Jihad on Campus?

contentions ^ | 7.26.2007 | Daniel Johnson

[Contentions]

Many Americans I know are dismayed by the British academic boycott of Israel. What, they wonder, lies behind the rise of such attitudes on British campuses? The truth is, however, we do not know the half of it. A case that has just ended at the Old Bailey criminal court in London—a case that has gone largely unreported—throws light on this dark corner of university life.

This morning, the BBC’s flagship radio news program, Today, reported on the case. It involves a schoolboy and four Muslim students at Bradford University who have been convicted of “possessing articles for terrorism”—in other words, downloading jihadist material from the Internet. The only reason this particular group came to light was that a 17-year-old member, who had run away from home, told his parents about the group’s activities. The parents decided to tell the police, who arrested the other group members.

It is unusual in Britain to interview a convicted felon about his crime before he has even been sentenced. Nobody explained why the authorities had permitted an exception in this case, but the Today program gave its prime breakfast time slot at 8:10 a.m. to one of the students, in order that he might explain why the jury had been wrong to convict him. The student was handled very gently by the interviewer, a Muslim woman, who seemed to assume that he was just a kid who had gotten mixed up with the wrong crowd. The interviewer did not challenge the student’s claim that he had not actually seen or read the violent material, including terrorism manuals, found on his computer. Unfortunately for the BBC, the young man did not quite follow its script: he insisted that he still believed he had a duty to fight those who “invaded Muslim lands.”

[AbeKrieger]

convicted of “possessing articles for terrorism”

such as possessing Muslim beliefs, which are clear articles for terrorism.

[johnny7]

“Glees also praised the parents who went to the police, thereby setting an example for other members of the Muslim community, who rarely inform on family or neighbors whom they suspect of terrorist involvement.”

[VOA]

Jihad on Campus?

Anyone who phrases this as a question is probably in the following
category:
1. Phrasing an answer as a question on "Jeopardy"
2. Never visited UCLA (aka, University of Communists and A$$holes
3. Never visited UCI (aka, University of Chinese Immigrants,
as it is called by a Chinese immigrant student I knew at UCLA);
the REAL Asians at UCI aren't much of a problem at UCI...but the
Muslims/Islamists on campus just don't know how to "play well
with others".
AND/OR
4. Wasn't on the University of Missouri (at Columbia, MO) campus
for the week before and after 9-11.
(about 50 Muslim male students "vanished" from campus after 9-11;
we've had a couple of low-profile arrests of local Islamics
and the busting of an Islamic "charity" that had one associate
that procured satellite phones used in Osama's attack on US
Embassies in Africa in 1998)

[Uncle Miltie]

While I’m in favor of strict prosecution of certain terrorist ACTS and CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT ACTS, the mere downloading of reading material hardly constitutes crime, in my opinion.

For example, if I were to go read Jihadi literature in order to understand the nature of our enemy, would I be subject to prosecution?

How does a judge or jury distinguish between the mindset of the fellow traveller and the opponent of terrorists when they read the same web page? Does state of mind (general agreement or disagreement) constitute a violation of law?

Let’s drain the swamp of Jihadism. Part of that can be shutting down the purveyors of terrorist literature as people who call for violence. But merely reading their dystopic tracts shouldn’t be criminal. Acting illegally on the basis of the tracts should be illegal.

In that distinction lies the whole difference.

[ModelBreaker]

How does a judge or jury distinguish between the mindset of the fellow traveller and the opponent of terrorists when they read the same web page? Does state of mind (general agreement or disagreement) constitute a violation of law?

A starting point would be whether your name is Mohammed.

Actually, that remark is a bit too flippant. I understand your point and it's valid. But we have to be careful about nuancing our culture out of existence. The rules in war have to be different. Civilization only works when all parties to a dispute are civilized. A substantial portion of muslims have no claim to that label. Too many of them live here and in England.

Regrettably, for a while, we are going to have to reduce ourselves to their level. If we win, we will then have to reassemble and reassert civilized rules.

[Uncle Miltie]

Agreed in principle, though not in timing. I don’t think we in the U.S. are at that point yet regarding our fellow citizens who happen to be muslim (aliens be damned.) But I think the U.K. has reached that point.

Judgement call, that. I understand you’re there already. Fair enough. Most people will join you after 9/11 redux.

[ModelBreaker]

But I think the U.K. has reached that point.

I was in the UK last week. Staying in a nice flat in a nice neighborhood. At the busstop (everyone rides the bus), more than half of the people were speaking other than English--mostly Arabic. Tons of women in Burkhas and they all had a bunch of kids.

I took four taxi rides. In each ride, the taxi driver, with no prompting, started talking about Muslims and how they had messed up England and they should be sent home. Four out of four.

Trouble is, I don't know if there's enough English middle class (like the taxi drivers) left to make a difference.