COMMUNITY EVENT- WAR ON TERROR,
EXTREMISM AND KHILAFAH- Is there a Link?

Sunday 28th July 2007- The community in Rochdale was presented with an opportunity to key into the many discussions that have taken place in Government circles, Press, Television and in the Muslim community. Over 70 people attended the event to understand the current political environment in which the Muslim community is being subjected to plans, demands and orders and what practical actions the Muslim community in Rochdale can do to present their side of the story.

Keynote speaker, Mehboob Ali, member of Hizb-ut-tahrir explained that Khilafah (caliphate) are dear to the Muslims as they embody the application of Shariah in Muslim lands. When Muslims look at the Muslim worlds problems of corruption, poverty, economic mis-management, political in-fighting, occupation by foreign powers, and corrupt rulers financed and backed by the west, they realise that only the Islamic Political system can resolve their problems. The Muslim world remembers Iraq as the cradle of civilization, Spain as the Flower of Europe, and Cairo as the centre for educational excellence- These achievements were due to the Islamic ideology under the Khilafah state.

However, this call is being muddied by Governments, politicians and Media- trying to equate the Call for Khilafah with Terrorism and Extremism. Mehboob detailed Islam’s rejection of using violence to achieve political objectives and that states like America fit the picture of using terrorism more than anyone else.

Mehboob highlighted attempts by the British government to link extremism to the Muslim community when in fact it was British Foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan which has been the key motivator for violence.

Mehboob explained how Hizb-ut-tahrir’s call is based on Islam which promotes Political Activism to change the state of Affairs in the Muslim World. He argued the case of why the West does not allow the Muslim world to decide its own political destiny is primarily to do with interests like resources, gas, oil, gold or strategic interests.

Mehboob encouraged everyone to participate in the work to aid the re-establishment of the khilafah in the Muslim world.

The event finished with the audience engaging with the each other and having a look at the stall material and literature.

NEWS COVERAGE and Reportage

LAL MASJID, PAKISTAN, Iraq, Afghanistan – They’re all the same!



By Andrusha Wickremeratne (Hebden Bridge)

Commenting on General Musharraf’s decision to send troops into the Lal Masjid mosque, thereby precipitating in a bloodbath, last week’s ITN 10.30 news broadcast thus, with due gravitas and much arm waving covered the following:“……. the danger is that, like its neighbour Afghanistan, and Iraq, this could descend into something much worse than this isolated incident…….”According to this journalist, Pakistan could descend into anarchy. So that’s it. No need for history or context, or reasons of what makes people act the way they do. It’s all the same. Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan. It’s all the same.

Sadly this lumpen, lazy, ahistorical and clichéd journalism is all too typical of reporting in print and broadcast media. A listener or viewer is left with the impression that these are all one and the same people prone to irrational behaviour and live in a messy part of the world. It is a kind of reporting bereft of unique histories, sociologies, geographies and politics.

Editorial constraints notwithstanding, there are a few interrelated aspects to this type of journalism. Firstly, the journalist simply does not know enough about the area or subject he or she is reporting on, but nevertheless is fairly confident that we, the viewing, or listening, or reading public know even less, and so feels ok to draw spurious parallels and contours between one region and another, when none in fact exist.

NEWS COVERAGE: LAL MASJID, PAKISTAN,
Iraq, Afghanistan – They’re all the same!



By Andrusha Wickremeratne (Hebden Bridge)

Commenting on General Musharraf’s decision to send troops into the Lal Masjid mosque, thereby precipitating in a bloodbath, last week’s ITN 10.30 news broadcast thus, with due gravitas and much arm waving covered the following:

“……. the danger is that, like its neighbour Afghanistan, and Iraq, this could descend into something much worse than this isolated incident…….”

According to this journalist, Pakistan could descend into anarchy. So that’s it. No need for history or context, or reasons of what makes people act the way they do. It’s all the same. Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan. It’s all the same.

Sadly this lumpen, lazy, ahistorical and clichéd journalism is all too typical of reporting in print and broadcast media. A listener or viewer is left with the impression that these are all one and the same people prone to irrational behaviour and live in a messy part of the world. It is a kind of reporting bereft of unique histories, sociologies, geographies and politics.

Editorial constraints notwithstanding, there are a few interrelated aspects to this type of journalism. Firstly, the journalist simply does not know enough about the area or subject he or she is reporting on, but nevertheless is fairly confident that we, the viewing, or listening, or reading public know even less, and so feels ok to draw spurious parallels and contours between one region and another, when none in fact exist.

This in itself is not such a bad thing. But the consequences of this are that the viewing public remain critically misinformed, sated as they are with why Shabnam was evicted from the Big Brother House. They are therefore ignorant of Western policy decisions, the results of which return to haunt us, sometimes horrifically so, on our own doorstep.

So the Pakistani people’s reaction to Musharraf’s actions are seen as one and the same; a reaction that, according to this journalist, risks the country being hurtled towards anarchy. Never mind that this is a country of a 168 million diverse people with different needs, aspirations and motivations. And this in turn has some connection to the hopelessness that is Afghanistan, which is itself related to people’s reaction to the chaos and death of Iraq.

So who is this homogenous mass? In the eyes and ears of a vast section of the population, they are, in the main, Muslims; a hot headed, brown skinned group of people living in dodgy areas of the world and prone to acts of violence.

All the better then for the correcting hand of benevolent British and American armies, bombs and multinationals.

Andrusha Wickremeratne is a freelance writer, independant Political analyst and a speaker at local events and media Outlets covering local, national and Internatioanl events. He is a regular guest speaker on Islam Radio's Current Affairs show (BRADFORD) and has made appearnaces on Crescent radio (ROCHDALE). He currently lives in Hebden Bridge and works in Rochdale with the local community as an Adult tutor.

AN ISLAMIC HISTORY OF EUROPE

While Western States and rulers in the Muslim world attempt to put spin on the call for Khilafah as being medieval, backward, out of date, and a defunct model for governance, the 90-minute documentary, AN ISLAMIC HISTORY OF EUROPE, presented by Rageh Omaar uncovers the hidden story of Islam's Ideological advancements in the international arena. Rather than being an isolated state with no technology, culture, academic input or being ridden with social ills, or lack of Political culture amongst the masses, the Khilafah State (caliphate) was the complete antithesis to this.


This evocative film brings to life a time when emirs and caliphs dominated Spain and Sicily and Islamic scholarship swept into the major cities of Europe. Rageh's journey reveals the debt owed to Islam for its vital contribution to Humanity, more specifically to Europe.

Source: BBC

AN ISLAMIC HISTORY OF EUROPE

AN ISLAMIC HISTORY OF EUROPE

While Western States and rulers in the Muslim world attempt to put spin on the call for Khilafah as being medieval, backward, out of date, and a defunct model for governance, the 90-minute documentary, AN ISLAMIC HISTORY OF EUROPE, presented by Rageh Omaar uncovers the hidden story of Islam's Ideological advancements in the international arena. Rather than being an isolated state with no technology, culture, academic input or being ridden with social ills, or lack of Political culture amongst the masses, the Khilafah State (caliphate) was the complete antithesis to this.
This evocative film brings to life a time when emirs and caliphs dominated Spain and Sicily and Islamic scholarship swept into the major cities of Europe. Rageh's journey reveals the debt owed to Islam for its vital contribution to Humanity, more specifically to Europe.

Source: BBC

Ex-CEO of Hewlett-Packard comments on the Caliphate

Below is an excerpt from a speech entitled "Technology, Business and our way of life: What's Next?" given by Carly Fiorina in Minneapolis, Minnesota on September 26th, 2001 where she mentions the success of the caliphate as un-paralleled in world History.

"There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world. It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins. One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization's commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.

And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.

Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things. When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others.

While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I'm talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent. Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers like Rumi challenged our notions of self and truth. Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.

And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population-that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. This kind of enlightened leadership - leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity and courage - led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.

In dark and serious times like this, we must affirm our commitment to building societies and institutions that aspire to this kind of greatness. More than ever, we must focus on the importance of leadership- bold acts of leadership and decidedly personal acts of leadership. With that, I'd like to open up the conversation and see what we, collectively, believe about the role of leadership".

Source: HP Website

Ex-CEO of Hewlett-Packard comments on the Caliphate

Below is an excerpt from a speech entitled "Technology, Business and our way of life: What's Next?" given by Carly Fiorina in Minneapolis, Minnesota on September 26th, 2001 where she mentions the success of the caliphate as un-paralleled in world History.



"There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world. It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins. One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization's commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.

And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.

The KHILAFAH Conference- London

Following the increasing interest in the concept of a Caliphate, despite cheap attempts by Politicians, Media and Muslim rulers to muddy it's call and work, a conference has been organised to open up the debate on how the Caliphate will tackle poverty, corruption,

sectarianism, international exploitation and the way this will be brought into existence through Intellectual and political struggle; the work which Western media is continuously trying to distort and equate to violence. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, as part of a global campaign to raise awareness for Khilafah during the month of Rajab invites you to to this conference exposing the current rhetoric behind the War on Terror, exploring the challenges faced by the Muslim Ummah in the pursuit of unity, and presenting a solution to the global problems the world faces.

KHILAFAH Conference- London

The KHILAFAH Conference- London

Following the increasing interest in the concept of a Caliphate, despite cheap attempts by Politicians, Media and Muslim rulers to muddy it's call and work, a conference has been organised to open up the debate on how the Caliphate will tackle poverty, corruption,

[slideshow id=432345564229204744&w=426&h=320]


sectarianism, international exploitation and the way this will be brought into existence through Intellectual and political struggle; the work which Western media is continuously trying to distort and equate to violence. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, as part of a global campaign to raise awareness for Khilafah during the month of Rajab invites you to to this conference exposing the current rhetoric behind the War on Terror, exploring the challenges faced by the Muslim Ummah in the pursuit of unity, and presenting a solution to the global problems the world faces.

Has the media gone "CALIPHATE" mad?

By Majed Iqbal

National press, News stations, World Leaders, Blogs, websites; Hardly a day goes by without any reference being made to Caliphate. Worldwide, a serious attention is being given to this concept. It is being debated in Political and Academic circles; both from the West to the East.

British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and his new cabinet have also entertained the discussion already. So what is the whole debate about? Why is this word on the tongues of politicians? Does it deserve any merit? Why the current infatuation with it?

The Brown government re-defined its approach in tackling 'extremism' in Britain in reaction to the unfortunate Glasgow events. It dropped the labels of 'War on Terror' and abstained from using 'Islam' and 'Muslim' in the public domain in making any reference to tackling 'extremism' and ''terrorism'. The rhetoric continued, however, with a new array of words utilised with similar implications. In an interview with BBC’s Andrew Marr on the Sunday AM show (Sunday 1/7/2007), Gordon Brown stated:

“The terrorist threat we're dealing with is about a long term and sustained attack on the values that we represent...... And that's why the cultural effort, almost similar to what happened during the Cold War in the nineteen forties, fifties and sixties when we had to mount a propaganda effort, if you like, to explain to people that our values represented the best of commitments to individual dignity, to liberty and to human life being taken seriously. And I think that's what we are going to have to talk about in the next few years"

Hence, Gordon brown, interestingly began to allude that there is battle of ideas which need to be won and made some comparisons with Britain's experience in tackling the 'red threat' in the past. No differently now, with the emergence in popularity for the caliphate in the Muslim world, Political Islam, which is the call to re-define the political landscape in the Muslim world for islamic Rule is now being maligned.

Tony Blair, the outgoing PM made reference to it as an ‘evil Ideology’ whilst Brown is now equating the desire for Shariah as non-negotiable under the auspices of subscribing to global values. Moving over to America, which has had a key foothold in the Muslim word for decades, it has also recognised Caliphate as a key issue deserving attention. On December 5th 2005, the then US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld in remarks pertaining to the future of Iraq at John Hopkins University said

"Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic Caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East and which would threaten the legitimate governments in Europe, Africa, and Asia. This is their plan. They have said so. We make a terrible mistake if we fail to listen and learn"

Furthermore, The National Intelligence Council of the CIA issued a planning report in December 2004 setting out options for a resurgent China and a potentially strong Caliphate by the year 2020; a clear indication as to the seriousness by which America takes the re-establishment of the Khilafah.

The call for the implementation of the Islamic Shariah in the Muslim world has been on an increasing rise. A recent poll carried out by Maryland University , USA found that 70% of those polled favoured the implementation of Sharia in their lands.

After experimenting with a range of political models to try and answer many of the dire issues of poverty, corruption, illegal occupation, un-elected rulers, unaccountable governments, rule of law, debt, lack of economic progression, subjugation to international institutions, victims of foreign aggression; Muslims throughout the world are re-opening the debate to restore the Noble Khilafah (caliphate) as a model of governance which will put back on route our societies which have been de-railed through colonial designs and domination.

Now can there be anything wrong in defining your own political futures or are people stepping on the toes of some who have too many interests at stake if the caliphate re-emerges in those areas where oil, gas, minerals, gold, diamonds and water is in abundance?

Has the media gone "CALIPHATE" mad?

Has the media gone "CALIPHATE" mad?

By Majed Iqbal- National press, News stations, World Leaders, Blogs, websites; Hardly a day goes by without any reference being made to Caliphate. Worldwide, a serious attention is being given to this concept. It is being debated in Political and Academic circles; both from the West to the East.

British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and his new cabinet have also entertained the discussion already. So what is the whole debate about? Why is this word on the tongues of politicians? Does it deserve any merit? Why the current infatuation with it? The Brown government re-defined its approach in tackling 'extremism' in Britain in reaction to the unfortunate Glasgow events. It dropped the labels of 'War on Terror' and abstained from using 'Islam' and 'Muslim' in the public domain in making any reference to tackling 'extremism' and ''terrorism'. The rhetoric continued, however, with a new array of words utilised with similar implications. In an interview with BBC’s Andrew Marr on the Sunday AM show (Sunday 1/7/2007), Gordon Brown stated:

“The terrorist threat we're dealing with is about a long term and sustained attack on the values that we represent...... And that's why the cultural effort, almost similar to what happened during the Cold War in the nineteen forties, fifties and sixties when we had to mount a propaganda effort, if you like, to explain to people that our values represented the best of commitments to individual dignity, to liberty and to human life being taken seriously. And I think that's what we are going to have to talk about in the next few years"

MUSLIMS Dis-united

By Moh Bloggs

Since the failed terrorist attacks earlier this month the Muslim community has once again come under the most intense scrutiny.There is no surprise that any reputable Muslim organisation or individual has sought to condemn these actions, which have ranged from such diverse groups as MPAC, the MCB, the BMF and Hizb ut-Tahrir. There has even been public shows of condemnations in the forms of anti-terror rallies and mini conferences to deal with the issues facing the Islamic community in Britain today.

In spite of these condemnations, the role of Muslims in Britain and in particular their supposed role in these acts of terrorism continue to be a prominent point of discussion in the media and other circles. The media has been awash of Muslims groups coming under attack from an array of ex-jihadists, who are very much flavour of the month. Even mainstream organisations such as the MCB have been openly attacked on their role, first from the likes of Hasan Butt and then from the likes of MPAC.

In light of such intense debate, Muslims are being actively encouraged to turn on one another. Take the following quote for example:

MUSLIMS Dis-united

By Moh Bloggs

Since the failed terrorist attacks earlier this month the Muslim community has once again come under the most intense scrutiny.There is no surprise that any reputable Muslim organisation or individual has sought to condemn these actions, which have ranged from such diverse groups as MPAC, the MCB, the BMF and Hizb ut-Tahrir. There has even been public shows of condemnations in the forms of anti-terror rallies and mini conferences to deal with the issues facing the Islamic community in Britain today.

In spite of these condemnations, the role of Muslims in Britain and in particular their supposed role in these acts of terrorism continue to be a prominent point of discussion in the media and other circles. The media has been awash of Muslims groups coming under attack from an array of ex-jihadists, who are very much flavour of the month. Even mainstream organisations such as the MCB have been openly attacked on their role, first from the likes of Hasan Butt and then from the likes of MPAC.

In light of such intense debate, Muslims are being actively encouraged to turn on one another. Take the following quote for example:

"If anyone has any idea that they will find some sanctuary or a place to hide after such activities then he has it absolutely wrong, they will be hunted out".

Notwithstanding the admirable sentiments of that quote, that it was said by Dr Mohammed Akbah Ali, chairman of the Liverpool Mosque and Islamic Institute is equally troubling. It was spoken at a press conference held in the next street to where a house was raided in connection to the subsequent arrests that were made.

The fact that this had been said whislt those in question have yet to be charged speaks volumes about the inability of community leaders to address the issues at hand. He could have waited until legal proceedings had reached the appropriate stage which merited such a quote. If he felt that they could not as a community wait, then he could have tempered his statement by not only reminding the world at large of Islam's position on such events but also the wider society's responsibilties (and so-called British values) including the rights to a fair trial and the presumption that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.

Furthermore, the rhetoric he uses, so similar of that in the aftermath of 7/7 about how extremism has no place in community or the wider society at large, is now almost past its sell by date. What he fails to mention is how this will be achieved? We are no more closer to that answer than we were two years ago. What is more worrying is that these so-called leaders continue to play the ostrich and bury their heads in the sand hoping the problem will just go away. There seems to be no idea of how to conceptually mould the Muslim generation that follows us. There seems no idea how we instill them values of how to steadfastly hold onto their beliefs whislt at the same time adhere to the legal framework of the society they live in. There seems no idea of how to meet the arguments and obstaces these Muslims face in their reasoning or grappling of faith and how it can comfortably sit within the life they lead. If mosques and those elders that purport to be custodians cannot actually come out with viable soultions then they will only have served to damage those they seek to protect!

Then that are such initiaves as Muslims United that seems to fall into the same old trap of paying lip service to such incidents. We have been here before. We have seen such statements prior to 7/7 and after.

Muslims United lists several well known organisations joining the bandwagon. Nonetheless, their grandiose claims that they represent everyday Muslims - the Muslim common man - doesn't really hold up to the litmus test. This half-hearted gesture does nothing but show the community for what it is, disunited and unable to respond to the issues at hand. If the organisers wanted to show a united front in trying to aboslve the community from blame then they should have got more just a plethora of organisations that most mainstream Muslims will have trouble recognising or identifying with.

AND THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM!

For no matter who the oragnisation is or the amount of organisations there are, the Muslim community that matters still feels that they are unable to identify with them. A recent poll conducted by Populus found only 7% of British muslims felt that the Muslim Council of Britain - perhaps the most well know of the main stream groups - represented their views. The second biggest response with 25% was "Don't know" and the first - with a gigantic 52% - was "None".Yet, this has always been the case, Muslim have continaully suggested that they fail to identify with these groups, with a number of polls suggesting so. (You can see a snippet of British Muslim's opinions here or here). Even within the aftermath of 7/7, polls were suggesting that "the Muslim community in Britain lacks a single, unifying voice at both an institutional and an individual level." It is only a matter of a year ago when the same questions were levelled in a Channel Four documentary.

The Government itself has muddied the waters by actively courting a number of such groups in a bid to liase with the Muslim community at large. Their links with the MCB have been often well known to many:

"The MCB was officially founded in November 1997, shortly after Tony Blair came to power, and has had a close relationship with the Labour government ever since ... It remains particularly influential within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has a little-known outreach department which works with Britain's Muslims. The FCO pamphlet Muslims in Britain is essentially an MCB publication and the official ministerial celebration of the Muslim festival of Eid is organised jointly with the MCB."

The ineffectivemenss of the MCB has lead the British government to entertain other groups in a bid to have a genuine influence over the Muslim majoirty, even going as far as pushing the Sufi Muslim Council and Haras Rafiq into the mainstream.

Is it hardly surprising then with such a number of groups and with such influence as the the unofficial backing of the British Government and the inability to present a consensus view is leaving the majority of Muslims confused and floundering! Unfortuantely, we are own worst enemies, for we actively indulge in the divide and conquer tactics that seek to segregate people from each other and which only ever serve the interests of the State and never the best interests of the people!

SOURCE: Moh Bloggs

IRAN– Iraq “2” in The War on Terror

By Andrusha Wickremeratne (Hebden Bridge)

Amidst the hoopla of heroic Britain carrying on in Dunkirk spirit against the threat of Islamic terrorism, it can easily be forgotten that the central tenet of our leaders’ War on Terror was to make the world (more specifically Britain) a safer place.This brought to mind an interview I heard on Sunday on BBC Radio 4 where an American academic in International Relations was pontificating gravely on the necessity for European countries to follow the American example and impose all manner of trade sanctions on Iran. Yes Iran with its mad mullahs and Armageddon Ahmadinejad as president who wants to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth” (a mistranslation from Farsi, either deliberate or otherwise, but no matter); they should be punished. And this will make the world a safer place for us to buy McDonalds and Kentucky Fried and grow fat in peace and harmony. So by extinguishing this threat we’ll be safe.

The fact that a reasonably educated child, not to mention the entire security apparatus of Britain and America believes the opposite will happen; that waging war against Iran will make Britain a less safe place, is neither here nor there. What is important is that the War on Terror will free Iranians (for surely the primary need for Muslims round the world is to be freed by us) and bring forth democracy and Tescos. By the way Iran has rather a lot of oil.On hearing the American academic’s argument, I was compelled to dig out an interview I read between Scott Ritter the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!* based on Ritter’s recently published book “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change”**. He makes a number of points based on the research for his book (interviews with senior US foreign policy staff, Iranian officials and senior staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA, to name but a few important sources).

The first and most basic point is that Iran is firmly in this US administration’s sights for invasion and regime change. Ritter bases this assertion on the 2006 National Security Strategy document where Iran is mentioned 16 times as the number one threat to the national security of the United States; the same document incidentally, which spawned the concept of pre – emptive wars to deal with such threats. So this is real, and not a hypothetical debating point between analysts.

The second is the issue of diplomacy. Whenever Iran is mentioned in broadcast and print media, it is they who are hard line. It is they who won’t comply. The IAEA, who have had full access to sites in Iran haven’t found any evidence to support the Bush administration’s claim that nuclear energy is being reconstituted for a nuclear weapons programme. The problem for Iran in particular, and for most of the rest of decent human beings in general, is that Iran has to prove it hasn’t got a weapons programme, even though none has been found.

Furthermore what is little understood, or reported, is that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini in whose hands real power lies (and not Ahmadinejad the poster boy of hate so beloved of Jeremy Paxman et al), has already issued a fatwa that explicitly states the incompatibility of nuclear weapons with the interpretation of Shia Islamism in Iran. In fact in 2003 he actually reached out to the Bush administration via the Swiss embassy to initiate a peace treaty between Iran and Israel, and for the normalization of relations between Iran and the U.S.A. This was not accepted. Why? The only conclusion to draw is that it would run counter to the Bush cabal’s aims in that area. So even a passing respect for the recent historical record will show who exactly is hard line and anti – diplomatic.

So let’s look at this government’s stance on why people try to detonate Mercedes Benzes on London’s streets, or drive flaming 4 x 4s into airports. It is “our way of life they hate” they continue to bray, disregarding our very intelligence. What will those paid to protect “our way of life” do, when as seems likely, their masters start banging the war drums against Iran louder?

* “Democracy Now!” is an online magazine edited and hosted by Amy Goodman
** Target Iran: The Truth about the White House’s Plans for Regime Change” Ritter.S. Nation Books, New York, 2006.

IRAN– Iraq “2” in The War on Terror

By Andrusha Wickremeratne (Hebden Bridge)

Amidst the hoopla of heroic Britain carrying on in Dunkirk spirit against the threat of Islamic terrorism, it can easily be forgotten that the central tenet of our leaders’ War on Terror was to make the world (more specifically Britain) a safer place.

This brought to mind an interview I heard on Sunday on BBC Radio 4 where an American academic in International Relations was pontificating gravely on the necessity for European countries to follow the American example and impose all manner of trade sanctions on Iran. Yes Iran with its mad mullahs and Armageddon Ahmadinejad as president who wants to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth” (a mistranslation from Farsi, either deliberate or otherwise, but no matter); they should be punished. And this will make the world a safer place for us to buy McDonalds and Kentucky Fried and grow fat in peace and harmony. So by extinguishing this threat we’ll be safe.

The fact that a reasonably educated child, not to mention the entire security apparatus of Britain and America believes the opposite will happen; that waging war against Iran will make Britain a less safe place, is neither here nor there. What is important is that the War on Terror will free Iranians (for surely the primary need for Muslims round the world is to be freed by us) and bring forth democracy and Tescos. By the way Iran has rather a lot of oil.

On hearing the American academic’s argument, I was compelled to dig out an interview I read between Scott Ritter the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!* based on Ritter’s recently published book “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change”**. He makes a number of points based on the research for his book (interviews with senior US foreign policy staff, Iranian officials and senior staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA, to name but a few important sources).

The first and most basic point is that Iran is firmly in this US administration’s sights for invasion and regime change. Ritter bases this assertion on the 2006 National Security Strategy document where Iran is mentioned 16 times as the number one threat to the national security of the United States; the same document incidentally, which spawned the concept of pre – emptive wars to deal with such threats. So this is real, and not a hypothetical debating point between analysts.

The second is the issue of diplomacy. Whenever Iran is mentioned in broadcast and print media, it is they who are hard line. It is they who won’t comply. The IAEA, who have had full access to sites in Iran haven’t found any evidence to support the Bush administration’s claim that nuclear energy is being reconstituted for a nuclear weapons programme. The problem for Iran in particular, and for most of the rest of decent human beings in general, is that Iran has to prove it hasn’t got a weapons programme, even though none has been found.

Furthermore what is little understood, or reported, is that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini in whose hands real power lies (and not Ahmadinejad the poster boy of hate so beloved of Jeremy Paxman et al), has already issued a fatwa that explicitly states the incompatibility of nuclear weapons with the interpretation of Shia Islamism in Iran. In fact in 2003 he actually reached out to the Bush administration via the Swiss embassy to initiate a peace treaty between Iran and Israel, and for the normalization of relations between Iran and the U.S.A. This was not accepted. Why? The only conclusion to draw is that it would run counter to the Bush cabal’s aims in that area. So even a passing respect for the recent historical record will show who exactly is hard line and anti – diplomatic.

So let’s look at this government’s stance on why people try to detonate Mercedes Benzes on London’s streets, or drive flaming 4 x 4s into airports. It is “our way of life they hate” they continue to bray, disregarding our very intelligence. What will those paid to protect “our way of life” do, when as seems likely, their masters start banging the war drums against Iran louder?

* “Democracy Now!” is an online magazine edited and hosted by Amy Goodman
** Target Iran: The Truth about the White House’s Plans for Regime Change” Ritter.S. Nation Books, New York, 2006.

IMRAN KHAN on Lal Masjid Issue

Wednesday 11 July 2007 In the first place, General Musharraf should not have allowed so many armed militants to have gathered inside the mosque in those six months and then he should not have waited so long after the kidnapping of two policemen by the students of the Jamia Hafsa far back in February to launch an eviction programme through his party’s politicians.

General Musharraf had used the mosque issue to divert the attention of the people of Pakistan from the chief justice’s case which was going against the president and also from the two-day conference of the all opposition parties in London, “and at the same time he seemed to have successfully used the incident to persuade his friends in London and Washington to continue to support him rather than asking him to transfer power to a democratically elected government”.

The people of Pakistan by and large are against militancy and until the Americans started bombing Afghanistan they were all against terrorism that had taken a toll of so many innocent people on 9/11 in the US. “But since then they have convinced themselves to believe that the US is waging a war against Islam. The invasion of Iraq had reinforced their belief. And they see Musharraf as a foot soldier of the US protecting the American interests in this part of the world. That is the reason why they look with suspicion everything he does. And that was the reason why his actions in Waziristan and against Lal Masjid did not win him many friends inside the country”.

The Waziristan issue could have been solved through political dialogue, but being a military man Musharraf sent in 80,000 troops on the behest of the US and within two years after having hundreds of troops killed he had to sign a ‘document of surrender’ with the Waziris, but in the process he has alienated the tribal people for many years to comeSource: Dawn Newspaper

IMRAN KHAN on Lal Masjid Issue



Wednesday 11 July 2007

In the first place, General Musharraf should not have allowed so many armed militants to have gathered inside the mosque in those six months and then he should not have waited so long after the kidnapping of two policemen by the students of the Jamia Hafsa far back in February to launch an eviction programme through his party’s politicians.

General Musharraf had used the mosque issue to divert the attention of the people of Pakistan from the chief justice’s case which was going against the president and also from the two-day conference of the all opposition parties in London, “and at the same time he seemed to have successfully used the incident to persuade his friends in London and Washington to continue to support him rather than asking him to transfer power to a democratically elected government”.

The people of Pakistan by and large are against militancy and until the Americans started bombing Afghanistan they were all against terrorism that had taken a toll of so many innocent people on 9/11 in the US.

“But since then they have convinced themselves to believe that the US is waging a war against Islam. The invasion of Iraq had reinforced their belief. And they see Musharraf as a foot soldier of the US protecting the American interests in this part of the world. That is the reason why they look with suspicion everything he does. And that was the reason why his actions in Waziristan and against Lal Masjid did not win him many friends inside the country”.

The Waziristan issue could have been solved through political dialogue, but being a military man Musharraf sent in 80,000 troops on the behest of the US and within two years after having hundreds of troops killed he had to sign a ‘document of surrender’ with the Waziris, but in the process he has alienated the tribal people for many years to come

Source: Dawn Newspaper

DATELINE DOCUMENTARY on Lal Masjid Escalation

DATELINE DOCUMENTARY on Lal Masjid Escalation

The Controversy has hit the international media as the world looks on and re-enforces its commitment to the War on terror and its global fight against terrorism. Internally within Pakistan, the nation has shown frustration, anxiety and utter disgust at the governments handling of a local issue in the Capital City, used to further political agendas rather than resolving the problem.The documentary looks into some aspects of the issue culminating over the last 6 months which all of a sudden became a high priority for the Musharraf Government.

DATELINE DOCUMENTARY on Lal Masjid Escalation

The Controversy has hit the international media as the world looks on and re-enforces its commitment to the War on terror and its global fight against terrorism. Internally within Pakistan, the nation has shown frustration, anxiety and utter disgust at the governments handling of a local issue in the Capital City, used to further political agendas rather than resolving the problem.



The documentary looks into some aspects of the issue culminating over the last 6 months which all of a sudden became a high priority for the Musharraf Government.

Who called the Thought Police?

Who called the Thought Police?



"Winston wondered how far this falsification would go. Given the inexorable nature of the Party’s project, sooner or later, they would declare that two and two are five and if he, Winston questioned it he would probably be a lunatic and 'in a minority of one".

These are the words of Winston Smith the fictional character in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four , in the book Winston is a clerk in the Ministry of Truth, his job to rewrite historical documents to fit the current party line.

Winston writing the above in his diary ponders on how far the party, which in essence represents "the state" would go to rewrite the truth to fit it's own purpose, to you and me this means propaganda, to shape the views of people in a deliberate manner for a pre-conceived end.

Propaganda was something Gordon Brown in his first public outing as the new Prime Minister talked about on the BBC's Sunday AM show (Sunday 1/7/2007). Interviewed by an almost apologetic Andrew Marr when asked if he (Brown) thought there was a direct link between Iraq and London he commented

"The terrorist threat we're dealing with is about a long term and sustained attack on the values that we represent...... And that's why the cultural effort, almost similar to what happened during the Cold War in the nineteen forties, fifties and sixties when we had to mount a propaganda effort, if you like, to explain to people that our values represented the best of commitments to individual dignity, to liberty and to human life being taken seriously. And I think that's what we are going to have to talk about in the next few years".

This statement sums up the message Brown and sectors of the government have been giving since the failed attacks in London and Glasgow, the script reads "It's about them hating our way of life, they think our women are slags, they want to kill anyone that doesn't believe in their way of life", and this line has been spun out in a manner that would make the spin doctors of the early Blair years green with envy.

The discussion of values and ideas hasn't been limited to government circles with Channel 4 News, BBC Newsnight amongst those discussing these points too. A picture is now being painted about a cultural war between the West and the ideas of an evil ideology, an ideology which will rest at nothing to destroy the very fabric of modern western society, that calls for Shariah and the Caliphate in the Muslim world, and a people motivated by nothing but a hatred for the "freedoms" of the West.

A few days after the attacks BBC's Newsnight pitted Shiv Malik against Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB. One would think in this current climate the discussion would centre around the events in London and Glasgow and possible causes. However Shiv Malik's agenda was something different and the questioning centred around Suicide bombings; killings of British Soldiers in Iraq and the MCB's support of Hamas; none of which are relevant to the discussion about motivation for the attacks. This tone has been carried throughout the last week, condemnation is not enough the only thing will do as Brown made so clear is acceptance of Western values and acknowledgment of the fantasy that there is something intrinsically wrong with Islam which is in need of reform.In the same week as the incidents in London and Glasgow , 2 US Marines where charged with the murder of the 3 Iraqi civilians in Iskandariyah, Iraq. This brings the total number charged with murder to 20 .

In Afghanistan the number of civilians killed by air raids was over 100 from just two incidents. The link between the incidents in Iraq and the UK is obvious and clear.However as Winston understood the propaganda machine is not concerned with the truth but a twisted version of it, that fulfils it's long term goals. Winston would be the first to understand that the British government is no longer trying to get a point of view across but twisting falsehood into truth, and furthermore showing the truth as something only a lunatic fringe could ascribe to.Winston concludes his diary entry with a definition of freedom - "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows". This is being able to articulate the truth without fear, this is not a feeling Muslims are used to in the current climate.

As for what Brown calls individual dignity from the eyes of a Muslim it is in fact intellectual slavery to the Brown line.Over the past week raised voices of condemnation have been shouted down as irrelevant and meaningless to the debate about ideas and values. It is in times like this that the responsibility to understand and articulate the truth is most paramount. A defensive stance of mere condemnation will just bring a sense of justified accusation, an attempt to highlight the peaceful nature of the individual aspects of Islam will hand intellectual victory to those who malign political Islam.

Only real effort from the community to support the truth and ideas of Islam such as Caliphate and the right to question foreign policy will aid the cause of Muslims in Britain.As for Winston his actions failed to follow his ideals and he eventually towed the government line and buried the truth under his own cowardice and self interest, one just hopes that this analogy won't apply to the Muslims communities up and down the country.

Source: Moh Bloggs

Who called the Thought Police?



By Waseem Aslam (ROCHDALE)

"Winston wondered how far this falsification would go. Given the inexorable nature of the Party’s project, sooner or later, they would declare that two and two are five and if he, Winston questioned it he would probably be a lunatic and 'in a minority of one".

These are the words of Winston Smith the fictional character in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four , in the book Winston is a clerk in the Ministry of Truth, his job to rewrite historical documents to fit the current party line.

Winston writing the above in his diary ponders on how far the party, which in essence represents "the state" would go to rewrite the truth to fit it's own purpose, to you and me this means propaganda, to shape the views of people in a deliberate manner for a pre-conceived end.

Propaganda was something Gordon Brown in his first public outing as the new Prime Minister talked about on the BBC's Sunday AM show (Sunday 1/7/2007). Interviewed by an almost apologetic Andrew Marr when asked if he (Brown) thought there was a direct link between Iraq and London he commented

"The terrorist threat we're dealing with is about a long term and sustained attack on the values that we represent...... And that's why the cultural effort, almost similar to what happened during the Cold War in the nineteen forties, fifties and sixties when we had to mount a propaganda effort, if you like, to explain to people that our values represented the best of commitments to individual dignity, to liberty and to human life being taken seriously. And I think that's what we are going to have to talk about in the next few years".

This statement sums up the message Brown and sectors of the government have been giving since the failed attacks in London and Glasgow, the script reads "It's about them hating our way of life, they think our women are slags, they want to kill anyone that doesn't believe in their way of life", and this line has been spun out in a manner that would make the spin doctors of the early Blair years green with envy.

The discussion of values and ideas hasn't been limited to government circles with Channel 4 News, BBC Newsnight amongst those discussing these points too. A picture is now being painted about a cultural war between the West and the ideas of an evil ideology, an ideology which will rest at nothing to destroy the very fabric of modern western society, that calls for Shariah and the Caliphate in the Muslim world, and a people motivated by nothing but a hatred for the "freedoms" of the West.

A few days after the attacks BBC's Newsnight pitted Shiv Malik against Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB. One would think in this current climate the discussion would centre around the events in London and Glasgow and possible causes. However Shiv Malik's agenda was something different and the questioning centred around Suicide bombings; killings of British Soldiers in Iraq and the MCB's support of Hamas; none of which are relevant to the discussion about motivation for the attacks. This tone has been carried throughout the last week, condemnation is not enough the only thing will do as Brown made so clear is acceptance of Western values and acknowledgment of the fantasy that there is something intrinsically wrong with Islam which is in need of reform.In the same week as the incidents in London and Glasgow , 2 US Marines where charged with the murder of the 3 Iraqi civilians in Iskandariyah, Iraq. This brings the total number charged with murder to 20 .

In Afghanistan the number of civilians killed by air raids was over 100 from just two incidents. The link between the incidents in Iraq and the UK is obvious and clear.However as Winston understood the propaganda machine is not concerned with the truth but a twisted version of it, that fulfils it's long term goals. Winston would be the first to understand that the British government is no longer trying to get a point of view across but twisting falsehood into truth, and furthermore showing the truth as something only a lunatic fringe could ascribe to.Winston concludes his diary entry with a definition of freedom - "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows". This is being able to articulate the truth without fear, this is not a feeling Muslims are used to in the current climate.

As for what Brown calls individual dignity from the eyes of a Muslim it is in fact intellectual slavery to the Brown line.Over the past week raised voices of condemnation have been shouted down as irrelevant and meaningless to the debate about ideas and values. It is in times like this that the responsibility to understand and articulate the truth is most paramount. A defensive stance of mere condemnation will just bring a sense of justified accusation, an attempt to highlight the peaceful nature of the individual aspects of Islam will hand intellectual victory to those who malign political Islam.

Only real effort from the community to support the truth and ideas of Islam such as Caliphate and the right to question foreign policy will aid the cause of Muslims in Britain.As for Winston his actions failed to follow his ideals and he eventually towed the government line and buried the truth under his own cowardice and self interest, one just hopes that this analogy won't apply to the Muslims communities up and down the country.

Source: Moh Bloggs

ARCHIVE- ISRAEL-LEBANON Conflict

ARCHIVE- ISRAEL-LEBANON Conflict

Andrusha Wickremeratne

Andrusha wickeramaratne spoke at a Bradford Community meeting last September regarding the Isreal/Lebanon crisis. He offered a uniqe view in analysing the events and asked participants to be vigilant and scrutinise the negative terminology being used by popular press in reporting the issue with a bias.

Click here to see the VIDEO

Andrusha Wickremeratne is a freelance writer, independant Political analyst and a speaker at local events and media Outlets covering local, national and Internatioanl events. He is a regular guest speaker on Islam Radio's Current Affairs show and has made appearnaces on Crescent radio (Rochdale). He currently lives in Hebden Bridge but works in Rochdale with the local community as an Adult tutor.

ARCHIVE- ISRAEL-LEBANON Conflict

Andrusha Wickremeratne

Andrusha wickeramaratne spoke at a Bradford Community meeting last September regarding the Isreal/Lebanon crisis. He offered a uniqe view in analysing the events and asked participants to be vigilant and scrutinise the negative terminology being used by popular press in reporting the issue with a bias.



Andrusha Wickremeratne is a freelance writer, independant Political analyst and a speaker at local events and media Outlets covering local, national and Internatioanl events. He is a regular guest speaker on Islam Radio's Current Affairs show and has made appearnaces on Crescent radio (Rochdale). He currently lives in Hebden Bridge but works in Rochdale with the local community as an Adult tutor.

BAD MEN– Guantanamo Bay & the secret prisons

An evening with Clive Stafford Smith- Hebden Bridge- West Yorkshire - 3rd July 2007



By Andrusha Wickremeratne (Hebden Bridge)

As my wife and I walked into a packed cinema hall on Tuesday evening, I recognised a dimunitive, bespectacled, slim looking man sitting patiently, seemingly waiting his turn. I turned to my wife and remarked: “oh that’s him…….Clive Stafford Smith”. So who is this man?Clive Stafford Smith is a lawyer. He moved to New Orleans some 25 years ago and started working with inmates in America’s notorious death row prisons; defending, for the most part, poor people, mostly blacks. People who never received a fair trial; and he had notable successes. From the beginning of 2002, Stafford Smith has volunteered his services to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and has assisted in filing lawsuits on behalf of 128 detainees. His clients include: Shaker Aamer, Jamil al Banna, Moazzam Begg and Benyam Mohammad.

It has to be said that considering what he has seen and heard from his clients; their harrowing tales of torture, and from his experiences in dealing with the American and British security apparatus, he had a most positive tale to tell. So what did he have to say?

First, the title of the talk, “Bad Men”. This was a term coined by that well known good guy George. W. Bush, as in “there are some bad men in there”. Referring to the point that, yes there may be some innocents that get trawled in, but in the overall scheme of things (i.e. the threat posed is so bad), this is ok. What Stafford Smith calls the “ticking time bomb” scenario. The threat (i.e. the time bomb) is so bad that it is ok to subvert the judicial process and detain people in an army base in Cuba with no lawyers because, the argument goes, this will save lives.

So who are the people, and how did most of them arrive in a place that gives the local wildlife (in this case iguanas who roam plentifully about) more ‘human’ rights than them? This is no joke. If an American soldier kills an iguana he or she will be fined $10,000 and jailed for a number of years. They can do more or less what they like to people like Moazzam Begg.

Anyway, I am digressing. Donald Rumsfeld blatantly lied and stated that every detainee had arrived in Guantanamo Bay captured in the battlefields of Afghanistan. In fact 95% of inmates came via another way. How? One of the ways came about during the time of the Bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11/01. Posters depicting “Muslim” men (not particular individuals, but generic pictures in some sort of western caricature of what a “Muslim” looks like; you know, beard, headdress, somewhat wild – eyed) were dropped by planes in areas of Afghanistan. Accompanying this picture was written in Arabic, Pashto or Urdu, the inscription that “you can receive $5000 if you know the whereabouts of anyone connected to Bin Laden and al Qaeda”. So the local authorities duly received various notifications of various Bad Men seen in the Tora Bora caves, talking to Bin Laden, kissing his hand etc etc. 5000 dollars!! This is equivalent to about £250,000 per year here, taking into consideration our cost of living and economic system and way of life. And so people were trawled in on this say so and detained in Guantanamo Bay and others like it. Places like Poland, Morocco, Gambia and Egypt, and now Bagram air base in Iraq. There are today, apart from Guantanamo Bay, some 14,000 people languishing in secret prisons. No lawyers. No defence.

How else did they come? Through CIA “intelligence”. The other thing to emerge from the talk was the sheer incompetence and willful blindness of the security apparatus, and interrogators of the United States. People in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons, who under torture, have confessed to belonging to al Qaeda (incidentally, the expression used by those purporting to establish democracy in the Middle East is not torture, but ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’), plotting mayhem, and in one case being the General of al Qaeda, have in turn, given names of others who might be threatening ‘our way of life’. And “evidence” garnered in this way is taken at face value. Incidentally the man confessing to be the General of al Qaeda was, in fact, a chef in a north London restaurant at the time he was supposed to have been with Bin Laden orchestrating plots and training recruits; whose details it would have been very easy to check. As eventually Stafford Smith did, and point out.

By the way, these men were, and are, classified as Prisoners of War (POWs). Since there is a War on Terror, there is some logic to referring to them as POWs .But with one main caveat; these guys have no recourse to the Geneva Convention.

I mentioned earlier that Stafford Smith’s delivery this night was positive. The first thing to say is that he actually enjoys his work. Yes enjoys! Being able to somehow, through various machinations, get into some of these prisons and represent these men. Hearing their stories of suffering and anguish, and being able to assist in some way, by ridiculing their captor’s methods and logic, and perhaps most importantly of all, by seeing how they have, unbelievably, retained their dignity as human beings.

Also, as the night was drawing to a close, the perennial question arose from the audience: “what can we (as in mere ordinary people) do?” Well, what Stafford Smith pointed out is that there is a lot of small things that cumulatively add up to a lot. Just sacrificing a bit of your time writing letters or poems to inmates brings great hope that they have not been forgotten. Stafford Smith mentioned a 14 year old boy (apparently an al Qaeda recruiting sergeant ) in a jail in Gambia whose sense of self worth and faith in humanity was maintained because, in large part, of letters of encouragement*.

From the viewpoints of those voted to safeguard our freedoms and security, who purport to act in our name in their various acts of terror, people like Clive Stafford Smith, those who think like him, and those he tries to help, are Bad Men. Well, from any rational and sane definition of good and bad, this slim unassuming person is a very good man.

Andrusha Wickremeratne is a freelance writer, independant Political analyst and a speaker at local events and media Outlets covering local, national and Internatioanl events. He is a regular guest speaker on Islam Radio's Current Affairs show and has made appearnaces on Crescent radio (Rochdale). He currently lives in Hebden Bridge but works in Rochdale with the local community as an Adult tutor.

BAD MEN– Guantanamo Bay & the secret prisons

An evening with Clive Stafford Smith- Hebden Bridge- West Yorkshire - 3rd July 2007



By Andrusha Wickremeratne (Hebden Bridge)

As my wife and I walked into a packed cinema hall on Tuesday evening, I recognised a dimunitive, bespectacled, slim looking man sitting patiently, seemingly waiting his turn. I turned to my wife and remarked: “oh that’s him…….Clive Stafford Smith”. So who is this man?

Clive Stafford Smith is a lawyer. He moved to New Orleans some 25 years ago and started working with inmates in America’s notorious death row prisons; defending, for the most part, poor people, mostly blacks. People who never received a fair trial; and he had notable successes. From the beginning of 2002, Stafford Smith has volunteered his services to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and has assisted in filing lawsuits on behalf of 128 detainees. His clients include: Shaker Aamer, Jamil al Banna, Moazzam Begg and Benyam Mohammad.

It has to be said that considering what he has seen and heard from his clients; their harrowing tales of torture, and from his experiences in dealing with the American and British security apparatus, he had a most positive tale to tell. So what did he have to say?

First, the title of the talk, “Bad Men”. This was a term coined by that well known good guy George. W. Bush, as in “there are some bad men in there”. Referring to the point that, yes there may be some innocents that get trawled in, but in the overall scheme of things (i.e. the threat posed is so bad), this is ok. What Stafford Smith calls the “ticking time bomb” scenario. The threat (i.e. the time bomb) is so bad that it is ok to subvert the judicial process and detain people in an army base in Cuba with no lawyers because, the argument goes, this will save lives.

So who are the people, and how did most of them arrive in a place that gives the local wildlife (in this case iguanas who roam plentifully about) more ‘human’ rights than them? This is no joke. If an American soldier kills an iguana he or she will be fined $10,000 and jailed for a number of years. They can do more or less what they like to people like Moazzam Begg.

Anyway, I am digressing. Donald Rumsfeld blatantly lied and stated that every detainee had arrived in Guantanamo Bay captured in the battlefields of Afghanistan. In fact 95% of inmates came via another way. How? One of the ways came about during the time of the Bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11/01. Posters depicting “Muslim” men (not particular individuals, but generic pictures in some sort of western caricature of what a “Muslim” looks like; you know, beard, headdress, somewhat wild – eyed) were dropped by planes in areas of Afghanistan. Accompanying this picture was written in Arabic, Pashto or Urdu, the inscription that “you can receive $5000 if you know the whereabouts of anyone connected to Bin Laden and al Qaeda”. So the local authorities duly received various notifications of various Bad Men seen in the Tora Bora caves, talking to Bin Laden, kissing his hand etc etc. 5000 dollars!! This is equivalent to about £250,000 per year here, taking into consideration our cost of living and economic system and way of life. And so people were trawled in on this say so and detained in Guantanamo Bay and others like it. Places like Poland, Morocco, Gambia and Egypt, and now Bagram air base in Iraq. There are today, apart from Guantanamo Bay, some 14,000 people languishing in secret prisons. No lawyers. No defence.

How else did they come? Through CIA “intelligence”. The other thing to emerge from the talk was the sheer incompetence and willful blindness of the security apparatus, and interrogators of the United States. People in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons, who under torture, have confessed to belonging to al Qaeda (incidentally, the expression used by those purporting to establish democracy in the Middle East is not torture, but ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’), plotting mayhem, and in one case being the General of al Qaeda, have in turn, given names of others who might be threatening ‘our way of life’. And “evidence” garnered in this way is taken at face value. Incidentally the man confessing to be the General of al Qaeda was, in fact, a chef in a north London restaurant at the time he was supposed to have been with Bin Laden orchestrating plots and training recruits; whose details it would have been very easy to check. As eventually Stafford Smith did, and point out.

By the way, these men were, and are, classified as Prisoners of War (POWs). Since there is a War on Terror, there is some logic to referring to them as POWs .But with one main caveat; these guys have no recourse to the Geneva Convention.

I mentioned earlier that Stafford Smith’s delivery this night was positive. The first thing to say is that he actually enjoys his work. Yes enjoys! Being able to somehow, through various machinations, get into some of these prisons and represent these men. Hearing their stories of suffering and anguish, and being able to assist in some way, by ridiculing their captor’s methods and logic, and perhaps most importantly of all, by seeing how they have, unbelievably, retained their dignity as human beings.

Also, as the night was drawing to a close, the perennial question arose from the audience: “what can we (as in mere ordinary people) do?” Well, what Stafford Smith pointed out is that there is a lot of small things that cumulatively add up to a lot. Just sacrificing a bit of your time writing letters or poems to inmates brings great hope that they have not been forgotten. Stafford Smith mentioned a 14 year old boy (apparently an al Qaeda recruiting sergeant ) in a jail in Gambia whose sense of self worth and faith in humanity was maintained because, in large part, of letters of encouragement*.

From the viewpoints of those voted to safeguard our freedoms and security, who purport to act in our name in their various acts of terror, people like Clive Stafford Smith, those who think like him, and those he tries to help, are Bad Men. Well, from any rational and sane definition of good and bad, this slim unassuming person is a very good man.

Andrusha Wickremeratne is a freelance writer, independant Political analyst and a speaker at local events and media Outlets covering local, national and Internatioanl events. He is a regular guest speaker on Islam Radio's Current Affairs show and has made appearnaces on Crescent radio (Rochdale). He currently lives in Hebden Bridge but works in Rochdale with the local community as an Adult tutor.