Whilst i don't think we should be targetting specific groups, i do think extremist preachers do affect people to become radicalised. If no one is preaching this stuff, i don't think they would learn to become suicide bombers/killers. Whether we like it or not, Islam is being mis-used with these killers and it's certainly influenced by people preaching a more radical form of islam. It's not a coincidence that most of these terrorists have links with Anjem Choudhary and other hate preachers.
I've heard from someone with connections to the Labour Party that Diane Abbott has early stage Parkinson's. Don't agree with her on much but that's very sad and I wish her the best.
Agreed, I'm not her biggest fan either, but that is a horrible disease, thoughts are with her and her family.
No its not a coincidence. But they will still preach even if it's underground. Many of the people who reported these attackers said they were radicalised through youtube and the like. It's likely that they sought out Choudhry, not the other way around which makes Choudhry a useful tool on reactively combating terrorism as he draws in people of his idiology.and can be observed. When combating organised crime you don't arrest the foot soldiers, you use them to find out about the people who do the planning. Even if they had arrested some of the attackers, I'm sure they will have many more foots soldiers to send, so wouldnt nessicarily have prevented the attack.
Erm.... I would say the choudhrys and the abu qatadas are the masterminds.... What you've said about the youtube videos and the crowd flocking to them are the foot soliders.... It's probably quite hard to find youtube videos, or at the very least they get flagged and taken down. Why would you think keeping the preachers around is a good thing. They just turn more people who start listening to their extremist indoctrination. If they preach underground, it's going to be much harder. I'm not saying that will stop extremism but it will at least curtail the numbers. If they are preaching semi-openly then they have a far larger audience.
There is no good deal to be got out of Brexit. But I reckon you can trust May to get the worst possible deal. And don't forget she'll be backed up by Boris bloody Johnson
It would be pretty stupid to have the masterminds out in public... IS aren't actually stupid. And I listened to a video by Choudhry on the Internet last night and i wasnt even looking for it so can't be that hard... I agree they're foot soldiers who flock to Choudhry, exactly what I was saying. But rather than arresting them on the spot we should be(and are) investigating them and finding the rest of their cell. Arresting one member of a cell doesn't stop an attack. Then you can look at the reason they were radicalised and how to deal with it. And I bet you it wasn't Choudhry.
I agree. What is said to happen is that people seek out the online stuff after they have been encouraged to do so. We have a problem where people like Imam Shakeel Begg of the Lewisham Mosque are moderate preachers in the public eye and openly condemn things and request release of western hostages yet behind closed doors and in front of certain audiences reveal themselves for what they really are. Imam Begg took Andrew Neil and the BBC to court for calling him an extremist yet the judge agreed that with the evidence of his speeches to hand that he was indeed preaching extremism despite the public facade of him being moderate. The judge presiding stated: "Begg clearly promotes and encourages violence in support of Islam and espouses a series of extremist Islamic positions". "On occasions when it has suited him…he has shed the cloak of respectability and revealed the horns of extremism." "He appears to present one face to the general, local and inter-faith community and another to particular Muslim and other receptive audiences. The former face is benign, tolerant and ecumenical. The latter face is ideologically extreme and intolerant." "The various core extremist messages which emerge from the claimant's speeches and utterances would, in my view, have been quite clear to the audiences." "The claimant's ostensible cloak of respectability is likely to have made his [extremist] message in these speeches all the more compelling and seductive. For this reason, therefore, his messages would have been all the more effective and dangerous. It is all too easy for someone in the claimant's position of power and influence as an Imam to plant the seed of Islamic extremism in a young mind, which is then liable to be propagated on the internet." Imam Begg had stated "Jihad is the greatest of deeds" What is the Lewisham mosque's stance on this ruling? They defended and still defend Imam Begg stating "We the Trustees of The Lewisham Islamic Centre (LIC) confirm our unequivocal and unwavering continued support of our Head Imam. We reassert that Imam Begg is not an extremist, has never espoused extremist views, nor is he by any stretch of the imagination an extremist speaker. ... We are truly disappointed and disturbed by this judgement, by its skew replete with incorrect and fanciful assumptions that rely unequivocally on the speculative, specious and rigid testimony of one “expert” witness - even when this testimony clearly contradicts the Quran and authentic Hadiths of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) – as representing the myriad of normative Islamic opinions. ... We shall continue to review this judgement." They also stated about the judgement that "It should be noted that this is the view of 1 person" That 1 person of course being the presiding judge!!! Imam Begg himself has said he has not been convicted of anything. The Lewisham mosque board continue to defend him denying he preaches extremism despite his known speeches. One of them being in support of "unfairly locked up muslims" outside Belmarsh prison. At the time that included prisoners such as Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza and Babar Ahmed (all 3 now convicted of terrorism.) He made a speech defending Aafia Siddiqui at a "2009 Heroes of Islam" event. Aafia Siddiqui is currently serving an 86 year sentence in the US (convicted in 2010.) So the head Imam of Lewisham mosque has been called an extremist by a judge in this country on the basis of evidence that shows that he does encourage violence. Yet the Lewisham mosque continues to deny this fact.He has committed no crime. I would think it highly unlikely he will ever personally be involved in any violence. Yet he preaches to others to do so. Like Choudhary, Hamza, Bakri and all the others they are not the foot soldiers. They are the roots of the trees and our current policies lets the roots remain and we don't even try and chop the tree to a stump. We leave the tree and the roots there waiting for the leaves to fall and then we try and catch the leaves or in this case shoot at the leaves. The problem with trees is that they keep growing leaves and if you don;t want more and more leaves you have to chopped the tree down and make sure the stump is unable to regrow.
I agree with you other than two points, firstly the part about looking up stuff on the internet. They will look it up the same way you do. Secondly I agree with the judge you quoted rather than you about the likes of Begg being far more dangerous than the likes Of Choudhry.
You really think the last lot of attacks had some sort of "master" organiser? At most, i would think the "mastermind" if you wanted to say there was one was based in ISIS territory. Your Choudhrys and your Qatadas are essentially the recruitment tools. Twisting the words of Islam (if we are to believe the Quran shouldn't be taken literally) and using this, as well as anti western sentiment which has been exacerbated by our foreign policy to indoctrinate people. These people aren't being taught to go out and ram someone with a van or stab people. That is a very standard way of causing mass destruction without someone needing to plan and be a mastermind behind it. The atrocity in Manchester was because the guy had been to Libya and probably learnt how to build them. Not because there was someone in the UK directing many many cells. I guess the fundamental difference in our thinking is that you think these hate preachers do not have an affect on muslims and muslims are being intuitive and looking for material themselves. In which case, there isn't a mastermind to catch, these are "foot soldier" who create themselves just by accessing the internet. I disagree, i think these hate preachers are the ones who facilitate their recruitment because they are being preached to about the ways of extreme Islamic teachings and that is how they become radicalised (at least in the vast majority)
I was quoting your use of mastermind... I disagreed with it tbh. I think they work in cells and you should only arrest them once you have the whole cell and know they are terrorists rather than just people unhappy with the goverment. I think that people like Choudhry are the only way of linking these cells. Once you've found the cell then it becomes much easier to find the sources of the radicalisation such as the Imam Imps mentioned who are trying to be hidden and far more dangerous. What Im saying is that the likes of Choudhary are producing more arrests than terrorists. As that judge said, the ones pretending to oppose it are the ones who are dangerous. But you have to be very careful in catching those and avoid hitting ones who actually do oppose it. I dont think it's a simple as many people make out.
I never said it was easy and i agree it's very hard to choice between who you arrest and what for. I used choudhry as an example but the hate preachers that i have "labeled" include those who are openly islamic extremists as well as the covert ones such as the one you and imp talk about. They are all tools for recruitment to spread their propaganda (is that too strong? their version of islam) and even though i believe in free speech, this is one of those instances that we should not tolerate.
I agree it isn't as simple as many people make out but I think it should be simpler. If people like Choudhary, Begg, Hamza, Qatada etc are out there "getting people onside" and "directing" them towards an interest in a false interpretation of Islam then they should be pulled straight away. To leave them there just means that they "direct" even more people. Choudhary was and is a very dangerous man. Not from his own physical actions because the "boss" doesn't do the dirty work. Removing people like Choudhary means 1 less person to "direct" others towards this interpretation. It is no good leaving there to continue their work and hoping to one day catch some big mastermind. Choudhary was a disciple of Bakra and they formed Al-Muhajiroun. When Bakra fled the country after 7/7 Choudhary became the head man but was still in contact with Bakri in Lebanon. He has been around for over 20 years and in an article for the Sunday Telegraph in 1999 about him recruiting muslims to fight abroad "before they go abroad to fight for organisations like the IIF, the volunteers are trained in Britain. Some of the training does involve guns and live ammunition." From Wiki: In 2003 or 2004 he organised an Islamic-themed camping trip, at which Bakri lectured, on the 54-acre (220,000 m2) grounds of the Jameah Islamiyah School in East Sussex. Advertised by word-of-mouth, the trip was attended by 50 Muslim men, most of whom were members of al-Muhajiroun. Bakri later claimed the camp's activities included lectures on Islam, football and paintballing.[22] In September 2006, following allegations that it was used in the training and recruitment of terrorists, police searched the school. According to testimony from Al Qaeda suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, in 1997 and 1998 Abu Hamza and groups of around 30 of his followers held training camps at the school, which included training with AK47 rifles and handguns, and a mock rocket launcher.[23] No arrests were made, and students and faculty were allowed to return on 23 September 2006, the first day of Ramadan. Choudhary might chuckle away on TV and interviews and come across as nothing to worry about but the guy is seriously dangerous and should not have been free to continue recruiting people right up to 2016. HE is credited with playing a lead role in recruiting over 500 British jihadiasts fighting in Syria. His group has links to 15 plots (some succesful) in the UK and 110 Britons that have committed terrorist acts worldwide. He helped set up sharia4Belgium recruiting fighters for Syria. The Netherlands named him as being a key influence in the spread of jihadi movements in their country. Hope not hate stated : “In the six months following the creation of Islamic State, Choudary was its biggest cheerleader in the English-speaking world and the network he helped create became the largest recruiter for IS in Europe.” The guy was and is very very dangerous despite the illusion he is just a bragger on an ego trip. He should have been locked up years before he could do such harm as should any other person brought to light in that position where they can direct people towards their warped vision. As for Begg. The worry here is that we have a mosque defending him and denying he has done anything wrong. When someone who has obviously said what he has said is defended by the muslim community then that is surely going to lead to much more Islamaphobia as people will start to not be able to see where moderate ends and extremist starts. They will also start to be wary of moderates because of people like Begg. They should all be dealt with the second they are outed and not left in position to continue their spreading of hate.
this has become more an argument of how to police rather than what the law should be now and as i think were generally starting to understand each-other ill end my part. ill just say that having recruited 500 British jihadists to fight the Syrian government, that shows the number of extremists that go through him, but i don't believe he's responsible for making them extreme, simply creating the links. and these are links and can and should be investigated before arrests are made for the same reason the police got angry at the states for revealing we knew the identity of the bomber in Manchester. I think the law should be that encouraging the law to be changed is fine, thats freedom of speech, but encouraging the law to be broken is not. I also believe you do need proper evidence before you start arresting people.
Very dishonest person, like all the eurosceptic MPs of the Conservative Party. They have hijacked a once pro-EU party. For a so-called centre-right party to have had a policy imposed on them by the Express, the Mail and the Sun newspapers and their own backbench MPs who feared that UKIP was capable of taking many Tory seats, was utterly disgraceful. Mark my words IMP, the Brexit negotiations will take a hell of a lot longer than two years and of course there's a great chance they will collapse completely, and then I will laugh my head off at such an inept and clueless Government. No direction, no philosophy, just blowing in the wind as dictated by the papers I have cited above and the Mr and Mrs Angry brigade.
