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' - 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.
'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
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.
