Former Radical Muslim Met Leader Of July 7 Bombings – Confirms Terrorists’ Religious Motivation

Regular readers of Barbados Free Press are aware of the ongoing debate about whether radical muslim terrorists are motivated by their religion – or by the actions of the West, primarily the United States.

We came across this piece written by a former radical Islamist, and we believe that it is worth your time.

From The Daily Mail (link here)

I was a fanatic…I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network – a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology – I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this “Blair’s bombs” line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.

For example, on Saturday on Radio 4’s Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: “What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.”

I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I’d be laughing once again.

Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the July 7 bombings, and I were both part of the network – I met him on two occasions.

And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

If we were interested in justice, you may ask, how did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting such a (flawed) Utopian goal?

How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?

There isn’t enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.
Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

The notion of a global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain.

For decades, radicals have been exploiting the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state – typically by starting debate with the question: “Are you British or Muslim?”

But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don’t want to talk about theology.

They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever – and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds.

Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism.
A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion.

In other words, individual Muslims don’t have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me as a far more potent argument because it involves recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don’t actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief.

For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we’ll stay here.

But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn’t enough for responsible Muslims to say that, because they feel at home in Britain, they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers.

Because so many in the Muslim community refuse to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.

Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I’d like to term the Land of Co-existence.

And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

32 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Religion

32 responses to “Former Radical Muslim Met Leader Of July 7 Bombings – Confirms Terrorists’ Religious Motivation

  1. Thanks BFP.

    This article is “from the horse’s mouth” and raises the key issues we need to look at. Directly, and indirectly.

    GEM of TKI

  2. DFX

    Greetings Kairo,

    I hope you are well!

    I must congratulate the BFP on this excellent find. I hope that alot more people will do like Kiaro and I have done; READ IT! and LEARN FROM IT!

    Take care my friends,

    DFX

  3. This article tells us nothing we don’t already know.

    Forget for a moment that Daily Mail is an unreliable rag, read by “blue rinse” reactionaries (though I must admit my father often buys it for the rugby coverage). Many of us in Britain laugh at its postering as a serious newspaper. However, let us assume that the article is 100% inaccurate, as there is no reason at all to believe it is not. I believe the fact that the conclusions drawn from it fit snugly into the Daily Mail perspective of the world is not relevant.

    Its conclusion – that the problem is Islam rather than Western foreign policy, I agree with. But I disagree that this article proves anything other than the pitifully obvious fact that a huge % of Islamic terrorists are primarily motivated by religion. There remains a large % of Islamic terrorists for whom other factors – western foreign policy, social exclusion, personal inadequacy etc – were vital in their choice of this path.

    Once again, the problem is ideology, ideology, ideology.

    In today’s world, Islam seems to show up as particularly problematic. But to believe that it is the only major religion with a problem, is fanciful.

    A good article though, thank you for reproducing it.

  4. Straight talk

    It must be reassuring, BFP, to have a self-confessed muslim extremist add credibilty to your crusade against a whole religion.

    Big Deal.

    Who is this man, what evidence is there of his terrorist credentials.
    All he admits to is plotting “extreme acts of terror”, no details or evidence of involvement with such acts.

    With cautious reservation I have to agree with Golbeitho that the Daily Mail is a paper past its sell-by date pandering to Middle
    England and desperate to regain its former glory under Rothermere.

    The fee paid to this born again fanatic would have been well worth it to this desperate editor, just to have the maiden aunt readership tut-tut, thank the lord for our glorious security services and reminisce that such things could never have occurred under the Empire.

    I urge all readers of this man’s confession and conversion to mainstream to re-read his “expose”, does it really enlighten us to the thought processes of a wanton murderous fanatic, or is it some guy being paid handsomely to offer sensationalist boasting in the manner of a reformed soccer hooligan.

  5. bajemonkey

    Nice article the author clearly shows that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam has yet to undergo a reformation. Until it does the tradition will convulse and be at loggerheads with both Christianity and Judaism. Have a look at ‘God is not Great’ by Hitchens and ‘THe God Delusion’ by Dawkins

  6. Onlookers:

    Some balancing remarks are in order:

    1] Is The Daily Mail the issue? (Or, a red herring and strawman?)

    Had Mr Butt been an isolated individual, it would be a possibility that this is just a tablioidish newspaper seeking a scoop to splash.

    However, the material point is that Mr Butt speaks in a 1400 year long context, as for instance is discussed in my always linked

    That context is — as say Q9:5 and 29 (the sword and tribute verses respectively, on treating pagans and people of the book, i.e governing Muslim relations with peoples of other faiths, under the concept of Jihad) underscore — that there is a historically strong stream of Islamic theology and history that interprets the Quran, the Hadiths and other foundational era sources and examples as mandating a global conquest and subjugation under Allah, Allah’s warriors and Allah’s law.

    Indeed, if one looks carefully at Mr Butt’s remarks, one can see this — he asserts that “we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice . . . . since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they [the radicals] have declared war upon the whole world [including Muslim states, which are viewed as in effect not Islamic enough].”

    It is aptly illustrative to contrast a genuine Arab [and Berber] nationalist movement and revolution: Algeria vs the French at the turn of the 1960’s. Then, we later had an Islamist insurrection, targetting the Nationalist Arab [and Berber] regime in Algeria.

    In short, Mr Butt is speaking in a context that he is quite consistent with, across 1400 years. Nor is he the only ex-radical to speak in similar terms. But, he has spoken out in the aftermath of the Doctors’ plot,and we would do well to consider what he has to say on the jihadi networks in the UK and elsewhere, given what we have just seen — yet again.

    And, BTW, not only does he acknowledge that he was a recruiter into the terrorism networks, but in general terms, to being implicated in plots to commit violence.

    Further to this, e.g. a March 25, 2007 CBS report on a 60 Minutes newscast — not exactly Fox News etc — observes, evidently scooping the world on Mr Butt’s story:

    “60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon met someone who knows [the background to say the 7/7 bombing in the UK]. And for the first time he spoke about what it was like to be inside that network for ten years. His name is Hassan Butt. He’s only 26 years old, but some of the people he recruited were a lot younger than that. Hassan Butt admits he sent a 17-year-old boy from England to Pakistan to be involved in terrorist training.

    In short before speaking dismissively, G and ST above should have done a basic web search. That is a basic duty before speaking adversely to someone’s reputation in today’s Internet age. [I leave that as an exercise . . . especially since WP does not like links.]

    2] Also, a subtlety . . .

    I doubt the Editors of the Daily Mail fully understood the import of the article either, if they were putting up a hired gun to shoot their rhetorical bullets for them.

    For, Mr Butt goes on to say: “A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion.” Remember, this is in the context of the unrepudiated statement: “since Islam must declare war on unbelief” which in turn is directly related to the historically well-supported adn obvious interpretation of Q 9:5, 29 and some 160 other similar texts in the Quran. (No wonder, that when such issues come up, many Muslim leaders in Britain have no real answer to the radicals primed by Jamaican deportee el Faisal or similar radicals.)

    Now: is state-sponsored Islamist jihad any whit better than trans-national non-state networks sponsoring Jihad and covertly backed up by Islamist regimes [such as happened with the 9/11 attacks and the sponsorship and harbouring by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan]?

    In short, Mr Butt is not quite as liberal as he seems at first glance. [That is why in an above comment, I spoke to indirect issues raised by Mr Butt’s article.]

    Thus, the most reasonable explanation of the article is that Daily Mail wanted to give some perspective and gave someone a platform to speak from a different, non-PC Islamic perspective.

    3] Jumping on God

    I have already had to note in another thread that human beings often find ways to do evil in the name of the good, whether that good is God or some transcendentalised value or vision of a secular utopia etc.

    Indeed, this was Alister McGrath’s well-merited rebuke to Dawkins on his unfortunately village atheist-level essay into philosophy and atheistical apologetics, the God Delusion. [Hitchens’ work and Sam Harris’, the other two shrill more or less popular rhetoric level atheism-promoting pamphlets currently making the rounds, are little better.]

    So, let us get back to what is sound: the need for reformation within Islam, which Mr Butt recognises.

    4] is reformation of Islam in prospect?

    For that to happen, Muslims will need to confront their history, on Jihad, on oppression of women and of dhimmis, and on their involvement with the slave trade. [Who were the pirates who robbed I and sold I to the Englishman’s merchant ships?]

    That will not happen so long as the secularist and liberal progressivist intelligentsia keeps its fixation on the sins of the West and continues to excuse the sins of Islam.

    (Of course, there is also the issue that those who dare to be critical of Islam face not only verbal intimidation but potentially serious threats of violence. But then there is that little phrase about “speaking truth to power . . .”)

    GEM of TKI

  7. PS: BTW, the article BFP reproduces above also appears in that “right wing rag,” [NOT!] the Guardian, July 1, 2007. In other words, the above attacks to the alleged motives and poor quality of the newspaper are now exposed as completely worthless.

  8. PPS: This cover story interview with the UK’s Prospect Magazine, August 2005 — just a month after the 7/7 bombings that by his own statement opened Mr Butt’s eyes, is also worth looking at. In other words, he is checking out as a serious, consistent and credible witness, not one to be impatiently brushed aside.

  9. Onlookers:

    UPDATE: The London Times Online indicates that “. . . Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command SO15 is understood to have uncovered evidence that in the months leading up to the attacks one or more of the suspects communicated by telephone or e-mail with terrorist leaders in Iraq. . . .” [full article here.]

    I find this thread shows a rather interesting silence on the part of some who were quick to dismiss more or less the same points made in earlier threads, now that we are looking at direct statements that are credibly “from the horse’s mouth” — the attempted dismissal above having manifestly failed once a few further links in the Hassan Butt story were put into play.

    Muy interesante . . .

    GEM of TKI

  10. Follow up:

    The silence in the face of further credible facts [now that they are plainly coming from the horse’s mouth . . .] is still very interesting.

    However, it is worth looking a bit more on the “God Delusion” angle. I suggest onlookers may wish to look here for a first reason why the underlying evolutionary materialism — a philosophy, not [in the proper sense] “science” — is self-refuting.

    The way in which this came up reflects the three way geo-strategic and spiritual conflicts over the future of our increasingly globalised world:

    [1] the hyper- [not really properly “post-“] modernist secularist progressives of the North/West,

    [2] The resurgent post-colonialist sand post secular nationalist Islamists and Dawah advocates of the ME,

    [3] the Southern Christian reformation that for over a century now has swept the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa and much of Asia.

    My bet — for excellent geo-strategic reasons [read that: China is heading decisively Christian within 50 years], is that No. 3 will win. But, in the meanwhile, we are in for one wild ride, one that sadly, has a lot of potential to be very, very bloody as well.

    In short, we live in “interesting” times . . . and times of interest to the historian are not the best times to live in, as they invariably are turbulent.

    But, we have come to estate “for such a time as this.”

    GEM of TKI

  11. PS: For a useful “101 survey level” second look, you might want to start here.

  12. PPS: And, if you want to look at the back-forth issues on the argument from mind in a little more depth, try Reppert here.

    In other words, I am saying that obviously there seems to be a consensus by refusal to engage, that the point made by Hassan Butt is more or less decisive on the merits [cf also the always linked . . .] — of course you are invited to overturn me on this point . . . ; – )

    In that context the onward issue is, where does that put us, and the answer is, in the midst of that 3-way geo-strategic contest, with not only socio-political, economic and military but also philosophical and spiritual overtones.

    That is the bar we must learn to jump . . . and so, the three-way discussion opens up.

  13. Kairosfocus wrote:
    “In short before speaking dismissively, G and ST above should have done a basic web search. That is a basic duty before speaking adversely to someone’s reputation in today’s Internet age. [I leave that as an exercise . . . especially since WP does not like links.]”

    I don’t want to break forum rules of etiquette, but am pobliged to ask Kairosfocus… ARE YOU STUPID ?

    The Daily Mail is not the issue. I laboriously went out of my way to posit that the Daily Mail is not the issue. Re-read my post and print your retraction when you are ready Sweetness.

  14. G:

    May I quote the OPENING of your remarks, July 5th, 2007 at 8:55 pm:

    Forget for a moment that Daily Mail is an unreliable rag, read by “blue rinse” reactionaries . . . Many of us in Britain laugh at its postering as a serious newspaper. However, let us assume that the article is 100% inaccurate [?], as there is no reason at all to believe it is not. I believe the fact that the conclusions drawn from it fit snugly into the Daily Mail perspective of the world is not relevant . . .

    My response to this particular point, namely that there was a report in BOTH Daily Mail and Guardian [i.e. that is it was featured in BOTH papers of the right and left at the same time,and in the further context that Mr Hassan Butt has been a public voice on the Islamism issue since 2002, in BBC, CBS and other sources, first as an advocate, now as a penitent seeking to undo the damage he did . . .] was based on the well-known way in which rhetoric works to persuade.

    For in fact, an astute onlooker would at once see that you put this point FIRST. And, of course, the rule is, that one puts the most persuasive point first. (“First impressions . . .” and all of that . . .)

    Now, of course, you then used a disclaimer, one that that works to distance yourself from the inevitable response to the points being made.

    There is a very obvious reason for that, as attacking the source instead of dealing with the merits, is a well-known fallacy. But, fallacies are by definition persuasive arguments that fail to make a good case on the merits, so the distancing trick is very helpful in debates: “I could say X, Y, Z, A, B, C, but no, I am not going to do that . . . .”

    But in fact, by listing out X, Y, Z etc, you HAVE said just that!

    Further to this, once the points have been kicked into play, they have a powerful rhetorical impact. Just ask any trial judge why it is he will intervene at once against a lawyer using that sort of tactic! (Indeed, I note the first recorded case of that trick: Socrates’ appeal to pity at his trial by saying how he was not going to do the usual thing bay appealing to pity over his wife, sons etc . . .)

    And so, let us all remember that this is not a clever little entertaining sixth form GP class debate, but a situation where we are confronting a major, global challenge that can cost a lot of innocent people their lives.

    Now, of course, you then went on:

    ” . . . the problem is Islam rather than Western foreign policy, I agree with. But [a] I disagree that this article proves anything other than the pitifully obvious fact that a huge % of Islamic terrorists are primarily motivated by religion. [b] There remains a large % of Islamic terrorists for whom other factors – western foreign policy, social exclusion, personal inadequacy etc – were vital in their choice of this path . . . . [c] In today’s world, Islam seems to show up as particularly problematic. But to believe that it is the only major religion with a problem, is fanciful . . . ”

    The highlighted points a, b, and c are all problematic:

    –> Any observer who goes back over threads for months now at BFP and elsewhere will immediately see that the point that Islamists are primarily religiously motivated is not at all “obvious” to a great many in the West, including many among our media, policy making and intellectual elites.

    –> Indeed, BFP remarks at the head of the thread: “Regular readers of Barbados Free Press are aware of the ongoing debate about whether radical muslim terrorists are motivated by their religion – or by the actions of the West, primarily the United States.”

    –> BFP therefore put this article into play [as I did earlier too in the JFK thread . . .] by way of saying, here is something out of the horse’s mouth. So you have, twice in succession tried to undermine a central point.

    –> Next, you cited a string of secondary factors in such a way as to in effect subtly substitute them for what Mr Butt — a self-confessed major former member of the terrorism-implicated Islamist movement — directly states as the PRIMARY factor; he being an eyewitness involved for a decade in the UK and in Pakistan, who by his own admission recruited 50 – 75 terrorists for that movement:

    . . . though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice . . . . since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they [the radicals] have declared war upon the whole world [i.e. including Muslim states, which are viewed as in effect not Islamic enough] . . .”

    –> So, G, whose report should we believe? Yours, or Mr Butt’s? Why?

    –> Point [c] simply reveals a general antipathy to religions, especially the relevant ones in the Caribbean. It is also therefore a subtle appeal to the easy and improper immoral equivalence equation of Bible-believing Christianity [often dismissed with the handy smear word “fundamentalism”] and violent radical islamism which is a religiously motivated global conquest ideology, as was just publicly noted by an eyewitness.

    –> As BFP has noted through an ironic headline on the BFP thread on the JFK plot which led to this secondary discussion: Two Seventh-Day Adventists and One Jew Arrested In Kennedy Airport Terror Plot – One Catholic Nun Still Being Sought By FBI” — NOT!

    –> Now, we are well aware that unbalanced people may twist just about any ideal into a motivation for violence. In the past, even the Gospel was so perverted — the many trips of formal apology and penitence and repudiation of the just past Pope being eloquent testimony on point.

    –> Similarly, over the past century, Darwinian theories became in the popular mind [and among the eugenicists in Medicine, population statistics and policy-makers, etc] a motivation for class and racial struggles that unjustly cost over 100 millions their lives. Indeed, on this last, sadly, the academy has not yet seriously come to terms with some of the direct and open statements of Darwin and other founders of his theory which invited such abuses. [Cf say Chs 5 – 6 in his The Descent of Man . . .] So, indeed, there is a potential to twist just about anything into an agenda for evil that lurks within the human breast. [Sounds rather like a Bible-based claim made about the fallenness of man doesn’t it? C S Lewis was fond of saying that the fallenness of man is the only specifically Christian doctrine that can be proved from the newspapers . . .]

    –> But, in fact, there is a single religious movement that is being regularly and consistently currently implicated in terrorist bombings and attacks targetting ordinary people going about the ordinary business of life, from Bali to Thailand to the ME to Africa to Glasgow and Manhattan. Islamism in short.

    THAT is therefore the primary issue we face, and we need to look it in the eye fearlessly, and seriously deal with it.

    On that, Mr Butt has given us some serious testimony, and we should not play subtle debate games with that testimony.

    Instead, let us face and deal with it seriously on the merits.

    GEM of TKI

  15. PS: Onlookers, for a balancing discussion on the underlying issues over “fundamentalism” so-called, kindly look here.

  16. PPS: Onlookers, to follow up on the troubling and too often not fully faced links between Darwin and Social Darwinism and its implications, you may wish to start here. (I also see a tag or two went out of control above, sorry.)

  17. PPPS: Kindly note the context of these links in the main remarks just above.

  18. Peltdown Man

    Kairofocus
    Do you have a job?

  19. Straight talk

    Could be Mia’s speechwriter!

    But seriously, K, after 10,000 strangulated words, can you make your point in one concise sentence.

    Or has this all been a time-wasting exercise in kairosis.

  20. Onlookers:

    There are no serious points, and that on a thread which addresses a MAJOR issue, as summed up by BFP in the original post:

    “Regular readers of Barbados Free Press are aware of the ongoing debate about whether radical muslim terrorists are motivated by their religion – or by the actions of the West, primarily the United States. We came across this piece written by a former radical Islamist, and we believe that it is worth your time.”

    In short, and after various distractions and attempted dismissals, we see here that FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH, Islamism is primarily religiously motivated in a war against the world — western provocation playing secondary and/or handy propaganda roles, and that its adherents are too often ruthless because of their theology of revolution and war.

    Thankfully, that ruthlessness in turn has led Mr Butt to recant on force of the testimony of his conscience, and to try to undo his former terrorism by coming clean to the wider public over the past several years.

    Re-citing key excerpts from Mr Butt — and that is summary enough:

    ” . . . though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice . . . . since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they [the radicals] have declared war upon the whole world [i.e. including Muslim states, which are viewed as in effect not Islamic enough] . . .”

    THAT is what now needs to be taken seriously, and should be fairly and frankly addressed, by the educated people of the Caribbean.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: P should reflect on the fact — I have long since linked a sample of my work — that I am an educator who is inter alia engaging the issue of how the Caribbean’s educated elites need to address Critical Thinking 101, through action research. (He is, unfortunately, making himself into a chief exhibit of what has gone wrong with our education system over the past generation . . .)

  21. You’re wasting my time.

  22. Onlookers:

    The attitude sustained since July 5th in response to credible testimony backed up by a context of 1400 years of history that makes that testimony fit in with a lot of painful history [cf the always linked . . .] — and even events such as the recent suicide bombing in Algeria, is sadly telling.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: Following up from the broader “Three Global Forces” context — a framework of analysis that I have found best explains current developments and trends — if you are interested, Michael Medved, a well-known media commentator in the USA [and I believe a practising Jew], had a recent discussion with Hitchens over his recent book.

  23. Peltdown Man

    But seriously, Kairofocus, do you have a job?

  24. Inkwell

    No Peltdown Man, he got fired for excessive involuntary oral excretion.

  25. Chase

    Inkwell:

    That is so damn funny -).
    You should put that on a teeshirt or a bumper sticker.

  26. Onlookers:

    Ha, ha, very funny! [NOT . . . ]

    For, unfortunately, the last three “witty” remarks are unfortunately revealing on an underlying head in the sand problem, in the teeth of a very serious matter. (One wonders if P, I and C are taking hurricane precautions, for what Dr Gray et al warn will likely be a more than average season . . .)

    To see just what is really going above, on take some time to look at he substance of the original post — the testimony of a former Islamist and terrorist recruiter [50 – 75 terrorists recruited by his own confession], who is now trying to undo the damage he has done:

    Hassan Butt:

    ” . . . though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice . . . . since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they [the radicals] have declared war upon the whole world [i.e. including Muslim states, which are viewed as in effect not Islamic enough] . . .”

    While plainly, what Mr Butt calls “mindless killers” are unlikely to in the end actually achieve their goal, they will if unchecked do a lot of blood-soaked damage along the way of trying. So, in light of what has already happened in Bali, a tourist spot on the receiving end of an Islamist bomb-plot, we should face the implications of the warning on the regional BBC news was it about a week ago now, of serious security concerns over our cruise ship ports in our tourism-dependent region. (Just where do you think some of the users of the Glasgow airport were likely headed as summer begins . . . ?)

    Nor, should we forget that for instance 17 Jamaicans died in the WTC bombing. Indeed, I cannot forget the experience of giving a lift here to an older local lady with her hand in a cast, back in 2005. It turns out, she was on that bus on 7/7, and was in fact sitting next to the bomber, until he changed his seat.

    Then, also, observe what DFX had to say just as the article was posted: I must congratulate the BFP on this excellent find. I hope that alot more people will do like Kiaro and I have done; READ IT! and LEARN FROM IT!

    That should be enough on the gap between substance and attempted wit by red herring distractor and associated ad hominems.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: P, I, & C, you have amply confirmed the accuracy of the summary briefing I just submitted to my Chairman on my action research findings; hopefully, that will help underscore the action-recommendations. (Nor, am I going to give out more targetting information than I have to in a world in which we face “mindless killers.”)

  27. Onlookers:

    Here — by Herbert Meyer, the man who in 1983 predicted that the USSR was on its last legs, as an Intel analyst — is another serious level discussion of the issue in the main post above, on what it is we are facing with radical islamism. Namely the battle between two perceptions

    Key excerpts [read it all!]:
    _______

    [1] For the third time in history Islam – or, more precisely, its most radical element – has launched a war whose objective is the destruction of Western civilization. Our survival is at stake, and despite its imperfections we believe that Western civilization is worth defending . . . . [vs]

    [2] There are quite a few people in the world who just don’t like the United States and some of our allies . . . because of the policies we pursue in the Mideast and elsewhere in the world. Alas, a small percentage of these people express their opposition through acts of violence. While we sometimes share their opinion of our values and our policies, we cannot condone their methods. Our objective must be to bring the level of political violence down to an acceptable level . . . .

    If it turns out that Perception Two of the threat is valid, then over time we will become accustomed to the level of casualties caused by the terrorists. After all, more than 40,000 Americans are killed each year in traffic accidents and we don’t make a big political issue out of that, do we? Our attitude toward death-by-terrorist-attack will be the same as our attitude toward deaths on the highway: a tragedy for the victim and members of the family, but nothing really to fuss over. And if Perception Two is valid, it’s even possible that the terrorist threat eventually will ease. Can you even remember the last time anyone got bombed by the IRA?

    But if those of us who subscribe to Perception One are correct, then it’s only a matter of time before something ghastly happens that will swing public opinion throughout the West our way – and hard. Whether this will happen in two years, or five, or in 15 years, is impossible to predict. All we can know for certain is that if Western civilization really is under attack from Islam, or from elements within Islam, then they will not give up or be appeased. At some point they’re going to go for the knockout punch . . . .
    ______

    I would argue that by Butt’s statement, and by a lot of corroborating history, founding-era Islamic documents, and current events and testimony, 2 is objectively, even obviously, incorrect. [The many rhetorical distractions and dismissals above are eloquent testimony on the point, in the teeth of statements from the horse’s mouth and an invitation to look soberly at the implications and context.]

    So, the real issue is why is it that it by and large prevails — and what its likely consequences are. (To that the obvious answer is that 2 appeals to our resentment over or guilt about the West’s real and perceived sins, joined to ignorance over Islamism’s — here, what happens when Islam is turned into a world-conquest motivating ideology — agendas and sins since the 600s. For instance, note that “those pirates” who robbed “I” and sold “I” to the merchant ships were largely Arab and Berber slave traders in Africa, diversifying their markets from the trans Sahara and Trans Indian Ocean/Red Sea trade . . . which reasonably credible fact duly does not appear in our history books . . . a la Plato’s Cave. Doubt me? Go look up the history of Zanzibar.)

    That raises a further, obvious, question: will it be too late to fight once we wake up in the aftermath of an attempted knockout blow? [E.g. the nuke blowing up of 12 cities across N America, Europe etc and announcement that attempted retaliation will trigger a wave of further explosions . . .]

    Probably not — as Meyer argues. But, since we have adequate evidence in hand NOW to avert such an outcome, there will be a lot of blood on a lot of irresponsible hands on the day such a knockout blow comes — if they prevail in blocking the attempt to avert such a day of horror.

    And, judging by Iran’s increasing bellicosity and official Mahdist extremism, a day of horror is plainly probably not that far off!

    So, we need to think soberly on our responsibilities, before events written in blood and fire and/or devastating biowar disease make the facts plain even to those who now refuse to see, and refuse to look soberly at facts that point where they do not want to go.

    GEM of TKI

  28. ah yes, its easier to shepherd both the faithful and the lost into the corral of the Church when they are afraid and desperate.

    Interesting symmetry with Dubya’s reelection campaign..

    The terror threat is real, and apocalyptic descriptions are not inappropriate. The Kairosfocus option just makes it more likely to happen. The best way to stop it happening, is to take religion out of the equation.

    If that means we just fight about something other than religion, so be it – as we’ll be better placed to resolve the next problem because our logic will not be warped by dogma.

    Kairosfocus, I suggest you include in your brief to your chairman that your real enemy is the common sense and reason of humanism. You have less in common with us than you do with your sister religion, and your social standing will likely be increased by the violence of Islamic extremists.

  29. G:

    Common sense and reason are not my enemies. But, I have very good reason indeed — cf the linked below and the other lectures in that course — to reject rationalism, secularist humanism, and evolutionary materialism as a reasonable, well-warranted faith-option.

    The implication that I have indulged irrational fear-mongering in order to pull people into “religion” is of course an unsubstantiated accusation, driven by a mind that has its own agendas.

    What those are can be seen easily enough by the use of “Religion” as a broad-sheet dismissal term for vastly different worldviews and life systems. Further, it is evident that a sober examination of what Meyer has to say will be helpful.

    [Onlookers, contrast, say, this long since often linked lecture for the use of Theology students in a leading Evangelical Seminary in the Caribbean. Is this what can reasonably and on good evidence — as opposed to bias — be characterised as fear-mongering? Or otherwise irrational behaviour relative to the ongoing great debate in Western Culture? Similarly, does my always linked in this blog show an irrational fear of Islam? Did the declaration from the Barbados Conference of 2003 by Evangelicals looking at Islam and Islamism in our region appeal to fear and hate, or to well informed concern.]

    GEM of TKI

  30. PS: Here is the Barbados Declaration of 2003. Cf. the concerns in that conference, now four years in the past, with the developing stories in today’s headlines.

  31. Kairosfocus. Have just read you replies. I massively disagree with you, but the way in which you put your points across was lucid and useful.

    Your arguments might be better received if you stick with this format.