UK beheading suspects connected to al-Qaeda

The 9 terrorists arrested in the UK yesterday desiring to kidnap, torture and behead as many as 25 individuals and air the videos on the internet, had al-Qaeda connections. 'Britain's Sky News reported today that as many as 25 people may have been targeted for abduction and execution in the plot'

Another aspect of this report that is sure to be underplayed by the MSM is that the scheme was foiled by the very same tactics that liberal Democrats decried on their golden path to power in November.

During a six-month, £10million surveillance operation involving 250 police officers and MI5, cameras, telephone taps and surveillance teams had been used to monitor the group’s movements.

Officers had hoped to keep the men under surveillance for a further two months to gather further intelligence but sources said the operation was brought forward following “clear indications” that the gang were making final preparations to enact their murderous plan.

One said: “Police had no choice but to carry out the arrests.” [snip]

They included an Islamic bookshop which was co-founded almost a decade ago by Moazzam Begg, who was captured and imprisoned in the Guatanamo Bay camp in Cuba before his controversial return in 2005.

If Moazzam Begg sounds familiar that is because he was a cause celebre for liberal activists who denounced his detention at Guantanamo Bay as unlawful and unwarranted.

Moazzam Begg (born 1968) is one of nine British Muslims who were held in extrajudicial detention in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, in Cuba, by the government of the United States of America. He was released on January 25, 2005 along with Feroz Abbasi, Martin Mubanga and Richard Belmar, without charge though he received no compensation or an apology. President Bush released Moazzam Begg over the objections of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI, who warned that Mr. Begg could still be a dangerous terrorist. - Wikipedia

(more at Webloggin)

The question: "What do you think of the current state of security, particularly against terrorists, in the United States?" Seriously, what do you think? The 'Aqua Teen Hunting Force' advertising campaign produced a million dollar investigation in Boston yesterday. This caused snickers from some Americans, but would they have preferred law enforcement ignored the devices? Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? The advertising devices were placed on bridges, government buildings and other places we might expect to see terrorists interested in.

Western Resistance believes that the situation in the United Kingdom is a direct threat to us here in the United States. I think yesterday's arrests of 9 individuals and the airplane plot that was interrupted last year are fine examples. He sees multiculturalism at fault, but political Islam even more guilty.

It is well-established that Britain contains a greater proportion of radical Islamists than any other Western country. These radicals have been allowed to openly preach and in many cases, to flout the law. [snip]

Daniel Pipes has argued that since the Rushdie affair of 1989, Islamists have been increasing and accelerating their responses to perceived "attacks" upon their articles of faith.

In Britain, the roots of political Islam found fertile ground with the Rushdie affair. As one political Muslim, Rana Kabbani, has written: "It was the Rushdie controversy that forced us into the open." (more)

Political Islam? Think about what that really means. Muslims with an agenda, getting into politics, having a voice and means to spread that agenda. Don't you see a lesson here to be learned by the United States? Think about Keith Ellison or maybe Barak Hussein Obama???

So goes the UK so goes America? The proof is in the pudding. America has not been attacked since September 11, 2001. We have had many arrests here inside the US, some the MSM made fun of like the Florida 9. But it doesn't take a genius to set off a bomb and we cannot make lite of any suspect until the evidence is in.

It's getting more difficult by the day to actually 'name' the enemy. The PC crowd supported by lefties and organizations like the ACLU, CAIR, and others jump if we dare describe a terrorist as Islamic. It's getting risky to tell the truth about Islam throughout the Western countries. One recent example is in Canada:

“First it was Franklin Graham. Now Windsor’s Theological Institute and Campbell Baptist Church have joined the anti-Islam crusade. They are presenting a series of lectures under the general heading, “The deadly threat of Islam.” The first one was entitled, “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: The Frightening Facts about Islam.” The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) and other Muslim groups have called upon police to investigate whether a hate crime has been committed…. (more at Stop the ACLU, emphasis mine)

A hate crime? Religious leaders speaking out the truth as they know it is a hate crime? Let me tell you what a hate crime is. A hate crime is when Muslims are free to preach 'death to America' and get away with it. Is anybody speaking about that? I want to hear it. I want the ACLU and CAIR and all the Muslim groups to SHUT UP! Until they shut their America-hating, Christian-hating, Jew-Hating, mouths they have NO right to talk to anyone about a hate crime. When they stop their archaic treatment of women and children, then they can talk about hate crimes. When they set their own house in order and enter the civilized world, THEN they can talk about hate crimes.

How do you fight an enemy if you can't speak out about who and what that enemy is? So far in America our Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, local police, sheriffs, are doing a good job. If they miss out on arresting the bad guys, they are berated. If they arrest some suspect bad guys, the MSM rakes them over the coles and dismisses the idea that those 'good boys', 'innocent but too dumb to do harm' suspects. What a job. No wonder Homeland Security employees are upset, disillusioned with their jobs.

Daniel Pipes, "The problem is not so much a clash of civilizations, but a clash of civilization and barbarism. [snip] Winston Churchill in 1898, writing about the Sudan, said that civilization is “sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect compromise.” [snip]

Now what do I mean by barbarians? ... a third barbarian movement, namely that of radical Islam. via Gates of Vienna

If Daniel Pipes is right, and this is indeed a battle for civilization against barbarism, shouldn't we pull out all the stops, use every tool at our disposal, support our law enforcement officials? Should we adopt laws like the UK has?

Others reporting:
A Deeper Look

UPDATE: The Jawa Report has the names of those arrested in the UK. Some very interesting connections, go read it.

Comments

[Debbie]

Naz, wishful thinking my friend ... wishful thinking.

Maybe you are on to something.

[Naz]

oh durn, I thought the title meant that the U.K was going to behead the terrorists.

[Vanishing American]

The most obvious and simple answer to me is to return to our pre-1965 immigration laws. Of course there is no political will to do that. Every other possible solution, whether it's increased surveillance and tougher laws, just diminishes Americans' freedoms and still allows the potential terrorists in our midst. And over time, their influence and power will grow, until we have a UK-like situation.
A nation without real borders, and with mass immigration on today's scale, cannot be safe.

[Chad Evans]

The idea of political Islam has been around since, well, Islam or shortly after Muhammad died. In fact, it was the basis of those fighting for control after Muhammad died that turned it into more a political ideology than a religion, though one could reasonably argue all religions are politics in their nuts and bolts.

It was a political move to invent the sixth pillar of Islam, called jihad, and it was a political move to define the rules of jihad as defensive wars even though they were some of the more expansive wars fought in human history aimed at conquering lands and those within. In fact, Islamists today argue Islam never conquers others and they use the example of the Islamic empire conquering far away lands as proof. They suggest the residents were not forced into converting/reverting to Islam, and that is true to an extent. No, not everyone was forced to convert, but you were a second-class citizen at best if you did not convert to Islam. Even so, it is that Islamist argument which strengthens the case Islam is a political structure that has morphed into a religion, or vice versa. If the goal was not to spread Islam by conquering lands, then it was to further the empire's borders in order to protect the heartland of the Islamic empire, just as countless empires have done throughout world history.