Posts

VIDEO: Muslim Brotherhood affiliated charity bringing Syrian refugees to U.S.

Invasion of Europe news…..

And, you can bet they would scream bloody murder if the Cameron government ever had the guts to put persecuted Christians at the head of the line.

BTW, Islamic Relief is working in the U.S. to help Syrians get resettled in your states—Kentucky and Maryland that we know of (so far).

I wanted to learn more about the new UK Director of Islamic Relief, Imran Madden.  I didn’t find much, but am posting this 2012 Al Jazeera interview I found informative…..a bit off-topic!

Here is the surprising (not!) news from Islamic Relief (UK must dramatically accelerate Syrian resettlement):

The new UK Director of Islamic Relief will use his speech in a fringe debate at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester to urge the Government to inject greater urgency into resettling Syrian refugees in the UK and leave ‘no diplomatic stone unturned’ in the search for a lasting peace in Syria.

At a conference fringe debate organised by Islamic Relief and World Vision (details in Notes to Editors along with details of separate Muslim Charities Forum fringe event), Imran Madden will speak alongside the Minister of State for International Development, Desmond Swayne MP, to highlight the enormous human cost of forgotten crises around the world – and the Syrian conflict in particular.

They recommend 5 prescriptions for the crisis, this is #5:

A dramatic acceleration of planned refugee resettlement in the UK.

Related:  First Syrians headed to Northern Ireland, here.  They will be mostly Muslims as the UK is working with the UNHCR to pick its refugees.

About the video (and maybe too much in the weeds for most readers!):   I’ve been following the Rohingya refugee issue for nearly eight years.  In the most recent years, the reason for the original outbreak in the latest wave of violence in Burma (Myanmar) which broke out when three Rohingya Muslim men raped a Buddhist woman, has been long forgotten.  I have been so annoyed over the years to see that original spark for the latest violence between the ethnic groups expunged from media coverage. The media and humanitarian agitators (including the OIC) have made it look like the Rohingya were pure as the driven snow.

I was thus surprised to see this 2012 Al Jazeera piece (an interview with Imran Madden) that actually does mention the rape that started it all.

For Hillary watchers out there, one of the few foreign policy success stories that Hillary was earlier mentioning was supposedly bringing some democracy to Burma. She even sent the ‘Podesta Group’ there to help shore-up her legacy.  Dead silence now as Burma is still in internal conflict.

If you are interested in the Rohingya issue we have enough posts here that you could write a book (see Rohingya Reports category).

For all of our posts on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ go here.

Deceptive Reporting on Donald Trump Exposed

AUSTIN, Texas /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Brad O’Leary, publisher of TheOLearyReport.com, former NBC News Radio/Westwood One talk show host, author of the The United States Citizens’ Handbook and former feature writer for USA Today Weekend magazine. Brad is calling out online publication BearingArms.com about contributor Bob Owens’ deceptive post. Find Brad’s response below and on TheOLearyReport.com:

A newspaper in the UK, called The Telegraph, is trying to fool people by claiming expertise on the Second Amendment.

They begin their article as if they are supporters. They do not remind their readers that the Second Amendment came about because the British Government tried to disarm our American colonists in our Revolutionary War, which was the spark that started the Revolution.

They do not tell their readers that the Second Amendment was based on British freedoms guaranteed in the Magna Carta.

Nor do they admit that a few years ago when the British Parliament stripped British citizens of those same rights, that they as a newspaper completely supported that effort.

Nor did they tell their readers that every reporter and researcher working on the story is a committed anti-gunner. You might say that I am guessing at this and I am.

When the American newspaper USA Today did a week of front-page new stories on gun-ownership in America, they began the first story with an apology. They usually try to have reporters who are balanced in their opinion, but they could not find a single reporter on their paper that supports the ownership of guns or had even fired a gun. If that is what happens in America, I consider it to be proof that in England it would be worse.

The Telegraph article ranks four tiers of supporters, with the lowest tier being against the Second Amendment. I do not object to whom they put in that lowest tier, but I object to whom they put in the third tier. They listed four Republicans who they claim hardly support the Second Amendment, Kasich, Trump, Carson and Christie. That would be really wishful thinking on the part of a bunch of gun-banners pontificating on freedoms that they stripped themselves of in the hope influencing Americans, who might follow and strip themselves of the same freedoms.

The most outrageous person that they put in that group who should be ranked in the top tier of Second Amendment supporters is Donald Trump. Before you gasp and tell me that is not what you have heard in the American media coverage, let me tell you some things that they could have told you but they haven’t:

  1. Donald Trump is the first presidential candidate in the history of American politics who said that he would sign concealed-carry reciprocity when Congress passes the Bill. It is true that the other candidates have made clear what they think about concealed-carry based on what they did in their own states or are willing to do in Congress but none have said that I will sign reciprocity Federal Bill into law.

Now I cannot tell you the ins and outs of how far all the other candidates go to support the Second Amendment but Trump has left no doubt that:

  1. He would allow military troops, bases and recruiting centers to be armed.
  2. He would see that the Federal government and FBI create an instant, accurate and fair list of criminals, including mentally defective people to deny them of ownership of guns.
  3. He would not sign into law any gun and magazine bans.
  4. He would enforce all of the Federal gun laws on the books and bring back a NRA supported Federal Law enforcement program called Project Exile, which was opposed by Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama and Eric Holder. They want guns banned. They do not want felons, drug dealers, rapists and murderers who use a gun in the process of a crime to be incarcerated for five years in Federal prison because they think it is a waste of Federal money.
  5. He wants to fix a broken mental health record system. And that effort is opposed by the American Psychiatric Association and by the board members of the legal drug cartel known in America as the pharmaceutical industry, who would prefer that Americans lockup their guns in a safe than lock up the drugs that are in their medicine cabinet.

Why would we (and you) allow gun-banners and extremists like the managers and reporters of The Telegraph spew ignorance and deceive readers by disseminating their deceptive “researched” information sourced from so called Conservative or pro-gun sources who are actually their own insiders pretending to be pro-gun experts?!

RELATED ARTICLE: Why gun laws miss the mark – The Orange County Register

UK: Muslim teacher got children to write letters to jihadi “heroes and role models”

Given the state of the contemporary UK, it is a marvel that this teacher wasn’t given the Teacher of the Year Award.

 

“REVEALED: School teacher ‘brainwashing primary kids to write jihadis supportive letters,’” by Jake Burman, Express, September 12, 2015 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

A SCHOOL teacher has been teaching primary school children into writing letters to jihadis in Syria.

The letters – which are written in childish handwriting – are addressed to fighters in the war-torn country and are believed to have been written in an afternoon class.

They refer to terrorists as “diamonds among stones” and even call them “heroes” – while they also vow support for savage acts and are signed off with decorative handprints.

One of the letters is written to “my brothers” in Jabhad Al-Nusra – a jihadist militant group.

Another letter refers to the mujihideen as “all our heroes and role models” and even states that when they are made “mothers of sons we will send them to you to become heroes like you”.

The teacher, who has been allegedly “brainwashing” children at an unnamed British school tweeted their work under the Twitter handle @irhabiyya_18 – which reportedly translates “terrorist_18”.

She tweeted: “Lil kids put their heads together to ‘post’ letters to the muhajideen.”

The worrying letters were picked up by American think tankThe Middle East Media Research Institute.

Terrorism expert Hannah stuart [sic] warned the teacher could be duping the families of the children who may not share the same views as her….

“Jihadi John” tops UK’s “kill list” of Islamic State targets
Migrants fake being Syrian to claim European asylum

Former UK Defense Chief: Cameron lacked “balls” to head off rise of Islamic State

“Lord Richards reportedly told author Sir Anthony Seldon that the prime minister had in 2012 rejected a ‘coherent military strategy’ to take on the regime of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, which would in his view have seen the Islamic extremists ‘squeezed out of existence.’” It seems fanciful that taking on the Islamic State’s enemy, Assad, would have “squeezed” the Islamic State “out of existence,” but it is manifestly true that David Cameron lacks the courage and vision to take on the jihad threat in general, and is instead following a disastrous policy of appeasement and accommodation of Islamic supremacists that is going to result in nothing less than the ruin of Britain if it isn’t stopped.

“Too often it seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.” No doubt about that.

“David Cameron lacked ‘balls’ to head off the rise of Isis, says former defence chief,” by Frances Perraudin, Guardian, August 30, 2015 01.06 EDT
Last modified on Sunday 30 August 2015:

David Cameron lacked “the balls” to take the military action in Syria that could have prevented the rise of Islamic State, a former head of the armed forces has said.

In a scathing analysis of the UK prime minister’s approach, Gen Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said Cameron’s approach seemed “more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft”.

Lord Richards reportedly told author Sir Anthony Seldon that the prime minister had in 2012 rejected a “coherent military strategy” to take on the regime of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, which would in his view have seen the Islamic extremists “squeezed out of existence”.

The comments are detailed in Seldon’s biography of Cameron – titled Cameron at 10: the Inside Story 2010-2015 – which is being serialised in the Mail on Sunday.

Lord Richards, who was chief of the defence staff from October 2010 to July 2013, is quoted as saying: “If they had the balls they would have gone through with it … if they’d done what I’d argued, they wouldn’t be where they are with Isis.

“In Ukraine, as in Syria and Libya, there is a clear lack of strategy and statecraft. The problem is the inability to think things through. Too often it seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.”

The House of Commons voted against military action in Syria in 2013 and parliamentary authorisation has so far only been given to UK airstrikes against Isis in neighbouring Iraq.

But Cameron and the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, made clear they were considering extending the military air campaign to Syria in the wake of the Tunisian beach massacre on 26 June, which claimed 30 British victims among the 38 dead….

RELATED ARTICLES:

General Secretary for Danish Refugee Help: “We face an Armageddon scenario”

New Islamic State coins commemorate eventual conquest of “Rome and America”

VIDEO: Victim of Muslim Rape Gangs Speaks Out

On this special episode of The Glazov Gang, we are joined by Toni Bugle, the founder of M.A.R.I.A.S. (Mothers against Radical Islam and Sharia).

She came on the show to discuss her victimization at the hands of Muslim grooming/rape gangs — and her efforts to help victims and to protect future potential victims of a barbaric ingredient of Islamic Jihad. 

EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Please donate to keep it alive, subscribe to its YouTube Channel and LIKE it on Facebook. For details on advertising on our show or arranging your own appearance on a special segment, email us at theglazovgang@gmail.com.

MAP OF LOCATIONS OF RAPE GANGS IN THE UK:

muslim rape gangs map

RELATED ARTICLES:

Only a matter of time: Islamic State jihadis in UK ready to attack

UK allows jihadi preacher to stay in country despite “extremist” views

Garland, TX: Islamic State Jihadi ‘radicalized’ by UK Muslim ‘computer geek’

He hacked the Pentagon. He apparently incited one of the Muslims who attacked our free speech event in Garland, Texas to do so. This is one piously lethal individual. One thing he would almost certainly deny being, however, is “British” — contrary to the witless Mailonline headline. His citizenship with the umma and only with the umma.

“British computer geek, 21, who hacked the Pentagon after fleeing to Syria is No3 on the ‘kill list’ of ISIS militants drawn up by US forces – just after Jihadi John and group leader al-Baghdadi,” by Imogen Calderwood, Mailonline, August 2, 2015:

A young computer hacker from Birmingham has been named as Number Three on the Pentagon’s ‘kill list’ of key ISIS operatives.

Junaid Hussain, 21, fled to Syria in July 2013 and is now believed to be leading the ‘Cyber Caliphate’, ISIS’ own branch of hackers.

US officials said there is an ‘intense’ desire to assassinate Hussain, who operates under the alias Abu Hussain al-Britani and was jailed in 2012 for stealing personal information of Tony Blair.

Only Mohammed Emwazi, the hostage killer known as Jihadi John, and the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are higher on the list, reported The Sunday Times.

After fleeing the UK, when he was on police bail for an alleged violent disorder offence, Hussain has risen rapidly through the ISIS ranks.

He married 45-year-old Sally Jones, a former punk rocker from Chatham, Kent, who converted to Islam and fled to Syria with her 10-year-old son.

Yet another convert somehow gets the idea that Islam requires treason and violence. Yet no authorities are in the least interested in studying this phenomenon.

Jones, who now uses the nomme de guerre Umm Hussain Al-Britani, is believed to have snuck into Syria at the end of last year after an online romance with Hussain.

She is suspected of leading the violent all-female ISIS contingent, known as the Khanssaa Brigade. The group imposes strict Sharia law in the de facto capital of the so-called Islamic State, Raqqa.

The couple, who have been dubbed Mr and Mr Terror, also reportedly used Twitter and the hashtag #LondonAttack in May to incite terror in Britain.

US officials believe he is behind the online radicalisation of at least one of the two gunmen who opened fire at a Prophet Mohammed cartoon competition in Garland, Texas, in May….

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s $500 million 50-man “moderate” army: half already dead, captured, out of action

Migrants: A Much Needed Debate

One sign that people are bereft of policy-proposals is when, in the face of a huge political challenge, they focus on their opponents’ language. Perhaps it is a symptom of the fact that we are sliding into ‘silly season’ in the UK, but the reporting of the migrant crisis has reached a nadir of silliness. At the time of writing the situation at Calais is a focal point of intense interest. At least one man has died, and many others have been involved in running battles with French police and border guards while trying to enter the Channel Tunnel to get to Britain. The inevitable response of the media is not just to report it but to find a culprit and declare ‘something must be done.’

In reality this problem, as we have noted here before, may be far beyond any one government to affect. The UK border police can keep the borders secure, and they seem – along with their French counterparts – to be doing a fairly good job at that. But they cannot solve the problem. The entire British government is not in a position to stabilise the countries from which people are fleeing. They cannot stabilise Syria, and nor is the government in a position to improve the quality of life and opportunities for young men forced into the hell of the Eritrean army. The root of the matter is therefore beyond our control. But as that mass of peoples moves up through Africa and pushes out from North Africa it comes into proximity with our continent; then there are things that can be done.

A better way of dealing with the migrants who arrive is an obvious priority. But to do that we need a proper debate. For instance, a politician from any party could suggest what may end up having to be the answer anyway, which is for the EU to pay for centres in North Africa – perhaps in Tunisia (or elsewhere) – where the migrants are assessed, their status and cases suitably adjudicated. This is not the only option, but it is one. But it is far away from the centre of the political debate.

Instead once again the debate has become a debate about language. The UKIP leader Nigel Farage has tried to buy some sympathetic political capital by proclaiming that he would not have used the word ‘swarm’ (passingly used by David Cameron) to describe the movement of migrants. This is reminiscent of the debate under the last Labour government and the use of the word ‘swamp.’ Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham has also criticised the Prime Minister’s use of the word ‘swarm’, branding it ‘disgraceful’ and even trying to weaponise the matter into a class issue.

But none of this – however fascinating it might be to some – is any more than wordplay. At best it is a suitable subject for a debating society. But the migrant crisis situation is not a debating society or a discussion group on issues surrounding sensitive language. It is something which is going on which intricately relates to the lives of hundreds of thousands of migrants and will affect the lives and attitudes of hundreds of millions of European citizens. This deserves a proper political debate, and a proper discussion on policy. If we care about the future of our continent then the luxury of word-games is not a replacement for that discussion.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

I woke up this morning to news of a horrific arson attack by settlers in the West Bank near Nablus against Palestinians, which resulted in the death of an 18 month old baby burned alive in his house.

It is difficult to comprehend what kind of madness would lead to the loss of innocent life in this way. The incident has been quite rightly deemed a “horrific, heinous” crime that is “a terror attack in every respect” by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has pledged to hunt down the assailants.This revulsion has been shared across the Israeli political spectrum, with leaders of all parties pledging swift action to bring those responsible to justice.

I have never subscribed to the idea that settlements are the reason why there is no peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It seems to me self-evident that if the settlements were removed tomorrow, there would not be peace. Indeed, we know that agreement on settlements has been reached on several occasions in various peace talks, only for them to flounder on other matters such as the ‘Right of Return’.

However, it is clear that incidents such as this cannot help build trust between Israelis and Palestinians, and that the Israeli government has a problem of control at the extreme end of the settler movement. Fortunately – and in marked contrast to the terrorists of Hamas and the terrorist sympathisers of the Palestinian Authority who think nothing of glorifying ‘martyrs’ who murder Israeli civilians – this is something the Israeli government is aware of.

And in this fact, we have some hope. For there are murderers and criminals in every society. It is how national authorities respond to them that provides an indication of true civilisation.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Calais, France where Africans are making a run for the tunnel and the UK.

Children at Increasing Risk of Islamist Radicalization in UK

Children are increasingly at risk of radicalization in the UK, according to an investigation by The Telegraph.

The Channel Project, which acts to prevent vulnerable people being radicalized, had some 758 under 16s reported last year for worrying behavior. Of those, 113 were under 12.

Those reported included a three-year old, whose entire family was reported for worrying behavior.

The Channel Project does not arrest those reported to it, but implements its de-radicalization strategies.

Deputy Chief Constable Craig Denholm, one of the police officers in charge of the Channel Project., told The Telegraph:

Channel supports people who are vulnerable to being radicalised and drawn into terrorism. It works in a similar way to other safeguarding, partnership activity where agencies come together to support vulnerable individuals; for example work to address drugs, guns and gangs issues through early intervention.

“Types of support can include life-skills, mentoring, and access to education, careers advice, and consideration of housing need amongst others. It has increasingly become recognised by partner agencies as having an important role to play in safeguarding communities from harm. Both vulnerable adults and young people are safeguarded through Channel.

“In exceptional circumstances some younger children are provided support as part of a wider, whole family approach.

“This does not mean that a young child is expressing radical views. However, this enables a family to benefit from the expertise and wrap around support that Channel provides.

There remain doubts about the efficacy of the counter-extremism program, particularly since it was revealed that one of the boys placed on the program when a 13-year old later went on at 15 to attempt to mastermind an Islamic State bomb plot in Australia to attack the ANZAC Day commemoration ceremony.

The number of teenagers and children referred to the Channel Project will double in the next two years, if current trends continue, due to the rise of the Islamic State.

David Cameron launched his new approach to tackling Islamist extremism this month, with the government’s new strategy on countering violent extremism to be rolled out in September.

His new strategy may prove a turning point in the struggle against Islamism in the UK.

RELATED ARTICLES

How to Scam ISIS

Three ISIS Terror Trials This Week in America

ISIS: The Next Generation

Islamic State Receives $6.9 Billion in Money Transfers

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of an Islamist protest in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

UK PM David Cameron: ‘The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist [Islamic] ideology itself’

Yesterday, The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) welcomed Prime Minister David Cameron’s bold speech outlining the government’s five-year plan for tackling extremism. Principles central to the Prime Minister’s vision closely resemble the ideas and policy recommendations consistently put forward in HJS work, while many of the manifestations of extremism referred to by Mr Cameron have been long-standing issues of concern for the staff of the Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism (CRT). Key areas of influence include:

Identifying Islamist Ideology at the Root of Radicalisation

The Prime Minister explicitly recognised that “the root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself” and that countering the growing appeal of jihadist ideology is a generational struggle.

  • HJS has a long track record of evidence-based research showing that Islamist ideology is a fundamental component of radicalisation and can be an incubator of terrorism. The role of ideology was first identified in the Government’s Prevent strategy of 2011, for which HJS’ flagship work tracking Islamism-inspired terrorism offences and attacks in the UK since 1999 was the most-cited work.

Another crucial shift in emphasis was the recognition that “extremists are self-identifying as Muslims” and Mr Cameron’s statement on Islamist violence: “To deny it has anything to do with Islam means you disempower the critical reforming voices”.

  • HJS has long called for the government to acknowledge the religious element to extremism and has published a theological counter narrative to al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups showing that their arguments are not based on traditionally recognised interpretations of classical Islamic sources.

Challenging Extremist Propaganda

Mr Cameron challenged the prevalence of conspiracy theories surrounding counter-radicalisation efforts, in particular the growing belief that the Prevent strategy is about spying on Muslim communities and the criminalisation of Islam, ideas that have been deliberately fuelled by extremist groups.

  • HJS has repeatedly advocated the need to challenge such false claims head-on and show the extremist rationale behind them. After the pro-terrorist group CAGE came out in support of ‘Jihadi John’ earlier this year, CRT exposed the group’s long-standing jihadist ideology and pernicious anti-Prevent campaigns.

The Prime Minister singled out the National Union of Students (NUS) for criticism, saying: “When you choose to ally yourselves with an organisation like CAGE […] it really does, in my opinion, shame your organisation and your noble history of campaigning for justice”.

  • HJS’s campus extremism monitoring unit, Student Rights, recently publishedPreventing Prevent?, showing the scale of resistance among students to government attempts to challenge extremism at universities. Student Rights showed how extremist narratives have influenced the debate on campuses, highlighting in particular the NUS commitment to work with CAGE to campaign against Prevent.

Empowering Moderate Voices

The Prime Minister asserted that “We can’t stand neutral in this battle of ideas”. He pledged to help empower the “strong, positive Muslim voices that are being drowned out”, stating: “This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence – but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative”.

  • HJS has long recommended that central and local government as well as civic institutions, including universities, community centres and charities, distance themselves from non-violent extremist groups. Most recently, HJS interviews with the North East Counter Terrorism Unit and West Yorkshire Police found that a key part of Prevent is both building trust and confidence with British Muslim communities and being prepared to have difficult conversations about the prevalence of extreme and intolerant beliefs.

Strengthening Regulation to Combat Islamist Entryism

The Prime Minister reiterated the government’s commitment to strengthening regulatory bodies in order to challenge extremism, mentioning specifically the failures of the education watchdog Ofsted during the ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal and pledging to “strengthen Ofcom’s role to enable us to take action against foreign channels broadcasting extremist content”.

  • For over five years, HJS staff have exposed instances of Islamist entryism – starting with the revolutionary Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir securing government funding for their educational charity and schools. Since then, HJS has repeatedly advocated greater powers, political will and training for regulatory bodies such as the Charity Commission, Ofsted and Ofcom to effectively challenge extremists seeking to take advantage of the UK’s charitable, education and broadcast media sectors.

Tackling ‘Honour’-based Abuse, FGM and Forced Marriage

HJS has led the “uncomfortable debates” referenced by Mr Cameron in his speech yesterday regarding cultural practices such as forced marriage and ‘honour’-based abuse that, he asserted, “run directly counter” to British values.

  • Earlier this year, HJS published a report on ‘honour’ killings in the UK, as part of the Britain’s Lost Women campaign led by Cosmopolitan Magazine and charity Karma Nirvana. A follow-up report raising awareness of institutional failures in care provision for victims of ‘honour’-based abuse was launched earlier this month on the UK’s first ever Day of Memory to an audience of 100 leading professionals.
  • HJS has provided thought leadership on Female Genital Mutilation, publicly asking why cultural sensitivities have been prioritised over protecting young girls living in this country. The Prime Minister echoed this sentiment in his speech yesterday, saying: “Too often we have lacked the confidence to enforce our values, for fear of causing offence. […] No more turning a blind eye on the false basis of cultural sensitivities.”

Working with Internet Companies to Challenge Online Extremism

The Prime Minister referred to the need for internet companies to help the government “identify potential terrorists online” and to “protect their users from the scourge of radicalisation”. Specifically, he said: “many of their commercial models are built around monitoring platforms for personal data, packaging it up and selling it on to third parties… they are happy to engineer technologies to track our likes and dislikes. But when it comes to doing what’s right in the fight against terrorism, we too often hear that it’s all too difficult. Well I’m sorry – I just don’t buy that”.

    • Mr Cameron’s position echoes the findings of a recent HJS report, Surveillance After Snowden, which explored the impact of Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified government information. The report examined the government’s relationship with communication service providers, finding that: “So much emphasis has been placed on the government’s collection of data that the activities of private companies have been given insufficient attention” and “…Better cooperation between the government and [internet companies] is needed urgently”.

Key HJS publications:

Thought Leadership

UK Counter-terror Police Official was Defender of the Islamic State who “Despised Britain”

The story of Abdullah al Andalusi, aka Mouloud Farid, aka Wazir Leton Rahman, epitomizes the confusion and willful ignorance of the British political class. The British government wouldn’t be able to distinguish a “moderate” from an “extremist” if its life depended on it, and it does. The British intelligentsia will never, even to the point of suicide, admit that the hard and fast, never bridgeable distinction they believe exists between the “moderate” and “extremist” camps is more a figment of its imagination than reality. The British political elites will never, ever admit that much of what they consider to be “extremist,” and that they assume most Muslims in Britain reject, is actually established doctrine of mainstream Islam that Muslims reject only at risk of being declared apostates and heretics. This denial and willful ignorance will be the death of Britain, and Britain is racing eagerly toward its demise.

“By day, at heart of counter-terror policing. And by night, preacher of extremism,” by Andrew Gilligan, Telegraph, July 12, 2015 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

The Government watchdog which inspects police forces’ readiness for terrorism admitted that it employed one of Britain’s most notorious Islamic extremists.

For almost two years Abdullah al Andalusi, led a double life, the Telegraph can reveal.

By night, he taught that the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was “no different to Western armies,” said that “kaffirs,” non-Muslims, would be “punished in hell” and claimed that the British government wanted to destroy Islam.

By day, using a different name, he went to work for the same British government at the London offices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the official regulator of all 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The disclosures will be intensely embarassing [sic] to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has criticised parts of Britain’s Muslim communities for “quietly condoning” Islamist extremism.

HMIC’s staff, who number less than 150, are given privileged access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections.

The inspectorate’s work includes scrutinising police forces’ counter-terrorism capabilities and top-secret plans for dealing with terror attacks.

It has also recently published reports on undercover policing and the use of informants.

HMIC admitted that Mr al Andalusi, whose real name is Mouloud Farid, had passed a security vetting check to work as a civil servant at the inspectorate.

He was subsequently promoted to executive grade, a management rank, placing him at the heart of the security establishment.

He was only sacked after bosses spotted him on television defending extremist Islamic positions on behalf of his organisation, the Muslim Debate Initiative, which is heavily dependent on Saudi money.

The inspectorate insisted that he did not handle classified material but former friends of Mr al Andalusi said he had done so.

His work did involve security areas. He said he had a role in overseeing the police response to terrorism and there were areas he couldn’t talk about,” said one former colleague at the Muslim Debate Initiative, who asked to remain anonymous.

“He would discuss the reports that HMIC were working on and the data they needed to present.

“His story is so odd and so scandalous in many respects. He had these two completely incompatible lives that went on for years. He despised Britain, yet worked for the British government. He would talk about the right of oppressed people to take up arms against the oppressor and yet he was overseeing the police….

Under the name by which he was known to HMIC, Mouloud Farid, his links with the Muslim Debate Initiative were a matter of public record.

He was registered as a director of the organisation at Companies House, though he earlier this year changed to yet a third name, Wazir Leton Rahman, on the companies register.

“This man’s unsuitability for sensitive work should have been obvious from the start,” said Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr.

“There is a lack of understanding of different strains of Islam in the civil service. I will be asking why the systems designed to prevent this did not work.”

There certainly is a “lack of understanding of different strains of Islam in the civil service.” British officials assume that every Muslim is a moderate who abhors and rejects the violence committed in the name of Islam and in accord with the texts and teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and that everyone who believes otherwise is a racist, bigoted Islamophobe.

Mr al Andalusi, a prominent figure on the extremist lecture circuit, is closely associated with the extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir, which believes that voting and democracy are un-Islamic.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is committed to working toward the imposition of the Sharia all over the world.

He is also a strong supporter of the terrorist lobby group Cage, which sparked outrage earlier this year when it defended the Isil hostage-killer Mohammed Emwazi, “Jihadi John,” as a “beautiful” and “gentle” man who had been radicalised by MI5. Like Cage, Mr al-Andalusi fiercely supports the right of British citizens to travel to Syria to fight.

He spoke at a Cage rally outside his own employer’s parent department, the Home Office, to demonstrate against the arrest of the former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg, on Syria-related terror charges, later dropped. Alongside him were other high-profile extremists and hate preachers including Haitham al-Haddad and senior figures in Hizb ut Tahrir.

Mr al Andalusi has spoken at at least three other Cage events in the last ten months, including on September 20 last year when he claimed that, as part of its “war against Islam,” the British government wanted to force Muslims to eat non-halal meat.

He says that Western liberal society is committed to the “destruction” of all Muslim belief and shows on his Facebook page a picture a concentration camp with a Nazi swastika and “21st century” written on the watchtower.

In the foreground is a gallows with a short route to the hangman’s noose for “Islamists” and a longer route for “Muslim moderates.”…

In a talk at Queen Mary University, in East London, on 16 January, he asked why the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, was treated as a terrorist organisation by the West while the moderate Free Syrian Army was not.

He condemned memorials to 9/11, describing the terror attacks as “the day a vicious world empire [the US] found a publicly-acceptable excuse to bomb others, invade non-threatening nations, torture political dissidents and kill at least 300,000 innocent people.”

After Isil took over large portions of Iraq last year, he wrote that “most Muslims would be jubilant at the return of the caliphate [Islamic state], which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long.”

He condemned the group for killing civilians but said that the West had “no basis to judge Islamic State” because “IS are no different to Western armies and even some of the ‘founding fathers’ of Western nations… IS’s crime is being actually a good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organisation and ability to use social media.”

He said that “those who reject IS merely because IS’s school of thought is disagreeable to them should remember that Islam permits difference of opinion. To reject something as outside the fold of Islam, due to it being a different school of thought to one’s own, makes one a purveyor of disunity among Muslims.”…

One said that he was disturbed by a meeting at which he and Mr al Andalusi heard another man say he wanted to join al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda franchise, and regarded civilian airliners as legitimate weapons of war. The former friend reported the conversation to police.

The former friend said Mr al-Andalusi used a number of psuedonyms and was always secretive about his real name but eventually revealed it in discussions with them.

Mr al Andalusi, who lives in a subsidised £750,000 housing association flat in Westminster, said last night that as Mouloud Farid he was “proud to work for a public watchdog which holds those in power to account. Cage are peaceful and not proscribed. Kaffir is a theological term which has no relation to non-Muslims.”….

Why is he living in subsidized housing when obviously he has gainful employ?

“Kaffir is a theological term which has no relation to non-Muslims” — that is an outright lie. Kaffir is generally translated as unbeliever or infidel, and it has everything to do with non-Muslims. The Qur’an declares that those Christians who believe that “Allah is Christ, the son of Mary” have “certainly disbelieved” (5:17, 72). The Arabic word used here is kafara, (كَفَرَ); it is a form of kufr, unbelief, and is related to kaffir, unbeliever.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State’s female police force whips, bites women who get out of line

2nd Tunisia jihad attack foiled, 5 Islamic State jihadis shot dead

Michelle Obama “sees herself” in UK Muslim women by Pamela Geller

The First Lady passes up an opportunity to speak out about real oppression. “Michelle O. ‘sees herself’ in British Muslim women,” by Pamela Geller, WND, June 21, 2015:

Michelle Obama recently visited the U.K., where, according to The Mirror, she “compared her struggle to succeed as a young black woman in America to the experience of inner-city Muslim girls.”

She “struggled to hold back tears,” said the Mirror, as she spoke to an audience of hijab-wearing Muslim girls at the Mulberry School for Girls in London’s notorious Muslim area, Tower Hamlets.

“Girls like you inspire me and impress me every single day,” she said. “When I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways, your story is my story.”

In saying this, Michelle Obama was implying that both she and the Muslim girls she was addressing faced oppression, discrimination and disadvantage. She was, in other words, advancing the false Muslims-as-victims narrative that Islamic advocacy groups such as the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, work so hard to cultivate in the U.S.

Michelle Obama did not, of course, address the fact that the primary source of the oppression and discrimination that these Muslim girls face and will face in the future is their own families – primarily their fathers and husbands.

The first lady could have called upon these girls to reject the Shariah misogyny that devalues women’s testimony and inheritance rights, reduces women to commodity status via polygamy, sanctions their beating and makes them vulnerable to genital mutilation and honor killing. But she didn’t dare say anything about any of that.

What she did say was extremely odd. Michelle sees herself in the gender apartheid under Islamic law? Was Michelle held down by her mother and other female relatives while they cut her clitoris off? The U.K.’s “failure to stop FGM is a ‘national scandal.’” There have been 170,000 victims of female genital mutilation, a practice justified under Islamic law, in Britain, and yet there were no prosecutions of any of the perpetrators until this year. Where is Michelle Obama’s hashtag about that?

Michelle sees herself in the British Shariah courts, where the appalling treatment of women and children at the hands of the Shariah court “justices” goes unpunished? Shariah law courts have become a parallel legal system in the U.K. They justify and legislate extensive abuse of women, refuse to grant even abused women divorces, charge the woman but not the man for divorce proceedings and even take away the woman’s children. These kinds of rulings happen routinely, despite the fact that they are contrary to British law.

Does Michelle Obama see herself in this Quran verse? “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them” (4:34).

Michelle Obama also said: “Maybe you see the news and see people talking about your religion, and wonder if anyone will ever see beyond your headscarf.”

Her husband said the same thing in his notorious speech in Cairo in 2009: that the U.S. would protect the right of women to wear hijab. But who is infringing on that right? No one. And who is not seeing beyond the headscarf? Michelle Obama meant “Islamophobes,” but the real people these girls have to fear regarding their headscarves are the Muslim men who will kill them if they don’t wear it.

Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her father and her brother for not wearing the headscarf. Innumerable other Muslim women have been similarly victimized. Who speaks for them? Who stands for their rights? Not Michelle Obama.

Tell us, Mrs. Obama, about your oppression and disadvantage, from your position emanating from the highest and most powerful office in the free-est country in the world.

Tell us how wronged you were in between your multiple daily wardrobe changes of the most expensive designer clothes in the world. Tell us how awful it was for you to get accepted and attend Princeton University (along with your brother) in your youth and make your own choices to live your life any way you wanted.

Vicious hypocrite.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jihad families used UK welfare benefits to fund flight to the Islamic State

Islamic State offers female slaves as top prizes for Qur’an competition

UK: Husbands of Muslimas who fled to ISIS say UK police “radicalized” their wives

India: Muslim murders 17-year-old daughter in honor killing

Intelligent Debate: Data and Privacy

A political row is once again brewing over data and privacy. This week David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation published his report into the future of surveillance legislation.

In it he accepted that our intelligence agencies need to carry on being able to access data in bulk and he remained open to enhancing our ability to get more data if an operational and legal case can be made (which means revisiting the so-called “Snoopers’ Charter”). He accepted the need for the retention of powers introduced in emergency legislation last summer and suggested a number of reforms including a new commissioner to provide oversight on the entire system.

But potentially problematically he also proposes getting much more involvement from the judiciary in the process. This includes all authorisations for interception warrants (such as the content of emails) to be taken away from the Secretary of State and handed over to a judge. This is a big step and a potentially very unfortunate one. Politicians are able to assess the diplomatic landscape when approving warrants, and not just the legal technicalities; they may need to sign warrants in the middle of the night in an emergency; and are ultimately accountable in a way judges are not.

Of course this whole area is one over which there is a huge public interest. HJS has involved itself in that debate for two principle reasons. The first is that the debate needs to be far better informed than it currently is. As David Anderson himself said this week, an exceedingly small number of people actually know what they are talking about in this area. We would add, however, that almost everybody has an opinion. The gap between interest and knowledge in this area urgently needs to be addressed.

But the second reason is that the gap should be filled by people who are not hostile to the principles of intelligence and national security. In scoping out the ground for our recent report we discovered that almost all of the organisations and groups who have been most vociferous and most quoted in these matters are groups which (with the obvious exception of government agencies) have expressed a remarkable degree of hostility to matters which are absolutely essential for the proper running of a national security apparatus. These are groups and organisations who simultaneously wish to criminalise our intelligence services, make them so transparent they could not possibly operate and transfer almost all oversight powers from politicians to lawyers.

We believe that there is a public interest in the intelligence agencies being able to do their job of keeping the public safe and that politicians are best placed – and ultimately most accountable – to oversee that process. This is not, or should not be, a minority pursuit. It is, rather, a matter of the utmost public and political significance.


 

mendozahjsFROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK

It’s often the case that you can assess whether you are hitting the mark, or not, as an organisation, by what your detractors say about you. If you have gotten them sufficiently riled that they feel the need to spend time and resources on combating your message, then it is a safe bet to assume you are succeeding. If they don’t even attempt to engage in intellectual debate and instead try to attack you as an organisation – playing the ‘”man” rather than the “ball” as it were – then you’ve pretty much hit the bullseye. Thus it proved this week with the convening of a conference at the University of Bath which spent a good portion of its time mentioning The Henry Jackson Society as standing in the way of its pro-Islamist and anti-Western agenda.

Featuring such luminaries as Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal as its star attractions, HJS was honoured to receive a whole panel session dedicated to itself at the conference. Our session was headlined by the Director of the Cordoba Foundation – an innocent-sounding organisation until you realise that no less a person than British Prime Minister David Cameron has called it a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood” – and the notorious former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg, Director of pro-terrorist group CAGE. HJS has of course been instrumental in public education about CAGE’s pro-terrorist agenda in past months.

As I have written before, we wear criticism from sources such as these as a badge of pride. We are clearly doing something right if strenuous efforts are being made to oppose us by some of Britain’s most dangerous ideologues. I don’t think it is any coincidence that as our effectiveness in researching and highlighting public policy problems in the counter-terrorism and extremism areas has increased in recent years, so has the level of ire directed at us.

So I would like to conclude this week by thanking our staff for their dedication to their work and in ensuring that our message continues to get heard. Their jobs are not easy ones. But it is of the utmost importance that they are prepared to do them for the greater good.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

RELATED ARTICLE: Max Blumenthal warmly endorses CAGE pro-jihad, pro-stoning UK Muslim leader

Free England!

The citizens of England desperately need freedom of speech laws to defend their nation against Islamic aggression.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israel: Muslims assault Holocaust survivors

Fifth man charged in New York in Islamic State recruitment plot

After Pamela Geller is Silenced, Who’s Next?

Pennsylvania school officials schooled on Islam at mosque, at taxpayer expense

The World According to UK’s National Union of Students

Some scripts are so perfect and so perfectly predictable that they write themselves. One such example cropped up this week.

Of course the National Union of Students (NUS) in the UK can be relied upon to be predictable, if nothing else. Far from representing students, the organisation some time ago fell back onto only representing students of the hardest of hard left views. They have spent recent years attempting to subvert the counter-extremism efforts of consecutive governments, whether Labour, coalition or Conservative. And only recently did they decide to do a number of events in conjunction with CAGE, the radical Islamist organisation with which ‘Jihad John’ (Mohammed Emwazi) was associated.

That said, the NUS does sometimes do things that even its supporters are embarrassed by. For instance last year the NUS refused to issue a motion condemning Islamic State (IS). To do so, the delegates argued, would be ‘Islamophobic’. Our Associate Director, Douglas Murray, among others, made hay with this in the national media at the time. After all, if condemning IS is ‘Islamophobic’ what is one to do? Roll over and let them chop everyone’s heads off? Or issue a call for mutual understanding to the head-choppers (perhaps with a dose of apology for colonialism by way of appeal to the slave-keeping colonialists of IS).

So far, so ridiculous. But this week the NUS showed that there is always further to go. For this week the group that would not condemn IS chose to pass a motion condemning and calling for a boycott of the world’s only Jewish state. It didn’t occur to them – or didn’t bother them – that this might be Judaeophobic. Such concerns are apparently only in one direction. But it did provide a moment of clarity.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was among those who pointed out the extraordinary double standards of the NUS. There are those who think he should not have spoken about this – that it is somehow beneath a Prime Minister. But it is not. Today BDS activity is a strategic threat to the State of Israel. The NUS may only be one group of far-left anti-Israel agitators, but they are having success with that campaign. Such success that in 2015 it almost seems normal – indeed predictable.

Of course the representative body for students in Britain wouldn’t even use words against IS. Of course they are willing to use not just words but actions such as boycotts against Israel. This is a sickness, a perversion of our time. But it should have a light shone on it, from the highest possible positions of power. Because it is only by shining a light on this modern mode of acceptable bigotry that the world has any chance at all of seeing the real darkness it contains.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

Having just returned from a trip to the USA this week, I have been struck by the much greater attention being paid to foreign and international security policy by our American cousins at present than we see on the UK political scene.

Our General Election last month was a case in point. Foreign policy did not emerge in any of the televised debates and discussions, nor intrude upon the concerns of the public in the endless polls run during the campaign. It was as if threats such as Islamic State (IS), Russian expansionism and Iran’s nuclear programme were of interest neither to those who govern, nor the governed themselves. Perhaps this can be explained by the old adage that there a no votes to be won in foreign policy. Or just reflective of the inward looking nature of our political dialogue today when compared to Britain’s glorious and internationalist history.

The same – fortunately given the importance of these issues to our security and wellbeing – cannot be said about the forthcoming US presidential election. Putative candidates have been falling over themselves to declare that they are the candidate best placed to protect the US in an uncertain world. We even had a Republican contender, Senator Lindsey Graham, declare his bid this week by putting foreign policy at the front and centre of his campaign, saying “I have more experience with our national security than any other candidate in this race. That includes you, Hillary.” Whether true or not, that makes for an increasing contrast with our own politicians.

However, as I pointed out to the many American interlocutors I engaged with during my visit, it is one thing to speak about foreign policy, and quite another to actually practice it. We have heard lots from the Obama administration for years about its vision of the world. Yet it has done exceedingly little to create alliances or push policies that will actually turn visions into reality.

It is tempting to muse that given some of the views emanating from the White House, that may not have been a bad thing. But the fact remains that the world is an indisputably better place when it has strong and clear leadership from the USA. We should therefore hope not only for a profound debate on foreign policy during the presidential campaign, but also for a candidate – from whichever party – willing to once again occupy the ‘bully pulpit’ of the presidency.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

Overdue Recognition: Investigating Shariah Courts in the UK

British MPs and Peers may now have abandoned Parliament to campaign in our impending elections, but in doing so, they left one rather gaping hole in terms of public policy on counter-extremism.

The Parliamentary session was supposed to have broken with a new counter-extremism strategy having been published. It was to be put in place in order to ensure that the new government and Parliament will have a template on how to deal with one of the key issues of our time.

However, there have been a series of frustrating delays, and the full strategy is yet to be launched. This week, a key part was finally revealed. A cursory examination of this shows it encompasses many of those things which a counter-terrorism strategy really has to cover. But it crucially also included the proposal of something potentially more contentious: launching an investigation into the activities of sharia courts in the UK.

Hitherto the UK government has focused primarily on the violence problem. Yet now, a significant shift has occurred so that officials must also consider the extent to that there is also a non-violent problem. Women in the UK in the 21st century being subjected to sharia law is now to be appraised as part of the problem. People being taught to live segregated lives is now a criteria to consider as part of the problem. It has taken a long time to acknowledge this.

For years the presumption has been that stopping bombs is the role of counter extremism but that stopping the emergence of a divided and parallel society within our society is not. But violent extremists do not come from nowhere. They come from a place which encourages their us-and-them mindset, a mindset which portions of society have not only tolerated but even encouraged.

There are many fights left to win and many problems which remain to be addressed. Fortunately we now have one fewer to contend with.