22 2 mins 11 yrs

Did you read that that Islamist extremists had been able to read and spread hate messages from jail?

Dangerous convicts linked to Al Qaeda have been networking through a website, MuslimPrisoners.com. Its founder insists it aims just to support people who may feel “forgotten” by the outside world. But it is claimed convicts’ letters have been published on the site appearing to glorify violence by Muslims as well as harshly criticising Britain.

I agree with Conservative MP and security expert Patrick Mercer who has aid:

“These people are in prison for terrorist and related crimes which involve spreading hatred. Why therefore are they allowed to continue doing similar things when they are meant to be kept away from normal society?”


A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the National Offender Management Service took the risks posed by extremist offenders seriously. All high-security jails now have a counter- terrorism unit.

I take little reassurance from the comment from the Ministry of Justice spokesman. It strikes me that prison conditions continue to be far too cushy, far too open to abuse. Some may think that our Jails are perfect breeding grounds for Jihad and that the only way to effectively crush this danger is to deny convicted Jihadists any contact with the outside world, no internet access and no mail sent out that has not been thoroughly vetted. Solitary confinement is another method that could be deployed to ensure that these terrorists are not able to convert the vulnerable to their twisted and evil Jihad ways.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

22 thoughts on “JIHAD.COM

  1. Some may think that our Jails are perfect breeding grounds for Jihad and that the only way to effectively crush this danger is to deny convicted Jihadists any contact with the outside world,

    Some (including myself) might think it best to deny these people the right to any oxygen at all. Let alone the ‘oxygen of publicity’.

  2. Is “Devil’s Island” still available?

    If so, maybe Sarkozy will offer it on a 99-year lease to the British prison services.

    I’ve read that Mobile reception there is non-existant.

  3. Tony Blair said that we went into Afghanistan to eliminate the opium crop, which was a paltry 185 tons in 2001. Here’s why our troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan:


    – Despite spending £18billion and a conflict which has so far cost the lives of almost 400 British troops, production of the class-A drug by Afghan farmers rose between 2001 and 2011 from just 185 tons to a staggering 5,800 tons.

    – Such has been the failure to combat the problem that more than 90 per cent of the heroin sold on Britain’s streets is still made using opium from Afghanistan.

    – The United Nations yesterday warned that the situation was out of control.

    The UN is wrong: the situation is very much under control but just not as people would ever believe.

  4. I don’t rememeber any such comment by Blair.

    The Taliban ( then, not now ) had a really good record on suppressing drug production.

  5. The obvious solution, so obvious it’s 50-feet high with neon lights blinking away, is to take away the PCs.

    But that would make some people upset, and would mean prison officers would have to actually do some prison officering. It won’t happen because prisons are run for the benefit of the prison officers, and that means doing everything possible to make prisoners happy and contented.

  6. Phantom –

    Blair referenced drugs more than once. Here’s a speech of his soon after the Afghan invasion in 2001. Penultimate paragraph:

    “Our prosperity and standard of living require us to deal with the terrorist threat. We act also because the al-Qaeda network and the Taleban regime are funded in large parts on the drugs trade – 90% of all heroin sold in Britain originates from Afghanistan. Stopping that trade is again directly in our interests.”

    There are three whoppers in just those couple of lines, but that’s Blair, the constant and casual liar. Note the lie that Al-Q and the Taliban were funded by drugs. They might be funded by drugs now, and what funding that is, but they were pretty successful in stopping the trade until eleven years ago.

  7. I stand corrected.

    The Taliban were and are horrible, but there were some major articles in the NY Times and other papers pre 9/11 stating that the Taliban had acted to suppress opium production and that they had been quite effective in doing so.

    I remember reading that article in the NYT, it was fairly black and white.

  8. “There are three whoppers in just those couple of lines, but that’s Blair,”

    Indeed. Another, when he was desperately trying to drum up support in Britain for his participation in Bush’s crusade in Iraq, was that he had agreed with Bush that the Israel/Palestine issue was now once more topping the agenda and they will now stop at nothing to find a solution.

    Of course nothing at all was done. The Israel/Palestine issue remained in the background for fear of upsetting the Israelis; they continued to enjoy their carte blanche and the conflict continued as before.

    As for the Teleban. I believe the truth is that they at first generally succeeded in ending the trade for a few years, but then towards the end of their regime began to let production revive to get a bit of cash into the country.

  9. Blair had spoken of the need for regime change in Iraq long before Bush was president.

    If anything, Bush followed Blair’s strategy and not vice versa.

  10. “Blair had spoken of the need for regime change in Iraq long before Bush was president.”

    Phantom, he no doubt also supported “regime change” in North Korea, Syria, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, and at least a dozen other places. He has even recently gone on record calling for regime change in Syria and Iran.
    That does not mean he wants Britain to launch a military attack on those places.
    That idea of starting a war came from the Neo-Cons in America.

    Besides, your statement is very dodgy for other reasons too. When asked precisely about this at the Iraq War tribunal, Blair went to great pains (looking frantically for quotes etc.) to show how he was on record as supporting regime change in Iraq “back in 2002”, i.e. long after the war had become a twinkle in the Neo-Con eye.
    If there were earlier sources, surely he would have mentioned them.

    Jack Straw – UK foreign minister at the time – also emphatically stated that regime change was NOT UK policy re. Iraq and was not the reason for the invasion as far as the UK was concerned.

  11. You guys do need to learn the meaning of ” neo con ” one of these decades.

    Bush was not one, nor was Rumsfeld, nor was Cheney.

    ” Interventionist ” is far more accurate.

    Neo con has a specific meaning and they don’t come close to meeting that description.

  12. Phantom

    I have heard that the term ‘Neo con’ specifically refers only to Jewish politicians holding a particular ideological belief. If that is so then it is daft and it is perfectly appropriate to change it’s meaning to refer to any individual holdig a particular viewpoint.

  13. “You guys do need to learn the meaning of ” neo con ” one of these decades.
    Bush was not one, nor was Rumsfeld, nor was Cheney.”

    You guys do need to learn to read. Nobody said they were. 🙂

    “Neo con has a specific meaning and they don’t come close to meeting that description.”

    That’s also not true (are you by any change in Rio?). The term is used in both a narrow and a broad sense, and I can give you all the examples you want to prove it to you.

    If you really insist on quarrelling over the meaning of words instead of replying to the points I made, at least check those meanings out beforehand.

    Or do you now admit that your reference to Blair seeking “regime change” before Bush was, in this context, irrelevant and/or incorrect?

    I don’t know what you’re kicking against: the attack on Iraq in 2003 was deeply unpopular in all European countries (the UK, Spain, Italy, and, yes, even Poland – but above all in Britain) at the time and on the other hand broadly popular in the US and Israel. Those are by now historical facts, and fudging the issue, as Blair did at the time and you are trying to do now, isn’t going to chamge them.

    Blair lied to the British people several times over for this neo-con crusade, and those lies led to the deaths of almost 200 of those people. The dead stay dead while Blair is living it up and earning over GBP 10 m per annum.

  14. Bill Clinton signed to Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which called for regime change in Iraq. It was cited after 9/11 as a justification for the invasion. It can’t be forgotten that H.Clinton, Al Gore and others often called for the regime to be overthrown at this time.

    Tony Blair made a speech in Chicago in 1999 which justified interventions and specifically identified Iraq as just such a country where it was required.

    The invasion of Iraq wasn’t pulled out of a hat after 9/11. It was a pre-existing plan and 9/11 opened the door for it to be done.

  15. Colm –

    That’s misleading. It so happens that in the first tranche of neo-cons there were Jews, but the greater significance is that they were ex-Marxists and Trotskyites who brought those philosophies to the Right.

    It was such a successful colonisation that the Old Right, of which Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and … well me, are the last, dwindling exponents.

    It was such a successful colonisation that conservatives who call for the projection of power as a standing element of foreign policy don’t realise they are repudiating conservatism and calling for ats which have their roots in Trotskyite revolution.

    At home it supports welfarism and permanent government intervention into the economy to bring about political outcomes in society.

  16. Pete 609

    Spot on.

    The term ” neocon ” makes sense if it is expanded a bit to encompass liberals / leftists who become conservatives / interventionists

    When it is used to mean any right wing or conservative actor who supports foreign interventions, as it was by the Rolling Stones, Noam Chomsky, and half of ATW, it loses all meaning whatever.

    Used in this context, Harry Truman, Barry Goldwater and John F Kennedy were ” neocons “. The phrase as it is used is an impediment to rational discussion.

  17. Noel/Pete

    Thanks for your clarifications. I don’t know where I got the Jewish bit from , but I’m sure I read a comment from someone (Troll ?) here claiming that the term only applied to Jewish political converts.

  18. That is accurate as to the ultimate origin …a school of political thought by primarily Jewish liberal types who were mugged by geopolitical reality and become…” neocons ” who saw the world ” as it was ”

    Bill Kristol, Norman Podoretz ( sp ), them guys

  19. All this ‘neo-con’ here and there is just worldwide armed robbery disguised as an ideology. Afghanistan was invaded principally to get its resources and opium is one of them. If this were not, the taliban would not have been deposed so that the opium crop could be increased from 185 tons in 2001 under the taliban to 5,400 tons under the US government. There is a direct relationship between the numbers of US troops in Afghanistan and the size of the opium crop. The crop needs protection (US Army) and marketing (CIA): that’s business American-style.

    Now that the US administration is talking to the taliban, it is likely that they will come to a deal, the key to the deal being how to maintain the opium crop.

Comments are closed.