| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A convert to Islam who...you guessed it...misunderstood his new religion. Memo to Ibrahim Hooper: don't you think it's time you folks at CAIR (and MPACUK, of course) developed some programs for Muslim converts to help steer them away from the jihadists?
Now seriously, why is that a question no one ever asks Hooper? Why does no one look askance at the fact that self-professed moderate Muslim organizations have no large-scale organized programs to teach Muslims that the ideology of jihad is false?
"British man admits plotting to bomb buildings in Washington, Newark and New York," from AP:
LONDON -- A British man identified by U.S. officials as a senior al-Qaida figure pleaded guilty Thursday to conspiracy to murder in a plot to bomb high-profile targets in the United States including the International Monetary Fund headquarters in Washington and the New York Stock Exchange."I plead guilty," Dhiran Barot, 34, said in a clear voice at London's high-security Woolwich Crown Court.
Prosecutors said the plot involved targets in both Britain and the United States. Other alleged targets included the World Bank headquarters in Washington, the Citigroup building in New York and the Prudential building in Newark, N.J.
Barot, a British citizen who was raised a Hindu before converting to Islam, was arrested in August 2004 amid a heightened security alert for financial institutions in the United States. Seven other men are due to face trial next year.
Prosecutor Edmund Lawson said Barot planned "to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning. They were plainly designed to kill as many people as possible."
U.S. officials claim Barot is a senior al-Qaida figure, known variously as Abu Eisa al-Hindi, Abu Musa al-Hindi and Issa al-Britani, who scouted prominent financial targets in the United States at the behest of Osama bin Laden.
Posted by Robert at October 12, 2006 11:12 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"Barot, a British citizen..."
No! Never! No moslem can be a British citizen - ever! A British passport holder, perhaps, but a citizen - never!
We need to understand the difference - and so do they.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 12, 2006 11:45 PM
Any listener to BBC news would come away with the impression that he may well have been some sort of fantasist, drawing up grandiose plans in his bedroom.They would be absolutely clueless as to how the other defendants ended up in court charged with being involved in the plot. Legal restrictions about how much the public can be told concerning cases that are under investigation or are sub judice in this country seem to be getting tighter and more ludicrous every day.
I'm fairly certain, however, that one correspondent denied any links between the defendant and al queda.
at October 12, 2006 11:59 PM
Mother Ecclesiastica/
This one passed me by. Have you any links to the story? It all sounds like a really good idea to me.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 13, 2006 12:10 AM
OT: Did you read that the commander of the British armed forces has been peddling the "let's get out of Iraq because it's been making Muslims mad at us" line? The great civilian war-leaders of the past, Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill, would have sacked him by wire and quite possibly taken away his knighthood as well. This government will probably waffle and let him get away with it.
Posted by: Paolo at October 13, 2006 12:11 AM
Man, Clemenceau really screwed over the Germans. Probably caused WWII, hahaha.
Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at October 13, 2006 12:42 AM
Voice of truth (
Completely off the point but the germans got off remarkably lightly after World war one ( see Niall ferguson's 'The Pity of War' - some of his revisionist ideas are pretty wild but he is sound enough on reparations). Clemenceau could remember the way Germany had treated France after the Franco-Prussian war.The Germans, in the same way that some people say muslimss do, created a myth of victimhood.
Posted by: wallyUK at October 13, 2006 1:00 AM
Mother Ecclesiastica/
Got it. Thank-you.
Links are easy - just remember to post it like this: http://www.jimball.com.au/ making sure that you leave spaces before and after the actual link, even if you're putting it in brackets leave spaces after the opening bracket and before the closing one.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 13, 2006 1:06 AM
I thought all Brits were "subjects", not citizens???
Posted by: atheling at October 13, 2006 1:06 AM
atheling/
Not since 1947 - almost fifty years ago. Lots and lots of British Nationalities Acts since then also. This is a hoary old myth that won't lie down and die and which 'freepers' won't let go of, so help us.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 13, 2006 1:10 AM
atheling/
Sorry. The British Nationality Act of 1948, not 1947, defined and enacted British citizenship and abolished British crown subjects.
The British Nationality Act of 1981 abolished the 1948 definition of British citizenship and replaced it with three other categories: British citizenship, citizenship of British dependent territories, and British overseas citizenship. Of these, only British citizenship provides the right to live in the UK. Today, British citizenship can be acquired by birth (if at the time of birth either parent is a British citizen settled in the UK), descent (for a person born abroad, if either parent is a British citizen at the time of birth) or naturalisation. The latter is at the discretion of the Home Secretary and is dependent on criteria such as residence, language, employment and good character.
Hope this helps to dispel the myth - once again!
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 13, 2006 1:17 AM
Out of sheer curiosity can anyone tell me why Americans, in particular, keep on believing the 'subject' myth despite all the Acts of Parliament that removed it and replaced it with citizenship. Is this some sort of wilfull blind spot, a need to believe that British people are somehow subject and not free whilst they are? Some sort of assertion of supremacy of being over an old enemy, or what? What's going on here?
You know, it's really very annoying indeed. Get over it folks. We're citizens too. Live with it!
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 13, 2006 1:25 AM
Is it any wonder that several posters wonder if its terrorist related when a plane crashes into a tall building in NYC?
Posted by: guide inside at October 13, 2006 1:26 AM
Not one of the supposedly "serious" news sources - the BBC, Sky News, The Times, Telegraph or Guardian - reported that this man is a Muslim. The Independent didn't even run the story!
Only ITV and the tabloid Daily Mail and Daily Express (that I saw) included details sufficient to understand his likely motivation.
It all-too-often looks as though large portions of the British media have now gone beyond denial into the realm of active obfuscation.
Posted by: Null at October 13, 2006 2:50 AM
Can't believe I listed Sky News as "supposedly serious". Oh well... I digress.
Posted by: Null at October 13, 2006 2:52 AM
Take heart, Dominic.
Many Americans browse the UK and world news. We're not ignorant of your status at all in my circles. This nutcase is no Brit!
The challenges to your identity are the same as what we in the US face. It takes courage and a patriot spirit to stand up for nationalism these days, but if we don't, we all sink together...free men or not.
at October 13, 2006 3:59 AM
The Daily Mail gives an inadvertent (?) comment by quoting (B-16 has shown us the way!) Barot's neighbour:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410153&in_page_id=1770
Friends of the family said Barot was a lovely boy who had been brainwashed by extremists.
"He was a really good kid. How can a nice Hindu boy change into a Muslim? I believe he was brainwashed," said a neighbour.
This is what Islam does to really good boys and girls!
Posted by: Polish infideless at October 13, 2006 4:25 AM
A little off thread.
There was a fuss in Britain two days ago because prisons had no more space due to “foreign convicts” taking 11,000 out of the 90,000 places.
How many of the 11,000, like the 5 Somalis now on trial for murdering* the policewoman, are “asylum seekers”? Were the MSM trying to tell us something for once?
*They could not send him back to Somalia because his (Taxpayer funded) lawyers argued "His life would be in danger".
at October 13, 2006 4:29 AM
Spot on, Fred! And where did he find refuge in the end? In Somalia!
Posted by: Polish infideless at October 13, 2006 4:31 AM
"Why does no one look askance at the fact that self-professed moderate Muslim organizations have no large-scale organized programs to teach Muslims that the ideology of jihad is false?"
The problem is that they cannot point to (non-abrogated) passages in the Koran that justify that the ideology of jihad is false. It would be like pointing to the abrogated passage in the Koran re wine to justify Muslims drinking it. The Koran is alleged dictation from God and unlike the books of Old Testament, the Koran is not written by fallible humans and easily subjected to interpretation. For that reason, folks like Bin Laden can point to a (non-abrogated) mandate to do do violence against unbelievers and say: what don't you understand about a direct order from God?
------------
On a separate matter, belief-systems (including political ones) appear to be dogmatic by their very nature. (People rarely become aggressive re obvious facts unless they contradict a belief-system.) Since the Koran is allegedly dictation from God, the belief-system is particularly rigid and facts that contradict it must provoke a violent response or deception. It's literally fight or flight with the Islamic belief-system and requires violence or deception re facts that contradict the belief-system. This kills creativity in the mind. It's no accident that a tiny country like Israel produces more new ideas in science and technology (and other things) than all of the Muslim World. The Muslim belief-system is footbinding for the head in terms of bold creative and nonconformist thought.
---------------
at October 13, 2006 6:16 AM
Hooper is the barking Dogma of CAIR. Those of the Islamic belief-system should "Curb Your Dogma" as the old saying goes. There are a lot of Dogmas in the Islamic belief-system.
Posted by: Frank at October 13, 2006 6:20 AM
How many of the 11,000, like the 5 Somalis now on trial for murdering* the policewoman, are “asylum seekers”? Were the MSM trying to tell us something for once?
I shudder to think how many, Fred.
How long are we going to put up with these criminals sucking the teats of Lady Britannia dry while at the same time sticking two fingers up at our law and order ?
How long ?
at October 13, 2006 6:32 AM
OT: Did you read that the commander of the British armed forces has been peddling the "let's get out of Iraq because it's been making Muslims mad at us" line? [...]
Posted by: Paolo at October 13, 2006 12:11 AM
It's been the leading story on Al-CBC Radio (the BBC's Canadian echo)this morning. That along with turning the story about prominent Jews deserting the front-running Michael Ignatieff Liberal party leadership campaign because Iggie flippantly placed Israel on the same moral level as Hezbollah -- "guilty of war crimes" -- to focus on P.M. Stephen Harper's largely accurate appraisal of all of the Liberal Party leadership hopefuls being on the same page s Iggie on Israel / Palestine. (The notable exception is former NDP premier of Ontario Bob Rae,left the NDP, in part because it had become so insanely pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.)
at October 13, 2006 8:02 AM
A Somali was convicted yesterdy of callously shooting two unarmed female policemen in the course of a robbery, killing one of them. The only other female British policeman to be shot in the line of duty was Yvonne Fletcher, killed by fire coming from the Libyan embassy in 1984.
I had always assumed that the Libyan incident had been a case of the bullets being meant for anti-Gadafy demonstrators and hitting the policewoman by mistake. The coincidence that the only two cases in British history both involved Muslims, and having noticed how unhesitant they are about beating or killing women, I'm beginning to wonder if the embassy incident wasn't a case of deliberate targetting.
at October 13, 2006 12:24 PM
waterdragon52
It is sensational that he should say this and I would bet he will not keep his job for long. But he may be trying to tell us something.
The Blair Government has hacked the British Forces to pieces to get money for its great social projects. At the same time it has committed the Armed Services to more theatres than any government for 30 years. Last year in yet another round of cuts it proposed to reduce the infantry and even its Blair’s own MP’s thought that was crazy. Let me give you a few examples of what the British Army has to put up with,
1) Tony Blair switches between 3 convoys of armoured limousines for security reasons – British soldiers were killed in Iraq because they had to patrol in lightweight Land Rovers left over from Northern Ireland. It was only when some officers told the Press last month that they got the proper vehicles.
2) In the interest of “Diversity” the Army was told to recruit its quota of ethnic minorities and it had to reach its target by a given date without increasing its size and without reference to normal personnel turnover. So they kicked out men who wished to re-enlist to make places for their minority quota. Small problem – the minorities did not want to join so they went to the West Indies and Far East to recruit the necessary men. Stupid because it is just making the figures look right to the PC crowd.
3) The men in Iraq do not have the right equipment or enough of it. One man would have lived had he not been ordered to send his body armour to a unit that needed it more. Meanwhile tens of thousands “asylum seekers” get fully furnished flats, welfare, lawyers and everything else without limit.
4) Last week an officer serving in Afghanistan went public saying the RAF was “Bloody useless” and without the USAF they would be finished. A woman pilot (Must make our PC quota) strafed the wrong place and almost shot up his unit. To be fair to the RAF they have had to buy clapped out aircraft from the Luftwaffe to carry out even routine duties in the UK.
5) They have called up the part time Territorial Army for the first time in 50 years. The local defence of British bases in Iraq relies on 19-year-old kids on a 6-month break from filling shelves at the supermarket.
In this situation something has to give.
at October 13, 2006 12:25 PM
Surely General Sir Richard Dannatt has a point? Surely British troops in Iraq should be recalled to help quell the civil war at home?
Apparently, or so I've heard, Dannatt has pledged that the army won't allow sharia law to be imposed in Britain, which adds an interesting variable into the debate. That the military may get involved is signficant. If this is true, we can only hope our friends in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France are watching. However, I can't find the relevant passage where he is said to have made this claim.
Posted by: meharistes at October 13, 2006 3:35 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)