Monday, 12 May 2014

British Muslim Terrorists Before 9/11

Before 9/11, we never had these types of issues. All this has developed since 9/11. The Government’s foreign policy… going into Iraq…”

Abdul Qadeer Baksh, Chairman of the Luton Islamic Center

In the UK, a lot of commentators - not all of them Muslims - said that the Islamic murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich (London) was a primarily, or even exclusively, a response to three main factors: the Iraq War in 2003, the ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan in 2001, and, to a lesser degree, a response to the Muslims who have been killed by ‘drone attacks’ carried out by the United States.

Despite all of that, it has also been said that the move from selective terrorism to the "global jihad" occurred in London a couple of decades or so before the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001.

Osama bin Laden's first fatwas were originally published in London. And, as early as the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of radical Islamist conferences took place in Britain.

Islamists from all over the world attended these conferences. They included Hamas, Hezbollah and many other Islamist groups. In other words, this global jihad more or less began in the late 1980s in London.

It's no surprise, then, that al-Qaeda’s first major attack on the US was partly planned from the UK. After the actual attack, the claim of responsibility also came from the UK – from London.

To plan all this carnage, which was part of this new global jihad, Osama bin Laden set up a ‘media information office’ which he named the Advisory and Reformation Committee.

Even earlier than that, and away from London, the seeds of the global jihad were being planted in the UK. Take the Islamic Foundation of Leicester, which was set up forty years ago, in 1974.

What was the purpose of this Foundation? It was set up to promote the political beliefs of the Jamaat al-Islami. What were its political beliefs? Primarily it was, and still is, to spread sharia law not only to all Muslims, but also to all non-Muslims throughout the globe – hence the global jihad.

We are talking about England here – Leicester.

The chairman and rector of the Islamic Foundation was also the vice president of the Jamaat al-Islami opposition party in Pakistan. And this too has total sharia law as its mission. That is, the turning of Pakistan into a complete sharia state – an Islamic state.
Dewsbury mosque.

Now let’s move a hundred miles or so to the Yorkshire town of Dewsbury. The same sort of thing which happened in Leicester happened there too. But instead of Jamaat al-Islami being imported into the UK, we now have the Tablighi Jamaat. This is a radical proselytising movement – or, as Muslims put it, it is a da’wah movement.

The Tablighi Jamaat mosque was built four years after the earlier Islamic Foundation of Leicester was founded – in 1978. To put things simply: this mosque has been a major recruiter for the global jihad for thirty-six years – since 1978.

To get back to Leicester’s Jamaat al-Islami. This Islamist group has supplied mosques - throughout the UK - with radical imams. It has also set up ‘research centers’ like the one in Leicester itself. The result of this Jamaat al-Islami semi-monopoly was that a whole generation of British Muslim kids were indoctrinated with Islamist and pro-jihadist ideas.

The British Terrorists

Omar Bakri Mohammed & Abu Hamza

Let’s just take the case of a single well-known and important jihadist who began his work many years before 2001.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, a jihadist who was born in Syria, arrived in the UK twenty-eight years ago – in 1986. He ended up in the UK because he’d been expelled from Saudi Arabia. In no time at all, he set up the first UK branch of the extreme Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

From the UK, he called for the murder of the British Prime Minister of the time – Margaret Thatcher. A little later, in 1991, he did something similar when he claimed that the then Prime Minister, John Major, was “a legitimate target; if anyone gets the opportunity to assassinate him, I don’t think they should save it”. Of course, nothing was done about this jihadist by the British government of the time or by anyone else for that matter.

There was also Islamist trouble brewing at the now famous Finsbury mosque back in the early 1990s. Extremists took over this mosque in the early 1990s. And even then, the hook-handed, ex-bouncer and media star, Abu Hamza, was part of all that trouble.

The activities of Abu Hamza go even further back than that.

He said himself that he had had “a long association with the Taliban government”. In the 1990s, he was part of the group Supporters of Sharia, which was deemed to be a propagandist group for the Algerian GIA in Europe. He was even connected to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.

In addition, only around two and a half months before 9/11, on June 29, 2001, Abu Hamza hatched a plot “which involved attacks carried out by planes” to kill President Bush at the G8 summit in Genoa. This plot was hatched actually within the Finsbury Park mosque in London.

At least one person, an Algerian journalist named Reda Hussaine, was aware what was going on in these early days at Finsbury Park mosque. Not that this amounted to anything because MI5 didn’t want to know. He wrote:

I watched young Muslims at the Finsbury Park mosque in London in the late 1990s being prepared for journeys to military camps. Money was raised for their air fares by selling books and films in stalls at the mosques.”

Another London-based terrorist, the Algerian Rachid Ramda, gained asylum in the UK in 1992. Three years later, the French Government accused him of having financed a terrorist attack on Saint Michel Station in Paris (1995). Eight people died and 150 were wounded as a result of this act of Islamic terrorism. Because of this, the French Government requested his extradition three times – in 1995, 1996 and 2001. Each request was rejected by the British government. However, ten years after the first request, in 2005, the British government finally sent him back to France.

Now let’s talk about Birmingham (in the English Midlands).

16 years ago, in 1998 and three years before the intervention in Afghanistan, eight British Muslims from Birmingham, London and Luton (this is of course relevant to the quote which opens this article from the Chairman of the Luton Islamic Center), were arrested and convicted in the Yemeni capital Aden. They were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks against British targets in Yemen and of abducting a group of tourists.

Abu Qatada & the Finsbury mosque

These British Muslim terrorists were actually recruited in the mosques of Birmingham, London and Luton. They were even trained in terrorist camps which were sponsored by Osama bin Laden.

Interestingly enough, Abu Hamza is part of this story too; along with Finsbury mosque. It is said that he mastered minded the terrorist attacks in Yemen as well as the abduction of tourists. He denied this. However, one of the British terrorists was no other than his son and one of the others was his godson! Being a good father, he admitted telephoning them just after they had abducted the tourists in Yemen.
Salma Yaqoob

Since we have just spoken of Birmingham here and the Yemen plot, let’s mention Salma Yaqoob, who's the former leader of the Respect party and writer for the British 'progressive' newspaper, The Guardian. She acted as a media spokeswoman for these British Muslim terrorists, in Yemen, at the time. The campaign was called ‘Justice for the Yemen Seven’.

Just one year after the arrest of the British terrorists from Birmingham, Luton and London, in 1999, it was reported, in a national newspaper, that each year some two thousand British Muslims were attending terrorist training camps around Britain to be taught the skills required for the global jihad. The camps were held most weekends in Birmingham and London. These camps were run by a group called al-Muhajiroun, a group from London which has since changed its name more than once. The group wanted to enforce Islamic rule on all Western governments, as Anjem Choudary’s group still does today.


Notes on Comments From American Thinker:

1) "Mr. Murphy, personally, I believe Britain is past the point of no return."

With only three to five million Muslims at present, how could that possibly be? If I thought the same, I wouldn't have bothered writing the article.

We should be careful with what philosophers call "necessitarian arguments" - especially about the future and even more especially about the political future. (Most – or even all - Marx's prophesies about the future turned out wrong.) There are simply too many variables to be so sure about these things.

Granted, as I said, things will be terrible in twenty years' time. But that's twenty years' time. In addition, things will have to change pretty quick. But there is evidence, in the UK, that things are changing.

"Even if Britain closed its immigration doors today, barring mass deportation, me thinks you folks are screwed."

If the Leftist "hegemony", and the Labour Party, has been guilty of huge negative social and political experiments on the British people, then, at least in principle, there could also be huge positive political changes in the opposite direction. Why not? Nothing stays the same - least of all in politics. Things could get worse, sure; but things could also get better. I don't know. And neither do you.

"There is a whole lot at play --- from ever increasing muslim political power to British demographic birth rates and to near total subjugation to political correctness."

All those things can be rectified in all sorts of ways. In theory at least, we could put a halt to all Muslim immigration. And if we crack down on all internal sharia law, then the only problem will be Muslim demographics. But without sharia power, as it were, Islam couldn't manifest itself in this country - unless we let it, which we are... at the moment.

Think here about the rise of UKIP, as well as the EDL, Liberty GB, Britain First and numerous patriotic and counter-jihad Facebook pages and websites, etc. - all fighting against Islamisation. Something, or many things, will crack sooner or later.

Even our established national newspapers carry news stories about Islamisation and the threat of "radical Islam" almost every day. How is all that going to be kept under control - even by our dhimmi or Islamophile Establishment?

I'm not a futurologist, so I don't know what will happen. And I'm not a determinist when it comes to present realities firmly and inextricably determining future realities either.

If people give in now, that will simply create a self-fulfilling prophesy. That is, things will get worse simply because people think that "things can only get worse".

2) "Then you wouldn't much care for the 'diversity' that the Democrat Party is about to foist upon the United States via amnesty for several dozen million illegal aliens, mostly of Mexican descent, nationality and ethnic loyalty."

That sounds like a terrible state of affairs. And, again, it is Leftist/progressive politics which is probably driving it, rather than any genuine love of (Mexican) immigrants.

It will be led by an underlying Leftist ideology which is against the very idea of a nation state (or "closed borders") - even if that ideology is rarely stated to the voters. As with the UK from 2000 to 2010, it sounds like a Leftist/progressive social experiment on the American people - without a single vote being cast for it. (Not that every issue can be voted for - just the important ones, eh?)

"You naively state that Muslims 'must follow British law.' They don't, they won't, and you know it."

Hang on a minute. I said that "Muslims must follow the law". I didn't say that they do or that they will follow the law.

British Muslims do follow some laws, clearly. However, the brutal fact is that to the extent that they are Muslims means that they must not follow any non-sharia laws. That means that in the future, more and more British Muslims will follow less and less British laws.

And the Muslims who do follow non-Islamic law, do so against their own religion. That is, sharia law = Islam.

Your views about Mexicans just sound racist to me. Perhaps I'm a "cultural Marxist". Whatever. However, a culture being flooded by millions of any kind of immigrant, in such a short time, seems like a very bad idea, as I said.

The fact that you can't discriminate between Muslims and Mexicans, and indeed between any kind of immigrant, shows me that you lack subtlety on these issues and are simply "thinking with the blood".

All Mexicans cannot be bad by definition. Unless you think there is such thing as a Mexican race and that their fixed DNA determines their behaviour and beliefs NO MATTER WHAT SITUATION THEY FIND THEMSELVES IN.

Muslims, on the other hand, are defined by their religion. And religion does determine specific beliefs and behaviours.

I don't generalise about "all Muslims" either. All I say is that to the extent that Muslims follow sharia law (Islam) within a non-Muslim country, that is what determines whether the situation is problematic or not. If Muslims remain nominal or tribal Muslims, or keep sharia out of the public arena, there would be no issue. The problem is that, on the whole, is not going to happen in the future.

3) "How idealistic."

[My views about immigrations, Muslims, etc.]

Which bit of what I said is "idealistic" and why?

Nothing is more "idealistic" that attempting to impose an "ethno nation" - through totalitarian means - on a people who were born and bred on democracy and who haven't got a problem with immigrants simply because they are immigrants. Nothing is more "idealistic" than imposing foreign ideologies – and I don't mean Islam - on the British people.

"What group of people does not impose their cultural will and identities around them?"

What does that mean? I've already said that Muslims must follow British law, etc. So what are you referring to, exactly?

"We couldn't stop ourselves [from imposing our ethnic will] even if we tried..."

Again, what does that mean? Is that some kind of folk biology or something? It's too vague, mate.

"Diversity just isn't worth it."

It depends. Or do you prefer black-and-white positions? "Embracing diversity" is a bad thing when it becomes an absolute, as it has with the British Left. People should pick and choose which examples of diversity are acceptable in a given society. For example, we cannot tolerate the intolerant (e.g., Islamism).

Tell me which "diversity" you're talking about; and then I'll tell you whether I'm against it or not. Saying you are against diversity in toto is almost meaningless.

Besides totalitarian Islam, there are other examples of diversity I personally don't like: totalitarian Nazism/fascism and totalitarian communism/Leftism.

4) "The Brits just didn't have the balls to stop it and now the rest of the Western world is on notice."

That is a generalisation. Many Brits do have "the balls to stop it" - they just don't have the requisite political power to do so effectively.

The vast majority of Brits are against further Muslim immigration. They are also in favour of taking action against Muslim grooming gangs, enforced halal produce, Muslim patrols in London, FGM, "honour killings", increased sharia law, etc. Tens of thousands of Brits are active on Facebook, in political groups/movements, etc. They just aren't in positions of power in the political establishment.

At least on Islam, the Establishment (both Leftists and Conservatives) is vastly at odds with the British people. As yet, we can't really do anything about that. But the British people certainly has the balls.

Things are changing and they are changing fast. The genie has been let out of the lamp and it can't be put back in. Literally millions of Brits know the truth about Islam. (Thanks to the Internet, which Muslims haven't, as yet, imposed sharia blasphemy law upon - although they are always trying to do so.)

So the majority of Brits, as yet, don't have the political power to stop the rot. They must gain that political power within, say, 10 to 20 years otherwise it will simply be too late. Then there will be civil war - as there already is in places from southern Thailand to Oslo. There has also been for 1,400 years of civil war between Muslims and the peoples they have either conquered and subdued or they have lived next to.

5) Why "xenophobia"? The article is only about Islam and Muslims.

I have no problem with other peoples as long as they don't attempt to impose their will on me and on the nation in which I live.

I don't even have a problem with immigration - within limits. It depends on the immigrants and the numbers.

What I do have a problem with is the mass-immigration experiments Leftists and Labourites have carried out on the British people behind their backs. (Although being flooded with three million immigrants in ten years was not really behind anyone's back – it was the political motives and reality alone which were secret.) But my problem then is with our former Leftist/Labour leaders - not immigrants as such.

America has largely, though not entirely, been successful with its immigrants. Though it depends on whether or not Leftists, or "progressives", want to impose their pious views about immigrants - and the virtues of immigration - on the people no matter what the people want and no matter what the negative consequences of that immigration are. That is the problem with immigration: Leftist/progressive experimentation and diktat from the top.

Immigrants can only our "alter identities", as you put it, if indigenous politicians allow that to happen. And between the 2000 and 2010, that was what happened in the UK (as well as to some extent before).

The Labour Party, and its ideological and social/socialist fixations, are to blame.

No comments:

Post a Comment