» RT @libcon: :: How the Tories have flip-flopped on education http://bit.ly/7PPrzn 2 hrs ago

» The best Cameron billboard poster spoofs: http://bit.ly/5RuScB 2 hrs ago

» Heh! RT @AdamBienkov: RT @duncanborrowman Michael Howard came last in Mastermind. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? 16 hrs ago

» Phrase coined! RT @LDNCalling: We mustn't condemn troubled individuals. We must reach out & Hug a Hilton. 16 hrs ago

» BBC making it sound like Tories admitted it RT @bbcpolitics: The Conservatives say a key aide to Cameron was arrested http://bit.ly/4I68k7 18 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • MT and friends
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Where’s the evidence Abdulmutallab was radicalised at UCL?


    by Sunny on 3rd January, 2010 at 9:12 AM    

    Effendi writes at Harry’s Place:

    Grant insists on pushing the oft-repeated canard that there was no evidence that the suspect was radicalised at UCL. But so what? Who cares about the provenance of his radicalisation when there is plenty of evidence to show that Abdulmuttalab was very radicalised whilst he was the president of the UCL ISOC.

    Wait a second. First he says ’so what?’ and then he says there is plenty of evidence he was radicalised. Where? This is important for two reasons:

    First, it is about protecting academic freedom to debate issues people don’t like (and yes, I’m happy for unis to invite Nick Griffin to explain himself if they want). That includes a discussion of American foreign policy surely? Or would Effendi prefer that all FOSIS societies be shut down regardless? Or perhaps they should all be monitored? Can never be sure about these Muslims right? A clarification would be good.

    The second issue is about student Muslim societies themselves. Sure, Effendi doesn’t like FOSIS: it has its share of crazies and its share of people who couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery yet alone meetings where people could discuss the exact day to celebrate Eid. They certainly do not all think alike. And it certainly does not mean that Abdulmutallab was a wannabe terrorist at uni.

    Effendi refers to an article by UCL’s Malcolm Grant in the TES who points out:

    Other UK newspaper comment accuses us at UCL of being “complicit” in the radicalisation of Muslim students; and, again, of “failing grotesquely” to prevent extremists from giving lectures on campus. Mr Abdulmutallab’s presidency of the UCL student Islamic Society is further condemned for having provoked debate about the war against terror. It is a delicious irony that a theme that has sold so many national newspapers should now be declared by them to be unacceptable for student debate.

    Exactly. The insinuation seems to be that running an Islamic Society at a university means you’re already radicalised and ready to blow up people. Where’s the evidence? Otherwise people are just making assumptions about Muslims at universities without any evidence.

    Jerome Taylor points out at the Indy:

    Others fear that a “reds under beds” style hysteria that treats all Muslims students as potential threats to national security will force Islamic debate in our universities underground and behind closed doors.

    It’s not just that making all Muslims suspicious of intelligence services and the police actually makes counter-intelligence worse, but it’s also about student autonomy (as long as they’re not inciting hatred). Where’s the evidence that this discussion about the War on Terror was inciting hatred?

    When the arsonist burns down the mosque or some racist idiot scream abuse at Muslims - they’re not concerned whether you’re moderate or radical (or even Muslim). They just know it’s becoming socially acceptable to spit at brown people again.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Civil liberties, Muslim, Organisations, Religion, Terrorism






    91 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Rumbold — on 3rd January, 2010 at 10:41 AM  

      I’m skeptical about how much universities can do to interfere in student societies. Should the university vet all the officials in all the societies?

      In fairness to Effendi, he/she makes no claim that Abdulmuttalab became radicalised as a result of being at UCL, merely that he was radicalised whilst as UCL (which means he could have been radicalised at any point before then).

    2. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 11:28 AM  

      First of all, I’m a blogger at The Spittoon, HP cross-posted it. The original piece is here.

      Malcolm Grant’s point was that the Underpants bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was not radicalised at UCL - which somehow lets UCL off the hook. He offers no proof either, other than to say there is no evidence to say that he was. Which is true but is immaterial. What does it matter the provenance of his radicalisation when there is plenty of evidence that he was already radicalised while he was the president of the the UCL ISOC.

      Furthermore, for Grant to suggest Abdulmutallab was simply organising an events to “debate about the war against terror” is a gross over-simplification.

      As for evidence that he was radicalised while he was at UCL, please take a look at this article:
      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4444

      The “War on Terror Week” Umar Farouk organised was basically a talk shop for the dessemination of the overt jihadist speakers such as Asim Qureshi and Moazzam Begg. Two of the biggest ideologues of the Anwar al-Awlaki school of violent jihadism in the UK today.

      You can also still read Abdulmutallab’s announcement for “War on Terror Week,” which trumpets Begg’s appearance as well as that of other speakers (including the far-left, tyrant coddling MP George Galloway, who reportedly denies speaking at the event) on an online Islamic forum. The handle of the poster on this forum, “Farouk1986,” is the one that Abdulmutallab reportedly used regularly. Indeed, this is probably one of the web postings that the Telegraph (UK) had in mind when it reported that Abdulmutallab “made postings referring to a visit to UCL by the former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg.”

      More information has been uncovered and published in the last 48 hours. See today’s Sunday Telegraph piece.

      It is now proven that Umar Farouk made contact with Anwar al-Awlaki while he was at UCL.

      Abdulmutallab, who moved to the Yemen in August 2009 after completing an engineering degree at University College London, has told the FBI he made contact with al-Qaeda through a preacher he met over the internet. This man is now thought to be al-Awlaki, who himself moved to the Yemen after leaving Britain in 2004.

      Grant, would like to silence criticism of the UCL ISOC by using the charge of “Islamophobia”. This is highly irresponsible of a man who is the provost of UCL. He makes the rather squalid point that it is anti-Muslim bigotry to discuss the activities of FOSIS and certain jihadist activists. In fact it is the opposite of that statement, to say all Muslims who criticise the war on terror are the same and therefore radicalised, is true anti-Muslim bigotry. The problem is not with all ISOCs, but FOSIS in general and certain radical ISOCS - such as UCL and City Uni, which referred to “brave al-Qaeda soldiers” in a recent article.

    3. A.C. — on 3rd January, 2010 at 11:41 AM  

      “They just know it’s becoming socially acceptable to spit at brown people again.”

      Because people like you still think politics is about skin colour, and do your bit to make it socially acceptable for ‘brown people’ to spit at ‘white people’.

      I’m glad to see you’re starting the decade as you mean to go on. 1970’s race politics is just what Labour needs to focus on for the 2010 election.

    4. KB Player — on 3rd January, 2010 at 12:05 PM  

      Effendi - your link to the Sunday Telegraph goes to Facebook!

    5. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 12:08 PM  

      Sorry, this is it:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6924653/Detroit-bombers-mentor-continues-to-influence-British-mosques-and-universities.html

      Salient bits from this investigative piece on the links between Awlaki and the Underpants Terrorist:

      His role in influencing Abdulmutallab, who is suspected of attempting to blow up a flight to Detroit on Christmas Day, has only become apparent in the past 48 hours.

      Abdulmutallab, who moved to the Yemen in August 2009 after completing an engineering degree at University College London, has told the FBI he made contact with al-Qaeda through a preacher he met over the internet. This man is now thought to be al-Awlaki, who himself moved to the Yemen after leaving Britain in 2004.

      Yemen’s deputy prime minister for defence and security affairs, Rashad Mohammed al-Alimi, said on Friday that investigators now believe Abdulmutallab met al-Qaeda operatives in a house built by al-Awlaki to hold theological sessions and where he had previously met Abdulmutallab.

      It had been thought the extremist cleric had been killed in a Christmas Eve air strike on the house, in the southeastern Yemen province of Shabwa, but Mr al-Alimi said he is believed to be still alive.

      Al-Awlaki’s influence on Abdulmutallab is understood to have begun during the bomber’s time as a student in London between September 2005 and the end of 2008. He is thought to have attended at least one of a number of video-link lectures given by al-Awlaki at the East London Mosque’s London Muslim Centre (LMC), in Whitechapel, during this period.

      Despite the LMC receiving at least £60,000 in funding from the Government’s Preventing Violent Extremism Fund (PVEF) in the past two years, al-Awlaki has during that period been allowed to address at least two gatherings at the venue via video-link, including one on New Year’s Day last year called The End of Time and advertised with a poster showing the destruction of New York.

    6. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 12:25 PM  

      Effendi,

      This link doesn’t work for me either:

      You can also still read Abdulmutallab’s announcement for “War on Terror Week,”

    7. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 12:35 PM  

      Douglas, the text of that post by Farouk1986 is as follows

      The War on Terror Week In University College London, Gower Street.

      In September 2001, following the attacks on the World Trade Centre, the U.S. and it’s allies launched an offensive on the perpetrators of the WTC attacks in what was to become known as the global War On Terror. Five years on, with the death of thousands of innocent lives and thousands more detained illegally without trial or judgement, UCLU Islamic Society, in collaboration with UCLU Stop The War and Amnesty societies, hosts an entire week dedicated to analyse the war on terror; it’s justifications, it’s realities and it’s effects.

      Joining us for what will surely be a fascinating week will be some of the most prolific speakers in the country including, George Galloway (MP), Yvonne Ridley (Broadcaster), Moazzam Begg (Former Detainee at Guantanamo Bay), Victoria Britain (Journalist for The Guardian) and many more!

      To check out the trailer for the week, go to http://www.uclisoc.com

      Details:

      “The War Goes On…” George Galloway (MP Bethnal Green & Bow), Yvonne Ridley (Author & Broadcaster) – A look at the current status of the war on terror.
      Monday 29th January @ 5:15pm, JZ Young Lecture Theatre

      “Bring our boys home” Moazzam Begg (Former detainee at Guantanamo Bay) – Highlighting the plight of the British detainees in the UK
      Tuesday 30th January @ 5:15pm, Archaeology Lecture Theatre

      “Road to Guantanamo” Martin Mubanga, The Tipton Three (Former detainees at Guantanamo Bay) & one of the actors from the film “Road to Guantanamo” – Includes extracts of the film and a Q&A with the panel.
      Wednesday 30th January @ 2:30pm, Chemistry Auditorium

      “Torture: By any means necessary” Victoria Brittain (Journalist for The Guardian), Louise Christian (leading civil rights lawyer), Geoffrey Bindman (Chair of the British Institute of Human Rights) & Phil Shiner (Public Interest Lawyer) – A panel discussion on the use of torture and human rights issue arising from the War on Terror detentions.

      Thursday 1st February @ 5:15pm, Roberts G08 Lecture Theatre

      Refreshments provided!

      “Jihad vs Terrorism” Asim Qureshi (Human Rights lawyer for Cageprisoners) – A discussion on the Islamic position with regards to Jihad and other topical issues.
      Friday 2nd February @ 5:15pm, Chadwick Lecture Theatre

      Wassalamu Alaykum

    8. David Jones — on 3rd January, 2010 at 12:47 PM  

      then he says there is plenty of evidence he was radicalised. Where?

      He tried to blow up an aeroplane and according to the US President the plot has been linked to Al-Qaida.

      What sort of evidence of radicalisation were you looking for?

    9. Stanislaw — on 3rd January, 2010 at 12:59 PM  

      “The insinuation seems to be that running an Islamic Society at a university means you’re already radicalised and ready to blow up people. Where’s the evidence?”

      Perhaps the fact that in the past three years, four former heads of Islamic societies of London Univeristies have been charged with offences relating to terrorism. Compare that to the number of former heads of university Christian/Jewish/drama/chess/rowing etc societies charged with offences relating to terrorism. The fact is, particularly in the case of London universities, if you are head of an Islamic society there is a not insubstantial chance you are or will become a terrorist.

      Now by all means, Sunny, put your head back in the sand while shouting ‘racism’ etc.

    10. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 1:06 PM  

      Effendi @ 7,

      Thanks.

    11. Naadir Jeewa — on 3rd January, 2010 at 1:36 PM  

      Right, time to roll up my sleeves and defend my alma mater and employer…

    12. Laban — on 3rd January, 2010 at 2:02 PM  

      They just know it’s becoming socially acceptable to spit at brown people again

      It’s never been acceptable in England to spit at people full stop. Traditionally that sort of thing has been left to Frenchmen, Italians, Romanians etc.

    13. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 2:05 PM  

      I saw a lot of spitting at white people when I was studying in Cairo. Perhaps the Left should turn its attention to there…

      A piece by my co-blogger would be of interest to many here:
      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4516

      “How to “Racialise” Umar Farouk’s Journey of Radicalisation”

    14. KB Player — on 3rd January, 2010 at 2:38 PM  

      Yeah, this spitting thing, not very British. Comic foreigners in English novels say “I speet and I speet” and shock the English characters. Stuffing a bomb down your knickers to blow up yourself and other people in a plane never used to be very British either.

      I blame it on Princess Diana myself.

    15. Sunny — on 3rd January, 2010 at 2:45 PM  

      What does it matter the provenance of his radicalisation when there is plenty of evidence that he was already radicalised while he was the president of the the UCL ISOC.

      But where is the evidence he was pretty radicalised by then?

      Two of the biggest ideologues of the Anwar al-Awlaki school of violent jihadism in the UK today.

      Are you saying Moazzam Begg is a terrorist sympathiser? Because he’s not even vaguely close. Or are you saying he is an advocate of violent jihadism - because that would be libellous unless you back it up with some evidence.

      It is now proven that Umar Farouk made contact with Anwar al-Awlaki while he was at UCL.

      I think you have reading problems. Nowhere does it say he met Awlaki when he was at UCL.

      The only thing you have on Umar Farouk is the ‘war on terror’ week - which basically involves some radicals but nothing even remotely suggesting advocating violent extremism.

      That article from the Weekly Standard is your standard American ‘reds under the bed’ crap.

      What I want to know is - other than this event that you’re all hot and bothered over - but has nothing other than subjects you don’t like - there’s no evidence of radicalisation.

    16. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:07 PM  

      But where is the evidence he was pretty radicalised by then?

      By the time he was in UCL he was already radicalised given the extent of his contacts with UK-based jihadis and then al-Awlaki.

      I think you have reading problems. Nowhere does it say he met Awlaki when he was at UCL.

      Yes it does. Check the dates.

      Are you saying Moazzam Begg is a terrorist sympathiser? Because he’s not even vaguely close. Or are you saying he is an advocate of violent jihadism – because that would be libellous unless you back it up with some evidence.

      Yes he is. There is plenty of evidence of Moazzam Begg advocating known jihadists like Ali Timimi and Anwar al-Awlaki.

      Simply denying it is not going to be enough I’m afraid. Why don’t you try and counter the claims with counter-evidence?

      Because you can’t. The weight of evidence is too much for denialists like yourself to ignore, try as you might.

    17. Sunny — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:21 PM  

      By the time he was in UCL he was already radicalised given the extent of his contacts with UK-based jihadis and then al-Awlaki.

      Alwaki left the UK in 2004. But Umar is said to have made contact with him over the internet. When did he make contact exactly and how are you able to verify this?

      By the time he was in UCL he was already radicalised given the extent of his contacts with UK-based jihadis and then al-Awlaki.

      Who are these UK jihadis?

      Yes he is. There is plenty of evidence of Moazzam Begg advocating known jihadists like Ali Timimi and Anwar al-Awlaki.

      Have you got him on record advocating violent extremism? That was my question.

      The weight of evidence is too much for denialists like yourself to ignore, try as you might.

      What are you, five years old? What am I trying to deny?

    18. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:26 PM  

      My dear Sunny

      Clearly you are trying to deny the radicalisation of Umar Farouk while he was in the UCL ISOC and his contacts with radicals in the UK.

      But you are doing so with no counter-evidence. You’re a journalist, how about you counter the claims with credible information or proof?

      Or you can close your ears and go “la la la la la” like you’re doing now.

      The choice is yours.

    19. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:33 PM  

      Effendi - The cynic im me suspects that you are axe-grinding.

      Let me get this straight - are you suggesting that somehow UCL is liable for the future behaviour of its students? Where does that stop. Why not go back to this terrorist’s primary school?

      Should Cambridge University have been closed for managing to nurture Blunt, Burgess, Philby and McLean? Or is this just about religious chips on shoulders?

      You say that Grant is quick to recourse to islamophobia - maybe, but the speed with which the notoriously chip-on-shoulder tendency of the academic chatterati has screamed anti-semitism is dizzying.

      Are you saying that universities should be held responsible for future actions of students? Who else, employers? Editors of newspapers he read?

      I don’t suppose for one minute you think that maybe, just maybe, it is the fault of an indivudual rather than those you happen to want to point the finger at?

      Christ, the worst thing about the THES thread is how quick the people on there seem to want to close down what looks like the whole of civil society.

    20. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:38 PM  

      Maidmarian, I am making none of the points you are suggesting. You are asking those questions yourself in response to the THES thread, perhaps you should address them.

      All I am saying here, in response to Sunny’s OP, is that Malcolm Grant was wrong to say there is no record of Islamic radicalisation at UCL. There clearly is.

    21. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:44 PM  

      Maybe you are not making those points directly, but like the axe-grinders on THES you are indulging yourself.

      You may not make the points in so many words, but there is a clear undertone.

      If you hold UCL responsibele, have the spine to say so. If not, why not share with the group your thoughts on the nature of vicarious liability? You came here with your ideas, no one forced you I presume?

      You do have ideas rather than just a chip on your shoulder right?

      Now let’s try again smart-alec.

      Do you think UCL is liable? Do you hold Cambridge responsible for the spy ring there? and do you hold people liable for their own actions or do you regard wider society as fair game for you condemnation?

      You have thought through what you say before you come on here - right?

    22. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:45 PM  

      Closing down ISOCs at UCL or anywhere else is not something I have said. I think you are seeing an undertone where there is none. I suggest you take it up on the THES thread.

    23. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:50 PM  

      No, you did not say that - but you don’t seem to have said anything other than how you don’t like Grant and his politics.

      I am asking you, as a contributor to this thread, what you DO think.

      Is there any reason you are reluctant to share your thoughts with the group. OK, let’s try something a bit more basic. You have indeed not advocated the closure of UCL or ISoC. Do you or do you not think that either or both of those should be closed?

      Instead of telling us what you are not saying - how about you tell us what you actually are advocating other than a talkboard feeding frenzy against UCL? Anything?

    24. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:55 PM  

      I am asking you, as a contributor to this thread, what you DO think.

      I don’t believe ISOCs or any form of student participatory access should be closed down. There are good ISOCs and there are those which are deeply tainted by Islamist extremist activity, UCL being one of them. Then there is FOSIS, which is rotten top down.

      That, in a nutshell, is what I’m saying.

    25. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:57 PM  

      Effendi,

      I’m a bit concerned about your position on Moazzam Begg, which appears to be entirely informed by a very neo-con American site. Do you have other evidence for your allegations?

      As far as I can tell there has never been enough evidence against him to convict him of anything.

      Which used to be way we decided things.

    26. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 3:58 PM  

      OK - now we are getting somewhere.

      Does therefore that make universities and individual academics liable for future actions of their students?

      What is FOSIS?

    27. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:00 PM  

      Douglas Clark - There may not be enough evidence to charge Begg, but that hardly places him above suspicion. There is still evidence, regardless of whether the authorities feel it is enough to convict.

      There was, it would seem, not strong enough to convict OJ, but I have my doubts….

    28. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:00 PM  

      Moazzam Begg

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3648

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3723

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3608

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3599

    29. cjcjc — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:15 PM  

      This from the post to which Effendi links @13:

      “When will Muslims call bullshit on this liberal appeasement of Islamic extremism and say to these fools: “This consensus is causing us more harm than good and enough is enough”?

      John Cameron, a commenter on this Times piece, could not be more correct:

      If the various universities in London allowed their right-wing student societies to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address white teenagers all hell would break loose. If Christian churches allowed disciples of Adolf Hitler to preach the inferiority of women and to sanctify the murder of Jews and homosexuals, the British public would go ape. Yet when Islamic extremists do exactly the same our government and public servants go weak at the knees. According to police sources, 25 British-born Muslims are currently in Yemen being trained in the art of bombing planes. Yet most of these terrorists did not acquire their crazed beliefs out in the badlands of the Islamic world. They were indoctrinated here in the UK.”

    30. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:16 PM  

      Ultimately, whether or not he was radicalised and where he was or wasn’t radicalised does not by one single iota minimise or mitigate his actions.

      Probably a better question to ask would be why does one individual get radicalised where another does not.

    31. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:24 PM  

      cjcjc - I don’t disagree, indeed, I doubt anyone would.

      But the point is how far are universities liable for this. You could convince me that universities have some control over who speaks on their campuses, but they have no control about what goes on off it - nor should they. And that is before you get to whether you can actually demonstrate whether those particular meetings and speakers actually had any causal effect over and above the rest of society.

      If there is something illegal going on at a student soceity, surely that is a matter for the police and the CPS, regardless of if that meeting is a university society or not?

      Don’t get me wrong, if you advocate prosecution of people for what may or may not be in their heads that is your business. If you think that societies (of any sort) should be andded, I would be interested to hear your argument.

      I just think that this issue has become a stalking horse for the likes of Effendi for grinding axes.

    32. halima — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:30 PM  

      http://fosis.org.uk/student-affairs/projects/650-freedom-of-expression?start=2

      I don’t see how anyone can take offense at FOSIS ( federation of Student Islamic Societies - an umbrella group).

    33. halima — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:35 PM  

      “Probably a better question to ask would be why does one individual get radicalised where another does not.”

      Yes, and I’d also add why would one individual after being radicalised commit an act of violence, and another one doesn’t.

      What I’ve always found dangerously scary about the individuals associated with extreme violence is that they are never people with low IQs - quite the opposite, always.

    34. Sunny — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:40 PM  

      Clearly you are trying to deny the radicalisation of Umar Farouk while he was in the UCL ISOC and his contacts with radicals in the UK.

      But you haven’t shown any evidence that this happened - other than scream hysterically about one programme of events to talk about American foreign policy.

      I asked you a bunch of questions asking for evidence for your assertions, and you’ve evaded.

      Now, amusingly, you’re the one asking ME for evidence. But I’m not the one making wild accusations.

      When exactly did Umar make contact with Awlaki? When? And where is the evidence? And other than this event (which isn’t in itself anything other than a venting exercise) what proof do you have of his extremism?

      And what are you suggesting unis should do? Spy on Muslim students? Close down any society that is dominated by Muslims? C’mon, let’s hear some suggestions.

    35. cjcjc — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:42 PM  

      Spy on Muslim students?

      Recording the society meetings has been suggested.

      Maybe a slightly more robust approach to visiting (video or live) speakers would be a good start?

    36. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:44 PM  

      cjcjc - You’ll never get that past the talkbaord warrior civil liberties crowd.

      Not being spied on is sacrosanct to them. No fishing expeditions allowed.

      Right?

      I still don’t understand what will happen to non-student/university societies in this surveillance state vision.

    37. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 4:53 PM  

      MaidMarian @ 27,

      There may not be enough evidence to charge Begg, but that hardly places him above suspicion.

      Have you actually thought that remark through? If the state hasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute then you have no case to answer, it is that simple. But I’d be pretty careful about saying someone is a criminal or worse without there being a conviction against them.

    38. BenSix — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:04 PM  

      Douglas/Sunny

      Begg clearly sympathises with Anwar al-Awlaki. Effendi is wrong to call him an “ideologue” - he’s never, to my knowledge, advocated terrorism - and why the Spittoon feels the need to cross-post with the Weekly Standard is beyond me. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t fair, and serious, questions to be asked of him and CP, though.

    39. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:05 PM  

      douglas clark - I’m not saying he is a criminal. All I am saying is that the absence of a conviction is not per se innocence. And, yes I have thought that through. Of course we do not work on the basis that the absence of a ‘declaration of innocence’ or something is needed or even possible. But to say that simply because there is no conviction everything is well and good with the world is naive.

      It may well be the case that, for example there is no evidence against me but that does not mean I am somehow totally above suspicion if someone holds them. Whether that is reasonable or not is another matter.

      OJ, of course was convicted in a civil court - but he was not guilty in a criminal court. Do you regard OJ as beyond suspicion criminally?

    40. cjcjc — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:29 PM  

      BenSix - now now, I’m sure that innocent Moazzem et al. only linked to / supported al-Awlaki by mistake. Just an innocent mistake…

    41. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:44 PM  

      Maid Marian @ 38,

      What the heck happened to innocent until proven guilty then? Of course the police and the security services should investigate people they suspect of committing crimes. On his repatriation from Gitmo he was interviewed by the British Police and allowed to go, almost immediately, as I recall.

      He has now been living freely in the UK for the last four years. If there was anything on him our security services would have to be completely shit to not have discovered it by now. For, I would suspect, he is ‘a person of interest’ to the spooks.

      Dunno if there is enough evidence for a retrial, but if anyone deserves it OJ does. Though trying to compare and contrast a complete lack of any prosecution with a very wobbly ‘innocent’ verdict is really a tad extreme.

    42. BenSix — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:45 PM  

      [Deleted]

      Cjcjc -

      I can’t tell who you’re trying to condescend: me, or Sunny?

    43. cjcjc — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:54 PM  

      Sunny of course!

    44. Sunny — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:54 PM  

      Recording the society meetings has been suggested.

      Yeah, because the crazies will of course not go underground and carry on regardless.. and happily submit to being recorded on everything they do at uni.

      Meanwhile- I’m sure Muslims will be happy to submit to being spied on and recorded at university for their own safety while white extremists are not subjected to the same controls.

      If you want to start policing thoughts - then why not do it properly and start applying it to everyone? After all, all these liberals and lefties who stand up for civil liberties are also a bit of a liability to national security. Perhaps we should spy on them too.

      Eh Effendi? You’ve sort of run away. I want to know what you’re advocating and the answers to the questions I posed earlier.

    45. BenSix — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:56 PM  

      On Effendi’s actual case: contacting Awlaki could, indeed, be an indicator of radicalism (though I’m sceptical of anything that comes from US interrogations, and won’t comment on the case - at large - til’ the facts are at least somewhat settled).

      The points concerning this War on Terror Week are, er - weak.

      The “War on Terror Week” Umar Farouk organised was basically a talk shop for the dessemination of the overt jihadist speakers such as Asim Qureshi and Moazzam Begg. Two of the biggest ideologues of the Anwar al-Awlaki school of violent jihadism in the UK today.

      As addressed in comment 37, this is hyperbole: Begg has dodgy links, but is much more famous for his opposition to Guantanamo. That, indeed, seems to have been the subject he was invited to speak on. Moreover, if extending an invitation to Begg is a sign of Islamic radicalism, the Guardian, Panorama, National Geographic and Amnesty International are all guilty.

      The Asim Qureshi talk on jihad sounds more interesting (he is, after all, an obvious ideologue*). To be able to point to this as a sign of student extremism, however, one would have to know more of the student’s intent (why they invited him/the content of speech/how it was received).

      [*] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXGPqyK3Srg

    46. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:57 PM  

      douglas clark - OJ was NOT found ‘innocent.’ He was found ‘Not Guilty.’ It means that the burden of proof was not satisfied. That does not make the evidence against him vanish.

      As I understand it, a court verdict of ‘not guilty’ does not per se mean ‘innocence.’ ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is not and never has been the same thing as, ‘above suspicion absent a guilty verdict.’ In Scotland of course they have the insanity that is ‘Not Proven’ to muddy it further.

      As others have pointed out, Begg is not a criminal as no burden of proof has been met in a court, that does not however mean we have to roll out beer and sandwiches for him.

    47. BenSix — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:58 PM  

      Cjcjc -

      Ah, I see.

      *Puts his Blogwars Bludgeoner back in the closet.*

    48. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 5:59 PM  

      Sunny - why stop there? The Telegraph for instance seems to have a suspicious bent that bankers should be indulged. I would love to mount a fishing expedition on their editorial meetings. Just to make sure there are no possible crimes going on - of course.

    49. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 6:03 PM  

      Muslim societies; lecturing imams … Surveillance, recording and suspicion. All because 25 British Muslims were discovered training in Yemen and one knicker-bomber got caught, overpowered and successfully prevented from blowing up a plane-load of people on Christmas day?

      Shipman was convicted of doing away with loads of his patients; are we talking about putting cameras in all doctors surgeries. Huntley murdered 2 girls that attended school. Are we going to put shadows on all school janitors? Fred and Rosemary West were convicted of incest, murder and heaven alone knows what other crimes they have committed. Are we going to view all parents and step parents as abusers?

      Where and when this Abdulmutallab was radicalised and getting all hot under the collar about it and starting to talk about whether or not we should place restrictions/surveillance/recording on Muslim led Uni groups is just a load of tripe that enables the venting of anti-Muslim feeling full range without having to actually deal with the fact that it is not ‘Muslim’ but only some individual Muslims; and not any Muslim but or so it seems looking at the background of some of those that have been caught, the loner, saddo, loser type.

      Militant Islam has nothing to do with the religion as practised by most Muslims in the West. It has far more to do with political Islam or rather the perverted form of Islam that is being pushed by politically motivated puppet masters who deliberately target these loner, saddo loser types.

    50. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 6:10 PM  

      MaidMarian,

      Nope,

      Wikipedia:

      In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is abandoned nolle prosequi. Under the rules of double jeopardy and autrefois acquit, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict, or whether it results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused.

      My highlighting.

      Although I think the double jeopardy part is a bit out of date….

    51. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 6:14 PM  

      Douglas Clark - Fair enough, though is that reference for the US system or the British one? OJ was in the California system I think.

      OJ’s second trial was in the civil courts where the standrad of proof is different.

      But the point remains that the evidence does not just vanish?

    52. Rumbold — on 3rd January, 2010 at 6:25 PM  

      The university should be free to disinvite individual speakers which it feels breach its core values. It should also be free to de-recognise any society it feels breaches its core values. Beyond that, there’s not much it can, or should, do. Any criminal activity should be investigated by the police/security services.

    53. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 6:30 PM  

      MaidMarian,

      It is an interesting point that criminal and civil levels of proof are different.

      So, no, the evidence didn’t disappear, but the level of proof was lessened.

      By the way, I am no lawyer, so for Gods sake don’t act on what I say!

    54. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 6:32 PM  

      douglas clark - You are far too nice to be a lawyer!

      Rumbold - spot on.

    55. comrade — on 3rd January, 2010 at 6:56 PM  

      Text I received over the new year ‘Science flies you to the moon,religion flies you into buildings.

    56. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 7:52 PM  

      Eh Effendi? You’ve sort of run away. I want to know what you’re advocating and the answers to the questions I posed earlier.

      Run away? Far from it. I took the kids to see Alvin and the Chipmunks. After your high-pitched hysterics, Alvin was positivively realistic, hard-edged drama! ;-)

      But I jest.

      The Underpants Bomber studied Mechanical Engineering with Business Finance at UCL between 2005 and 2008 and was president of the UCL ISOC in 2006-2007. The Telegraph piece says he made contact somewhere between Awlaki going to Yemen in 2004 and UFAB himself moving to Yemen in 2009. Which means it is reasonable to suggest that UFAB made contact with al-Awlaki while still in UCL. Do the math.

      The UK jihadis UFAB thought highly of include: Asim Qureshi, Moazzam Begg, Yvonne Ridley.

      Here is more information on Begg’s support of al-Awlaki

      And since you’re in the game to shout down this mounting evidence, I suggest you take it up with the Telegraph, the Times and the Indy. The only problem is you might have to get your hands dirty and do some research and collate counter evidence and proof to refute all this, for a change. But as a journalist, you should be used to the occasional bit of research, shouldn’t you?

      I don’t have much hope in any case. Since for you, any evidence and work done to highlight UFAB’s radicalisation links in the UK amounts to racist encouragement of yobs to burn down mosques and spit at “brown” people, isn’t it?

    57. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 8:00 PM  

      There is a variance in the ‘burden of proof’ not the level of proof. In criminal court the burden of proof is higher then in civil court; where in the latter it may be sufficient to prove that it is likely that ‘x’ occurred as opposed to the former it is necessary to prove that ‘x’ did in fact occur.

      @ comrade # 54. Nice generalisation, funny as heck but totally wrong. Science has also managed to blow people up instead of getting them to the moon; remember space shuttle Challenger disaster? Space accidents, either during operations or training for space-flights, have killed 22 astronauts (five percent of all people who have been in space, two percent of individual space-flights), and a much larger number of ground crew.

    58. Stanislaw — on 3rd January, 2010 at 8:07 PM  

      “Muslim societies; lecturing imams … Surveillance, recording and suspicion. All because 25 British Muslims were discovered training in Yemen and one knicker-bomber got caught, overpowered and successfully prevented from blowing up a plane-load of people on Christmas day?”

      Miriam, you are being disingenuous or obtuse.

      “He is the fourth president of a London student Islamic society to face terrorist charges in three years. One is facing a retrial on charges that he was involved in the 2006 liquid bomb plot to blow up airliners. Two others have been convicted of terrorist offences since 2007.”

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6971098.ece

      It is not at all because of a one-off, it’s part of a trend in London universities. Why are you and Sunny playing dumb about this?

    59. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 8:45 PM  

      Neither disingenuous nor obtuse; just wary of the broad brush method of selection.

    60. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 8:52 PM  

      Effendi @ 55,

      Your link to The Spittoon takes us here:

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3599, in amongst which there is this:

      It is right to say that the Secretary of State was in error in suggesting that weapons were found at the book shop when D was working there: they were not – they were found at Begg’s house.

      which, in turn leads us to this:

      http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/sc62002d.pdf

      where the actual judgement is written.

      It is right to say that the Secretary of State was in error in
      suggesting that weapons were found at the book shop when D was working there: they were not –
      they were found at Begg’s house, before D started working at the book shop, and, in any event, as
      weapons they were ineffective.

      My highlighting from within the same sentence.

      Two things, if The Spittoon is going to quote a judgement as evidence, it ought to respect it by quoting it in full, which has not been done in this case, and secondly for the sake of it’s credibility it should not try to over egg the pudding.

      Which I think it has done here.

    61. Stanislaw — on 3rd January, 2010 at 9:03 PM  

      “Neither disingenuous nor obtuse; just wary of the broad brush method of selection.”

      No you are being one or the other Miriam. Since the factual trend has been pointed out to you and you still refuse to admit you were wrong in your daft claim starting “all because…”, it seems to be the former. We can take it that for some reason you have an interest in deflecting inquiry and criticism away from the connection between universities and Islamist terrorism. Delude yourself by all means, just don’t expect others to be impressed or cowed by the ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘racism’ cards that seem to be about all you hold.

    62. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 9:22 PM  

      All of that said, I do wonder how many convicted terrorists do have a link to University Islamic Societies? I expect the police have ingoing investigations into this.

    63. Stanislaw — on 3rd January, 2010 at 9:36 PM  

      “All of that said, I do wonder how many convicted terrorists do have a link to University Islamic Societies? I expect the police have ingoing investigations into this.”

      Well, as I have pointed out (this is the third time now) four of them alone have been heads of such societies. I wonder how many convicted terrorists have been former heads of other university societies, e.g. chess society, Christian society, LGBT society. I’d bet that if you put all the university societies that aren’t Muslim societies together, you’d still not have four former members, let alone former heads of such societies, who are convicted terrorists.

      And I would guess that either the police do not have investigations into this, or that if they do know they will not easily make the information available, as tends to be the response of the authorities regarding criminal activity by members of vibrant multicultural groups.

    64. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 9:46 PM  

      Stanislaw has evidently never heard of Reductio ad Absurdum

    65. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 9:52 PM  

      Why should the police make the public aware of what ongoing detailed inquiry it is carrying out in any matter?

    66. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 10:17 PM  

      Effendi - Very nice, but what would you do? You are just a mouthing off aren’t you? I suspect that Alvin and the Chipmunks would be able to build a more coherent vision than you and the chipmunk on your shoulder have developed on here.

      Stanislaw - There was a good point on the THES thread in amongst the vitriol.

      Someone on there pointed out that they were in a sport club and that amongst the members of the sport club were a few Islamic types. Are by definition sport clubs now fair game for your censure (you too Effendi, assuming you actually have an answer, which I seriously doubt).

      Or are sport clubs not vibrant enough for your tastes?

      You say, ‘I wonder how many convicted terrorists have been former heads of other university societies.’ I wonder how many read the Daily Telegraph? Ate cereal for breakfast? Used the Internet? Were employed? You want to flaunt the chip on your shoulder about those things too?

      What you are more or less saying is that no one should gather in civil society unless you say it meets with your approval. I bet you are one of those talkboard frothers who gets all self-parody about the government taking all your civil liberties aren’t you.

    67. KB Player — on 3rd January, 2010 at 10:35 PM  

      Scenario:- You are head of security at Heathrow. You are interviewing two candidates. You ask them about their other interests. One runs a Boy Scout troop. The other’s one is head of an Islamic society at a London university. Which one do you favour for the job? Or think should be further investigated?

      Now, that may be grossly unfair. The Scout troop guy may invite Nick Griffin along as a speaker and be trying to teach his Scout charges to rub two sticks together near a mosque in order to burn it down, and the Islamic society guy may be as reliable a fellow as ever frisked you, but wouldn’t you think twice about the Islamic society bloke?

      Or, because no would-be terrorist would be dumb enough to put “President of UCL Islamic Society” on his CV, you do further investigations into your candidates’ background. One has omitted to put on his Boy Scout activity on the CV, the other the fact that he was president of an Islamic society at London University. Which omission would make you pause a little before hiring the guy?

    68. Sunny — on 3rd January, 2010 at 10:40 PM  

      Which means it is reasonable to suggest that UFAB made contact with al-Awlaki while still in UCL. Do the math.

      Wait - that’s your evidence? I’m supposed to do the math - and all you have is some vague association made by the Telegraph which may or may not correspond to the dates you are HOPING relate to your piece.

      In other words - you actually have no evidence that he was radicalised at UCL. All you have are grand words like ‘you do the math’ which means ‘I know fuck all and I’m just putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 because that’s what bloggers do’.

    69. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 10:46 PM  

      Stanislaw,

      And I would guess that either the police do not have investigations into this, or that if they do know they will not easily make the information available, as tends to be the response of the authorities regarding criminal activity by members of vibrant multicultural groups.

      Really?

      Or are you just making stuff up?

    70. MaidMarian — on 3rd January, 2010 at 10:51 PM  

      Stanislaw - Out of interest, are you the same Stanislaw who is on the THES thread treating is to such gems as, ‘Unfortunately, sections of the British police are now tools of the British state policy of appeasing Islamists, and this involves hounding and bullying innocent people who point this out.’

      Did you feel better after getting that off your chest?

      Oh, and before you say it - no, I don’t have an interest or an agenda. I just think that you sir or madam are a parody of yourself.

    71. Sunny — on 3rd January, 2010 at 10:52 PM  

      Also Effendi - he was heading up the ISoc in 2006-2007 as you said. He made contact with Awlaki, it is alleged, before 2009. So that still gives you several years during which UCL or the ISoc were not in the picture.

      How are you so sure now that UCL is not to blame? You’re not are you?

    72. douglas clark — on 3rd January, 2010 at 10:57 PM  

      Over at Liberal Conspiracy someone called ‘Just Visiting’ had this to say:

      Latest news – tomorrow’s Telegraph says:

      “The suspect in the attempted Detroit plane bomb had links with a London campaign group that has championed Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda cleric.”

      http://tinyurl.com/y87xrgv

      I’ll be interested to see that in the morning…

    73. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 11:00 PM  

      Sunny

      Sorry, you’d better read my post and my first comment on this thread. I have not said UFAB was radicalised *at* UCL. I said this:

      Malcolm Grant’s point was that the Underpants bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was not radicalised at UCL – which somehow lets UCL off the hook. He offers no proof either, other than to say there is no evidence to say that he was. Which is true but is immaterial. What does it matter the provenance of his radicalisation when there is plenty of evidence that he was already radicalised while he was the president of the the UCL ISOC.

      You seem to trying your damnest to make a wholly immaterial point?

      UFAB was a radicalised agent *while* he was in the UCL ISOC. Do you agree that that is the important take-home point here?

      And yes, he did make contact with Awlaki while he was at UCL.

    74. MiriamBinder — on 3rd January, 2010 at 11:15 PM  

      “And yes, he did make contact with Awlaki while he was at UCL.”

      So what? He probably spoke to the milkman too not to mention the bus-driver, a shopkeeper or two and that woman walking her dog in the park …

      It isn’t the where but the why; it isn’t the when but the how.

    75. BenSix — on 3rd January, 2010 at 11:21 PM  

      Effendi

      UFAB was a radicalised agent *while* he was in the UCL ISOC. Do you agree that that is the important take-home point here?

      No - the relevant question - to this debate, at least - is whether the UCL should have known that Abdulmutallab had violent or extremist leanings, ie. were there signs they should have identified. The alleged contact with Awlaki is, I think, irrelevant to the question, unless you can show that the University should have been monitoring it.

      The (sometimes fair) accusations against Moazzam Begg are also irrelevant, as Naadir Jeewa points out…

      Moazzem Begg spoke at UCL in January 2007, and didn’t broadcast an interview with Al-Awlaki until December 2007, and after AbdulMutallab passed on the reigns of the ISOC presidency to another.

      Perhaps they shouldn’t have allowed Qureshi - the intellectual freedom debate can hold on for another day - but that, at present, is the most damning thing that you’ve laid against them. And as his unpleasant speech was and is hardly of widespread notoriety - he’s still published on CiF, for example, and apparently has a book contract - I find it tricky to see how that could stick.

      Ben

    76. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 11:32 PM  

      He talks a good game, does Qureshi.

    77. Effendi — on 3rd January, 2010 at 11:39 PM  

      University of Oxford historian, and professor of international relations, Mark Almond wrote that the suspect was “on American security watch-lists because of his links with Al-Awlaki”.

      Mark Almond

      The Washington Post reported that according to federal sources, over the year prior to the attack, Abdulmutallab intensified electronic communications with al-Awlaki. The paper also reported that one government source described intercepted “voice-to-voice communication” between the two during the fall of 2009, saying that al-Awlaki “was in some way involved in facilitating [Abdulmutallab]’s transportation or trip through Yemen. It could be training, a host of things.”

      WSJ

      So the Intelligence authorities were monitoring him, at least. I have no idea why they did not inform UCL. This must be the “intelligence gaps” that Obama wants to repair.

    78. Stanislaw — on 4th January, 2010 at 12:21 AM  

      MiriamBinder

      “Stanislaw has evidently never heard of Reductio ad Absurdum”

      Miriam will evidently do anything to evade addressing evidence she has asked for and been presented with several times.

      MaidMarian

      You say, ‘I wonder how many convicted terrorists have been former heads of other university societies.’ I wonder how many read the Daily Telegraph? Ate cereal for breakfast? Used the Internet? Were employed? You want to flaunt the chip on your shoulder about those things too?

      What could those other activities possibly have to do with Islamist terrorism? Conversely, are you really telling me you can see nothing noteworthy about the fact that four former heads of London university Islamic societies have been charged with terrorist related offences in the past few years? Is your head really buried so far in the sand?

      What you are more or less saying is that no one should gather in civil society unless you say it meets with your approval

      I haven’t said or implied anything remotely like that. My argument has solely been with the denial on show here and elsewhere regarding the connection between Islamist terrorism in this country and university Islamic societies. Four of those societies in London have been run by terrorists. How is that normal?

      If you can show me that four (or three, or hell, even two) sports societies have been run by future terrorists in the past few years, then I’ll treat what seems to me to be an irrelevant ‘point’ about sports societies as relevant. So, can you?

    79. Stanislaw — on 4th January, 2010 at 12:27 AM  

      “Stanislaw – Out of interest, are you the same Stanislaw who is on the THES thread treating is to such gems as, ‘Unfortunately, sections of the British police are now tools of the British state policy of appeasing Islamists, and this involves hounding and bullying innocent people who point this out.’”

      What of it? That is precisely what happened in the case of the Undercover Mosque Despatches programme. Are you denying that?

      “Oh, and before you say it – no, I don’t have an interest or an agenda. I just think that you sir or madam are a parody of yourself”.

      And I think you are smug and stupid.

      “”And yes, he did make contact with Awlaki while he was at UCL.”

      So what? He probably spoke to the milkman too not to mention the bus-driver, a shopkeeper or two and that woman walking her dog in the park …

      It isn’t the where but the why; it isn’t the when but the how.”

      So you imagine he just bumped into Alwaki while at the grocers’ shop or at the cinema, then?

    80. halima — on 4th January, 2010 at 4:47 AM  

      I was just thinking about the anouncement to tighten airport security after this attempted bomb attack. Body searching is what they do in China already - both at international and domestic terminals. Plus they use an electronic rador of some kind with the body frisking.

    81. MiriamBinder — on 4th January, 2010 at 6:09 AM  

      Hindsight is always 20/20.

      “So you imagine he just bumped into Alwaki while at the grocers’ shop or at the cinema, then?”

      I don’t imagine anything of the sort. What I do realise is that for all the difference it makes, he may well have done that as well as any other place. I don’t think that living in a society where surveillance and suspicion is the norm is either going to resolve all the issues or, and this is possibly more important, keep them resolved.

      Where there is a group of people who have a vested interest in radicalising individuals they will find a way of locating and radicalising those individuals. We can bolt all the doors and bar all the windows and they will find a crack in the skirting board. Short of hermetically sealing everything and everyone in an individual isolation chamber and then keeping those seals 100% hermetic at all times, you are never going to eradicate radicalisation. At best you are going to minimise the threat for a while, but sooner or later, it will happen again.

      Since mankind first evolved on this planet there have been groups with vested interests that have not sat well with others. Looking at the last few years, comparatively speaking, we have had the Luddites, the National Socialists, the Communists, the IRA and the list can go on … Today it is the Jihadist, tomorrow … who knows; your guess is as good as mine and we most probably both end up wrong. But as sure as eggs are an omelette in potentia there will be another group who will try and force a view/a means/an end.

      Now admittedly the potential consequences of Luddite activity were not as far reaching as the potential consequences of todays’ activist but that is in part because society has become more global in its reach and activity; the other being of course that technology has developed and therefore the ability to damage has increased.

      The question for me is more a question of balance. To what extent am I willing to forego hard won civil freedoms in order to minimise threats to my physical being. To put it in simple terms, am I willing to be bullied into voluntarily putting myself and my fellow human beings in a strait-jacket, under a microscope; breathing only that air which has been previously filtered and engaging in intellectual or other pursuits only after they have passed rigorous censorship?

      In case you are wondering, the answer is no, no and yet again … no. I will not be a willing party to metaphorical book-burning. I will not be a willing party to restricting movement; be it of ideas, be it of individuals. Nor will I bow to terrorism of whatever kind by allowing myself to be terrorised.

    82. Stanislaw — on 4th January, 2010 at 3:43 PM  

      “Hindsight is always 20/20.” Evidently not in your case, Miriam, as you still can’t see what’s staring you in the face. You scorned the idea that this was anything more than a one-off, and having been given evidence that it was not you lack the integrity to acknowledge said evidence. And there WERE warnings long before now, which universities, parts of the media and other useful idiots dismissed with the cries, “Islamophobia!”, “Racist!”, etc. Here is a BBC report from 2005:
      “Professor Glees, of Brunel’s centre for intelligence and security studies, told the Today programme on BBC Radio Four: “There is a culture of extremism and terrorism on Britain’s campuses.

      “It may not be very large in number but you do not need very large numbers of people in order to do terrorism and the university authorities have simply ignored the problem.” Take your head out of the sand and read it, Miriam.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4252506.stm

      As Ruth Dudley Edwards has noted: “Four years ago, Professor Anthony Glees documented in his book, “When Students Turn to Terror,” more than 30 universities where “extremist and/or terror groups” were to be found. The book was met with hostility from the academic establishment. One year later, an all-party parliamentary commission reported on the rise in anti-Semitism that was accompanying increasing support for Islam on campuses. The Commission, chaired by well-respected Denis MacShane, saw university chancellors ignore its findings.”

      Grant’s attitude - and that of yourself and several others on this thread, is nothing new and no surprise. There has been a culture of denial on this matter inside universities for years. And the best you can manage in your denuded state is to try and smear your opponents as Nazis…

      “In case you are wondering, the answer is no, no and yet again … no. I will not be a willing party to metaphorical book-burning.” No, I wasn’t wondering at all, and your hysterical strawman insinuations that I am calling for repression, nazi-style or otherwises, does you great discredit, and have no basis in what I have said on this thread.

    83. steve — on 4th January, 2010 at 4:24 PM  

      chaired by well-respected Denis MacShane

      well-respected by who exactly? he’s not exactly innocent of voicing pretty extreme views on university campuses… witness his recent embarrassing behaviour at a student debate in Cambridge.

    84. MiriamBinder — on 4th January, 2010 at 10:29 PM  

      Stanislaw … you really should get over the notion that everything I write is directed at you. As it so happens, the times something I write is directed at a specific poster, I have the courtesy of informing readers of that fact at the start of my post.

    85. Stanislaw — on 5th January, 2010 at 1:14 AM  

      Don’t be daft, Miriam. You quoted my words and then responded to that quote. What else am I to assume other than that you are replying to me?

    86. MiriamBinder — on 5th January, 2010 at 7:44 AM  

      Your assumptions are your own affair Stanislaw …

    87. Alec — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:05 AM  

      Frayed knot, Miriam. Others are not privvy to what goes on in our our heads - if we make a comment which others can reasonably interpret one way, it is our responsibility to explain why this was erroneous… not theirs to accept our childish petulence on face value.

      >> Perhaps the fact that in the past three years, four former heads of Islamic societies of London Univeristies

      As I recall, Yassin Nassari still was at Westminster University when he was arrested for importing qassam blueprints.

    88. MiriamBinder — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:11 AM  

      As I had already explained, his insistence is indeed his own affair as are his assumptions Alec.

    89. Alec — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:24 AM  

      And, as I explained to you, Miriam, tough cheddar. Your histrionics are no more acceptable that my refusing to engage with you ‘cos there was no evidence that I was addressing you.

    90. MiriamBinder — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:33 AM  

      Diddums Alec - reiterating a fantasy a thousand times over does not transmute it into fact. This is debate, not alchemy …

    91. Alec — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:40 AM  

      D’you want me to sprinkle you with fairy dust and wave my magic want at you? I assumed you were addressing me as you expected me to, but you don’t reciprocate (to avoid actually engaging brain with Stanislaw?).

      Oh, why d’you refer to Stanislaw as a “he”? Maybe you know, but this looks like an assumption.

      >> This is debate, not alchemy …

      Something you should you do well to remember the next time you attempt to exert totalitarian control by denoncing a critic and then denying them the right to reply.

      This is a public forum where disagreement may be met. If you wish to have an unmolested conversation with X, Y or Z, try Google Groups.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.