The BBC ran their main item today on the situation in Pakistan/Afghanistan. David Miliband was on to waffle about how developments here are putting British lives at risk, but he omitted to share with us that some British muslims are travelling to that region to ensure British lives are put at risk! Miliband seems to think this is an economic and welfare issue – what a dhimmi!

Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to EXTREMISTS?

  1. George R says:

    Miliband does not say what he will do to stop the direct military opposition which is provided by thousands of British Muslims to British troops in Afghanistan (using Pakistan as a conduit):


    “British army is fighting British jihadists in Afghanistan”


    “MI5 has estimated that up to 4,000 British Muslims had travelled to Pakistan and, before the fall of the Taliban, to Afghanistan for military training. The main concern until now has been about the parts some of them had played in terrorist plots in the UK. Now there are signs that they are mounting missions against British and Western targets abroad. ‘We are now involved in a kind of surreal mini-British civil war a few thousand miles away,’ said one Army officer.

    “Somalia is also becoming a destination for British Muslims of Somali extraction who have started fighting alongside al-Qa’ida-backed Islamist forces.”




    “British Muslims ‘arming Taliban’ with electronic devices to build roadside bombs”


    “The devices, used to activate bombs by remote control, were being sent to sympathisers in the region or carried in by volunteers who fly into Pakistan before crossing the border into Afghanistan.
    “The details were said to have emerged during a briefing to Foreign Secretary David Miliband during a two-day visit to the country earlier this week.”


    Of course, the dhimmi BBC is averse to reporting any of this. (Don’t mention impact of mass immigration of Muslims to the UK.)


  2. Jonathan says:

    Off topic I know BUT classic BBC…

    Read the following “Mayor Held in Corruption Story” and try to guess tghe police allegiance of Mark Meredith – the arrested Mayor!


    Now the BBC tell us that a Mr Ibbs (Conservative Councellor) was arrested earlier on 27.2.09. So is Mr Meredith a Tory as well? Err No! He his a Labour mayor – but of course, this piece of information is missing from the bbc article.


  3. Rob says:

    Just beat me to it Jonathan! The Tory affiliation of the other man is noted, but not the fact that Meredith is the Labour candidate.

    Classic, classic BBC bias…


  4. Rob says:

    Better that these idiots fight highly trained soldiers thousands of miles away, than murder unarmed British citizens in our country.

    No doubt the government will welcome them back with open arms when they decide to return! (and chequebooks)


  5. centre-right says:

    Millipede is a pointless entity anyway so who cares?
    Anyway, I thought the BBC did report the British muslims in Afghanistan story? I may be wrong, of course…


  6. Gus Haynes says:

    David, you write about the British men joining the taleban over there as fact, which it is not. If you read the Telegraph article, it is CLAIMED by commanders that there may be British nationals joining the Taleban. Its a big distinction. Yes, Milliband should be looking into this, but would you expect him to mention it when there does not appear to be concrete proof it is happening?


  7. Gus Haynes says:

    besides if they are there its ‘ones and twos at a time’. Now I agree, we should be catching these people IF they are going over there, of course we should. But what really would you expect the Foreign Sec to say? Surely the priority in Afghanistan is the violence and terrorism overall, rather than the much smaller issue of whether or not a few British men are going out there.


  8. JohnA says:


    Sanitising jihadists as usual. And implying that senior British officers are lying about this threat.

    Who says it is just ones and twos ? If this was the case, it is hardly likely their radio traffic would be picked up.

    And hardly likely that senior Army folk would be saying there are “British” jihadists out there. The clear implication of the story, the very fact that the Army released any such story, is that there is concern that there are a lot of these bastards.

    You say they should be captured. No – they should be stopped from going to pakistan in the first place. Or killed if they turn up in Afghanistan.


  9. Ethan says:

    No Gus we should not be catching them we should be shooting them dead as quickly and painfully as possible.

    Secondly the rules of engagement. If the Scum shoot at you then drop the weapon and walk away, you cannot fire at them.
    I propose if you are shot at then return fire and kill them even if they drop the weapons. Get the job done.

    If we tie troops hands they will suffer unneccessary casualties. I’d rather pay more tax to buy ammunition than let any of these traitors survive.


  10. Gus Haynes says:

    ”Sanitising jihadists as usual. And implying that senior British officers are lying about this threat.”

    How did I sanitise Jihad? And why shouldnt they lie or be inaccurate with their information? They told us Iraq had WMDs, wrong there weren’t they?


  11. Gus Haynes says:

    Who says it is just ones and twos ?

    The intelligence official mentioned in the telegraph link said it was ones and twos.


  12. Gus Haynes says:

    Don’t twist my words, I said ‘we should be catching these people’, not capturing. If killing them is the only option, then why not? I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Don’t try to make a dissenting voice out to be a terrorist sympathiser – it’s the classic ‘right’ fall back line and it’s wrong in this case and many others. Of course we should be stopping these guys going out there, IF they are going out there. And as I said, this is 1, not proved,, and 2, not the major issues in Afghanistan, which DV implies it is as part of a supposedly biased approach.

    Do you consider the BBC link he posted bias? If so, why?


  13. David Vance says:

    Bias by omission Gus – a favoured trick.


  14. JohnA says:


    WMDs in Iraq concerned best-judgments by the UK (and all the other) intelligence services about what was going on inside a closed dictatorship.

    The reports about jihadists in Afghanistan are from the UK military, REPORTING on what they have heard, not on supposition. But you suggest they are liars. Great.

    You still say the jihadists out there are just “ones and twos” referring to a Telegraph article. But this thread has been talking about the Independent article, from which it is abundantly clear thast there are more than “ones and twos” – even if they operate in separate small groups.



  15. JohnA says:

    That Today report is years old – it refers to Tony Blair.


  16. JohnA says:

    and has a sidelink to Robin Cook when he was Foreign Sec.

    That is – the Today piece happened several years ago, is totally irrelevant to this thread.


  17. Gus Haynes says:

    John, well this thread was in response to the telegraph article, so naturally my approach was to focus on that, seeing as that is the one David was basing his argument on. I haven’t read the independent article but i will do.

    Did the WMD argument really represent the best judgements of the intelligence services? There seems to be a big suggestion that the British and American govts pressured the intelligenc services to look for things, and when they didn’t find much, they manipulated the results. I don’t work in intelligence, so I don’t know, but there have been so many news stories about govts leaning on 5 and 6 to find info that suited the government, i find it hard to not to believe there is too much interference. for what its worth, i would rather the governments shut up and let the intelligence agencies get on with their job.


  18. Gus Haynes says:

    The reports about jihadists in Afghanistan are from the UK military, REPORTING on what they have heard, not on supposition. But you suggest they are liars. Great.

    they may be liars, they may be mistaken, they may be accurate. we don’t know for a fact. in which case, why do you trust the intelligence agencies without a doubt? yet i imagine you don’t trust a word Labour or the BBC say. see? no one should be trusted unconditionally.

    Back to bias….David, yes I understand the concept of omission here. But you make it sound like the British muslims going to Afghan is THE issue above all issues he should be raising there. Is it? I don’t think so. Of course he should mention it, and should deal with it. But just because he hasn’t mentioned, or the BBC might not have I don’t know, then that proves no sort of bias at all. There are so many issues in Afghan for this one to be more important than others.


  19. JohnA says:

    WMD is not relevant here. (and has nothing to do with MI5, typical of ignorant Gus to mention them when they were not involved in the slightest in the WMD stuff)

    As for the numbers involved – the Independent report suggests growing numbers.

    Of course that omits any who were sent back to Britain rather than into Afghanistan. Like, for example, the leader of the 7/7 London bombings.

    Sure, Gus, no big deal, “just oneses and twoeses”.



  20. JohnA says:


    You are still suggesting that the British military could be lying. Why should they ? The BBC lies because it has an agenda. The military do not have any agenda against the Muslim community in Britain.

    And you are still confusing the military with the intelligence agencies. You clearly are not concentrating.

    We face serious jihadist threats from some of the Muslims in the UK. We have already suffered here from them, and it is clear that we escaped a few times from others. And it is perfectly clear that some of them seek to kill British and other forces under the NATO operations in Afghanistan. That is – unless we go with your stupid notion that senior British Army officers atr lying.

    Yet you prefer to minimise the threats. Which is sanitising in my book.


  21. Gus Haynes says:

    I’m not attempting to minimise any threat; I want to know the facts, cos the facts indicate the level of the threat. The army or intelligence don’t have an agenda too? That’s ignorant if you think that. Everyone has an agenda, and the military have a far greater agenda than the media does. I am not confusing military and intelligence – maybe my words have not been articulated in the clearest way, but don’t try to belittle me. Thats a common tactic here = mock someone for their supposed lack of knowledge when they throw out a counter argument.


  22. Gus Haynes says:

    And I repeat, the telegraph report refers to ones and twos – and that is the report that David Vance used in his post. That is what I am referring to – don’t try to avoid the argument.


  23. Gus Haynes says:

    Yet you prefer to minimise the threats

    and you are trying to highlight the threat? to make it seem worse? you have an agenda too, everyone does.


  24. JohnA says:


    The Telegraph report and the Indy report should be read together. Obviously you have not read the Indy report – or you are trying to evade its implications. It is NOT oneses and twoses. Just as it is probably not hundreds active in Afghanistan.

    And you persist in confusing the military with the intelligence services.

    What possible agenda does the military have in saying that some of its attackers are from Britain – other than pointing up a clear threat ? Yet you prefer to leave the smear that they could be lying.


  25. Gus Haynes says:

    smear…rubbish. I ask again, if its ok to distrust everything our government or the BBC say, why is it okay to trust everything the military or the intelligence services say?


  26. Gus Haynes says:

    Their agenda? To draw more attention to their struggle, to try and get more govt support, better weapons, body armour etc. Not to mention to keep their sacrifice in the public eye – with the recession, the war gets more and more squeezed out of the media lens. Not to mention that they (military) want the intelligence services to do more to stop radicalisation in the UK heading overseas, and by talking about it publically,it might force the intel community into action. Thats their agenda.


  27. Gus Haynes says:

    and no, like I said, I havent read the independent report yet – but David did not blog based on the independent report. I was responding to his blog – based on the telegraph article. Focus man.


  28. JohnA says:

    If the army wants better weapons, better-armoured vehicles, more helicopters – it says so. And yes, it has an agenda to do so – it wants to win.

    The army revealing that there are jihadists from Britain out there has nothing to do with them wanting to strengthen their ability to fight.

    It is ridiculous for Gus to suggest they have an agenda on this. And he is smearing them by suggesting they could be lying on this.

    We KNOW there are some thousands of highly-radicalised Muslims in the UK. We KNOW that many have attended training camps out there, we KNOW that some have committed or attempted terorist attacks here in the UK. We KNOW that the leader of the 7/7 group went intending to fight in Afghanistan but was rerouted back to Britain to commit the london bombings.

    But Gus disputes the notion that there are quite a few jihadists out there, suggests that the army are lying – or if not, are mistaken, or that it is only oneses and twoses.

    That is what I call sanitising the jihadist threat.


  29. Gus Haynes says:

    ok going by your logic John, you (and David, and the other posters here)smear the BBC, or Labour, every time you accuse them of lying.


  30. Gus Haynes says:

    Gus disputes the notion that there are quite a few jihadists out there,

    Jihadists in general? Or British jihadists in Afghanistan? When did i say I disputed the number of jihadists overall?


  31. JohnA says:

    No Gus – we seldom accuse the BBC of direct lying – as seem to be suggesting is what the British Army could be doing in this instance.

    We accuse the BBC of bias by commission or omission. When it propagates lies – as in instances of fauxtography – we produce evidence to show it is lies they are spreading. Usually on behalf of jihadists like Hamas or Hezbollah.

    (Mind you – the BBC has been caught out on some major lying on its entertainment side ? And has sacked some – probably not enough – of its staff for such incidents.)


  32. JohnA says:

    So, Gus – how many jihadists from Britain does your learned head think there are operating against Nato forces in or near Afghanistan ? Either as foot soldiers or in support eg logistics, communications.

    None ? – you seem to suggest it could be zero, that the army could be lying or entirely mistaken in thinking it hears non-Pashtun accents.

    One or two, maybe seven or eight ?

    Or dozens ?


  33. Cassandra says:

    I thought the thousands of ‘British’ muslims going out to Pakistan and the tribal regions were just attendinng weddings and computer courses, just innocent and harmless activities, surely these true patriots wouldnt bite the hands that feeds them so generously?
    We are constantly told by the BBC that the muslim colonists are loyal and as British as a wet summer, perhaps they are enraged because they havent been bribed with enough state handouts/council houses etc?
    Perhaps we should shower more cash on them, give into their demands more often, then they would become even more loyal to Britain and wouldnt get enraged enough to attend computer courses and weddings that just happen to be near the British front lines!
    You can just imagine the scene in a muslim house(council) young islamist shouts out ‘I am enraged and furious so I am off to Afghanistan to attend a computer wedding course and these electronic devices given to me by the local imam are just harmless wedding presents!


  34. martin says:

    Did anyone see the Ross Kemp in Afghanistan series?

    What an utter joke the rules of engagement are.

    The Taliban (including the West Midlands Taliban) shoot at our soldiers then call up a taxi, throw down their guns and drive off.

    The moment they put down their guns our lads can’t shoot them.

    What a load of crap. I haven’t seen anyone else apart from Kemp comment on this ludicrous situation.

    If we’re going to make our soldiers fight like this, bring them home now.


  35. martin says:

    Gus Haynes: Hey Gus baby you’re back. Did you get locked in the bogs on Hampstead Heath?


  36. Gus Haynes says:

    yeah I did actually Martin, I was glad when you came down there to let me out. thanks for your help.


  37. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Another day, another error from Gus Haynes, I see.

    There have been British (or “British”) Muslims fighting with the Taleban for ages, not just now. All of a sudden there aren’t any? Binyam Mohamed was forgotten very quickly, I guess.


  38. Gus Haynes says:

    Sorry David, no error. There still is no proof of this happening. And Binyam was never charged was he,in fact the US dropped charges against him. So if he was guilty of helping the taleban, why wasn’t he prosecuted for it? he may have done so, but you don’t know that for a fact. there may be lots of British muslims heading to afghan for a good old scrap, but has this been proved? If so, where?


  39. Jon says:

    “Their agenda? To draw more attention to their struggle, to try and get more govt support, better weapons, body armour etc.”

    Utter crap -“their struggle” – which country do you live in? This is the British Army you are talking about, not the women’s rights movement.

    People like you make me sick – soldiers dying in Afghanistan to defeat an evil regime (under which Gus and his BBC mates would be the first to suffer) and you talk about “their agenda”, “their struggle”.


  40. Cassandra says:


    The British army has a band of yuman rites lawyers laying down strict rules on engagement, this added to the acute shortage of troops,weapons,helicpters means that the taliban now controls vast areas of Helmand and the British can only mount limited company strength probes, exuasted troops can only move into an area then retreat, the chokingly strict rules limit combat effectiveness, the Brits try their best in the face of betrayal by newlabour and craven cowardice by our EU allies, its a farce and our real allies the Yanks are getting very pissed off with Brown.
    The British forces are out there to make a show and get killed, how many will die in the ‘show’?
    Brown and newlabour have blood on their hands, the blood of British soldiers drips from their hands, cost cutting and war on the cheap run by accountants and socialist utopianist daydreamers, the war against the Taliban is being run and lost by political numpties and bean counters who know the price of an extra squadron of helicopters far exceeds the cost of all the dead and mutilated Tommies coming off the C17s.
    The newlabour government has no former soldiers in its ranks, the newlabour comrades grew up despising the same troops they cry crocodile tears over now!


  41. martin says:

    Gus Haynes: The reason that no prosecutions take place is simple and it’s the same reason that Gitmo was set up.

    Soldiers are NOT trained in arresting procedures or reading people their rights nor do they have the power to do soetc.

    Any arrest made by soldiers would probably be thrown out in a UK court and the case dismissed. This is the same problem they have in the USA as American soldiers are not trained to implement the law or handle prisoners according to civil rules. Soldiers follow military law and rules of engagement. Smart people have tried ot explain this to that arsehole Obama but he doesn’t understand. A US court will throw out any case if the soldiers have not followed MIRANDA.

    Taliban and Al Qaeda are terrorists. They are not a uniformed army and don’t come under the Geneva convention. If they WERE treated as a legitimate army them we could simply treat them as prisoners of war and keep them locked up until he war on terror is over without any need for trials.

    But arseholes like Obama and Nu Liebour try to treat terrorists like civilians and therefore apply civilian law to what is a combat situation.

    It’s why Gus baby you normally try to replace soldiers with Police officers.

    Can I suggest you try watching Ross Kemp in Afghanistan? He explained this very clearly in one episode which is why the Afghan Police often go out on patrols with out soldiers as only THEY have the power of arrest.

    You won’t get this explained to you by some drug addled beeboid.


  42. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Gus Haynes | 06.03.09 – 4:27 pm |

    Binyam was caught trying to cross a border illegally, and wasn’t caught on the battlefield. That’s why they dropped the charges (after, I’m sure, providing whatever info he had). If you claim that somebody who had a false passport was there innocently, you’ll be a laughingstock.

    No proof of British Taliban? Didn’t you read the articles I linked to?

    If you couldn’t be bothered with those, what about these:

    MI5 questions captured British Taliban supporters

    British Taliban suspect loses fight over rights

    UK Muslims join Taliban to fight against British troops

    I don’t even have to bring up the report from last week about British military leaders talking about how they hear an increasing number of British accents when eavesdropping on Taliban and Al Qaeda, or the story from two weeks ago about British Muslims smuggling IED materials into Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    The evidence has been there all along. How can you keep denying this?


  43. John Bosworth says:

    Gus Haynes:

    Some facts for you to dispute:
    1. The earth is round.
    2. Gravity pulls things downwards.
    3. Militant British Muslims fight British interests every way they can. Its what they do.


  44. IanA says:

    its not cos they are jewish – its cos they carry out an insane foreign policy which isnt working ,and is the root cause of all islamic fundamentalism today.
    Gus Haynes | 03.03.09 – 6:23 pm

    I’d like to ask you do believe that the Jews or Israelis were responsible for 911 or 7/7 or the Madrid bombings?

    Are they responsible for the taliban killing our soldiers or the attempted murdering Sri Lankan cricketers, killing innocents in Bombay, Bali etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    If Israel is responsible why are British jihadists trying to kill our soldiers 4000 miles from their (British Jihadists) supposed homes?


  45. martin says:

    Note the tone of the BBC reporting between the one on Jeremy Clarkson getting a pie in the face and Mandelson getting slimed.



    Seems that the BBC only see Mandelson’s as an assault and Clarkson was justified.


  46. Jon says:

    “..its cos they carry out an insane foreign policy which isnt working ,and is the root cause of all islamic fundamentalism today.”

    No – people like you who excuse terrorism are the cause of the problem.

    I cannot stand New Labours policies and nor can a lot of other people, but they do not go to Afghanistan and try and kill their fellow citizens.


  47. Colin W says:

    Knife fact sheet the email trail:


    Looks like Gordon Brown has been well and truly rumbled, and well done to Mark Easton, who proves that at least one BBC journalist is prepared to check the ‘facts’ before gushing over Labour.

    Lets hope that Mark Easton gives the same treatment to Labour’s attempts to discredit the lastest immigration figures.


  48. JohnA says:


    When in a deep hole – it is normally advisable to stop digging


  49. martin says:

    Jon: It’s why I keep saying that I’d intern all Muslims living in the UK. People need to wake up and smell the coffee.

    We didn’t let Germans and Japanese run around the UK and USA during WW2 so why let Muslims do so.

    If they don’t like the idea being interned then leave the UK.

    and before Gus baby starts off with the ‘Racist’ crap, I include white Muslims in that as well.