| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Left-Islamo Tolerance for Terrorism |
| 2007-08-01 |
| By Chris Talbot 31 July 2007 Four 20-year-old Bradford University students and a 19-year-old school student were jailed after a trial at the Old Bailey for being found with material said to be “glorifying Islamic terrorism” on their computers. Aitzaz Zafar, Usman Malik and Awaab Iqbaal were jailed for three years each, Akbar Butt was jailed for 27 months and the school student, Mohammed Irfan Raja was given two years’ youth detention. Such is the atmosphere created by politicians and the media after the attempted terror bombings in London and Glasgow earlier this month that there was very little opposition in the media to what are police state measures—the jailing of these youths merely for downloading material readily available on the Internet Marxists are not the best source on political freedom; this alliance with Muslims who would murder atheists in their homelands, is as bizarre as is it suicidal. The case is the first successful prosecution under the Terrorism Act 2000 for possessing material useful for terrorism. Raja, at the age of 17, had run away from his home in London leaving a note to his parents saying, “if not in this [world] we will meet in [the Garden of Paradise]”. According to the prosecution, he was planning to go and fight in Afghanistan after training in Pakistan, and for that purpose he had joined the four students in Bradford. No serious evidence that this was anything more than an adolescent fantasy is reported. The 7-7 terror was anything but a fantasy. His parents talked to him over the phone and persuaded him to return home after three days. Raja was said to have been depressed and had discussed Islamic fundamentalism with the Bradford students over the Internet. His parents contacted the police and Raja apparently confessed, during several interviews, of his desire to fight “Muslim causes abroad.” He directed the police to the Bradford students who were arrested for having the extremist material on their computers. One of the students, Aitzaz Zafar, was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Asked whether the “inflammatory jihadist material” he had downloaded was not an indication of terrorist intent, Zafar said that he was “researching into my religion—looking at all aspects of it.” He had become more “politically aware” as a student, and “research had led me to different sites and places.” The interviewer pressed him on why he had “horrific material,” including the video of a beheading. Zafar said that he had downloaded a zipped file containing more than 200 documents. “I never read all of them and in court they cherry-picked one document—and within that a paragraph.” Asked why he had a copy of the “Terrorist’s Handbook” on his computer, he said he had been in a chat room discussing the Muslim religion and politics, and it was one of the files that had been sent him—“people send you all sorts.” Reports of the trial claim that the five youths had made Internet contact with a certain British man called Imran who in one online chat had advised them how to travel unnoticed to Pakistan. Also mentioned was a “Brother Ali” in New Jersey, who had told Raja to get in touch with the Bradford students. Whether either of these men had sent them the zipped file or the “Terrorist’s Handbook” is not recorded. They were not produced as witnesses, and no explanation was given of why they were not arrested also. It is hardly a secret that such chat rooms can be used by provocateurs and the intelligence services. Anyone who can't read terror preparation in the above narrative, is brain dead. There is clearly some disquiet in establishment circles at the way democratic rights are being trampled on in such cases. David Livingstone, an associate fellow in international security at Chatham House, home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, appeared as a witness for the defence at the trial. He told the Today programme that there was no evidence that the five had planned to instigate a terrorist attack. The prosecution could “radicalise” young Muslims “through a perceived sense of injustice,” he said. Elie Kedourie attacked RIIA dhimmism in his book, "The Chatham House Version" |
| Posted by:McZoid |
| #3 #2 -- Islam doesn't make the same distinction you do. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-08-01 18:17 |
| #2 Er, how many other religions find it unremarkable that, in a religious-oriented chat, someone would send you a terrorist manual? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-08-01 18:07 |
| #1 Asked why he had a copy of the “Terrorist’s Handbook” on his computer, he said he had been in a chat room discussing the Muslim religion and politics, and it was one of the files that had been sent him—“people send you all sorts.” Curiously enough, he neglected to delete such an obvious Islamist tract. The prosecution could “radicalise” young Muslims “through a perceived sense of injustice,” he said. If this is an actual effect, then why is this world not already radicalized against Islam by constant Muslim injustices inflicted upon the West? After some 9,000 terror attacks since the 9-11 atrocity one would think that by now this world's Muslim population would have enjoyed some serious attrition. If we somehow have managed to restrain ourselves in the face of endless Islamic atrocities, isn't it long past tea for Muslims to shut their collective pie hole about how they are treated? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-08-01 17:33 |