You can’t fight an enemy you won’t name; you can’t discredit an ideology seeking to destroy your way of life when you’re afraid to pin down the specifics except, perhaps, for the use of violence. All “extremism” amounts to is a position relative to others, which is why hoping for “moderation” is also useless without meaningful points of reference. The measures announced by Prime Minister Cameron’s officeÂ to include advocacy for Sharia law as an “extremist” position will constitute progress to the extent that they are implemented. “Failed anti-terror campaigns ‘waste of money’, Prevent strategy admits,” by Andrew Hough and Duncan Gardham for theÂ Telegraph, June 7 (thanks to JW):
The “flawed” efforts by the previous government to focus on international projects “diverted valuable resources” away from preventing home-grown terrorism, the new Prevent strategy will concede.
The strategy, being launched on Tuesday by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will also say that such efforts also undermined attempts to “convince Muslim Communities” that “terrorism is unacceptable and wrong”.
Hopeless. To ‘strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers’ is the essence of the whole Â Islamic belief-system. This is not going anywhere…..
Mrs May will also admit that some of the annual Â£63 million funding to tackle extremism, which is split between the Home Office, Foreign office and Department for Communities, has been handed to groups with hard-line beliefs.
Around 20 groups will have funding withdrawn.
The strategy will say that previous messages about terrorism were put out by the government without a clear idea of the audience for whom they were intended.
“At best, this wasted money and diverted valuable resources,” the report says.
“At worst, it gave the impression that the Government had to convince Muslim communities in this country of something which the vast majority know very well already â€“ that terrorism is unacceptable and wrong.”
There’s an easy way around that for Muslim groups: condemn terrorism for public consumption, while maintaining jihad warfare is something altogether different.
It argues that in future overseas work “must wherever possible have a demonstrable impact on UK domestic security”.
The document says: “Previous work in this area has made some progress but has not consistently reached the few people who are most susceptible to terrorist propaganda.
“It has failed to recognise the way in which terrorist ideology makes use of ideas espoused by extremist organisations and has not fully understood the implications this should have for the scope for our work.
One step forward, two steps back:
“It has not effectively engaged with and used the influence and reach of communities and community groups.Â Previous Prevent work has sometimes given the impression that Muslim communities as a whole are more ‘vulnerable’ to radicalisation than other faith or ethnic groups.”…
Yes, please keep “engaging with” all those Methodist youth who are vulnerable to radicalization, and might blow up a bus while singing “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling.”…
Look no further:
Possibly in the audience that day was theÂ underwear jihadist. And who knows who else. This speaker has continued to give talks at “London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies, Queen Mary and Bart’s and atÂ UCL.” “Terrorism works, preacher told students,” by Duncan Gardham for theÂ Telegraph, June 6:
Abdur Raheem Green, a Muslim convert and former public schoolboy, told students at University College London that a “permanent state of war exists between the people of Islam and the people who opposed Islam”.
He gave the speech, seen by The Daily Telegraph, to the university’s Islamic society while Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab, the Detroit bomber, was a student there in 2005.
A review byÂ UCLÂ into the Abdulmutallab case failed to analyse speeches made by the preacher and other visitors. It concluded that “speakers with controversial but not illegal views were welcome to the extent that they could be expected to stimulate debate”.
The disclosure follows a statement by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in an interview with this newspaper, in which she said there had beenÂ “complacency” by universities about Islamic extremism.
The Government’s Prevent strategy to combat extremism will say it is “concerned that some universities and colleges have failed to engage” with the project, and cite a study showing that at least 55 per cent of institutions did not frequently engage with authorities running the scheme.
Qasim Rafiq, a spokesman for the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, invited Mr Green to speak atÂ UCLÂ along with two speakers from the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and another who has supported the Taliban.
Since then, Mr Green has been invited to give lectures at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies, Queen Mary and Bart’s and atÂ UCL.
Referring to bin Laden in his 2005Â UCLÂ speech, Mr Green, who claims he is not an extremist, said: “His rational [sic] is … we are going to keep on killing your women and children until you stop killing our women and children. How do you argue with that?”
Citing theÂ IRA,Â he added: “The other thing is that it seems that terrorism works. We certainly have precedent.”
Saqib Sattar, a trustee of the Islamic Education and Research Academy, where Mr Green works, said: “The aim of the talk was to combat indiscriminate violence and terrorism and not advocate it.”
Violence and terrorism for discriminating tastes?
A spokesman forÂ UCLÂ said the inquiry had been aware of the speech but added: “Provided the law is observed, we do not operate a ‘no platform’ policy in relation to speakers with controversial, distasteful or even repugnant views.”
The useful idiots spring into action: