Deradicalisation

[sum]

This is from JihadWatch -

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

UK anti-terror chief: UK is “integrating,” not prosecuting, Islamic State returnees

October 22, 2017 9:49 am By Christine Douglass-Williams 18 Comments


A senior government adviser has told the BBC that the authorities are not prosecuting many Islamic State volunteers, believing they should be reintegrated rather than punished.

Britain continues to expose its citizens to danger and jihad attacks. The UK is currently facing the most severe terror threat ever.

If Britain is hoping to enter these Islamic State jihadists into deradicalization programs, they don’t work. Professor Boaz Ganor, from the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism once stated that deradicalization is “practically impossible”; the London Tube jihad bomber had attended a deradicalization program; and France’s only jihadi deradicalization center was closed because it was based on voluntary participation as it should be, and it was empty.

Quite some time ago, Jihad Watch reported the real reason why returning jihadists were not being prosecuted. It was because UK officials feared seeming “anti-Muslim.”


“UK Anti-Terror Tsar: UK Authorities Not Prosecuting Islamic State Returnees to Avoid Creating a ‘Lost Generation”, by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, October 21, 2017:

A senior government adviser has told the BBC that the authorities are not prosecuting many Islamic State volunteers, believing they should be reintegrated rather than punished.

Max Hill QC, who acts as the government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told Radio 4 that “we do have a significant number [of Islamic State volunteers] already back in this country who have previously gone to Iraq and Syria” — currently estimated at something over 400.

“That means that the authorities have looked at them, and looked at them hard, and decided that they do not justify prosecution, and really we should be looking towards reintegration and moving away from any notion that we’re going to lose a generation thanks to this travel.”

“But that’s fascinating,” responded the BBC presenter.

“Because there is a school of thought, isn’t there, that looks and these people and thinks, ‘Well hang on a second they’ve gone to a place where mass murders were being committed, they’ve gone there voluntarily, they’ve gone there presumably because they have some enthusiasm for what was happening there’ — it is odd to treat them as if they’ve committed no offence,” he said.

“And it’s not a decision that MI5 and others will have taken lightly,” responded Hill.

“But they have left space, and I think they’re right to do so, for those who … travelled out of a sense of naivety, possibly with some brainwashing along the way, possibly in their mid-teens … We have to leave space for those individuals to diverted away from the criminal courts,” he insisted.

Having previously played Devil’s Advocate, the presenter appeared to accept this at face value.

“That’s a thoroughly interesting one isn’t it Richard Barrett,” he said to his other guest, a former MI6 global counter-terrorism director. “Actually, surprising numbers, possibly, of these people, are actually not necessarily a danger to us.”

“I think that’s absolutely right,” agreed Barrett. “Many of them, I think, went to join something new, something that looked bright and attractive … and came back highly disillusioned,” he suggested.

Hill conceded that there was no doubt that some of the people in question will have carried out “the most serious criminal offences” in Iraq and Syria, but assured viewers that “in any case where there is evidence of that” they would appear before a criminal court.

How evidence of crimes committed in a jihadist-controlled warzone might be gathered was left unexplained, however……

I would like to ask at what point are these people deemed to be deradicalised and fit to be integrated? How do they define integration?

Is it when they claim to be non-violent but still muslim?
Is it when they say that they have rejected Islam and are now apostates?

If they are deradicalised are they doing this voluntarily as a ruse and simply to get off the hook?
If they say that they will give up violence but still remain muslim then I can well imagine the mosques pushing them towards being patient and violent later. I consider the indoctrination in the mosque being more powerful than the deradicalisation programme.

If they still want Islam to prevail without violence then all they have to do is marry and have three or more children - demographic jihad. They can not be prosecuted for this.

sum

[pr126]

Deradicalisation = abandon all religiously mandated dreams of conquest and for Islam to dominate everywhere.

Not much to ask, is it?

Will it work? Not a chance.

Our politicians are just treading water.

[Ariel]

Deradicalisation, Nah... says Rory Stewart Minister of State . British Isis fighters in Syria must be killed in almost all cases.

The only way of dealing with British Isis fighters in Syria will be to kill them in almost every case, an international development minister has said.

Rory Stewart said converts to the terror group believed in an “extremely hateful doctrine”, saying fighters can expect to be killed given the threat they pose to British security.

Hundreds of British citizens are known to have travelled to Syria to fight with Islamist groups during the course of the six-year conflict.

Mr Stewart was asked about the comments on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics.

The minister said they were “very difficult moral issues”, adding: “These are people who have essentially moved away from any kind of allegiance towards the British Government.

“They are absolutely dedicated, as members of the Islamic State, towards the creation of a caliphate, they believe in an extremely hateful doctrine which involves killing themselves, killing others and trying to use violence and brutality to create an eighth century, or seventh century, state.

“So I’m afraid we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us, and unfortunately the only way of dealing with them will be, in almost every case, to kill them.”

Mr Stewart, a former diplomat, went on to say: “These are people who are executing people in the back of their heads, who have held women and children hostage, who are torturing and murdering, trying by violence to impose their will.

“Our response has to be, when somebody does that, I’m afraid, to deal with that.”

“If you wish to serve your country and you wish to fight terrorism, then please apply to join the military or join the police or join our intelligence services. We’ll train you, we’ll work with you to do it in a legal and controlled fashion,” he said.

Mr Stewart also confirmed it remained British policy to remove Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

“I don”t think anyone should be in any doubt that the control that he has is brutal and ultimately fragile,” said Mr Stewart.

“The policy of the British Government is that Bashar al-Assad needs to step aside and we need a transition to a new government, because so long as that man is in power it is going to be impossible to have a long-term, stable, sustainable future for Syria.”

Not good news for the parents of Muslim convert 'Jihadi Jack'. They went on a hunger strike in protest against Government's 'failure to help their son'

John, 56, an organic farmer and baker, said: “The British government has a duty to protect its citizens.

“We believe the government’s policy of preventing anyone who went to Syria from returning to the UK is short-sighted and ultimately counter-productive.

[pr126]

John, 56, an organic farmer and baker, added: “The British government has a duty to protect its citizens.

If the British government done its duty to protect its citizens, jihadi John would have been dead by now.