Here‘s another great opinion piece from the Beeb. The story begins in the aftermath of al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on America (a pre-emptive strike by Muslim freedom fighters against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq):
But some of the defendants in this trial believed passionately in aiding fellow Muslims and undertook voluntary work at the charity’s Chatsworth Road base. Four of them went on to deliver aid – and their experiences in those camps radically altered their worldview…
Says our correspondent who has quickly taken to presenting the defence lawyer’s case as fact.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the ringleader, told the trial he had been shocked by “appalling” conditions in the camps.
The camps existed before 2001 but grew in the wake of the US-led invasion in Afghanistan.
Bingo! It’s all America’s fault.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the ringleader, told the trial he had been shocked by “appalling” conditions in the camps. His anger was compounded by the failure of the 2003 mass protest against the Iraq war. The anger felt by men like Ahmed Ali accelerated the political and theological debate among hard-line Islamists over whether the UK was a legitimate target for attacks
Because prior to the failure of the mass protests, hard-line Islamist nutters were pretty evenly split on the rights and wrongs of bumping off infidels.
But then, of course… The real common factor in the lives of all those so far convicted, in all the trials we have seen during the past three years is far easier to identify: a simple and seething anger over British and American foreign policy and an overwhelming belief that Muslims are its victims.
Which makes one wonder why half the left-wing commentariat haven’t been up before M’Lord. Could there be another common factor in the lives of these convicted Islamist terrorists that we haven’t thought of? Anyone got any ideas..?
UPDATE: Sorry to add to an already long post, but I wanted to share this – the author Dominic Casciani’s contribution to a debate following the July 7 bombings (follow the link at the bottom for the full transcript):
“[A]ll the evidence suggests the opposite of what Douglas Murray said” he begins. Murray had said “that it’s manifestly obvious to anyone in this country that the problem is Islam.. [and] if we want to start this conversation by pretending that this is a societal failure, you’re simply going to spend your time apologising for terror.” Casciania disagrees and goes on to do just that, in rambling fashion, before concluding: “In the Muslim community, these poor lads that blew themselves up, that was their expression of their disillusionment.”
Of course, reading the article above you probably already knew that that was his view. But you shouldn’t have been able to. As someone once said:
“Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.” Does the piece above really pass that test?