Posted on 07/10/2005 11:39:52 PM PDT by jb6
Long before bombings ripped through London on Thursday, Britain had become a breeding ground for hate, fed by a militant version of Islam.
For two years, extremists such as Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, 47, a Syrian-born cleric, have played to ever-larger crowds, calling for holy war against Britain and exhorting young Muslim men to join the insurgency in Iraq. In a newspaper interview last April, he warned that "a very well-organised" London-based group, al-Qaeda Europe, was "on the verge of launching a big operation" here.
In a sermon attended by more than 500 people in a central London meeting hall last December, Mohammed vowed that if Western governments did not change their policies, Muslims would give them "a 9/11, day after day after day". If London became a magnet for fiery preachers, it also became a destination for men willing to carry out their threats. For a decade, the city has been a crossroads for would-be terrorists who used it as a home base, where they could raise money, recruit members and draw inspiration from militant messages.
Among them were terrorists involved in attacks in Madrid, Casablanca, Saudi Arabia, Israel and in the September 11 plot. Zacarias Moussaoui, the only man charged in the US in connection with the attacks there, and Richard Reid, the convicted shoe-bomber, both prayed at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London. The mosque's former leader, Abu Hamza al-Masri, openly preached violence for years before the authorities arrested him in April 2004.
Advertisement AdvertisementAlthough Britain has passed anti-terrorist and immigration laws and made nearly 800 arrests since September 11, 2001, critics have charged that its tradition of civil liberties and protection of political activists have made the country a haven for terrorists. The British Government has drawn particular criticism from other countries over its refusal to extradite terrorism suspects, including one man who was convicted for his role in the deadly Casablanca terrorist attacks in 2003.
For years, there was a widely held belief that Britain's tolerance helped stave off Islamic attacks at home. But the anger of London's militant clerics turned on Britain after it offered support for the American-led invasion of Iraq. On Thursday morning, an attack long foreseen by worried counter-terrorism officials became a reality.
"The terrorists have come home," said a senior intelligence official based in Europe, who works often with British officials. "It is payback time for a policy that was, in my opinion, an irresponsible policy of the British Government to allow these networks to flourish inside Britain."
The terror attacks have heightened the debate here over whether the country needs tougher counter-terrorism laws. So far, the British Government has resisted the temptation to rush through emergency measures that could curb personal freedoms. British Home Secretary Charles Clarke, for example, is resisting calls for new legislative measures and on Friday argued that the imposition of a personal identity card system would not have prevented the attacks.
Investigators examining the London attack are pursuing a theory that the bombers were part of a home-grown sleeper cell, which may or may not have had foreign support for the bomb-making phase of the operation.
If that theory is true, it would reflect the evolution of terror groups around Europe. With many members of al-Qaeda's hierarchy having been captured and killed, a new, more nimble terrorist threat has emerged across Europe, mostly through semi-autonomous, al-Qaeda-inspired local groups that are believed to be operating in France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and other countries.
"Terrorists are not strangers, foreigners," said Bruno Lemaire, councillor to Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin of France. "They're insiders, well integrated inside the country."
Another Europe-based senior intelligence official said the fear was that there would be additional attacks in other European cities by home-grown sleeper cells inspired by al-Qaeda and by attacks in Casablanca, Madrid and now London.
"This is exactly what we are going to witness in Europe: most of the attacks will be carried out by local groups, the people who have been here for a long time, well integrated into the fabric of society," the official said.
Well before Thursday's bombings, British officials predicted a terrorist attack in their country. In a speech in October 2003, MI5 director-general Eliza Manningham-Buller said she saw "no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the UK and its interests from Islamist terrorism over the next five years, and I fear for a considerable number of years thereafter".
Britain's challenge to detect militants on its soil is particularly difficult.
Counter-terrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain support al-Qaeda. Among them, officials believe that as many as 600 men were trained in camps connected with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
British investigators say that identifying Islamic militants among the 2 million Muslims living here, about 4 per cent of the population, is especially hard. They constitute the most diverse Muslim community in Europe in terms of ethnic origins, culture, history, language, politics and class.
Mosques should be assessed a higher tax to cover the cost of rebuilding London. Muslim businesses should carry an additional tax. It might not be "fair", but killing innocent Brits isn't "fair" either.
The "community" of Muslims must be held responsible for the acts of it's extreme members.
Westerners must "up the price" for the Muslim community. No more "winks and nods", no more "understanding" of other cultures. No more picking up the damage and letting bygones be bygones.
Muslims are guest in our countries and they need to act like it. If they can't be civilized or control their children, they need to go home. And pay for the damage they've done.
If Muslims want to live in a modern society, with the benefits of modernity, they must give up their dark ages ways.
Students from Arab countries who aren't citizens, should go home. Now. A root cause of terrorism is western educated Muslim elites... We can't afford to educate future bomb makers.
Looks like the Brits need a LARGE Gitmo of their own. Maybe they'd like to go partners with that "floating prison" that is allegedly somewhere of Diego Garcia.
Britain invited terrorism, and she came. Why is any one surprised? I am not. There has never been a downside to terrorism, it seems to work well for them, while the people of Western nations are terrorised, and lose their freedoms, and their way of life.
Britian and the USA are sure to get more terrorism, because they meet so little opposition, and they know how to beg off.
Jihad IS WWIII
We have to start treating it that way - NOW
I have maintained that this could over time revert Civilization back to the Dark Ages of walled cities and city states if ALL countries and organizations don't condemn and PURGE terrorist animals from their midst. If we don't develop a ZERO TOLERANCE attitude toward terrorists and those who support it in Any way (including statements like, "we have to understand their grievances"), we'll be forced back into doing business and trusting only people we know personally.
ZERO TOLERANCE for Terrorism.
NO - They need to be killed.
One "freedom" we have to give up is the "freedom" to say we sympathize with the goals and aims of the terrorists. Censorship of the press, and stomping on anyone who publicly supports or even sympathizes with the terrorists in necessary now. If we don't do this now, we will have to do it later or DIE.
Jihad is WWIII
Sounds like someone who didn't get the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" memo.
Sarcasm/
A country with over 4 million surveillance cameras is worried about curbing personal freedoms? They need to re-think this policy and at minimum, jail or deport anyone trained in a al Qaeda terrorist camp.
There's too many to kill. Active terrorists need to be killed, the rest of the Muslims, who by inaction allow the crimes to be committed, need to be shamed.
To be effective, Muslims must be shamed in a way that that makes sense to them. For Muslims, being told they act like unwelcome company is shameful. In Muslim countries visiting and being "company" in someone's home is a big deal. A much bigger deal than it is here -- with complicated, counterintuitive rules.
We have to work within a mental framework they understand. A transgression has to be a "transgression" for them to see it. (It's why liberal PC worked so well on our culture until we figured it out -- but that's another issue) Being "rude" in a home is unforgivable for Muslims... Killing someone isn't.
They have more reasons why it's OK to murder someone than they have reasons why it's OK to get dirt on the rugs or to show the bottom of your shoes, or to not be gracious to a guest. When we're dealing with the enemy, we need to understand what they can "get."
I grieve for the people, especially the children. The Blair regime, on the other hand, has been abetting terrorists for quite some time. England is one of the key recruiting grounds for Islamic Jihad, right up there with Saudi Arabia and Iran. This "war" is so screwed up it's not even funny. Everyone is half playing at best and no one wants to fully commit, to include us.
It's not only the muslims who need to be shamed.
Durbin and the NYSlimes and the rest of the FRAUDcasters must be, too, as well as liberal slimeballs like my sister and many libs I know, who I would testify against if they wished to give them jail time.
These people are getting us killed.
Britain and the USA are sure to get more terrorism, because they meet so little opposition, and they know how to beg off.
How did Britain invite terrorism? I have some theories, what are yours? How does the USA "beg off"? Tell me more...
You're right on that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.