web analytics

TERROR TRAINING IN THE NEW FOREST…

By ATWadmin On October 26th, 2007

terrorcamp3.jpgIt’s a bit of a shocker to read about a group of men practising military-style techniques in a New Forest terror training camp. A British Army officer told Woolwich Crown Court that the drills were similar to those of al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Five men all deny charges of being involved in setting up training camps. Among them is Mohammed Hamid, 50, who prosecutors say set up camps attended by the 21 July bomb plotters. The other men are Mousa Brown, Kibley da Costa, Mohammed Al-Figari and Kader Ahmed. Mmmm..there’s that name again – Mohammad and the connection seems to be with terrorism. Still, it’s the Religion of Peace AND love, right?

23 Responses to “TERROR TRAINING IN THE NEW FOREST…”

  1. Careful David. You’ll be getting a visit from Inspector Knacker for telling it like it is. After the Channel 4 Despatches programme went undercover to expose the jihadist imams in Brum, the police swung into action right away – against the programme-makers of course.

  2. In fact, would you stop by the local police station next Tuesday at 9 a.m. There are a few questions to be answered.

  3. Soldier A served as an infantry platoon commander on three active tours and now works as a British Army instructor.

    …..in the new forest?

  4. there’s an interesting drama called Britz on Channel 4 next week about homegrown Muslim terroist recruitment which ATW regulars might find interesting.

  5. Look, I understand that only a very small proportion of UK Muslims are actively involved in preparing acts of terrorism. But it seems that the non-terrorist Muslim majority are not actively denouncing this, or helping the UK police to uncover it. What are we going to do about this problem? Why won’t the silent majority of non-terrorist Muslims speak out against this?

  6. Why we hear so little condemnation from the Muslims, is their collective mentality, they stick together, right or wrong. This cohesiveness is their strength, and whether consciously or not, they know it full well. Witness the willingness of the individual to die for the cause. They are more easily led by the extreme view.

    The West, being perhaps more developed, has a more individual approach, we allow open dissent, Islam does not.

    Of course this is our weakness, we are all too easily subverted by such dissent, that such dissent is party politically motivated rather than in the national interest, destoys the cohesiveness necessary for dealing with a common enemy. It makes the difficult decisions all the more difficult to take…

  7. Good points ernest. Our strengths can also be our weaknesses and it is an infinite battle to know how and when it is wise to sacrifice one for the other.

  8. Colm,

    Doesn’t it all depend on just how much you value that which has been achieved thus far, and whether it is worth the effort of fighting for?

    All that we now enjoy didn’t just happen, people have died and suffered for what we have, and I do not mean just the toys and fripperies.

  9. Blimey, I better be careful next time I go airsofting or I’ll be up on terrorism charges 😐

  10. Ernest

    You portray Christianity as a liberal religion which tolerates indiviual dissent. But this is a rosy view which ignores its long history of persecuting other faiths (such as European Jews) and its internecine bloodbaths in Europe and elsewhere in the world over past centuries (think Saint Bartholomew’s Day etc). Its emergence as a peaceful religion is a relatively late development.

    I think that Islam is now where Christianity was about 500 years ago, which is to say backward, woman-suppressing, homophobic, warlike and intolerant of other faiths. However, the vast majority of its adherents are against suicide bombing, and that gives me hope that in the future it will become civilised as Christianity has (mostly) done.

    But the pessimist in me says that as long as religion continues to exist in the world, it will continue to cause wars and slaughter, as it has always done. It’s high time for we humans to grow up and stop clutching at sky-god superstitions, in whatever form.

  11. Peter,

    Nowadays it is a liberal religion, and nowadays we don’t issue threats to all and sundry. To keep looking back at the past and judging it by today’s standards is, at best, a fruitless excercise, as is trying to excuse the behaviour of those that do threaten us.

    To blame religion for all the ills that befall man is just too simplistic for words, religion or no, man will always find some reason to get aggressive with those he dislikes, religion just makes for a good excuse. Man seems born to covet that which he doesn’t have, he is also born to defend himself when others covet what he has. Always has been and always will be. As the world gets ever more crowded, it will only get worse….if anything Christianity is now more of a calming influence, that at any time in it’s history.

  12. Very good comment ernest. There are no ideological guarantees that can always prevent men from behaving cruelly if they choose, and they will use religious or secular reasons to justify their behaviour. It is true however that the expression of Christianity today is much more pacific and accepting of alternative cultures and choices than Islam is.

  13. >>.if anything Christianity is now more of a calming influence, that at any time in it’s history.<<

    True. Did you all read this week of that Austrian farmer whose Christian faith led him to defy the Nazis? They cut off his head for his trouble, but he has now been beatified (one step away from being canonised a saint).
    A small, but strong, light in a horrible darkness.

    (links don’t work, but google "austrian farmer nazis" and you’ll get enough info

    or try

    http://www.catholicherald.com/royal/royal6.htm

  14. Nowadays it is a liberal religion

    not through choice.

    if anything Christianity is now more of a calming influence

    while most of its adherents are peaceful law abiding people, many are not. just like any other religion. the problem I have is that many attribute liberalisation to christianity when it goes right and then blame it on secularism when it goes wrong.

  15. daytripper,

    You really do come out with the most outrageouly stupid remarks.

    "Not through choice’, – just what are you implying? Of course it is through choice. Christianity is not now – if ever it was, – a warmongering religion, and there is no compulsion to attend church, or even to believe…

    Sure, some nasty things have been done in the name of Christianity in the past, but largely at the behest of some power hungry Cardinal, or Pope. The Christian religion is not an aggressive philosophy.

    "while most of its adherents are peaceful law abiding people, many are not"

    Utter rubbish! – and just who are suggesting for the label of "aggressive Christian’s". I assume you are hinting at the Christian lobby in the US, whose most aggressive act is to shout a few insults at a gay wedding, and to wave a banner or two outside the Whitehouse. Perhaps you see the demised Jerry Falwell as the Che Guevarra of the Christian right?

    Are there cells of ‘Christian activists’ operating anywhere in the world – that is the real world that most of us inhabit, not your fantasy version.

    "the problem I have is that many attribute liberalisation to christianity when it goes right and then blame it on secularism when it goes wrong."

    Just who attributes liberalisation to Christianity? I would have thought that the opposite was true, Christianity being perhaps more conservative than liberal, – see the on-going debate over abortion and homosexuality. As for secularism, it doesn’t need anyone to point the finger in that direction, secularists are quite capable of screwing things up on their own, as with both idealogies.

  16. just what are you implying? Of course it is through choice. Christianity is not now – if ever it was, – a warmongering religion, and there is no compulsion to attend church, or even to believe…

    the church had to be brought kicking and screaming into the age of modernity and rational thinking. one can only imagine where we would be if christianity had actually followed christs message and embraced science. and dont give me the nonsense about people are good because of christianity. people were generally good long before some hippy socialist showed them the light. the bible is a train wreck for morality.

    Utter rubbish! – and just who are suggesting for the label of "aggressive Christian’s". I assume you are hinting at the Christian lobby in the US, whose most aggressive act is to shout a few insults at a gay wedding, and to wave a banner or two outside the Whitehouse. Perhaps you see the demised Jerry Falwell as the Che Guevarra of the Christian right?

    i would have thought the Bush Whitehouse demonstrated it clearly enough. after all like other religious nutballs he claims god is telling him to wage war on the world. odd thing is, the bible is chock full of people just like him.

    Just who attributes liberalisation to Christianity? I would have thought that the opposite was true, Christianity being perhaps more conservative than liberal, – see the on-going debate over abortion and homosexuality. As for secularism, it doesn’t need anyone to point the finger in that direction, secularists are quite capable of screwing things up on their own, as with both idealogies.

    plenty of people do it consciously and subconsciously. "the west is free because of christianity" etc etc. but it doesnt stop there. no they positively foam at the secularisation of the west and demand religion reassert itself as a major influence in the minds of the people. yet with the same breath they ask the muslim world to embrace progressive secularism, as it will lead to peace and harmony.

    you cant have it both ways.

  17. Daytripper

    You seem like a sensible chap. Why do you hang around here with all these fundamentalists and other assorted unmentionables? Not intending to undermine your good work in any way, but I doubt you’ll convince many of them of the benefits of reason.

    I just dropped in here off a link on Slugger O’Toole to see who this David Vance character that Mick Fealty regularly refers to is. Now I’m seriously doubting Fealty’s judgement. I’ve never been exposed to as much petty nasty-minded nonsense in my life. This guy seriously gets cited as some kind of opinion-maker? He’s clearly a mentalist who lurks on the fringes of polite society whispering poisoned words.

    All in all, it’s left a bit of a nasty taste in my mouth. I’m off for a whiskey to clear it away.

  18. Two of them, is that what they call a delusion of fools?

  19. Snakebrain,

    Best you stay away, this is a site for grown-ups, your miserable comments are a sight for sore-eyes. That you rate Tripper as a "sensible chap" will cause a few chuckles here, though in fairness to him he likes to comment here. Now, off you Slugger with you….

  20. We call it a Confederacy of Dunces Ernest.

    Your comments were laser sharp and absolutely brilliant today. What a joy to read.

  21. You’d be dangerous if you weren’t so stupid.

  22. Snakebrain,

    Can’t you take a hint pal? Off with you and your trash comments.

  23. Sorry pal, I’ll stay as long as I see fit. Or do you only talk to people who agree with everything you say?