerly known as iENGAGE—and even co-hosting events with them—throughout November as part of Islamophobia Awareness Month, a Breitbart investigation has revealed.

In November, Mark Burns-Williamson, police and crime commissioner for West Yorkshire Police, will share a platform at an event called Building Bridges in Leeds with Azad Ali, Head of Community Development & Engagement for Islamist organisation MEND. Ali is a notorious Islamic extremist who once suggested that the killing of British troops in Iraq was justified.

The Telegraph reported in 2012 that Ali “has written on his IFE blog of his ‘love’ for Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda cleric … used to attend talks by Al-Qaeda’s main representative in the UK, Abu Qatada … described al-Qaeda as a ‘myth’ and said that the Mumbai terrorist attacks were not terrorism.”

Harvinder Saimbhi, Leeds City Council’s Head of Anti-Social Behaviour, is also sharing the same platform with Ali at the Building Bridges conference, an initiative from South Asian charity Hamara, which describes itself as “the largest ethnic minority organisation in the voluntary and community sector in Leeds, based in a purpose developed £1.2 million centre in Beeston”.

Meanwhile, the National Association of Muslim Police are co-hosting an event with MEND’s founder and managing director, Sufyan Ismail. The event will take place on Monday, 24 November at the City of London Police Headquarters in Wood Street, London. A representative from City of London Police will speak alongside Ismail, according to email invitations seen by Breitbart, dated 7 November and signed by Fatima Khan, MEND’s “Hate Crime and Stakeholder Lead”.

Sufyan Ismail has promoted hate preacher Hatham al Haddad, who believes that Muslims should cut all ties with family members who leave Islam, non-Muslim political systems are “filthy” and “slavery” is superior to Western prisoner of war protocols, among other distasteful things catalogued by political blog Harry’s Place.

To those unfamiliar with MEND, the outfit is a rebrand of an earlier, widely discredited organisation known as iENGAGE, a detail confirmed by the City of London Police’s own invitations, which refer to “MEND (formerly known as iENGAGE)”. MEND’s website still resides at iengage.uk.net.

As iENGAGE, MEND targeted Muslim campaigning groups and individuals who spoke out against Islamism, condemned David Cameron for severing ties with the Muslim Council of Britain after its deputy general secretary, Daud Abdullah, refused to withdraw his support from the Istanbul Declarations, and objected to the banning of terrorist group Hizb ut Tahrir from universities and schools.

An All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia voted 60-2 to dispense with the services of iENGAGE when these facts came to light in 2011. This followed the resignation of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Group in protest at iENGAGE’s head of research, Islamist sympathiser Shenaz Buglawala, being awarded a House of Commons pass.

Taxpayers will want to know why founder Sufyan Ismail, who has promoted a hate preacher and who founded and still runs an organisation which in its previous incarnation was repeatedly banished from public life for extremist views, is co-hosting an event with a senior police officer aimed at lecturing officers about “hate speech”.

Even more disturbing is the fact that West Yorkshire Police and Leeds City Council have seen fit to share a platform with Ismail’s subordinate, Azad Ali. According to the Telegraph‘s Andrew Gilligan, despite his position as chairman of the Muslim Safety Forum, a body closely linked to the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe, Ali was appointed the Metropolitan Police’s “principal” representative of the Muslim community in 2006.

But, in 2008, Ali was forced to resign from his position as chair of the Muslim Safety Forum, just two years after establishing it as founding chair, after his extremist opinions came to light. The MSF received £30,000 in public funding in 2009 under London mayor Boris Johnson and at least £70,000 under previous mayor Ken Livingstone.

The IFE was the subject of a BBC Dispatches exposé in 2010 which revealed that its stated objectives are jihad, the transformation of Britain into an Islamic state and the establishment of sharia law. In 2012, Ali was the IFE’s community affairs co-ordinator.

In 2009, Ali was suspended from his public sector job at the Treasury after he praised Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Ali had also blogged supportivelyabout Azzam’s son, who had written: “If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq, I would kill him because that is my obligation … I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for jihad.”

In 2010, Ali lost a legal action against the Mail on Sunday for an article about him in which the paper reported some of these unsavoury views. The same year, Labour Cabinet ministers were heavily criticised for sharing a platform with him.

As long ago as 2010, Tory MP and counter-terrorism expert Patrick Mercer said of Ali: “It beats me why the police should want to take the advice of this man. They should have nothing to do with him. I know for a fact that there are just as knowledgeable members of the Muslim community who do not share his subversive views.”

Yet, in spite of his extremist views, Ali’s MEND biography states that he is a member of the IPCC’s Community Advisory Group and the Home Office’s Trust and Confidence Community Panel. West Yorkshire Police, which is sharing a platform with Azad Ali in Leeds this month, did not return a request for comment.

Hamara, the group behind the Leeds Building Bridges conference at which Ali will speak, says it “stands out as a beacon within the community and voluntary sector and its success has inspired many other organisations to emulate its achievements”. It did not return a request for comment.

Invitations to Building Bridges were sent from a Leeds City Council email address on 5 November to delegates within Leeds City Council and Leeds University, according to messages seen by Breitbart, as well as to other police forces, charities and housing associations. Leeds City Council did not provide a spokesperson for comment.

City of London Police’s Equality Diversity and Human Rights Unit confirmed to Breitbart that it was running an event with MEND, and that MEND’s managing director, Sufyan Ismail, would be speaking alongside a representative from City of London Police, but declined to answer further questions by email.

The London Muslim Communities Forum, a strategic body that advises Scotland Yard on Muslim issues, promoted the National Association of Muslim Police event on 24 November to officers elsewhere in the force, charities, youth groups, the Home Office and even Transport for London staff in an email on 10 November, seen by Breitbart.

The LMCF did not respond to a written request for comment, despite agreeing over the telephone to respond to any enquiries sent by email.

“Freedom of Speech, Go to Hell”

20141105_theresamaybritL

“Extremism” is what novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand would call an anti-concept intended to suppress discussion of fundamental principles in order to prevent conflict or open dissension. It is an essentially meaningless term that stands for what she called “blank-outs.” It is anti-mind, an act of deliberate evasion of facts, of reality.

by EDWARD CLINE:

We’ve all seen in the newspapers and on blog sites those cardboard signs carried by maddened, sweaty, screaming Muslims in London and elsewhere on which is scrawled, Freedom of Speech Go to Hell. But now that same sign is being brandished by a political milquetoast, Theresa May, Britain’s Home Secretary. John Bingham’s report in The Telegraph of October 31st, “Sharia law or gay marriage critics would be branded ‘extremists’ under Tory plans, atheists and Christians warn,” is disturbing, to say the least.

Anyone who criticizes Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission…..

But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”. He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

This particular milquetoast – let us dub her Mother Theresa – is proposing out-and-out, blanket censorship which she would enforce with the heavy hand of the police, the courts, and the slimy accusations of informants and those whose “feelings” have been hurt. “I want” figures prominently in her speech. She delivered her speech, in contrast to the chanting and ranting of Muslims who also inform us that Sharia will dominate Britain (and the West), at a Conservative/Tory Party conference in typical wallflower style, from a printed text at the podium (well, at least she didn’t use a teleprompter), with less charisma than Barbara “Let’s go walkies!” Woodhouse giving advice on how to train one’s dogs. Here she condemned “extremists” of all breeds as possibly infected with rabies and she let it be known that they should all “sit” and “heel” and “stay” in their own speech lest they be served with the blackjack of an “Extremism Disruption Order” (EDO) and isolated in a kennel.

Surely the coiner of that awkward, euphemistic nomenclature for “preemptive censorship” could have come up with something a little less depersonalized and antiseptic. Like “Taser”? The purpose of such political tasers, wielded by police or the courts, would be “to prevent conflict, protect life and resolve disputes with personal safety equipment that makes communities safe….” And surely that description is copasetic with Mother Theresa’s agenda of preventing conflicts and resolving disputes, especially if the conflicts concern Muslims, gays, trannies, and other odd bodkins.

I’ll bet not many Britons ever expected to be accosted, manhandled, cuffed, and tossed into a cell by an aggressive milquetoast with a little help from the bully boys for having indulged in their freedom of speech, or for what they might have said. But, there you are. If you’re on her “no barking” list of “extremists,” you’d better confine yourself to whining, whimpering, or pouting. You may be seen, but not heard.

A court, however, could not forbid an “extremist” to speak or broadcast or even “tweet” on Twitter unless his name was on a Vatican-like Index of Prohibited Books. Let us call it instead Index Librorum Prohibitorum Novissimarum Orator, or the Index of Prohibited Extremist Speakers. One must first be a known and red-flagged “extremist” speaker to earn a place on that list.

That’s quite a job for a government practiced in police-state surveillance as Britain’s already is. It even monitors what trash is put in wheelie bins. We have the NSA. Britain has Mother Theresa and her minions. They’re fighting the “war on terror” by promising “extremists” a night in the box. They will be watched, monitored, and even “disrupted.” I think there was a science fiction TV series that featured “disrupter” ray guns. How appropriate a choice of words.

After congratulating herself on fighting crime and dousing the fires of “extremism” with the current tools at hand, Mother Theresa went on:

But we must continue to do more. Soon, we will make Prevent a statutory duty for all public sector organizations. I want to see new banning orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws relating to terrorism. I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay just within the law but still spread poisonous hatred. So both policies – Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders – will be in the next Conservative manifesto.

Emma West was put through the judicial wringer for expressing her anger about what was happening to Britain. Paul Weston was arrested for quoting Churchill in public, the quotations expressing Churchill’s estimate of Muslims and Islam. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Geert Wilders were banned from Britain because they’re famous (or notorious) for their anti-Islamic “hate speech.”

So, what is “extremism”?

For one thing, it’s the “extreme” dhimmitude displayed by Mother Theresa throughout her speech. Several times she stated emphatically that ISIS, the al Nusra Front, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, like-minded groups in Libya, Al Shabaab in East Africa, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan all have nothing to do with Islam. Just as the salute, Sieg Heil!, has nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism, Allahu Akbar! has nothing to do with flying planes into skyscrapers or the mass executions of non-Muslims and rival Muslims.

Or so Mother Theresa would have you believe. This is a species of denial bordering on psychosis. For example:

This hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam itself. And it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain and around the world….

Well, no, they don’t reject it. They’re merely the “silent majority” who have no opinion about what their “violent” brethren do in the way of acting out the violent verses in the Koran (about 164 of them, at last count; see Answering Islam’s extensive list of them here). Or they don’t dare frown upon “violent” Islam lest they be subject to violence themselves. After all, it’s all in their “good book,” the Koran, and who are they to question its contents? Those non-participatory, “silent” Muslims have a ho-hum attitude about Islamic terrorism: “Oh, well, there’s another train blown up, more filthy infidels killed in a shopping mall. What’s the latest soccer score?” Some 80% of London Muslims don’t mind the violence one iota.

Mother Theresa conspicuously identifies that what she claims isn’t Islam is also a “hateful” ideology, which proves that some synapses are crackling in her brain. But then a politically correct circuit breaker kicks in, and the current stops flowing. What has nothing to do with Islam is, at the same time, a “radical ideology” or an “extremist” ideology. Can she answer the question: If it is “radical” or “extremist,” what ideology is it a “radical” or “extremist” version of? Has it an identity? What is the thing? Does it have a name? If she saw a half-assembled table, would she object to its completion because she could forecast that at one point it would become an “extremist” table and not a carburetor?

Of course she knows what it is and what it will be. But because the subject is Islam, denying Islam’s essential identity helps her (and fellow dhimmi David Cameron) “prevent” the ruffling of Muslim feathers. Muslim values are now British values.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Libyan Army Evicted After Going on Rape Jihad… in the UK

libya-rebels-2_1842327i-450x299Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield:

At least they were the “moderate” Rape Jihadists. Just imagine if they had imported the “extremists”.  Thousands of UK girls would have… oh yes that actually happened too.

Maybe the UK needs some sort of military and domestic police forces to keep these people out. I hear that used to work really well against the vikings and whatnot.

A new generation of the Libyan army was supposed to be trained in the West as part of international efforts to rebuild the country after the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi. Hand-picked recruits were invited to rural England for basic infantry and junior command training.

Unfortunately by hand-picked, they actually meant the Islamic rule that any non-Muslim that “your hand possesses” can be raped.

On Tuesday, however, the British Ministry of Defense announced that all 300 trainees would be sent home early after a string of sexual assaults were perpetrated against the residents of Cambridgeshire, culminating in the alleged gang rape of a young man.

That’s a start. Now send back the other few million.

Britain had pledged to train 2,000 Libyan recruits in total, but that commitment is now under review.

Just think of the enrichment. The diversity.

Libyan Army cadets stationed at Bassingbourn barracks are alleged to have left the military camp on raids into the nearby university town of Cambridge, where a spate of sexual attacks were reported on the cobbled streets around the ancient college buildings.

What did the UK think the Libyan Army did? It’s not very good at fighting armies. But it’s moderately decent at raping young men.

Two of the recruits have admitted to two sexual assaults and a bicycle theft in Market Square right at the center of the old town. They also pleaded guilty to threatening a police office. Another cadet, aged 18, has been charged with three sexual assaults.

Real officer material there. I hear ISIS has offered the lad a commission on the spot.

In total, police have investigated reports of 11 sexual assaults in central Cambridge within nine days.

It’s almost like it was an invasion.

The most serious of those took place on Christ’s Piece, which is between Jesus and Emmanuel colleges, on Sunday October 26. A man in his early 20s allegedly was approached by two Libyan soldiers who subjected him to a serious sexual assault. Moktar Ali Saad Mahmoud, 33, and Ibrahim Abogutila, 22, were charged with rape on Monday.

How symbolic in so many ways.

It has been reported that up to 20 of the cadets have applied for asylum, although the Ministry of Defense and Home Office refuse to discuss those cases.

Give it a little while and it’ll be 2,000 and the courts will rule that they can’t be sent back.

Last year, Britain, the United States and European members of the G8 signed up to train more than 7,000 Libyan troops who would form the heart of a new army that would allow the state to regain stability in the aftermath of a bloody civil war.

Or they’ll just export the bloody civil war to the US and Europe.

General discipline collapsed, with one in ten refusing to obey orders – with one UK trainer reportedly headbutted and another apparently threatened by a Libyan mob.

The trainer was probably an Islamophobe. He wanted them to do things against their religion… like obey a non-Muslim.

To add further insult it has emerged that the Libyan government still owe millions of pounds for the training of their soldiers.

Which Libyan government? There are at least two. And they’re fighting each other.

Peter Robinson, who chairs the parish council, said: ‘I thought Muslims didn’t drink but there has been a run on vodka in the local shop. That’s their favourite trip – going to the Spar and then stealing bicycles.’

It’s what Mohammed would have done.

Downing Street confirmed that the Libyan soldiers are eligible to seek asylum in the UK before they are kicked out.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘Asylum rules apply to everyone. It will be the existing asylum rules that apply.’

It will take the British armed forces to get rid of them at this point.

Downing Street set to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood

Supporters of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood take part in a rally to protest against the death penalties for the members of the radical group in Egypt, outside the Egyptian embassy in Ankara Photo: ADEM ALTAN/AFP

Supporters of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood take part in a rally to protest against the death penalties for the members of the radical group in Egypt, outside the Egyptian embassy in Ankara Photo: ADEM ALTAN/AFP

By Robert Mendick, and Robert Verkaik:

Downing Street is to order a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and a network of Islamist groups accused of fuelling extremism in Britain and across the Arab world.

David Cameron launched an inquiry into the Brotherhood earlier this year, prompted by concerns it was stoking an Islamist ideology that had encouraged British jihadists to fight in Syria and Iraq.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who is an adviser to the review, is reported to have described it as “at heart a terrorist organisation”. The Brotherhood insists it is non-violent and seeks to impose Islamic rule only through democratic change. It has condemned Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and al-Qaeda.

A senior source close to the inquiry said its report – compiled but not yet published – had identified “an incredibly complex web” of up to 60 organisations in Britain, including charities, think tanks and even television channels, with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, which will all now come under scrutiny.

The inquiry, aided by the security services, has also investigated its network abroad. One expert said that the Brotherhood was now operating from three major bases – London, Istanbul and Doha, the capital of Qatar.

Qatar, the wealthiest country in the world per head of population, has for 30 years been home to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric in exile, often described as the Brotherhood’s spiritual leader. Qaradawi, who was banned from entering Britain in 2008, is accused of anti-Semitism, supporting Palestinian suicide bombers, condoning wife- beating and punishing homosexuals.

Qatar has found itself isolated from its Gulf neighbours – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – over its support of the Brotherhood during the Arab Spring. Qatar also funds Hamas, which was originally established as a Palestinian branch of the Egyptian Brotherhood and whose military wing is banned as a terrorist organisation by Britain, among others.

Dr Lorenzo Vidino, who is understood to have worked on the Cabinet Office report, presided over by Sir John Jenkins, Britain’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said: “It is clear that the Brotherhood has many dark spots, ranging from its ambiguous relationship with violence to its questionable impact on social cohesion in Britain.”

The Government crackdown will stop short of outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood but action is expected to include:

Þ Investigations into charities that are effectively “fronts” for the Brotherhood;

Þ Inquiries into funding of the organisation and links to jihadi groups abroad;

Þ Banning clerics linked to the group from countries such as Qatar and Turkey from coming to Britain for rallies and conferences.

The source said: “We cannot ban the organisation, but that was never the intention of the review. We can go after single individuals, not for terrorist-related activity, but through the Al Capone method of law-enforcement. We cannot get them for terrorism but I bet you they don’t pay their taxes.

“One of the big things is piling pressure on the charitable missions. Until now it has been very hard to monitor all the groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Read more at The Telegraph

Mr. Cameron, It’s Called Shariah

woman-straining-carrying-book-of-sharia-lawCSP, by Frank Gaffney:

British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday warned that his country needs new counter-terrorism tools to confront a threat currently assessed as “severe.”

Mr. Cameron described “the root cause of this threat” as “a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a mediaeval state.”

But then, the Prime Minister showed why Britain faces this threat.  He added, “We should be clear that this has nothing to do with Islam.”

In fact, the “poisonous ideology” is known as shariah.  And, while many Muslims don’t follow it, the authorities of Islam do.

Unless and until we stop blinding ourselves to this reality and protect Western freedoms and values against shariah, we are doomed.

Also see:

What is Shariah and What Are It’s Sources?

Key Tenets of Shariah

David Cameron outlines new anti-terror measures to MPs

David Cameron terror laws statement 9/1/2014 – FULL SPEECH

Published on Sep 1, 2014 by YouSkyNews

BBC:

New powers are needed to seize terrorist suspects’ passports and stop British-born extremists from returning to the UK, David Cameron has said.

It was “abhorrent” British citizens had “declared their allegiance” to groups like Islamic State, he told MPs.

He said the inability to stop UK terrorists returning home from overseas was “a gap in the armoury” but only pledged cross-party talks on the issue.

Powers to monitor suspects in the UK will also be strengthened.

In a statement to Parliament, Mr Cameron restated the UK’s backing for US airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq and said he would not rule out participation in similar action in the future.

The UK’s terror threat level was raised to “severe” from “substantial” on Friday.

‘Forensic focus’

The prime minister told MPs that developments in the Middle East over recent months had major implications for the UK’s security, with 500 British nationals estimated to have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight on behalf of Islamic State and other militant groups.

He said the whole world had been “sickened and shocked” by the killing of US journalist James Foley and other atrocities in Iraq.

While rejecting calls for “sweeping and blanket” new laws in response, he said a “forensic focus” was needed to prevent people from travelling abroad in the first place and to deal with British jihadists returning to the UK from conflict zones.

Among measures announced:

  • Legislation will be drawn up to give the police statutory powers to confiscate the passports of suspect terrorists at UK borders
  • The UK will challenge any attempt by the courts to water down these powers
  • Plans to block suspected British terrorists from returning to the UK will be drawn up on a “cross-party basis”
  • Terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims) will be extended, to include the power to relocate suspects
  • Terrorists will be required to undergo de-radicalisation programmes
  • Airlines will be forced to hand over more information about passengers travelling to and from conflict zones.

The home secretary already has executive powers to seize the passports of those travelling abroad in certain cases but Mr Cameron said the police needed greater discretion to act where needed.

“We will introduce specific and targeted legislation… providing the police with a temporary power to seize a passport at the border during which time they will be able to investigate the individual concerned,” he said.

Mr Cameron said the UK was able to block foreign nationals and those with dual citizenship from re-entering the UK but did not have the same power for UK nationals deemed to pose a threat to the country.

Under his proposals, UK nationals suspected of being involved in terror acts would be allowed to keep their British citizenship, but they would be prevented from re-entering the UK for a period of time.

He added: “Adhering to British values is not an option or a choice. It is a duty for all those who live in these islands so we will stand up for our values, we will in the end defeat this extremism and we will secure our way of life for generations to come.”

Read more

UK special forces move into London as government fears “Mumbai-style” attack

Mumbai2611APBreitbart, by DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS:

London could be the scene of a Mumbai-style terrorist “spectacular” if Islamist jihadists get their way, British security chiefs have warned. There is growing concern that a list of “soft” targets is being drawn up, and that weapons and explosives have already been smuggled into the country.

The Sun is reporting that the SAS has moved part of its anti-terror team to a forward base near London, amid concerns that a prolonged attack may be staged in that city. MI5 also referred to the Mumbai atrocity of 2008 as a comparison, in which coordinated bombings and shootings took place over four consecutive days, killing 174 and wounding a further 300.

Speaking to The Sun, a source said: “The nightmare scenario is they mount a spectacular attack at a high profile location. They may try to storm a building, take hostages, rig it with explosives or kill at will.”

The threat has caused the official ‘threat level’ to be raised to severe, increasing tensions in the city and prompting people to share warnings of an imminent bomb attack on the London Underground on social media and via text last night. The threat was dismissed as a hoax after the head of the British Transport Police took to Twitter, posting: “Social media contains lots of rumours regarding threats to tube network tomorrow. There is no specific threat so keep calm & carry on.”

However, Twitter user David O’Neill pointed out: “Must say though. If you raise the threat level to severe you can’t be shocked when people believe stupid rumours about attacks on the tube.”

Up to 500 British-born men are understood to have gone abroad in order to fight for the Islamic State (IS). Scotland Yard believes that up to 200 may have already returned, and are concerned that they will have been taught to carry out similar violent attacks on the streets of Britain.

Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated that he is considering granting the border patrol new powers to seize passports from suspected jihadists, and introducing of a ban on travelling abroad to fight with IS. A government source has told the media: “We are considering measures to keep the country safe in the face of an increased threat level from Islamist extremism.

“The areas include making it harder for potential foreign fighters to travel abroad by making it easier to remove their passports through additional temporary seizure powers at the border.

“We are also looking at stopping British citizens from re-entering the country if they are suspected of terrorist activity abroad.

“Previously, our range of powers to prevent return to the UK applied only to foreign nationals, dual nationals or naturalised citizens.”

Cameron is expected to deliver details of a package designed to inhibit terrorist activity to the Commons later today. However, it is not clear whether the package will have the support of Cameron’s coalition partners, the Liberal Democrat Party.

Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell told BBC Radio 4: “I think it’s rather difficult and it might well constitute illegality. To render citizens stateless is regarded as illegal in international law. To render them stateless temporarily, which seems to me the purpose of what’s being proposed, can also I think be described as illegal. At the very least it’s the kind of question that will be tested here in our own courts and perhaps also in the European Court of Human Rights.”

DAVID CAMERON: ISLAMIC STATE ‘GREATER AND DEEPER THREAT’ THAN EVER BEFORE

 

Breitbart, by CHARLIE SPIERING:

On Friday, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron described the grave threat posed by the Islamic State that needed to be rooted out and destroyed.

“What we’re facing in Iraq now, with ISIL, is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before,” he explained during a press conference.

Cameron announced that the United Kingdom raised the terror threat level to “severe” after conferring with the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center.

Cameron defied the notion that the rise of ISIS was the result of the Iraq war.

“Let’s be clear about the source of the threat that we face,” he said. “The terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq war ten years ago. It existed even before the horrific attacks on 9/11.”

Cameron added that the threat had to be addressed militarily.

“This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over Western foreign policy, nor can it be dealt with by addressing poverty, dictatorship or instability in the region, as important as these things are,” he explained.

Instead, Cameron described the brutal terrorist threat as a direct result of Islamic extremism which needed to be rooted out as soon as possible.

“We cannot appease this ideology,” he stated. “To do this, we need a tough comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source.”

The fight, he explained, would be long, but he dedicated the British government to the task.

“We are in the middle of a generational struggle between a poisonous and extremist ideology that I believe that we’ll be fighting for years, and probably decades,” he said. “We must take whatever action necessary to keep the British people safe here at home.”

 

‘Easy Meat’: Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs — on The Glazov Gang

yh-450x244Front Page:

A horrifying news report in The Telegraph has recently confirmed that 1,400 children were discovered as victims of Muslim rape gangs and prostitution rings in Rotherham, UK, while authorities and child protection services turned a blind eye in order to avoid being called “racist.”

Daniel Greenfield’s blog at The Point deals with this shameful and outrageous story: “UK Police Arrested Parents Trying to Stop Muslims from Raping their Children.”

In response to the surfacing of this story, and to shed light on the dark forces that help make the vicious system of Islamic sex slavery possible in the West, Frontpage is re-running The Glazov Gang’s special 2-part series with Gavin Boby of the Law and Freedom Foundation about the terrifying reality of Muslim rape gangs in the UK and how the Left facilitates their barbaric crimes against helpless young girls. The series crystallizes why the horrible story emerging about the 1,400 child victims in Rotherham was a Muslim crime that the Left allowed to occur.

In Part I, Boby shares his battle against “Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.” and in Part II, he discusses his report on this horrifying phenomenon, “Easy Meat, and takes us “Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs”:

Part I:

 

Part II:

 

Also see:

London Rapper Key Suspect in Beheading of James Foley

By , August 24, 2014:

A senior Western intelligence official has told Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin that 23-year-old London rapper Abdel Majed Abdel Bary is the key suspect believed to be James Foley’s assassin.

To combat ISIL’s growing threat the Obama administration “is actively weighing whether to conduct their strikes inside Syria itself. That’s where ISIL has its bases and command and control of its forces, which has swept across Iraq,” Griffin reports.

According to The Independent, Bary used the pseudonyms “L Jinny” or “Lyricist Jinn” when he was involved in the London rap scene.

Bary’s father, Adel Abdul Bary, was believed to be a close associated of Osama bin Laden and was extradited from the UK to the US in 2012 for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa.

In addition to Foley, ISIL is believed to be holding three other Americans hostage.

Just a Bit More Beheading than We Are Used To

Gatestone Instsutute, by Douglas Murray, August 24, 2014:

There has been a debate in the UK press suggesting we should hope that some of these ISIS killers come back to Britain, realize that jihad was all a phase and then head off to university for the start of the new term.

The beheading of James Foley was terrible, she stressed, “because we don’t know what [his] views were.”

Is there a time when even “combatants” — or anyone else — should be treated in this way? And who is to say who is a combatant and who not?

Who is surprised? That is one question I have most wanted to know since the video was released of the murder of American journalist James Foley. The politicians keep expressing it. And interviewers have kept asking people whether they feel it. But who can honestly say that he was surprised to learn that the murderer of the American journalist turned out to be a “British” man?

American journalist James Foley (left) is shown kneeling beside the British jihadist who murdered him moments later (Image source: Islamic State video)

Did anyone really still think that a British Islamist would not be capable of doing this? Why wouldn’t he, if he is capable of doing it in Syria or Iraq? After all, it was only last year that two other Islamists beheaded one of our own soldiers – Drummer Lee Rigby – in broad daylight in London. And it is only twelve years since another Londoner – Omar Sheikh – arranged the abduction and decapitation of another American journalist, Daniel Pearl.

What is shocking is that expressions of “shock” seem to be regarded as an adequate response. Prime Minister David Cameron has pronounced himself “appalled” by the act, and made clear that he “utterly condemns” it. As though anyone should ever have expected him to think otherwise. But this is to a great extent what government policy is reduced to in Britain, as in the United States. Politicians briefly break off their holidays in order not to do anything much, but to be seen to be doing “something.” And they then make sure to stand in front of the cameras and say how opposed they are to “something.” It is the denigration of people in positions where they actuallycould do something, to the level of the commentariat.

The question, as written here before, is not how sorry any one political leader feels about such savagery, but what they are going to do about it. And here in Britain, we are in something of a bind. We can deal with fringe details. But we are incapable of having the real debate or taking any real action that is needed. In lieu of such action, the political classes are left floundering, desperate to cling to any point, however unimportant, in order to look as they are acting.

So in the wake of the release of the Foley murder video by ISIS, the British Labour party’s Shadow Home Secretary attempted to take political advantage of this affair.[1] The truth is that the Labour party seized on this debate because it was the debate they knew best, and the one they are most comfortable going round and round on. Even the remarks of the former Conservative party Security Minister — Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones — who was reduced, on the BBC’s Today program, to suggesting that the solution to tackling ISIS is to engage more in social media campaigns against the group. Neville-Jones is regarded as somewhat hawkish. But that even people of such stature are reduced to this, reveals something important.

Atrocity after atrocity is perpetrated by Muslims radicalized in the UK, and the debate over what to do about it remains bizarrely circumscribed and ineffectual. Surely somewhere in the conversation and response should be the expression of a desire for a strategy against ISIS which has at its base the utter eradication of the group — wholesale battlefield victory against them, killing their members and leadership in their entirety. Would that not be a desirable objective? I have yet to hear a mainstream politician suggest this or even talk in these terms. Indeed, there has been debate in the UK press suggesting we should hope that some of these ISIS killers come back to Britain, realize that jihad was all a phase and then head off to university for the start of a new term.

And then there are the longer-term objectives. Since writing about it in this place, a number of other media have finally picked up one of the most concerning statistics to show the failure of integration at which we are staring in Britain: that more British Muslims are fighting together with ISIS than with the UK Armed Forces. This is just a tip of the problem. On a BBC show after news of the murder of James Foley, I found myself discussing these matters with young British Muslims. All condemned the act. One – the Ahmadiyya Muslim in the group – was superb in his utter abhorrence of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam and his repeated and sincere expressions of pride in Britain and British achievements in the world. But among the others? Well one of them — a nice and nicely presented young man said that this was totally abhorrent because “a non-combatant should not be treated like this.” “Well sure,” I was forced to say. “But why only non-combatants? Is there a time when even ‘combatants’ — or anyone else — should be treated in this way? And who is to say who is a combatant and who not?”

Even more concerning was a young woman from Nottingham who spent as much time as possible talking about the “alienation” and “rejection” which a lot of young Muslims feel. It was repeatedly pointed out to her that there isn’t a young person of any religion or background who does not feel alienation at some point. The vital question then, is not just whether such a sense of grievance is justified, but whether there are people seeking to manipulate and then play into such grievances and what extremes some individuals might urge vulnerable minds to as a result. A snapshot of my fellow guest’s own thinking was available in her own condemnation of the murder. The beheading of James Foley was terrible, she stressed, because among other things “we don’t know what [his] views were.”

Here again a little peep-hole into a mainstream and radical world view becomes possible. What if James Foley had not been — as he appears to have been — a man with a deep desire to bring out the terrible stories and sufferings of the region, but someone who was ambivalent to them? What if he had been the most pro-intervention bomb-them-all-to-hell right-winger? Or a member of the Republican Party? What if he had been a Zionist? Or a Jew?

There are poisonous attitudes and lies going around unmolested in this country. And they are one of the causes of the repeated international shame that is coming down upon us. These ideas — hatred and suspicion of the actions of Britain, America, Israel and our other liberal, democratic allies — act as the background music to radicalization. This music plays to exactly the sort of people who are going out to fight with ISIS and exactly the sort of people who think that although they might condemn a beheading in this circumstance, it isn’t always a cut-and-dry issue.

The BBC is reporting about the voice of James Foley’s killer: “Some experts think the accent sounds like the man comes from London, as it is a mixture of multicultural speech patterns often heard on the streets of the city.”

It certainly does sound “like the man comes from London.” And as I recall saying after the last decapitation performed by a British man, the unspoken British deal on multiculturalism appears to come to light at such moments. The deal — the acceptance and accommodation — appears to be that mass, uncontrolled immigration has brought us all sorts of benefits, including a greater variety of food and cheap labour. The downside is that we have to put up with, among other things, a bit more beheading than we have been used to. But much of the political class appears to be content with this bargain. I beg to differ. As horrors like those of this week mount, a great many more people might feel that way too.


[1] The Home Secretary said the problem was the government’s watering-down of Control Orders — which had been brought in by the former Labour government. Control Orders give the state the ability to put someone under 24-hour surveillance or house arrest, necessitated by the then Labour government’s unwise signature of the European Convention on Human Rights. True, the coalition government – under pressure from the Liberal Democrats in the coalition — very slightly watered these Orders down to satisfy critics. But this has nothing to do with this case. So far as anyone knows the murderer of James Foley is not somebody who slipped any surveillance measures in the UK. And rather obviously a TPIM or Control Order being slapped on an individual — however British — is no use if that particular individual is at present beheading American journalists inside the no-go-zone of the Islamic State. That this was the best the Labour opposition could come up with is telling.

 

 

The Real European Jew-Hatred Threat: Luton, UK British Muslims March & Invoke Muhammad’s Slaughter of the Khaybar Jews, Again

 

By Andrew Bostom:

According to the You Tube upload date and an independent source, the demonstration captured on the video, above, took place yesterday, Friday, August 22, 2014, in Luton, UK.

For a detailed recent analysis of this overriding threat to European Jewry. i.e., Islam’s “sacralized” Jew-hatred from the creed’s canonical sources, as acted upon in “good faith” by the Muslims of Europe, see my June 6, 2014 essay, “Rampant Islamic Jew-Hatred in Europe and the Brussels Jewish Museum Carnage.”

As an update, French Rabbi Michel Serfaty, during an interview (posted Friday, August 8, 2014) with that bastion of cultural relativist denial, no less, NPR, made this unbowdlerized observation about the reality of actualized Jew-hatred in France: its “source” is overwhelmingly Muslims (denoted as “youths of Arab, African and North African descent”).

Serfaty laughs at the notion of the far right national front party being a possible source of the “new” anti-Semitism. Its voters are angry about the rise of immigration and Islam, he says. Not about well assimilated Jews. Official statistics show that around 95 percent of anti-Semitic acts in France are perpetrated by youths of Arab, African and North African descent.

An example of just one of a depressing myriad of canonical Islamic sources of Jew-hatred frequently invoked by European Muslims is the “Khaybar chant,” based upon Muhammad’s bloody conquest of the Khyabar Jews.

Muhammad prepared for his campaign against Khaybar—a farming oasis and the last Jewish stronghold in northern Arabia, where survivors (most notably, the Banu Nadir) of the Muslims’ earlier attacks on Medinan Jewry had also sought refuge—by two gruesome political assassinations. The brutal, sanguinary assaults by the Muslims that ensued shortly afterward resulted in the complete subjugation of the Jews of Khaybar. The political rationale for Muhammad’s campaign against Khaybar has been discussed by the respected scholars of Islam’s origins, Hartwig Hirschfeld and D. S. Margoliouth. Analyzing the Muslim documentary record, Hirschfeld observed:

The expedition against Khaybar was a distinct breach of faith, as two years previously Muhammad had given the Jews of Khaybar and Maqna a charter of liberty which has fortunately been preserved, and traces of which are also to be found in the works of [Muslim historians] al-Wakidi and al-Baladhuri.

Margoliouth expands upon these arguments, and concludes:

[T]he people of Khaybar, all that distance from Medina, had certainly done him and his followers no wrong: for their leaving unavenged the murder of one of their number by his emissary was no act of aggression. Ali [who became the 4th“Rightly Guided” Caliph, and is revered by Shiite Muslims), when told to lead the forces against them, had to enquire for what he was fighting: and was told that he must compel them to adopt the formulae of Islam. Khaybar was attacked because there was booty to be acquired there, and the plea for attacking it was that its inhabitants were not Muslims.

The Luton Muslims “Khaybar chant” in the embedded video derives, as examples, from two of the canonical hadith collections (words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by his devout, early followers), and the first and most authoritative Muslim biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. These contemporary Luton Muslims are threatening Jews, now, and in general, with the same violence Muhammad and his prototype Muslim jihadist army inflicted upon the Jews of Khaybar.

Sahih Muslim 3328Anas reported: I was sitting behind Abu Talha on the Day of Khaibar and my feet touched the foot of Allah’s Messenger, and we came (to the people of Khaibar) when the sun had risen and they had driven out their cattle, and had themselves come out with their axes, large baskets and hatchets, and they said: (Here come) Muhammad and the army. Allah’s Messenger said: Khaibar is ruined. Verily when we get down in the valley of a people, evil is the morning of the warned ones (al-Qur’an, xxxvii. 177). Allah, the Majestic and the Glorious, defeated them (the inhabitants of Khaibar), and there fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful girl, and Allah’s Messenger got her in exchange of seven heads, and then entrusted her to Umm Sulaim so that she might embellish her and prepare her (for marriage) with him.

Sahih al-Bukhari 371When Allah’s Messenger invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there (early in the morning) when it was still dark. Allah’s Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode, too, and I was riding behind Abu Talha. Allah’s Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of Allah’s Prophet. Then his thigh was uncovered by the shift of his Izar (waist-sheet), and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of Allah’s Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, “Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.” He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, “Muhammad (has come) along with his army.” We conquered Khaibar, (took the captives), and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, “O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave-girl from the captives.” The Prophet said, “Go and take any slave-girl.” He took Safiyya bint Huyai.

Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 511We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him, and I rode behind Abu Talha with my foot touching the apostle’s foot. We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, “Allah akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.” . . . The apostle seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them. . . . The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.

 

Islamic State: Young British Muslims debate Caliphate

BBC, Aug. 14, 2014: (h/t Cultural Jihad)

When the extremist group widely known as Isis (now renamed Islamic State) declared a Caliphate taking in parts of Syria and Iraq, they reignited a debate over the issue.

The Ottoman Empire was the last widely recognised Caliphate and most of those in the West have only the faintest, if any, idea of what the word means.

But for some Muslims it is what they are waiting for, whether they back Islamic State or not – a state to restore a sense of dignity that many feel has been lost.

BBC Asian Network reporter Catrin Nye gathered young British Muslims from different sects of Islam to hear about their views on the concept of a Caliphate and what it means to them.

Damning New Report on ‘Trojan Horse’ Scandal Released

Tahir Alam, a central figure in the takeover bid

Tahir Alam, a central figure in the takeover bid

Clarion Project:

A report into the so-called ‘Trojan Horse Plot’ has been released by the British Government. It details the findings of Peter Clarke (CVO, OBE, QPM) who was appointed by the government to investigate allegations of an ‘Islamist Plot’ to takeover certain schools in Birmingham.

The report found overwhelming evidence that a small group of individuals have been systematically taking over state run schools in Birmingham, forcing out non-compliant and non-Muslim staff and forcing radical Islamist values into the education system.

The report outlined three major effects on the children at these schools:

1.     Children at these schools are learning to be intolerant of difference and diversity.

2.     Children at these schools are having their horizons narrowed rather than broadened.

3.     Children at these schools are being encouraged to accept unquestioningly a hardline version of Sunni Islamism. This will leave them vulnerable to radicalization later on.

It concluded:

There has been co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action, carried out by a number of associated individuals, to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos into a few schools in Birmingham. This has been achieved by gaining influence on the governing bodies, installing sympathetic headteachers or senior members of staff, appointing like-minded people to key positions, and seeking to remove headteachers they do not feel to be sufficiently compliant. Some of these individuals are named in this report; most are not. Whether their motivation reflects a political agenda, a deeply held religious conviction, personal gain or a desire to influence communities, the effect has been to limit the life chances of the young people in their care and to render them more vulnerable to pernicious influences in the future.

Read more at Clarion Project

Also see: