Comments on: Toronto terror case reveals similar pattern to previous al-Qaeda plots

By: Solomon Hughes

Solomon Hughes — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:16:19 +0000

Well I think that is a bit harsh on LFF Yakoub – they put quite a lot of effort into this website, often to good result, and while I think you have some points about the Quilliam approach here (which is a bit “don’t mention the war”) I think it might be fairer to turn downthe dial on the denounce-o-meter a little.

By: Yakoub

Yakoub — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:29:53 +0000

Why is LFF allowing itself to become an arm of UK government’s discredited Prevent policy, by giving a platform to paid government lackies like Quilliam? The simplistic “evil ideology” argument, and the linking of jihadism to Islamism whilst rejecting links between terrorists and foreign policy are well worn and political motivated narratives. Quilliam backs the British government’s abhorent and bullying spook policy, in contrast to the utter horror and indignation expressed by practically every human rights group in Britain (but not Jon Gaunt). Why not just hand this blog over to the British Home Office and have done with it?

By: Solomon Hughes

Solomon Hughes — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:11:39 +0000

There might be an argument against “simplistically blaming terrorism on grievances like deprivation, racism and foreign policy “, but just denying these factors have any influence at all , and instead, er, symplistically blaming everything on the ideology of Jihadism plus engineering degrees seems equally wrong headed. I don’t think anybody but the Jihadi’s are saying that terrorism is a sensible , understandable or excusable response to Foreign Policy, but for George to deny that Foreign Policy has any influence, or does not stimulates this kind of terrorism is , I think , wrong. Especially given Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan has been – for good reasons – the subject of a ferocious controversy in the country.