Another day, another study with the same conclusion. "Inmates 'Forced Into Radicalism'," from Sky News, October 10:
Muslim prison gangs are trying to force other inmates to sign up to Islamic radicalism, prison officers have warned.
Extremists at high security HMP Whitemoor in Cambridgeshire were pushing a "strict and extreme" interpretation of Islamic practice, inspectors were told.
There was a perception among officers that some Muslim prisoners operated as a gang and put pressures on non-Muslim prisoners to convert, and on other Muslim prisoners to conform to a strict and extreme interpretation of Islamic practice.
Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers found staff were reluctant to tackle "inappropriate behaviour" and was told Muslim prisoners were able to "police themselves".
She was told: "The new gang are the Muslims. The Muslim group is a big group and others are looking for protection.
"Those who are isolated are looking for protection and so are the ones converting as they won't get help from screws."
Earlier this week, an EU-commissioned report warned urgent action was required to stop brainwashing by jailed extremists.
Dr Peter Neumann from King's College London said governments across Europe should observe prisons more closely in the future as they were likely to become "major hubs" for terrorist recruitment.
He suggested creating "jihadist prisons" in which to isolate Islamist militants.
"Dr Peter Neumann from King's College London said governments across Europe should observe prisons more closely in the future as they were likely to become "major hubs" for terrorist recruitment.
He suggested creating "jihadist prisons" in which to isolate Islamist militants."
-- from the article above
As has been recommended many times before at this website.
For example, in this posting:
"Muslim inmates conducting Da'wa (that is, a great many of those inmates) should be segregated in Muslim-only wards. On what grounds? On the grounds of national security.
But how is this argument to be made? Not by those who simply know little or nothing of Islam. The ground has to be properly prepared -- the mental ground of the prosecutors, and of the judges who will be decidiing such cases. If the argument is properly presented (and this requires prosecutors well-versed in the texts and tenets of Islam, and the Western scholarship that will support them)nds, any challenge brought under the equal protection clause should be met with the claim, not hard to prove, that national security -- keeping people from conducting work to multiply the number of "Jihadists" permanently hostile to this country's political and legal institutions, and prepared to act on that hostility -- is a state interest sufficiently compelling to withstand any such Fifth-and-Fourteenth-Amendment challenge.
It can and should be done. The in-prison Da'wa proceeds apace,and it is not enough to suggest that missionaries of other faiths should go and do likewise. The systematic and well-financed (with or without money from foreign, especially Saudi, sources) campaigns of Da'wa, targetting prisoners (especially black prisoners) have to be not merely monitored, but curtailed. If there are Muslim-only cell-blocks or, better, prisons, especially for those arrested for these kind of offenses, that will make the conduct of Da'wa impossible.
It will be a case of preaching to the reverted."
[Posted by: Hugh at January 4, 2008]
"...he suggested isolating Islamic militants .. in prisons."
If they're going to have their own legal system in the form of sharia maybe they sould have their own prisons, funded by them as well.
This is becoming impossible.
If the convicted jihadists currently in British prisons, or prisons elsewhere in the West, cannot be executed because of existing laws against capital punishment, then they should be stripped of their British [or other kafir country] citizenship (if they have it) and deported.
Put them on board the next plane to Afghanistan or Iraq and release them into the wild in their underpants, after first taking DNA samples and placing their photographs, fingerprints, etc. on the immigration, police and military databases of all kafir countries, marked (for immigration) "Do Not Admit" and (for the military and police) 'Dangerous: Shoot On Sight".
Alternatively, maybe Britain and the USA could work out a new use for Johnston, Midway and Wake Islands.
I'd like to see what twenty or thirty jihadis do when they have nothing to look at except seagulls, rocks and the ocean stretching into the blue distance all around them; nothing to eat except what crabs, oysters and fish they can catch themselves, and no Qur'an to read, and no women or infidels to victimise, no-one to threaten or fight or rape or rob except each other, and their sole domain consists of a couple of square km of coral atoll.
Dumble, your last paragraph sounds like a description of the desert they come from, except for the blue water, crabs, and gulls. No wonder they all want to leave.
Dr Peter Neumann from King's College London said governments across Europe should observe prisons more closely in the future as they were likely to become "major hubs" for terrorist recruitment.
You're a day late and a dollar short on that one Peter...The 'becoming has already became'...
From Above: I'd like to see what twenty or thirty jihadis do when they have nothing to look at except seagulls, rocks and the ocean stretching into the blue distance all around them...
Devils Island...The above view is available for three minutes a day through a foggy 5"x5" window.
The rest of the time it's walls...
You ain't seen NOTHING yet! Islamic link to BO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE
BO is not a muslim! BO is not a muslim! BO is not a muslim!
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77508
BO is not a muslim!
Okay, I am trying to convince myself that reality isn't what it is no matter what the evidence to the contrary suggests.
So why was BO campaigning in Kennya anyway?
islamic proselytizing and "radicalization" is about to accelerate if I read these tea leaves correctly and in won't just be in the jailhouses either!
BO is not a muslim! BO is not a muslim! Bo is not....
Don't hold your breath in the expectation that anything will be done about this.
I thought we already had a prison for jihadists in Gitmo. Even if it can't be used for those picked up from the battlefield, can't we use it for those who have actually been convicted, or who may be convicted after undergoing their trials? Many candidates come to mind - the Fort Dix six, Sami Al Arian, those poor misunderstood college kids found with explosives in South Carolina, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the jihadist who plowed his car into students at UNC. There will be others, unfortunately. There will always be others.
"Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers found staff were reluctant to tackle "inappropriate behaviour" and was told Muslim prisoners were able to "police themselves"."
When the warders decide to allow the inmates to run the asylum, it's time for the firings to begin, on one end, and for the enforcement of the rules by whatever means necessary, on the other.
"Police themselves?" Doesn't it just make you want to scream, with frustration?
The staff is reluctant to tackle inappropriate behaviour? Why? The staff has all the riot gear, weapons, kevlar, and a moral obligation.
It's not time for the prisoners to police themselves. It's time for the prison staff to treat them like Islamic prisoners! Let the lashings begin! Do that a couple of times, right in the middle of the dayroom, making observation by the inmates in that locality mandatory. That might just work.
It's harsh, it's nasty, it's ugly, but by Allah--it's sunnah!
Segregate Muslim prisoners. Put them in their own separate facility. Anyone in another prison who converts to Islam will be immediately transferred to that facility.
Abscedere...When the warders decide to allow the inmates to run the asylum, it's time for the firings to begin...
Not only is the idea that inmates can 'police themselves' an oxymoron, it is a dereliction of duty and responsibility that puts correctional staff at risk.
Reluctant to tackle inappropriate behavior, is in a class by itself. Human lock-up of any kind, is no place for cowards on staff.
The staff is there, and is paid, and sometimes trained, to deal directly, and head on with inappropriate behavior. If they can't or won't do that, they are compromised and need to be replaced...
I thought we already had a prison for jihadists in Gitmo. Even if it can't be used for those picked up from the battlefield, can't we use it for those who have actually been convicted, or who may be convicted after undergoing their trials?
-posted above
This non-lawyer suggests not. It's a military base, not a civilian prison. If people are convicted in American civil courts it's not clear if they can be kept in a military prison.
It's why we need a new Alcatraz.
It's why we need a new Alcatraz.
Posted by: PM
Other than a little modernizing, what's wrong with the old one?
"Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers found staff were reluctant to tackle "inappropriate behaviour" and was told Muslim prisoners were able to "police themselves"."
I only half heard the report on BBC radio but from what I did hear I thought they the line THEY took was,
"Prison staff unfairly treating all muslim prisoners as extreamists."
quit arresting and imprisoning Muslims...just strip them of their rights and deport them ..let Islam listen to them and feed them...If they return, then it solitary confinement for a long, long, long, time.
I agree with PMK and George Mc. We're at war and jihadists are war criminals, be it America, Israel, or England they're taking down or technical/material/whatever support they're providing jihadists wherever they may be. There does need to be some overhaul in the legal system so that the law differentiates between a random knifing in the street and carbombs at airports (One is a random violent crime and the other is jihad) and so that it takes one's background into account, i.e., whether they are indoctrinated in the Koran, the Hadith, and Sira. A jihadist would happily rape or kill his own daughter or sister; a non-jihadist would not. They are different types of criminals and the law should treat them differently. Criminal profilers make that distinction and so should the law. If we release them into the wild they'll just go try to kill Israelis or Hindu Kashmiris or whoever. It's irresponsible. Gitmo IS a new Alcatraz, one for exactly this type of criminal. That is where they belong. Maybe all jihadists should be tried in military courts if that's the loophole that needs to be closed in order to put them in Gitmo. If so, fine.
The idea of black and white Muslims being released scares me because they can fit into society better than Arab or Paki jihadists. Not everyone can spot that dead-cow-eyed-cult-member glare/impenetrable wall of malignant narcissim and deluded supremacy the way people like us can and that just makes them easy targets. And I'll admit that I couldn't until I saw it first-hand after knowing the doctrine and understanding what a cult really is and what's really a cult. And when they're white even I'm likely to assume that they're just Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or some other brand of harmless cult member. Plus, black and white Muslims could theoreticaly be 'cultural' Muslim-corns, whereas someone who came to the free world from an Islamic paradise can only be here for jihad per Islamic law, if they have been or plan to be here for more than 4 months anyway.
I realize how racist that sounds but I would never assume that someone is something as horrible as a Muslim based on the color of their skin. I had a professor last summer who introduced himself as 'Persian' the first day of class, but it never occurred to me that he was Muslim because he interacted with us like a normal human being, something Muslims never do conivincingly. He then later stated that he wasn't 'a religious person,' but I think we all knew that. Likewise, could you look a Muslim in the eye and interact him the same way you would a non-Muslim, or would fear and hatred preclude that? It does in my case.
jdamn - you wrote:
" Not everyone can spot that dead-cow-eyed-cult-member glare/impenetrable wall of malignant narcissim and deluded supremacy the way people like us can and that just makes them easy targets.
"And I'll admit that I couldn't until I saw it first-hand after knowing the doctrine and understanding what a cult really is and what's really a cult."
And you added: "I had a professor last summer who introduced himself as 'Persian' the first day of class, but it never occurred to me that he was Muslim because he interacted with us like a normal human being, something Muslims never do conivincingly".
What I'm wondering is whether what you, and others, are picking up on - I'm remembering someone's posting here from the archives, about Saudi students at an american campus years ago, and how, despite their effusive behaviour, she always felt there was something 'off' about the way they related to her - is the expression of Contempt. Not there all the time - in fact, they're trying very hard to conceal it - 'we smile at some people, though our hearts hate them' - but it's seeping out from underneath, in what the face-readers, like Ekman, call 'micro-expressions'.
Have you read Malcolm Gladwell's 'Blink'?
In chapter one he talks about a psychologist called John Gottman who has done work on the way people interact in relationships (his focus is marriage counselling). Gottman found that by watching 15 min of ordinary interaction he could predict, with 90 % accuracy, whether the marriage would survive or fail.
Part 3 of chapter 1 is called: "The Importance of Contempt".
"Gottman has found that he can find out much of what he needs to know just by focusing on what he calls the Four Horsemen: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt.
'Even within the Four Horsemen, in fact, there is one emotion that he considers the most important of all: contempt. If G. observes one or both partners in a marriage showing contempt toward the other, he considers it the single most important sign that the relationship is in trouble.
'"You would think that criticism would be the worst", Gottman says, "because criticism is a global condemnation of a person's character. Yet contempt is qualitatively different from criticism.
"With criticism I might say to my wife, 'You never listen, you are really selfish and insensitive.' Well, she's going to respond defensively to that...But if I speak from a superior plane, that's far more damaging, and contempt is any statement made from a higher level. A lot of the time it's an insult...It's trying to put that person on a lower plane than you. It's hierarchical."
'Gottman has found, in fact, that the presence of contempt in a marriage can even predict such things as how many colds a husband or wife gets...'Contempt is closely related to disgust, and what disgust and contempt are about is completely rejecting and excluding someone from the community...There isn't any gender difference when it comes to contempt. Not at all." Contempt is special. If you can measure contempt, then all of a sudden you don't need to know every detail of the couple's relationship'." END QUOTE
Now, we know, don't we, that the Islamic texts, Qur'an-Sira-Hadith, inculcate, in Muslims, hatred and contempt toward kafir, especially Jews. Contempt is about rejection and exclusion - well, that's exactly what's done to the dhimmis, isn't it? Put that together with Gottman's observation that contempt is *the* relationship-killer, and you've got something truly scarey.
Then jump to chapter 6, '7 seconds in the bronx', part 2, 'the theory of mind reading', where Gladwell talks about the work done by Silvan Tomkins and Paul Ekman, and in particular by Ekman and Wallace Friesen to 'decode' the language of the face, developing the Facial Action Coding System.
part 3, 'the naked face', argues that our faces work on two levels - the conscious, which we can control; and the unconscious, which we cannot, and from which 'micro-expressions' showing our 'basic emotions', leak out no matter how hard we are trying to keep up a mask.
"our involuntary expressive system is in many ways even more important [than our voluntary expressive system]: it is the way we have been equipped by evolution to signal our authentic feelings'.
What you might be picking up on, jdamn, in some of the more dangerous Muslims you've encountered, is the steady leak of 'micro-expressions' conveying the cold Quranically-derived contempt with which the person is actually viewing you; and your brain is registering the dissonance between that, and the smiling mask which imperfectly conceals it.
Whereas with your nice 'Persian' professor, that steady leak of concealed hostility, that 'false note', just wasn't there - no cognitive dissonance, so you said, "he interacted with us like a normal human being".