Scottish Islamic State Plotted

[Jack Fulcher]

I couldn't believe my eyes.  Is this what Dave has been up to?  No wonder he hasn't been around.  Here's the story:


'Scottish Islamic state plotted'

Plans to set up a secret Islamist state in Scotland were discussed by two supporters of jihad, a court has heard.

The pair said it could provide a safe haven for those who felt "oppressed", London's Blackfriars Crown Court heard.

Aabid Khan, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, said the only problem was the availability of weapons, the court was told.

The 23-year-old and three others deny terrorism-related counts of possessing articles or documents.

In the dock are Mr Khan and Sultan Muhammad, 23, also from Bradford, Ahmed Sulieman, 30, from Woolwich, south-east London, and Hammaad Munshi, 18, from, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

Incriminating material

Jurors heard the state would also be run according to Sharia law and eventually be used as a base to "discreetly train" for attacks against non-believers.

The court heard the online exchange was part of a "mass" of allegedly incriminating material found by police during a series of swoops in Bradford and London two years ago.

Prosecutor Simon Denison said the MSN exchange between Khan and Muhammad about the secret Islamic state in Scotland occurred on 12 November 2005.

He said it began with Mr Muhammad explaining how he and work colleagues had allegedly been chatting about "hijrah" or emigration for Muslims feeling oppressed in Britain.

He then continued: "So like maybe a remote part of Scotland - people were like 'What the hell?' - at least to a place where there were Muslim communities."

Sharia law
Mr Khan is said to have replied: "A group of Muslims can go to a remote place and set up a mini Sharia state and they can rule according to Sharia law, like this and stay there, building them up and their children up, preparing for fitness, and then launching jihad once they strengthen themselves."

Mr Denison claimed he then added: "In the UK you can isolate with a group discreetly and train, but better in the US as they have weapons there. Over here weapons is problem."

All defendants deny possessing articles or documents likely to be useful to terrorists in 2005 and 2006.

Mr Khan and Mr Muhammad also deny possessing articles for a terrorist purpose.

The trial continues.





Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/7449797.stm

Published: 2008/06/12 01:26:33 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

Readers on this site should not take the above article very seriously. These are young, very annoyed Moslem youths who have no idea how unlikely their idea of a Sharia state in Scotland would be. There is no chance of any part of Scotland being allowed to be outside the jurisdiction of Scottish Law - which is among then best systems of jurisprudence in the world.
The big question is why are normally law abiding and sensible young men thinking of committing  terrorist acts in the country that they have been brought up in.
The answer to that is of course wrongheaded and evil US and UK foreign policy which has driven people in many parts of the world into the arms of terrorist organisations. God help us all if America elects John McCain.

[Muhsin]

Even if that story is genuine, the person who initially wrote (or fabricated) it used, even in a bit way, too much hyperbole. And so did its author here, i.e Jack.

Wish I had much time to respond fully. But, inshaAllah, when I get back. Am now going to market; my shop's stocks (at least many) were sold. So have to leave to market to buy more.

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

Abu Muhsin

Your analysis is correct. The exaggerated story was planted in a right wing and very often racist newspaper to bring discredit on the Moslem community in Scotland. It should be ignored.

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

I should point out that the BBC reported it also as a fairly low key item, knowing that it was a highly unlikely eventuality but the Daily Mail made it front page headline. The Daily Mail and the Daily Express in UK  continually print "news" that deliberately worsens race relations in UK.
And Jack -as a (none too enthusiastic) Catholic I'm certainly not likely to be setting up Islamic states.
The only building of worship I want to be in is one that recognises we all worship the same God - no matter what the name is and no matter what the religion is.

[HUSNAA]

It sounded too far fetched. I was actually thinking it was a bogey BBC site.. u know how it is these days, anyone can fabricate a website and link unsuspected browsers to it.

[King]

Alright, this is the kind of ambiguous commentary that really pisses me off. Is this story fact or fiction? You people do not seem to be able to make up your minds. Somebody calls it a fabrication, but does not provide a rebuttal to the contrary. Someone else jumps in and admits in a roundabout sort of way that the culprits are just misguided, and that the story should be ignored. I'm sure you all see the confusion here. Which is it? IS IT TRUE OR NOT? If there is credibility to this story, then what part of it is fabrication?
Oh by the way Dave, just so I understand you correctly, you are saying that these "misguided" youths that aren't guilty of anything because the story isn't true anyway, are only lightly guilty of something (we just don't know what) because of US and UK policies. So.........again, we these people planning to establish an Islamic state in Scotland, Yes or NO. It does not matter how absurd the idea might be. Were they? The other question is this, granted that there is great displeasure over American/UK policies in all the anti US/UK societies. Why attempt to Shariarize Scotland? Are their policies torturous also?

[Jack Fulcher]

Now let me get this straight:  I find this little blurb about some kids in Scotland interested in setting up a small group of muslims who would govern themselves using Shari'ah laws, and I put it here at least partly as a joke because Dave is from Scotland and I like to rib him.  Now after a few comments it has morphed into something sinister and possibly made up.  This is an interesting study in epistemology.  The worst that we can say about this story is that it really doesn't deserve all the attention it's getting, given that it's only a few kids with big mouths and wild ideas about how things work in their world.  But there's no reason to think that the story was in any way "fabricated" or that it was from a "bogey BBC site" as suggested by dear Husnaa.  Good grief.  And for Dave to suggest that there's no way something like this can happen in Wonderful Scotland because its jurisprudence is, well, so Wonderful is just hogwash.  In Canada (with its own system of Wonderful Jurisprudence) there have been a couple of Muslim groups already asking for authorization to impose Shari'ah laws on their own people, saying that they would impose these laws only on Muslims and that they would keep to themselves (except, of course, to work and make money).  

I don't know how local government is administered in Scotland, but in Canada and the US the individual states (or provinces) are free to pass their own laws and administer their own laws.  Only when there is a violation of federal law (such as interstate trafficking of various banned goods) does the federal government impose itself.  This means that a state could allow a community of like-minded families to band together and set up as school system or government.  We see this happening in western states (and provinces), especially.  Religious groups (like the one following David Koresh - remember him from the mid 1990s?) sometimes will create a small community and enforce rules on its membership.  Of course, if some of the practices result in gross violation of state law (like making the girls marry men they don't want to marry), the state will step in and stop it (if they hear about it, of course).  This hasn't been attempted by Muslims much in the US (except in the Black Muslim communities in a couple of major cities), but, as I said, those in Canada have applied for authority to do so.

But back to the epistemological aspects, I find it odd that the story can go from sort of silly to "exaggerated" and planted in a right wing racist newspaper, to  "probably fabricated" in only a few hours.  And Dave's comment takes the cake:  Why do these kids consider taking up arms against the good people of Scotland?  Because of the "wrongheaded and evil US and UK foreign policy which has driven people in many parts of the world into the arms of terrorist organisations."  "Wrongheaded" means, of course, that "I don't agree with it."  But what's worse is that we're driving people into the arms of the terrorists.  They don't make a reasoned decision - they're being "driven" to these desperate acts by evil men.  What victims these poor people are!  Gee, what do they teach in college today?  Victimization Studies?

If you don't like the policies of your government, get in there and change them.  That's democracy.  This is how we stopped the Viet Nam War.  I and many of my friends demonstrated almost daily against that hideous war in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  After that we got positions with the government and in the universities.  It was a pretty slow process, but once we were able to start to change people's thinking on some key issues, it was clear that the policies needed to be changed.  We stopped a pretty big war, and you can too, Dave, unless you just don't have the facts on your side.  If you don't, people won't support you.  If you surround yourself with people who only agree with your views, you lose perspective and think that the government is irrational and evil.  If you work in the system, however, you can change at least a few minds, and you can also appreciate their own positions and realize that there aren't really very many evil people out there after all.  These are all difficult issues and very little is black and white.

Got a meeting....Jack

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

First point
The foolish people suggesting this didn't live in Scotland so don't know Scotland so that's why they came up with the silly idea in the first place.
I didn't say "fabricated". The story wasn't but it was so daft and ridiculous none of the serious media headlined it - only scurrilous right wing tabloid rags.
Second point
The whole matter of terrorism is not funny, so stop treating it like a joke. The Americans (or some of them) might find it funny. The rest of the world looks on aghast.  America is the country that when attacked by fanatical Saudi Arabian terrorists used that as an excuse to blast Iraq (and secure all of Iraq's oil). And kill over half a million Iraqis in the process. But hey - what does it matter, they're all the same - brown skinned moslem aayrabs. Isn't that the attitude of the Average Joe American?
Third point
And don't worry. We are changing our government. We've got George Bush here at the moment, basically best described by the old Scots description as an "eejit". He's meeting our Prime Minister Gordon Brown who is electorally doomed with the lowesr ratings ever achieved by a British PM. Bush's visit is making it even worse for him. The wicked and illegal attack on Iraq has all but destroyed Britain's Labour Party and has brought Scottish independence very close.
If you're looking for jokes there's plenty of fun to be had in the Make Me Laugh section you'll find in Chit-Chat.

[Dan-Borno]

i have said it before now, whenever you see King
and now with Jack hungrily replying posts in this
forum, then no doubt its something that has to do
with Islam or Muslims.  I pity both of you guys for
not trying to hide your Islamaphobia.

[Muhsin]

Why, DB? Me yayi zafi haka? :)

These two guys are just wonderful! LOL ;D

[HUSNAA]

i have said it before now, whenever you see King
and now with Jack hungrily replying posts in this
forum, then no doubt its something that has to do
with Islam or Muslims.  I pity both of you guys for
not trying to hide your Islamaphobia.

I kind agree with DB.

[King]

Dan Borno, what are you pitying me for? Did I ask for your pity? I asked if there was any credibility to this story. Rather than focus on the issue and respond to my question, you come back with this pity me nonsense. Not too long ago on this forum, there was another unflattering story on a different thread regarding some Muslims. Rather than discuss the report, many of you began by attacking both the story and its source. I recall how both Muhsin and Dan Borno dismissed the entire report as false reporting only to be informed later by Husnna that the story was in fact credible. I also recall telling you guys not to stick your feet in your mouths. I would have hoped that that embarrassment taught you both a lesson.....apparently not.
You are right Dan Borno, I am not trying to hide my Islamophobia because there is nothing to hide or fear. When have you known me to fear anything. As far as issues, anything is fair game with me. I simply asked if the Scottish Muslim story had any credibility to it not. Why does that bother you so much? Is it a sin or a crime to ask questions for sole purpose of being properly informed? Geez!!! Talk of paranoia.

[Jack Fulcher]

Well, good grief, folks.  I found years ago that any suggestion that their world is not perfect or that America is not totally evil gets a lot of defensive reactions from some people on this board.  That means you, Dave!  How is it that you think I'm making a joke out of terrorism?  Quote me specifically or find another approach.  I don't joke about terrorism, but I do make fun of people who take themselves altogether too seriously.  Imagine these silly kids going around talking about how they're going to create a state, run by Shari'ah, right in the middle of the British Isles!  Isn't that funny??  But, as I said, this is a serious topic in Canada which has, due to its over-the-top policy of political correctness, had to consider an application from some Imams to do just that:  They want to create a little enclave of Muslims, governed locally by Shari'ah law, separate from Canadian jurisdiction. 

One way to react to these stories is to ignore them; in the words of Dave: "Readers on this site should not take the above article very seriously."  I suggest that this approach is similar to the approach taken by the older Germans in the mid-1920s when their youth started to join the Nazi movement.  "These kids are just crazy, just like kids in every generation."  Well, before long the Nazis were everywhere, burning Jewish Synagogues and breaking windows in Jewish shops.  It was a fire that had gotten out of hand.

I think a better approach is to make fun of these people.  It's more my style, anyway, but humor is a political tool and it gets people's attention.  Obama's style uses humor in his speeches, and this is very effective.  McCain tries, but he's a little like Bush - humor comes hard to these two.  It's kind of painful when they try to tell a joke.  I'm sure that if you think of your better Nigerian politicians, they use humor effectively in their speeches.

I don't think any Americans think that terrorism is funny.  That is why we're willing to spend so much money and give our young people to the wars in the Middle East.  People here think the war's been mishandled, but they also think it's important to establish ourselves and try to dismantle the al-Qaeda networks there and in Pakistan as much as we can.  However, I don't know what you're talking about when you say that when we were "attacked by fanatical Saudi Arabian terrorists [we] used that as an excuse to blast Iraq (and secure all of Iraq's oil). And kill over half a million Iraqis in the process."  Nonsense, David. >:(  Go back and read newspaper accounts of what the President and Congress said about invading Iraq in 2003.  The reasons for doing so were:
1)  The UN had issued several resolutions saying that Saddam wasn't allowing inspectors into several facilities in the country.  He was violating the terms of the limits imposed by the Food for Oil program.  These resolutions allowed us to use unspecified means to get in and inspect them.
2)  All major countries concluded that he still had big weapons, especially chemical and biological weapons.  Their intelligence organizations, including France, Britain, and Russia, all seemed to agree with the US on this one.  Almost all the Democrats agreed that this was a fact.  No one lied - they may have been wrong, but they believed it.
3)  At no time did Bush or any of his representatives claim that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.  He doesn't claim so now.  At most, Saddam can be accused of supporting terrorism through his financial support of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas.  And he was famous for giving $25,000 to families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel (like blowing up a cafe or school bus), therefore giving these kids an incentive to go ahead with their attack.  So he was a big supporter of terrorism; but it's clear that he had no strong connection with the Wahabbis in the Saudi family, the ones who had the most to do with 9/11 organization and funding.  And he had no love for bin-Laden, and no one here says he had.

Your characterization of Americans as saying "all them aaryabs are the same" just shows your own racism, Dave.  It's like me saying that all Scots are drunkards - I know it's not true, and I've never even been there.  But that's the stereotype.  Just as your referring to my president as an "eejit."  He graduated from Yale with a degree in Law.  What's your pedigree, Dave?

And Dan-Borno, I have not made it a secret that I came to this Forum years ago when poor Amina Lawal had been sentenced to a stoning death for having a baby, while the father just walked away with impunity, and all of this was under Shari'ah law.  So my involvement here was to voice my outrage at this event, so you can say it's a reaction to Islam, or at least to how its rules are enforced in some places.  But I think it's incorrect to characterize my position as "Islamophobia," as I believe that the religion can be practiced without such bizzare results, as it is in many Islamic countries (or so I am led to believe).  Nigeria can be one of those countries.  But if, instead, when abberations occur, such as the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the murderous riots over some silly cartoons in Denmark, the kids TV shows that encourage 8-year olds to commit to martyr themselves "for the al-Aqsa Mosque," or the various bombings that continue to take place, sponsored by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, otherwise reasonable Muslims start to give excuses for this behavior, or just look the other way, I start to think there's something fundamentally wrong here.  When Dave says that these kids are "driven people in many parts of the world into the arms of terrorist organisations..." by the policies of other countries, that is such a claim of vicitimhood, that we're just not responsible for our own actions, that it's Bush's fault, that sort of thinking is troublesome and we need to talk about it to see how it's keeping you and others down.  Jack

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

I am amazed at your completely selective interpretation of the events wich led up to the illegal invasion of Iraq. No UM resolution authorised the invasion of Iraq. Under the UN Charter invasion of a sovereign state requires a specific resolution to that effect. The Secretary General of the UN has declared the invason illegal. Only America and the UK cling to self self serving arguments on this. All clear minded people across the world recognise that the Intelligence was distorted and invented. The UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq in their hundreds and could find no evidence of operational WMDs. They asked for  more inspectors and more time but that didn't suit America who disregarded the truth they were being told and invaded anyway.
The invasion of Iraq was sold to the American people as a response to the twin towers attack which had nothing to do with  Iraq.
The quote I made was from one of the American military who has been charged with abuse in Iraq. Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay are disgraces which will sully the name of America for generations.
I have academic qualifications for your information but that has nothing whatever to do with the fact that George Bush is universally recognised as a fool. 
Even if Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction it still did not justify legally an invasion. Most of the countries in the world have WMD, none more so that the US. One law for us and one law for everybody else is the American way
To kill over 500,000 innocent Iraqis in the pursuit of Saddam Hussein  (who was put in power by America) cannot be morally justified in any way.
The American/Uk invasion of Iraq has left its innocent population in a living hell.  51 people were killed by a car bomb in Bahgdad on Tuesday.
There are 2 million Iraq Christians now living in exile in Syria and Jordan and it is estimated that over 4 million Iraqia have now fled their country. Pax Americana indeed.