Posts Tagged 'Terrorism'

Abid Naseer case highlights broken Tory pledge on Bill of Rights

The Abid Naseer case, where an al-Qaeda member who came to Britain posing as a student but intent on blowing up British citizens, was notable for one important reaction to the ruling of the special immigration tribunal.  That was the reaction of the new Home Secretary, Theresa May.  She quite incredibly said the government would not be appealing against the ruling, handed down by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission:

“We are disappointed that the court has ruled that Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan should not be deported to Pakistan, which we were seeking on national security grounds.

“As the court agreed, they are a security risk to the UK. We are now taking all possible measures to ensure they do not engage in terrorist activity.”

Many people were extremely critical of this decision, rightly so because it again made crystal clear that the interests of people considered to be engaged in serious wrongdoing have been promoted above those of the law abiding majority.  The pathetic response from Theresa May doesn’t tell us what the government intends to do about it.  The reason for that pathetic response is that the Con-Lib government isn’t going to do a thing about it.  Despite the fine words and pledges of action, this is another of those areas where David Cameron has executed one of his now infamous U-turns – over five months ago, barely noticed by the media.

It was in January that this blog highlighted a story demonstrating a shift in Conservative thinking, a shift that would see it kick into the long grass its plan to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA) and create a British Bill of Rights.  The UK Human Rights Act, uniquely among EU member states, incorporates all the case law not just of this country, but of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.  With a significant number of contradictory and perverse judgments coming from that Court, the Act is a confusing dog’s breakfast that does more to protect the interests of people seeking to avoid the consequences for their actions than the law abiding majority.  But in any case, Cameron’s Bill of Rights, wouldn’t make any real difference because the Tories want to remain within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

Theresa May’s running up of the white flag is evidence of the Conservative sham when it comes to dealing with the HRA.  There was nothing else she could say because the Tories have run away from their own commitment.  There was no information about what she intends to do about this idiocy because the Tories are now resolved to ‘letting matters rest there’.  Does that sound familiar?  It should because that those where the words used by David Cameron when promising to deal with the Lisbon Treaty if he came to power after it was ratified.  Lo and behold, the U-turn on the HRA is another climb down designed to suit the interests of European harmonisation.

What is so profoundly dishonest is that it now seems the Conservatives are giving the impression that their backing away from the replacement of the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights is the fault of the Liberal Democrats.  The Telegraph, five months behind the curve on things that matter, plays the Conservatives’ useful idiot yet again as it furthers the Tory spin operation. Deputy Political Editor, Robert Winnett, chunters on about the Tory manifesto pledge on a Bill of Rights and Cameron’s quote that the protection the law (HRA) offered to criminals was a “glaring example of what is going wrong in our country”, before spinning the line that the plans may have been delayed following the coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats.  He goes on to say that:

There was confusion yesterday over the introduction of the new Bill of Rights after a senior Cabinet minister indicated that plans to repatriate powers from Brussels had been abandoned. Asked on the BBC Radio Four World at One programme if the Government would consider repealing relevant “major European law”, Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, said: “I can’t comment on that, we’re not planning that.”

It’s only confusing if you’ve not been paying attention to the signals coming out of Millbank over the last five months.  The decision has nothing to do with the useless Lib Dims, they are just being made a convenient patsy for a decision taken months ago.  We can expect the Lib Dims to be used to provide Cameron with the cover he has long sought to indulge his personal Europhile desires by backing away from promised negotiations to repatriate other powers from the EU.

We have been spun a tale of a new politics being created, one that serves the people rather than the political class.  The reality is we are seeing the political class perpetrate a fraud against the public, using the challenges of working in coalition as an excuse for following an agenda that abandons pledges offered to appease the public, while tightening the politicians’ grip on the levers of power.

Update: EU Referendum doesn’t beat around the bush, fearlessly telling it the way it is.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Abid Naseer deportation case is utter insanity

Are you an Islamist terrorist?  Do you want to wage violent jihad against the decadent infidel in the west?  Would you like the security of knowing that if you’re from a country that has the death penalty – and you are caught by the security services of your target nation – they will allow you to stay, at the cost of and under the protection of the people you had set out to murder and maim?  If your answer to these questions is ‘Yes’ then you should be trying to attack the United Kingdom!

A special immigration court, hearing an appeal against deportation, has ruled that Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative – but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.  This is the man identified as the leader of an al-Qaeda cell that, MI5 and the police say, intended to bomb shoppers in Manchester.  Despite his intentions, this Pakistani national is being allowed to stay in this country.

Only a country run by craven bureaucrats could construct a process that enables a foreign national accused of planning terrorist atrocities against civilians to remain in that country for his own protection, at the cost of the people he was planning to kill.  Not only is our judicial system incapable of dealing with fanatics who wish to murder us, it is determined to put their ‘rights’ before our ‘interests’ and force us to cohabit with them on these islands. It is a perversion of common sense and an example of the warped moral relativism that is undermining this country.

I wonder how many Britons like the idea of a special immigration court blocking the deportation of a member of a terrorist organisation who allegedly sought to bring death and destruction to these shores. Why should the political class and their judicial activist friends be allowed to undermine the interests of the United Kingdom because a sovereign country has the death penalty and the terrorist who is a citizen of that country might lawfully be subjected to it as a consequence for his actions?

Does anyone believe the new politics address this insanity?  Don’t count on it, the politicians don’t care what we think.  A point made all to clear by our new Home Secretary, Theresa May, who while ‘disappointed’ is stating she doesn’t intend to appeal the decision.  Don’t like it, ordinary citizen?  Tough.  Our political class has spoken.  Enjoy the new politics – it’s not much different to the old.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Jihad Janes are new generation of Anne-Marie Murphys

News of the arrest of two American women dubbed ‘Jihad Janes’ show that Islamist terrorists are going back to the 80s in their attempts to carry out terror and murder.  In seeking to use proxies whose profile would not ordinarily raise suspicion among security services, terrorists are going back to a technique used in the UK by Nizar Hindawi.

Hindawi was a Jordanian Arab who started a relationship with an Irish woman named Anne-Marie Murphy.  In 1986, while six-months pregnant carrying Hindawi’s child, Murphy was duped into believing she and Hindawi would be getting married and honeymooning in Israel. Hindawi bought her a ticket for an El-Al Israeli airlines flight to Tel Aviv and said he would meet her there because he had to travel via Jordan.

On instruction by his Syrian handlers, Hindawi gave Murphy a bag to take with her containing a bomb, which she knew nothing about and that was only discovered in security checks minutes before check in closed.  395 people would have died if the attack had been successful.

These Jihad Janes, Colleen LaRose and Jamie Paulin-Ramirez (who it seems may have been released on bail in Ireland), are enhanced versions of Anne-Marie Murphy.  They were bored.  They were lonely.  They were in search of companionship, excitement, a sense of belonging and desperate for validation.  They were susceptible to the charms of men ultimately intent on terror, who it seems actively sought them out on the internet.  They were chosen specifically because they do not stand out as a potential security risk.

Women like LaRose and Paulin-Ramirez make it possible to put distance between the instigators of terror and the intended victims.  But unlike Murphy, they are not unwitting proxies used to transport bombs.  They are acting in the full knowledge of what they are doing.  They have been groomed to be sympathetic to the Islamist cause and radicalised with a fervour to commit acts of terror.

The big worry here is that if this is happening in the United States, you can be sure it is happening in the UK.  We have in this country, by the government’s own admission, a pool of radicalised Islamist young men who want to see acts of terror perpetrated on the streets of Britain.  We have already seen Islamic converts such as shoe bomber Richard Reid and 7/7 suicide bomber Germaine Lindsay turn to terrorism.

How long before we start seeing British women revealed as Jihad Janes, caught doing the bidding of vicious homocidal maniacs who have sought them out, developed relationships with them and radicalised them to assist in or commit atrocities?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Paul Martin, Hamas, and the hypocrisy of the media

Paul Martin?  Who he, you might well be asking.  Paul Martin is a British journalist with a great deal of experience reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He recently went on assignment to Gaza to investigate the actions of Hamas.  While there he was arrested and held for four weeks, spending a lot of that time in solitary confinement.  His alleged offence?

As Tom Gross reports on the National Review Online media blog, the Palestinian Maan news agency openly stated that Hamas detained Martin because he:

“sought to distort the image of Palestinians by going to tunnels, trying to prove that Hamas smuggles weapons, that we used children as human shields during the war.”

Despite this outrageous and unjustified behaviour by Hamas, there was barely a mention of Paul Martin’s plight in the media here in the UK.  The reports were sporadic and cursory.  This despite Martin having worked for the BBC and The Times.  The Media Backspin blog covered this and contrasted the absence of coverage about Martin with the wall to wall, 24×7 coverage and media campaign waged by the BBC to secure the release of another BBC man, journalist Alan Johnston.

Finally, after his extended detention, Paul Martin was freed by Hamas.  You missed the media furore over the safe recovery of one of their own?  Well actually no, you didn’t, because there wasn’t one.  A point well made by Melanie Phillips yesterday on her Spectator blog.

So what is special about this case?  It is the sickening hypocrisy of the media corps.  The Paul Martin case demonstrates that the media only selectively shrieks and wails about press freedom and the sacred status of journalists just doing their job when the journalist who has been detained is reporting an angle they all agree with.

The moment a journalist does what Paul Martin did, and decides to break away from the media consensus on Israeli-Palestinian issues and fairly report a side to the story that would expose sycophancy and bias of the worst kind in mainstream coverage, the media corps pays lip service to the welfare of their colleague and turns its back on him.

If you don’t believe that the media treats colleagues unequally if they seek to report facts that perhaps confirm some of what Israel claims Hamas is guilty of, or if you do not accept there is imbalance and bias in the reporting of Israeli-Palestinian issues, then consider the tone of these statements from the Foreign Press Association, the ‘Home on the Web for Middle East Correspondents’.  First:

The FPA strongly protests the imposition of closed military zones in large sections of southern Israel, which is occurring on top of the current ban on international journalists entering Gaza.
Taken together, the Gaza ban and the closed military zones amount to serious violations of press freedom. We note with grave concern today’s detention of a photographer working for an international news agency and the confiscation of his camera, in addition to an incident on Monday in which a photographer’s disk was forcibly erased. With these actions, Israel is seriously hindering the free flow of information on a news story that is of vital interest to readers and viewers around the world.
We note that the Israeli government has failed to honor a ruling from its own Supreme Court ordering access to the Gaza Strip for the international media. No good purpose can be served by these unconscionable infringements of basic democratic principles, and we urge the Israeli government to reconsider its stance immediately.

The Board of The Foreign Press Association
13th January 2009.

Notice the words used when addressing Israel, a democratic nation under constant attack from its neighbours… ‘We note with grave concern today’s detention of a photographer working for an international news agency and the confiscation of his camera, in addition to an incident on Monday in which a photographer’s disk was forcibly erased.’

Heavy stuff.  Now compare and contrast the FPA Board’s comments above with their statement about Paul Martin, addressed to the terrorist organisation Hamas (above right), which engages is suicide bombings, rocket attacks and other atrocities and it committed to the destruction of Israel and driving its citizens into the sea:

The Foreign Press Association is deeply concerned with the arrest of British filmmaker and journalist Paul Martin, in Gaza by Hamas authorities.
We expect the Hamas as we do all parties, to respect the rights of every journalist on assignment, to work without fear of being arrested.
The Foreign Press Association hereby requests the Palestinian Authorities in Gaza to immediatly release Paul Martin.

The Board of The Foreign Press Association
15th February 2010

How come a photographer being detained briefly in a war zone and his camera taken by the Israelis warrants ‘grave concern’ and is considered an ‘unconscionable infringement of basic democratic principles’, but a more serious detention of a journalist in supposed peace time by Hamas elicits only ‘deep concern’ and a ‘request’ that he be released immediately?

This is not just a whiff of media double standards.  This is the stench of rank hypocrisy.  It is one of the clearest examples of why we must always question the motives and veracity of what the media reports when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian matters.  The media cannot be trusted to report fairly, it does not serve us properly with impartial facts because it has an agenda and is utterly biased.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

European Parliament, Goldstone report and rank hypocrisy

Yesterday the European Parliament engaged in some more Israel-bashing as it endorsed the flawed Goldstone report, the UN’s official investigation into the Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip in January 2009.  The report accuses Israel of war crimes and calls for the prosecution of Israeli officials in the Hague.

As EUObserver reported, the Parliament vote was split 335-287 as MEPs backed a joint resolution from the centre left, far left, Greens and Liberals calling on the EU’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, and the bloc’s member states to:

“publicly demand the implementation of [the report’s] recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes.”

Goldstone is notable for its complete lack of balance, practically ignoring systematic acts of terrorist aggression against Israel by the Hamas group running Gaza.  Instead, this disgraceful sham of a report condemned a nation state for taking action to defend its citizens, in the face of overwhelming provocation in the form of sustained rocket attacks by a terrorist organisation masquerading as a political administration.

It is no surprise the leftists in the European Parliament have seized upon the Goldstone report and sought to get behind their Islamist terrorist friends from Hamas by eagerly seeking implement the unfounded recommendations in order to demonise Israel and affix the label of war criminal to its political leaders.

Yet today, just hours after that vote, these same European Parliamentarian apologists for Islamic terror demonstrated hypocrisy of the most astonishing kind as they commemorated a European day for victims of terrorism in Europe.  European Parliament vice-president Gianni Pittella said:

“No terrorist or terrorist action will ever be able to diminish or destroy our faith in core values such as human rights and democracy.”

At least not unless it’s Israelis in the terrorists’ sights, it seems.  Pittella added further insult as he went on to explain that ‘Terrorism is an attack on us all. Terrorism is an attack on the very fabric of our democratic society’.

Strangely there was no mention that any democracy society that seeks to protect itself by fighting back against terrorism will be judged by MEPs, accused of committing war crimes and subjected to demands to surrender themselves for trial at the Hague.

There is no sense to this as the origin of the terror both in Europe and Israel is the same intolerant Islamist mindset.

The only possible conclusion is that many MEPs regard the life of a European as worth more than the life of an Israeli.  European states can act as they see fit, while they expect Israelis to stand in the firing line and just take it, rocket and suicide bomb at a time, year after year.

‘Terrorism can never be justified’ Pittella told his audience today, but in the case of Israel it seems it can readily be excused in the European Parliament.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

A question for Dubai about Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

Since 20th January the newspapers and TV news bulletins have been full of the latest reports and theories about the people who allegedly killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior military commander of the Hamas terrorist group, at a hotel in Dubai.  Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was the founder of the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, an entity that has carried out hundreds of attacks and suicide bombings mainly targeting Israeli civilians.  I chose not to cover the story because it was being done so well elsewhere and I had nothing to add to what was being written.

But for me there is a question that needs to be answered.  All the focus has been on the hunt for ten men and one woman who travelled to Dubai using fake British, Irish, German and French passports, with hours devoted to the origin of these passports and how they had been used fraudulently.  Dubai is pulling out all the stops to find the people it believes are Israeli Mossad agents.  That seems reasonable enough, after all a murder was committed.  But it seems to be nothing more than a passing observation that Mahmoud al-Mabhouh himself flew into Dubai from Damascus, Syria on 19th January, using a fake passport.  He was travelling under the name Mahmoud Abdul Raouf Mohammed.

So the question is this: While Dubai is hunting for what they believe to be 11 or more Israelis, what are they doing to investigate how Mahmoud al-Mabhouh – well known throughout the region as a Hamas commander – was able to waltz into Dubai posing as Mahmoud Abdul Raouf Mohammed and have they started investigating the origin of his fake passport and how it came to be in his possession?  I would hate to think that Dubai is less interested about the covert movement on their territory of a known Arab terrorist responsible for hundreds of atrocities than a group of people assumed to be Israeli who allegedly killed him.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: