show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Fifth columns - the most dangerous people in the world

  • 1 Replies
  • 2142 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
Fifth columns - the most dangerous people in the world
« on: May 03, 2013, 10:41:09 PM »
 Sent Friday 13 th May 2013
A DIGEST OF ARTICLES OF INTEREST
     

                 
        Imagine a group of ideologically driven people spread throughout the world whose wish is to ruthlessly shape the world in their own image. Imagine that their ideology is such that it has  severely damaged the societies in which its proponents have gained  influence and power. Imagine that this group is immune to reason, adhering to their ideology regardless of how it corresponds to reality or  how much damage it does.  Imagine  that  the ideology is such that it requires its followers to transcend all natural group affections such as the tribe, clan or  nation. Imagine men and women to whom treason is so much second nature that they have no conception that what they do is treason.
        What groups might meet those criteria? Catholics during the Reformation would fit  much but not all the bill,  Marxists would be a near perfect fit for  much of the twentieth century and radical Muslims would make a fair fist of the description now. But there is another such group in the world,   a group which has existed for more than two centuries and which is now far more powerful and universal in its reach than any other ideologically driven group  in history and consequently  more destructive...
         
        Read more at
         
        http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/the-most-dangerous-people-in-the-world/
         
         
        Note: Quite right. We take the terrorist hits if need be but keep our freedom.  RH
         
         
        Telegraph
        Sir John Sawers: chief says MI6 would rather allow terrorist attack than encourage torture
        MI6 would allow a terrorist attack to take place rather than resort to torturing suspects in a bid to foil it, the intelligence organisation's chief has said.
         
        By Laura Roberts
        Published: 11:29AM BST 28 Oct 2010
         
        Link to this video
        Sir John Sawers told the Society of Editors in London that the Secret Intelligence Service faced "real constant operational dilemmas" over whether to use intelligence that had been gathered using torture.
        The 55 year-old former diplomat said:"Torture is illegal and abhorrent under any circumstances and we have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
         "If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we're required by UK and international law to avoid that action, and we do, even though that allows that terrorist activity to go ahead."
        He went on to say: "Some may question this. But we are clear that it's the right thing to do. It makes us strive even harder to find different ways, consistent with human rights, to get the outcome we want.
        "Suppose we received credible intelligence that might save lives, here or abroad. We have a professional and moral duty to act on it. We will normally want to share it with those who can save those lives," he said.
        He said that ideally MI6 would try to guarantee that any partner agency respected human rights but that this was not always possible.
        He explained: "We also have a duty to do what we can to ensure that a partner service will respect human rights. That is not always straightforward.
        "Yet if we hold back, and don't pass that intelligence, out of concern that a suspect terrorist may be badly treated, innocent lives may be lost that we could have saved.
        "These are not abstract questions just for philosophy courses or searching editorials, they are real, constant operational dilemmas. Sometimes there is no clear way forward. The more finely-balanced judgment have to be made by ministers themselves."
         
        Telegraph
        Sir John Sawers: profile of MI6 chief
        Described as a "smooth operator" and likened to Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of James Bond Sir John Sawers took up the post of head of MI6, known as "C", in November 2009.
         
        By Laura Roberts
        Published: 10:22AM BST 28 Oct 2010
         
        MI6 chief Sir John Sawers and a photo of him on holiday taken from a facebook gallery Photo: PA/FACEBOOK
        Sawers, 55, is a career diplomat who has previously been the ambassador to the United Nations, the Foreign Office's political director, and also worked as an envoy in Baghdad and as foreign affairs adviser to former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
        Born in Warwick in 1955, Sir John attended City of Bath Boys' School, where he became deputy head boy, before studying physics and philosophy at Nottingham and St Andrews universities.
         A keen academic, he also attended the universities of Witwatersrand in South Africa and Harvard in the US.
        Announcing his appointment, Downing Street referred to him "rejoining" MI6 but gave no further details of his former career as a spy which reportedly began in the late 1970s and involved him serving in Yemen and in Syria.
        Between 1999 and 2001 he was involved in the Kosovo conflict and Northern Ireland peace process while he worked as foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair.
        He has also worked in the British Embassy in Washington, as an ambassador to Cairo and in South Africa from 1988 and 1991 as apartheid was ending.
        Sir John was the UK's special envoy to Iraq from May to July 2003.
        He has been a permanent representative to the UN since 2007 and he has a strong relationsihp with Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.
        The father of three grown-up children is a keen athlete who enjoys hiking, tennis and cycling.
        Personal photographs posted by his wife Shelley on Facebook showing Sir John on a beach in swimming trunks were hastily withdrawn shortly after his appointment has MI6 Chief was announced in June 2009.
        David Miliband, then foreign secretary, was forced to defend the appointment amid complaints that Sir John's safety had been compromised.
        In July this year it was revealed that he received a salary of between ?165,000 and ?169,999 last year.
         
         
        Telegraph
        Baroness Warsi pulls out of Muslim conference amid claims of Tory concerns
        The Liberal Democrat deputy leader has criticised the eleventh-hour withdrawal of the Conservative Party Chairwoman from a prominent Muslim conference, amid claims she had been banned from attending by the Tories.
         
        By Nick CollinsPublished: 7:30AM BST 25 Oct 2010
        17 Comments
         
        Empty chair: Simon Hughes waits to speak on stage at the Global Peace and Unity Event, Baroness Warsi was banned from attending by David Cameron Photo: PA
        Baroness Warsi, the most senior Muslim in government, pulled out of a planned speech at the Global Peace and Unity (GPU) event in London on Sunday.
        Mrs Warsi was said to be ?very upset? not to speak, sparking allegations the decision was made by Conservative Party officials who felt other speakers at the conference may be deemed controversial or extremist.
         In a thinly-veiled attack on the Conservatives Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, speaking at the conference, said: ?I am aware some people say this event is controversial. I have a message to you and to my colleagues in Parliament.
        ?I always believe it is better for people of every background to engage with the Muslim community, not to walk away.?
        In his speech at the Excel conference centre, East London, he said: ?I want to make it very clear that we were privileged to accept this invitation.
        ?I hope that in future years all the political parties will be here at this event.?
        At a press conference after his speech, Mr Hughes added: ?I think it is unfortunate that our Conservative Colleagues are not represented.?
        Mohamed Ali, chair of the GPU foundation, said Mrs Warsi?s non-appearance was a ?very bad example? from a leading member of the Muslim community and former Muslim activist.
        He said: ?Every single school of thought in the Muslim community in the United Kingdom is represented here and they banned her from coming. It?s a shame on them."
        A list of proposed speakers at the conference had been sent to the Department of Communities and Local Government for approval in July, but was never formally approved after being leaked to the Sunday Telegraph.
        Two Muslim figures due to speak last night were Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who has allegedly celebrated the death of five American soldiers in a suicide bomb attack, and Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, who has said homosexuality is an ?aberration against God?.
        Mr Ahmed was unable to attend the conference due to reported problems leaving Pakistan.
        Shaykh Qadhi said: ?I cannot and will not say it is morally acceptable to engage in premarital, extramarital or homosexual sex.
        ?But if I have said anything it would be in a private environment at a Mosque. This is not the place to make comments that could be judged to incite hatred.?
        Sir Iqbal Sacranie, chairman of Muslim Aid and a trustee of the GPU, said the alleged decision by the Conservatives was ?difficult and sad?.
        But he defended the list of speakers, adding: ?Every scholar makes remarks that at some time can be taken to be controversial.
        ?We will not tolerate any remarks that go against the grain of social cohesion, respect and the law.?
        The Conservative Party was unable to confirm the reasons for Baroness Warsi?s withdrawal.
        A spokeswoman from the Department for Communities and Local Government said: "Andrew Stunell is attending as the Minister in charge of integration and inter-faith relations.
        "He will make clear that the Coalition Government will not tolerate extremism, hatred or intolerance in any form."
        Telegraph
         
        Terrorism Act: No terror arrests made after 100,000 stop-and-searches
        Out of more than 100,000 people stopped and searched by police using controversial anti-terror powers not one single arrest was made for terrorism-related offences, new figures show.
         
        Published: 9:51AM BST 28 Oct 2010
         
        Of all the stops and searches, four out of five of these were made in the Metropolitan Police area, with almost a fifth being made by British Transport Police Photo: GETTY IMAGES
        A total of 101,248 stops and searches were made under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in 2009/10, but only one in every 200 led to an arrest and none of these were terror-related, the figures released by the Home Office showed.
        Theresa May, the Home Secretary, ordered a review of the controversial stop and search powers earlier this year, saying she wanted to correct ''mistakes'' made by the Labour government which, she said, was allowed to ''ride roughshod'' over civil liberties.
         Across Great Britain, 506 arrests were made after people were stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, 0.5 per cent of the 101,248 stops and searches, compared with 10 per cent of stops carried out using non-terror powers.
        But the use of the stop and search powers fell by 60 per cent compared with 2008/09, the figures showed.
        Anti-terrorism chiefs ordered an escalation in the use of the powers after the failed bomb attack against the Tiger Tiger nightclub in London's Haymarket in 2007.
        That resulted in more than a quarter of a million people being searched in 2008/09 - the highest on record and more than twice the level of the previous year.
        But after a public outcry over the use of searches, which have a disproportionate effect upon minority groups, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson ordered them to be scaled back in London.
        The powers allow officers to stop anyone in a specified area without the need for reasonable suspicion.
        The review of the Government's counter-terrorism policy, which will report shortly, is being carried out by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Ken Macdonald, who led changes in the way terrorists are prosecuted.
        It involves police, spies, public officials and campaigners and will focus on control orders, stop-and-search, pre-charge detention, deportation of terror suspects and the use of surveillance by local authorities.
        Of all the stops and searches, four out of five of these were made in the Metropolitan Police area, with almost a fifth being made by British Transport Police.
        Overall, 59 per cent described themselves as white, 17 per cent as Asian or Asian British, 10 per cent as black or black British and 2 per cent as mixed ethnicity, the figures showed.
        For the first time, the statistics also included an overview of the number of passengers who were examined while travelling through the UK's air and sea ports.
        One in every 30,000 passengers was examined last year, 0.03 per cent of the 220 million passengers going through the ports.
        Of these exams, 97 per cent (82,870) took under one hour while 2,687 (3 per cent) were more than an hour.
        The figures come the day after Martin Broughton, the British Airways chairman, said airport security checks needed an overhaul.
        He said some parts of the security programme were "completely redundant" and that the UK should not "kowtow" to the Americans every time the US wanted something done.
        The number of terrorism arrests also fell last year, down to 173 from 190 in 2008/09, separate figures showed.
        But the majority of the 52 charged were charged with offences that had nothing to do with terrorism.
        A total of 27 people were charged with non-terror related offences, including perverting the course of justice, placing or dispatching articles to cause a bomb hoax or knowingly obtaining another person's identification documents with intent.
        Of the others, 12 were charged with offences under terrorism legislation, including the collection of information useful to terrorists, preparation for terrorist acts and fundraising.
        And a further 13 were charged under non-terrorism legislation with an offence the authorities considered to be terrorism-related, including acting with intent to cause, or conspiring to cause, explosions likely to endanger life.
        Since the September 11 terror attacks in the United States in 2001, 261 suspects have been charged under terrorism legislation, 199 (76 per cent) prosecuted, and, of those prosecuted 64 per cent (127) convicted. A further seven were awaiting completion of their trials.
        A further 143 were charged under non-terrorism legislation, including conspiracy to murder and conspiring to cause an explosion, the figures showed.
        Of these, 133 (93 per cent) were prosecuted, and, of those prosecuted 83 per cent (110) convicted. A further seven were awaiting completion of their trials.
        Of the 46 terrorism-related trials completed last year, 65 per cent of defendants were convicted, of which two in five pleaded guilty.
        They were given five life sentences and one in four custodial sentences handed down were of 10 years or more.
        New figures also showed 51 appeals against terrorism convictions were heard in the three years between 2007/08 and 2009/10, with seven convictions being quashed. In all, 20 of the appeals led to a shorter sentence and four resulted in a longer sentence.
        As of March 31 this year, there were 102 terrorist-related prisoners in England and Wales, of whom 76% were UK nationals and four in five (83 per cent) classified themselves as Muslims. There were no prisoners classified as terrorists held by the Scottish Prison Service.
        And 25 terrorist-related prisoners were discharged from prison last year, including 10 who had served sentences of four years or more.
        Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said: "These Home Office statistics highlight what a crude and blunt instrument stop and search without suspicion has been.
        "It costs us dearly in race equality and consent-based policing with very little return in terms of enhanced security."
        Alex Deane, director of Big Brother Watch, which campaigns against intrusions on privacy, added: "This is no surprise. Rather than a genuine counter-terrorism tool, random stop and search has been a way of bullying and hassling our increasingly abject population.
        "We have to decide what kind of society we want to live in. Random stop and search allows the state to confront the individual in the street, without cause, and demand your papers. It's wrong."
         
         
         
         
         
        Telegraph
         Sacrificing our liberties won't win the war against terror
        Use the justice system against terror suspects ? don't corrupt it by criminalising us all, argues Dominic Raab.
         
        By Dominic Raab
        Published: 8:40AM BST 25 Oct 2010
        71 Comments
         
        The scene in Tavistock Square, Central London, Thursday July 7, 2005, after a bomb ripped through a double decker bus Photo: PA
        Terrorists follow tried and tested tactics. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu counselled: "If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them." Russian revolutionary Sergei Nechayev ? the first self-styled "terrorist" ? wanted to provoke a state reaction "intensifying the evils and miseries of the people until? they are driven to a general uprising". Urban Marxist guerrilla Marighella vowed to give the state "no alternative except to intensify repression", while the IRA's Green Book pledged to make Northern Ireland "ungovernable except by colonial military rule". Al-Qaeda is following precedent.
        The good news, according to Professor Audrey Cronin at the US National War College, is that terrorist campaigns always end. The only questions are when and how. The answers hinge on government policy. After the 2005 London bombings, Tony Blair proclaimed: "Let no one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing." Ministers proposed waves of authoritarian measures, including incursions on free speech, control orders, ID cards and extensions to detention without charge that one former chief constable labelled a "propaganda coup for Al-Qaeda". If Al-Qaeda was looking for a repressive reaction, they got it. But, was it effective?
         
        According to MI5's Director General, the threat level rose despite these measures. In 2007, he estimated there were 4,000 terrorist suspects in Britain. By September 2010, the "overall threat" had not reduced, but rather diversified.
        The previous governments made certain improvements: increasing counter-terrorism funding, regionalising MI5 and integrating intelligence and police. But they squandered political capital, legislative time and moral authority on the hubris of "sound bite" security. Ministers pawned off our freedoms, promising greater security. Yet the terrorist threat rose to an all-time high. The trade-off turns out to be a con.
        We have an opportunity to change this flawed approach. Last week, the Prime Minister published the National Security Strategy, recognising terrorism as a "Tier 1" threat, but stated: "Above all, we act to maintain our way of life: to protect our people and freedoms we have built for ourselves ?"
        The forthcoming Home Office counter-terrorism review must deliver on that pledge. In a new report, "Fight Terror, Defend Freedom", I make the case for an overhaul in strategy based on three principles.
        First, junking freedom for security is appeasement. It doesn't make us safer, and gives the terrorists what they want. ID cards could not stop terrorists and were vulnerable to fraud. The Government was right to scrap them. Random stop-and-searches rose to 250,000 per year, without leading to a single conviction between 2007 and 2009. That scatter-gun approach is intrusive, and wastes police resources. It should be scaled back.
        At 28 days, we have the longest maximum period of detention without charge in the free world. Ministers claimed police investigations would be swamped without a further extension. Yet, just one person has been held longer than 14 days in more than four years, an isolated case of 19 days' detention. The limit should be reduced to 21 days (at most), and regularly reviewed.
        Control orders put people, not convicted of any crime, under virtual house arrest based on scant evidence. Billed as a security backstop, they proved unreliable. By 2009, one in five "controlees" had absconded. Overall, their use has halved, leaving nine people on control orders today ? a drop in the ocean, if there are 4,000 terrorist suspects roaming the UK. Labour ditched a fundamental principle of British justice for an expensive ? but flimsy ? security net with gaping holes in it. Control orders should be phased out in two years.
        The second principle requires demarcating a clearer line between what a free society must tolerate, and what it should punish. We have to put up with ? or rebut ? views we find offensive, but not those instigating violence. In 2008, a
        15- year-old boy was threatened with prosecution for calling Scientology a "cult", yet Abu Hamza was left free to preach violent extremism for years. We should protect free speech by repealing offences that stifle legitimate debate ? like "glorification" of terrorism and religious hatred ? but take a "zero-tolerance" approach to extremists inciting violence.
        The third change involves the justice system. Labour regarded it as a millstone weighing down counter-terrorism policy. In reality, the justice system is a weapon ? just woefully underused. The number of terrorist suspects charged has halved in three years, while convictions fell by two-thirds. The head of MI5 is right to warn that we cannot "abolish" risk. But we can sharpen our prosecutorial cutting edge to disrupt, diminish and deter terrorist networks. That includes lifting the ban on using intercept evidence in trials, strengthening plea bargaining and prosecuting to prevent ? not just react to ? terrorist activity. GCHQ (the intelligence listening agency) and the Home Office claim the administrative burden of using intercept evidence is too high. Yet, in 2008, they proposed an "Internet Modernisation Programme" to record every email sent, phone call made and website visited by every person in Britain. Those priorities are skewed. We should be using intercept to prosecute terrorists, not using Orwellian surveillance on every innocent citizen.
        It is time to draw a line in the sand. Sacrificing British liberties will not protect us. It just plays into the hands of the terrorists. The justice system is not the problem. It is part of the solution. We can fight terror ? and defend freedom.
        Dominic Raab, MP for Esher
        and Walton, published Fight
        Terror, Defend Freedom with
        Big Brother Watch, which campaigns on civil liberties.
        http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/
         
         
        Note: In a just world, the last act of Heath would have been to dance on the end of a rope. RH
        Disorder in the House as Sir Ted's legacy leads to row
        Campaigners fight-on to keep Arundells, the late prime minister's listed
        home, open to the public
        By Susie Mesure
        Sunday, 24 October 2010


        The fate of Sir Edward Heath's legacy, his former home in the Close of
        Salisbury Cathedral and his personal artefacts, lies in the hands of the
        Charity Commission after a group of supporters challenged a decision to
        shut the house for good.

        Arundells, the Queen Anne-style property that the former PM left to the
        nation, will close to the public on Wednesday unless the Charity
        Commission intervenes in an increasingly ugly row that has split the
        trustees and dismayed the Sir Edward Heath Charitable foundation, which
        has run the house since Sir Edward's death in July 2005.

        Two of the seven trustees have resigned, including Lord Black, the
        executive director of Telegraph Media Group.

        The trustees, headed by the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Armstrong,
        want to sell off the Grade II* listed building and its contents, which
        include paintings by John Singer Sargent and Sir Winston Churchill and
        precious ancient Chinese porcelain.

        They intend to use the proceeds to fund educational scholarships,
        another stipulation of Sir Edward's will, who himself received financial
        help when a Balliol College, Oxford, organ scholar.

        A campaign to keep Arundells open and Sir Edward's belongings intact
        could stymie those plans if the Charity Commission forces the trustees
        to reopen the museum to visitors.

        The issue is financial: the foundation relies on revenue from visitors
        for the house's upkeep because the ?5m Sir Edward left in his will is
        tied up in the building and its contents, worth ?2m.

        Although the pre-booked tours of Arundells have operated at capacity
        since starting three years ago, the foundation lacks the money to
        maintain the property, which dates back to the 13th century.

        The trustees have already sold Sir Edward's archive to the Bodleian
        Library for ?850,000.

        Stuart Craven, Arundells' curator who has worked there since being hired
        by Sir Edward to landscape its gardens in 1985, said: "We were hoping
        the trustees would give us the money to keep running the place." They
        didn't.

        Marie Elliker, from Christchurch, Dorset, was one of the lucky visitors
        to the house yesterday. "If he left it to the nation, then they've got
        no right to sell it," she said.

        Ian Stewart, from Sutton, Surrey, was one of thousands unable to buy a
        ticket for what might prove to be the last weekend Sir Edward's
        possessions are on view. He had to make do with a wander around the
        two-acre grounds, which stretch down to the confluence of the rivers
        Avon and Nadder.

        "It's terrible it's closing," he said. "It would be nice if something
        could be done to keep it all together, even if they had to have pop
        concerts in the garden."

        Linda Hulley, who travelled down from London for the day, was among the
        crowd who failed to gain access to the house. "I didn't want to see it
        because of his politics but because of his lifestyle," she said. Her
        husband, David, 67, was luckier, scraping in as the 14th person on one
        of yesterday's final tours.

        Mr Hulley's interest was musical: he wanted to see some of Sir Edward's
        memorabilia, from his Steinway grand piano to pictures of him conducting
        some of Europe's great orchestras.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disorder-in-the-house-as-sir-teds-legacy-leads-to-row-2114972.html
        Outcry over Iran's human rights bid - AOL News
         
                     
         Telegraph
         
        Man arrested over 'terror plot' to bomb Washington DC trains
        A naturalised American citizen born in Pakistan has been arrested over bomb plots on railway stations in the US capital that could have caused mass casualties, the FBI said.
         
        By Alex Spillius in Washington
        Published: 10:26PM BST 27 Oct 2010
         
        Farooque Ahmed was arrested Wednesday and charged with trying to help people he believed were al-Qaida operatives planning to bomb subway stations around the nation's capital Photo: GETTY
        Farooque Ahmed, 34, of Ashburn, Virginia, was charged with trying to help people posing as al-Qaeda operatives planning to launch simultaneous bomb attacks on railway stations around Washington DC.
        The public was never in danger because FBI agents were aware of Ahmed's activities and monitored him throughout, the agency said. And the people that Ahmed thought were al-Qaeda operatives were actually individuals who "worked on behalf of the government in this matter," according to a federal law enforcement official who requested anonymity.
         The arrest appeared to have all the hallmarks of a sting operation, but the FBI refused to confirm this.
        Ahmed faces 50 years in prison for charges of attempting to provide material support to a designated terrorist organisation, collecting information to assist in planning a terrorist attack on a transit facility, and attempting to provide material support to carry out multiple bombings to cause mass casualties.
        According to the indictment, Ahmed took video footage of four northern Virginia subway stations, two of them near the Pentagon, and monitored the security at a hotel in Washington.
        In a series of meetings at hotels in northern Virginia, Ahmed provided these videos and diagrams of two of the stations to someone he believed was part of a terrorist organisation, and also said he wanted to donate $10,000 (?6,300) to help the overseas fight and collect donations in a way that would not raise red flags.
        U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride said in a statement that it was "chilling that a man from Ashburn is accused of casing rail stations with the goal of killing as many Metro (subway) riders as possible through simultaneous bomb attacks".
        Andrew Ames, a spokesman for the FBI Washington field office, declined to comment on how authorities first learned about Ahmed.
        During a brief appearance in federal court in Alexandria on Wednesday, Ahmed did not enter a plea and was ordered to be held without bond. He told U.S. Magistrate Judge John Anderson he could not afford to hire a lawyer. Prosecutors said they planned to use some classified information as evidence in the case.
        Since the September 11 attacks, the US authorities have worried about another attack on American soil.
        Last week, a Jordanian national was sentenced to 24 years in prison for attempting to blow up a Dallas skyscraper. Earlier this month, Pakistani-born American Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to life in prison for trying to set off a car bomb in New York's Times Square.
           
         Telegraph
        Baroness Warsi pulls out of Muslim conference amid claims of Tory concerns
        The Liberal Democrat deputy leader has criticised the eleventh-hour withdrawal of the Conservative Party Chairwoman from a prominent Muslim conference, amid claims she had been banned from attending by the Tories.
         
        By Nick CollinsPublished: 7:30AM BST 25 Oct 2010
        10 Comments
         
        Empty chair: Simon Hughes waits to speak on stage at the Global Peace and Unity Event, Baroness Warsi was banned from attending by David Cameron Photo: PA
        Baroness Warsi, the most senior Muslim in government, pulled out of a planned speech at the Global Peace and Unity (GPU) event in London on Sunday.
        Mrs Warsi was said to be ?very upset? not to speak, sparking allegations the decision was made by Conservative Party officials who felt other speakers at the conference may be deemed controversial or extremist.
         In a thinly-veiled attack on the Conservatives Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, speaking at the conference, said: ?I am aware some people say this event is controversial. I have a message to you and to my colleagues in Parliament.
        ?I always believe it is better for people of every background to engage with the Muslim community, not to walk away.?
        In his speech at the Excel conference centre, East London, he said: ?I want to make it very clear that we were privileged to accept this invitation.
        ?I hope that in future years all the political parties will be here at this event.?
        At a press conference after his speech, Mr Hughes added: ?I think it is unfortunate that our Conservative Colleagues are not represented.?
        Mohamed Ali, chair of the GPU foundation, said Mrs Warsi?s non-appearance was a ?very bad example? from a leading member of the Muslim community and former Muslim activist.
        He said: ?Every single school of thought in the Muslim community in the United Kingdom is represented here and they banned her from coming. It?s a shame on them."
        A list of proposed speakers at the conference had been sent to the Department of Communities and Local Government for approval in July, but was never formally approved after being leaked to the Sunday Telegraph.
        Two Muslim figures due to speak last night were Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who has allegedly celebrated the death of five American soldiers in a suicide bomb attack, and Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, who has said homosexuality is an ?aberration against God?.
        Mr Ahmed was unable to attend the conference due to reported problems leaving Pakistan.
        Shaykh Qadhi said: ?I cannot and will not say it is morally acceptable to engage in premarital, extramarital or homosexual sex.
        ?But if I have said anything it would be in a private environment at a Mosque. This is not the place to make comments that could be judged to incite hatred.?
        Sir Iqbal Sacranie, chairman of Muslim Aid and a trustee of the GPU, said the alleged decision by the Conservatives was ?difficult and sad?.
        But he defended the list of speakers, adding: ?Every scholar makes remarks that at some time can be taken to be controversial.
        ?We will not tolerate any remarks that go against the grain of social cohesion, respect and the law.?
        The Conservative Party was unable to confirm the reasons for Baroness Warsi?s withdrawal.
        A spokeswoman from the Department for Communities and Local Government said: "Andrew Stunell is attending as the Minister in charge of integration and inter-faith relations.
        "He will make clear that the Coalition Government will not tolerate extremism, hatred or intolerance in any form."
         
        Breaking News   UK spy chief defends secrecy in 1st public speech
         
         

            JPost.com
            International

         
         Jeruslaem Post
        Photo by: courtesy
        'Muhammad' ranked most popular boys' name in England
        By JPOST.COM STAFF  10/28/2010 12:04
        Report: Various spellings add up to 7,549 baby boys with the name; most popular girls' name is Olivia.
        Talkbacks (11)
         
        The most popular name given to baby boys born England and Wales in 2009 was Muhammad, AFP reported late Wednesday. The surprising announcement was based on official naming records kept by the United Kingdom.

        The names Oliver and Jack were ranked most common first names given to boys, respectively.

        However, if the different ways of spelling Muhammad (Mohammed, Mohammad, etc.) are added, the name reaches 7,549 baby boys, making it the most popular name in England and Wales, AFP reported.

        The most common spelling, Mohammed, was the most popular name in the West Midlands area of Englind, which includes Birmingham, and is the number four baby name in London.

        For girls, the most common names in 2009 were Olivia, Ruby, Emily and Sofie, in that order.

        "Royal" names have maintained their popularity in England and Wales, with AFP reporting that there were 16 boys named King and 68 Princes, as well as 12 Queenies and 109 Princesses.

        The Top 10 Boys' Names:
        1. Oliver
        2. Jack
        3. Harry
        4. Alfie
        5. Joshua
        6. Thomas
        7. Charlie
        8. William
        9. James
        10. Daniel

        The Top 10 Girls' Names:
        1. Olivia
        2. Ruby
        3. Chloe
        4. Emily
        5. Sophie
        6. Jessica
        7. Grace
        8. Lily
        9. Amelia
        10. Evie
         
        Note:"Mohammed ranked 16th nationally for boys, but was the most popular name in the West Midlands. " RH
         
         Telegraph
        Oliver and Olivia are favourite baby names
        After a 14-year reign, Jack has lost its stranglehold on the title of England and Wales' top name for newborn boys, replaced by Oliver.
         
        Published: 10:34AM BST 27 Oct 2010
         
        There were no new entries in the top ten for either boys' or girls' names compared with 2008, although there were regional variations with popularity of names Photo: GETTY IMAGES
        Olivia was the most popular name for newborn girls for the second year in a row, according to figures published by the Office of National Statistics for first names given to babies born in 2009.
        Jack remained a popular name for boys, ranking second, while Harry came in third.
         
        Ruby and Chloe were the second and third most popular names chosen for girls.
        There were no new entries in the top ten for either boys' or girls' names compared with 2008, although there were regional variations with popularity of names.
        Oliver was the most popular name for boys in six English regions, for example, but Jack was still the top name in Wales, and in the north east and north west of England.
        Mohammed ranked 16th nationally for boys, but was the most popular name in the West Midlands.
        Compared to names chosen for babies 10 years earlier, there was a resurgence in the popularity of names which were once associated with people of the inter-war generation.
        Evie was the tenth most popular name given to baby girls in 2009, for example, moving up 157 places since 1999.
        Ruby, the second most popular name for girls in 2009, was ranked 91 places lower 10 years ago.
        Boys names such as Alfie and Charlie have followed a similar trend.
        Six names in the boys top ten in 2009 were also there in 1999 - Jack, Joshua, Thomas, James, Daniel and William.
        Five girls' names featured in both lists - Olivia, Chloe, Emily, Sophie and Jessica.
        There were 706,248 live births in England and Wales in 2009.
        Boys:
        1. Oliver
        2. Jack
        3. Harry
        4. Alfie
        5. Joshua
        6. Thomas
        7. Charlie
        8. William
        9. James
        10. Daniel
        Girls:
        1. Olivia
        2. Ruby
        3. Chloe
        4. Emily
        5. Sophie
        6. Jessica
        7. Grace
        8. Lily
        9. Amelia
        10. Evie
         
         
         
         
        Tony Blair's sister-in-law Lauren Booth converts to Islam after a 'holy experience' in Iran
        By MAIL ON SUNDAY REPORTER
        Last updated at 2:02 PM on 24th October 2010

            Comments (238)
            Add to My Stories


        Conversion: Lauren Booth
        Conversion: Lauren Booth
        Tony Blair?s sister-in-law has converted to Islam after having a ?holy experience? in Iran.
        Broadcaster and journalist Lauren Booth, 43 - Cherie Blair?s half-sister - said she now wears a hijab head covering whenever she leaves her home, prays five times a day and visits her local mosque ?when I can?.
        She decided to become a Muslim six weeks ago after visiting the shrine of Fatima al-Masumeh in the city of Qom.
        ?It was a Tuesday evening and I sat down and felt this shot of spiritual morphine, just absolute bliss and joy,? she told The Mail on Sunday.
        When she returned to Britain, she decided to convert immediately.
        ?Now I don?t eat pork and I read the Koran every day. I?m on page 60. I also haven?t had a drink in 45 days, the longest period in 25 years,' she said.
        'The strange thing is that since I decided to convert I haven?t wanted to touch alcohol, and I was someone who craved a glass of wine or two at the end of a day.?
        Refusing to discount the possibility that she might wear a burka, she said: ?Who knows where my spiritual journey will take me??
        Before her awakening in Iran, she had been ?sympathetic? to Islam and has spent considerable time working in Palestine. ?I was always impressed with the strength and comfort it gave,? she said of the religion.
        Miss Booth, who works for Press TV, the English-language Iranian news channel, has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
        In August 2008 she travelled to Gaza by ship from Cyprus, along with 46 other activists, to highlight Israel?s blockade of the territory.
        She was subsequently refused entry into both Israel and Egypt.
        In 2006 she was a contestant on the ITV reality show I?m A Celebrity . . . Get Me Out Of Here!, donating her fee to the Palestinian relief charity Interpal.
        She said she hoped her conversion would help Mr Blair change his presumptions about Islam.
         
        Influential position: Lauren Booth hopes her conversion will have an influence on how her brother-in-law - Tony Blair - views Islam
        During her visit to Iran last month, Booth wrote a public letter to Mr Blair asking him to mark Al-Quds (Jerusalem) day - a protest at Israel's occupation of Palestine.
        The missive was a bitter attack on the former Prime Minister, who is now a Middle East envoy working for peace in the troubled region.
        'The men, women and children around me withstood a day of no water and no food (it?s called Ramadan, Tony, it?s a fast),' Booth wrote.
        'Coping with hunger and thirst in the hundred degrees heat, as if it were nothing. They can withstand deprivation in the Muslim world.
        'Here in Iran they feel proud to suffer in order to express solidarity with the people of Palestine. It's kind of like the way you express solidarity with America only without illegal chemical weapons and a million civilian deaths.'
        She adds: 'Your world view is that Muslims, are mad, bad, dangerous to know. A contagion to be contained.
        'In the final chapter [of his autobiography] you say we need a "religious counter attack" against Islam. And by "Islam" you mean the Al Quds rallies, the Palestinian intifada (based on an anti Apartheid struggle Tony, NOT religious bigotry), against every Arab who fails to put their arms in the air as the F16 missiles rain on their homes and refugee camps and sing a rousing chorus of ?Imagine all the people...?
         
        Booth stands next to a damaged building in Gaza in 2008
        Booth moved to France with her family - husband Craig Darby and two daughters Alexandra and Holly in 2004.
        Her husband was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident in April 2009 when he was drunk and not wearing a helmet.
        He suffered a severe brain injury, a fractured neck, damage to his spine and several broken ribs and was in a deep coma for two weeks.
        The 42-year-old had to learn how to walk and talk again. He lost much of his memory, has sight problem and cannot work.
        The couple decided to move back to Britain to help his recovery and reduce the amount of time Booth has to work away from home.
         
        Booth with husband Craig and daughters Alex and Holly at their home in France last year. They have now returned to Britain
        Booth took part in I'm A Celebrity... Get Met Out of Here! in 2006 alongside Myleene Klass and Jason Donovan, finishing ninth.
        Of her relationship with the Blairs, she said at the time: 'I'm happy to criticise them politically if they deserve it but that on a personal level we get on fine.'
        Mr Blair was famously told not to 'do God' by his spin doctor Alistair Campbell while he was Prime Minister.
        But on leaving office, he converted to Catholicism after starting to go to Mass - saying later that it was his wife who spurred his decision.
        He said last year that it was like 'coming home' and is now 'where my heart is, where I know I belong'.

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323278/Tony-Blairs-sister-law-Lauren-Booth-converts-Islam-holy-experience-Iran.html#ixzz13P5weMWN
                                     
        Sharia in the UK | FrontPage Magazine
         
                     
        Sharia in the UK
        Jamie Glazov Posted by Jamie Glazov on Oct 25th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage.
        Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev?s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz?s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Email him at [email protected]
         
           
         
        Frontpage Interview?s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye?or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories ? notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign. Her op-eds have been published in The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News, Frontpage Magazine, World Net Daily, and New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration?s War on America.
        FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
        I would like to discuss with your accurate prediction about a London borough becoming  an Islamic republic.
        What?s going on?
        Geller: Thanks Jamie.
        As I predicted at my website Atlas Shrugs, a vile Islamic supremacist, Lutfur Rahman, has been elected executive mayor of the London borough of Tower Hamlets. And he has accomplished this through massive voter fraud ? isn?t this always how they get their way?
        FP: It appears to be the case, yes.
        Tower Hamlets is the poorest borough in all of Great Britain, yes?
        Geller: Yes, Jamie, it is. Nonetheless, as Executive Mayor of Tower Hamlet council, Rahman will have control of over a billion-dollar budget.
        And remember, Rahman is an Islamic supremacist with links to jihadist groups. Mind you, Jamie, he was previously dropped from the Labour Party because of these troubling ties. He was elected as an independent. The Telegraph?s superb investigative journalist Andrew Gilligan has outlined what he calls Rahman?s ?deeply problematic two years as council leader until he was removed from that post six months ago.? Gilligan explains that after Rahman
        ?secured the leadership with the help of the IFE, millions of pounds were channeled to front organizations of the IFE, a man with close links to the IFE was appointed as assistant chief executive of the council despite being unqualified for the position and the secular, white chief executive was forced out. Various efforts were made to ?Islamicize? the borough. Extremist literature was stocked in Tower Hamlets? public libraries.?
        And this election has made matters even worse. The Islamic machine went into overdrive and fraudulently gamed the system.
        FP: How did they do that?
        Geller: Jamie, Tower Hamlets changed from a conventional leader system to a mayoralty this year, after a successful campaign spearheading this change was waged by an Islamic supremacist organization known as the Islamic Forum of Europe. According to the local laws, just five percent of the electorate can petition a local council to change the system. So early in 2010, Abjol Miah, a Muslim affiliated with the IFE, started gathering signatures for such a petition ? and in Tower Hamlets, which is only one-third Muslim, 99.3% of those who signed Miah?s petition were Muslim.
        And a large number of those were fraudulent. Authorities discovered that almost half of the signatures were invalid. Miah turned in whole pages filled with names and addresses that were all written in identical handwriting ? on a petition that was supposed to have been signed by thousands of different individuals. Even more unbelievable, as many as 5,000 of the names were of people whose names were not in the electoral registration records at all.
        But the dhimmi court allowed it just the same.
                   
        FP: Unbelievable. Why did they want to make this change?
        Geller: A leader of the IFE, Abu Talha, said this to an undercover reporter about the new system: ?The mayor is going to have a lot more control. That?s why we need to get someone, one of our brothers, in there. Which we will do.?
        And they did.
        FP: What will this mean for Tower Hamlets and Britain in general?
        Geller: It means Sharia for Britain, and the election of Lutfur Rahman is a significant step in that direction. The IFE says that its agenda is to change the ?very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed? from ignorance to Islam.?
        Even the way they got Rahman elected was redolent of life in a Sharia state. The Telegraph reported that Lutfur Rahman supporters were hanging around polling places all over the borough, scolding Muslim women if they were wearing what the Islamic supremacists thought was ?immodest dress.? And a major player in the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets said after Rahman was elected that Tower Hamlets ?really is Britain?s Islamic republic now.?
        In my New York Times interview here, I repeated what I have said and thought for some time ? that the first country that will be Islamic in Europe will be the United Kingdom. This terrible election victory just validates my prediction.
        FP: Do you think many in Britain are aware of the implications of this election?
        Geller: I hope so, Jamie. But bear in mind that according to the media and the political elites, the English Defence League is the real problem facing England today. The campaign of destruction that the media and political elites are waging against the EDL (which is, contrary to media myth, made up of Jews, Christians, Blacks, Hindus, Sikhs, et al), which is standing virtually alone in fighting Islamic supremacism and imperialism, would be laughable if it weren?t so tragic.
        The separation of mosque and state needs vigilance. All you need to do is look at the current global map and the historical evidence to see what happens when you get increased assertiveness from Islamic groups, and they gain more political power. The Middle East was once a Christian region, and look at all the Muslim countries that oppress Christians there now.
        We cannot ignore the Islamization of Europe. We cannot ignore the fact that there are no-go zones, where the police cannot go in France, and in England. There are even areas where the fire department cannot go. When they go, it?s a trick, it?s an ambush many times. And there are areas in Europe where the rule of law is already the Sharia.
        FP: So what are we talking about? What are we looking at, if we see what Britain might be like in 10 or 20 years?
        Geller: I look at Europe and I?m concerned. The British already have introduced Sharia law into their judicial system. And again you?ll say, ?So what?s wrong with that?? The fact that welfare benefits in the U.K. go to multiple wives. If you have multiple wives, you get multiple benefits. Why would you encourage polygamy? And freedom of speech is in jeopardy. Religious freedom under the Sharia does not exist.
        Today it all may sound outlandish, but the English will wake up one day and won?t recognize their own country. The election of Lutfur Rahman is a tragic step toward that day.
        FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
         
         
        Outcry over Iran's human rights bid - AOL News
         
                     
         
        Outcry over Iran's h


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
Re: Fifth columns - the most dangerous people in the world
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2014, 08:05:49 PM »
Retired Met Inspector,John O'Connor,interviewed the other day regarding the dangerous immigrants on the loose in UK said they could be a Trojan Army Horse


email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL