Feeds

back to article Three found guilty of web extremism plot

Three British Muslims face prison after a jury at Blackfriars Crown Court in London today found them guilty of involvement in an online plot to spread jihadism. Dewsbury schoolboy Hammaad Munshi was 16 when he was arrested in 2006. Along with 23-year-old Aabid Khan, from Bradford, and 23-year-old Sultan Muhammed, from Manningham …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Pirate

thought crime

by sheer coincidence a rent in the space-time continuum has just opened up and let me hear a few minutes of a radio phone-in from the future, debating the compulsory introduction of brain implants for all citizens:

POLITICIAN: blah blah ...very real threat... protect our freedoms.... blah blah... enemies of democracy....

99% OF CALLERS: well, if you're not thinking anything wrong you've nothing to worry about!

LONE CALLER: this is an erosion of our civil lib....

CHAIRMAN: [interrupting] i'm sorry. that's all we've got time for this week!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Napalm = Fondue fuel

"The 'napalm' instructions, along with much of the other information, was held on private, secure sites."

Yeh, he sold knives and 'Islamic' flags from an eCommerce site. (i.e. flags of Pakistan, Libya, Kuwait, Yemen, etc,...).

I'd like the URL to see for myself.

Napalm is burning petroleum jelly. You know that jelly stuff you get for fondue burners? That's basically what they called napalm. Burns like hell difficult to put out, sticks to stuff.

"Defendants used CODE names to communicate with each other"

As opposed to PET names? Or SCREEN names? Or elReg user names? Or the names we use on forums.

"Names, addresses, maps and photographs of officials and their residential addresses - along with opening hours in the case of official residences...Maps and photographs of POTENTIAL TARGETS in New York and London"

Like? Something flammable presumably, wooden, or wine & cheesy? We're talking about an incendiary device here.

"One of the criminals, Abid Khan, is known to be in communication with suspected terrorists in both Europe and the US and also known AQ operatives in the UK. He is also connected to another group of men who are currently awaiting trial for plotting an attack. Yes a real one."

Gosh, a real one? So not like this then? Why are they not arresting these known AQ operatives then? Surely arresting people that communicate with them would tip them off? And why was this info released (this guy talks to known AQ operatves)? If it would tip them off that the spooks know these AQ operatives... that doesn't quite make sense somehow.

Once you get past the fluff it comes down to an alleged plot against the Queen / New York/ Israel using bombs / sucide jackets / napalm with the motive of Allah worship or something. As evidence of the plot they propose ball bearings and info on napalm and bombs.

i.e. no plot, lots of fragments of possible plot schemes.

What appears to have happened is he came in with fake id and fake money and was arrested, but strangely the charges about fake id and money were not pressed rather a terrorist materials one was. I'm curious what happened there.

Lots of questions about this. But ultimately those questions will never be answered because he was prosecuted for possessing information that can be found in Wikipedia.

0
0

Dunstan - yes, sometimes but within limits

Dunstan

I'd certainly agree that if it IS bad law then that would be wrong. Seems to me though, that it's catching some interesting fish at the moment.

Where the potential harm lies of course (and I think this is the point you're making) is in its interpretation - and this is where close scrutiny is required. I'm still not quite cynical enough to believe that our creaking, fusty old democracy (together with the Police and Judiciary) isn't up to the job of doing this reasonably well.

The corollary to your argument, of course, is not to legislate at all. This would work, if your assertion that the people we are arresting and incarcerating really are harmless innocents, merely 'talking the talk'.

And that's where you and I must agree to differ. I'm afraid I don't buy the incompetence argument. For every Richard Reid, there is at least one Mohammed Siddique Khan - and there are structured, fully-funded networks in place to provide training and competency in the terrorists' art to new recruits.

So yes, whilst we have to rely on legislators, the Police and our Justice system to be able to tell the difference (and they have definitely been found wanting on occasion - particularly in the 70s IRA period), I just don't see the alternative.

I guess a much more interesting debate would centre around just what would constitute 'good' law in this regard?

0
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Neo Liberals Will be The Death Of Us All

A 23 year old makes secret contact with a 15 year old schoolboy to talk about puppies? He's obviously dodgy. But no, this guy wants to talk about bombs so that's Ok.

Anyway, we're all jumping to conclusions. Just because someone wants to read about making bombs and comes from an ideaology where belief is taken to its 'logical' conclusion and isn't really particularly known for its restraint and moderation, it doesn't mean that he means any harm.

While all the stupid liberals are up in arms and decrying commenters as being not-very-grown-up just because they want to think about things and not take the message they're being fed, isn't it clear that what got Ahmed Sulieman off the hook clearly didn't apply to the other two? Something went in his favour, something which didn't for the two who maybe wanted to make their thought-crimes a little more practical?

The only thought-crime mentality around here is that imposed on people like @Philip who's told he's not a grown up because he's thought the wrong 'non-mamby-pamby-pinko-liberal' thought, not the same nonsense as everyone else. His was the most balanced post here.

Here's to the people who don't fall for silly mob mentaility and can think for themselves!

0
0
Flame

Brazilian Student? @Pierre.

Jean Charles De Menezes was a sparky from what I could gather and was on his way to do a job when some bunch of testosterone (and unprosecuted!) fuelled murderers took his life.

I've got books on Napalm manufacture, automatic rifle manufacture, napalm based explosive light bulbs, etc. . . .

Heck, I've even got books on World wars but haven't really got the stomach to start one.

Information is not illegal or anyone with a brain and curiosity would be a criminal (if that isn't the case already.).

0
0
Silver badge

Hey Philip - take 2

These people are "connected" to "suspected terrorists"? Sure, can't imagine a more solid basis for imprisonment. They got a incoming call from someone owning two cell phones, and it was a false number, surely.

I hope this comment was not too difficult to understand. I tried to use simple words.

@Richard: "Here's to the people who don't fall for silly mob mentaility and can think for themselves!" says the guy who regurgitates the Gov-Daily Mail-Grauniad BS...

0
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

@ Rich Bee

Thanks for the precision. But now that I answered you, I'm "in connexion" with a "suspected terr'ist", ain't I?

0
0

@Pierre

Your use of 'simple words' is evidently more as a result of a lack of alternatives, than of any special effort on your part.

But thanks for trying all the same ;)

0
0

@Richard

Dribbling on your keyboard much?

0
0
Alert

A Quotable Quote...

One convict's take on the erosion of liberty. It's creepy I know, but check out the 'Labour Party criticism' paragraph here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7566435.stm

0
0

@Richard

Burch's gem of a post-ette above pretty much typifies the liberal 'all Ad Hominem, all the time.' approach to argument, don't you think?

You must be very proud of yourself, Burch... a whole *sentence*!

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.