Your Ad Here
2005 July 10 Sunday
Islamic Terrorists Recruiting At British Universities

The Sunday Times of London has gotten ahold of a British government dossier on terrorist recruiting activities in Britain.

The Whitehall dossier, ordered by Tony Blair following last year’s train bombings in Madrid, says: “Extremists are known to target schools and colleges where young people may be very inquisitive but less challenging and more susceptible to extremist reasoning/ arguments.”

Even if only a half of a percent of British Muslims join up with radical organizations that number still is in thousands.

The dossier also estimates that 10,000 have attended extremist conferences. The security services believe that the number who are prepared to commit terrorist attacks may run into hundreds.

Most of the Al-Qaeda recruits tend to be loners “attracted to university clubs based on ethnicity or religion” because of “disillusionment with their current existence”. British-based terrorists are made up of different ethnic groups, according to the documents.

“They range from foreign nationals now naturalised and resident in the UK, arriving mainly from north Africa and the Middle East, to second and third generation British citizens whose forebears mainly originate from Pakistan or Kashmir.

“In addition . . . a significant number come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds or (are) only converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction.”

How well are the loners doing in their classes when they are recruited? Are they above or below average? Do they feel inferior to other students? Do they feel inadequate? Do attractive women treat them as undesirable? Are they introverts? Depressed? Anxious?

The report describes terrorist recruiters who use British universities as their recruiting grounds. If those recruiters are not locked up or deported then the rate of attempt at terrorist attacks will almost certainly go up with time.

The Iraq war is creating terrorists, not stopping them.

The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

In the long run the Iraq war might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. If a significant portion of the Muslims in Western countries are going to go all alienated and become terrorists the sooner the larger public learns this the sooner pressures will build to stop letting them into Western countries. Even the ones who do not become terrorists do more poorly on average than native Europeans. So there is a big economic downside to letting them in as well. Plus, many of them do not have Western values. The larger argument against Muslim immigrants contains most of the arguments against Hispanic immigration plus additional arguments due to larger conflicts in beliefs and values. The demographic trends in Western countries might shift in a less unfavorable direction (still bad, just not as bad) due to the continued terrorist attacks in Europe.

I've made this argument in the past. Basically, more terrorist attacks against Europe and America in the short term will help to evoke an immune response in Europe before the demographic conditions become much worse. So the stupid US foreign policy of the Bush Administration toward the Middle East and Muslims in general might, by intensifying the clash of civilizations, wake up the West to the obvious fact that some belief systems are incompatible and irreconcilable. But a lot of believers in secular ideologies, like their supernatural religion believing counterparts, are pretty resistant to abandoning elements of their faith. Reality is going to have to pound on them pretty hard for the truth to sink in.

You can read the full text of the leaked British cabinet documents in a 4 part series here and here and here and here (all are PDF format).

The former London Metropolitan police chief, Lord Stevens, who retired early in 2005 says the London bombers are almost certainly British citizens and have some higher education.

“They will be apparently ordinary British citizens; young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education. Highly computer literate, they will have used the internet to research explosives. They are painstaking, cautious, clever and very sophisticated.”

Stevens said intelligence officers believed that up to 3,000 British-born or British-based people had passed through Osama Bin Laden’s training camps, some of whom returned home to become potential Islamic terrorists.

He said at least eight other separate terrorist attacks had been foiled in the past five years. At times up to 1,000 undercover officers had been working on one anti-terrorist operation.

The time to stop Islamic terrorists in the West is before either they or their parents immigrate to Western countries in the first place. While foolish and irresponsible elites of some Western countries have already stuck their populaces with substantial Muslim subpopulations which will commit terrorist attacks for decades to come Western governments could at least stop making the problem worse. Put an end to all Muslim immigration. If only one half of 1% of the children of Muslim immigrants become terrorists that is still far too many.

The Brits let "Londonistan" flourish for decades.

Yesterday, commentators in Europe claimed Britain had paid the price for allowing Islamic extremists to flourish unopposed in “Londonistan”.

The stinging rebuke came as an apparent backlash against Britain’s Muslim community began to emerge with a petrol-bomb attack on a mosque in Merseyside.

"Londonistan" is a sore point especially with the French. The police and intelligence agencies in France have complained for years that the British attitude was that the Islamic radicals could do anything they wanted as long as the radicals didn't carry out attacks on British soil. The Brits weren't worried about fund-raising and organizational activities that the radicals conducted in Britain because the radicals were seen as aiming to attack governments in the Middle East. The British welfare state paid the radicals monthly checks essentially to make babies and to build up organizations. Idle hands are the devil's workshop as grandma used to say. The British government granted asylum to radicals who claimed they were in danger of religious persecution in their home countries. Of course in some of those cases those radicals were advocating or even organizing terrorist attacks against Middle Eastern governments. So one could make an argument for Britain as paralleling (albeit to a much lesser extent) Taliban-ruled Afghanistan by providing a safe haven for Islamic radicals. Well, now those birds have come home to roost.

I see home grown terrorism as a challenge to the assumptions underlying the concept of citizenship. How can one claim the status of citizen when one rejects the legitimacy of the society that the overwhelming majority of its members accept and support? Why should the majority recognize the right of membership in a group for people who reject and who wish to kill large numbers of members of that group?

But even if revocation of citizenship followed by banishment was brought back into vogue as a respectable option one problem the British face is that many of the radicals can no be identified in advance of an attack. Still, some are well known. Be gone with them.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 July 10 10:05 AM  Immigration Terrorism


Comments
gcochran said at July 10, 2005 10:24 AM:


"In the long run the Iraq war might turn out to be a blessing in disguise." Could be. Look, Islamic terrorism isn't that much of a threat: it's not one percent the threat the old Soviet Union was. But it has caused us to see clearly something we already half-knew: that the people running this country - executive branch, Congress, influential opinion makers - are useless, at least if the problem we face is less routine than the Sun rising in the East. Not just suffering from bounded cognitive abilities (isn't that a nice way of saying it?), not just ignorant, but lazy. Look, did Congress even _bother_ to check the Administration's 'Iraqi Peril' story for plausibility - for _possibility_, even? They have the power: they have the resources to do so: they have the _responsibility_ to do so. But they're not responsible. We could trying beating them with a stick, but I doubt if it would answer.

I could point out that the current Congress is, as far as I can tell, the most profligate in the history of the Republic. It's not just war fever: they're asses. Both parties.

Of course, the classic problem is how to replace a bunch of idiots with a bunch of morons, that being the best can one hope for in this vale of tears. Sure, the old farmers hanging out in the barbershop in my home town would do a better job, but how do we get there from here?

Randall Parker said at July 10, 2005 11:17 AM:

Greg,

I find the Islamic terrorism threat as more invasive of personal life. During the Cold War we could go into airport terminals and meet people at the gate as they got off of airplanes. I never had to stand on one foot and have a guy wave an electronic wand around my other foot. I never had to take off my shoes in an airport while squatting on the ground. And is it really too much to ask to have sufficient seating around the airport security checkpoints on both sides? I guess so. The Russians never blew up any skyscrapers either.

All this talk about foiled attacks and a thousand cops investigating one plot in Britain and individuals in Australia who have been under 24x7 surveillance for years is annoying to me. Most of these targets of investigation ought to just be banned from Western countries. They aren't members of my human race.

As for the idiots in Washington DC, here are some ideas. I'm not sure if any of them are any good. Just to start the discussion:

1) Constitutional amendment to restrict vote to only military, vets, police, and ex-police. Only people who put themselves in danger get to vote.

2) Constitutional amendment for Congressional term limits. But the President has a 2 term limit and Bush is a lazy idiot. So I'm not sure that'd help.

3) Constitutional amendment to ban lawyers from elected national office. That'd increase the chance that farmers and engineers and businessmen and scientists would serve.

4) Reduce the time between primaries and elections. Make campaigns short. 30 days for primaries. 30 days for general election. That'd reduce the cost of campaigning and more amateurs would run for office.

5) Skills tests for Congress. Make them know physics or chemistry or genetics at some high level.

razib_the_atheist said at July 10, 2005 3:05 PM:

i say bring back property qualifications.

razib_the_atheist said at July 10, 2005 3:14 PM:

I see home grown terrorism as a challenge to the assumptions underlying the concept of citizenship. How can one claim the status of citizen when one rejects the legitimacy of the society that the overwhelming majority of its members accept and support? Why should the majority recognize the right of membership in a group for people who reject and who wish to kill large numbers of members of that group?

also, i believe some of the german laws as regards speech and political mobilization are addressed at precisely this issue. don't know if they are directing it at muslims yet.

raj said at July 10, 2005 5:09 PM:

Randall, the limiting of suffrage was critical for this country's transition to move to a full democracy, which it has now done for better or worse. We both read World on Fire and know this. However, there is NO WAY in hell I see us turning back the clock and telling people they can non longer vote. So, I think even you really know your proposals #1 and #3 aren't ever going to work. #2, #4 and #5 are good ideas. However, the general electorate is too passive and ill informed to adopt them. Why would lawyers who, by and large, are the politicians representing us otherwise volunteer to curtail their power? Why would these same people force themselves to learn science in more depth? I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but the real answer is behavioral genomics ultimately being used to improve IQ. With a smarter electorate, the country, as a whole, will run better and the politicians will get away with less.

"The British welfare state paid the radicals monthly checks essentially to make babies and to build up organizations. Idle hands are the devil's workshop as grandma used to say. The British government granted asylum to radicals who claimed they were in danger of religious persecution in their home countries. Of course in some of those cases those radicals were advocating or even organizing terrorist attacks against Middle Eastern governments. So one could make an argument for Britain as paralleling (albeit to a much lesser extent) Taliban-ruled Afghanistan by providing a safe haven for Islamic radicals. Well, now those birds have come home to roost."

Ahem. This is a classical example of a broken democracy. You could find similar examples with respect to the USA. Broken democracies with ill informed and passive majorities don't easily 'fix' themselves. However, I expect even Britain will now see legislation addressing asylum and deportation laws.

What was that stupid line... 'Milton where art thou, England hath need of thee'. Or something like that.

Stephen said at July 10, 2005 5:21 PM:

Constitutional amendment to restrict vote to only military, vets, police, and ex-police. Only people who put themselves in danger get to vote.

Doesn't really work because the total number of people an advanced society needs to serve in such occupations is tiny, so we'd end up with suffrage being restricted to less than 2% of the population. Here's a great site with some concise stats re the relative costs of various wars - in human and per capita terms. Even in WW2, service levels only made it up to 12% of the population.

Maybe turning it around might work - only those who've served may stand for election, but universal suffrage for the voters.

Stephen said at July 10, 2005 5:43 PM:

The British welfare state paid the radicals monthly checks essentially to make babies and to build up organizations.

I've seen welfare research that shows that immigrants on welfare have the same birth rate as immigrants without welfare. However, local born people on welfare have higher birth rates than local born people without welfare.

Kenelm Digby said at July 11, 2005 3:45 AM:

".....And there WILL be rivers of blood".

Enoch Powell 1968.

Fred said at July 11, 2005 11:29 AM:

Actually Kenelm, you've misquoted Powell, as many did in '68. He actually said, "Like the Roman, I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood", referring to the Cumaean Sybil in the Aeneid. The text can be had at the bottom of this page - http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/powell_press.htm . The speech is worth reading.

John S Bolton said at July 11, 2005 1:00 PM:

Not that Powell did this; but the prediction of large scale spontaneous interracial and intercommunal violence, is as nothing in comparison with that which is deliberately encouraged by officials and professoriate. The harboring of terrorists has occurred on such a scale in Britain, that the bombings can hardly be said to be really against the spirit of public policy. If you force the people to accept, and the net taxpayers to multiply, these hostiles; no feigning of surprise and shock can mask the deliberate evil which forced their multiplication in the zone which ought to have been reserved for civilization. The uncompleted wall in Israel has already reduced the suicide bombings over 90%. Each increment of exclusion of terrorist bearing populations generates value of terrorist exclusion.

Rick Darby said at July 12, 2005 8:44 AM:

Raj: "Milton, thou shouldst be living at this hour; England hath need of thee."

Randall: Concerning your voting proposals --

1. I don't think you can be serious about this one. This is practically a recipe for a military dictatorship. There are all kinds of ways people can serve society besides being in the armed forces. Surely you are not suggesting that a heart surgeon or a very eloquent blogger should be denied the vote because they did not wear a uniform. Nevertheless, some restrictions would be useful: a voter should be a productive member of society; he should "have some skin in the game." Perhaps voters should be required to have a certain amount of money, or property, or be employed.

2. Probably a good idea, but I hardly think it would lead to radical reform.

3. I'm totally for it and have been for years. But the political landscape is way overweighted with lawyers. I can't see them voting themselves out of power.

4. Good on you for that one.

5. Skills tests? Maybe, but they shouldn't be limited to skills in "hard" sciences. Who says knowing a lot about chemistry or geometry or genetics is any particular qualification for public office? A functional society requires all sorts of understanding: not just of science and technology, but of history and psychology and the arts. Plato believed only carefully nurtured philosophers were ruling-class material, and that makes as much -- or as little -- sense as placing ourselves in the hands of narrow specialists in physical or biological sciences.

We are living in a time of profound failure of western nations to meet creatively the stress tests that they face. But can we really change that from the top, by mechanical rules for political qualification? Our societies have rotted from within, to the point that even the most obvious lessons that events should be teaching us fail to register on ever so many citizens. I am becoming as pessimistic as Lawrence Auster -- our cultures are so soaked in an ideology that insists on moral equivalence and suicidal tolerance that they cannot acknowledge what is happening in front of and all around them.

Maybe that wilful ignorance is being eroded a little bit with each new homicidal attack. I don't see much evidence of it.

Randall Parker said at July 12, 2005 8:57 AM:

Rick,

I don't think that ex-military people would vote for a military dictatorship.

Keep in mind with all these proposals is that the idea is to raise the average level of interest in the commonwealth of the average voter. Yes, any one of the voting franchise restriction proposals would leave esome people who are responsible, informed, and intelligent unable to vote. But what matters is the quality of those chosen by the voting process.

Also, I can see arguments for restricting national voting rights more than local ones.

I like the idea of a property requirement.

Skills tests: I see them as proxies for intelligence tests. Dummies can't even understand many issues let alone choose between options on how to deal with those issues.

John S Bolton said at July 12, 2005 3:01 PM:

Actually, our problem is the rot at the top; the miseducation of elites to make a crazed pretense at valuing openness to aggression, to diversity of behavior, and to tolerate anticulture and the assaults of barbarous peoples. Only the upending of the government schools can change this sort of decay. The WSJ editorializes today with a half hidden insistence on the take the bad with the good, antimerit recruitment policy regarding foreigners. The 'educated terrorist' would have us accept the false dilemma that it is only one or the other; total exclusion of terrorists, or none to speak of. These are not our alternatives; each increment of stricter standards of admission, reduces the chances of getting terrorists in. Exclusionism value is incremental, each tightening, which excludes a larger percentage of the antimerit immigration, cuts into the terrorist potentialities. At the same time, we do not sacrifice our openness to those of greatest merit, when merit is the standard. The WSJ implies that no defense is possible, you must accept whatever the third world throws at you, as if achievement were distributed randomly in the world. Terrorism is to human merit, what a thief is to an honest and productive citizen. One has to deal with what exists, while the terrorist only has to dream of some impossible form of society, and ignore all facts and logic to the contrary. A major hollowing out of the terrorist worshipping ghettoes of Britain is an urgent necessity. Do this, and the empty spaces will be infiltrated by those more likely to give information to the authorities; but you must deport tens of thousands to get this effect.

seelow heights said at July 13, 2005 6:01 AM:

" I am becoming as pessimistic as Lawrence Auster -- our cultures are so soaked in an ideology that insists on moral equivalence and suicidal tolerance that they cannot acknowledge what is happening in front of and all around them."
Posted by: Rick Darby

Ameliorative tinkering with the present PC-Multicult regime seems to be impossible. The Marxists were apparently right that only a severe economic crisis(or maybe a major defeat in war) provides the opportunity for fundamental change. The incompetent masters must be throughly discredited. All the above proposals for changing the franchise and immigration are doomed because they violate the fundamental premises of the regime. Take way votes from welfare recipients and the retarded? The proposal would never get past the "disparate impact" test.

Robert Hume said at July 13, 2005 9:18 AM:

As long as we are talking blue sky ... here is an immigration reform that might plausibly be passed if Tancredo and the immigration caucus got behind it.

For each census each citizen would be asked: (1) What country would you favor immigration from? (2) What percent would you like the US population to increase/decrease due to immigration over the next 10 years? -2%, -1%, 0%, +1%, +2%(3) Do you favor selecting immigrants by their skills or by their family relationship to existing citizens?

The results would be used to devise an immigration policy according to a congressionally-passed algorithm. Basically the result would presumably be something like the previous national-origins quota system, except that it would be based on a popular census and hence be very "democratic". Obviously advertising campaigns could be run during census in favor of various countries, including poor and dictatorial countries.

Illegal immigrants would be much less favored if such a system were in place since they would be clearly violating the national will.

M.robinson said at July 21, 2005 6:14 AM:

8000 muslim men and boys massacred by serbian Christians, in modern day Europe. 30,000 + killed by US invasion of Iraq. so by the above analysis we should confine the serbians as a whole to serbia proper and do not allow them out of their country.

State Terrorism is one aspect of 'terrorism' at large that rarely gets mentioned, such as vietnam(use of chemicals), DU shells used in both first and second gulf war, civilians suffering badly, OR is their suffering less important than the sufering of western individuals.

What happened in Oklahoma, who was the culprit there, hey maybe Timithy McVeigh was in actual fact the offspring of an illegal immigrant, possibly no right minded American would attack his own country. Maybe its time you started to worry more about the various militias in the USA.


Advertise here. Contact randall dot parker at ymail dot com
Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©