Syria and the Middle East: our greatest miscalculation since the rise of fascism

 

Simon Jenkins The Guardian, Wednesday 29 May 2013 06.00 AEST

By helping to destroy secular politics in the Middle East, the west has unleashed the Shia/Sunni conflict now tearing it apart

Illustration by Satoshi Kambayashi

There could no more dreadful idea than to pour more armaments into the sectarian war now consuming Syria. Yet that is precisely what Britain's coalition government wants to do. The foreign secretary, William Hague, seemed on Monday to parody his hero Pitt the Younger by demanding "how long must we go on allowing … ?" and "what we want to see is …". Who is this we? But even Pitt would never be so stupid as to declare war on Syria, which is the only morally sound outcome of Hague's rhetorical mission creep.

For two years pundits have proclaimed the imminent fall of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. High on Arab spring, they declared he would fall from the logic of history. Or he would fall because western sanctions would bring him down. Or he would fall because the media, as in the novel Scoop, were with the rebels and had decided they would win.

Assad has not fallen. He is still there, locked in the lethal Muslim schism that resurfaced with the demise of the region's secularist dictators. These have now almost all gone: the shah in Iran, Najibullah in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya. They had faults in abundance, but they succeeded in suppressing religious discord, instilling rudimentary tolerance and keeping the region mostly in order. This was in the west's interest, and the rulers, like those in the Gulf, were supported accordingly.

Turning turtle and abetting their downfall may yet prove the most disastrous miscalculation of western diplomacy since the rise of fascism. Prior to the Iraq war, Saddam persecuted the Shias, but their shrines were safe and intermarriage was common. After the war, Sunni and Shia are torn asunder, with a death toll of ghastly proportions. Similar agony may soon be visited on the Afghans. Libya's Tripoli is more unstable now the west has toppled Gaddafi, its fundamentalist guerrillas spreading mayhem south across the Sahara to Algeria, Mali and Nigeria.

These upheavals might have occurred without western intervention. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were largely self-starting. Islamist parties often came to power, because they offered an alternative discipline to the existing regimes. But the west's sudden zest for "wars of choice", its meddling in the politics of Pakistan and its sabre-rattling in Iran have created a cause on to which neoconservative Islamism could fasten.

Al-Qaida was in 2000 a tiny group of fanatics. America and Britain have portrayed it as an all-powerful enemy, apparently lurking in support of every anti-secularist rebellion. Cameron calls it "an existential terrorist threat… to inflict the biggest possible amount of damage to our interests and way of life". Yet stabbings and bombings do not constitute an "existential threat". The UK is a stronger culture than Cameron appears to believe. There is no threat to its existence, while the chief damage being done to its way of life comes from the incompetence of its government.

Syria is at present certainly a claim on the world's humanitarian resources, to be honoured by supporting the refugee camps and aid agencies active in the area. Assad's suppression of revolt has been appallingly brutal, but he was Britain's friend, as was Saddam, long after his regime began its brutality. That is how things are in this part of the world. The west cannot stop them. To conclude that "we cannot allow this to happen" assumes a potency over other people's affairs that "we" do not possess.

Pouring arms into Syria will no more topple Assad or "drive him to the negotiating table" than did two years of blood-curdling sanctions. Hague knows this perfectly well, as he knows there is no way arms can be sent to "good" rebels and not to bad ones. He knows that if you want one side to win a civil war, the only honest way is to fight on its side. We did that in Kosovo and Libya. In Syria, Hague has fallen back on Kipling's "killing Kruger with your mouth".

The differences between Sunni and Shia, now tearing at nations in the Middle East, are deeply embedded in Islam. As the scholar Malise Ruthven has pointed out, outsiders preaching tolerance are no use. These disputes are intractable "since the acceptance of pluralism relativises truth". For Sunni to accept Shia and vice versa is for each to deny the faith.

Christianity, after centuries of similar bloodshed, has learned religious tolerance (though in Northern Ireland, Britain can hardly talk). Much of Islam has not. The one antidote lay in the rise of secular politics. This is the politics that Britain destroyed in Iraq and Libya, in the belief that it was bringing democracy and peace. It has brought chaos.

Britain's military judgment is no more coherent than its political. It thinks it can conquer Syria – which is what toppling Assad would require – by proxy. But sending weapons cannot make a difference, and will merely entice Britain into promising troops, unless it wishes to desert the rebels. Like American backing for the Taliban in the 1990s, the idea that "my enemy's enemy must be my friend" could yet see British special forces fighting alongside al-Qaida in Syria.

War holds a terrible appeal for democratic leaders. Most of Europe's rulers have other matters on their hands, but Britain and France, two nations whose ancient empires carved up the Levant between them, cannot keep out of it. They see national interest and danger where none exists. They cannot relieve Syria's agony, yet hope some vague belligerence might bring relief.

The reality is they hope that belligerence might draw attention from political troubles back home. That is the worst reason for going to war.

Syria and the Middle East: our greatest miscalculation since the rise of fascism | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

Al-Qaeda North Africa's most difficult employee Moktar Belmoktar

Rukmini Callimachi May 30, 2013 - 7:49AM

 

The list of terrorist Moktar Belmoktar's slights is long: He would not take their phone calls. He refused to send administrative and financial reports. He ignored a meeting in Timbuktu, calling it "useless."

Terrorist leader Moktar Belmoktar was excoriated for his unwillingness to follow orders and critiqued for his failure to carry out any large attack. His ego bruised, he quit and formed his own group to compete directly with his former employer. Photo: AP

Dakar, Senegal: After years of trying to discipline him, the leaders of al-Qaeda's North African branch sent one final letter to their most difficult employee. In page after scathing page, they described how he didn't answer his phone when they called, failed to turn in his expense reports, ignored meetings and refused time and again to carry out orders.

Most of all, they claimed he had failed to carry out a single spectacular operation, despite the resources at his disposal.

The employee, international terrorist Moktar Belmoktar, responded the way talented employees with bruised egos have in corporations the world over: He quit and formed his own competing group. And within months, he carried out two lethal operations that killed 101 people in all: one of the largest hostage-takings in history at a BP-operated gas plant in Algeria in January, and simultaneous bombings at a military base and a French uranium mine in Niger just last week.

Ricky Gervais as the ambitious David Brent in The Office. Al-Qaeda has its share of HR issues too a cache of letters found in North Africa show. Photo: BBC

The al-Qaeda letter, found by The Associated Press inside a building formerly occupied by their fighters in Mali, is an intimate window into the ascent of an extremely ambitious terrorist leader, who split off from regional command because he wanted to be directly in touch with al-Qaeda central.

It's a glimpse into both the inner workings of a highly structured terrorist organisation that requires its commanders to file monthly expense reports, and the internal dissent that led to his rise. And it foreshadows a terrorism landscape where charismatic jihadists can carry out attacks directly in al-Qaeda's name, regardless of whether they are under its command.

Rudolph Atallah, the former head of counterterrorism for Africa at the Pentagon and one of three experts who authenticated the 10-page letter dated October 3, said it helps explain what happened in Algeria and Niger, both attacks that Mr Belmoktar claimed credit for on jihadist forums.

Algerian soldiers and officials stand in front of the gas plant in Ain Amenas, seen in background, during a visit organized by the Algerian authorities following the January 2013 attack directed by Moktar Belmoktar. Photo: AP

"He's sending a message directly north to his former bosses in Algeria saying, 'I'm a jihadi. I deserve to be separate from you.' And he's also sending a message to al-Qaeda, saying, 'See, those bozos in the north are incompetent. You can talk to me directly.' And in these attacks, he drew a lot of attention to himself," says Mr Atallah, who recently testified before Congress on Mr Belmoktar's tactics.

Born in northern Algeria, the 40-something Mr Belmoktar, who is known in Pentagon circles by his initials MBM, travelled to Afghanistan at the age of 19, according to his online biography. He claims he lost an eye in battle and trained in al-Qaeda's camps, forging ties that would allow him two decades later to split off from its regional chapter.

Over the years, there have been numerous reports of Mr Belmoktar being sidelined or expelled by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The letter recovered in Timbuktu, one of thousands of pages of internal documents in Arabic found by the AP earlier this year, shows he stayed loyal to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, until last year, and traces the history of their difficult relationship.

The letter, signed by the group's 14-member Shura Council, or governing body, describes its relationship with Mr Belmoktar as "a bleeding wound," and criticises his proposal to resign and start his own group.

"Your letter ... contained some amount of backbiting, name-calling and sneering," they write. "We refrained from wading into this battle in the past out of a hope that the crooked could be straightened by the easiest and softest means. ... But the wound continued to bleed, and in fact increasingly bled, until your last letter arrived, ending any hope of stanching the wound and healing it."

They go on to compare their group to a towering mountain before raging storms and pounding waves, and say Mr Belmoktar's plan "threatens to fragment the being of the organisation and tear it apart limb by limb."

They then begin enumerating their complaints against Belmoktar in 30 successive bullet points.

"Abu Abbas is not willing to follow anyone," they add, referring to him by his nom de guerre, Khaled Abu Abbas. "He is only willing to be followed and obeyed."

First and foremost, they quibble over the amount of money raised by the 2008 kidnapping of Canadian diplomat Robert Fowler, the highest-ranking United Nations official in Niger, and his colleague. Mr Belmoktar's men held both for four months, and in a book he later published, Mr Fowler said he did not know if a ransom was paid.

The letter says they referred the case to al-Qaeda central to force concessions in the US-led war in Afghanistan, a plan stymied when Mr Belmoktar struck his own deal for 700,000 euros ($936,000) for both men. That's far below the $US3 million per hostage that European governments were normally paying, according to global intelligence unit Stratfor.

"Rather than walking alongside us in the plan we outlined, he managed the case as he liked," they write indignantly. "Here we must ask, who handled this important abduction poorly? ... Does it come from the unilateral behavior along the lines of our brother Abu Abbas, which produced a blatant inadequacy: Trading the weightiest case (Canadian diplomats!!) for the most meager price (700,000 euros)!!"

The complaint reflects how al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, initially considered one of the group's weaker wings, rose to prominence by bankrolling its operation with an estimated $US89 million raised by kidnapping-for-ransom foreign aid workers and tourists. No less than Osama bin Laden endorsed their business model, according to documents retrieved in the terror leader's hideout in Pakistan.

The letter also confirms for the first time that payments from European governments went directly toward buying arms to carry out attacks against Western targets, as long speculated by experts. The council chides Mr Belmoktar for not following this practice.

"(The chapter) gave Abu Abbas a considerable amount of money to buy military material, despite its own great need for money at the time. ... Abu Abbas didn't participate in stepping up to buy weapons," the letter says. "So whose performance deserves to be called poor in this case, I wonder?"

The list of slights is long: He would not take their phone calls. He refused to send administrative and financial reports. He ignored a meeting in Timbuktu, calling it "useless." He even ordered his men to refuse to meet with al-Qaeda emissaries. And he aired the organisation's dirty laundry in online jihadist forums, even while refusing to communicate with the chapter via the Internet, claiming it was insecure.

Sounding like managers in any company, the Shura leaders accuse Mr Belmoktar of not being able to get along with his peers. They charge that he recently went to Libya without permission from the chapter, which had assigned the "Libya dossier" to a rival commander called Abou Zeid. And they complain that the last unit they sent Mr Belmoktar for backup in the Sahara spent a full three years trying to contact him before giving up.

"Why do the successive emirs of the region only have difficulties with you? You in particular every time? Or are all of them wrong and brother Khaled is right?" they charge.

The letter reveals the rifts not only between Mr Belmoktar and his superiors, but also the distance between the local chapter and al-Qaeda central. The local leaders were infuriated that Mr Belmoktar was essentially going over their heads, saying that even AQIM has had few interactions with the mother brand in Pakistan and Afghanistan, a region they refer to by the ancient name of Khorasan.

"The great obstacles between us and the central leadership are not unknown to you. ... For example, since we vowed our allegiance, up until this very day, we have only gotten from our emirs in Khorasan just a few messages, from the two sheiks, bin Laden (God rest his soul) and Ayman (al-Zawahri)," they write. "All this, despite our multiple letters to them."

Mr Belmoktar's ambition comes through clearly not only in the bitter responses of his bosses, but also in his own words: "Despite great financial resources ... our works were limited to the routine of abductions, which the mujahedeen got bored with."

In another quote, he calls bin Laden and al-Zawahri "the leaders of the Islamic nation, not the leaders of an organisation alone. We love them and we were convinced by their program. ... So it's even more now that we are swords in their hands."

To which AQIM replies with more than a hint of sarcasm: "Very lovely words. ... Do you consider it loyalty to them to revolt against their emirs and threaten to tear apart the organisation?"

Mr Belmoktar's defection was a long time in the making, and dates back to his time as a commander of Algeria's Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or GSPC. When the Iraq war started in 2003, his ambition created friction between younger Algerian fighters like himself, who wanted to join the global jihad, and an older generation whose only goal was to create an Islamic state in Algeria, according to Islamic scholar Mathieu Guidere, a professor at the University of Toulouse.

The younger faction won, but Mr Belmoktar felt slighted because his contemporary, Abdelmalek Droukdel, was named emir of the GSPC, instead of him.

Soon after, the group petitioned to join al-Qaeda. The terror network announced a "blessed union" on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in 2006.

Both Mr Belmoktar and Mr Droukdel wrote "candidacy letters" to bin Laden asking to be emir, according to Mr Guidere's book on the subject. Again, Mr Droukdel won.

Frustrated, Mr Belmoktar drifted farther south. He set up in the ungoverned dunes of neighbouring Mali, took a Malian wife and tapped into the smuggling routes that crisscrossed the Sahara, amassing arms and fiercely loyal fighters who called themselves, "The Masked Brigade."

His fighters killed more than a dozen soldiers at a military garrison in Mauritania in 2005 and gunned down four French tourists there in 2007. On multiple occasions Mr Belmoktar was declared dead, including most recently in March, and each time, he re-emerged to strike again.

The sharpest blow in the council's letter may have been the accusation that, despite this history of terrorism, Mr Belmoktar and his unit had not pulled off any attack worthy of mention in the Sahara.

"Any observer of the armed actions (carried out) in the Sahara will clearly notice the failure of The Masked Brigade to carry out spectacular operations, despite the region's vast possibilities — there are plenty of mujahedeen, funding is available, weapons are widespread and strategic targets are within reach," the letter says. "Your brigade did not achieve a single spectacular operation targeting the crusader alliance."

In December, just weeks after receiving the letter, Mr Belmoktar declared in a recorded message that he was leaving the al-Qaeda chapter to form his own group. He baptised it, "Those Who Sign in Blood."

With that name, he announced his global ambition. "Those Who Sign in Blood" was also the name of an Algerian extremist unit that hijacked an Air France flight leaving Algiers in 1994. Though their goal to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower in Paris was thwarted, the unit foreshadowed the terrorist vision that led to the fall of the Twin Towers in New York.

On January 11, French warplanes began bombarding northern Mali, the start of a now 5-month-old offensive to flush out the jihadists, including Mr Belmoktar's brigade. Five days later, suicide bombers took more than 600 hostages in Ain Amenas in far eastern Algeria and killed 37, all but one foreigners, including American, French and British nationals. Mr Belmoktar claimed responsibility in a triumphant recording.

It was no accident that he chose Ain Amenas, Mr Guidere said. The area is in the home province of Abou Zeid, Mr Belmoktar's longtime rival who commanded a different Saharan brigade and was always in step with the Algeria-based emirate.

"It's a punch in the gut," Mr Guidere said. "It's saying, 'You've never been able to do anything even in your native region. Watch me. I'll carry out the biggest hostage operation ever in that very region. ... Ain Amenas is the illustration of his ability to do a quality operation, when he is under no authority other than his own, when he doesn't have to turn in expense reports or answer to anybody."

As if to turn the knife even further, last week Mr Belmoktar also claimed responsibility for a May 23 attack at a French-owned uranium mine in Arlit, Niger. It was in Arlit in 2010 that Abou Zeid carried out his boldest operation and seized seven foreign hostages, including four French nationals who are still in the hands of AQIM.

In an apparent attempt to raise the stakes, Mr Belmoktar's men slipped past a truck entering the mine and detonated explosives inside. More than 100 miles to the south, a different unit of fighters under his command killed 24 soldiers at a military camp, with help from another local al-Qaida off-shoot, called the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa.

Jean-Paul Rouiller, the director of the Geneva Center for Training and Analysis of Terrorism, compared the escalation in attacks to a quarrel between a man and a woman in which each tries to have the last word. "They accused him of not doing something," Mr Rouiller said. "His response is, 'I'll show you what I can do.'"

Mr Belmoktar might have seen a certain justice in the coverage of the last week's attack in Niger in the leading French daily, Le Monde. Among the adjectives used to describe the event: "Spectacular."

AP

Al-Qaeda North Africa's most difficult employee Moktar Belmoktar

What we can learn from Woolwich

 

By Philip Johnston 8:59PM BST 27 May 2013

Philip Johnston weighs up the official reaction to the death of Drummer Lee Rigby and the threats posed to a free society

Oxygen of publicity: Anjem Choudary has been granted airtime despite having been the leader of an outlawed organisation Photo: AFP/GETTY

A familiar pattern has taken shape in the aftermath of last week’s terrorist murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Familiar because it replicates to a large extent what we saw following the July 7 bombings in London eight years ago. First, there is the shock that such a horrific attack could take place on the streets of our capital. Then there is the awful realisation that it was carried out not by people coming from abroad, but by British residents.

The killers are denounced by most mainstream Muslims, who say they were not acting on their behalf. Imams insist that nothing in the teachings of Islam would ever condone such barbarism, though some more radical Islamists are less condemnatory than they should be. At Westminster, there are demands for tougher counter-terror laws, for “preachers of hate” to be silenced, jailed or deported, for Muslim groups to be proscribed, for extremist websites to be shut down and even for broadcasting bans to be imposed.

Marches are staged by Right-wing organisations and sporadic attacks are reported against Muslims and mosques.

Questions are then asked about who knew what about whom and when. Did the security services take their eye off the ball? In the days after the London transport attacks killed 52 people in 2005, it was said to begin with that the perpetrators were unknown to the police or MI5. However, it emerged that Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the four suicide bombers, and his lieutenant Shehzad Tanweer had been placed under surveillance by MI5 because they had been peripheral players in another terrorist plot then under investigation. Two security service officers had even trailed Sidique Khan to his home in West Yorkshire but he was ruled out as an imminent threat. They had intended to delve further into his background but were diverted to another plot.

When it became clear that MI5 knew more than they had let on, or even appreciated, about the 7/7 bombers, they were accused of attempting to cover their tracks, a criticism that rankled with the top brass at Thames House, MI5’s headquarters in central London. This time, they were quick to acknowledge that the two men under arrest for the murder of Drummer Rigby had been “on the radar” but had not been subjected to a full-scale investigation.

Related Articles

• Woolwich attack: our strategy on terror is a sad shambles

  26 May 2013

• We must have the courage to confront the preachers of hate

  25 May 2013

Michael Adebolajo had been known to the security services and police for almost 10 years and was even arrested six years ago after violent protests by extremists outside the Old Bailey. In November 2010, he was detained in Kenya trying to travel to Somalia, allegedly to join the terrorist network al-Shabaab. Kenyan authorities say they returned him to British intelligence officers, who failed to take their concerns seriously. The second suspected killer, Michael Adebowale was also known to police and the intelligence services.

David Cameron has ordered an inquiry to be carried out by the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee to establish what, if anything, went wrong. Almost certainly we do not know the full story and cannot be told it in any case: unlike the 7/7 killers, the two Woolwich suspects are still alive and are to be put on trial for murder. For MI5 to reveal what it knew could risk prejudicing the prosecution. Despite the video evidence and the determination of the alleged killers to publicise their actions, due process needs to be observed.

But we are entitled to ask questions about whether enough was done to monitor the two men and whether the political response has been sufficiently robust. After 7/7, Tony Blair announced a 12-point plan which was high on rhetoric and pretty low on achievement. It included a promise to crack down on the “preachers of hate”, an ambition that eight years on we are no nearer fulfilling.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has pledged a fresh attempt to shut them up and the BBC has rightly been denounced for giving airtime to Anjem Choudary, the Islamist routinely trotted out as though he were somehow providing a balanced and thoughtful commentary. No one could possibly have been unaware of Choudary’s fanaticism. He was the leader of al-Muhajiroun, a now-outlawed organisation. As long ago as 2003, when two British Muslims carried out a suicide bomb attack in Israel, he told the BBC that Muslims had an obligation to support their fellow believers in jihad and the greatest sacrifice they could make was to lay down their own lives while taking those of others.

Choudary was disowned by mainstream Muslims. Islamic scholars queued up to emphasise the peaceful nature of their religion and leading Muslims feared his inflammatory remarks would harm inter-community relations. But Choudary’s comments were a warning that a disaffected, radicalised group of young men was growing up in Britain listening to rabble-rousers preaching holy war, either at the local mosque or on the internet.

Three decades of misplaced multiculturalism allowed fundamentalists to insert themselves into Muslim communities with the tacit encouragement of the British establishment. Even after 7/7, officials running the Labour government’s ill-starred Prevent programme took the view that some of these groups were part of the solution rather than the problem.

Britain is a society that prides itself on letting people speak their minds, whatever their opinions. Choudary and his fellow preachers overstepped the line between what should be tolerated and what is unlawful a long time ago, yet little has been done about them. As a society we seem to have lost the plot. We put people in jail for racist rants aimed at no one in particular but which have been uploaded on to YouTube or tweeted on Twitter because they fall foul of “hate” speech crimes. Yet we have allowed radical imams to pour anti-Western poison into the ears of impressionable young men with impunity. Mrs May apparently wants to ban them from the airwaves, as the IRA leaders were. While this might starve the extremists of “the oxygen of publicity”, it will have little impact on radicalisation as most is done through the internet.

The seeds of this whirlwind were sown a long time ago, in the mid-Nineties. In view of the number of home-grown terror plots that have been thwarted – or, as in the case of 7/7, succeeded – we should hardly be surprised by what happened in Woolwich, however horrific it was. Indeed, its gratuitous nature was part of the intention – to engender as much terror as possible.

In response, the Government is talking about reactivating its plans for a “Snooper’s Charter”, which would require telecoms companies to store details of messages sent on social media, webmail, voice calls over the internet and gaming interactions, in addition to emails and phone calls. The data to be retained would include the time, duration, originator and recipient of a communication and the location of the device from which it is made. Britain is the only country attempting to gather communications data in this way, but the security service and the police are adamant that it would be a crucial counter-terrorism tool.

But how this would have saved the life of Lee Rigby is by no means clear. Since the two suspects were known to MI5, they could have been – and almost certainly were – placed under surveillance. At some point a judgment will have been made to wind down the operation if they had neither done anything wrong nor looked as if they were planning a terrorist outrage. They could have been placed under control orders – or their replacements, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (Tpims) – but these are hugely resource-intensive and a case would have had to be made for their use. Moreover, these are not prison sentences and would not stop fanatics carrying out the sort of attack perpetrated against Drummer Rigby, which could have been planned in an afternoon and would not have necessarily generated any intelligence chatter.

The most rational counter-terrorism argument for mass collection of data is that it would allow fishing expeditions for potential terrorists not known to the security services. Yet this is the one thing that the Government says it does not want to do. Not only would it be grotesquely illiberal, it would target the entire population when the problem is with just a tiny proportion. Attempting to identify a lone-wolf jihadi is like trying to find a needle in a haystack; this would merely increase the size of the haystack.

As happened eight years ago, the politicians are reaching for solutions that are hard to justify in a free society without strong evidence for their effectiveness. But more could be done to prosecute so-called hate preachers and to deport those who are not British citizens, like Abu Qatada. Above all, though, the best protection against the terrorists in our midst is not more law, since we have enough already, but a combination of luck, vigilance - and top-quality intelligence work.

What we can learn from Woolwich - Telegraph

Ten attacks on mosques since Woolwich murder

Cahal Milmo  , Nigel Morris Monday 27 May 2013

As the number of Islamophobic incidents continues to increase, EDL raises temperature with London march

Kevin Caroll, EDL deputy leader, addresses supporters of the far-right English Defence League (EDL) near Downing Street in central London AFP\Getty

The number of reported Islamophobic attacks since the Woolwich murder has continued to rise dramatically amid warnings from Muslim community leaders that the backlash which has seen attempted firebombings of mosques is being fuelled by far right groups.

As participants in an English Defence League (EDL) march in Whitehall were recorded giving Nazi-style salutes, Faith Matters, which monitors anti-Muslim hatred, said the number of incidents in the past six days had risen to 193, including ten assaults on mosques. The figure compares to a total of 642 incidents in the previous 12 months – meaning the last week has seen a 15-fold increase on last year’s average of 12 attacks per week.

The spike came as Scotland Yard said it had made a tenth arrest in the investigation into the murder of soldier Lee Rigby on Wednesday. A 50-year-old man was detained on suspicion of conspiracy to murder. Earlier, three men arrested on Saturday were released on police bail.

Fiyaz Mughal, director of Faith Matters, who has been targeted by extremists posting his home address on Twitter and inviting others to shoot him, told The Independent: “There is a significant scale of backlash going on and it is extremely important that it be highlighted. We have been told time and again that the EDL and its like are not a significant issue. But what we have seen in recent days is this sharp increase in rhetoric and then attacks. Our data shows that more than one in three of attacks last year were linked to far-right sympathisers.”

The most serious attack yet took place on Sunday night with the attempted firebombing of a Grimsby mosque. Community elders said the incident, during which three petrol bombs were thrown at the Grimsby Islamic Cultural Centre while people were inside, amounted to “attempted murder”. The attack took place despite an increased police presence following an attack four days ago by a group of teenagers. Humberside Police said it had arrested two men  and was investigating messages posted on social media which appeared to incite violence at named locations.

Dr Ahmad Sabik, a member of the mosque committee, told Sky News: “I would say I can describe it as an attempt to murder because what we have got was really serious. It was a fire.”

He added that the mosque’s chairman, who went to extinguish the first petrol bomb, had a narrow escape. “The brother who was coming out of the door, it was just a part of seconds but, alhamdulillah, nothing happened and he was not injured.”

The Yard said it was also investigating the daubing of graffiti overnight on Sunday on two London war memorials. The word “Islam” was sprayed in red paint and inscriptions defaced on the monuments to Bomber Command and animals in war but it was not clear if the perpetrators were Islamist extremists or if it was a further attempt to stir up anti-Muslim feeling.

Police mounted a massive operation as up to 1,000 supporters of the English Defence League staged a protest outside Downing Street.

EDL marchers chanting anti-Muslim slogans were confronted by anti-fascist demonstrators and bottles were thrown as lines of police officers separated the two groups. Police, some in riot gear, repeatedly had to intervene to stop the rival groups clashing as the EDL marched from Trafalgar Square to Downing Street. EDL leader Tommy Robinson told the demonstration: “They’ve had their Arab Spring. This is time for the English Spring.”

Referring to the row over Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to take a holiday this week in Ibiza, the crowd repeatedly chanted “coward” after Mr Robinson said Mr Cameron had left the country “because he doesn’t care”. Scotland Yard said three arrests had been made.

EDL members congregated after their march. As one youth was taken away by police, the crowd began throwing bottles at them. One officer was hit on the head with a glass bottle and the mob followed the officers, chanting “who the f*** is Allah?”.

Faith Matters said most of the incidents  reported to its hotline since last Wednesday’s murder consisted of “general abuse” at Muslims on the streets or over the internet. A further 47 consisted of threats of violence with another 35 minor assaults including eggs being thrown. Elsewhere it emerged that an attempt by the EDL to march on a mosque in York on Sunday had been met by a show of solidarity from the local community when 200 people arrived to show their support.

When only about seven EDL members turned up,  they were approached by mosque members and four reportedly entered the mosque for tea and biscuits.

The response: Pros and cons

A fresh effort to combat the spread of violent ideology that leads to terrorism has been promised by David Cameron and Theresa May, the Home Secretary. A new Whitehall committee will draw up proposals for action. What is on the agenda?

Outlawing extremist groups

Proposed: Banning organisations which advocate extremist ideas – even if they fall short of preaching violence.

How it would work: Lowering the threshold at which a group can be proscribed. Currently the Home Secretary can only ban it if it backs, or glorifies, violence

Have we been here before? Yes. Both Tony Blair and David Cameron have floated the idea of outlawing extremist organisations, but balked at the legal problems.

Pros: Terrorists are often radicalised by hardline groups before  graduating into a violent ideology.

Cons: How do you define  extremism? And where do you draw the line between so-called  extremism and the expression of unpalatable views?

Will it happen? It’s hard to see how Ms May will be able to surmount the legal and practical difficulties encountered by the last Government.

Rabble-rousers banned from TV

Proposed: Stopping radical preachers from getting their message across on television.

How it could work: Ofcom could be given the authority to block extremists from getting screen time. Currently the watchdog can only intervene after a broadcast.

Have we been here before? Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein leaders were banned from TV and radio between 1988 and 1994 to, in Margaret Thatcher’s words, “starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend”.

Pros: Television still remains the most immediate way to reach sympathisers.

Cons: The Sinn Fein ban is widely agreed to have been counterproductive by giving its targets victim status. Hard to enforce given the multiplicity of foreign and internet channels.

Will it happen? Floated because of anger over interviews last week with the cleric Anjem Choudary, it could founder over accusations of curbing free speech. Ofcom is unlikely to want to police what interviewees might say.

Snoopers’ charter

Proposed: Requiring telecoms and internet firms to store details of customers’ website visits, calls, text messages and emails. It would cover information about the time and recipients of contacts, but not their contents.

How it could work: Theresa May has legislation, the draft Communications Data Bill, ready to roll out. But it has been vetoed by the Liberal Democrats.

Have we been here before? The last government proposed a similar scheme, creating a vast central database of message and internet details. It was abandoned in the face of civil liberties objections.

Pros: Terrorist networks use sophisticated techniques to evade detection and the legislation would enable the security services to keep pace.

Cons: No suggestion the Woolwich murders could have been foiled using this legislation and detectives already have extensive powers to track terror suspects.

Will it happen? Both the Tories and Labour support the move in principle. Ms May might try to negotiate a compromise with the Lib Dems.

Tackling extremist websites

Proposed: Tougher scrutiny of internet sites with the aim of rapidly removing websites supporting violence or glorifying terrorism.

How it could work: Almost 5,700 separate items judged to be inflammatory have been removed from the internet in the last three years. It’s not clear how Ms May envisages powers could be strengthened in this area. Internet companies could face legislation if they fail to act voluntarily.

Have we been here before? Extremist websites were first targeted by Tony Blair after the July 7 bombings in 2005.

Pros: Militant groups have proved adept at using the internet to influence followers and instruct them in terrorist techniques.

Cons: A daunting task given the scale of the internet and the ease with which extremists can set up a new website almost as soon as one is removed by the authorities.

Will it happen? It is happening already – the Home Office says police are “scaling up” operations against militant websites. However, further legislation could be complex and time-consuming.

Tackling radicalisation

Proposed: Further efforts to tackle recruitment by militants in campuses, prisons and on the streets.

How it could work: Requiring colleges to banish extremist preachers from the premises, extra work with susceptible prisoners and obliging mosque committees to monitor speakers.

Have we been here before? The last Government set up the Prevent programme to tackle radicalisation at its root; this administration has opted for more targeted work.

Pros: Helps divert people from violence before they become dangerous.

Cons: Expensive work, particularly given current austerity measures, and critics say it puts too much responsibility on universities and community leaders.

Will it happen? Yes. The Government will be under pressure to reverse recent cuts to the Prevent  programme.          

Nigel Morris

Suspect filmed praying before Paris attack

The man who attacked a French soldier in Paris was praying moments before slashing the neck of his victim with a knife or box cutter, according to video footage from the scene.

“He was filmed praying near the scene of the attack” at a shopping centre in La Défense business district, sources close to the investigation told Le Parisien. The suspect is being hunted by police who said yesterday that the investigation is progressing.

His victim, Cédric Cordiez, 23, was discharged from hospital today after telling journalists that he was “feeling fine”.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls told the Canal+ pay-TV channel that the incident bore “similarities” to the Woolwich attack.

Anne Penketh

Ten attacks on mosques since Woolwich murder - Crime - UK - The Independent

Recognising genocide

Dean Kalimniou 22 May 2013

Genocide is the responsibility of the entire world - Ann Clwyd

A few weeks ago, an article penned by John Williams appeared in Quadrant entitled, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Greeks from Gallipoli, April 1915." This marks a rare moment where a mainstream publication has attempted to draw attention to an aspect of the Gallipoli myth that the organised Greek community itself knows little about and as a result has done nothing to ensure that it enters the public discourse. This aspect is that the hallowed turf upon which the Anzacs lost their lives was, for at least 3,000 years, the home of Greek people, who as a result of the First World War and the Allied landing on the peninsula, fell victim to a persecution whereby: "all the hallmarks of later 20th-century ethnic cleansing - rape, pillage, murder and the seizing and destruction of property - were present in full measure." As far as I know, only Dr Panayiotis Diamandis and Stavros Stavridis - both committed genocide scholars, have attempted effectively to place crimes of this nature in an Australian context. Both, of course, do not represent nor are affiliated to any Greek community organization and indeed for some of these aforementioned organisations, Dr Diamandis is a figure of controversy.

Some time later, I attended the annual Armenian Genocide Commemoration. At that moving event, which was notable in how fervently it was attended by passionate members of the Armenian youth and also by its marked absence of Greek community representatives, a member of the Liberal Party read out a letter by Liberal leader Tony Abbott. In that letter, Tony Abbott referred to what happened to the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottomans as a "genocide." Also present at this sombre ceremony as a keynote speaker, was Deakin University academic Liana Papoutsis, who has a special interest in genocide. In her nuanced address, Liana Papoutsis stressed the need, along with the political aspects of the crime of genocide, to also focus on facets pertaining to gender and in particular crimes against women. In June she will be travelling to Rome to attend an international conference, wherein she will speak about the Armenian genocide. Liana Papoutsis is Greek and she too does not represent and is not affiliated with any Greek organization. In fact, the multitude of Pontian organisations that are supposedly charged with the responsibility of raising awareness of the genocide of the Greeks of Asia Minor are blissfully unaware of her existence, and I harbor grave reservations as to whether they have followed the lead of their Armenian cousins and written to the leaders of the political parties, requesting that they outline their stance regarding genocide recognition.

A little less than a week later, on 1 May 2013, the NSW Legislative Council passed a motion recognising the genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks by the Ottomans around the time of the First World War. The Armenian genocide has already been recognised by the NSW Lower House in 1996, and the "Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek" genocides were recognised by South Australian Parliament in 2009. On 8 May 2013, the NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell in the Lower House also moved for the recognition of the genocide against Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks.

This year's recognition thus marks the first time that an Australian parliament has recognised that the genocide was perpetrated against Greeks, rather than Pontians, who are not an ethnicity. This may, of course come as some surprise to some Pontians, for in our community, whose ethnic consciousness comprises a loose confederation of regional tribes all sharing the common suspicion that Socrates and Kolokotronis may have been our ancestors, each regional group tends to abrogate to itself the right to deal with issues pertaining to its own narrow history, with the result that Greeks from other regions treat such events with indifference. In our blinkered communal world, commemorative events centre around bringing scholars of middling reputation from Greece to Australia in order to re-hash the same old narrative year after year to a specifically Pontian, ever-ageing and ever-dwindling Greek speaking audience. Some aspirational Pontians also hold a Pontian Genocide Workshop, again for internal consumption but invaluable at least in that it ensures that knowledge of the crime is passed down through the English speaking generations. This year, the Pontiaki Estia workshop of "Pontian Continuity" laudably features genocide scholars Racho Donef and Stavros Stavridis and deserves complete community support. It is there that genocide related activities come to an end and there seem, (save in South Australia where the Pontians, through their local groups and their Federation, were at the forefront of the ultimately successful campaign for genocide recognition) to be scant attempts to engage firstly with the broader Greek community, (as is evidenced by the pitifully attended genocide protest held outside the Turkish consulate every year), secondly with the other peoples who were also victims of this unspeakable crime (in the 2007 Return to Anatolia conference, the Armenian contingent withdrew in disgust as the various Pontian clubs could not agree upon joint participation) and thirdly, with the broader Australian community, though this is slowly changing.

The hitherto named 'Pontian' and now properly termed Greek genocide is a case in point. The most recent 'bout' of recognition seems to have come about primarily through the efforts of the Assyrian community in Sydney, not by the exertions of the Greeks. Furthermore, in his moving speech, the revered Fred Nile thanked Dr Panayiotis Diamandis for enlightening him about the genocide over the course of many years, exemplifying both what the dedication of one individual can achieve but also, how ineffectual, indolent and complacent our community institutions can be. It is hoped that by re-branding the genocide as Greek, this will stir the rest of the community from the sloth of their disinterest enough to realise that anything that happens to any part of the Greek people also affects them, and become a clarion call for concerted and united action upon this issue but this is highly unlikely. Instead, it appears that little known figures such as Diamandis, Papoutsis and Stavridis are destined to maintain a shadowy existence, away from the vertiginous strobe lights of the Greek community stage, achieving many and great things, in spite of the rest of us and our local organisations.

At the abovementioned Armenian genocide commemoration, the guest of honour - National Political Editor of US-based publication POLITICO, Charles Mahtesian, offered this example of just how committed his compatriots are to achieving genocide recognition: An Armenian living in a state where Armenians were few contrived to gain his congressman's ear in a novel way. Learning that said congressman had his hair cut at the same barber, he arranged an appointment for himself at the same time, so that while being shorn of his curly locks, he was able to introduce the said politician to this most heinous crime and the necessity of its recognition. This type of dedication is lacking in our community, where such activism has kudos and micro politics as its primary motivation.

That is not to say that the recognition by state governments of matters that the Department of Foreign Affairs can easily distance themselves from should be viewed out of context. Yet it is hoped that as a symbol of the growing appreciation of this crime by the broader community, official recognition in each state can present a compelling case to the Federal Government for a change in its policy on this issue. To this effect, Armenian bishop Najarian's message to the politicians attending the Armenian genocide commemoration is telling: "Do not promise what you cannot deliver. Instead, deliver on your promise not because you will derive a benefit from it, but rather because you believe that it is right." We would all do well to emulate such forthrightness when dealing with our elected representatives. They do not exist merely to provide us with photo opportunities.

In his book «Μικρασία Χαίρε» Ilias Venezis, genocide survivor and captive of the Turkish army, states that remembering catastrophes such as the genocide and putting these into context constitutes a source of strength for our people, to be drawn upon in times of crisis. In such times, as now, the Greek people can consider their past and take courage stating: "this is nothing compared to the suffering of our fathers." It is incumbent upon us not only to remember that suffering but also to make others recognise it in order that the perpetrators and the denialists can finally understand the extent of the pain that their actions have caused and reconciliation can be achieved. After all, as Philip Gourevitch aptly points out in: "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda," "Genocide, is an exercise in community building."

*Dean Kaliminou is a Melbourne solicitor and freelance journalist.

Recognising genocide | Neos Kosmos

The West is fighting on behalf of ordinary Muslims – and winning

 

By Con Coughlin 8:32PM BST 24 May 2013

Our enemies are utterly misguided in their denunciation of Britain’s interventions overseas

From northern Lebanon, the radical preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed gave a newspaper interview in which he praised Michael Adebolajo's 'courage' in carrying out the murder Photo: ITV News

There will inevitably be those who have some sympathy with the justification given by Michael Adebolajo for his slaughter of a British soldier on a south London street on Wednesday afternoon. “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers,” was his illiterate pronouncement, made to the mobile phone of a passing member of the public as he waited for the police to arrive, his blood-stained hands still grasping the machete he had used to murder Drummer Lee Rigby.

While Muslims of a more moderate temperament have been quick to condemn the Woolwich atrocity, those of a more radical persuasion, such as Anjem Choudary, the former head of the banned Islamist organisation al-Muhajiroun, seem to have no difficulty agreeing with Adebolajo’s reasoning. The murder of Drummer Rigby, Mr Choudary proclaimed from the sanctuary of a BBC television studio this week, was due to the “presence of British forces in Muslim countries”.

These sentiments were also supported by Omar Bakri Mohammed, another veteran of London’s thriving Islamist scene. From exile in northern Lebanon, where the radical preacher has settled since his banishment from Britain, Bakri Mohammed gave a newspaper interview in which he praised Adebolajo’s “courage” in carrying out the murder. “I saw the film and we could see that he was being very courageous,” the cleric was quoted as saying. “Under Islam this can be justified – he was not targeting civilians, he was taking on a military man in an operation. To people around here [in the Middle East], he is a hero.”

It is difficult to see what, precisely, is “courageous” about butchering an unarmed British soldier in cold blood as he tries to make his way back to his barracks. If anyone serving in the British Forces were to commit a similar act of savagery, they would quickly find themselves facing a court-martial and, if convicted, a lengthy prison sentence. Five Royal Marines, for example, are facing murder charges over the death of an insurgent in Afghanistan in 2011.

But then, Islamist extremists have never played by the same rules that we seek to uphold in the West. Back in 2007, when British security officials disrupted an al-Qaeda plot in Birmingham to kidnap, torture and behead a British Muslim serving in the Army and broadcast his murder on the internet, Bakri Mohammed was secretly recorded urging his followers to “use the sword and remove the head of the enemy”.

Related Articles

• Why are young men like my brother drawn to Islamic extremism?

  24 May 2013

• Powerful opinion often polarised by extremism on campuses

  24 May 2013

• Four in 10 people think judges are too soft in manslaughter cases

  24 May 2013

• This savage attack must not shake our resolve

  22 May 2013

Acts of terrorism such as this week’s appalling scenes in south London are, therefore, for the likes of Choudary and Bakri Mohammed, regarded as a legitimate means of waging war against the West and all that it stands for. And in seeking to justify their barbarous conduct, they have proved themselves to be highly skilful at blaming law-abiding countries such as Britain, America and France for their actions. Just like Adebolajo, these radical Islamist preachers – who, by all accounts, helped to indoctrinate him and his accomplice in the first place – argue that they are obliged to act in this way because, in their view, the West is at war with radical Islam. In fact, the opposite is the case: radical Islam is at war with the West.

During the past decade, when British and American forces have found themselves embroiled in long and bitter conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, I doubt there has been a single politician on either side of the Atlantic who has wanted our brave young men and women to remain in these dangerous, hostile environments a day longer than was absolutely necessary.

Indeed, I suspect many of them were reluctant to deploy our forces in the first place, particularly when it came to Iraq. And if you look back at the West’s military involvement in the Muslim world since the early 1990s, it could be argued that, for the most part, Western forces have been fighting to protect Muslim interests, not to violate them.

The first Gulf War in 1991 was fought to liberate Kuwait’s Muslim population after the sheikhdom’s illegal occupation by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, while the subsequent conflict in 2003 was designed to liberate the long-suffering Iraqi people – Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims alike – from his brutal repression. In between these conflicts, Western troops sent to Bosnia in the mid-1990s were tasked with protecting the Muslim population from the Serbs’ genocidal designs, while our more recent involvement in Afghanistan, where Drummer Rigby had served a tour of duty, has been undertaken to help the country’s predominantly Muslim population to rebuild the country after three decades of almost incessant conflict.

For, contrary to the anti-Western propaganda propagated by radical clerics like Choudary and Bakri Mohammed, the 444 British soldiers who have so far been killed in Afghanistan have sacrificed their lives trying to make the country a better place for ordinary Afghans, rather than seeking to subjugate them. Indeed, when you examine the overall casualty rate in that benighted country, the Taliban are responsible for the deaths of many more Afghan civilians than have died as a result of the military action taken by Nato forces.

But this is not the narrative you will hear from Islamist militants who, rather than concede that the West is actively seeking to improve the lot of ordinary Muslims, prefer to portray us as invaders, as neo-colonialist proselytisers attempting to impose alien values on the oppressed masses.

The real reason, of course, that radical Muslims violently oppose these well-intentioned efforts is that they interfere with their attempts to impose their own brand of uncompromising Islamist ideology.

Before coalition forces overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan, Islamist hardliners had subjected the Afghan population to a reign of terror equal to the worst excesses of the French Revolution. The only entertainment on offer at the local sports stadium in Kabul during that period was the regular executions that took place after Friday prayers. Not surprisingly, few Afghans want to see the Taliban return, but that has not prevented the movement from seeking to regain power by waging an indiscriminate campaign of violence in which Afghan civilians are as likely to die as British soldiers.

Indeed, the reason our forces deployed to Afghanistan in the first place, in 2001, was because the Taliban had made the error of providing al-Qaeda terrorists with a safe haven from which to launch attacks against the West. And so long as Islamist militants – be they based in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya or Mali – are working on their vile schemes to wreak havoc in our cities, the West has no choice but to defend itself, even it means killing the occasional Islamist militant, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born cleric dispatched by a US drone strike two years ago.

Because of the success the West has enjoyed in disrupting al-Qaeda’s terror network, the organisation has been thwarted in its efforts to carry out spectacular operations on the scale of the September 11 attacks, or the July 7 bombings in London. As a result, Awlaki urged his followers to carry out their own, home-grown attacks. It might be scant consolation to the friends and relatives of Drummer Rigby, but it shows the West is winning the war against radical Islam when its supporters have to resort to such desperate measures as murdering a defenceless British soldier.

The West is fighting on behalf of ordinary Muslims – and winning - Telegraph

Woolwich attack: Somali terrorists warn Britain: 'Your chickens are coming home to roost’

By Zoe Flood, Nairobi 9:56PM BST 23 May 2013

Britain was warned to expect further terrorist outrages as an Islamist group in Somalia said the chickens were “coming home to roost”.

Michael Adebolajo is thought to have tried to travel to Somalia, possibly to join al-Shabaab Photo: ITV NEWS

Al Shabaab, which is thought to have links with one of the suspected Woolwich terrorists, launched a tirade on Twitter accusing Britain of carrying out countless abuses against innocent Muslims.

In one message posted on its official Twitter account, an al-Shabaab spokesman described the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby as the “death of the wretched Kafir” and said it was “insignificant compared to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Muslims at the hands of British soldiers”.

Referring to the Boston bombing, another posting warned: “Where next? You just have to grin and bear it, it’s inevitable. A case of the chickens coming home to roost.”

Speculation was mounting that the postings, peppered with English phrases, were being written by a Briton.

Seizing on comments by David Cameron that the attack was a “betrayal of Islam”, al-Shabaab said that in fact it was a “portrayal of Islam”.

Related Articles

• Woolwich attack: why was suspect Michael Adebolajo free to kill?

  23 May 2013

• Suspect led away in handcuffs at trial

  23 May 2013

• Murdered soldier 'would do anything for anybody’

  23 May 2013

• 'I looked him in the eye. He wasn't going to kill me’

  23 May 2013

• Suspect 'handed out radical leaflets'

  23 May 2013

• How far is Britain willing to go to prevent modern jihad?

  25 May 2013

The tirade went on: “What Cameron describes as a 'sickening’ attack is what innocent Muslim woman and children are subjected to every day by British troops. Don’t expect Muslims to simply turn the other cheek.

“The British Army has a woeful record of abuses against unarmed Muslims across the globe. It’s an eye for an eye, so you can lump it.”

One of the suspects in the attack, Michael Adebolajo, is thought to have tried to travel to Somalia, possibly to join al-Shabaab, security sources claim.

The shadowy militants who control large areas of the country have welcomed foreigners to their ranks.

Estimates of the number of foreign fighters in al-Shabaab vary widely, but a report released last year by the Royal United Services Institute suggested that about 50 Britons were believed to be fighting in Somalia.

Many are likely to be of Somali origin, but Muslim converts from some Western nations are believed to have links with al-Shabaab.

Last year intelligence experts warned that Britons were being recruited to fight for the militant group and that Somalia was becoming a vital training ground for British jihadis. Kenyan police believe Jermaine Grant, on trial in Mombasa on charges of possessing explosives, has links to the militants.

His accomplice Samantha Lewthwaite is on the run, with some reports suggesting that she has crossed into Somalia.

Lewthwaite, who faces the same charges as Grant, is the widow of the 7/7 King’s Cross bomber Germaine Lindsay.

“The ideology of the Shabaab is a threat to the world,” Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, the president of Somalia, told The Telegraph earlier this month.

“It has been proven there has been a link between Shabaab and elements in the UK … I will not rule out that there is element with the Shabaab ideology in the UK and once that element is there in the UK the risk and the threat is there.”

Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri formally welcomed al-Shabaab to the terror network’s ranks last year.

Woolwich attack: Somali terrorists warn Britain: 'Your chickens are coming home to roost’ - Telegraph

Woolwich attack provokes anti-Muslim backlash across UK

 

By Tom Whitehead, Security Editor 12:59PM BST 25 May 2013

The murder of soldier Lee Rigby has provoked a backlash of anti-Muslim anger across the UK, including the attacking of mosques, racial abuse and comments on social media.

Lee Rigby poses with (L-R) wife Rebecca Rigby, sisters Sara McClure and Chelsea Rigby, and his mother and stepfather Ian and Lyn Rigby Photo: GETTY

Women come to lay flowers near the scene of the killing of a British soldier in Woolwich Photo: REUTERS

Reports of attacks to one helpline have increased more than six fold in the days since Wednesday’s atrocity, allegedly carried out by Islamic fanatics.

They have included “focused, very aggressive attacks”, a spokesman said.

A number of people were appearing in various courts around the country for a series of unrelated alleged racist incidents.

Police in Newcastle were also bracing themselves for a rally organised by the English Defence League and arrested three people ahead of the event for allegedly making racist tweets.

Related Articles

• Flowers and tributes placed by stream of well-wishers at scene

  25 May 2013

• How far is Britain willing to go to prevent modern jihad?

  25 May 2013

• Suspect's mother 'tried to prevent radicalisation'

  24 May 2013

• Angel of Woolwich 'just did what mums do'

  24 May 2013

• You're one in a million: soldier's last text to mother

  24 May 2013

Faith Matters, which works to reduce extremism, said its helpline had been inundated with reports of attacks, including some on mosques.

Before the Woolwich murder between four to eight cases a day were reported but it had received up to 150 in the last few days.

Fiyaz Mughal, director of Faith Matters, told BBC Radio Five Live: "What's really concerning is the spread of these incidents. They're coming in from right across the country.

"Secondly, some of them are quite aggressive very focused, very aggressive attacks. And thirdly, there also seems to be significant online activity ... suggesting co-ordination of incidents and attacks against institutions or places where Muslims congregate."

A 22-year-old man was appearing before magistrates in Lincoln charged with making malicious comments on Facebook.

Benjamin Flatters, from the city, was arrested on Thursday after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on the social networking site which were allegedly of a racist or antireligious nature, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

Avon and Somerset Police arrested and bailed two men for making alleged offensive comments on Twitter about the murder.

A 23-year-old and a 22-year-old, both from Bristol, were held under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred.

Detective Inspector Ed Yaxley of Avon and Somerset Police said: "These comments were directed against a section of our community. Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol.

"People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious."

Two men, from London, were also due to appear at Thames Magistrates Court charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour over an incident in an east London fast food restaurant on Thursday.

Labourer Toni Latcal, 32, was charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour and causing criminal damage while plasterer Eugen-Aurelian Eugen-Beredei, 34, was charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour.

Surrey Police said a 19-year-old man has been charged in connection with comments placed on a social media website following the murder of the soldier.

In Surrey, Mohammed Mazar, 19, of Balmoral Drive, Woking, has been charged in connection with comments placed on a social media website following the murder of the soldier.

He was freed on police bail to appear at South West Surrey Magistrates' Court on June 11.

Superintendent Matt Goodridge said: "Surrey Police will not tolerate language used in a public place, including on social media websites, which causes harassment, alarm or distress."

Adam Rogers, 28, of Kingsman Street, Woolwich, has been charged by police after allegedly posting an offensive message on Facebook.

He was to appear at Brighton Magistrates' Court accused of sending an "offensive, indecent or menacing message" online.

Meanwhile, a 23-year-old woman has been charged with allegedly sending a "grossly offensive" message on Facebook, Hampshire Constabulary said.

Michaela Turner, of Lumsden Road, Southsea, was arrested at her home after a post was uploaded at 10.42pm on Wednesday. The post has since been removed.

A police spokesman said: "Following the terrorist incident in Woolwich this week, Hampshire Constabulary is working closely with local partnership groups to safeguard all members of the community.

"This includes monitoring social networking sites, and we will seek to arrest and prosecute anyone inciting hatred or violence online."

Woolwich attack provokes anti-Muslim backlash across UK - Telegraph

Woolwich attack: Cheers for our heroes... we will not be moved

By Tom Whitehead, Ruth Sherlock and Gordon Rayner

10:00PM BST 24 May 2013

For Britain’s soldiers, there was never any question of hiding. Nor was there any possibility of the public holding back in their show of solidarity.

Over 300 soldiers marched through the streets of York on Friday Photo: Getty Images

Proudly marching through the streets of York with cheers ringing in their ears, the men and women of 2nd Signal Regiment — recently returned from Afghanistan — were greeted by thousands of people lining the streets to welcome them home.

In the hours after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby by alleged Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, south-east London, on Wednesday, the Ministry of Defence had advised servicemen and women not to go out in uniform — an order that was promptly ignored by soldiers who refused to be cowed and almost immediately rescinded.

300 members of the Armed Forces were cheered by well-wishers who waved Union flags and wore Help for Heroes (H4H) T-shirts in an uplifting show of defiance.

The regiment’s commanding officer described the response as a “testament to the character of the British people”.

And the public have shown their defiance in other ways. It emerged last night that £600,000 has been donated to the H4H military charity since the death of Drummer Rigby, who was wearing one of its T-shirts when he was killed.

Related Articles

• Rigby family pay tribute to 'hero'  24 May 2013

• Police let women risk their lives during wait for armed back up 24 May 2013

• Pair's former university played host to extremists 24 May 2013

• Woolwich attack: Pair nearly attacked me, says neighbour 24 May 2013

• Woolwich attack: Baroness Warsi praises united response after terrorist attack  24 May 2013

Police are still waiting to question suspects Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, who allegedly killed the 25-year-old. Adebolajo was seen on video with his hands red with blood after the killing. In another dramatic day since the incident:

• MI5 and the police faced renewed scrutiny as it emerged that both suspects were linked to the now banned fanatical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, which has had links to one in five convicted terrorists.

• former Metropolitan Police chief called for urgent clarity on whether the security services and police had let the men slip through the net following revelations that they had been known to the authorities for up to a decade.

• The widow of Drummer Rigby, who was from Manchester, and mother of his two-year-old son told how she was “proud to be his wife” and would “always love him”. In a heartfelt tribute, Rebecca Rigby said: “He was due to come up this weekend so we could continue our future together as a family. He was a devoted father to our son Jack and we will both miss him terribly.”

• Two RAF fighter jets were scrambled to escort a Pakistani passenger plane to Stansted airport after two passengers tried to get into the cockpit, claiming they had a bomb.

• It emerged that Adebowale is the son of a probation officer and a Nigerian embassy official. His mother had tried for five years to turn him away from extremism.

Lt Col Colin Vaudin, commanding officer of 2nd Signal Regiment, who returned from a six-month tour of Afghanistan last week, said he was “humbled” by the crowd in York.

He added: “They’ve been very, very large, very supportive and hearing their claps and shouts of support means so much to myself and the soldiers of my regiment.”

His wife, Jenny, who was in the crowd, said of the Woolwich atrocity: “The good part of it is people are joining together in a show of solidarity and strength against acts like this, which are absolutely abhorrent.”

In London, Baroness Warsi, the minister of faith and communities, praised the country’s united response. She told The Daily Telegraph: “The potential for Woolwich being incendiary was huge. But instead, we’ve come out united, resolute, and unreserved in our response: we Muslims are revolted by what we’ve seen.”

MI5 and the police face fresh questions over their dealings with Adebolajo and Adebowale as more evidence of their links to extremism emerged. Omar Bakri Mohammed, the leader of al-Muhajiroun, confirmed that both men had been members of his former fanatical group, which was banned in 2010.

The Telegraph reported that Adebolajo had been associated with the group and Bakri Mohammed’s deputy, Anjem Choudary, and had a violent past. Speaking from Lebanon, Bakri Mohammed, who has been banned from the UK, said his “brothers in London” also had links with Adebowale.

He said: “Choudary knows his family well. He told me that Michael Adebowale man was known as Abdul Wahed.”

Research by the Henry Jackson Society, a think tank, has shown that of all those convicted of Islamic-inspired terrorism offences between 1998 and 2010, 18 per cent were either members of or had previous links to al-Muhajiroun.

At David Cameron’s request, the parliamentary intelligence and security committee is to investigate MI5’s dealings with the two suspects after it emerged that they had been assessed as not posing a threat to life.

Lord Blair, who was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner between 2005 and 2008, said the public must be told urgently whether the men were allowed to slip through the net. He said that in the aftermath of the 7/7 suicide bombings in 2005, the public had to wait four years to learn whether MI5 could have done more to prevent the atrocity.

He said: “I think it’s important for the public to have somebody say within the limits of legality that either something was mistaken, decisions were badly taken, or they weren’t, because I think it’s important for the public to know that security services and the police are operating properly.”

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, said that the Prime Minister wanted to know “what went right and what went wrong” and expected a “thorough investigation”. The minister also stressed it was impossible for the security services to monitor and control everyone. “We need to be realistic that a free and open society is always vulnerable,” he said.

Richard Barrett, a former head of counter-terrorism at MI6, said it was hard to detect in advance attacks like that seen in Woolwich.

Woolwich attack: Cheers for our heroes... we will not be moved - Telegraph

Council vetoes flag of St George after concerns raised about links to Crusades

By Victoria Ward 4:42PM BST 15 May 2013

A local council decided against flying the flag of St George after concerns were raised that it would offend the town’s 16 Muslim residents.

The flag of St George. Not a sight that will be seen in Radstock anytime soon Photo: ALAMY

Eleanor Jackson, a university lecturer, said the red and white symbol could cause upset in Radstock, Somerset, because it was used during the Crusades 1,000 years ago.

The Labour councillor voiced her concerns at a meeting called to discuss which flag should be purchased to fly atop the town's repaired civic flagpole.

She said: “My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims, but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right.

"My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years."

Radstock Town Council, which serves a local population of more than 5,600 residents, eventually decided to purchase a Union flag to fly on Armistice Day.

Related Articles

• The growing cry for England and St George 23 Apr 2013

• Cameron 'equally proud to be English and British'  23 Apr 2013

• Let's hear it for the winners of Britain in Bloom 2012 24 Oct 2012

• Alan Titchmarsh: I'm proud to fly the Union flag 23 Apr 2013

The rainbow flag of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement will be flown at “appropriate” times of the year while an In Bloom flag will celebrate the town's achievements in the gardening competition.

The objections raised about the flag of St George were branded “oversensitive” by the local Muslim community while the Muslim Council of Britain said England's patron saint should not be associated with “any hatred of Muslims”.

Spokeswoman Nasima Begum said: "St George needs to take his rightful place as a national symbol of inclusivity rather than a symbol of hatred.”

Rizwan Ahmed, spokesman for the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said: "I think they are going a bit far here.

"It is political correctness going a bit too far.

"Use by the far right is one thing, but to say that Muslims are offended I don't think is correct. We understand the flag is part of this country's heritage, and in fact many many Muslims will identify as being British themselves.

"In actual fact we are normal people. We have a sense of humour and have the same concerns as everyone else – we are not just some single group."

Lesley Mansell, the council chair, insisted that the discussion focused primarily on buying a Union flag.

“We were presented a list of every flag we can fly as a local authority but the council agreed that we did not want to fly all of them and simply wanted to purchase our own Union Jack," she said.

“The statement made by one councillor regarding the St George’s flag was not really taken into consideration.”

Council vetoes flag of St George after concerns raised about links to Crusades - Telegraph

Councillors 'trading insults and speaking at official meetings in Bengali'

 

By Andrew Hough 6:00PM BST 15 May 2013

Councillors are trading insults and speaking in foreign languages at meetings, prompting concern that it undermined public accountability, it emerged tonight.

Peter Golds said some of the Bengali-speaking councillors have to translate for him so he can follow proceedings Photo: Clara Molden

Some elected representatives have been accused of slipping into their native tongue at Town Hall gatherings, instead of conducting official business in English.

Some visitors have complained they have been unable to follow proceedings because, when councillors lose their tempers, they appear to trade insults in a foreign language.

Critics tonight attacked councils which allowed public officials to speak foreign languages at meetings, prompting fears the “divisive” practice undermined transparency.

The controversy emerged today at one of London’s biggest local authorities after a councillor formally complained that he was insulted by a colleague in the Bengali language, widely spoken by people from Bangladesh.

One councillor at Tower Hamlet’s council, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was accused of calling colleague Abdal Ullah, a “shurer batcha”, which is translated to mean "Son of a pig".

The comments came during a heated exchange between the pair at a meeting last month, triggering a row within the as the slur is considered extremely offensive to Muslims.

While Cllr Ullah, a Labour councillor, protested at the insult, many English-speaking councillors and other public visitors failed to realise its significance because it was issued in a foreign language.

Some councillors later claimed the issue was widespread and did not just involve trading insults.

It is understood that other members of the public have complained to Town Hall bosses about the use of Bengali during meetings.

It was also suggested that some of the Bengali-speaking councillors have been forced translate for their colleagues.

In a letter to the council's Standards Committee, Councillor Ullah raised concerns about the lack of power to enforce only English being used in council meetings.

“Whilst we may have our differences, councillors should afford one another courtesy in our exchanges rather than resorting to unnecessary and abusive insults,” he wrote.

"In my view the use of Bengali or other languages – other than in translation during public questions or petitions and so on – disrupts the transparency and openness of meeting by preventing some present from understanding the exchanges taking place."

Tonight, Peter Golds, the leader of the council’s Conservative group, said Bengali is was being “used in a very foul manner”.

He added: “At a full council meeting the language should be one that all members of the public should understand.

“It is a very serious problem here that a number of councillors insist on speaking in Bengali.”

"It is not just when they get emotional. It happens a lot. Even when they are travelling in a lift before going into a meeting, they will suddenly begin talking in Bengali.”

Brandon Lewis, the Local Government minister, last night criticised the revelations.

"This is a deeply worrying and divisive move. Council meetings should be held in English,” said the Conservative MP for Great Yarmouth.

"Using foreign languages not only undermines transparency and accountability, but it threatens to promote segregation and harm community cohesion.

"Councils in diverse communities should be encouraging everyone to learn and speak English and not practise the politics of division."

According to official figures, more than half of Tower Hamlets’ population are from non-white British ethnic groups.

Almost a third thirty per cent are of Bangladeshi origin, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said in the 2011 Census.

A Tower Hamlets Council spokesman said tonight: "Council proceedings are carried out in English and members’ and officers’ conduct in the chamber is subject to the council’s code of conduct.”

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said it was the right of councillors to speak in a foreign language dependent upon each local council's constitution.

The councillor at the centre of the row did not respond to inquiries.

Councillors 'trading insults and speaking at official meetings in Bengali' - Telegraph

Charles and the family firm

Kate Mansey and Peter Conradi From: The Australian

May 15, 2013 12:00AM

Prince Charles's presence beside the Queen at the opening of the British parliament last week suggests he will assume greater responsibility in coming months. Picture: AFP Source: AFP

FOR monarchy, symbolism is everything. So what better place to put the new royal order on display than the state opening of parliament, the glitziest and highest profile event in the Queen's annual calendar?

As she read -- with the occasional uncharacteristic stumble -- the government's legislative program last week, the Queen was accompanied not just by the Duke of Edinburgh but also, for the first time, by Charles and Camilla.

Their thrones, of course, were less grand and were set lower, and the Queen Mother's Boucheron tiara worn by the Duchess of Cornwall was outshone by the 3000 precious stones of the Imperial State Crown resting heavily on the Queen's head. But the message of this unprecedented line-up in the House of Lords was clear: change is afoot at the top of the Firm.

What a difference a year makes. The diamond jubilee celebrations in June last year -- culminating in the royal barge's progress down a rain-swept Thames -- were very much the Queen's affair, even though Charles won plaudits for his speech during the concert at Buckingham Palace in which he paid tribute to "mummy".

In retrospect, however, the four-day warm-up for the Olympics will be seen to have been a turning point in the history of the monarchy and a milestone on the way to the post-Elizabethan era.

Consider what has happened since. First, there has been the inevitable deterioration in Prince Philip's health, demonstrated that jubilee weekend when he was laid low with a bladder infection and had to go to hospital, followed by the abandonment by the Queen of a trip to Italy in March after she, too, was hospitalised suffering from what the palace described as "the symptoms of gastroenteritis".

Then there has been the growing public profile of princes William and Harry, the latter back in the US last week for the first time since last summer's ill-fated holiday in Las Vegas. This time he has remained fully clothed and on his best behaviour. Most significant of all, there was the announcement on the eve of the Queen's speech that Charles would take her place at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in November.

It will be the first such summit the Queen has missed in the past 40 years and an indication, perhaps, that Charles is attempting to stake a claim to becoming the head of the Commonwealth, a role that will not be his automatically when he finally succeeds his mother.

A generational change is under way in the House of Windsor; the birth this northern summer of the third in line to the throne will add to this impression. Quite how fast this change will happen and what form it will take, only the next few months will tell.

First, what will not happen. The Queen, 87, has no intention of going Dutch. Abdication may have become established practice for the House of Orange -- as 75-year-old Queen Beatrix's departure last month showed -- but Edward VIII's giving up of the throne in 1936 has never been something that his niece would countenance.

Nor, as the Queen's aides insisted last week, can there be any question of tinkering with the rules to allow Charles to take over any time soon as regent, which at present can happen only in the case of the monarch being formally declared incapable of discharging her duties.

The palace is at pains to insist the Queen is in robust health.

"The Queen was out riding last weekend so there is absolutely no suggestion that there are any underlying health problems and she has not ruled out the possibility of taking a long-haul trip in the future," an aide said last week. Still, it was notable that there was not the usual announcement of forthcoming foreign tours at the end of her speech. Could none be planned?

The health of Philip gives more cause for concern, even if he appears commendably reluctant to slow down. During a visit to Canada last month he appeared to have a black eye, explained away by his staff, who said the 91-year-old simply wakes up with bruises from time to time.

A probable scenario, according to palace aides, is a more subtle, creeping change in the structure of the Firm. According to one palace insider, we are looking at the prospect of the royal family changing by a process of "evolution" rather than "revolution". As another insider puts it: it will be "more of a merger than a takeover".

What of the Firm's chief-executive-in-waiting? For years it was thought that the main shadow over the reign of the future King Charles III would be cast by his consort. At the time he married Camilla Parker Bowles in 2005, she was still widely reviled for her role in the break-up of the prince's marriage to Diana.

A delicate PR job has succeeded in rehabilitating the image of the Duchess of Cornwall in the eyes of the public. Following sound advice from aides, Camilla has backed charities close to her heart, refusing to become merely a "letter-head patron" of causes she knows nothing about.

Among many others she chose literacy, because she loves reading and wants more people to enjoy it, and domestic abuse and osteoporosis because she wants to help other women and her mother was afflicted with the latter.

In person, friends say, she is warm and friendly. "She has got a great sense of humour," says one source. "On one occasion she was due to meet Boris Johnson (the mayor of London). When she arrived she came into view riding a bicycle. He thought it was hilarious and took to her immediately."

The duchess is clearly more popular than she was; that being said, only 16 per cent of people questioned in a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times recently think she should be given the title of queen, against 46 per cent who would prefer her simply to be princess consort.

Charles's popularity is on the rise. The same poll shows that 50 per cent think he will be a good king when the time comes, compared with 37 per cent when the same question was asked in May last year.

Nevertheless, questions remain about his behaviour. As the longest serving heir to the throne, Charles, who will turn 65 in November, has had to create a role for himself as Prince of Wales.

The only predecessor to spend anything like as much time on permanent hold was his great-great-grandfather Edward VII, who was 59 when he finally followed his mother, Victoria, on to the throne -- but no one would suggest that his lifetime of philandering had made him much of a role model.

The Queen came to the throne so young -- she was just 25 -- that she had no need to give much thought to her role as heir. As the decades have passed, Charles has considered it his duty to speak his mind and stand up for the causes he believes in.

In the past few years he has toned down his pronouncements. Once he denounced modern architecture and also alarmed the medical establishment with praise for homeopathic medicine.

In recent months, by contrast, he has stood in as a weather forecaster during a trip to the BBC Scotland studios and guest edited an episode of the BBC's Countryfile. Not exactly controversial.

There are, nevertheless, occasional flashes of his old, more combative self: last week he used a speech given at St James's Palace to criticise "corporate lobbyists" and climate change sceptics whom he accused of turning the Earth into a "dying patient".

More potentially damaging are his attempts to wield influence behind the scenes. As long ago as 1979 the prince was reprimanded by Margaret Thatcher, who feared he was creating his own alternative Foreign and Commonwealth Office. During a walk through the rose gardens at Balmoral, Thatcher raised the issue with Charles and the pair came to an agreement.

Today the prince has a member of his staff seconded to the Cabinet Office and one of its civil servants is working for him. This handy exchange means that the government will learn his views and he can better understand what it is working on.

The shadow hanging over him is the spectre of the so-called "black spider memos", hand-written letters dashed off by the prince to ministers through the years containing what are believed to be trenchant expressions of his views. Campaigners have been trying for years to make use of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to these letters, described last year by Dominic Grieve, Britain's attorney-general, as "particularly frank".

Last week the battle moved into a new phase: in the High Court. Tellingly, Grieve has blocked the demand on the grounds that publishing the letters may undermine public perceptions of Charles being politically neutral and damage his future role as king.

"It is highly important that he is not considered by the public to favour one political party or another," Grieve has said.

The Queen has kept her views to herself scrupulously during her 61 years on the throne. Charles will probably do the same from now on; the real problem is that pile of "particularly frank" memos already out there that could yet come back to haunt him.

The prince may have looked the part last week, dressed like his father in an admiral's uniform, clanking with medals. But no transition at a family firm, however well planned, is ever completely seamless. This one is unlikely to prove an exception.

Kate Mansey is royal correspondent for The Sunday Times. Peter Conradi's book The Great Survivors: How Monarchy Made It into the Twenty-First Century is published by Alma Books.

Charles and the family firm | The Australian