summary: in a continuation of a previous article dated September 2, 2008, Imm clearly points out that the  ‘counter-radicalization’  programs in the EU are contrary to American values, that dialogue is, to put it bluntly, absurd when dealing with fanatics whose ideology is fully grounded in their religion and commanded by their Prophet - yet, our leadership has deliberately chosen a lexicon of terms when identifying the enemy and its activities so as not to criticize their faith, political correctness apparently being ‘the end all and be all’ - in view of the stakes, political correctness and multiculturalism can sound our death knell if carried to extremes - we are in a fight for our very lives and existence, each and every one of us, our mission to face the threat of the fanatics and put them down in every way possible - arm yourselves by reading their holy books and understanding their mindset rather than sitting back and denying that their pursuit of death is not really something they mean - unlike the ‘talking heads’ we have become accustomed to, they actually mean what they say!!!

Family Security Matters

September 3, 2008

British Ignore Jihad and Islamic Supremacism To Their Peril (Part Two of Two)

Jeffrey Imm

5. UK Security Minister Views UK as “World Leader” Against Terrorism

In July 2007, Admiral Sir Alan West was appointed UK Home Office Security Minister. Security Minister West (former “First Sea Lord”) has a distinguished naval history, service in the Falklands war, and role in naval intelligence during the first Gulf War. He calls himself a “simple sailor.” On July 31, 2007, he stated that he was uncertain as to the basis for the growing Jihadist terrorism in the United Kingdom, despite the numerous reports, studies, and public statements of Islamic supremacists. Sir West told American audiences that “[w]e need to dig deeper as a country to find out why this particular form of terrorist extremism is happening.”

Yet on July 9, 2007, Sir West told the Daily Telegraph that he already had a “strategy” to fight the terrorist threat that on July 31, 2007 he told American audiences he was uncertain of the cause. In neither instance did he use the word “Jihad.” Sir West’s tactical-centric “strategy” was defined as the “‘four Ps’ - prepare, protect, pursue, prevent - but that the ‘prevent’ side, dealing with the radicalisation of young Muslims, was the most important.”

On November 18, 2007, Sir West told the Daily Telegraph that UK was facing a “steadily declining threat” of terrorism, based on increased security measures and “de-radicalization” efforts. (This was three months after the August 2007 Daily Mail report that 9%of British Muslims “agree and support proactively the people that are deciding to blow themselves up.”) Moreover, Sir West viewed that the UK is “ahead of all countries in the world on the protection front, which is great,” and is a “world leader” in fighting terrorism. Sir West is convinced that the UK government processes are preventing “radicalization” of British Muslims, despite the fact that the UK government cannot even identify, let alone discuss, or acknowledge the Islamic supremacist ideology that “radicalizes” British Muslims.The British Home Office’s inability to recognize the supremacist nature of the threat can be seen both in RICU’s British “terror lexicon” and in Sir West’s incredible statement in March 2008 that it would be “silly” not to have some type of secret talks with al Qaeda. The British government leadership fails to understand that such statements empower the very “extremists” that they think they are preventing. A key challenge here is recognizing that for many in British leadership, they believe the battle against Jihad can be won by continuing to fight the last war – in the Northern Ireland conflict.

6. The Challenge of Britain’s “Northern Ireland Conflict” Perspective towards Jihad

Three years after the July 7th subway bombings and nearly seven years after 9/11, among British politicians, military officials, and members of the British public, there remains an entrenched “Northern Ireland conflict” perspective towards Jihadist violence, with supporting objectives to regionalize individual Jihadist conflicts and to work towards a political settlement with Jihadists. The basic argument made by those with such opinions is that Jihadist terrorism is really no different than sectarian violence during the Northern Ireland conflict, and that the tactics in addressing Jihad should leverage the experience of a negotiated political settlement achieved in Northern Ireland.

The “Northern Ireland” negotiation perspective can also been in the views of Police Service of Northern Ireland chief Sir Hugh Orde, who in August 2008 is reported as “a potential successor to Sir Ian Blair as commissioner of the Metropolitan police.” When asked in a May 2008 interview by the Guardian if “we should talk to al-Qaida”, Orde replied: “I don’t think that’s unthinkable, the question will be one of timing.” Chief Orde defended his view on seeking talks with al Qaeda, based on his experiences in Northern Ireland, arguing for negotiations: “If you want my professional assessment of any terrorism campaign, what fixes it is talking and engaging and judging when the conditions are right for that to take place.”

Chief Orde is hardly alone in seeking negotiations with al Qaeda. On March 15, 2008, the Guardian published an interview with Jonathan Powell, who served as Blair’s chief of staff from 1995 to 2007, where he called for talks with al Qaeda and the Taliban, based on his experiences in Northern Ireland. A day later, BBC reported that UK Security Minister West agreed that not to have secret talks with al Qaeda, “that there should be no link at all through any strange back source, back route into anywhere would be silly.” BBC notes that although UK Security Minister West seeks “secret” talks with al Qaeda, he currently rejects formal talks because “at the moment…. [they] don’t seem to have any aim other than causing mass casualties.” (UK Security Minister West has no problem with legitimizing supremacists through talks, as long as they are secret talks where the public is not able to hold the British government accountable.)

While UK Defense Secretary (and former Northern Ireland minister) Des Browne does not support negotiations with Al-Qaeda as “their demand is an end to our way of life,” in March 2008 he called for negotiations with the Taliban and Hezbollah. The UK Defense Secretary ignores the Taliban’s role in supporting al Qaeda camps and in seeking global Jihad, as well as the history of transnational Jihadist terrorism by both the Taliban and Hezbollah (in June 2008, the Taliban justified such transnational Jihad based on the idea that “Islam does not recognize boundaries”). Secretary Browne seeks to regionalize such groups into territorial disputes that can be negotiated through political engagement. He fails to recognize that the basic Islamic supremacist ideology that is at the root of al Qaeda also is the basis for the Taliban and other such Jihadist groups. UK Defense Secretary Browne views that the Taliban can be dealt with by making them a political organization: “What you need to do in conflict resolution is to bring the people who believe that the answer to their political ambitions will be achieved through violence into a frame of mind that they accept that their political ambitions will be delivered by politics.” (This is precisely what many in the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood group also seek.)

In December 2007, when it was reported that members of Britain’s MI6 Secret Intelligence Service were in talks with the Taliban, some defended their actions based on this “Northern Ireland conflict” perspective. Colonel Bob Stewart, the former British UN commander in Bosnia, was quoted: “It doesn’t surprise me, we talked to the Provisional IRA throughout the troubles. It’s a fact of life.” Brigadier Alan Mallinson, a former cavalry officer and military historian, was quoted: “The job of MI6 is to gather intelligence and the best way to do this is to talk directly to the enemy.” The problem of giving legitimacy to an Islamic supremacist organization as the Taliban is not considered a factor, because the Taliban’s Jihadist terrorist acts are not viewed as part of a supremacist ideology.

In all of these comments by Britons on Jihadist groups, the term “Jihad” itself is never used, nor is the recognition that identity-based Islamic supremacism has anything to do with Jihadist activities. The determination is so great to “fight the last war” (Northern Ireland) that the idea of looking at identity-based supremacism as a root cause is not a consideration, as the “Northern Ireland conflict” perspective is repeatedly trotted out as an answer to Jihad.

The challenge is that those Britons arguing for “Northern Ireland conflict” tactics in addressing Jihad fail to critical examine and compare what happened in Northern Ireland and its causes to Jihad and its causes. The argument made by Irish Republican Catholics in Northern Ireland that they felt politically and economically alienated is not the same as an Islamic supremacist ideology that seeks to have its ideology rule all aspects of human life on a local, national, and global basis while assimilating, converting, or suppressing those who don’t accept such supremacism. A political and military battle between sectarian groups over a finite territory is not the same as a supremacism ideology that seeks total world domination and control over human behavior.

The regional Northern Ireland conflict, despite its sectarian nature, has nothing to do with the transnational supremacist conflict by Jihadists promoting Islamic supremacism. Northern Ireland Catholics did not blow up bookstores in London for selling “The Da Vinci Code” or threaten to kill author Dan Brown. Northern Ireland Catholics did not threaten the American political group MoveOn.org when it mocked Pope Benedict XV. Northern Ireland Catholics did not conduct terrorist actions in other parts of the world to “liberate” Catholics elsewhere and develop Catholic supremacism. Yet despite these clear inconsistencies in contrasting global Jihad and the Northern Ireland conflict, many Britons continue to argue for a Northern Ireland conflict perspective in viewing Jihad. This entrenched mindset among many Britons remains a hurdle to discussions and foreign policy with the United Kingdom when it comes to Jihad and Islamic supremacism.

The outrageously short-sighted result of such a “regionalization” perspective can be seen in Sir Simon Jenkins’ June 22, 2008 article in the London Times, “Stop killing the Taliban – they offer the best hope of beating Al-Qaeda,” where he states: “What is sure is that Al-Qaeda, as a (grossly overrated) ‘threat to the West,’ will not be suppressed without Taliban cooperation.” The concept that the Taliban and al Qaeda share the same goals in an ultimate Sharia-based, Islamic supremacist caliphate is lost to such commentators, as is the idea that an identity-based Islamic supremacist ideology is even common to such organizations.

7. British “Counter-Radicalization” and Impact on American Counterterrorism

The British “Northern Ireland Conflict” approach of engagement and non-confrontation towards Jihad in general is attractive to those American counterterrorism individuals and groups that share their engagement strategy based on such American analysts’ Cold War thinking and tactical focus. It appeals to those whose livelihood is based on answering questions on who, what, where, and when, but who are unwilling or unable to answer the question of why. Therefore, they use such terms as “extremists” and “criminals,” when referring to Jihadists because their goals are solely focused on tactical measures. They justify such an approach by arguing that answers to “why” are not really important, if “extremists” can be “de-radicalized” through engagement, talks, and political measures.

The goal of such “counter-radicalization” tactics is to prevent Muslims from being “radicalized,” or to persuade those who have been “radicalized” to pursue a political process to achieve their goals. The idea is that by getting “radicals” to use “non-violent” methods, you can channel their energies and efforts into something that is not “violent.” This idea sounds pleasant; however, it simply does not understand how supremacist ideologies work and are fought.

Incredibly, such “counter-radicalization” tactics seek to avoid defining the very ideology that they claim to be fighting. The British Home Office RICU’s “terror lexicon” refuses references to “Jihad,” “Islamist terrorist,” etc. So what ideology are these “counter-radicalization” tactics working against? The standard answer is “extremism,” an ambiguous term which can mean anything to anyone. In fact, such “counter-radicalization,” while openly supported by analysts who promote engagement with “political Salafists” or Islamists, really has no ideological focus at all. Such “counter-radicalization” really is centered on moving those with supremacist ideologies from embracing violence to route their actions through a “political” process instead.

Imagine if such “counter-radicalization” tactics had been used on white supremacists in 20th century America - persuading them to pursue political white supremacism and segregationist laws to discourage them from blowing up black churches, assassinations, and lynching. Would America have accepted the growth of political white supremacism and segregationist policies as a “non-violent” alternative to Ku Klux Klan white supremacist terrorism? History shows that American leadership emphatically demanded that neither form of supremacist actions would be tolerable in a society that values equality.

But the UK government leadership and a growing number in the American counterterrorism community make precisely this argument regarding Islamic supremacism. Like the Northern Ireland conflict thinking of British analysts, the Cold War thinking of American analysts who promote this argument is the comparison of identity-based supremacist Jihad to statist-based Communism, believing that as statist Communists could be “de-radicalized” to adopt Socialism or Liberalism as other “less extreme” forms of state-centric politics, so “political Islamists” can be similarly de-radicalized. The concept of Jihad as based on an identity-based supremacist ideology, which is totally different than a statist ideology, is lost on such advocates of “counter-radicalization.” Supremacists do not become less “extreme” in their views by simply changing tactics from violence to politics, but advocates of “counter-radicalization” argue that such an approach means the West should “engage” with political Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups, as a way to prevent Jihadist violence.

For those who don’t care about “why” Jihadist violence happens, such “counter-radicalization” tactics, along with “cool” high-technology surveillance techniques, are an attractive approach in dealing with Jihadist terrorists. They seek a James Bond solution to a Ku Klux Klan type of challenge. They want to continue to use Cold War or Northern Ireland style negotiations and tactics in dealing with Islamic supremacism. Furthermore, such “counter-radicalization” tactics are easier in public conference discussions, government meetings, and fit better on electronic spreadsheets. Such tactics don’t involve messy discussions of ideas, values, and identity, and allow for fast-paced sound bites on network television stations, buzzwords, and quick dissemination on websites and Internet blogs, which the British Home Office’s RICU is actively seeking to influence (not just in the United Kingdom). Such tactics are easier for the British government to budget for in terms of CCTV cameras, estimated travel and staff for “counter-radicalization” meetings with “Islamists.” From a professional counterterrorism tactical perspective, “counter-radicalization” tactics are easier to manage. Most important to British politicians, such “counter-radicalization” tactics avoid confrontation with anyone other than “criminals” and those who dare to challenge such “experts.” With “counter-radicalization” tactics, there are no supremacists to blame; there is no supremacist ideology to confront. It is a British (and increasingly American) politician’s daydream approach to an ever-growing Islamic supremacist nightmare.

The British Home Office RICU’s message is spreading to Americans as well, and increasingly influencing American analysts and organizations. American counterterrorist analysts are supporting this policy of “counter-radicalization” and “engagement,” and are promoting this “see no evil” British government approach to dealing with Jihad. On August 21, 2008, one American counterterror analyst praised the British MI5 report that believes that there is “no single pathway” to Jihadist terrorism and that Jihadists are not “religious zealots.” This analyst praises the British “cutting edge counter-radicalization techniques,” and states that “American authorities would do well not only to learn from the studies and programs being implemented in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, but to implement some of their own.” As documentaries show continuing growth of Islamic supremacism in British mosques, and the London Times reports that half of British mosques are run by “hardliners,” The analyst echoes the MI5 report suggestions by stating that “the problem may not be too much but too little religion.”

Previously, this analyst has called for the engagement with “political salafists [who] have credibility when it comes to deradicalizing others.” He also defends the British government’s approach stating that the “British realize they may have significant differences with ‘political salafists’ who think ‘resistance’ in Palestine or Iraq is legitimate, but are thinking about ways that they can at least leverage them and their positions in an effort to de-radicalize the most severe extremists (taqfiris) randomly targeting civilians today.”

Such support for such “counter-radicalization” approaches to Jihad has also reached America’s military as well. This summer, the West Point Combating Terrorism Center’s Sentinel has had a series of articles that are getting the “counter-radicalization” message across. In June 2008, the West Point CTC Sentinel published British native Peter Mandaville’s call for the West’s engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood (”Jihad is our way”) as a way to fight terrorism: “Engaging Islamists in the West.” In July 2008, the Sentinel published “Why Terrorists Quit: Gaining From Al-Qa’ida’s Losses” by Michael Jacobson, which addresses Al-Sharif “rejecting al-Qa’ida’s message and tactics,” while remaining silent on Al-Sharif’s continuing support of Jihad against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (the same message being promoted by the British Home Office’s RICU). This same article notes the “popularity” of “counter-radicalization” programs such as the United Kingdom’s. In August 2008, the Sentinel published “A Preliminary Assessment of Counter-Radicalization in the Netherlands” by Lorenzo Vidino. Mr. Vidino’s article in the Sentinel states: “Can Western offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood or political Salafists like those active in the Netherlands become partners against the appeal of jihadists? The Dutch seem to address these questions by drawing a clear line between engaging and empowering. All sorts of voices, as long as they do not advocate violence, should be engaged, since pushing non-violent Islamists at the margins could have negative repercussions.” At the Counterterrorism Blog, Mr. Vidino also praises another American counterterrorist’s calls for engagement with “political Salafists,” and states that “[g]iven the situation in most European countries, some form of cooperation with political Salafists/non-violent Islamists is necessary.” While Mr. Vidino goes on to state that “that does not necessarily mean that that is the right policy in other places,” the message that policy makers hear is that appeasement of supremacists is a rational pathway to improving national security in the United States, as he concludes that “[w]hat is important is to understand the real aims of our interlocutors and to keep clear in mind the difference between engaging and empowering.” Again, when dealing with supremacists, there is no difference - any legitimacy that is given to supremacist ideologues effectively “empowers” them. So the failure to get at the root ideology behind Jihad has very significant consequences when offering tactical recommendations. (I do not not doubt that such analysts genuinely seek to prevent violence through such recommendations, no matter how misguided such efforts may be when dealing with a supremacist ideology.)

All of these individuals are well-credentialed, well-educated, well-known analysts. U.S. policy makers and U.S. military leaders are informed on such “counter-radicalization” tactics from such credentialed analysts. The impact of such British “counter-radicalization” tactics and programs (which ignore the existence of Islamic supremacism as a basis for Jihad) on American policy makers and leaders is deeply troubling.

8. Why Americans Must Reject British Tactics of “Counter-Radicalization” and Denial on Islamic Supremacism

In April 2007, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff told the Daily Telegraph that he feared that the next 9/11 would come from British Jihadists. What has changed?

America has faced threats of mass-casualty terrorist attacks from British Jihadists repeatedly: the British shoe-bomber Richard Reid who attended London’s Finsbury Mosque where British cleric Abu Hamza preached, the British Jihadist Dhiren Barot who hoped to attack America before the 9/11 bombers and who adopted Islam based on talks with British cleric Abu Hamza, and the August 2006 British Jihadists who sought to hijack transatlantic jets to “punish” Americans in the name of Allah. Is it only a matter of time until British Jihadists plan another attack on America?

The United Kingdom remains as great a threat to America’s national security as any other nation on Earth, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This is because of the long history of British tolerance of Islamic supremacism in its country, allowing Jihadists to make it a base of operations for planned attacks in Israel, United States, and other nations.

Yet in 2008, few Americans are aware of the significant Islamic supremacist threat that remains in the United Kingdom. UK has remained “under the radar” for many Americans for years. Two days after 9/11, few Americans noticed the article in the September 13, 2001 Daily Telegraph declaring that “Britain is ’safe haven’ for world terrorism,” describing some in the UK “who will be celebrating” the 9/11 attacks, and acknowledging British Jihadists’ links to al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.

Islamic supremacists were so convinced of the British government’s so-called “covenant of security” with Islamic supremacists that Osama bin Laden sought asylum in the United Kingdom in 1995 as part of a plan to move his base of operations to the UK, while he was planning the 9/11 attacks. This “covenant of security” is repeatedly referenced by other Islamic supremacists, and has historically been part of their claims on why UK should not be attacked prior to July 7, 2005. In January 26, 2003, the Guardian/Observer report quoted a former British Special Branch officer who stated that: ‘There was a deal with these guys… We told them if you don’t cause us any problems, then we won’t bother you.’ This 2003 article was ironically titled “All eyes on Britain as terror war accelerates.” In fact, this has never been the case, and most Americans remain unaware of the threat that British Islamic supremacists pose to America. In September 2003, as British Islamic supremacist group al-Muhajiroun held a rally praised 9/11 attackers as the “Magnificent 19,” again most Americans were unaware of the threat. In 2004, New Statesman author Jamie Campbell stated “it has long been recognised by the British Islamists, by the British government and by UK intelligence agencies, that as long as Britain guarantees a degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt, the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders of the UK but will not occur here.” Yet American commentators remained focused only on Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Melanie Phillips‘ book Londonistan,  she discusses the historical “covenant of security” between the British government and British Islamic supremacists (page 92, UK hardcover edition):

“The bargain, or ‘covenant of security,’ had been the dirty little secret at the heart of the British government’s blind-eye policy. It had had allowed Islamist radicals free rein in London and elsewhere in Britain in a kind of unspoken ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ that if the British authorities left them alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The British didn’t care what they were up to in other countries. Abroad wasn’t their concern. As long as there was no threat to Britain, the government and security establishment just didn’t want to know.”

One deeply troubling aspect of the British government’s inconsistent position on Jihad is the possibility that it may be seeking to re-establish such a “covenant of security” with Islamic supremacists once again, by focusing only on al Qaeda’s threats to attack UK’s homeland, while tolerating Hamas and Hezbollah meetings, fund-raising, and propaganda within UK, as well as allowing hate-mongering Islamic supremacism to continue to be taught in British mosques. It should disturb Americans that high British government officials call for talks with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It should worry Americans that the British government seeks to de-radicalize British Muslims, while it officially claims that there is no connection of Islamic supremacism to Jihad, and that the Home Office tells UK government officials that the very words “Jihad,” “Islamist,” are not to be used.

Furthermore, the British “counter-radicalization” tactics of seeking to have Islamic supremacists avoid violence may, in fact, simply be tactics to discourage them from violence in the United Kingdom only. British Jihadist actions in Israel, in Somalia, in Russia, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and repeated attempts to attack the United States over the past several years only reinforce what should be a reasonable suspicion on the part of American analysts, policy makers, and lawmakers, regarding the UK’s primary goal of “counter-radicalization.” History has shown that the United Kingdom, not Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia, not Pakistan, and not Iran, could have easily been the source of the most significant Jihadist attacks on American homeland, if repeated British Jihadist attempts on America had not failed. Just two years ago, British Jihadists threatened to kill many thousands of Americans in a plot to hijack multiple transatlantic jetliners in what would have likely been an attack that would have dwarfed 9/11.

Recall the words of British Jihadists (revealed in April 2008) regarding their August 2006 transatlantic airline terrorist plot involving flights headed to Washington D.C., New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco – (excerpts from BBC, London Times, Daily Mail, and Daily Telegraph reports):

British Jihadist Abdulla Ahmed Ali: “Expect floods of martyr operations against you and we will take our revenge and anger, ripping amongst your people and scattering your people’s body parts… You call us terrorists but you can see we don’t mind that if you call us terrorists ‘cos we will keep on terrorizing you until you learn your lesson… We love to die in the path of Allah… On top of this is to punish and to humiliate the Kuffar [non-believer], to teach them a lesson that they will never forget. It’s to tell them that we Muslim people have pride, our people of Allah, the people of Islam, we are brave. Thanks to God I swear by Allah, I have the desire since the age of 15/16 to participate in Jihad in the path of Allah. I had the desire since then for Jannah [paradise] for the Koran. I want to go to my prophet and his companions.” (DM, LT, DT, BBC)

British Jihadist Tanvir Hussain: “People keep on saying, you know, that we keep on targeting innocent civilians, yeah… We’re not targeting innocent civilians. We’re targeting economic and military targets… They’re the battle grounds of today so whoever steps in these trenches, they, yeah, you haven’t got us to blame…You’ve got to blame yourself…People are going to die. It’s worth the price. For many years I dreamt of doing this but I didn’t have the means. Thank God Allah accepted my duas [prayers] yeah, and provided me a means to do this… Don’t mess with the Muslims… You know, I only wish I could do this again, you know come back and do this again, and just do it again and again….” (DM, BBC)

British Jihadist Arafat Waheed Khan: “We will rain upon you such a terror and destruction that you will never feel peace and security. There will be floods of martydom operations and bombs falling through your lands… I would like to thank Allah for giving me this opportunity to bless me with this Shahada [martyrdom]…I ask Allah to help the Mujahedeen everywhere in every way.” (DM, BBC)

British Jihadist Ibrahim Savant: “All Muslims feel the need to dust your feet in the training camps of Jihad where men are made. Cease debate and enter the battlefields seeking paradise. Mujahedeen, for years I’ve desired to meet you, to walk the paths you’ve walked, to sacrifice what you have sacrificed. Now Allah has honoured me with an invitation to his Kingdom… All Muslims take heed, remove yourself from the grasp of the Kuffar [non-believers]” (BBC, DM)

British Jihadist Waheed Zaman: “I will pray that Allah makes us successful in our actions, may he grant us Jannah… May he raise us on the Day of Judgment to be with the prophets, martyrs and people in the right path. May Allah bless the Mujahedeen with victory upon victory wherever they may be and may he focus their aim and may he make them of the patient ones…The only solution to this current situation of the Muslims is by fighting Jihad for the sake of Allah…” (BBC, DM)

British Jihadist Umar Islam: “This is an obligation on me as a Muslim to wage Jihad against the Kuffar [non-believers]. We are doing this in order to gain the pleasure of our Lord and Allah loves us to die and kill in his path. Anyone who tries to deny this, then read the Koran and you will not be able to deny this because this is the words in the Koran and the words of our the messenger of Allah, prayers and peace upon him…This is revenge for the acts of the USA in the Muslim lands and their accomplices, such as the British and the Jews.” (BBC, LT)

The American public only learned of the words from these British Jihadists nearly two years after the failed British Jihadist transatlantic airline plot. What else is the British government keeping secret from us on those British Jihadists who seek to kill us today?

Do these individuals sound like Islamic supremacists who would be willing to direct their energies into “political” action? What has since improved in the United Kingdom, when the British government fears to even acknowledge that Islamic supremacism exists as an ideology?

In July 2008, Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) released poll results stating that 32% of British Muslim youth believe that killing for their religion is acceptable (and 15% “unsure”). In addition, support for segregationist Sharia law continues to gain acceptance among young British Muslims, and the idea of offering a separate set of Sharia laws for British Muslims has gained increasing support among British leaders and in courts. Such acceptance of segregationist positions shows the increasing acceptance of Islamic supremacism in the United Kingdom. The 2008 European Union’s Europol study on terrorism found that statistically the number of “Islamist terror” arrests in the UK were greater than in all of Europe combined, with a threat of “young, radicalised British citizens.”

Does this sound like British “counter-radicalization” is working? Why should Americans believe that the British government policies of “counter-radicalization” have accomplished anything? How can the British government “de-radicalize” an ideology that they are unwilling to define other than “extremism”?

This is not merely a foreign policy issue, or an academic exercise in analyzing a foreign nation’s counterterrorism policy. This is a vital issue affecting Americans and the values of equality that America represents. This is a critical issue when a foreign nation’s policy of denial about Islamic supremacism is being promoted to American policy makers and its military leaders. Most of all, this is a vital issue regarding the future of where our nation is headed in the very values of equality that we fought so long and so hard to achieve in America.

It is not surprising that Britons do not understand America’s history. While they are allies with Americans in theaters of war, we cannot expect them to understand our values, our history, our experience. In fact, it is because we were so different from the United Kingdom that we are a United States of America, not a British colony.

We are and will continue to be a nation that despises, confronts, and does not tolerate supremacism.

We are and will continue to be a nation where “all men are created equal.”

Any American with a rudimentary knowledge of American history is well aware that white supremacism was confronted, not appeased, by seamstress Rosa Parks, by preacher Martin Luther King, Jr., by newspaper reporters, by baseball players, by grade school teachers, by mechanics, by musicians, by FBI agents, by American soldiers, by housewives, and by average citizens everywhere in America.

These sentinels of equality and liberty in the fight against supremacism may not have held doctorates in American history, in American political science, or American constitutional law. But they understood who and what America is about. They understood the gravity of defending the natural law and American value that “all men are created equal.” They understood the historical importance of defending the courage of our convictions. They understood that without defending equality everywhere for every person, no American would enjoy freedom, no American would have security. They knew that the fight against supremacism, no matter how unpleasant, no matter how divisive, no matter how dangerous, was not someone else’s job, or something that could be left to be solved at a later time. They knew it was their job, and it was their job right now.

Today, Americans face such a challenge once again with Islamic supremacism.

We could accept the counsel of “experts,” who offer direction based on foreign nations with a history of appeasing and knuckling under to supremacists. We could accept guidance on “counter-radicalization” that deceives us into believing supremacists can be bargained with, negotiated into accepting a pluralistic society that values equality. We could choose to believe that tactical measures, talks, and high-tech surveillance will be enough to change those whose supremacist ideology is inimical to our values, our laws, our society, and our way of life. These are the choices that the British government, “expert” analysts, and those who aren’t concerned about why Jihad happens offer us. Accepting such counsel, especially with such “expert” backing, would be the path of least resistance, and would cause us the least personal short-term sacrifice in becoming educated on the issues so that we can guide our elected representatives. Listening to the “experts” who ignore Islamic supremacism is the easy thing to do.

But is it - the American thing to do?

Is that what Americans are to be reduced to? Being led around by the nose based on the policies by the British government, who through nothing short of repeated miracles, has not resulted in the death of countless thousands of Americans through British Jihadists appeased over decades? Given the repeated attempts, plots, and threats of attacks on America by British Islamic supremacists due to UK’s seemingly endless complacency, shouldn’t the British government be the last people we should be listening to? Should the British government, with senior leaders who seek talks with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, be someone our government should even be talking with?

Or will America’s people, the ragtag sentinels of liberty that aren’t degreed in Islamic studies and foreign affairs, but who understand the values of America, who represent the variety and diversity of a egalitarian society that so many fought and died for, who simply know that our nation stands first and foremost for liberty… will they rise to the occasion once again and confront this new evil of Islamic supremacism - as forcefully and as defiantly as they did to white supremacism?

Those who seek denial on and appeasement to Islamic supremacism don’t think so. They think Americans have better things to do than worry about such things. They seek to tell Americans, tell their elected representatives, and tell their military what they should do. They will do Americans’ thinking for them.

Americans - prove them wrong. Make up your own mind. Let your American government know that, no matter what the British government does, America’s government must stand up and identify the ideology of Islamic supremacism, and must develop a strategy to combat it.

Show them that in America, Islamic supremacism (or any other supremacism) will not be tolerated - violent or non-violent - and that it has no place in the land of the free, home of the brave.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jeffrey Imm is Research Director of the Counterterrorism Blog , was formerly with the FBI, and also has his own counterterrorism research web site at UnitedStatesAction.com.

You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1065/pub_detail.asp

COPYRIGHT 2008 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.