-
It's terrific Terfor: I think not
Bill,
You appear to take an optimistic view of this announcement, being nearer to the scene, with friends working at the "coalface", I fear it is "spin".
There have been several government reviews of the counter-extremism strategy, often known as Prevent - within the wider CT strategy 'Operation Contest'; a couple of learned groups - including at least two parliamentary enquiries - and a number of other groups, some who have worked at the "coalface".
The CNN report has little detail, nor have several UK newspapers and we are left with a No.10 Downing Street press briefing:
Quote:
The cabinet-level group, which will also bring in intelligence and police chiefs when needed, will focus on radical preachers who target potential recruits in jails, schools, colleges and mosques. It will monitor trends in radicalisation and tackle "poisonous narratives", No 10 said.
The group, which is expected to meet within weeks, will include the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, the home secretary, Theresa May, the chancellor, George Osborne, other key cabinet ministers, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, and Andrew Parker, the director general of MI5.
It will be known as the tackling extremism and radicalisation task force (Terfor)...
Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ror-task-force
A more conservative leaning paper has a little more, again with some choice headlines:
Quote:
We cannot allow a situation to continue where extremist clerics go around this country inciting young people to commit terrorist acts.
We will do everything we can to stop it.
Link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...extremism.html
Meantime there is political pressure building to re-introduce a piece of legislation on greater communications monitoring, known as the 'Snoopers Charter' to many and officially as the rather blandly titled Communications Data Bill:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-charter.html
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
Bill,
You appear to take an optimistic view of this announcement, being nearer to the scene, with friends working at the "coalface", I fear it is "spin".
There have been several government reviews of the counter-extremism strategy, often known as Prevent - within the wider CT strategy 'Operation Contest'; a couple of learned groups - including at least two parliamentary enquiries - and a number of other groups, some who have worked at the "coalface".
The CNN report has little detail, nor have several UK newspapers and we are left with a No.10 Downing Street press briefing:
Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ror-task-force
A more conservative leaning paper has a little more, again with some choice headlines:
Link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...extremism.html
Meantime there is political pressure building to re-introduce a piece of legislation on greater communications monitoring, known as the 'Snoopers Charter' to many and officially as the rather blandly titled Communications Data Bill:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-charter.html
Details on the Task Force are lacking, and I'm sure the far left and also well meaning citizens concerned about excessive state power will oppose it, but I suspect their voices are becoming a minority (at least during the emotional post attack period). There seems to be a growing anti-Islamist movement throughout much of Europe (UK, France, Greece, etc.), and I applaud those who oppose the Islamists. They think their entitled to push their hate rhetoric in our culture and push for sharia law, while simultaneously being protected by our laws (the ones they want to change). We need to view sharia as a sickness that has no place in our society and do whatever is necessary to purge it from our ranks. The Islamists are a real threat within our ranks, and sadly we generally know who they are but fail to act due to the prevailing philosophy of political correctness.
I do worry that well founded opposition to Islamists will translate into a growing trend of hate crimes against Muslims who are not Islamists, which will simply make the problem worse, potentially pushing vulnerable and younger Muslims to consider Islamist views. It is a vicious cycle, but I read some where that the intent of the TF was to disrupt the Islamist narrative, which seems feasible compared to "countering" it. Disruption means targeting those who are promoting hate crimes and outlawing the use of public media to spread their disease. It may mean expelling hate speech promoters. In short it means the legal system will no longer tolerate it.
Any rational western nation would out law and take offensive action against those within their nation that were openly promoting murder and pushing for sharia law. We made a choice hundreds of years ago not to be backwards, and we should let a few clowns threaten us because our legal system protects them. I think the greatest nature isn't the Islamists because they can be dealt with if we are willing to act, but the larger danger is the prevailing philosophy of political correctness that stifles common sense.
I have a little hope because senior civilian leaders in the UK have identified Islamist rhetoric as a threat. I have a little hope because the backlash against Muslims may convince main stream Muslims to take action within their community to purge the Islamists, because ultimately they're the only ones who can.
-
It'a beyond one religion
For some reason, certain cities and nations serve as relatively good safe havens in the intellectual and monetary sense. It goes beyond a Londoniston phenomenon--IM non-British opinion, which may be incorrect--and can be found in past movements such as the Khalistan movement, support for the Tamil Tigers (although the US and Canada played important parts too).
This is a long described phenomenon and isn't new, radicals have often found an ideological home in Western cities. Human rights laws that are tolerate of radical immigrant speech, immigration policies, there are even murmurings in some immigrant communities that as long as the rhetoric is directed outward toward historic "enemies" of the UK, it's okay to say whatever you want. We pay tribute in our generous policies, you keep the violence going in a different direction.
And for reasons that are unclear to me, some human rights activists and native-born become bonded emotionally to one group over another in overseas conflicts which are more complicated than any narrative presented by any one side.
Others, of course, are paid and there is an entire industry of cultivation of scholars and journalists and writers. It's not for any one issue, it seems to flare up in periods of time more for one ideology than another, but the generic phenomenon seems similar.
-
From another comment of mine on a different thread
I had suggested in the past either here or at another blog (Abu M) that we study the Punjab insurgency or the Khalistan or similar South Asian movements as a better mental model than 19th century colonial wars and in the manner of Dave Maxwell's recent article on UW.
1. Immigrant diaspora (Mackinley's Insurgent Archipelagos).
2. National and regional movements mixed in with ideological movements, some supported by national intelligence agencies.
3. Lobbying of western officials.
4. Cultivating Western scholars.
5. International banking and black globalization in combination as sources of funding.
6. Sophisticated use of the visual arts and contemporary communications (from television to the internet over time).
7. And so on.
PS: You can find newspaper reports of Brussels human rights officials being threatened when the official attempts to look into human rights abuses on both sides of a contentious issue, in this way nations can attempt to manipulate the appearances of insurgencies. This happens in a relatively benign fashion (diplomats yelling at each other or threatening to withhold business contracts behind doors) or in a more nefarious fashion.
-
Bad policy aids and abets radical speech
There is a tendency for officials in the UK (and it happens in Canada and the US too) to "outsource" (Praveen Swami's phrase) dealing with immigrant communities to community liaisons which perverts the complicated diaspora community and its attitudes.
I have started to see it here in the US, newspaper reporters will interview some "Hindu American" activist on some made up issue ("Salena Gomez wore a bindi and perverted our traditional culture!") and present it as representative of some community. I bet 99.999999999 percent of "Hindu Americans" don't know who the freak show activist is but some well-meaning but clueless reporter will pass it off as an issue and the whole ball gets rolling from this nonsense.
I'm seeing different rhetoric in my own community related to a different immigration pattern and this is somehow being passed off as representative of a whole complicated group of people.
So, this is probably what happened over the years in the UK, and no thanks to the national government, elected officials pandering to the louder activists within a larger immigrant population, and the Foreign Office or whatever buckling under to pressure from nations that are traditional allies or Commonwealth countries or whatever.
A complicated phenomenon, not typical to just one nation. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for this phenom, IMO.
-
Madhu,
I think it all comes down to identity and people in the end want their narratives to be simple. What amazes me is how quickly we bond with a group and assume a group identity for even a short period of time and throw rationale out the window as we get got up in the group dynamics. Others, like many home grown Islamists, especially those who were agnostic or Christian and then converted to Islam were searching for a group they could establish an identity with. Examples include the Hari Krisnas, the Jone's Town Cult, Aum Shinrikyo, devil worshiping cults, and the Islamist cult(s).
Something is missing in people's lives and for some reason joining this groups gives their life meaning. I listed what we generally consider undesirable groups above, but their seems to be little difference between people who decide to become professional soldiers, policemen, join Doctor's without Borders, or join the priest hood. We assume the norms of these groups because we want to belong. In many cases these group identities are healthy for our society instead of threatening.
I don't know what the fix is for radicalization, because I don't understand the problem, or even if human nature should be considered a problem we need to fix? I do think once those who have taken this path are identified and those who reach out to spread this group identity need to be removed. All complex psychological and sociological factors aside, the simple fact remains is they remain a threat to our society.
Why do so many skinny American white kids who are for the most spoiled brats embrace gangsta rap and walk around like an intercity black kid in a gang? What identity are they trying to embrace (often comical to watch)? Equally important what identity are they trying to break away from and why? Why do some people assume a violent attitude towards fans of an opposing sports team when they go watch a game (soccer, basketball, etc.)?
I can't answer any of these questions, but with my primal instincts I can recognize a threat, and Islamists fall into that category. They need to be neutralized as they're identified, and while I don't dismiss the need to address underlying causes, I don't think we understand the underlying causes, so until we do we need to do what we can to protect our people.
-
We all just need to keep in mind that why a movement exists is a strategic and political question; whereas why any individual joins or supports a movement is a tactical and personal question. I often see those questions conflated as one and the same.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
We all just need to keep in mind that why a movement exists is a strategic and political question; whereas why any individual joins or supports a movement is a tactical and personal question. I often see those questions conflated as one and the same.
Not everyone is a Che or Ho, many are just looking for a group to address some psychological need.
-
Exactly, and of Che and Ho, Ho was an insurgent, while Che was got into the UW business. Ho fully understood the high conditions of insurgency across the many diverse people of Vietnam, their shared desired to have a self-determined future free from foreign intervention, be it French, US, Chinese or Russian. Che, on the other hand got into the UW business and died virtually alone in the South American jungle attempting to start an insurgency where the revolutionary pressure had already been relieved a few years earlier by a nationalist movement.
You sell the sizzle but you buy the steak. Che got so caught up in selling his own brand of sizzle he never bothered to check to see if anyone was hungry. Most in the US are too focused on the sizzle of various ideologies as well. Better we focused on how we too often contribute to "the steak."
-
Bob, if that isn't a twist on words to sell your model, then I have never seen one :D. My point was simply not every actor is motivated by politics, and in many cases few are, they are motivated more by peer pressure, or a desire to belong to something that will define them.
Quite simply one size doesn't fit all, and some kid in the UK or the U.S. that grew up in a Christian family then converts to Islam and later becomes an Islamist doesn't mean it is a failure of government. That is the politically correct myth that ties our hands behind our backs while we allow criminals (Obama is right, by definition most of these lone wolves are not terrorists, they don't have a real political agenda, they're just angry at the world and want their 10 minutes of fame and hope they'll get to see 72 virgins) space to operate because we're wondering what "we" did wrong and what we need to do to fix our government, because obviously it is at fault. Using this logic, then kids become drug addicts because government failed, people join loony tune fringe groups like the Hari Krisnas, the Jone's Town cult, and Aum Shinrikyo, or name your anarchist group because government has failed, and the list goes on and on. I don't buy it. In some cases bad government can set conditions that lead to an insurgency, but isn't what we're talking about when we address radicalization of lone wolves in the West. Generally losers that are looking for identity.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
My point was simply not every actor is motivated by politics, and in many cases few are, they are motivated more by peer pressure, or a desire to belong to something that will define them.
Nothing I said conflicts with this viewpoint, in fact I support it. That is why I separate the movement and its reason for existing from the motivations of the various individuals who opt to join or support such a movement.
The reasons for the movements are indeed political, as they are illegal challenges to some system of governance. The individuals, as you point out, join for many reasons.
We tend to conflate the two, and I think that leads to flawed thinking.
I have never suggested that "one size fits all"; but do believe that just as Clausewitz offers a broad, universal framework for thinking about warfare (external, violent political competition between two or more distinct systems of "Government-People-Army" working to exercise their will over the other; so too is there a fundamental commonality to internal, illegal, political competition. Why any individual voluteers to go off and fight in either type is personal to them as an individual, and largely unrelated to the larger dymanic at work.
I also think we do tremendous damage when we attempt to make Clausewitz apply to every form of conflict. (and yes, I realize statements like that will draw out those dedicated to the belief that Clausewitz does indeed apply to all forms of war). I also think Clausewitz applies to all forms of "war" - I just don't think that internal conflicts, regardless of how "war-like" fit into that genius/species of conflict. Attempting to force Clauswitzian logic to work in internal conflicts is, IMO, one of the major reasons why states are so bad are resolving the same. Good solution, but wrong problem.
(Visual graphic for a little humor on those who belive fervantly that CvC applies, and only fails when we just don't commit fully to the solution)
-
-
Hammer, rapier and careful thought
One CT dilemma well put (in part) BY Jamie Bartlett, of Demos:
Quote:
.. the crunch question that in counter-terrorism: how do you discern between the (fairly many) individuals that hold illiberal, extreme ideas that we permit in a liberal democracy and the (very few) individuals that hold the same ideas, but are also willing to act on them violently. After a lot of painstaking research, I found there is no single answer, no single pathway of radicalisation, no obvious predictive flashing signs that the police or intelligence agencies can reliably and consistently look out for. Such randomness is uncomfortable, but it's true nonetheless.
Link:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jami...b_3343310.html
Marc Sageman chimes in, in the same e-paper:
Quote:
So what advice would he give the British government? "The priority for the government right now is.. to study what's happening on the ground, as opposed to just giving out soundbites.. stop being brainwashed by this notion of 'radicalisation'. There is no such thing. Some people when they're young acquire extreme views; many of them just grow out of them. Do not overreact - you'll just create worse problems."
Link:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3342206.html
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
I like Sageman, I think his research has been validated repeatedly unlike our so called COIN experts. However, he doesn't offer a rationale solution for mitigating the threat of homegrown extremists. I agree over reacting will make the problem worse, but also believe that failure of government to act will compel elements of the population to act and they will definitely over react and target all Muslims. I see little wrong with targeting those who promote the hate speech. I don't know, but I haven't seen any reports that Anwar Awlaki gained greater importance after we killed him. Actually it appears the opposite has happened.
A lot of quotes in Sageman's article are worth noting, but will note a couple here.
Quote:
"The notion that there is any serious process called 'radicalisation', or indoctrination, is really a mistake. What you have is some young people acquiring some extreme ideas - but it's a similar process to acquiring any type of ideas. It often begins with discussions with a friend."
This seems to be true in some cases, especially in the West, but the Talibs in Pakistan underwent an extensive radicalization process in the various Madrassas close to the Afghanistan border.
Quote:
Sageman disagrees: foreign policy is a major factor. "If you listen to the video of that guy, Michael Adebolajo, he very much says it is because of the [Afghan] war. At what point are you going to start listening to the perpetrators who tell you why they're doing this? The same applies to the videos of the 7/7 bombers. At some point you have to be grounded in reality."
I agree our foreign policy that is played out on the 24/7 news cycle and interpreted in multiple ways on the internet provides something these lone wolves and small groups use to justify their behavior. After 10 plus years of overt war we are providing ample supporting fires for the radicals to exploit. Some wars are best fought quietly in the shadows, which is the direction the President seems to be taking us, but against considerable opposition.
Quote:
As for Muslims being asked to apologise for, or condemn, terrorist acts supposedly committed 'in the name of Islam', Sageman is scathing: "Does your Conservative Party have to apologise each time the [far right] does something nasty? You're asking the same thing of the Muslim population."
Good find, I just wish he would address the other reality, which is our reality, not just the Muslim reality.
-
I wasn't implying a root causes argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
Madhu,
I think it all comes down to identity and people in the end want their narratives to be simple. What amazes me is how quickly we bond with a group and assume a group identity for even a short period of time and throw rationale out the window as we get got up in the group dynamics. Others, like many home grown Islamists, especially those who were agnostic or Christian and then converted to Islam were searching for a group they could establish an identity with. Examples include the Hari Krisnas, the Jone's Town Cult, Aum Shinrikyo, devil worshiping cults, and the Islamist cult(s).
Something is missing in people's lives and for some reason joining this groups gives their life meaning. I listed what we generally consider undesirable groups above, but their seems to be little difference between people who decide to become professional soldiers, policemen, join Doctor's without Borders, or join the priest hood. We assume the norms of these groups because we want to belong. In many cases these group identities are healthy for our society instead of threatening.
I don't know what the fix is for radicalization, because I don't understand the problem, or even if human nature should be considered a problem we need to fix? I do think once those who have taken this path are identified and those who reach out to spread this group identity need to be removed. All complex psychological and sociological factors aside, the simple fact remains is they remain a threat to our society.
Why do so many skinny American white kids who are for the most spoiled brats embrace gangsta rap and walk around like an intercity black kid in a gang? What identity are they trying to embrace (often comical to watch)? Equally important what identity are they trying to break away from and why? Why do some people assume a violent attitude towards fans of an opposing sports team when they go watch a game (soccer, basketball, etc.)?
I can't answer any of these questions, but with my primal instincts I can recognize a threat, and Islamists fall into that category. They need to be neutralized as they're identified, and while I don't dismiss the need to address underlying causes, I don't think we understand the underlying causes, so until we do we need to do what we can to protect our people.
I was trying to think of ways to disrupt threats in my previous comments.
There is more than one conversation going on around here, one is about the home grown radical threat to the UK, and then there is the UK safe haven phenomenon that supports violence and disorder overseas, in symbiosis with the complicated nature of global travel and the rest of it.
When tallying costs, the two are sometimes looked at separately but maybe they shouldn't be?
Sageman confuses me, I guess I was using radicalization in a different way than a formal indoctrination, I was thinking more along the lines of what he was saying, it's kind of a milieu and the peer group and people talking to each other, as he puts it. So, I'm not sure what he is saying?
-
On Sageman
Quote:
Some people when they're young acquire extreme views; many of them just grow out of them.
I guess I wonder if certain social environments make it more likely to acquire extreme views so that if most grow out of it, it also makes it likely that a few more will stay with it.
What about this article?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-901959.html
I don't know how to interpret what Sageman is saying along with the information in the der Spiegel article?
-
Upon further pondering on the topic last night, I think Sageman makes some good points in a limited context, but failed to address mass radicalization in the Madrassas that created the Taliban and mass radicalization in Cambodia that created the Khmer Rouge. Complex topic, so it is important not to jump to conclusions on this.
-
Race, class, ethnicity and Islam: a London cocktail
Giving some context to help understand the Woolwich murder, a short RUSI comment by an academic, Professor Jonathan Githens-Mazer. The full title, then sub-title being:
Quote:
Why Woolwich Matters: The South London Angle. The vivid and disgusting images witnessed in Woolwich come not necessarily from the pages of Al-Qa'ida's Inspire magazine, but out of rap videos shot in South-East London. Here is an environment that combines urban disaffection with perceived certainties from Islam.
Link:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment.../#.UaiyJ5UTNhB
What struck me on my first reading was how similar the scene was to known "hot spots" for AQ recruiting, for example a couple of towns in Morocco:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/ma...2&oref=slogin& . Secondly how little outsiders understand what is occurring beyond their desks and journey to work.
There are several related threads on radicalisation (generally) and in the UK, in particular 'My Brother the Bomber':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3096
-
New Immigrant Communities in South London...
South London is also changing in other ways. Looking at just one shifting demographic, it is home to an increasing South and Central American community. Their culture* is decidedly different from that of the radical islamists - and even the more moderate portions of the Muslim community, for that matter - and it will be interesting to see how this confrontation will work itself out. There are other fault lines that will challenge jihadism. It could be that the very multi-culturalism which some see as the problem with respect to radicalisation and terrorism will serve as a bulwark against it.
[*Eg, there is a clothing shop on the Old Kent Road near the Tesco (in London, that is a meaningful geographical designation, fyi) that also deals in women's lingerie. In the front window is an ad for a thong corset, view from the rear. It is defiantly not modest.]
-
Video from PJTV on this subject..... has some harsh language in places but it is all part of the facts of what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM
-
TerFor: new title, same messages
Yesterday was the first official meeting of TerFor and the press reporting was bland, repeating many of the tired, old phrases used pre-Woolwich. David Cameron and Ed Miliband (Opposition leader) made short statements in the House Of Commons:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22756225
The Quilliam Foundation has a short policy statement, that too IMHO is short on detail:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp...m-strategy.pdf
Part of the problem is whilst the strategy may be coherent confronting and reversing an ideology needs people ready to come forward to argue, that is in short supply - excluding what one "insider" calls 'extremism entrepreneurs'.
An illustration of the difficulties the government can be found this article, a somewhat implausible coalition between an alliance between the UK and extremists:http://www.opendemocracy.net/nafeez-...ist-extremists
-
An Indian expert reflects upon Woolwich
A short article from India by V. Balachandran, who started as police officer (in Mumbai) and then moved to national intelligence duties, ending as a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analy...vent-terrorism
-
UK CT was lucky this time: sentences & motive
An update on this plot (Posts 84-86 refer):
Quote:
At the Old Bailey, Khan, Uddin and Ahmed were sentenced to 19-and-a-half years in jail, with a five-year extension on licence. Hasseen, Hussain and Saud were jailed for 18 years and nine months, with a five-year extension on licence.
Extended sentences, introduced in England and Wales last year, mean offenders serve at least two-thirds of their main sentence in custody (usually 40% automatically deducted for 'good behaviour'). After release, they are on licence in the community for the rest of their sentence plus the extension part. The six defendants received a reduction of a quarter in their jail terms for pleading guilty before a trial had been due to start.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22841573
Their motivation? No surprises here:
Quote:
Anti-EDL bomb plot 'a reaction to calculated insults'
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22814936
-
The importance of training camps for British jihadists
An article whose title is too long for the SWC box: 'Fuelling the campfire – the importance of training camps to aspirant UK jihadists' by Raffaello Pantucci:http://raffaellopantucci.com/2013/07...-uk-jihadists/
Quote:
UK jihadists engaged in militant training in the UK and abroad during the 1990s, with training camps providing a core element the necessary preparation for jihad.
Despite a crackdown on such activities, a series of disrupted jihadist plots in the UK over the past three years have highlighted the persistence of key elements in militant training.
Most notable was the continuing importance attached to training by aspirant jihadists and the preference for travelling abroad to train with existing jihadist networks.
In my first read a couple of new snippets, this one is local to Birmingham:
Quote:
For Naseer, the Darul Ihsaan gym was also a source of recruits, including the four members of a cell who pleaded guilty in October 2012 to travelling to training camps in Pakistan. The group ended up being part of Naseer’s downfall as their absence was noted by their families who vociferously complained to another prominent local individual – identified as Ahmed Faraz (alias Abu Bakr), who was convicted in December 2011 on charges of possessing terrorist material – and accused him of facilitating the men’s travel. A regular at the Darul Ihsaan gym, Faraz denied responsibility and pointed the angered families in Naseer’s direction.
-
Short stay 'Lone Wolf'
One of the dubious benefits of having sponsored visitors:
Quote:
White supremacist Pavlo Lapshyn stabbed a Muslim pensioner to death and tried to bomb three mosques after launching a one-man war against Britain’s ethnic minorities.
Lapshyn is a Ukrainian national, with very little public information about his life, especially his politics before arriving in Birmingham, for a short stay with an international engineering company. Today he pleaded guilty and awaits sentencing.
Link to the fullest account yet:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-race-war.html
Shorter, different report:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ues?CMP=twt_gu
The police press release:http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/l...se.asp?ID=5360
-
Short stay 'Lone Wolf' - judge's comments
Lapshyn was snentenced today for murder and terrorism - to forty years jail. The judge's sentencing remarks give an insight into Lapshyn's motivation - that pre-dated his arrival in the UK; the evidence found after his arrest on his computer and more. He was identified as a suspect after one mosque bombing from a CCTV trawl and local officers showing the photo around id'd him.
Link:http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...s-25102013.pdf
The RUSI analyst, Raffaello Pantucci, has a commentary:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment.../#.Umqo5NK1HfJ
-
Transnational lone-wolf right-wing terrorism
I hardly expected a Ukrainian national to come to the UK and within days murder an old man in the street, then start a bombing campaign, that is what Pavlo Lapshyn did:
Quote:
Lapshyn’s 2013 terror campaign in Britain may be termed the first instance of transnational lone-wolf right-wing terrorism. It is unlikely to become a trend, but that will not make it any easier to prevent.
The quote is from the last paragraph of a lengthy commentary, which focuses on he Ukrainian aspects, especially the denials made:http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russ...wolf-terrorist
Elsewhere others have commented (posted before on the UK CT thread), the trial judge's remarks - which are an impressive, full account of what happened and the identification of Lapshyn:http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...s-25102013.pdf
Then Raffaello Pantucci, of RUSI, who has long studied 'lone wolves':http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment.../#.Umqo5NK1HfJ
I am aware that LE have for sometime considered the activities of travelling serial killers, rapists and the like. People like Lapshyn are a new aspect IMHO.
Now if Lapshyn had only been a visitor, rather than on a sponsored work placement, with more skill at avoiding identification (via CCTV on public transport and a neighbourhood canvas) I fear he would have escaped.
-
Lone Wolf-Neo Nazi
The following was taken from Der Spiegel online today--basically the neo right want to take over Brussels and have linked up among themselves-
Initiative von Wilders und Le PenEuropas Rechtspopulisten wollen Brssel entmachten
Europas rechte Parteien haben ein Bndnis geschlossen. Der Niederlnder Wilders und die Franzsin Le Pen wollen mit Gleichgesinnten die Macht der EU ber Geld, Gesetze und Grenzen beschneiden. Dafr kommen sie dem Rechtsextremismus gefhrlich nahe.
-
'Butchered like a joint of meat'
Today the trial of those charged with the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby started yesterday, today the first evidence was given. It is grim reading and some have reported worse is to come:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...k-8972608.html
-
TerFor reports
After several months preparation David Cameron has announced the UK government's new strategy; oddly he did so when in Beijing, an inappropriate place for such a statement - not the first time domestic security policy statements have been made whilst he is abroad.:(
Quote:
The proposals include:
1) considering if there is a case for new civil powers, similar to the new anti-social behaviour powers, to target the behaviours extremists use to radicalise others
2) considering if there is a case for new types of order to ban groups which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech, when necessary to protect the public or prevent crime and disorder
3) consulting on new legislation to strengthen the powers of the Charity Commission
4) working with internet companies to restrict access to terrorist material online which is hosted overseas but illegal under UK law and help them with their continuing efforts to identify what material to include in family-friendly filters
5) improving the process for the public to report extremist content online
6) making delivery of the Channel programme, which supports individuals at risk of being radicalised, a legal requirement in England and Wales
ensuring prisoners who have demonstrated extremist views in prison receive intervention and support on release
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...ckle-extremism
So far the suggestions have had a mixed reaction in the media:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9B30PB20131204
Brooke Rogers @ Kings War Studies, has a four minute pre-publication podcast and was optimistic:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMaT...ature=youtu.be
-
Drummer Lee Rigby accused guilty of murder
Not surprisingly the two defendants were found guilty of murder yesterday, after pleading not guilty by a jury in London. BBC main story:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25450555
A more reflective lessons learnt commentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22641541
An odd report on one suspects apparent links with MI5 (Security Service), which starts with:
Quote:
MI5 was still in contact with Islamist fanatic Michael Adebolajo just months before he murdered soldier Lee Rigby, it has been claimed. Adebolajo said members of the Security Service were contacting him “earlier this year” in the hope of turning him into an informant, according to sources close to his defence team.
This aspect of the case has been mentioned before; the article suggests no clear, public answer will be forthcoming:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...Lee-Rigby.html
-
Take up this challenge than David?
After the result of the Woolwich murder trial (Drummer Lee Rigby) and I expect general satisfaction with the verdict - along comes a non-violent challenge to HMG's "new, tough" stance on extremism.
Anjem Choudary is a well known publicist for his extremist views, so after the Woolwich verdict - and he knew one of the defendants - one would expect him to try to get publicity. No worries, the BBC invited him onto the leading Radio Four breakfast current affairs programme 'Today', with a prime time twelve minute interview slot.
Now there is free speech, but why enable such a minority extremist to have such prominent airtime? Well explained in this commentary:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...-its-trolling/
Now social media stats may not be great evidence of support or just mere watching, but these figures put him in context:
Quote:
Choudary no more represents mainstream British Muslims that the Westboro Baptist Church represents American Christians. He is a fringe voice in a fringe community. He has, for instance, 6,700 Twitter followers – around half that, to pick an example pretty much at random, of Julian Huppert, the Lib Dem MP for Cambridge. His YouTube channel, in which he talks about the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, has 1,300 subscribers. For comparison,
the Slow Mo Guys, two British public schoolboys who blow stuff up and film it on a super-high-speed camera and say "dude" a lot, have somewhat over three million.
This is not his first such hatred broadcast, yes he is a trained British lawyer, who reportedly lives on state benefits and I know many Muslims who wonder why he has so rarely been prosecuted. Is he a "useful idiot"?
Background report:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/se...er-prosecuted/
-
Arrested for terrorism, only 8% convicted
Via a "lurker:
Quote:
Within 1 year of the 9/11 attacks, arrests in the UK under the Terrorism Act 2000 had increased by 151%. In the decade following 9/11, only 8.1% of all people arrested in the UK for terrorism have gone on to be convicted for a terror offence.
All the figures are official:https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...6/hosb1112.pdf
-
Update: We will remember them: 1982 Hyde Park Bombing man charged
This PIRA attack reappeared in May 2013 with an arrest and charge of a suspect, who was in transit from Northern Ireland to Greece via London Gatwick and today the case collapsed due to an error by the PSNI. The BBC has a long report, which starts with:
Quote:
A man accused of killing four soldiers in the 1982 IRA Hyde Park bombing will not be prosecuted because he was given a guarantee he would not face trial.
It follows a judge's ruling that an official assurance given in error meant John Downey - who had denied murder - could not be prosecuted.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26342465
-
Lone wolves "smoke & mirrors"
For obscure reasons the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report on the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby @ Woolwich, May 2014 has been extensively "leaked" before full publication this week. This is one example:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...to-reveal.html
Needless to say an 'agenda' is at work as this opening section points at:
Quote:
Vital internet activities of Lee Rigby murderer Michael Adebolajo that could have revealed his horrific plans were not flagged up to MI5 by overseas Internet companies, a major report is expected to reveal next week. In the months leading up to the brutal murder in May last year, some of Adebolajo’s online behaviour could have pointed to his intentions but the Security Service was only aware of them after the outrage.
(Qualified later with) The material that later emerged was held by Internet service providers in America who had not alerted it to the authorities – possibly because they were not aware themselves.
Just whether the ISC will explain the decision-making of those involved, mainly the Security Service (MI5), is a moot point. For example his apparent assisted return from Kenya, without a prosecution in the UK.
(Added) The Guardian has a rather different story, which asks more questions of the ISC's allegedly (and likely) limited exploration of what happened:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...rvices-cleared
-
"Smoke & mirrors" with spin obscure the truth
Well the ISC report has been published and at least one member, a Conservative MP, wondered whether it had been used to advance the government's agenda.
Then the "spin" machine worked up a lather about those terrible US-based internet providers who didn't help; by not telling the UK authorities till after Lee Rigby's murder, that he had on-line made threats to attack a soldier. Later the BBC named the unhelpful internet provider as Facebook.
See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30191218 and http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-blame-rifkind
Hours later the UK press had read the report and found some mistakes, if not sloth in the intelligence agencies. For example:
Quote:
There were repeated chances to investigate him and Michael Adebowale; the very day of the murder, the home secretary was presented with – and signed – an application to tap Adebowale’s communications, a procedure given “routine” urgency, and one that had taken a month.
Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ernet-snooping and a very detailed missed opportunities list:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rtunities.html
That story concludes:
Quote:
And in the end, it wasn’t emails that killed Lee Rigby. It was a pair of extremists known to the intelligence services, who had been in regular contact via monitored phones, who used kitchen knives. The clues were all there. What was needed was the intelligence to connect them.
Whatever the criticism the people who murdered Lee Rigby were responsible, not the Security Service or other official bodies. Accurate, timely assessment of potential threats is not 100% accurate.
A detailed critical review:https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourw...ts-maths-wrong
-
Londonistan finally "put to bed"
With events in France little attention has been paid to the UK-based radical preacher Abu Hamza's trial and sentencing in New York:
Quote:
The sentencing yesterday of ....to life in prison by a US judge for terrorist crimes committed between 1998 and 2001, when Abu Hamza was based in Britain, is a reminder of a simpler time, when there were far fewer extremist preachers and the role of the internet in spreading their message was minor and inconsequential.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-society.html
The author Richard Barrett (ex-SIS) comments wisely on what has changed since the time the name "Londonistan" was used.
I am somewhat puzzled at this passage, for if he does not know who will?
Quote:
We are still at the beginning of our understanding of the appeal of violent extremism, and even further behind in working out how to counter it.
-
Something is not working here
Andrew Gilligan is a columnist, if not reporter for The Daily Telegraph, who ar times can be controversial, especially as he unearths information that one would expect officialdom would prefer not be public. He is seen by some Muslims as a constant critic and appears to often benefit from "leaks" from officialdom.
This article is critical of the UK CT strategy, principally the 'Prevent' strand:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Britain.html
His conclusion:
Quote:
The Paris attackers underwent a long period of radicalisation. At the moment, Britain’s procedures to counter that process are not in great shape – another reason why an attack here is so likely. New legislation aims to increase the effectiveness of Channel, and to force agencies to work together. But for the moment, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s bleak conclusion that “the Government’s counter-terrorism programmes are not working” seems about right.
-
Two ex-MI5 Directors cast doubt on UK CT strategy
For two ex-Security Service directors to wonder aloud critically on the UK's CT strategy is unprecedented, even more so as the effects of Paris are in political and media foreground.
Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired as Director in 2007, spoke in a House of Lords debate on the government's latest proposed CT law:
Quote:
It seems to me that Prevent is clearly not working. This is not altogether surprising because it is difficult. We do not really know what works. I retired nearly eight years ago. I know that a great deal of effort has gone into thinking about how to counter this toxic and murderous ideology. I believe that we must have a better understanding of the roots of terrorism than we used to, and a better understanding of how to divert people—particularly vulnerable young people who have, in some cases, been groomed and exploited—from their path.
Some of those who come back from Syria will not be terrorists; some need to be reintegrated. The Channel programme is obviously to be applauded, but I am still concerned that it is bound to be slow, even over the long term.
It is understandable that it will be slow, but we do not seem—I beg to be corrected by others who are more up to date than me—to be having much effect. We are told that 600 dangerous extremists who are British citizens have fought in Syria. That is a large number. If Prevent had been working for the past 10 years, we might not have seen so many going.
It follows that I rather doubt that the Government, however laudable their efforts, are well placed to counter this ideology. A lead on that has and is beginning to come from moderate, mainstream Islam, which has itself suffered so much from the distorted version of its faith propounded by terrorists. One of the most appalling scenes from Paris was that of the Muslim policeman on the pavement being executed brutally by one of the terrorists.
It also follows, therefore, that I am not convinced of the value of putting Prevent on a statutory footing. I am out of date. The Government may be able to convince me, but I cannot see how legislation can really govern hearts, minds and free speech.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...as-failed.html and her full speech is on:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...5-01-13a.750.0
Jonathan Evans, who retired as Director in April 2013, in a maiden speech in the House of Lords, stated:
Quote:
....the “hesitancy” of the Government to “engage with the religious dimension of the threat we face” was making it harder to prevent young men becoming radicalised....events in Syria and Iraq had caused a “jolt of energy that has gone through the extremist networks in this country”, turning would-be jihadists into battle-hardened terrorists. A similar situation existed in Afghanistan before 9/11, he said, and: “Those circumstances led to a series of attacks internationally and over a long period. I fear we may be facing the same situation as we go forward today…
“Inadequate security will breed vulnerability and fear and that in turn will tend to limit people’s ability to contribute to civil society, will tend to provoke vigilantism and will tend to diminish people’s ability to exercise the very civil liberties and human rights that we wish to sustain.”
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oss-warns.html and his entire speech is on:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...5-01-13a.690.0
'Prevent' is one of the four strands in 'Operation Contest', the UK national CT strategy; the other three strands are Pursue, Prepare and Protect.
'Prevent' has long been the weakest strand, both in its design, level of resourcing, public acceptance and credibility.
There are two main SWC threads on UK CT:
a) UK CT:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7768
b) Foreign Fighters: preventative action (UK mainly):http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=20549
Leaving aside the impact here I do wonder as the 'Contest' strategy has been widely copied elsewhere, will those nations think again. I include the USA, where CVE is the 'Prevent' equivalent.
Bizarrely Westminster-Whitehall have managed to think and now via this new law make counter-radicalisation extend to nursery schools! When six hundred people have reported left to fight in Syria, that does seem weird.
-
Amidst all the reporting on 'Jihad John' being unmasked the government has published its detailed response to the ISC report on the murder of Lee Rigby (see Post 135 & 136):http://isc.independent.gov.uk/files/...attredirects=0
Spin aside there are some items of note, notably on handling information and joint assessment i.e. by MI5 and the police.
-
Alienation, Compatability and Values: polling
Quote:
Four in 10 British Muslims believe that police and MI5 are partly responsible for the radicalisation of young people who support extremists, new polling has found. A survey commissioned by Sky News, also found that more than a quarter of British Muslims have some sympathy with those who have left to join fighters in Syria. Among Muslim women and those under the age of 35, the figure rises to a third.
While almost three quarters of Muslims polled said they believe the “values of British society” are compatible with those of their religion, one in seven said they were not.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...h-Muslims.html
A shorter Sky News report:http://news.sky.com/story/1462023/ra...s-blame-police
-
Dudley: a "hot spot"
One of the UK's persistent "hot spots" for suspected terrorism-related activity is Dudley, a borough within 'The Black Country', to the west of Birmingham in the West Midlands.
In 2001 in Afghanistan three young men were detained and later transferred to Guantanamo Bay until March 2004. They became known as the 'Tipton Taliban', Tipton being a part of Dudley. Wiki has a good explanation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipton_Three
Earlier this month Aimen Dean revealed:
Quote:
In the winter of 2003 jihadist turned MI5 spy Aimen Dean attended a lecture by Anwar al-Awlaki, a man he had never heard of but who would become an inspiration to Islamist extremists throughout the world. Also listening, and taking notes, were three of London's 7/7 bombers.In a converted flat on the first floor of a building in the Black Country town of Dudley, about 30 men were gathered to hear a lecture by an American visitor who was building a reputation as an inspirational jihadist scholar.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32065132
This week 'The Daily Mail' ran a story on man who'd had left Dudley to join ISIS:
Quote:
A British former car mechanic who joined the Islamic State as an explosives expert and sniper has shared chilling images of his new high-tech bomb-making factory in Syria.Hamayun Tariq, a divorced 37-year-old who was born and raised in Dudley in the West Midlands, shared four images on Twitter of a room where he claims to make devices known as IEDs.
Components are seen organised on shelves and instruction manuals and bomb-making equipment neatly laid out on work surfaces in the room, which the father-of-two says he hopes will emerge as 'the best Electronics LAB in the Islamic state'.
Link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mic-State.html
Doubt is cast on the claimed 'bomb maker' by a SME:
Quote:
Bomb builder ? I doubt it. Skilled technician ? Yes. Decent tools ? Yes, but far more than ever needed even in the automotive sector for high end cars. Everything is out of place, the wall sockets are not UK standard, and half of the equipment is not even connected.
To build a bomb of any size does not require much more than: Explosive(s), a detonation charge, an electrical connection and a container.
-
Written an almost travelogue writing style an article on how Portsmouth, the historical home of the Royal Navy, has earnt this headline: 'How Portsmouth became a hotbed of radicalised Muslims and far-right thug' and sub-title: Why has extremism been so able to take hold in Portsmouth - and what is being done to stop it?
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ht-thugs.html?
Some context:
Quote:
Portsmouth is a gritty naval city, still predominantly white British (84 per cent of its 205,000 population) and working class. Its 4,000-strong Bangladeshi community, the second largest ethnic group...Since the Pompey Lads left for Syria in 2013, close to double figures of men and women in their teens and 20s from the city have been stopped from making the journey. ...Hampshire Constabulary has had ‘hundreds’ of referrals of young people deemed at risk of radicalisation from extreme Islam or the far right.
(Whoops) Mashudur Choudhury, who before going to Syria was recruited by the council under Prevent funding to help stop violent extremism.
-
Our son, the suicide bomber, was exploited
After the news that a West Yorkshire teenager, believed to have become Britain’s youngest suicide bomber, Talha Asmal, 17, following an ISIS release of photos and a statement saying that he detonated a VBIED in the northern Iraqi town of Baiji, a numbere of reactions.
His family issued this statement:
Quote:
Talha was a loving, kind, caring and affable teenager.....He never harboured any ill-will against anybody nor did he ever exhibit any violent, extreme or radical views of any kind. Talha’s tender years and naivety were, it seems however, exploited by persons unknown, who, hiding behind the anonymity of the worldwide web, targeted and befriended Talha and engaged in a process of deliberate and calculated grooming of him. Whilst there it appears that Talha fell under the spell of individuals who continued to prey on his innocence and vulnerability to the point where if the press reports are accurate he was ordered to his death by so-called Isis handlers and leaders too cowardly to do their own dirty work.
We are all naturally utterly devastated and heartbroken by the unspeakable tragedy that now appears to have befallen us.
Links:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...suicide-bomber
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-33126132
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-33129806
A BBC report from Baghdad has the photos and a succinct quote stated to be from the family:
Quote:
ISIS, not and never in our name.
(Later the reporter asks) how many more will follow him?
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33128063
-
There seems to be an overlap here worthy of a Venn diagram with the typical "urban yout" criminal, wherein the parents always cry to the cameras that "he was a good boy, sang in the church, was just turning his life around and didn't do nothing".
Exploitation by predators of poorly-parented youths is to be expected, whether they be pimps, drug dealers or jihadis (again, possibly time for another Venn diagram there).
-
In a speech the UK's top civil servant on CT, Charles Farr (ex-SIS) stated:
Quote:
As few as 100 Britons may currently be fighting for Isil...compared to the 2.7 million Muslims in the country. It’s not to say the challenges they pose are not significant, they are. But … the more we overstate them the more, frankly, we risk labelling Muslim communities as somehow intrinsically extremist, which actually despite an unprecedented wealth of social media propaganda, they have proved not to be. So I think we need to be cautious with our metaphors and with our numbers.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...extremist.html
-
London bombings 7/7 tenth anniversary
7/7 was not an attack on the scale of 9/11, but for Londoners first and the rest of the UK it was terrible.
Amidst all the coverage I have found a few excellent, reflective articles:
1) In The Guardian: 7/7 seemed to herald a new era of terror on UK soil – one that did not materialise:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...e-mi5-mi6-gchq
2) In The Independent:Iraq war not to blame for 7/7 bombings, insists Tony Blair:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10370649.html
3) The then Labour Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, made a remarkable two minute speech (from Malaysia where he was). I rarely agree with him, he did us all proud that day:http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/h...00/8777643.stm
4) Two BBC pieces: 7 July London bombings: 15 changes to anti-terror planning:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33388286 and a commentary 7/7 anniversary: Is the UK any safer now?:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33415475
-
1 Attachment(s)
I have reviewed Raffaello Pantucci's book elsewhere (link below), but Owen Bennett-Jones, a BBC reporter, if not sage, has written a review and commentary on the wider UK CT policy in The London Review of Books. See the attachment.
My review:
Quote:
'We Love Death As you Love Life: Britain's Suburban Terrorists' by Raffaello Pantucci is a must read on why British nationals turned to terrorism. It is not a history of the attacks and the response.
-
Britain’s al-Awlaki moment, sortof
A Kings of War commentary after yesterday statement by PM David Cameron that two weeks ago, in Syria, two British citizens plotting with ISIS were killed in a drone strike:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2015/09/bri...oment-sortof/?
From the PM's statement:
Quote:
First, I am clear that the action we took was entirely lawful. The Attorney General was consulted and was clear there would be a clear legal basis for action in international law. We were exercising the UK’s inherent right to self-defence. There was clear evidence of the individuals in question planning and directing armed attacks against the UK. These were part of a series of actual and foiled attempts to attack the UK and our allies.
As the author says the Uk is not like the USA:
Quote:
The British political system has markedly fewer constraints on the exercise of power by the Prime Minister.
The BBC magazine has a good review on the legal status of the attack?
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34184856
Today's BBC News report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
Another Kings comment, on Strife opposing the action:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...precedent.html
Legality aside and the clamour for a review, more information being released etc it is interesting to learn that the UK and presumably allies could 'Find, Fix & Finish' the apparent plotters amidst all the noise of ISIS activity. Presumably the UK drone had been on standby for days before releasing a missile / bomb.
Was there an alternative? Oddly it appears the government has returned to Mrs Thatcher's insistence on TINA: there is no alternative.
Drones and much of UK CT strategy is effectively containment of those who are violent, pending optimistically a political change. Ulster is a good example of this. Just how long we can wait, let alone after a successful ISIS-inspired attack is a moot point.
-
British Muslims are losing the war against ISIL
An interesting commentary by a "left" leaning, British Sikh journalist and academic:http://qz.com/498409/british-muslims...against-isil/#
Quote:
Stories of British Muslims running off to Syria have now become almost routine, and show no sign of abating. What’s more worrying is that this is happening despite a loud chorus of British Muslim outrage against the terror group. They
have marched against it,
declared jihad on it,
published fatwas against it, written articles slamming it, expressed their contempt, signed letters and delivered sermons against it. But despite all their outrage, British Muslims are losing the war against ISIL. Badly. It looks like ISIL is more attractive to Muslims than al-Qaeda ever was.
(
Later) ISIL is particularly potent because it offers Muslims a tangible sense of belonging, wrapped up in glorified Islamic history. This makes it a far more formidable foe for governments trying to stop its citizens being seduced by its call compared to groups such as al-Qaeda.
But for the vast majority of Muslims who disdain its ideology, the challenge that ISIL presents to them is deadlier and far more difficult because they are caught in a pincer movement: with public and government suspicion on one side, and a seductive and supposedly empowering ideology on the other.