Britain - a haven for terrorists?....

[Osem]

.... the Guantánamo files disclose that by the late 1990s the mosque in north London had become a “haven” for extremism where disaffected young men from around the world were radicalised before being sent to al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.

At least 35 Guantánamo detainees passed through Finsbury Park and a network of other centres used by extremists in Britain, including Regent’s Park mosque, East London mosque and a rented room above the Four Feathers Youth Club near Baker Street.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...xtremists.html

Well, if it's all true, it wouldn't surprise me. In providing a 'safe haven' for people from around the world, whose backgrounds, motives and allegiances aren't really known, we seem to have created a problem the true extent of which remains to be seen. No doubt many have come here in pursuit of a dream only to discover that the reality doesn't meet their expectations. These disaffected people have then become the raw materials the extremists need to do their evil work.

It seems to me that the first task of any government is to ensure the safety of the citizens. To that extent, successive governments appear to have taken their eyes off the ball, even when alarm bells were ringing, by allowing our freedoms to be abused by those who've taken advantage of our hospitality yet don't believe in freedom at all. Ironic isn't it.....

[deadite66]

The French government has been saying this for years, they kick those people out regardless of the human rights act, we give them a safe haven.

[Mr Angry]

It's worth noting that the Guantanamo detainees are just that, detainees.

How many of them have been convicted of anything? Most of them are held, for the greater part, on the heresay of men such as Adil Hadi al-Jaz'iri bin Hamlili whose story makes for far more interesting reading than the selective "migrant" terrorist hyperbole from the Telegraph.

You don't need to look east, or to Finsbury Park, Leeds or Birmingham for the biggest terrorist threat to the UK. They're already in your midst and they're not atypical "Johnny foreigner" for that matter either.

See here and here for starters.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You don't need to look east, or to Finsbury Park, Leeds or Birmingham for the biggest terrorist threat to the UK. They're already in your midst and they're not atypical "Johnny foreigner" for that matter either.

See here and here for starters.

How i had wished never to see that happening again. Stay safe Mr A

[Mr Angry]

Thanks Sirius, you too.

[Ramrod]

Why does Britain have an Islamist problem while America doesn't? Answer: the welfare state

Look at the two figures named by US intelligence as responsible for recruiting dozens of terrorists, Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza. Qatada, a Jordanian preacher and advisor to shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 plotter, was expelled from Kuwait for supporting the Iraqi invasion, then claimed asylum in Britain on the grounds of religious persecution. We granted it, naturally. Come in!

While spending his time raising money for the destruction of the West (he was once caught with £170,000 in cash, including £850 on an envelope with the less-than-enigmatic words “For the Mujahedin in Chechnya” on the front), he was happy to receive £400 a week in government benefits – £322 for housing and £70 for disability.

Abu Hamza, the hook-handed Yemeni, was a phenomenal sponger. His London house cost taxpayers £2400 a month, and at one point he was receiving over £500 a month for incapacity benefits while his wife received an additional £1300 a month. Abu Hamza even sued the government for extra benefits.

Always taking the Euro-moral high ground, the British had refused to extradite Hamza to his native Yemen in 1999 because it had the death penalty; he then went on to radicalise the 7/7 bombers, so that 52 innocent people died in the place of one guilty man.........

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...welfare-state/

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.......

Sorry that article is absurd. The last line is a perfect example:

Always taking the Euro-moral high ground, the British had refused to extradite Hamza to his native Yemen in 1999 because it had the death penalty; he then went on to radicalise the 7/7 bombers, so that 52 innocent people died in the place of one guilty man.........

The implies that he alone is accountable for the actions of the 7/7 bombers when in all likelihood he was another in a long line of nutters than the 7/7 bombers enjoyed to listen too. There is nothing to suggest that had we extradited him the bombings wouldn't have happened.

Most the times the ones drawing attention to themselves are not the ones we should fear. People who intend to cause real harm stay off the grid.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Sorry that article is absurd. The last line is a perfect example:



The implies that he alone is accountable for the actions of the 7/7 bombers when in all likelihood he was another in a long line of nutters than the 7/7 bombers enjoyed to listen too. There is nothing to suggest that had we extradited him the bombings wouldn't have happened.

Most the times the ones drawing attention to themselves are not the ones we should fear. People who intend to cause real harm stay off the grid.

There also isn't a shred of evidence for the central tenet of the article that Britain's 'Islamist problem' is caused by the welfare state. All he does is observe that apparently there is less of a problem in the US which doesn't have a welfare state. Which is about as convincing as saying that the Islamist problem is caused by driving on the left-hand side...

[Osem]

Maybe if there wasn't a welfare state there'd be more disaffected people and more budding terrorists here. Life's full of ifs, buts and maybes isn't it....

I don't think the welfare state is to blame but I do think the authorities have been remiss in failing to take proper account of the potential for disruption and worse by certain of those who've been given safe haven here and the freedom to preech their hatred etc.

[Ramrod]

Fair enough, I prepare to stand corrected but I do think we are a soft touch for every tom, dick and terrorist that fancies a state handout and shelter......

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Fair enough, I prepare to stand corrected but I do think we are a soft touch for every tom, dick and terrorist that fancies a state handout and shelter......

That the UK is a relatively soft touch is, sadly, undeniable IMHO. Abu Hamza and his ilk are proof of that but I think they'd have done what they have with or without the help of benefits. The 'state support' merely rubs salt in the wound....

Originally Posted by Ramrod

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...welfare-state/

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.......

Do we have an islamist problem ? or do we have a problem with radicals ?,i note that the Real IRA are flexing there muscles again and if you ask me they are just as radical as some Muslims as are the BNP and others of that ilk .

I thought Abu Hamza was Egyptian not Yemenis

[Osem]

The fact that we still haven't got to grips with our 'own terrorists' (like the IRA for example) is a very good reason to not to maintain an environment in which more can come here and flourish by using our freedoms and the convoluted legal process against us.

Originally Posted by Osem

That the UK is a relatively soft touch is, sadly, undeniable IMHO. Abu Hamza and his ilk are proof of that but I think they'd have done what they have with or without the help of benefits. The 'state support' merely rubs salt in the wound....

Indeed it would have ,people like him rarely go through life without support for their ideals and financial support would have been given to him by any number of his followers .The good old US of A is proof of that with all their religious cults that end in mass suicide or mass murder (depending on how you see it ) America seems to suffering from it's own home grown extremist problem at the moment though if this is anything to go by


from last year
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...tremist-groups

Originally Posted by Osem

Maybe if there wasn't a welfare state there'd be more disaffected people and more budding terrorists here. Life's full of ifs, buts and maybes isn't it....

I don't think the welfare state is to blame but I do think the authorities have been remiss in failing to take proper account of the potential for disruption and worse by certain of those who've been given safe haven here and the freedom to preech their hatred etc.

Maybe. However I believe the 7/7 bombers were home grown and their 'radicalisation' would have been from many sources as well as international affairs. It's makes little difference, in my opinion, if the preachers that may help that process are in a Mosque in London or transmitting via the Internet from Pakistan.

The problem of islamic terrorism is a global one and not a localised one brought about by our welfare state. It does of course grate that someone who hates our country so much still wants the support of it but this simply shows them up for the buffoons and hypocrites they are rather than cause any real harm to the country itself. They are bumbling fools that belong in the world of sitcom rather than drama.

Again, The ones to worry about seem to make little dent on the world until they have committed their murderous acts.