Current Affairs Stabbing incident in Southport

[PhilM]

May I ask where this claim has come from, because it’s got an awfully strange title for something that was authored by the US military: Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual.

I find it hard to believe that the US would be referring to themselves as tyrants. I also don’t think it would be illegal to own an analysis of a terror manual authored and published by the US government.

I think he’s been found in possession of a terrorist training manual, which is what he’s been charged with, and is what’s being widely reported.

The Guardian quoted is, as did the Times, the BBC and pretty much any other mainstream media. It is a publication by the US military and justice department.

It is reported to be a review of al-Qaida training methods by the US military, to help gain a better understanding of their methodology and tactics.

Likewise, we have undertaken analytical reviews of Russian, NK, PIRA military writing and their tactics etc.

 

[neil999]

Have the trial.

Imagine if something comes up in the trial! Yes prob best to have it

 

[PhilM]

Yes, I know. But he’s being charged as ‘a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism’.

To me, this is actually the CPS acknowledging the fact that they suspect him to be a terrorist without having the ability to link his terrorism to the Southport attack itself. This is actually their way of getting around some ridiculous legal technicality.

My understanding is that it’s not the possession of the document that is illegal, but possession of the document becomes illegal if it is: ‘likely to be useful to a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism’.

Again, without wanting to sound pernickety, the wording of the charge is possessing a PDF document of a kind likely to be useful to a person...

... committing to or preparing an act of terrorism. The charge for the Ricin is under Sec 1 of the Biological Weapons Act, and the word terrorism isn't in it.

Someone mentioned the Anarchist's Cookbook before, and it's a good example: it's an offence to possess it because it could be used to support terrorism.

But you do not have to possess it with the intent to commit an act of terrorism to be convicted - owning it alone, is enough. This could be the case here.

 

[Eidean]

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CSDS/Books/alqaedatrainingmanual2.pdf

It’s a pretty easy accessible document, published by the American Military.

 

[Kurt.]

Just a note on this:

The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The specific actions included are:

• serious violence against a person;
• serious damage to property;
• endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
• action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.

Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.

It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.

From the CPS website here:

Terrorism | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

They have to be very careful when charging this type of offence, especially given the gravity of this particular offence.

The thing to remember is, not every crime a terrorist commits is terrorism.

The CPS have to prove the intention was to further an ideological, political or religious goal.

Having the manual and chemical is a terror offence, but we don’t yet know if he aligned himself with Al Qaeda ideologically or whether he was just using their manual (easily found online) for his own purposes.
So as to whether the stabbing are a terrorist attack is a bit up in the air and the CPS have to get it right and not give him an opportunity of defence in that case.

Kind of what I tried to say above… but far less eloquently

 

[Rita_Poon]

Well Peter Reid surely showed yesterday that he's just a sad old scumbag.

This could have legs, pray won't thee tell... ?

 

[Dymak]

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CSDS/Books/alqaedatrainingmanual2.pdf

It’s a pretty easy accessible document, published by the American Military.

It’s massively remiss of the US government to have content like that published and accessible online. It may contain the addition of some ‘academic’ commentary, but it’s an outright terrorist training manual that is full to the brim of Al-Queda’s islamic doctrine.

Anyone that thinks the addition of academic commentary somehow dilutes the content of such a terrorist training manual is utterly deluded!

 

[Eidean]

It’s massively remiss of the US government to have content like that published and accessible online. It may contain the addition of some ‘academic’ commentary, but it’s an outright terrorist training manual that is full to the brim of Al-Queda’s islamic doctrine.

Anyone that thinks the addition of academic commentary somehow dilutes the content of such a terrorist training manual is utterly deluded!

I don’t think anyone’s diluting anything but instead adding context.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

It’s massively remiss of the US government to have content like that published and accessible online. It may contain the addition of some ‘academic’ commentary, but it’s an outright terrorist training manual that is full to the brim of Al-Queda’s islamic doctrine.

Anyone that thinks the addition of academic commentary somehow dilutes the content of such a terrorist training manual is utterly deluded!

Copious footnotes and poorly cited references might make it more of a slog to get through; thus slowing down any potential perpetrators.

 

[Dymak]

I don’t think anyone’s diluting anything but instead adding context.

My comment wasn’t aimed at you, but any rejection that it is something other than an islamic terrorist training manual just because someone has added a bit of commentary is tenuous in the extreme.

 

[Eidean]

My comment wasn’t aimed at you, but any rejection that it is something other than an islamic terrorist training manual just because someone has added a bit of commentary is tenuous in the extreme.

I think in a case like this though the media (lol) need to be very, very specific in terms of how the facts are reported.

It was made to sound like he had a manual from Al-Qaeda & he had links to the organisation, when in reality it’s a US Military document regarding some sections (not all) of Al-Qaeda’s manual. Which is why these are now separate charges to the Southport attack.

 

[PhilM]

I think in a case like this though the media (lol) need to be very, very specific in terms of how the facts are reported.

It was made to sound like he had a manual from Al-Qaeda & he had links to the organisation, when in reality it’s a US Military document regarding some sections (not all) of Al-Qaeda’s manual. Which is why these are now separate charges to the Southport attack.

Exactly. It could easily be another example of false equivalence: 1 + 1 = 3. You could find a British Army analysis of the Mark XV mortar used by the PIRA.

Why you're reading it, however, could be because of academic study or curiosity, or because you want to make a mortar to kill. They aren't the same thing.

 

[davek]

I think in a case like this though the media (lol) need to be very, very specific in terms of how the facts are reported.

It was made to sound like he had a manual from Al-Qaeda & he had links to the organisation, when in reality it’s a US Military document regarding some sections (not all) of Al-Qaeda’s manual. Which is why these are now separate charges to the Southport attack.

Which would have been more than enough of a link to get others arrested on anti-terrorism charges in the past. The threshold is well passed in this instance.

As said: I get it. I get the reason for withholding the information on that lad's activities in the run up to the S'prt attack. However, long term this has opened up a can of worms when you have decisions made that are dictated by reactions to a mob.

There was KOs all over the shop anyway. The top coppers and government should have just faced them down.

 

[Armaghtoffee]

Al-Qaeda terror manual & Ricin

Where and how did he obtain them?

You see this makes me laugh. I have a copy of the IRA Green Book. When you volunteer you swear an oath to go to war for the 32. Does my possession of this make me a terrorist or a someone who bought a book on Google?

 

[Rita_Poon]

You see this makes me laugh. I have a copy of the IRA Green Book. When you volunteer you swear an oath to go to war for the 32. Does my possession of this make me a terrorist or a someone who bought a book on Google?

I've got a copy of 'Noddy in toy town' somewhere, am I obviously the kind of person that regularly drives without putting their seatbelt on?