Monday, July 11, 2005

London: Terror Swamp

Picking up on what I mentioned yesterday, the New York Times runs a story today detailing how London has been a crossroads for Islamic terrorists for some time now. First, try this bit of information on for size:

Britain's challenge to detect militants on its soil is particularly difficult.

Counterterrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain are supporters of Al Qaeda. Among that number, officials believe that as many as 600 men were trained in camps connected with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

British investigators say that identifying Islamic militants among the two million Muslims living here, about 4 percent of the population, is especially hard. The Muslim community here is the most diverse of any in Europe in terms of ethnic origins, culture, history, language, politics and class. More than 60 percent of the community comes not from North African or Gulf Arab countries, but from countries like Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

How do you let this happen?

Although Britain has passed a series of antiterrorist and immigration laws and made nearly 800 arrests since Sept. 11, 2001, critics have charged that its deep tradition of civil liberties and protection of political activists have made the country a haven for terrorists. The British government has drawn particular criticism from other countries over its refusal to extradite terrorism suspects.

For years, there was a widely held belief that Britain's tolerance helped stave off any Islamic attacks at home. But the anger of London's militant clerics turned on Britain after it offered unwavering support for the American-led invasion of Iraq. On Thursday morning, an attack long foreseen by worried counterterrorism officials became a reality.

"The terrorists have come home," said a senior intelligence official based in Europe, who works often with British officials. "It is payback time for a policy that was, in my opinion, an irresponsible policy of the British government to allow these networks to flourish inside Britain."

It's important to point out that these terrorists are home-grown and have been living in their respective communities long enough to be considered your normal immigrant neighbor. They form their terrorist groups in their neighborhoods (and various other European cities), plot and plan, draw inspiration from bin Laden and his disciples at places like the Finsbury mosque, and then go out and wage jihad. Example:

Another prime terrorism suspect who operated in London for years is Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, the suspected mastermind of the Madrid bombings. Although the authorities now cannot find him, he is believed to have visited Britain often and lived here openly from 1995 to 1998.

Officials believe he tried to organize his own extremist group before Sept. 11, but afterward officials say he pledged loyalty to Osama bin Laden. He lived in north London and was the editor of a militant Islamist magazine, Al Ansar, which is published here, distributed at some mosques in Western Europe and closely monitored by British security officials.

Then you have these Islamo-crazies, protected by law to spout off these incitements:

Even last week's bombings did little to curtail the rhetoric of some of the most radical leaders, who criticized Prime Minister Tony Blair for saying that the bombings appeared to be the work of Islamic terrorists.

"This shows me that he is an enemy of Islam," Abu Abdullah, a self-appointed preacher and the spokesman for the radical group Supporters of Shariah, said in an interview on Friday, adding, "Sometimes when you see how people speak, it shows you who your enemies are."

Mr. Abdullah declared that those British citizens who re-elected Mr. Blair "have blood on their hands" because British soldiers are killing Muslims. He also said that the British government, not Muslims, "have their hands" in the bombings, explaining, "They want to go on with their fight against Islam."

Our friend, Mr. Waheed, appears again in the Times. The article yesterday mentioned that his group, Hizb ut Tahrir, seeks to restore the Islamic caliphate. Ok, no big deal. Just like every run-of-the-mill jihadist. However, today's article mentions this about Mr. Waheed's group: "[It]is allowed to function here but is banned in Germany and much of the Muslim world...." Wow. This son-of-a-bitch then tries to put this nonsense on us:

"When Westerners get killed, the world cries. But if Muslims get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, it's the smallest of news. I will condemn what happened in London only after there is the promise from Western leaders to condemn what they have done in Falluja and other parts of Iraq and in Afghanistan."

Do you see the disconnect hear? Do you see the utter hypocrisy? This man's group is banned in much of the Muslim world where, except for places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Lebanon, there is no freedom of speech, and yet he has every right to advocate the establishment of 7th century Islamic rule across the world (which means only to wage jihad) and accuse the government that secures his right to speak freely of being guilty of killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if this guy and his group's members are among those 600 trained al Qaeda members living in Britain. How dare this punk try to speak for his Muslim "brothers and sisters" in Iraq when we saw on January 30 8 million Iraqis defy Zarqawi's gang and go vote. Why won't he condemn those bombers that go and blow up recruiting stations in Iraq? Why is this nut and his organization allowed to exist in Britain, let alone be interviewed by and represented in the New York Times? There should be utter outrage. Indeed, I am fuming right now just writing this. This is the face of war in the 21st century. Whose side are you on?


Post a Comment

<< Home