Babar Ahmad – a convicted terrorist – is pulling the wool over the liberal media’s eyes

ByPamela Geller on March 17, 2016
11 Comments
Terror Suspects Connecticut

Enemedia lapdogs love people like Babar Ahmad, and fawn all over them. They reserve their venom for those of us who are defending freedom against the oppression, hatred and violence to which Babar Ahmad and his comrades have dedicated their lives.

Babar-Ahmad2

“Babar Ahmad – a convicted terrorist – is pulling the wool over the liberal media’s eyes,” by Andrew Gilligan, Telegraph, March 14, 2016:

From Tony Blair over the Iraq dossier, to the parliamentary expenses cheats who ended in jail, the last resort of any scoundrel is to claim that he acted in “good faith”.

Today, we witness this age-old excuse in daring new territory. The Victoria Derbyshire show on BBC Two will introduce us to Britain’s first-ever “good faith” supporter of Osama bin Laden.

The man concerned, Babar Ahmad, from Tooting, London, was recently released from a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for terror offences.

Ahmad, 41, is the Alexander Graham Bell of online terrorism. The website he ran, azzam.com, was the pioneer, the template, for all the thousands of jihadi sites that followed. Set up in 1996, it was the first English-speaking site to publish bin Laden’s declaration of war against the West; the first to offer guidebook-style tips for the aspiring holy warrior; the first to publish Islamic rulings on the “permissibility of martyrdrom operations”.

Ahmad’s site solicited funds for the Taliban. It described how to get money to their representative in Pakistan, and transferred some money directly. It made overt appeals for people to join the jihad in Afghanistan. And cricially, as Ahmad admitted in court, it went on doing this for at least nine months after bin Laden, with the Taliban’s support and protection, attacked the US, killing 2,996 innocent people.

Ahmad, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism, also radicalised others through personal contact. His “Tooting Circle” included Saajid Badat, sentenced to 13 years for his part in the Richard Reid shoe-bomber plot. Badat testified that Ahmad arranged for him to receive “training in taking up arms”, and that “when we talk[ed] about jihad it meant armed jihad, taking up arms”.

Now, surely to the immense relief of us all, Ahmad tells the Beeb that he didn’t really mean any of it. As he explained: “I did it in good faith, but in hindsight, I regret doing that and it was naive of me to do that, because it was a complicated situation.”

Yes, he did support bin Laden, but “not knowingly,” because he did not know what the al-Qaeda leader “was really up to.” Sticklers might object that perhaps 9/11 should have given something of a clue – not to mention the declaration of war published by Ahmad on his own website.

Those with more detailed knowledge of the case can point out that this is also, in fact, the third version of events Ahmad has given us.

Fighting extradition to be tried in the United States, where his site was hosted, Ahmad became a cause célèbre for many of the liberal classes. He claimed that he was an “innocent, law-abiding member of the public”, who had been “terrorised in order to satisfy some political ambitions”.

“The crime that I committed is that I dared… to seek justice in an unjust world”, he declared.

Once the extradition battle had failed, having been prolonged literally for years in order to wring out every last drop of propaganda, Ahmad performed a swift handbrake turn, and pleaded guilty to his crimes.

The trial judge told him: “I view what you did as very serious. What you were doing was enabling bin Laden to be protected in Afghanistan and train the men who drove into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center…

Your websites were a source of information [to jihadis] unlike anything that had been on the web before.”

Yet Ahmad is not only a convicted accomplice to mass murder. He was and remains a skilled propagandist – before, during, and now after his imprisonment.

The campaign to prevent his extradition and “free Babar Ahmad” employed the same “war on Muslims” rhetoric as Ahmad himself used. It seized on his admittedly brutal arrest by the Met to claim that he had been “tortured.” Its explicit, and very effective, message was that in the “police state” for Muslims that is the UK, any British Muslim could suffer the “innocent” Ahmad’s fate. As the campaign kept saying: “Today it’s Babar Ahmad, tomorrow it could be you.”…

Stay on top of what's really happening. Follow me on Twitter here. Like me on Facebook here.

Print This Post Print This Post

Disclamer

Comments at Atlas Shrugs are unmoderated. Posts using foul language, as well as abusive, hateful, libelous and genocidal posts, will be deleted if seen. However, if a comment remains on the site, it in no way constitutes an endorsement by Pamela Geller of the sentiments contained therein.

  • Mahou Shoujo

    The liberal media pull the wool over their own eyes every time they do a visual inspection of their sheep like colons.

  • El Cid

    Now, will they give Tommy Robinson some respect too? Not likely. A prophet is without honor in his own land…

    • The origional roger

      Tommy Robinson viewed the increasing Islamisation of Luton with rising alarm and genuine concern at the Muslim excesses in Luton and the rest of Britain, so that makes him a raging, racist, cop bashing, thug , a football hooligan to be dismissed with sneering contempt and jailed at every opportunity.

  • Dr. Doomsday

    Babler Crockmed, PhD in Taqiyya, with golden shovels..

  • The origional roger

    The BBC is complicit in the Islamic destruction of Britain, and Europe also.
    There is something wrong in our societies when average folk are deceived so easily, why is it that people don’t see that over and over Muslims use the same tactics, they go from active and dangerous terrorist up until they are caught, then poor misunderstood fighter for justice in a cruel Islamaphobic world full of hostile imperialists begging for compassion from the infidels.
    And it works, as shown in this case.

    • PIGBERT

      BBC is complicit in many things including pedophilia, so complicity in terrorism and the Islamic invasion of Britain isn’t a stretch for them

      • IzlamIsTyranny

        Do the Jews control the BBC too?

        • Mr Paul Middleton

          Que?

  • Janet

    So he dared to seek justice in an unjust world! Oh boo hoo! He shouldn’t be out of jail at all! Why did he get just a slap on the wrist! Why isn’t he getting deported? He won’t get sent over here! They’ll protect him from that! The guy will become a folk hero just wait and see!

  • Honkingeese Watchgoose lll

    For half a moment imagine if a white Christian had been caught doing what he did in Swordy Arabia or Syria or any other beacon of islamic open-mindedness..
    WHY he traitorously betrayed his adoptive home or what he thought or felt whilst doing so wouldn’t be considered mitigating, wouldn’t absolve him, wouldn’t excuse him…only in a toothless decaying society like ours with little or no national pride or self worth could such a self serving justification be considered some sort of rehabilitation success.
    As Pam points out, quite damningly – he published Osama bin Laden’s manifesto! Did he publish it without reading it? Did he read it, abhor it and publish regardless?
    He chose to publish and disseminate this declaration of war on the west, of jihad, of encouragement to murder even after 9/11.
    He enabled and aided the enemy by requesting donations for the Taliban. He helped to fund enemy combatants…to buy weaponry that VERY likely was used against his own (or at least his HOST country’s) troops…
    Muslims don’t have any allegiance to the West. They are muslim first and then tribal and somewhere down the line they have a nationality….they don’t make good immigrants.

  • joe1429

    bill ayres, jr