|Moazzam Begg speaking at an Amnesty International event.|
Moazzam Begg is trying to sell the fairy tale that there's just as much of a threat from “far-right terrorism” than there is from Islamic terrorism. He also says that the British soldier, Ryan McGee, got off leniently for his own recent terrorist plot.
In any case, after the recent case of Ryan McGee, Moazzam Begg had to go back to 2007 (to the Robert Cottage case) to find another example of non-Islamic terrorism in England: on both occasions, no one was killed.
Since 2005, on the other hand, over forty Islamic terrorist attacks have been thwarted in the UK. In the United States there were 50 foiled Islamic attacks between 2001 and 2011. And between 2001 and 2012 there were over 20,022 Islamic terror attacks worldwide. All in all and on average, there are around 1,800 Islamic terror attacks every year; or one attack every five hours. (To give just one more example, in terms of Pakistan alone, between 2001 and 2011 35,000 died as a result of Islamic terrorism.)
Like Norway's Anders Breivik and America's Timothy McVeigh, the U.K's Ryan McGee has been a godsend to both the British Left and to Muslims like Moazzam Begg.
Yet Anders Breivik's attack was over three years ago. In 2011 alone there were seven Islamic terrorist attacks which claimed more lives than the Breivik massacre; which claimed 77 lives. (Since 2011, how many Islamic terrorist attacks have there been?) Rather miraculously, however, Begg himself doesn't mention Breivik; perhaps because he focusses entirely on the UK.
In any case, no one's ever claimed that there have never been non-Islamic terrorists. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, most of them – at least in Europe and the US - were Leftists (though there were some Nazi/fascist attacks too). Despite that, there are more Islamic terrorist attacks every month (or even less) than in the entire history of Leftist/Nazi terrorism. And that’s the difference, Mr Begg, as you know full well.
|Venessa Redgrave, Victoria Brittain, Begg & Martin Linton MP|
|Clive Stafford Smith & Begg|
In any case, try to swallow some of Moazzam Begg's own words just for starters:
"…. I was focused on the global jihad being waged against Bosnia, Russia, and India, and it became clear to me by 1996 that the jihad was also against the United States. I felt that jihad was an appropriate way to deal with those who harmed Muslims, especially jihad against Russia, and India, since I viewed them as oppressors of Muslims."
So why is it that so little evidence has stuck to Moazzam Begg? I think that there are four main reasons for this:
i) Basically, Moazzam Begg has never been filmed/caught planting a bomb or with a hand-written terror plot in his hands. (It really is – more or less - that simple.)
ii) Everything Moazzam Begg has ever confessed to (he's confessed to a lot) occurred – according to Begg himself - “under duress”; which is precisely what almost every Islamic terrorist former detainee has claimed after the event.
iii) The British government and MI5 have attempted to use Moazzam Begg's services at various times. Thus, ultimately, Begg has something on them (as it were). Either that, or the British state owes Begg something. Basically, from 2005 (possibly before) onwards, various deals have been done between the government/MI5 and Moazzam Begg.
iv) Finally, and perhaps more importantly, Moazzam Begg has secured the services of some of the best lawyers and “rights activists” in the United Kingdom.
More specifically on that last point.
Many very high-ranking Leftist lawyers and activists have flocked to Moazzam Begg's defence. And - as these very same Leftists often say when they're talking about the politicians, bankers, etc. who've “got off scot-free” - if you have the right lawyers or activists working for you, it's amazing what you can get away with. This is especially the case when the lawyers and activists politically sympathise with the men they support and defend; as well as when they agree with what the suspects are fighting for (which is certainly the case with Moazzam Begg).
In addition, Moazzam Begg's racial/ethnic and religious status (as a brown Muslim) has certainly titillated the fancies of all those white, upper-middle-class Leftist lawyers/activists who've acted - over the years - as little more than Moazzam Begg's professional whores.As for the specifics of that Leftist support.
For a start, don't believe any of the Leftist/progressive hype about Guantanamo Bay “detainees”. As everyone except these lawyers/activists seems to know:
i) In 2009, 1 in 7 released Guantanamo detainees went straight back into terrorism. (Or, according to their lawyers, went straight back into various“liberation struggles” or into interfaith outreach.)
ii) Between Barack Obama gaining power in 2009 and 2014, 88 released prisoners were “confirmed as re-engaging in violence”.
iii) Alternatively, by January 2014, 29% (some commentators and organisations say 50%) of Guantanamo detainees “returned to violence”.
(Incidentally, only eight people have died in Guantanamo Bay. Compare that to the up to 30,000 political dissidents who were put to death for political reasons – this excludes Islamic hudud/sharia death sentences - by the Iranian state in 1988 alone; and that's to forget about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
What about the proper names of Moazzam Begg's Leftist/progressive false friends?Try these for size:
Shami Chakrabarti (as well as her “rights group” Liberty)
Amnesty International (many AI members left this organisation because of its sponsorship and support of Begg)
The Guardian’s former Associate Foreign Editor Victoria Britain (as well as many other Guardian journalists)
Vanessa & Corin Redgrave
(All the links in this list will take you to articles which cite the strong connections between the aforementioned Leftists/Trotskyists and Moazzam Begg.)
|Gareth Peirce, directly behind Begg.|
This man despises just about every fibre of Great Britain; both politically and Islamically (if the two can be disentangled). And just like the Trotskyists/progressives who've become his false fiends (or useful tools), he's wormed himself into the heart of the British society (or at least its elite Red Sections) he ultimately wants to destroy.
|Peirce and the man she freed: Abu Qatada|
To put all this in the most simple of possible terms (which is precisely how Moazzam Begg himself puts it): all action – of any kind whatsoever - against Islamic terrorism is seen, by Begg, to actually be a part of grande “war on Islam”. (Incidentally, his many Leftist enablers see it all being part of a “imperialist state conspiracy” - even though many of them, as we've seen, effectively belong to that state!)
Thus Moazzam Begg is far more dangerous than the popular celebrity Anjem Choudary. Why? Simply because Moazzam Begg has got so many members of the Establishment (which is now largely Leftist or at least Left-Liberal) in his pocket. So much so that he is currently walking the streets of the UK. Not only that: he has published a book, given talks in universities, appeared on the BBC, etc. On the other hand, the Daily Mail and Hope Not Hate's favourite Muslim, Anjem Choudary, is just a clown and a diversion.
1) In the UK, the term “far right” only began to be frequently used very recently. That was basically with the rise of the EDL in 2009. (This isn't to say it wasn't used before that.)
I'm convinced that it began to be used because the terms “fascist” or “Nazi” came to be an embarrassment to the Left precisely because Leftists had previously accused almost everyone under the sun (except themselves) of being a “Nazi” or a “fascist”. Others got sick of it too. Thus, all of a sudden, “far right” came on the scene.
To such Leftists, “far right” = Nazi/fascist.
Try and test Leftists out. Ask them to distinguish a member of the “far right” from a Nazi or a fascist. They won't be able to do so in most circumstances.
This isn't to say there can't be a Far Right that's not Nazi or fascist. I'm only commenting on the word as it's used by the majority of Leftists.