Article here:
A Sunday Times reporter spent two months as a recruit inside the Saviour Sect to reveal for the first time how the extremist group promotes hatred of “non-believers” and encourages its followers to commit acts of violence including suicide bombings.The reporter witnessed one of the sect’s leading figures, Sheikh Omar Brooks, telling a young audience, including children, that it was the duty of Muslims to be terrorists and boasting, just days before the July 7 attacks, that he wanted to die as a suicide bomber.
...
The evidence compiled by The Sunday Times in hours of transcripts and tapes will lend weight to moves, announced last week by Tony Blair, to proscribe such organisations for providing a breeding ground for would-be terrorists. The attorney-general’s office said last night it would investigate the recent comments by a number of Islamic radicals with a view to prosecution.
...
The reporter became a member of the sect three weeks before the July 7 bombings. From the start he was taught that it was his duty to destroy the kuffar. Moderate Muslims who did not believe in the overthrow of the British government and its replacement by an Islamic state were held in equal disdain.
Within days of joining, he witnessed seven Saviour Sect members beating up a member of the moderate Young Muslim Organisation in an East End street because they believed he had insulted their version of Islam."
I am certain that this type of extremist brainwashing is occurring all over the US, and Canada, and Europe.
We need more brave investigative journalists willing to bring this sort of thing to light. And we need tougher penalties against those who preach terror.
Perhaps if the American MSM were less interested in the adopted children of John Roberts and his wife, and instead were more interested in the fifth column that insidiously lurks in our midst, we would all be better off.
But I'm not holding my breath...
Article comments
1 - Temple Stark
Now journalism's got something to offer you?
[edited].. That's just .... silly, I guess I'll say. [Edited]
2 - Steve S
There's an article here, which is a sort of connect-the-dots which traces the creation of Al Queda and the Mujahideen all the way back to their original source (Reagan and the Right). Unfortunately for some, none of it can be disputed as it's all common/public knowledge at this point.
My community has always thought that Reagan was evil, when he stood by and did/said nothing while a plague was ravishing the country and we were pretty dismayed to see people treat him as a God upon his death. Perhaps history has another place for him after all...
3 - Dave Nalle
A bit of an overreaction there, Temp. RJ has a good point here. I wish he hadn't quoted the whole articlle - it's bad form. Better to provide more original analysis. Then he'd have more than just a good point. And you really can't fault him for praising a journalist who went to such lengths and probably faced some real danger to get an important story.
Dave
4 - Steve S
note the comments in the article like this:
In the US, the Christian Right adopted the Mujahideen as their favorite project. They even sent around a "biblical checklist" for grading US congressman as to how close they were to the "Christian" political line. If a congressman didn't support the radical Muslim Muj, he or she was downgraded by the evangelicals and fundamentalists.
--
And you all think they are just after my community and the rights of women. Christianity is so immersed in politics and the deaths of hundreds of thousands that it can no longer be separated from it's sins.
5 - Temple Stark
Da no need to try and tell me what to do.
My point is clear - journalists are piles of shit to a lot of people unless they write or do something others agree with.
Waaah. That's a sickening attitude.
>>This is journalism at its best...
>>Perhaps if the American MSM were less interested in the adopted children of John Roberts and his wife, and instead were more interested in the fifth column that insidiously lurks in our midst, we would all be better off.
But I'm not holding my breath...
This also exhibits clear - purposeful blindness.
6 - Dave Nalle
Hmmm, someone edited the article since I responded. 10 minutes ago it had the full text with no breaks between quoted sections. Much better this way, I guess.
And Steve, I'm not following your comment. There's nothing in the full text of the Times article about the Christian right in the US. What are you getting at?
Dave
7 - Steve S
I was going on the title 'pro-terror outed'....
I thought why not go all the way back to the source and "out" the beginnings of terrorism? Since it can be proven that Reagan and Christian evangelicals and fundamentals funded and supported the beginnings of Al Queda and terrorism (as shown in my link), let's just lay it all on the table.
8 - Steve S
heehee, I meant fundamentalists. I haven't had my coffee yet.
9 - Dave Nalle
Yes, Steve, but they didn't fund them AS terrorists, they funded them as insurgents against the Russians in Afghanistan. There was no conception at that time that they were so heavily religiously extreme or that they would turn on those who had supported them and move on to international terrorism.
Logically one would think that once they were victorious in Afghanistan they would be grateful to the US for supporting them, rather than turning on us and declaring a Jihad.
I don't think you can fault Reagan on this in any sensible way.
Dave
10 - one with no name
Dave:
I would disagree with what you said.
1. The Russians did call them "terrorists". So we did fund them as "terrorists", one might be able to argue.
2. We had a *very good idea* what these people were all about at the time. For example, in the early days of the Afghan war, Pakistan and Amreeka, both backed a fellow named Hikmatyar. He turned into such a terror for his own people, that the US disowned him, even back then and persuaded us to do the same. The next bunch of people we picked were no better, but then there wasn't anyone else.
So I wouldn't fault Reagan either. Everyone tried to do the best with what they had.
11 - alienboy
using proxies to do government's dirty work for them has ALWAYS been a bad idea.
In the original post, I'm confused because it's all in a British context until RJ goes off on a wild tangent and criticises the USA media about it's performance.
12 - Steve S
when I read the article I linked to, this is what I get out of it:
Christian evangelicals along with Reagan taught Al Queda how to use terroristic methods and funded them with weaponry to go after a superpower.
So now we have a terroristic group, Al Queda, to deal with. The point is moot whether we trained them to go after someone else or not.
That's like saying I trained someone to break into homes, but I can't be faulted when they break into my own.
Whatevah.
13 - Dave Nalle
>>using proxies to do government's dirty work for them has ALWAYS been a bad idea.<<
Wow, Alienboy. Good to hear you've changed your mind and are now for our direct interventionist policy in Iraq - since that's the alternative to using groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban to do our work for us.
Dave
14 - alienboy
Dave, that's great, intentional misdirection as a proxy for engagement, well done.
15 - Dave Nalle
No, alienboy, it's sarcasm. Ever heard of it?
Dave
16 - alienboy
Trust me Dave, sarcasm it ain't...