Islamist Watch/David Rusin, 16 Dec 09: Is there any degree of radicalism that disqualifies someone from holding a sensitive government post in the UK? Probably. But it would be difficult to tell based on two recent stories.
First, Treasury official Azad Ali has begun advising the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on combating Islamic extremism. Apparently his suspension earlier this year for blog entries steeped in — you guessed it — Islamic extremism presented no barrier to his joining the “community involvement” panel chaired by the CPS anti-terror chief. In addition to naming radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the email pal of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, as “one of my favorite speakers and scholars,” Ali’s musings include these gems:
On his blog … Ali said he found “much truth” in an interview with an Islamic militant who said: “If I saw an American or British wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.” […]
He has also used his blog to praise Abdullah Azzam, regarded as a key spiritual mentor to Osama bin Laden, saying Azzam was one of the “few Muslims who promote the understanding of the term ‘jihad’ in its comprehensive glory” as both a doctrine of “self-purification” and of “warfare.”
Ali has also used his blog to deny that the Mumbai attacks last November, in which 173 people were killed, were an act of terrorism.
Second, there is Asim Hafeez, the new “head of intervention” at the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism of the Home Office, where he is charged with “divert[ing] fellow Muslims from the path of violence.” However, Hafeez has been described by a knowledgeable colleague as a “hardcore Salafi,” one who follows a puritanical form of Islam. According to Harry’s Place:
A number of Hafeez’s talks are available online which appear to not only back up [these] accusations but also to suggest that Hafeez might additionally be a hard-line Islamist who wishes to replace the British constitution with “the Koran and the Sunnah.”
These two cases recall revelations a few years ago about Mockbul Ali, the Islamic affairs guru at the Foreign Office who once served as the political editor of a Muslim student newspaper when it lauded Palestinian suicide bombers. True to Ali’s “straightforward Islamist” worldview, his government work has involved promoting dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood and arguing in favor of granting entry visas to radical clerics such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In April, IW noted glimmers of hope as the UK government moved to discard its fanciful attempts to marginalize violent Islamists by empowering nonviolent ones. But like those thick London fogs, Islamists keep rolling back in.
FrontPage, 16 Dec 09: Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Sheskin, a retired officer (Major) of the IDF. He has spent many years in Israeli intelligence services, primarily in the European theatre of operations. His expertise is in Radical Islam, Sharia Law, and the art of detecting the whereabouts of terrorist leaders in Europe and bringing them to justice. . . . .
. . . .Subsequent to the Yom Kippur War in 1973, I was scouted by a talent agent from Mossad, and recruited into the illustrious institute. I served my country and its people for more than 19 years.
FP: So what can you tell us in general, in terms of what you can say without divulging sensitive information, that you were doing over those 19 years for Mossad?
Sheskin: Yes Jamie, as you allude to, it’s unfortunately not in my best interest to divulge sensitive data about the organization, or openly relate any information that may be sensitive, harmful or embarrassing to my ex-employer, who, by the way, has treated me with respect and fairness throughout my career.
However, what I’m able to reveal is that the majority of my time spent with the institute, I was searching out the hiding places where the Radical Fundamentalists (I prefer the term terrorists) found a safe haven. I related that info back to HQ, where the data was sorted and scrutinized by my superiors who were part of a team of a privileged few that came to decisions as to what should be done next.
An ever increasing number of these radical organizations sprung up throughout Europe in the mid-70s, and posed an escalating threat to the Jews and Christians residing in any one of the European nations that provided them with shelter. France was by far the staunchest supporter of these terrorists, and for their contributions, they were well compensated. Oil was the major reward. England, Belgium, Spain, Romania and Hungary also had large populations of unwanted aliens from Muslim nations living amongst them, but it appeared that they did not legally offer refuge to the terrorists. Sadly, their borders were not well secured, and the radicals found it rather easy to enter these countries without the authorities being aware. That is most European countries besides France. So basically, my job at the time was to track down the whereabouts of the terrorists and compiling a detailed activity folio which was transmitted to headquarters where the decisions were made.
FP: From what you seem to be saying, Europe is drowning in the face of Islamization. It’s also been allowing toxic elements to nest on its territory. What can be done? Is it too late for Europe to save itself?
Sheskin: With approximately 52 million Muslims now residing in Europe, most experts believe that the European demographics are challenged. In my opinion, it is too late for Europe to save itself. The radical component of this aforesaid group is increasing dramatically, and they do not conform to the host society. They would prefer that the host society adapt to their laws and customs. This clashes directly with our democratic ideals, and if we are not careful, we will eventually face the same fate. . . . .
. . . . . This [The United States and Canada] is the last bastion of western civilization to be conquered by them, and they have emphatically said so many times. The United States of Islam and Canada is the name that they would love to see waving in the breeze on an Islamic Crescent flag. And let there be no doubt whatsoever that we are the ultimate prize for them. Once their numbers have substantially increased, it will be our children, grandchildren and all generations to follow that will have to face the consequences of a confrontation that we can not win. . . .
. . . . .FP: What has Sharia Law done in Detroit?
Sheskin: A few months ago, I drove through a sector of Michigan called Dearborn. I stopped at a red light and took advantage of the brief interlude to survey my surroundings. I could have sworn that I was back in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. The men were walking a few steps in front of the women, as was customary, while the women all covered in dark shades of burkas’ and hijabs trailed a fair distance behind pushing baby strollers. That on its own was proof enough for me that Sharia Law was observed.
However, there were other indicators as well. The Sharia courts in Detroit and surrounding areas are authorized to settle family disputes without the consent of the US courts, and use shaming tactics as a tool for punishment. That is also legal. They have their own religious policing unit that operate independently from the local authorities, and recently, so-called ‘infidel residents’ have stated that they do believe that “honour killings” are carried out, and the bodies disposed of in secluded areas of the state that are not easy to get to by the state authorities. . . . . .
FrontPage/Robert Spencer, 16 Dec 09: Free speech goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, when Dutch politician Geert Wilders appears before the Amsterdam District Court on charges of having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion,” as well as having incited to hatred and discrimination.
What did Wilders do to warrant such charges? He told the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, and their roots in Islamic texts and teachings, in his film Fitna and elsewhere. But nowadays truth-telling is at such a premium that those who still dare to engage in it are threatened, harassed and prosecuted. . . . .
New York Times, 16 Dec 09: For many months now, American and European intelligence agencies have been trading theories about a spare, two-page document written in Persian that, if genuine, would strongly suggest that scientists in Iran were planning some of the final experiments needed to perfect an atom bomb.
But like so many pieces of evidence in the West’s confrontation with Tehran, the neatly written memorandum, laying out the next steps of a complex scientific process, raises as many questions as it answers.
Intelligence officials say they have yet to authenticate the document, which describes research Iran would need to conduct on an advanced technology to detonate a nuclear weapon, if it was to develop one. . . . .
. . . . The document describes a plan for measuring the output of a device called a neutron initiator, which has no use other than triggering a nuclear explosion. Intelligence agencies are treating it as if the very paper it was written on was itself radioactive.
Once burned when it accepted evidence about Iraq’s search for uranium that turned out to be a forgery, the C.I.A. has not declared whether it believes the document is real, according to intelligence officials from several countries. European spy agencies are similarly cautious. . . . .
Haaretz, 16 Dec 09: Iran captured a spy for a Western intelligence agency two months ago who gathered information on the Islamic Republic’s uranium enrichment site at Qom, Channel 2 television reported yesterday.
However, Tehran has not officially announced the arrest of any agent on its territory – whereas in previous cases, it has rushed to boast about the capture of real or fictitious Western spies. Moreover, there has been no corroboration of the report from any other news outlet.
Another factor that makes the report seem questionable is that the enrichment site at Qom was revealed almost three months ago. Security services usually prefer not to announce a spy’s arrest immediately, in order to have time to conduct interrogations that could lead to the capture of his partners as well. But three months is an unreasonably long time for such as process. If this spy had brought about the facility’s disclosure, it seems likely that his capture would already have been published. . . . .
