Sunday, 13 January 2008

MI5: 40% of White converts help Al-Qaeda

By Richard Elias

HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage war against the West, senior security sources warned last night.

As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source.

Lord Carlile, the Government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, said many of the converts had been targeted by radical Muslims while serving prison terms.


Since the 7/7 and 21/7 London bombings, police and intelligence services have had considerable success in identifying, disrupting and stopping extremist plots. As a result, groups such as al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen have been forced to change tack. Converting white non-Muslims has been one response.

The trend is well established in the United States. American-born Adam Gadahn is one of the FBI's top 10 most-wanted terrorists after converting to Islam and rising through al-Qaeda's ranks to become a prominent spokesman.

One British security source last night told Scotland on Sunday: "There could be anything up to 1,500 converts to the fundamentalist cause across Britain. They pose a real potential danger to our domestic security because, obviously, these people blend in and do not raise any flags.

"The exact figure of those who have converted to Islam and turned to terror is not precisely known. Not everyone who converts becomes radicalised and it may be that just two-fifths go down that path, but it remains a significant and dangerous problem."

Carlile said he was not aware of specific numbers, but confirmed to Scotland on Sunday that Whitehall was aware of the new threat and was actively tackling it. He said: "These people are an issue and are potentially very dangerous. There have been cases of non-Muslims converting before, and of these, Richard Reid, the so-called Shoebomber, is the most obvious example.

"They are more difficult to detect and the security services are right to place some focus on this issue."

....Robert Leiken, director of the Immigration and National Security Programme and a specialist on European Muslims based at the Nixon Centre in Washington DC, said: "To me, the figure of 1,500 seems reasonable as many, perhaps less than a third, will actually go on to become radicals.

"New religious recruits always tend to be more zealous than those who have grown up with that specific religion."


Fortunately, the path of war against the West for new converts only seems to apply to this religion, and not say born again Christians, newly born Buddhists, newly hatched Hindus, or even newly annulled atheists.

Edwin Bakker, a Dutch-based security specialist, has studied at length the issue of radical conversions. He said: "The question is relevant and timely. Newcomers to Islam are extra-sensitive to perceived discrimination of Muslims and Islam-bashing.

"They feel they have to defend Islam – one of the essential concepts of Jihad – and they feel they have to prove themselves as newcomers."

But one of Scotland's leading Muslims disputed the claims of radicalisation, saying Islam's strict moral code made it unattractive to many westerners.

Bashir Maan added: "I do not know of any Islamist terror group in Scotland and, considering as a Muslim a person must pray five times daily, abstain from drinking (and] sex outside marriage, adhere to strict dietary and many other rules, it is impossible to convert to Islam a young person brought up in this very liberal society.

"I agree that the security services must be vigilant and keep their eye on everybody, but I think in this case they seem to be over-reacting."

I would just like to say Islam is religion of peace and the 1/3 or 2/5 who go down the path of radicalism are misunderstanding their new religion. How dare I suggest otherwise.

14 comments:

judiciousoversight said...

You're obsessed with Muslims. How's the BNP? Got your jackboots ready for the annual conference? Will there be one this year, after all the splits?

See how cretinous that line is?

marvin said...

Hahaha! Now that sounds like a more common criticism of my posts.

My answer is that when a significant portion of another group of people declare war on the West, and cause carnage on the streets of London, then I'll take my attention to them, and their motivations and ideology.

Be they white supremacists, jews, christians, atheists, aliens, dwarves or any group.

judiciousoversight said...

Yes, it's a common criticism and it's a stupid one. But you used it against me, didn't you?

You still haven't explained how Jews are the canaries in the British coalmine. They're not, of course, but because you don't think for yourself, you've accepted that bit of false propaganda.

marvin said...

Oh you twit.

You need to do reading up on history.

Jews have been persecuted on and off for the past 2000 years. The Romans treated them as second class citizens or worse, there were massacres in the crusades, they were expelled from England, Germany, France, Spain and Portugal etc.

Oh and Hitler gassed about 6 million of them in WWII.

The Jews have always been the first to be demonised and persecuted throughout the past 2,000 years.

Jews took part in the killing of Christ. Quite a few people follow Chrisitianity, in case you didn't know.

judiciousoversight said...

I think your problem, Marvin, is simply that you're stupid. And there's no cure for that. Still, let me try again:

You claimed that Jews are the canaries in the British coalmine. Canaries are affected before miners. Got that? Be-fore min-ers. So where are the Jews in the UK who have been murdered because of their race? You haven't produced any. Here are some whites who have been murdered because of their race: Kriss Donald; Ross Parker; Christopher Yates. So who are the canaries in the UK? (Hint: canaries die BEFORE miners.)

The Jews have always been the first to be demonised and persecuted throughout the past 2,000 years.

Then where are the Jews in Britain who have been murdered because of their race? Where are the Jews who are being demonized for the failure of Britain's ethnic minorities, as whites have been for decades?

You need to do reading up on history.

Jews have been persecuted on and off for the past 2000 years.


Obviously it's you who needs to do the reading up, because it's been much longer than 2000 years.

The Romans treated them as second class citizens or worse,

How unfair. Still, the Jews weren't exactly free of prejudice themselves.

there were massacres in the crusades, they were expelled from England, Germany, France, Spain and Portugal etc.

Yes, the sob-story that you swallow without thinking for yourself. Jews have certainly been persecuted, but they have also often flourished in non-Jewish countries, where they have provoked hostility by their behaviour. Jews are famous for their dishonesty. One modern example is the way they pretend they're the canaries in the British coalmine when a) they quite clearly aren't; b) they're largely responsible for the multi-culti disaster. But with non-Jewish stupidity like yours, they don't lack for credulous sheep to bleat their propaganda.

marvin said...

Yawn. Ok nazi boy, whatever you say. Why don't you go comment elsewhere, perhaps where somone might agree with your crackpot ideas? Stormfront I think would be a good start for you.

You can talk about the holohaux to your hearts content. ;)

judiciousoversight said...

Look, I won't gloat if you admit you were wrong about Jews being the canaries in the British coalmine. I would admire your courage: I couldn't do it myself, in a similar position.

Yawn. Ok nazi boy, whatever you say. Why don't you go comment elsewhere, perhaps where somone might agree with your crackpot ideas?

You're the one who's unable to back his ideas with evidence. Even in countries where Jews ARE murdered because of their race (e.g. France) they don't suffer as much as whites do.

marvin said...

It's not a competition. But, throughout history, Jews have been specifically targeted and demonised because they are Jews.

This has not happened to whites. However whites have done the targeting plenty of times.

You do not have leg to stand on. Please tell me the numerous times throughout history where whites have been persecuted for being white?

I am white myself, I know hundreds of white people, indirectly, thousands. And I have never come to learnt that anyone of them have 'suffered' for simply being white Thats not to say it doesn't happen. But your supurious claim that 'whites suffer more than jews' is insanity. Are you aware of white skinheads, neo-nazis? Who do they hate most? Are you aware of all the islamists? Who do they hate most?

judiciousoversight said...

Look, you keep reasoning a priori without producing evidence for your claims about modern Britain. And I predict you don't know what a priori means. I do not deny that Jews have been persecuted and demonized throughout history. I do deny that they are suffering most in modern Britain, because they clearly aren't. Whites are demonized in modern Britain for being racist and oppressing non-whites. Jews are not. Please be honest and admit that. Whites are murdered in modern Britain because of their race. Jews, so far, are not. Please admit that. White victims of racism far outnumber Jewish victims of antisemitism. Please admit that.

This is quite beside the white victims of murder, rape and assault who aren't specifically targeted for their race or can't be shown to be so.

Thats not to say it doesn't happen. But your supurious claim that 'whites suffer more than jews' is insanity.

If it's spurious and insane, where are the Jewish equivalents of Kriss Donald, Ross Parker and Christopher Yates? You can't produce any. So how can Jews be the canaries in the coalmine? Please explain or admit that it isn't so.

Are you aware of white skinheads, neo-nazis? Who do they hate most? Are you aware of all the islamists? Who do they hate most?

They hate Jews most. It does not follow that Jews are suffering most. Jews are far outnumbered by Muslims in the UK, but you cannot produce a single Jew who has been murdered by Muslims because of his race. But there have been numerous whites murdered and viciously assaulted by Muslims because of their race. Please admit the truth and stop peddling fantasies.

marvin said...

As I said a lot earlier, can you produce 166 white victim of a racist attack? Because unless you can, then statistically you cannot say that whites are more likely to be murdered because of their race :)

Oh and using latin does make you more intelligent, try reading George Orwell's Politics and the English Language

"A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity."

marvin said...

*that should say 166 victims of racist murders

judiciousoversight said...

So you don't have the honesty to admit the truth: that whites are suffering far more than Jews and that Jews are not the canaries in the coalmine.

As I said a lot earlier, can you produce 166 white victim of a racist attack? Because unless you can, then statistically you cannot say that whites are more likely to be murdered because of their race

Here's your reasoning:

There are 50 million whites, and 300,000 Jews. So if there were equal number of racist murders as a % of population, then there would be 166 white murders for every 1 Jewish murder.

Let me try and explain again. A minority should suffer more than the majority, because there should be more attackers outside the minority than inside it. So the % for Jews should be higher than for whites. Do you understand that? I doubt it. It isn't higher: it's far lower: 0% of the Jewish population, because you haven't produced a single example of a Jew murdered because of his or her race.

"A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity."

Yes, as I predicted, you didn't know what a priori meant. I've not only read that essay, I've understood it. You've only read it. This is what Orwell says about good style:

"Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one's meaning."

That is what I did. If you don't know what a priori means, it's further evidence that you're not capable of understanding why your ideas are wrong or of thinking for yourself and throwing off your brain-washing.

marvin said...

Hopefully I've 'thrown off my brainwashing' with my latest post.

judiciousoversight said...

Yes, you have. Or you've started to. As I know from personal experience, it doesn't happen overnight.