Yet any public questioning of the extent of jihadism in Muslim communities in Britain or the US brings immediate cries of "racism!" From the TimesOnline, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
TONY BLAIR is facing new controversy over his efforts to secure the release of the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba after America accused one of the detainees of being an Al-Qaeda terrorist who volunteered for a suicide mission.American court papers revealed for the first time this weekend say that Feroz Abbasi, a college dropout, had received advanced military training at terror camps in Afghanistan and was present on at least two occasions when Osama Bin Laden visited.
Abbasi, 24, from Croydon, south London, is alleged to have met other senior Al-Qaeda figures and fought with a crack unit of Islamic terrorists during the Afghan conflict with America and its allies. The revelations — the most detailed account to date of the US case against any of the four Britons at Guantanamo Bay — are likely to leave Blair with a diplomatic dilemma.
Less than a fortnight ago the prime minister raised the plight of the Britons with George W Bush during a trip to Washington. Blair is believed to have asked for the prisoners to be returned to Britain unless they could be guaranteed a fair trial. His wife Cherie recently criticised the lack of legal rights afforded to prisoners at Camp Delta. However, the serious nature of the American allegations against Abbasi — and the security concerns they raise if he were to be freed — could wreck a potential deal.
The new documents obtained by The Sunday Times have been filed in a district court in Washington DC where lawyers acting for Abbasi and the three other British prisoners are challenging their detention.
The papers outline the proceedings of a military tribunal which was convened at Guantanamo Bay last month to determine whether Abbasi should continue to be held as an “enemy combatant”.
On the basis of the evidence presented to them — only some of which has been unclassified — the three-man tribunal panel unanimously found Abbasi to be “a member of, or affiliated with, Al-Qaeda”.
Islam is NOT a race. Repeat after me. Islam is not a race. Every time a Muslim or an addled non-Muslim brings this charge, make this rejoinder. Create signs and billboards, take out news ads with only those words, no others. Constant repetition of the phrase.
Then explain and give descriptions of what IS racism. Be sure to include Muslim racism. A recent example is the genocide in Darfur in the Sudan. Arab Muslims slaughtered thousands of black Muslims simply because they were black. As they were killing them they chanted, "Die, slaves." The women were gang raped while Arab women chanted and sang in approval. Now that is racism.
Also explain that during the age of the rise of slavery, Arabs mauraded through Africa and drove their captives to the coast to be put on the slave ships bound for the West. Arab pirates boarded Mediterranean ships and enslaved passengers from Europe to be sold in the slave markets of North Africa.
Muslims exacted yearly tribute from Christians villages in the form of children for the Caliphate at Istanbul. These children were enslaved and raised as Muslims.
There are many other examples of Muslim racism that could be given. Thus, the cry of racism from Muslims is hypocritical and we cringe only out of ignorance.
Jihad is not a crime, jihad is an act of WAR. The Gitmo prisoners are not criminals, they are illegal combatants as defined by the internationally accepted laws of war. They have been swept off the battlefield, not a crime scene. Until the lawyers are willing to embed themselves in their suits and briefcases with the Marine rifle squads in the urban combat zones in Iraq and special ops missions in the mountains of Afghanistan, they have no meaningful role in the processing of the Gitmo detainees.
Hmmm..., wouldn't that be kewl, lawyers on point with the grunts wearing a sign in Arabic that says, "Attention jihadis. Don't shoot me or blow me up, I'm a legal non-combatant. I'm here to protect your civil rights. Failure to comply could result in severe civil and criminal penalties."
i vaguely recall that last time we gave some gitmo guys back to england, they were immediately released by those girlie-men wig-wearing pansy-ass judges. until britain grows up and is ready for the big leagues (not meant as a sleight to their military camaraderie and bravery), we cannot play ball with them regarding the release of these violent wackos
The handwriting is on the wall.
The Brits are going to leave us in the lurch in Iraq.
Good!
Let’s face it, they were pretty useless anyway.
We Americans have to start facing the harsh truth that we have only one ally in the Middle East – the Jews.
In some ways, this is unfortunate: the Jews are annoying, and the whole world hates their guts.
In other ways it is good: the Jews are willing back us to the hilt – and they know how to fight.
I say, send the Brits home! (After all, we don’t want to get Tony Blair in trouble with his wife.)
And the same goes for all the rest of the useless bastards Mr. Bush euphemistically calls the “Coalition of the Willing,” unless they plan on doing some real fighting.
Then, bring in the Israelis!
Let the Arab street explode!
Let the whole world stand against us!
With the fighting Jew on our side, we can not lose.
Montfort,
Please give an explanation of how you consider the miltary taking of Basra (which is the second largest city in Iraq) and the surrounding lands and oil fields by predominately Britsh forces to have been "nearly useless" in the successful operation to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq? And how would you explain to the families of the British Servicemen who died fighting with the Americans that you consider their efforts to have been a worthless contribution?
In fact, the only thing that can be described as nearly useless with regards to Iraq is both George Bush and Tony Blair's insistence that Western Democracy will ever work with a country that is over 95% Muslim. If the American Government had great vision in this matter, then they would also pull out as soon as is politically viable, which will be after the Iraqi elections in January, and instead go into South Sudan to rescue the Christian and Pagan Tribes from the genocide that is, as much as the majority of the West doesn't want to admit it, a religious war, perpetrated by the Arab militias and the Muslim Government. There, one would find a people who would be genuinely grateful from being rescued from persecution, unlike the majority of the Iraqis (and who that understands the Islamic mind was surprised at that), and a land which has ample oil fields, which would be a great asset in the task of removing the natural resource dependence of the West from the Islamic Middle East.
That's right, Montfort, this war against Islam has to be fought economically, as well as militarily if we are to be successful, as the billions of dollars of oil revenue pocketed by the ruling Governments of the Middle East is in part being pumped into religious schools of indocrination, both in the Middle East, (the Madrassah's of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for example), as well as Islamic Schools and Universities in the West, and many terrorist organisations the world over, creating and funding the new generation of Islamic terrorist. Yet your ill informed rant didn't even mention these facts.
You would also do well to bear in mind that we must (and I say "we" as meaning the Democratic West and not just America) gain any allies that we can to fight this Islamic global threat, as there is far to much at stake to give in to petty and ultimately futile squabbles. You would also do well to remember that you should refrain from dismissing those who would stand with you against the Islamic threat to freedom, equality and any other notions that are considered by many muslims to be a "Judeo-Christian invention, which have no place in the House of Islam", as Sa'id Khorassani, the Iranian delegate to the UN said in 1985.
To think as you do that this war must only be fought militarily is folly. To think that it is also acceptable to dismiss your allies in a matter so important is almost unforgiveable. Hang your head in shame.
By chance today I caught the tail-end of that long-running BBC Radio 4 institution, 'Desert Island Discs'. What could be more innocuous?
What I heard put me off my lunch.
This week's guest is UK human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith (now a U.S. citizen.) For years he has campaigned tirelessly against the death penalty in the U.S. Now he has a new, urgent mission: he wants ALL the prisoners at Guantanamo released.
What's more, he has a handsome grant from the Soros Foundation to help him achieve his goal -
"Clive Stafford-Smith will organize a coalition to promote enforcement of constitutional and human rights in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (home of a U.S. military base and prison); to produce a best-practices manual for litigating the cases before military commissions; and to write about a selection of Guantanamo prisoners."
Maybe I'm terminally naive, but I always assumed that laws (arguably even Sharia law) were drafted to protect citizens of any country from various kinds of human predators, particularly those who would do them physical harm.
No doubt there are many times when The Law proves to be an imperfect ass, but what are we to make of a lawyer who has not only spent years of his life trying to get rapist torture-murderers off the hook, but now intends to dedicate his future to forcing the release of hordes of fantatical jihadists, terrorists, bombers, throat-slitters and head-sawers-off? This in spite of the fact that at least ten of the Gitmo prisoners already released have immediately reverted to their previous activities, and killed even more people, including a hapless Chinese hostage.
Can he REALLY think it's a good idea to let people like this loose on our streets and schools and passenger planes?
Is Stafford-Clark condemned by his peers for being the champion of cut-throats everywhere? Not at all. Instead, he is the recipient of numerous awards for his 'humanitarian' work, and the Queen confers on him the Order of the British Empire (no doubt at the behest of fellow lawyer Cherie Blair.)
Google Mr Stafford-Clark's name and read about the nature of the crimes committed by this smug hero's clients, and read too the interviews he has granted to his adoring Islamist groupies.
The kicker: when asked by Sue Lawley what single book he would take with him on his desert island, he chose "the Koran in English and Arabic."
Think this 'champion of human rights' will be leaping to the defence of any victims of Sharia Law (say, Iranian children whipped to death for breaking the Ramadan fast, teenage girls hanged from cranes for the 'crime' of being being raped, women sentenced to stoning for having sex out of wedlock etc etc etc) any time soon?
Not a chance. Only murderers - the showier the better - need apply.
Amicus,
You're right. The Brits did capture Basra. That was so long ago I had almost forgotten. Now I have nothing against the British fighting forces. It's the their political leaders that I sense are getting a little weak-kneed.
You say that I should bear in mind that we Americans have to gain all the allies we can in order to meet the global threat of Islam. I have no problem with that as long as these prospective allies are a.)allies and b.)not useless.
The main point of my "ill-informed rant", however, was that whatever policy we decide upon, it must be based on reality. If the Jews are more reliable than the British, then let's rely more on the Jews. If our success is bound to result in the whole world hating us, I say, bring on the hate. Remember, if the hatred of the world were fatal, we'd already be dead.
You say that democracy in Iraq is impossible. Well, you may have a point there. But if it is impossible, we'll just have to come up with Plan B.
Retreat, however, is not an option.
If Mr Stafford-Clark is willing to personally guarantee for all prisoners released from Guantanamo,that none of them will engage in any act of international terrorism,then so be it.
And if any of the released prisoners turn out as repeat-murderers ,then Mr.Stafford should be held responsible and he should be imprisoned instead....he should do the time of any released-repeat offender.
Adela -
Excellent suggestion! I'm sure Stafford-Smith would go for it...Not!
My impression is that beneath his personable facade, he's someone who really hates the society he lives in. Therefore any enemy of that society becomes his instant best friend. (Thus his current infatuation with Islam and its terrorists.)
What a sad waste of education, talent, energy and enthusiasm!