Thursday, January 16, 2014
The Nature of the Islamist Threat
Though CSIS, the RCMP and probably CSEC keep tab of Islamist activity in Canada, especially when violent or terrorist action is involved or suspected, the Canadian Forces are not expected to be called upon. However, as we saw when the FLQ (Front de libération du Québec) became a threat to the security of Canadians in October of 1970, the War Measures Act may be invoked and the Canadian Forces deployed to confront and contain a threat using kinetic force if deemed necessary.
With that in mind it is simple due diligence that requires the Canadian Forces to acquaint themselves with the nature of the Islamist threat. Toward that end therefore I have produced a youTube video which, in turn, is comprised of clips from numerous youTube and other videos. While the focus is upon Canada, complementary material is drawn from the US and the UK.
You may view the video by clicking here.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Remote Control War
Robots that kill. In the movies, this scenario is presented as a future in which things have gone terribly wrong. But, as revealed in the new Zoot Pictures documentary Remote Control War, such robots are no longer science fiction.
From today’s CIA drone strikes to the next generation of armed autonomous robot swarms, killer robots are about to change our world. The question chillingly posed in Remote Control War is how this shift will affect not only warfare….but mankind.
Robotic war is already here. Every evening in Indian Springs, Nevada, an hour outside of Las Vegas, a group of ordinary-looking men and women say goodbye to their families and go to war. They fight insurgents in Afghanistan and on the mountainous borders of Pakistan. They watch, they bomb, and they kill. Sometimes their vehicles crash, but the pilots always go home to their families in the morning. They are remote control warriors.
Remote Control War illustrates how warfare is being revolutionized in a monumental shift unlike anything in our human history. The current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify the world’s first Robotic War. The American robotic fleet, almost non-existent when the US and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003, has today grown to number 7,000 robots in the air and 12,000 others on the ground. Some 43 other countries, including Canada, are now using robots in combat.
The Bear, designed to be a medical rescue robot in the field
Military robots are appealing: they save soldiers’ lives – avoiding the negative publicity of planes repeatedly returning home with flag-shrouded coffins.
But, as Remote Control War shows us, today's drones and robot tanks are like "the first horseless carriage" compared to new generations of robots already being developed. Robot warriors will soon move beyond taking directions - they will become autonomous, acting independently. Surveillance and other non-lethal tools will be turned into attack weapons, as the military reconfigures today’s R2-D2 and C-3PO into RoboCop and Terminator. We see in the film how this is already happening.
Remote Control War producers Leif Kaldor and Leslea Mair of Regina-based Zoot Pictures hunt down the most up-to-date information on military robotics. They travel to Europe, Israel and across North America, gaining entry to the Pentagon, robotic production facilities and cutting-edge research laboratories. While discovering the latest technology, they pose the serious ethical questions we need to ask: When robots are used to kill human beings, what are the new rules of engagement?
Robots only have the ethics with which they are programmed, and human/robot wars raise many ethical questions. Does the ability to kill anyone, anywhere, using a robot, amount to lawlessness? What happens when future robots can decide, on their own, whom to kill? Would the military send out an autonomous swarm of micro-robots to kill an enemy? Will having no casualties on your own side make going to war too easy a decision?
The development and deployment of militarized robots also opens a Pandora’s Box. Currently, the West has the upper hand, but very soon, all sides will have access to remote control weapons. In that frightening scenario, will robots become the future’s suicide bombers?
To contribute to our understanding of what is going on right now in the world of military robotics, and the implications of these developments, Kaldor and Mair talk to such knowledgeable experts and insiders as:
Lt. General David Deptula, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Prize winner
Peter W. Singer, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century
Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine
David Rohde, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times investigative reporter
United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston
Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield.
"This started as a documentary about military robots and ended up more like a science fiction film,” says Remote Control War director Leif Kaldor. “The technology is almost unbelievable, yet very few people know there are thousands of robots on the battlefield right now, let alone what the next generation of lethal, autonomous robots will be capable of.”
Kaldor adds: “When a leading roboticist tells you he wouldn't be worried if we had Terminators because he’s far more concerned with the lethal, autonomous flying robot ‘swarms’ that are being developed and tested right now, you know this is something we’d better be aware of and talking about….soon!”
From today’s CIA drone strikes to the next generation of armed autonomous robot swarms, killer robots are about to change our world. The question chillingly posed in Remote Control War is how this shift will affect not only warfare….but mankind.
Robotic war is already here. Every evening in Indian Springs, Nevada, an hour outside of Las Vegas, a group of ordinary-looking men and women say goodbye to their families and go to war. They fight insurgents in Afghanistan and on the mountainous borders of Pakistan. They watch, they bomb, and they kill. Sometimes their vehicles crash, but the pilots always go home to their families in the morning. They are remote control warriors.
Remote Control War illustrates how warfare is being revolutionized in a monumental shift unlike anything in our human history. The current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify the world’s first Robotic War. The American robotic fleet, almost non-existent when the US and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003, has today grown to number 7,000 robots in the air and 12,000 others on the ground. Some 43 other countries, including Canada, are now using robots in combat.
The Bear, designed to be a medical rescue robot in the field
Military robots are appealing: they save soldiers’ lives – avoiding the negative publicity of planes repeatedly returning home with flag-shrouded coffins.
But, as Remote Control War shows us, today's drones and robot tanks are like "the first horseless carriage" compared to new generations of robots already being developed. Robot warriors will soon move beyond taking directions - they will become autonomous, acting independently. Surveillance and other non-lethal tools will be turned into attack weapons, as the military reconfigures today’s R2-D2 and C-3PO into RoboCop and Terminator. We see in the film how this is already happening.
Remote Control War producers Leif Kaldor and Leslea Mair of Regina-based Zoot Pictures hunt down the most up-to-date information on military robotics. They travel to Europe, Israel and across North America, gaining entry to the Pentagon, robotic production facilities and cutting-edge research laboratories. While discovering the latest technology, they pose the serious ethical questions we need to ask: When robots are used to kill human beings, what are the new rules of engagement?
Robots only have the ethics with which they are programmed, and human/robot wars raise many ethical questions. Does the ability to kill anyone, anywhere, using a robot, amount to lawlessness? What happens when future robots can decide, on their own, whom to kill? Would the military send out an autonomous swarm of micro-robots to kill an enemy? Will having no casualties on your own side make going to war too easy a decision?
The development and deployment of militarized robots also opens a Pandora’s Box. Currently, the West has the upper hand, but very soon, all sides will have access to remote control weapons. In that frightening scenario, will robots become the future’s suicide bombers?
To contribute to our understanding of what is going on right now in the world of military robotics, and the implications of these developments, Kaldor and Mair talk to such knowledgeable experts and insiders as:
Lt. General David Deptula, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Prize winner
Peter W. Singer, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century
Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine
David Rohde, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times investigative reporter
United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston
Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield.
"This started as a documentary about military robots and ended up more like a science fiction film,” says Remote Control War director Leif Kaldor. “The technology is almost unbelievable, yet very few people know there are thousands of robots on the battlefield right now, let alone what the next generation of lethal, autonomous robots will be capable of.”
Kaldor adds: “When a leading roboticist tells you he wouldn't be worried if we had Terminators because he’s far more concerned with the lethal, autonomous flying robot ‘swarms’ that are being developed and tested right now, you know this is something we’d better be aware of and talking about….soon!”
New Military Technology
I have put together a video, largely comprised of YouTube videos, to illustrate how military technology is changing as we move from the Energy Age to the Information Age. The major innovation in the previous age was undoubtedly the nuclear bomb. In the emerging age, where information becomes incorporated within existing military technology such as guided missiles, "smart-bombs", and aerial drones, we are struggling to adapt this technology to fighting a new non-state enemy. If the nuclear bomb is an example of a weapon of pure energy, what will the pure information weapon look like? It may emerge from ongoing research into the brain and its control of both human behaviour and the weapons of war.
The video may be viewed on YouTube at this website.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Pentagon Tries to Counter Cheap, Potent Weapons
The US is finally taking seriously the threat posed by guerillas/insurgents' use of IEDs, man-held anti-aircraft missiles, suicide bombers and cyberattacks. This is evident from the new strategy announced by President Obama:
President Obama’s new military strategy has focused fresh attention on an increasingly important threat: the use of inexpensive weapons like mines and cyberattacks that aim not to defeat the American military in battle but to keep it at a distance.
The president and his national security team predict that the security challenges of the coming decade will be defined by this threat, just as the last one was defined by terrorism and insurgency.
A growing number of nations whose forces are overmatched by the United States are fielding these weapons, which can slow, disrupt and perhaps even halt an American offensive. Modern war plans can become mired in a bog of air defenses, mines, missiles, electronic jamming and computer-network attacks meant to degrade American advantages in technology and hardware.
It is a lesson that potential enemies drew from the way American public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan plummeted as armored vehicles — each costing millions of dollars — were broken and their troops killed and maimed by roadside bombs costing only a few hundred dollars apiece.
China and Iran were identified as the countries that were leading the pursuit of “asymmetric means” to counter American military force, according to the new strategy document, which cautioned that these relatively inexpensive measures were spreading to terrorist and guerrilla cells.
At his announcement at the Pentagon last week, Mr. Obama said the country should invest in “the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access.”
The new strategy specifically orders that efforts to counter the threat, which the military calls “anti-access, area-denial,” become one of the 10 primary missions of the American military. That will help define how the four armed services compete for shares of a shrinking Pentagon budget.
“The United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged,” the strategy document said.
“Sophisticated adversaries will use asymmetric capabilities, to include electronic and cyberwarfare, ballistic and cruise missiles, advanced air defenses, mining and other methods to complicate our operational calculus.”
For example, in recent exercises by the naval arm of the Revolutionary Guards, Iran has practiced “swarming” attacks by a number of small, fast boats that could be loaded with high explosives; if one such boat got through, it might blast a hole in the hull of a major American warship.
“Iran’s navy — especially the naval arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards — has invested in vessels and armaments that are well suited to asymmetric warfare, rather than the sort of ship-to-ship conflict that Iran would surely lose,” Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote in a recent essay for Foreign Policy.
With Chinese and Russian help, Mr. Singh added, Iran is also fielding sophisticated mines, midget submarines and mobile antiship cruise missiles.
Nathan Freier, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “Iran’s capabilities are best suited for imposing high costs on those who might need to force their way through the Strait of Hormuz, and on those in the region whom the Iranians perceive as being complicit in enabling foreign access.”
The potential challenge from China is even more significant, according to analysts. China has a fleet of diesel-electric attack submarines, which can operate quietly and effectively in waters near China’s shore to threaten foreign warships. China also fields short-, medium- and long-range missiles that could put warships at risk, and has layers of radar and surface-to-air missiles along its coast.
Finding, identifying and striking an American warship is a complex military operation. But the thicket of Chinese defenses could oblige an American aircraft carrier and its strike group to operate hundreds of miles farther out to sea, decreasing the number of attack sorties its aircraft could mount in a day and diminishing their effectiveness.
Perhaps most worrisome is China’s focus on electronic warfare and computer-network attacks, which might blunt the accuracy of advanced American munitions guided by satellite.
To counter these threats, the Air Force and Navy set up an office to develop complementary tactics and weaponry for what they are calling air-sea battle.
One idea is to attack an outer ring of enemy air defenses with F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, opening an alley for an F-22 stealth jet carrying sensitive surveillance pods to fly deeper into contested territory, where it could, for example, guide a powerful sea-launched cruise missile to a mobile or hidden target.
According to Lt. Gen. Herbert J. Carlisle, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, American computer warfare techniques could be used to spoil an adversary’s decision-making process. “If we can give them bad information, or we can make them doubt the good information they have,” he said.
Vice Adm. Bruce W. Clingan, the Navy’s deputy chief for operations, plans and strategy, said the military was carefully studying anti-access, area-denial techniques to pinpoint potential weaknesses in an adversary’s ability to identify and strike American targets.
“Do you take out his ability to shoot? Do you take him out once he’s shot? Do you deny him accuracy once the missile is airborne and then you create a greater ‘miss distance’?” Admiral Clingan said. “You have to work your way across that entire effect chain and how you’re going to do those things to keep those missiles from threatening you.”
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will soon release his concept for operating in an anti-access, area-denial environment. The 65-page directive will identify 30 capabilities that the armed forces will need to carry out missions across contested battlefields.
Source: New York Times
President Obama’s new military strategy has focused fresh attention on an increasingly important threat: the use of inexpensive weapons like mines and cyberattacks that aim not to defeat the American military in battle but to keep it at a distance.
The president and his national security team predict that the security challenges of the coming decade will be defined by this threat, just as the last one was defined by terrorism and insurgency.
A growing number of nations whose forces are overmatched by the United States are fielding these weapons, which can slow, disrupt and perhaps even halt an American offensive. Modern war plans can become mired in a bog of air defenses, mines, missiles, electronic jamming and computer-network attacks meant to degrade American advantages in technology and hardware.
It is a lesson that potential enemies drew from the way American public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan plummeted as armored vehicles — each costing millions of dollars — were broken and their troops killed and maimed by roadside bombs costing only a few hundred dollars apiece.
China and Iran were identified as the countries that were leading the pursuit of “asymmetric means” to counter American military force, according to the new strategy document, which cautioned that these relatively inexpensive measures were spreading to terrorist and guerrilla cells.
At his announcement at the Pentagon last week, Mr. Obama said the country should invest in “the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access.”
The new strategy specifically orders that efforts to counter the threat, which the military calls “anti-access, area-denial,” become one of the 10 primary missions of the American military. That will help define how the four armed services compete for shares of a shrinking Pentagon budget.
“The United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged,” the strategy document said.
“Sophisticated adversaries will use asymmetric capabilities, to include electronic and cyberwarfare, ballistic and cruise missiles, advanced air defenses, mining and other methods to complicate our operational calculus.”
For example, in recent exercises by the naval arm of the Revolutionary Guards, Iran has practiced “swarming” attacks by a number of small, fast boats that could be loaded with high explosives; if one such boat got through, it might blast a hole in the hull of a major American warship.
“Iran’s navy — especially the naval arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards — has invested in vessels and armaments that are well suited to asymmetric warfare, rather than the sort of ship-to-ship conflict that Iran would surely lose,” Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote in a recent essay for Foreign Policy.
With Chinese and Russian help, Mr. Singh added, Iran is also fielding sophisticated mines, midget submarines and mobile antiship cruise missiles.
Nathan Freier, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “Iran’s capabilities are best suited for imposing high costs on those who might need to force their way through the Strait of Hormuz, and on those in the region whom the Iranians perceive as being complicit in enabling foreign access.”
The potential challenge from China is even more significant, according to analysts. China has a fleet of diesel-electric attack submarines, which can operate quietly and effectively in waters near China’s shore to threaten foreign warships. China also fields short-, medium- and long-range missiles that could put warships at risk, and has layers of radar and surface-to-air missiles along its coast.
Finding, identifying and striking an American warship is a complex military operation. But the thicket of Chinese defenses could oblige an American aircraft carrier and its strike group to operate hundreds of miles farther out to sea, decreasing the number of attack sorties its aircraft could mount in a day and diminishing their effectiveness.
Perhaps most worrisome is China’s focus on electronic warfare and computer-network attacks, which might blunt the accuracy of advanced American munitions guided by satellite.
To counter these threats, the Air Force and Navy set up an office to develop complementary tactics and weaponry for what they are calling air-sea battle.
One idea is to attack an outer ring of enemy air defenses with F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, opening an alley for an F-22 stealth jet carrying sensitive surveillance pods to fly deeper into contested territory, where it could, for example, guide a powerful sea-launched cruise missile to a mobile or hidden target.
According to Lt. Gen. Herbert J. Carlisle, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, American computer warfare techniques could be used to spoil an adversary’s decision-making process. “If we can give them bad information, or we can make them doubt the good information they have,” he said.
Vice Adm. Bruce W. Clingan, the Navy’s deputy chief for operations, plans and strategy, said the military was carefully studying anti-access, area-denial techniques to pinpoint potential weaknesses in an adversary’s ability to identify and strike American targets.
“Do you take out his ability to shoot? Do you take him out once he’s shot? Do you deny him accuracy once the missile is airborne and then you create a greater ‘miss distance’?” Admiral Clingan said. “You have to work your way across that entire effect chain and how you’re going to do those things to keep those missiles from threatening you.”
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will soon release his concept for operating in an anti-access, area-denial environment. The 65-page directive will identify 30 capabilities that the armed forces will need to carry out missions across contested battlefields.
Source: New York Times
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Air Force seeks to be fly on the wall with new drones
The following is an excerpt from an article updating work on the miniaturization of uninhabited airborne vehicles (UAVs) capable of video and audio transmission, and also of progress on the weaponizing of such devices:
Everyone has either heard or uttered the old cliche, “I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during that conversation.” The United States Air Force has taken that statement to heart, and has been working on miniature remote controlled drones that resemble a flying insect. With the ability to capture audio and images, this new drone could be the ultimate in spy technology.
Military and civilian scientists at the Air Force Research Laboratory came up with the concept while researching how to create unique winged drones that resemble nature’s creations. The goal was to create a bird-like drone that would flap its wings realistically to avoid detection by enemy forces during surveillance operations. With miniaturization technology constantly getting more advanced, the lab was able to create a drone that fits on the pad of a finger as pictured above. Operating much like the Predator attack drones, the “Fly-Bot” is controlled by a trained pilot from a remote terminal. The aviator has full command of the drone, and can maneuver it into groups of real insects to hide, while a live feed is piped into the command center.
The potential for this technology to be weaponized is limitless. Give the drone the ability to release a small amount of gas, or pack a high-powered mini-explosive inside its body and you have something to be feared above just surveillance. A swarm of these invading a building then detonating would bring new meaning to the phrase “smart-weapon.”
Friday, November 11, 2011
Saab Unveils Amazing "Magic Maps" for Military
Here is an excerpt from the article on this link. The article has embedded video and links to videos showing examples of the technology in action.
"We truly believe that Rapid 3D Mapping will revolutionize the field of geospatial intelligence and the way military and security forces get access to much needed accurately geo-referenced data," Saab director Michael Olofsson told FoxNews.com.
Given that this is cutting-edge technology, Saab's Olofsson won't explain exactly how it works, other than in general terms -- it uses aerial images from aircraft, UAVs, helicopters and satellites to build its terrain maps. All the company needs is the exact location of a camera in the sky to work out precise angles.
Once built, the potential applications for this technology are limitless.
Suppose a commander wants to find the best spots for snipers in a town he's approaching. Because every pixel is geo-referenced, he can place a virtual sniper within the Saab map to study his 360-degree point of view and find the best vantage point.
The commander can also anticipate who can see him and from where, to discover where enemy snipers might already be lurking.
En route to the town, let’s say his platoon falls under attack. With a live feed from an unmanned aircraft (UAV) or even sensors on a patrol vehicle, he can get the full picture of the surroundings on a real-time 3D map instantly -- not five hours later.
IEDs are an ongoing threat to forces. With UAV footage, Saab's maps can identify changes in soil in the route that lies ahead that may signify a recently hidden IED.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
There is a growing proliferation across Europe of Muslim-controlled "no-go" zones in which non-Muslims who enter are subject to abuse or possibly worse. The phrase "no-go zone" apparently first emerged in Northern Ireland during the "troubles" era. They were established by the IRA (Irish Republican Army) who were influenced by a Maoist strategy. "The theory involved creating "no-go zones" that the security forces of Northern Ireland did not control and gradually expanding them to make the country ungovernable." See source. Just as the British Army was called upon to remove the IRA threat, it is possible that, in the future, they may be called upon to do the same for the new Muslim-dominated "no-go" zones. However, in this new scenario the size of the operation would be exponentially larger.
The following article is by Soeren Kern.
The following article is by Soeren Kern.
A Muslim group in the United Kingdom has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls "Londonistan" – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.
The Islamic Emirates Project, launched by the Muslims Against the Crusades group, names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.
The project, which uses the motto "The end of man-made law, and the start of Sharia law," was launched exactly six years after Muslim suicide bombers killed 52 people and injured 800 others in London. A July 7, 2011 announcement posted on the Muslims Against the Crusades website, states:
"In the last 50 years, the United Kingdom has transformed beyond recognition. What was once a predominantly Christian country has now been overwhelmed by a rising Muslim population, which seeks to preserve its Islamic identity, and protect itself from the satanic values of the tyrannical British government.
"There are now over 2.8 million Muslims living in the United Kingdom – which is a staggering 5% of the population – but in truth, it is more than just numbers, indeed the entire infrastructure of Britain is changing; Mosques, Islamic Schools, Shari'ah Courts and Muslim owned businesses, have now become an integral part of the British landscape.
"In light of this glaring fact, Muslims Against Crusades have decided to launch "The Islamic Emirates Project," that will see high profile campaigns launch in Muslim enclaves all over Britain, with the objective to gradually transform Muslim communities into Islamic Emirates operating under Shari'ah law.
"With several Islamic emirates already well established across Asia, Africa and the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan, we see this as a radical, but very realistic step in the heart of Western Europe, that will inshaa'allah (God willing), pave the way for the worldwide domination of Islam."
One of the group's strategy documents, "Islamic Prevent 2011: Preventing Secular Fundamentalism and the Occupation of Muslim Land," provides insights into the religious and/or philosophical mindset behind the Islamic Emirates Project. For example, Chapter 1 states: "The Only Identity for Muslims is Islam … In no shape or form can a Muslim support any form of nationalism such as promoting Britishness."
Chapter 4 states: "A Muslim can only abide by Sharia and is not allowed to obey any man-made law." Chapter 5 states: "Muslims must reject secularism and democracy," terms which are "completely alien to Islam and against the basic tenets of Islam." Chapter 10 states: "Every Muslim must call for Sharia to be implemented wherever they are." Chapter 12 states: "It is not allowed for Muslims to integrate with a non-Islamic society." Chapter 13 states: "Muslims should set up Islamic Emirates in the United Kingdom." Chapter 14 states: "Any Muslim who opposed the policies in this pamphlet should be confronted." Chapter 16 states: "Any Muslim who has been affected by the Western way of life need to be rehabilitated."
The Muslims Against the Crusades group is the new identity of Islam4UK, an Islamist group that was proscribed by the British government in January 2010. In an effort to circumvent the government ban, Islam4UK is pursuing a strategy of creating new identities for itself, adopting new names and platforms when others have been compromised.
A leading figure behind Muslims Against the Crusades is Anjem Choudary, a notorious Sharia court judge based in London who believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and who has long campaigned for Islamic law to be implemented in all of Britain.
Choudary is a former spokesman for Islam4UK, which was "established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law," and to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam [...] thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power [...] to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia in Britain."
The guardians of British multiculturalism say Choudary is harmless and, in any event, does not represent the majority of British Muslims. But he has a considerable following and his views on the role of Sharia in Britain are far more popular than many will admit.
For instance, at least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed, according to a study by Civitas, a London-based think tank. The report shows that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, and that many are operating in mosques. It warns of a "creeping" acceptance of Sharia principles in British law.
Britain is also creating a parallel Islamic financial system to fill the growing demand for Sharia-compliant banking products in the wake of Muslim mass immigration to the country. According to the "Global Islamic Finance Report 2011," Britain has emerged as "ground zero" for Islamic banking in Europe; and London is now the main center for Islamic finance outside the Muslim world.
Sharia law is transforming daily life in Britain in other ways, as well. In the Tower Hamlets area of East London (also known as the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets),for example, extremist Muslim preachers, called the Tower Hamlets' Taliban, regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring "You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced." And street advertizing deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.
The mayor of Tower Hamlets is the Bangladeshi-born Lutfur Rahman, an ally of Choudary. Rahman is linked to the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), an Islamist group dedicated to changing the "very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed ... from ignorance to Islam." Not surprisingly, the public libraries in Tower Hamlets have been stocked with books and DVDs containing the extremist rantings of banned Islamist preachers.
Meanwhile, Britain is struggling to combat a cycle of Islamic honor-related kidnappings, sexual assaults, beatings and murder that is spiralling out of control. According to the London-based Association of Chief Police Officers, up to 17,000 women in Britain are victims of honor-based violence – forced marriages, honor killings, kidnappings, sexual assaults, beatings, female genital mutilation and other forms of abuse – every year. This figure is 35 times higher than official figures suggest, and British detectives say it is "merely the tip of the iceberg" of this phenomenon.
The Islamic Emirates of Britain Project would seem to be well underway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)