Terrorist contradictions

The UK were part of the mission that invaded Afghanistan and it was described as a pre-emptive strike to stop the spread of terrorism and to keep us safe from attacks at home. The argument was never proven, because we haven’t had a problem with Afghanistan terrorists attacking the UK. Looking at the bedraggled Taliban fighters traipsing around the unforgiving Afghan mountains indicates that these people would rather be tending sheep than jetting to the UK to cause mayhem here. The only interest they have in the British would be inspired by the sight of ‘our’ soldiers dressed in army fatigues setting up camp in THEIR country. For arguments sake, lets accept that there was a legitimate reason for invading Afghanistan …To stop them from coming to attack us and that it was part of a global effort to curtail the threat of terrorism. Remotely plausible until you read this …..

In January this year Najul Islam was charged with these offences:

Between 1 January 2012 and 11 January 2013, assisted Shajul Islam,
Jubayer Chowdhury and others to engage in acts of terrorism by:
– Financing the travel arrangements for his brother Shajul to Syria,
knowing that he would be engaging or be prepared to engage in acts of
terrorism in Syria.
– Financing the travel arrangements for Jubayer Chowdhury to leave Syria
after the release of the journalists and fly to Bangladesh, knowing that
Jubayer would have been engaging or prepared to engage in acts of
terrorism in Syria.
– Financing supplies, including night vision goggles, air rifle optic
mounts, and medical equipment for his brother Shajul and others to use
whilst in Syria.
– Travelling overland by vehicle from the UK to Turkey in order to
deliver these supplies and vehicle to Shajul.
– Sending money abroad to his brother Shajul, knowing that he would be
engaging or prepared to engage in acts of terrorism in Syria.

Contrary to Section 5 Terrorism Act 2006

This week, the story that they were acquitted wasn’t high on media editors agenda. It seems the two main witnesses were the two men Najul Islam and his co-conspirators had kidnapped in Syria and for some reason they wouldn’t be able to testify. I can find no reason given for this anywhere. The prosecution did consider getting the trial delayed but for some reason didn’t. Does this suggest that it was an inconvenient time for the prosecution witnesses to attend court? What happened to a judge ordering witnesses to appear and even though the witnesses were pivotal in the case , the list of charges above suggests they had much more evidence.

So we’ll spend £ billions on trying to protect these shores from foreign terrorists but then allow three men suspected of extremely serious charges  committed in Syria to walk free. All the suspects are government employees, two of them doctors or trainee doctors. If the public is expected to digest the pretext of this countries anti-terrorist policies , don’t we have the right to expect protection from suspected kidnappers who allegedly kept a British and Dutch national prisoners whilst acting with a known terrorist militia in Syria? If they won’t protect the Syrians from them , they should at least protect us , all three should be sacked immediately unless they can prove to their employees that the charges had substance.

Yet again it is proven that terrorism isn’t that important at all … Perhaps it’s just the billions of pounds that are allocated to fighting it that’s a priority.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s