“There are simply too many arrests….This leads to individuals being pulled up on really very flimsy evidence, only to be later released. The implications of getting it wrong can only further radicalise some individuals and that’s the worry.”
So let’s get this straight. According to Jahan Mahmood, there are loyal, law-abiding Muslim citizens of the United Kingdom who hate jihad terror as a twisting and hijacking of their peaceful faith. Some of these people are being arrested on “really very flimsy evidence, only to be later released.” That so enrages them, and those around them, that they end up embracing the jihad terror that they had rejected until they were falsely accused of participating in it.
Very well. I am writing this on an airplane, hurtling through the air and using the airplane wi-fi. I got to the airport early this morning, because I suspected that I would be subjected to special scrutiny and long delays — and I was right. It happens every time I fly now, and has happened for months. No one I have asked about this in the TSA and FBI have told me anything, but since it happens every time I strongly suspect I am on some “right-wing extremist” list. This is absurd and annoying, but there is no chance that it will “radicalize” me and make me turn to violence. Why is it so blandly taken for granted that resistance to jihad will “radicalize” Muslims who otherwise abhor jihad violence?
his is just another attempt to weaken counter-terror efforts by claiming Muslim victimhood.
“Police Terror Tactics ‘Radicalising’ Muslims,” by Mark White, Sky News, December 10, 2015:
A former Home Office terrorism adviser has claimed UK authorities are tackling the terror threat in the wrong way, which is contributing to the radicalisation of young British Muslims.
Jahan Mahmood resigned from his government job in a disagreement over the country’s counterterrorism strategy.
He claims there are far too many arrests and most of those detained are never charged or convicted.
His assertion is in part supported by a Sky News-commissioned analysis of arrest statistics, which reveals two-thirds of those detained under terror legislation last year were never charged with a terrorist offence.
Of 289 terrorism-related arrests in 2014, just 102 were later charged with a terror offence – 35% of the total detained.
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which analysed the figures, said the arrest-to-charge ratio for terrorism offences is “substantially lower” in comparison to the charge rate for all criminal offences (58%).
Mr Mahmood said the trauma and stigma associated with being detained and accused of terrorism often alienates those people and can send some down a path towards violent extremism.
He believes the government is misrepresenting the severity of the threat facing the UK, which in turn puts pressure on the police to move in and arrest individuals, even though they might have little in the way of evidence that an offence has been committed.
He said: “There are simply too many arrests. I put that down to the legislation, but also because of this constant talk about the threat level being severe. That creates this atmosphere of fear.
“Not just fear within the community, but fear within the counterterrorism units around the country – a fear of not doing enough on time, which sometimes means they act without taking due process into consideration.
“This leads to individuals being pulled up on really very flimsy evidence, only to be later released.”
He added: “The implications of getting it wrong can only further radicalise some individuals and that’s the worry.”
Looking at the arrest statistics, RUSI said: “The number of arrests is often quoted as an illustration of the scale of the threat. However, it more accurately demonstrates the scale of police activity in countering it.
“Charge or conviction data would be a better measure of the level of confirmed terrorist activity.”
Waris Ali was just 17 when he was arrested at his home in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, accused of downloading and possessing terrorist documents and ingredients which could be used to make explosives.
The authorities were convinced he posed a genuine threat to the public, but at his subsequent trial, a jury took just three hours to clear him of all charges.
That was seven years ago and the 25 year old is still very bitter about his treatment by the authorities, which included months of youth detention and 24-hour house arrest.
He told Sky News many young British Muslims are being targeted by the authorities for expressing the kind of views that would once have fallen under the category of freedom of speech, but which no longer seem to be tolerated.
His claims come as the Home Office told Sky News that 315 people were arrested on suspected terrorism charges in the last year up to September – up a third on the previous year.
Of those detained, 50 were women – double the number for 2013/14.
Mr Ali said: “There are many politically engaged Muslims – you see them on TV,” said Waris. “But you see those same Muslims being smeared and labelled and being called an Islamist or terrorist sympathiser – even Jeremy Corbyn has been called a terrorist sympathiser by the Prime Minister.
“We need to have a more open and honest dialogue and discussion about the issues, rather than attacking people because of their faith. We need to actually listen to their arguments.
“If I can’t go to the mosque and talk about these issues, if I can’t talk about it at the workplace, if I can’t talk about it at university, if I can’t talk about it in the media, where exactly are people supposed to talk about these issues? Where exactly are people supposed to go?
“Is it any wonder that young Muslims who want to be politically engaged are being alienated.”…

Jay Boo says
Take in less Muslims and there will be less to arrest in the first place.
Win-win
mortimer says
Muslims have a higher crime rate, because of the entitlement that comes from being the ‘master religion’.
Mr. AR-10 says
There’s nothing new under the sun.
We see this everyday watching Cops on television. “I dindo Nuffin! Man! Racist Cop planted that stuff on me, I aint never seen that stuff before! That aint mine. I dindo nuffin”.
john spielman says
muslims are “radicalized” by police tactics, hmmmmmm, so how do you explain the tactics used by muhammed such a s spreading terror in the general population by mass murdering whole tribes, lying stealing pedophilia all in the name of Satan, oops I mean allah!
Jayke says
The word “radicalized” is a smoke screen word for Mohammadans who act out the tenets of their religion. Do you remember the term “sudden jihad syndrome” that some used to explain the seemingly unexplainable Incidents of violent acts committed by followers of Mohamed? They are simply following the example of their prophet.
Howard Pond says
That is correct. To be “radical” involves doing something different than what is “fundamental” to the core teachings of a particular religion or philosophy. Our aversion to any individual Muslim is in direct response to their level of devotion and how closely they pattern their lives in harmony with the fundamental tenants of their religion.
As for the “radicals,” the more radical the better. How about there parading in Dearborn holding signs saying: “Down With Sharia, Support Israel,” and “Equal Rights for Women.” Even better – Let’s round up all those newly arriving refugees and provide them with signs. I’m sure they will be on board.
Michael Copeland says
Political “radicals” gained their name from proposing radical reforms, reforms that go to the root of the matter. Often they were also trouble-makers. Thus the word “radical” became associated with people opposing current norms, some with high activity, if not violence. Tabloids have come to use the word (erroneously) as a substitute for iconoclast, or revolutionary.
This is a pity. Something that is radical pertains to the root of the matter, from the Latin, “radix”, root. The roots are the fundamental elements, without which the subject would fail to be itself. Radicals, strictly, are fundamentalists, who insist on the basic “core” features of their cause, its .
Any muslims parading signs saying “Down With Sharia” and so on would be apostates, and eligible to be killed, vigilante style and penalty-free, by their “brothers” maintaining the purity of the Ummah, the muslim community. There is, of course, a spectrum of observance amongst muslims, but that makes no difference to the doctrines. Islam is not defined by a “vast majority” of views: it is defined by its source texts.
Howard Pond says
I also like the comment below from PRCS
(The terms (we’ve all heard them ad nausea um) “radical Islam”, “radicalized”, “extremist”, etc., are all PC euphemisms for written, Orthodox Islam and its expectation that Muslims–all Muslims–will be fully compliant, observant Muslims.
Until television “personalities”–in particular–are told be those who have the opportunity to do so that there’s no such thing as “radical Islam” and that truly devout Muslims are not “extremists” and have not been “radicalized” the public will remain uninformed and those television folks will continue to misinform them.)
Throughout Islamic history, including the brief years Robert has enriched us with JW, we have seen numerous attempts by those who worked to moderate Islam’s hatred towards the unbeliever and bring Islam into the 21st century. All these individuals have been considered radically out of step by the devout, and most have been “eliminated” under the authority of fundamentalist Islam.
Shane says
I like the images I create when I hear the phrase “sudden jihad syndrome.” I picture Muslims as ticking time bombs who can go off at any time if infidels insult Muhammad or Islam.
Atheist kaffur says
Actually the radicals are the ex Muslims that are try to speak out and explain in clear terms so that’s the west can understand the following: Islam and Mohammadiism are the motivating causes of all the violence and mayhem in order creat their califate and purse the final solution.
The mind set is one of theological supremacy
The west must be capable to clearly identified the root cause.
The political correctness must end everything must be opened to scrutiny and criticism. Islam does not have any special rights and in no ways shape or form should islamophobia or blasphemy laws be ever introduced.
The creeping sharia by pious Muslims in all levels of government is more dangerous than the horrifying jihad attacks on civilian.
Investment in children by the Muslims is their long term strategy.
Islam has a plan to take over the world. ISIS has a 7 step plan to achieve its objectives.
What plan does the enlighten world have???
Rob Crawford says
He should tell the girls of Rotherham the threat’s exaggerated.
Wiser Monkeys says
Let’s just look at some hard evidence instead:
In the UK, 94% of those convicted in the gangs who have groomed underage girls for sex are Muslims.
Mahmood “believes the government is misrepresenting the severity of the threat facing the UK”. Well, the UK’s Counter-Extremism Strategy has recently defined:
“Extremism is the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.”
Now look at the data on the opinion of UK Muslims summarized here:
http://wisermonkeys.uk/muslimopinion.html
Being kind to him, Mr Mahmood is deluded at the very least.
Michael Copeland says
The UK government’s definition of extremism neatly, like a glove, fits Islam itself.
“Extremism: “There is a Problem Within Islam”” (quoting Tony Blair):
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6183-extremism-there-is-a-problem-within-islam
PRCS says
The terms (we’ve all heard them ad nauseum) “radical Islam”, “radicalized”, “extremist”, etc., are all PC euphemisms for written, Orthodox Islam and its expectation that Muslims–all Muslims–will be fully compliant, observant Muslims.
Until television “personalities”–in particular–are told be those who have the opportunity to do so that there’s no such thing as “radical Islam” and that truly devout Muslims are not “extremists” and have not been “radicalized” the public will remain uninformed and those television folks will continue to misinform them.
Fortunately, I note that O’Reilly played a clip of Pat Robertson ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R5X2CUMFoE ) last night, and Monica Crowley–despite BOR’s reluctance to accept her message–pretty well laid out the facts (comprehensive, complete way of life, Dar al Harb, etc.).
Even Hannity is beginning to “get it”–a little.
Ralph says
HEY OBAMA FORGOT ABOUT THIS LAW……Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration!
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited.
U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Michael Copeland says
A further point is the final statement of the Oath, where the new citizen swears:
“that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Crucially, this undertaking is rendered ineffective by Sharia law’s “Permissible Lying” (“Reliance of the Traveller” r8). The muslim coming to the West is entering Dar al Harb, the Realm of War. Lying is authorised in war. This means that every muslim has, de facto, a “mental reservation” invested in him by Sharia. It is a matter of legal doctrine, whether he realises it or not.
That this matters is demonstrated by the naturalized citizen from Pakistan Faisal Shahzad. It was he who placed the Times Square jihad mass murder bomb which failed to explode. When the judge reminded him of his Oath he replied:
“I sweared, but I did not mean it.”
Permissible Lying, feature of Sharia, renders the Oath of a muslim of no value whatsoever. This is unique to Islam. It does not affect Sikhs, Hindus, Shintos, and so on.
Wellington says
I am not at all convinced that this 1952 law rules out stealth jihad. The law speaks of force, violence and other unconstitutional means. Well, this would include your standard violent jihad but Muslims aplenty coming to America (and more born in America) who don’t resort to violence and who gradually but inexorably move statutory law and constitutional law through legislative and judicial means to be compliant with Muslim norms (and leftist legislators and judges will readily play the role of useful idiot here time and time again) arguably are not in violation of the 1952 law at all. As for any loyalty oath, how is one going to determine if a particular Muslim is lying unless it is assumed that all Muslims lie for their faith and we’re not there yet by a long stretch.
In short, I think we may need an even tougher, more comprehensive law but this can only occur, will only occur, if Islam, all of it, is finally looked upon as a gigantic negative and ranked with other freedom-crushing ideologies like Marxism and Neo-Nazism, both of which are legal here in America (though under current law America is under no obligation to admit hard-core Marxists or Neo-Nazi types into America). The smarter Muslims will use freedom to destroy freedom while other Muslims will just resort to typical violent, control-freak Muslim behavior to establish Islamic law as the law of the land.
Islam is like no other totalitarian ideology created by man. It hides behind its religious veil quite adeptly and until Islam, all of it, is seen for the true pariah that it is, Islam has America by the balls and it knows it. Disgusting and very deceptive but that’s Islam for you. And sadly the powers that be seem nowhere near to publically and openly dealing with Islam as a negative. Why just look at how many Republicans, let alone Democrats, condemned Trump for calling for a ban on Muslim immigration. I was particularly chagrined by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, asserting that what Trump called for the Republican Party completely disowns. Still much to do to put it mildly.
mortimer says
Jahan Mahmood’s absurd illogic would be laughable if it didn’t have such serious repercussions. He is granting a wholesale absolution to terrorists who may have been arrested and released. We have seen that many times. After the bomb goes off, we have discovered that terrorists were nabbed by police on slight evidence and then released. The nerve-wracking experience of arrest did nothing to frighten or deter them from further adventures in jihadland!
This is more Taqiyya.
mortimer says
The reason for Islamic ‘radicalization’ is the Islamic apartheid doctrine. Al Walaa wal Baraa is the doctrine of Islamic apartheid. Al Walaa wal Baraa is the most solidly documented doctrine in Islam.
Koran 28:86 “Do not support the kafireen in any way.”
Koran 5.51 “He amongst you who turns to them (for friendship) is of them.”
Koran 40:35 “They who dispute the signs (verses) of Allah without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers.” (Note: not just “hated”, but “greatly hated”.)
Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are violent to the unbelievers, but compassionate to one another.”
Koran 4: 101 “The kuffar are for you a clear enemy.”
Koran 8:60 “Terrorize the enemy of Allah and your enemy”
Koran 60:4 “We have rejected you, and there has arisen between us and you enmity and hatred, until you believe and worship Allaah alone.” ()
Koran 3: 118 “O you who believe! Do not take into your intimacy those outside your ranks. They will not fail to corrupt you.”
Examples of al-Baraa from historic figures:
-from Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624).
“The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
-from ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan”:
“… true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and never support them.”
Hatred of dirty kafirs? Normative Islam, rather than an aberration!
gravenimage says
So true.
Wellington says
Damn right.
awake says
We should really start documenting things that don’t radicalize Muslims. It would be far less tedious and an exercise in brevity.
mortimer says
The things that DON’T radicalize Muslims is for them to read books that reveal the falseness of Islam and thereby undermine their groundless belief in this vile, misogynistic Death Cult. Muslims need to be deprogrammed right out of Islam.
Angemon says
Huh, so what? For all we know, it can very well mean that arresting people on suspected of terrorist ties dissuades two thirds of them from carrying on.
That’s 102 people who would be free to carry out their plans, plus an untold number of people who might have been dissuaded from carrying on after a trip downtown.
We’re not talking about pickpockets or con artists – islamic terrorism claims lives, so it’s understandable that law enforcement errs on the side of caution.
I, for one, never heard an islamic terrorist justifying his actions on the grounds of having been detained for suspicions of terrorism.
So do I – I believe that the government is underestimating it.
Again, preferable to err on the side of caution – better let a scumbag know the police is on to him than to pick up body parts while telling the journalists “See, we had him on a list of people who might be terrorists, but we were afraid that looking into it would have turned him into a terrorist, so we did nothing and hoped for the best”.
gravenimage says
For all we know, it can very well mean that arresting people on suspected of terrorist ties dissuades two thirds of them from carrying on.
………………..
Good point, Angemon.
pdxnag says
The lure of having sex slaves, legally under Sharia law, must have some appeal to Jihadis.
miriamrove says
As you may know by now I was born a Shia muslim. Prostitution is legal in shia Islam. It is called Sighe which loosely translate into temporary marriage. You can marry a woman as little as one hour and long as infinity. A man simply chooses a sex slave and goes to an Imam and then the Imam marries them(according to the religion) and off he goes!!!! M
Gary says
If memory serves me correctly, aren’t we to take responsibility for our own actions, and not blame someone else for our bad behavior? And isn’t that something we were taught in kindergarten?
Islam: The “Religion of excuses”
miriamrove says
I was at a cigar bar yesterday here in NYC and I met an older Iranian guy. We struck a conversation and he started to blame us(USA) for what is happening in Iran. He started by saying that the CIA over threw prime minister Mosadegh and installed the Shah and the Shah was no good and we are dealing with the Mullahs!! I promptly shut him up and told him that we nuked Japan, we bombed the hell out of the Germans, German’s bombed the hell out of the British and now look where they are! He did shut up after that. Muslims blame every thing and everyone for their short comings. They never bother to search from whitin. M
ainu888 says
This is a wife beater saying ‘she probably deserved it.’ People are buying it.
Ainu888 says
And a classic example of confusing cause and effect.
خَليفة says
This incident is an example of fallacious Muslim logic. Sadly left-leaning westerners are not so capable of logic either, so the Muslims may yet pull the wool over the left’s head, or cut it off.
By the same reasoning one could argue that it is Muslim activity that has “radicalized” the police So that explains the additional arrests. — NOTE how Muslims always assume they are in the right? So this idea would not occur to them, nor be deemed reasonable.
To those with a bit of common sense it is cause and effect, if more people speed, more people get speeding tickets, the more tickets a person gets, the less that person speeds.
Joseph says
the more tickets a person gets, the less that person speeds
And when that person goes past boundaries set by the state his driving privileges are taken away.
When a person is caught associating with terrorists in any way his privilege to be in that country should be revoked.
traci94 says
There are very good reasons that there are “simply too many arrests.” These people are ridiculous.
Mike says
Ah yes…blame the Police. Where have I heard that before?
Hindu American says
“Mahmood” told Sky News many young British Muslims are being targeted by the authorities for expressing the kind of views that would once have fallen under the category of freedom of speech, but which no longer seem to be tolerated.
Excuse me? Mahmood conveniently invokes his ilk’s right to freedom of speech but forgets that this same group of “freedom-loving” muslims petitioned the British Government to prevent Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from visiting the UK and exercising the same right to freedom of speech.
gravenimage says
But this is not hypocrisy on his part–not in the true sense. Instead, pious Muslims believe that *only* Muslims should have freedom of speech–and then only to spread Islam or assert supremacy over Infidels–as is true under Shari’ah.
Ric says
Really? Islam does not need to be pushed or encouraged to be radicalized; it has been for millennia and thus shall always be a death-cult. The police have their hands tied, especially in the UK where their overlords have chained them to political-correctness and fear of appearing or labeled Islamophobes.
Guy Jones says
This is the new rhetorical fetish of the Left — constant brandishing of the word “radicalized,” which is merely yet another exercise in intellectual and factual dishonesty when it comes to rationally appraising the supremacist ideology of “Submission.” The word’s use represents a conscious attempt to absolve Mohammedans of any sense of personal responsibility for their wilfully-made actions lending moral, financial, theological and other support for jihad and the general supremacist aims of the ideology of “Submission.” It is also an attempt to obscure and ignore the explicit exhortations to violence and vilification of non-Mohammedans that is the scriptural underpinning of “Submission.” To say that so-and-so was “radicalized” is to place blame for jihadist violence on a slew of alleged factors — Jews, Israel, “disrespect,” western foreign policy, global warming, poverty, etc. etc., instead of squarely on the fascist, hate-filled ideology of Submission and Mohammedans themselves. It is a transparent exercise in deflecting responsibility for the poisonous and bloody consequences of a vile, totalitarian ideology.
Walter Sieruk says
It should be remembered that there is an old wise saying. Which is that “Evil is always looking for an excuse.” Think about it !
underbed cat says
House Leader Paul Ryan …will really only lead if he informs himself to the Explanatory Memorandum, learns about taqiyya…strays away from the muslim brotherhood and CVE, for a few hours reads ‘The Complete Infidels Guide to ISIS,” by Robert Spencer,read about religious obligations of islam, jihad, hijra, establishment of a caliphate…..and know when FBI Director talks about radicalization, it really is devout islam, just that he is forbidden to speak about it from top down, and the muslim brotherhood recommended the experts who knew this to be silenced.
gravenimage says
UK: Muslim former Home Office adviser says police tactics “radicalizing” Muslims
…………………………….
It’s the usual–the cause of Jihad is…any attempt to defend against Islam.
More:
“There are simply too many arrests….This leads to individuals being pulled up on really very flimsy evidence, only to be later released. The implications of getting it wrong can only further radicalise some individuals and that’s the worry.”
…………………………….
“Further radicalise”–does this mean they are already pretty radicalized? If so, how did that happen? And wouldn’t that mean that Muslims are already prone to becoming further radicalized–whatever the Infidels might or might not do?
More:
Very well. I am writing this on an airplane, hurtling through the air and using the airplane wi-fi. I got to the airport early this morning, because I suspected that I would be subjected to special scrutiny and long delays — and I was right. It happens every time I fly now, and has happened for months. No one I have asked about this in the TSA and FBI have told me anything, but since it happens every time I strongly suspect I am on some “right-wing extremist” list. This is absurd and annoying, but there is no chance that it will “radicalize” me and make me turn to violence. Why is it so blandly taken for granted that resistance to jihad will “radicalize” Muslims who otherwise abhor jihad violence?
…………………………….
I’m very sorry–and angered–to hear that this is happening to Robert Spencer–it’s outrageous. But as he notes, this certainly doesn’t make him want to become a violent terrorist.
Nor would it make *anyone* committed to opposing violent terrorism act like a violent terrorist.
How tired is everyone here of hearing that Muslims are prone to becoming Jihadists if they hear of anyone opposing the wearing of Hijab, or suggest that Muslims are violent or oppress women, or that someone somewhere may have drawn a picture of the “Prophet”?
If it’s that easy then they had no real antipathy toward it in the first place.
If good people were *really* apt to turn violent on being insulted or misunderstood, then Anti-Jihadists–regularly excoriated as “racist” and “Islamophobic” and bigoted, would be some of the most dangerous people around–and yet, they continue to simply warn about violence, not commit it themselves.
More:
Mr Mahmood said the trauma and stigma associated with being detained and accused of terrorism often alienates those people and can send some down a path towards violent extremism.
…………………………….
Infidel authorities better stop trying to defend against violent Jihad–or else more Muslims will become violent Jihadists, and it will be the fault of the filthy Kuffar.
More:
He believes the government is misrepresenting the severity of the threat facing the UK, which in turn puts pressure on the police to move in…
…………………………….
Yeah–it’s the government’s fault for taking beheadings in the street seriously. After all, no one would care in Dar-al-Islam…
More:
“Not just fear within the community, but fear within the counterterrorism units around the country…
…………………………….
See–the pool of Jihadists and those those protecting against Jihad are both frightened–more false moral equivalence.
More:
Waris Ali was just 17 when he was arrested at his home in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, accused of downloading and possessing terrorist documents and ingredients which could be used to make explosives…
That was seven years ago and the 25 year old is still very bitter about his treatment by the authorities…
…………………………….
What could be more obviously innocent than possessing terrorist documents and ingredients to make explosives?
Now, these things *can* be innocent–but they sure as hell need explanation. For instance, someone who suddenly buys a large amount of peroxide may not be planning to build IEDs–they may be running a revue of Marilyn Monroe impersonators. An Anti-Jihadist might have terrorist material as research–I’ve looked up some pretty disturbing information myself at times–including just now, when I wanted to be sure that peroxide could indeed be used in explosive devices.
But these things certainly may draw the legitimate concerns of law enforcement.
Notice that no one at Sky News thinks to ask why Waris Ali was in possession of terrorist documents and ingredients for bomb building–odd things for the average 17-year-old to have.
Instead, we are just supposed to be enraged over the “injustice” of it all…
More:
Of those detained, 50 were women – double the number for 2013/14.
…………………………….
Why, that’s outrageous! Women aren’t terrorists–well, except for Tashfeen Malik, and Coleen La Rose, and Aafia Siddiqui…
More:
Mr Ali said: “There are many politically engaged Muslims – you see them on TV,” said Waris. “But you see those same Muslims being smeared and labelled and being called an Islamist or terrorist sympathiser – even Jeremy Corbyn has been called a terrorist sympathiser by the Prime Minister.
…………………………….
Just because Jeremy Corbyn celebrates the brutal Islamic Iranian revolution, considers Hamas’ operatives to be his friends, and schmoozes with terrorists who have murdered British troops?
Gee–anyone can be considered a terrorist sympathizer in today’s “Islamophobic” Britain…sarc/off
More:
“If I can’t go to the mosque and talk about these issues, if I can’t talk about it at the workplace, if I can’t talk about it at university, if I can’t talk about it in the media, where exactly are people supposed to talk about these issues? Where exactly are people supposed to go?
…………………………….
Doesn’t *everyone* need a safe place where they can go and talk about how they hate the filthy Kuffar and plan on mass-murdering large numbers of them? sarc/off
Semeru says
craven imagination says
I’m very sorry–and angered–to hear that this is happening to Robert Spencer–it’s outrageous. But as he notes, this certainly doesn’t make him want to become a violent terrorist.
Oh dear! oh dear
There is a big difference between being held up at security checks at airports, and being arrested and detained.
gravenimage says
Semeru does not believe exercising peaceful freedom of speech and signs of plotting violent Jihad should be dealt with differently.
Is anyone here surprised?
Besides, even if Robert Spencer *were* arrested and detained–or even unjustly imprisoned–he would not become a violent terrorist.
Can you say the same for devotees of a faith dedicated to violent terrorism in the name of their savage creed? Really, they need no “grievance” to spur them to wage Jihad.
In fact, as Angemon notes, I imagine more Jihad plots have been *foiled* by investigation–even when there has not been enough evidence for prosecution in our civilized justice systems–than there have been supposedly non-violent Mohammedans “radicalized” by their experience.
The awful truth says
Our staff canteen still serves soup with bacon but for how long? There are Muslim students and Islamic societies … When will someone decide that bacon is off the menu because otherwise Muslims will be radicalised? Doesn’t matter about other people’s tastes, wherever they can apply halal or sharia pressure somebody will have to give in.
Singh the SIkh says
Why are Muslims so prone to radicalization and extreme violence? Not just in Britain but everywhere? Why not Hindus? Or the Sikhs? Or Buddhists? Christians?
Why each and every time it is a freakiing Muslim? Must be something in the sweater they drink?
Whatever it is, the rest of the world is up to the ears about Muslim terror, which is combined with shingling, moaning, complaining and veiled threats, like a spoilt brat, always demanding more, never satisfied, miserable lot we would all be much better off without.
gravenimage says
It is the texts and tenets of Islam itself, and the model of the baleful “Prophet”.
Dave J says
The only thing that “radicalizes” Muslims, and has for Centuries, is their infernal book of hatred the Koran. It is the root of all their animalistic violence, arrogance and whiny victimhood.
Of course its very convenient to pretend that the cause is really our efforts to police and restrain their actions. Same old deceit and blaming the real victims.
citycat says
There are infidels who are arrested and let go and who are not muslims-
i doubt that any will resort to violent terror revenge.
There are infidels who have been falsely arrested and coerced into pleading guilty at the magistrates court, or else risk a sentence at crown court-
i doubt that any will report to violent terror revenge.
Again- it’s attention seeking, glamour seeking, all in the name of YKW
gravenimage says
Here’s more crap from Jahan Mahmood–on his Twitter feed he claims that “Any Muslim who drives a Porsche 911 will be investigated for links to 9/11”. I suppose this is what passes for humor among apologists for evil.
Julia says
Another example of the soft bias of low expectations.
vlparker says
Radicalized = devout. So maybe they were so upset about the sins they committed that they went to the mosque to ask allah for forgiveness and there they became devout. Makes sense to me.
David says
Police involvement, before these muslims get in too deep, is meant to have a GOOD and POSITIVE effect. Like smartening them up! And reminding them that, showing RESPECT FOR THE LAW. as well as the RIGHTS OF OTHER CITIZENS are both required! Just to get along in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY!
If these imported barbarians can’t at least do that, then its time to ship them back to the desert hell holes they came from!
? says
Islam: divorced from decency humanity since 1400…
GARY says
I agree with Spencer. Being subjected to scrutiny should not radicalize anyone. They in fact should be reassured that care is being taken.
Sam says
So just leave Jihadists alone, and they will not be violently Islamo-supremacist? LOL
The Istanbulite says
What happens when the actions of radicalized Muslims radicalize those they act against?
Aren’t Israel actions the actions of people radicalized by Muslims?
Will it be an excuse when Europeans, or Christian Arabs, or secular Kurds, or Yezidis become radicalized and react against the radical Muslims radicalizing them?
David, Thailand says
I suspect you will be able to travel as a normal person and without ‘special scrutiny’ from around January 2017, assuming Clinton doesn’t win the next election.
But only bigots and Islamophobes might believe this could possibly have anything to do with the America-hating, white-hating, Jew-hating Muslim Socialist in the white House.
epistemology says
Boohoo, muzzies are always victimised. I’m so sad. They’re so touchy the eternal crybabies. It’s in the interest of everybody that security is tight. It happened in Paris so it could happen in London or somre other British city. Muzzies want to claim their territory.
It’s interesting this Ali guy claims freedom of speech for muzzies which is always hate mongering stuff and denies us this right. We’re not allowed to look at some innocuous funny pics, as that offends them. They’re so hypocritical use democracy to the brink and then abolish it. That’s their goal
jewdog says
If some Muslims commit terrorist acts and then law enforcement examines all Muslims more carefully, isn’t that a logical response? What’s more important, risking terrorism by not examining the Muslim community more carefully for fear of antagonizing marginal extremists or taking active steps to protect the public? In any case, wouldn’t a marginal extremist be less likely to act if he knew that he was being watched? I think the real issue here is a demand for special treatment from those who fancy themselves as superior beings above scrutiny.
Mo says
” “There are simply too many arrests….This leads to individuals being pulled up on really very flimsy evidence, only to be later released. The implications of getting it wrong can only further radicalise some individuals and that’s the worry.” ”
Are Muslims now taking points from the BLM crowd?
No Fear says
Imagine if the Mafia said “too many arrests … this leads to more people becoming Mafia members”.
LOL.
avb says
When it comes to muslims, the fallacy of false dilemma, is what dupes the gullible ones.
That is – They assume that the muslims who are terrorists are the black ones, so naturally the muslims who are not committing terrorism must be white.
Herein lies the fallacy. Things are not black and white. There exists a third option.
— The muslims who are terrorists, are black, while the muslims who do not commit terrorism, are —gray—, not white.
They are gray because, they share almost every extremist islamic belief that extremist muslims hold.
If one removes terrorism from the equation, one cannot tell the difference between a moderate muslim and an extremist muslim. That is because aside from terrorism, there isn’t much of a difference.
Michael Copeland says
Unique image showing Extremist and Moderate:
https://www.facebook.com/LibertyGBParty/photos/pb.376566465793805.-2207520000.1449923393./613750525408730/?type=3&theater
Matthieu Baudin says
That’s the way; blame the victims and their hapless institutions as the cause of all the problems. Pathetic really isn’t it?
Baucent says
“Mr Mahmood said the trauma and stigma associated with being detained and accused of terrorism often alienates those people and can send some down a path towards violent extremism”.
So, where is his evidence of this happening? It’s easy to throw out a wild claim, but how many Jihadists list a visit from the Police as the moment they accepted the Jihadist ideology.
The comments by Waris Ali seem to disprove Mahood’s assertions. Waris was annoyed by the Police arrest (though he may have been lucky to avoid a conviction) but it doesn’t appear he is now a fuming jihadi, but then again he could be lying.
Matthieu Baudin says
This goes well past appeasement, it looks like outright collusion.
David says
The evil police stops us from forming our rape gangs, from recruiting hundreds of thousands tens of thousands of vulnerable young girls do part of pedophile rings for Pakistani subhuman filth. The evil police stop us from bombing airports, train stations, bus’s stations, schools, hospitals, et cetera et cetera. If they stop us from doing what we are naturally inclined to do course in must respond.
gravenimage says
Exactly so.
Marty says
If the police irritate criminals by questioning them or even arresting them,
the criminals get more radically criminal, because many are sociopaths.
Jim Peters says
The perps are arrested for a reason. In court the magistrate listens to the “evidence”, i.e. testimony from the officer and the perp, the perp lies and all we have is the testimony of the cop, which the Muslim “advisor” says is “flimsy”. Western society is mollycoddling these freaks. They were freaks before their arrest. This “advisor” is an Islamic plant.