23,000 new jobs and some additional £2.8 billion of revenue
My interest in modern day terrorism prompted me to become involved with Mr John Parkes who I mistakenly believed shared some of my aspirations. Below is a summary of my current beliefs which I consider pertinent to my conduct that led up to my sequestration.
In every action there is a re-action; terrorism has spawned a world wide industry in counter counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism. This industry will soon account for one per cent or more of the West’s GNP. It is a huge market, one which with foresight I had hoped Scotland could benefit from. For ease of comprehension I have divided this web section into:
Introduction
Terrorism
Counter-Terrorism
Debate
Conclusion
As elsewhere upon this site, the
links are highlighted in blue.
Introduction
‘One man’s terrorist is another
man’s freedom fighter’.
It was frequently true in the past that terrorists tried to influence an audience - the famous ‘propaganda by deed’ concept of the nineteenth- century. One of the basic differences between terrorism today and a hundred years ago is the indiscriminate choice of targets. There were certain restraints in the nineteenth century which no political leader would overstep. In the late twentieth century with the growth of religious fanaticism such restraints became weaker and are no longer existent today. In Pakistan, quasi religious shrines have been erected to honour the Islamic bomb in major cities and there is little doubt that if a terrorist group gained possession of such weapons they would not hesitate to use them even if the consequences would be suicidal.
The history of terrorism remains an essential key to understanding the phenomenon. But past experience is not the sole key. Crucial new elements are religious, political fanaticism and access to weapons of mass destruction. Polarity of traditions like ‘left’ and ‘right’ are now of limited relevance. But the major obstacle to understanding is the psychological resistance to accept uncomfortable facts and the problem that people who bring ready made theories will not easily give up their prior judgments.
I believe that we should all be cognisant of the real danger that threatens us and that we collectively should make adequate provision. I think in many respects the authorities are treating us like children. It appears to me that political correctness is more often a higher goal than our lives.
Are our authorities honest with us? What is our understanding? Let us consider:
London
was a simultaneous target of the 9/11 attack. A British Airways
aircraft to Mumbai on September 9th 2001 was to be hijacked from
Heathrow and was to be crashed into the Houses of Parliament.
However, in an encrypted e-mail received at the last moment this operation was postponed with that of the US until September 11th 2001.
The Al Qaeda British cell then assembled at Heathrow at 14.30 on September 11th to hijack the 17.00 domestic flight to Manchester, but by 17.00 the US strikes had taken place and all Heathrow flights were grounded.
Supporting evidence to this Heathrow attempt was endorsed by Al Qaeda’s Muhammad Afroz upon his capture in October 2001 in New Bombay by the Indian intelligence services.
However, in an encrypted e-mail received at the last moment this operation was postponed with that of the US until September 11th 2001.
The Al Qaeda British cell then assembled at Heathrow at 14.30 on September 11th to hijack the 17.00 domestic flight to Manchester, but by 17.00 the US strikes had taken place and all Heathrow flights were grounded.
Supporting evidence to this Heathrow attempt was endorsed by Al Qaeda’s Muhammad Afroz upon his capture in October 2001 in New Bombay by the Indian intelligence services.
The
analysts of Osama bin Laden’s last billing records between 1996-98
revealed that a fifth (238 out of 1,100) of his telephone calls, the
largest percentage, were made to U.K. numbers. Mark
Hosenball & Daniel Klaidman analysts 2002
Britain
remains the main western hub of Al Qaeda’s overseas political
and military operations. According to the CIA, between a fifth and a
quarter of all Islamic organisations in the U.K., are infiltrated by
sympathisers of Al Qaeda. The average Al Qaeda terrorist is better
trained and better prepared for his mission than any other Islamist
terrorist. At a conservative estimate there are several thousand such
Al Qaeda trained Islamist terrorists in Britain today.
Worldwide
both the CIA, and Germany’s intelligence services estimate
that Al Qaeda has more trained recruits than soldiers in the British
army.
Since
1969 more civilians and combatants have been killed in Northern
Ireland than in 9/11. The IRA had at best some 600 active terrorists;
Al Qaeda with 19 managed a kill ratio of some 200/1 compared to the
IRA’s 4/1.
Question. Given the number of troops required for Northern Ireland, how many will we require for the U.K. mainland?
Question. Given the number of troops required for Northern Ireland, how many will we require for the U.K. mainland?
Killings in
Northern Ireland were largely financed via funds collected
in the USA. Killings in 9/11 were financed largely via funds from Saudi
Arabia.
Why
should our Muslim population be expected to have lower aspirations
than our Irish?
We are not communicating. Western politicians have taken great pains to make it clear that the war we are engaged in is a war against terrorism, not against Muslims. Osama bin Ladin’s message is the opposite. For bin Ladin it is a religious war, a war for Islam against the infidels (the West).
A Muslim is keenly aware of his history, but for most Muslims history begins with advent of Islam. A Muslim’s perception of history is nourished from the pulpit, and although it may be slanted and inaccurate it is nevertheless vivid and powerfully resonant. Thus to virtually all Arabs and most Muslims the Crusades but happened yesterday. In the Arab Iraq, Iranian war both sides waged massive propaganda using events and personalities from the seventh century. Can you imagine an Irish or British man harbouring a living grudge against a Scandinavian on account of a Viking raid of similar age?
In the West the basic unit of human organisation is the nation. The nation can then be subdivided in a number of ways one of which is by religion. Muslims tend to see not a nation subdivided into religious groups but a religion subdivided into nations; even when the Islamic community split into many states the ideal of a single Islamic polity persists.
It is still wrongly believed that terrorism today is a response to injustice and is caused by intolerable conditions such as poverty or oppression. Terrorism in the nineteenth century aimed at social revolution or national liberation. Terrorism in the twenty first century seeks global catastrophe. There is a growing element of madness in contemporary terrorism. Not every paranoiac is a terrorist but in every terrorist lays the paranoia fears of conspiracy, suspicion of others, and a general inability of self appraisal and assessment. Present day terrorists are committed to the death of our social order.
Islamic terrorism aims at nothing less than the destruction of Western civilisation.
Islamic terrorists believe that it is their prime duty to kill us, the infidel or heretic, and in so doing they are performing God’s will.
‘The presence of many Muslim communities in the West has had an educational and salutary effect. All of us, I expect – whatever our own backgrounds and perspectives – would like to believe that bin Laden, along with his Al Qaeda network, is a grotesque anomaly. If we could believe that, we would feel safer, and it would auger well for dialogue, and coexistence. But this latest manifestation of Islamic extremism cannot be seen in isolation from wider and deeper problems.’ Abbas Amanat, Professor Middle East Studies Yale
‘We are terrorists, and terrorism is our friend and companion. Let the West and East know that we are terrorists and that we are terrifying as well. We shall do our best in preparation to terrorise Allah’s enemies and our own. Thus terrorism is an obligation in Allah’s religion’. Sheikh Azzam, bin Laden’s teacher. August 2002
It is thought provoking. The message and the philosophical ground in which the Islamist terrorist’s message is housed is both demonic and seductive. This manifestation cannot be seen in isolation. How can we combat someone whose very strength we do not understand? Only with and in the metaphor of religion will we be able to defeat the Islamic terrorist. Conventional Islamic society does not have the economic strength, will power or religious fervour to eliminate Islamic terrorism. Indeed, there is a very real danger that the norm of moderate and compassionate Islam will be replaced by the Islam of the militant terrorist.
Many educated Muslims firmly believe that Western civilisation is in decline. Such decline is seen as God’s will. Upon the backcloth of global time such Muslims believe that the difficulties in the Middle East are sent by God to try and test them in their faith. Ultimately God has decreed that the whole world must become Islamic. To build anti-Western support, Islamists selectively retrieve and present a mixture of fact and fiction as truth. They argue convincingly that it is only a question of time before the West is overwhelmed, they record that the Western population has declined relatively from 25% of the world total at the beginning of the twentieth century to 15% a century later.
With the Koran in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other the Islamic terrorist lives a life of anger and hope. It is a problem which could prompt the end of mankind. What can be done? This summary together with the linked articles should assist in an answer.
Terrorism
‘Terrorism is relatively cheap and will be
with us for as long as
anyone can envision’.
Walter
Laqueur, Professor of International Security Studies Washington
The purpose of this web site is not to go over the same ground as is better explained by others. My intention is to put forward my conclusions and what monetary advantage may be gained from combating terrorism. On the meaning and definition of terrorism I thus refer the reader to:
Terrorism: An Analysis of Definition.
Why should the issue of definition be of importance? Because in the West terrorists are normally sentenced for crimes committed and not for terrorist opinions voiced.
The term ‘terrorism’ has now everywhere a bad, negative connotation – in contrast, for instance, to ‘guerrilla’, which enjoys a far more positive reputation.
An analysis of the terms used by American and British journalists operating in the Middle East shows that ‘militant’ and ‘activist’ are the most popular expressions used to evade the term ‘terrorist’, but ‘fighter’, ‘extremist’, ‘resistant’, ‘commando’, ’raider’, ‘combatant’ ‘urban guerrilla’, and ‘martyr’ are also frequently used, whereas ‘partisan’ is now antiquated. ‘Gunman’ is frequently used. According to many journalists and editors, a militant or an activist may commit a terrorist act, but this does not make him a terrorist; the use of the adjective is sometimes permitted. So is the term ‘suicide bomber’. Quite often, a hostage taken by terrorists is not killed or murdered (which would be a loaded term) but executed. (To ‘remove’ him or her would be even more neutral.)
These terminological rules do not apply to other parts of the world – for instance, Kashmir, the Philippines, or even Europe. British newspapers will not usually refer to Irish groups engaged in terrorism as activists, and American media have not called the attackers of September 11th, 2001, ‘militants’. Sometimes they are, however, called ‘alleged terrorists’. In Britain, some liberal newspapers use the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorists’ but often in quotation marks; however, if governments are accused of terrorism, the quotation marks are dropped. Circumlocution is more frequently used by news agencies and daily newspapers than periodicals. Left wing media have no hesitation to use the term ‘terrorism’ if the perpetrators are neofascists or neo-Nazis. Moreover, the linguistic confusion is not limited to the media; the difference between what the authorities call a ‘hate crime’ and what others call ‘terrorism’ is not always readily obvious.
The following articles assist in the current understanding of terrorism.
1.OBSERVATIONS
ON THE NEW
TERRORISM for FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
by Professor Paul Wilkinson, Chairman, CSTPV, University of St Andrews.
by Professor Paul Wilkinson, Chairman, CSTPV, University of St Andrews.
Counter-Terrorism
‘Public diplomacy
should be an integral feature in the campaign against
terrorism’
Rohan Gunarantna
Rohan Gunarantna
The campaign against terrorism may be divided into counter-terrorist (offensive) and anti-terrorist (protective) measures. In order to win the war on terrorism, the West and the Muslim world must embark on a new relationship, one that counters the status quo ante that gave rise to Al Qaeda. To a large extent the attitude of the Muslim world has created the current situation. The West must work with the Muslim world – governments and people; working with governments is not enough. It will take thirty years or more to reverse the fundamentalist beliefs that provide the breeding grounds that nurture the Islamic terrorist. During this time we must ourselves understand the problem and come to terms with the loss of freedom that will be necessary for our survival.
Again, the purpose of this web site is not to go over the same ground as is better explained by others. My intention is to put forward my conclusions and what monetary advantage may be gained from combating terrorism. I thus refer the reader to the following articles in the current understanding of counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism.
4.STATEMENT
FROM HOME SECRETARY
DAVID BLUNKETT (following today’s
arrests by the Metropolitan Police Service) Reference: Stat 005/2004 -
Date: 30 Mar 2004 12:21
6.Speech:
Terrorism - Policing
the Unknown. Police Federation Annual
Conference - 20 May 2004, Bournemouth. Author: Leigh Lewis
Published:
20 May 2004
Debate:
TAKE A FRESH LOOK
‘Terrorism thrives on myth. So does the ongoing struggle against terrorism’.
‘Terrorism thrives on myth. So does the ongoing struggle against terrorism’.
I illuminate this debate by either asking questions or making statements. Review these lessons from history:
On July 30th 1914 Emperor Wilhelm of Germany, sized on the idea of jihad instructing:
‘Our counsels in Turkey, in
India, agents etc., must fire the whole
Mohammedan world to fierce rebellion against this hated, lying,
conscienceless nation of shop-keepers; for it we are to be bled to
death, England shall at least lose India.’ Three and a half month’s
later, the Ottoman Sultan, issued a fatwa that
declared an Islamic holy war against Britain. In the West the First
World War is not seen as a ‘Holy War’ against Britain, but do you know
a better reason why Turkey went to war?
Edward Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire’ in his fifteenth
chapter portrayed Christianity as the radical sect that undermined an
already corrupt Rome. Is this not the belief that prompts the Islamic
terrorist? Substitute the West for the Roman Empire and replace
Christianity with Islam.
Consider our Victorian imperial
history. Look at ‘Gordon of Khartoum’
and the Sudan. Was not the ‘Mahdi’ in many ways a Victorian Osama bin
Laden, the then Sudan was the rogue state.
Analyse the US mindset. What justifies a belief in democracy?
Following a Mexican coup in 1913, there was a revealing conversation Between the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, and the US ambassador to London, Walter Page.
‘Suppose
you have to intervene, what then?’ asked Grey.
‘Make ‘em vote and live by their decisions,’ replied Page.
‘But suppose they will not so live?’ demanded Grey.
‘We’ll go in and make ‘em vote again,’ said Page.
‘And keep this up for 200 years?’ asked Grey.
‘Yes,’ replied Page.
‘The US… can continue to shoot men for that little space till they learn to vote and rule themselves.’
‘Make ‘em vote and live by their decisions,’ replied Page.
‘But suppose they will not so live?’ demanded Grey.
‘We’ll go in and make ‘em vote again,’ said Page.
‘And keep this up for 200 years?’ asked Grey.
‘Yes,’ replied Page.
‘The US… can continue to shoot men for that little space till they learn to vote and rule themselves.’
Has the US viewpoint changed? I think not. Perhaps, the US is contemplating keeping British troops in Iraq for the next 200 years.
If we had a world democracy, and if that world democracy had a vote on whether Bush and Blair are right or whether Osama bin Laden is right. Who do you think might win? Consider what is the truth in globalisation?
In 1871 there were 64 independent
states in the world.
In 1914, due to imperialism,
there were 59 independent states.
In 1946 there were 74 independent
states.
In 1995 there were 195
independent states.
That said, many of the new states are tiny: 87 states have fewer than 5
million inhabitants; 58 have fewer than 2.5 million and 35 states have
fewer than 500,000. The fundamental weakness of most supranational organisations is that they are ‘paper tigers’. The total operating budget of the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and all other UN programmes is some $24 billion. Compare this to the US federal budget which is over one hundred times larger. Look at the European Union. Its budget is less than 2% of the E.U.’s GDP. Compare this to the GDP of the nation states which exceeds 50% of EU’s GNP.
What we are witnessing is not a clash of civilisations but a collision between a mature empire and a dynamic and dangerous political region, in a world that is politically fissiparous as it is economically integrated.
There has been an underestimation of the Islamist threat by the West because until recently it was largely directed at Muslim rulers, regimes and populations.
Post-Cold War terrorist groups instead of resisting globalisation are harnessing its forces. More than ever before, post-Cold War terrorist groups share ideologies, transfer technologies, exchange personnel and conduct joint operations.
Examine the ideology of the Islamic Terrorist?
An absolute belief in God; Al
Qaeda’s leadership, membership and
supporters firmly believe that everything happens according to God’s
will.
Terrorism is only one of Al
Qaeda’s tactics. As a multi-dimensional
group, it can engage the enemy on several fronts simultaneously. The
long term strategic threat that it poses to international security is
the politicisation and radicalisation of Moslems, a phenomenon that has
gone unchallenged by the West as well as by Middle Eastern and Asian
Muslim countries.
Many Islamist groups support Al
Qaeda’s aims and objectives, and are
becoming less cautious about identifying themselves with such views as
the perceived power of the US diminishes.
The Islamic terrorist does not
interpret Islam to assist a given
political goal. Islam is the political goal.
The Islamic terrorist sees the
time of the ‘running sand’ as his ally.
Above all his patience will be rewarded in God’s work.
For the Muslim, uprooted often from his traditional setting, and deprived of illusive privileges that they can see around them and on television screens but cannot have; the familiar and comforting space of Islam offers a welcoming alternative. Daily prayers, Friday sermons, Koranic study groups, Islamic charities – these are all part of that space. But so are the street demonstrations and the clandestine pamphlets, with their fiery anti-establishment, anti-secular, and anti-Zionist message.
Evaluate the geography and the etiology of terrorism?
There is no reason to assume that terrorism would disappear altogether if all human beings were well off. Terrorism, like revolutions, occurs not when the situation is disastrously bad but when various political, economic, and social trends coincide.
Religious fanaticism for Christianity expressed in the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the burning of witches is a thing of the past. But in Islam, once the most tolerant of religions, fanaticism in various manifestations has had a revival in modern times. With the resurgence of fundamentalism came a recurrence of fanaticism. Fanaticism is an essential part of terrorism. Religious fanaticism is the predominant feature of terrorism today.
Sheikh Azzam, bin Laden’s teacher and spiritual guru, like Gandhi, was a lawyer by profession. Bin Laden to many Muslims is seen as a moderate, a Robin Hood type of character. Seven out ten Nigerian Muslims, who believe that a person’s name influences his behaviour, named their new sons Osama. In Pakistan Osama bin Laden is perceived as a rational, sensitive man with descriptions as: ‘Look at Osama. Look at his face. He is a good man. He is a kind man. He is a man of God. He cares for poor Muslims.’
Those who think that the US, by force of arms, can defuse Islamic fundamentalist rage and end terrorism are out of touch with the cruel reality of Islamic politics.
‘Were it not for oil, the Middle East
would rank lower than Africa in
economic development’.
Charles Hill Special Advisor to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Charles Hill Special Advisor to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
For many in the Arab world it was comforting to believe that the reason why hundreds of millions of Arabs could not defeat Israel was because Western powers were protecting it. And more often than not there is ample evidence to support the validity of this claim.
For the Muslim world at large, Israel is a symbol and catalyst of their rage rather than the cause. The radical Islamists have bigger fish to fry; they aim at the punishment and if possible the destruction of Western civilisation. Israel is a small Satan compared with the various big Satans on the horizon.
Islam’s most holy places are seen by most Muslims to be occupied directly by the West who have established colonies and puppet states within Islam’s heartland. Would the British appreciate a wall being built around their counties of Leicestershire, Yorkshire and Lancashire, and the populations therein declaring that they now be a Islamic state in which no Christian could hold property?
Conclusion
If terrorism is to fall from favour, a societal norm must be built against its deployment.
The global fight against Al Qaeda will be the defining conflict of the early 21st Century. But ask on whose side is God, and which side is right? In the long term will it be the West’s linear view of history or the East’s cyclical view which will prevail?
Islam has during certain periods of history and in certain parts of the globe been part of an environment where evildoers can burrow and breed. The higher levels of Islam have not displayed adequate doctrinal defences against this, nor have they credibly condemned it. There has been a deafening silence from the clerical hierarchy in most countries, including those considered to be moderate. The Friday sermons in mosques across the Middle East, Europe, North America and Asia have ranged from being pro terrorist to transparent apologia for the terrorists i.e. what they did was bad but understandable and no worse than the ‘terrorism’ conducted by the US and Israel.
Theorists have long argued that terrorism does not work, but the sad truth is that it does. Western, Middle Eastern and Asian governments were forced to the negotiating table and either devolved power or agreed to devolve power because of a protracted terrorist campaign. Irrespective of the legitimacy of the struggle, the political or religious motivated killing of civilians is terrorism; but regrettably a terrorism that too often is seen as heroic by others. Within the West and moderate Islam, there exists a double standard which requires condemnation and abolition if there is to be any hope in outlawing terrorism as was achieved in piracy some 150 years before.
It is only a matter of time until radiological, chemical, or biological weapons will be used more or less systematically by terrorist groups; the first steps in this direction have been made. There is much reason to believe that if such attacks should be carried out in the near future, many, perhaps the great majority will fail. But it should be clear that if only one in ten thousand succeeds the damage will be immeasurable.
Time is not on our side. Religious belief takes a generation or more to alter. Consider the world in 2030. Then the West will comprise of less than 10% of the world’s population and at least six Islamic states will have weapons of mass destruction. There are no indicators which proclaim an economic revival in the Muslim world, unfortunately the reverse is true with relative living standards (and in some places absolute) falling yet further behind those predicted in the West. Only an optimistic madman could have grounds for reasonable belief that in such a predicted world, terrorism might disappear upon its own volition.
The hard inescapable truth is that if matters continue as they are we are likely to lose this war on terrorism. Most western intelligence agencies have so advised their governments, and even in the British, US, and Israeli intelligence services there is a ground swell of opinion that this is a war we cannot win in the long run. What then is the solution presuming we reject the most extreme suggestion of ‘nuking’ the Islamic world?
Education in all its guises is the key answer. Let the Islamic world have its space before that world takes it by force. Let the artificial Islamic states, the product of Western imperialism, break up and have self determination. Relocate Israel, lock stock and barrel to Texas. Retreat from oil dependency and retreat from militarily and economically occupying lands that historically do not belong to us. Sponsor true Islamic belief and promote the Islamic moderate. Western secular constitutional beliefs must not be imposed. How many churchmen do we see in our government? How many Islamic leaders are there in the Iraqi Provisional Government? How many Islamic leaders are there in the Iranian Government? If we hope to obtain an away draw and a home win we must learn to think like a ‘good’ Muslim.
Now the above is not to say that we should give up our Western values. We must arm ourselves. England became the world’s first great nation state because it introduced national service via generations of compulsory longbow training. British ‘people power’ will conqueror terrorism in our native land. The British public must truly become aware of the terrorist problem and immediately come to terms with a more controlled and intrusive society. Simply put the U.K. needs to be put on a war footing.
What needs to be done? Like in the previous Second World War we must learn to identify ourselves, to tell friend from foe, to ascertain if our fellow traveller is a safe companion. All people in the U.K. and those coming into the U.K. must at all times carry an identity card. This card requires to be a sophisticated smart card; a card that not only carries identification and personal information but a card which provides tracking and smart sensory attributes such as explosive and drug recognition capabilities; a card which also acts as an ‘electronic purse’. Today, we have the technology for such a smart card. Everyone would be subject to physical spot checks but monitoring and tracking would be constant. To obtain access to our supermarket, bus, restaurant, or plane our smart card would be used.
We must develop and improve our security and policing services. As you can see from our government article COUNTER-TERRORISM & RESILIENCE: KEY FACTS September 2004 linked above our anti-terrorist measures are still woefully thin. Put it this way. If all these new fledged resources came together at one spot, they in themselves would not have the capacity to deal with a major disaster like 9/11 or like the strike on London that Al Qaeda planned via Muhammad Afroz on the 11th September 2001 (see above). In short, as in the 19th century jingo ‘we need the money, the ships and the men’. In this regard I make reference to the article ‘The Economic Costs of Terrorism’ from which article it is predicted that some one per cent of our GDP should be the mean to be spent upon counter and anti-terrorist measures.
We must face up to and tackle the thorny problem of our immigrant and Muslim Diaspora communities in the U.K.. I herewith enclose the Muslim Council of Britain’s open letter of 31st March 2004. In particular I refer to the section which reads:
‘All of us as Muslims will have been appalled to see some of the headlines in today's newspapers (for example 'Islamic Bomb Plot Foiled' - Daily Telegraph; `The Truck Bombers of Suburbia', The Times 2004). This kind of sensationalised reporting has done immense damage to British Muslims as well as to community relations and we assure you that the MCB's Media Committee will be taking this matter up urgently with the editors concerned’.
‘You will no doubt recall that in November 2002 the police made high-profile arrests of six Muslims accused of plotting to release cyanide gas into London's Underground system. Yet nearly 18 months later, none of the men have been charged with any crime, let alone being convicted of terrorist activity. There are other examples of incidents that have received prominent media attention only for the individuals to be subsequently released without any charges brought against them. The impact of such ordeals on the persons concerned and their families is unbearable. Therefore we urge against hasty pronouncements of guilt. Every person is to be considered innocent unless proved guilty.’
Is this not political correctness gone mad? There is no contrition in these words for the loss of life in the Madrid bombings, there appears nothing but transparent apologia for terrorism. ‘It wasn’t I chum, find some other Muslim on the block’. Furthermore, I find it ironic that under ‘Sharia or Islamic law’ the accused is presumed guilty and expected to defend himself. Why, I ask is there this apparent hypocrisy? Or is it simply that as a Western Christian I am unworthy of compassion.
If the Muslim Council of Britain wishes to adopt a similar terrorist raiment, as did much of the Irish Roman Catholic Church do to the IRA, then we have a severe problem. Like it or not, the Roman Catholic Church is subservient to the secular state. The Muslim Council doctrinally cannot be subservient; therefore its viewpoint is heeded by practising Muslims to a greater extent than our Parliamentary law. Now, as a relatively educated man, I can live with autonomy of the Muslim Council providing such autonomy runs in tandem with our elected representatives. The problem lies when the two go into conflict. Can, in the last analysis, the Muslim Council concur with our secular world? No, has to be the answer. But then perhaps the Muslim Council may agree to co-exist? Yes, I believe so, but if this is to happen then both sides must expend greater resources as to understanding.
Let us not delude ourselves. The battle in Bradford and Leicester is being lost; as a society we are ceasing to co-exist and adopting ‘an apartheid of choice’. We have months not years to settle or reach an agreement upon this issue. Without such agreement it will be impossible for the Muslim Council of Britain to truly direct its community to become re-born moderate messengers of Islam. Without a serious missionary drive which advocates moderate Islam to the Muslim Diaspora and to the Islamic state then the Islamic terrorist will continue to hatch.
Islamic terrorists have the greatest capacity to attract new recruits and resources because their recruitment and fund raising infrastructure is enmeshed with the welfare, socio-economic and politic fabric of Muslim communities. Unless, wider support is obtained from British Muslim communities then the fight against Al Qaeda and its brand of terrorism in Britain will not be won. The vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace and harmony. But they will only support the campaign against terrorism if they see the whole range of relevant issues addressed. It is up to the Muslim Council of Britain and the British government to identify and address these issues. Failure so to do will facilitate and prompt Iraqi suicide bombing in the UK.
Personally, I have serious doubts as to the ability of the Muslim Council of Britain to control its flock. If the correct mindset of appeasement is identified then it is the duty of the British government to encourage and where necessary fund the Muslim community. Time is not on our side; our next ‘Bradford’ riot is likely to escalate into full scale armed violence. When into this heady cocktail of social unrest is mixed the training, commitment and dogma of Al Qaeda then we are likely to see not just thousands dead upon our British streets but tens if not hundreds of thousands. The problem is real. In Britain a solution to internal Islamic terrorism is still possible but grows daily more difficult. Unless we reach an internal British solution then in the final analysis we will either be obliged to become part of the Muslim world or patriate our Muslim population too Muslim lands.
Scotland has within its grasp the opportunity of a new industry which in a few years can produce great wealth and security for the country.
I set out some of the salient opportunities below.
1.Higher Education. In the United
States there are now more than twenty
university under graduate courses upon terrorism and homeland security.
Scotland is ideally suited to emulate these. It has advanced research
facilities at St Andrews Centre for the Study of Terrorism and
Political Violence. Edinburgh University has pioneered the way in land
mine clearance; New College is world famous for Divinity and Religious
studies. When one adds in the traditional disciplines of language
training, the number of jobs via the creation of new academic and
support facilities should exceed 300; producing a net gain to the
Scottish economy of some £90 million per annum in fee
income.
2.Personnel. Scotland’s
contribution to Britain’s armed forces is
unequalled. Many men will be required to be trained, re-trained and
recruited into homeland security roles. Anti-terrorism will not only
create new jobs but will regulate many parts of our black economy; it
will upgrade our security guards, doormen, and even the home visitor.
The number of new registered jobs will amount to at least 10,000 but
15,000 is expected to be the realistic job outcome; producing a net
gain to the Scottish economy of some £100 million
3.Research and development.
Number of additional research staff into
weapon and explosive suppression, and allied trades will amount to at
least 500; producing a net gain to the Scottish economy of some
£20 million.
4.The smart identity card will
cost some £40 per annum each to
administer. It is realistically estimated that some 10,000 operatives
and administrators will be required to overlook the U.K. smart identity
cards. The value to the Scottish economy will exceed £2.4 billion
per annum, especially if we get in first.
5.Manufacture of Dellex type
containment devices will provide over
2,000 manufacturing jobs; producing a net gain to the Scottish economy
of some £200 million.
The estimated annual value to the Scottish economy is some £2.8 billion, and the anticipated number of jobs realistically created within a two year time frame will be over 23,000. A business plan and overview can be obtained direct from me upon application to Martin Frost
Cintec International Ltd
Cintec sequestrated (bankrupted) me so not unnaturally my viewpoint is somewhat coloured. Before Mr Justice Laddie in the London Patents Court in 2003, Cintec sued me as a partner in Dell Explosives. The case was simply that we raised an action in the Court of Session, Summons July 2003, alleging that Cintec had stolen our intellectual property rights, Cintec counter sued in the English court maintaining our acting constituted a threat against Cintec. Notwithstanding that the threats provision in the patents act is currently being abolished as it stands; Mr Parkes was found guilty of threatening without due reason and costs were awarded against me, jointly and severally, as Mr Parkes’s partner. An interim costs award estimated at £90,000 (the purported sequestration debt) was made against me and as yet no costs have gone to taxation. Just about everything thereafter is disputed. Estimates on the value of the patents held on behalf of Dell Explosives has ranged from £200,000 to £15 million
Cintec describes itself on its web site thus:
‘Cintec International Limited in
1986 acquired the rights to the Cintec
Anchoring System which had originally been developed in Germany. Since
then it has developed rapidly to meet the diverse requirements of the
civil engineering industry in the field of strengthening and
preservation.
Based in South Wales, the Company
now has extensive international links
with independent companies based in the United States, Canada, India
and Australia. Ranging from sophisticated wall ties, to solid bar
anchors over thirty
meters in length, the CINTEC System can be adapted to suit a myriad of
applications. Internationally CINTEC has dealt with such
high profile projects as the Canadian Parliament Buildings in Ottawa,
the Bank of Montreal in Quebec, the Brandenburg Tower and Cathedral in
Germany as well as the Empire State Building in New York. The
longest anchors, to date, are thirty-two metres long and installed in
Christ Church Cathedral in Newcastle, Australia, which had suffered
major damage due to an earthquake.
The principal activity of the
company is the design and manufacture of
the "CINTEC" Micro Concrete and Lime Grout Anchoring and Reinforcing
System.’
In or about the year 2000 Cintec digressed into the bomb and blast suppression business via the medium of water. It is a business in which Mr John Parkes, my partner as above, is well regarded internationally as an expert. Mr Parkes maintains that Cintec stole his ideas, Cintec denies this. Furthermore, as may be seen in the Scotsman article Mr Parkes and Professor Salter made various other comments pertaining to the safety of Cintec’s devices.
I concur with Mr Justice Laddie’s judgment in so far that I do believe that Mr Parkes had threatened Cintec in the terms of the then legislation and furthermore that Cintec’s then product range was not infringing the U.K. patents. Mr Parkes still believes that Cintec then infringed. Both Mr Parkes and I believe that the English court unlawfully stole jurisdiction from Scotland. There remains a substantial argument as to the validity of costs claimed by Cintec’s lawyers. As Mr Justice Laddie noted in his judgment that one of the reasons that he had found in favour of Cintec was that it appeared from the evidence presented that a product of Cintec’s was fundamentally flawed i.e. it didn’t work. Cintec has revamped its product range, and as I have indicated before the Scottish court I now believe that this new product range does infringe the U.K. patents.
It is my contention that Cintec, or their lawyers, abused the court process in order that Mr Parkes and I would be sequestrated thus enabling the patents to fall to them. Much of this overall web site centres upon this perceived abuse of process.
The above said, I have seen Cintec’s new product range and it impresses me. In a global sense it was a pity that a merger of attributes was not achieved. I blame this upon the lawyers. Despite all their international bluster the accounts of Cintec show them to be a small family company which in turn may have made itself financially vulnerable from this ongoing dispute.
I refer the reader to the original opening page of my web site upon which the following articles can be accessed. These articles are:
In addition to the above articles the June 04 Opinion of Temporary Judge Mr MacDonald is also available along with my Grounds of Appeal dated 5th August 2004. These articles are in the main self explanatory.
Finally, as at today's date of 16th September 04 the dispute is still ongoing, in one form or another, before the Scottish, English and US courts.
Mr John Parkes
This web site appears to have been born via the stupidity of one man, Mr John Parkes; the greed of another, Mr Peter James (managing director of Cintec); my own foolishness; matched to the naughtiness of members of Edinburgh’s legal establishment.
I like Mr John Humphrey Parkes. He shares with Charles I of England the behaviour habit derived from the twin motifs of a glorious hero or a loved martyr.
Quite bluntly Mr Parkes disappointed me. I hold him more responsible for my sequestration than I find Mr James of Cintec. I will allow the enclosed correspondence to speak for itself should you wish to delve through it. I see it all as a great tragedy. Mr Parkes threw away an opportunity of a lifetime. Upon reflection I believe he misled me as to his intention to form a Plc. Had he not given such an undertaking I would not have volunteered the Bonnington painting as security. In my opinion he continued to mislead me until March 1st 2004 when he unilaterally attempted to breach the partnership. Then he double crossed me, and repeatedly attempted to double cross me both as to my financial exposure and patent cover. He acquired a legal advisor, a Dr J MacDonald (though as yet I have not been able to verify the doctorate, though I am assured by John Parkes that MacDonald obtained his law degree at Napier whilst he was doing time for fraud).
Dr MacDonald, I understand, advised John Parkes that he would ensure that if payment had to be made to Cintec then it would be preferable to John that payment came alone from my family assets. This angered me. I lost all respect for John when I was informed that Dr MacDonald had made physical contact in Pakistan with parties who had acted as intermediaries for Al Qaeda. This single act of perceived treachery lost John Parkes a lifetime of accumulated goodwill with Western security services.
John is now a broken man but I still hope some financial good may come to him. The legal and financial saga continues. Below are some self further self explanatory links.
The October 8th note from Professor Salter relates to Edinburgh University’s involvement with Dell Explosives. The Plc head office was to be housed within the University but following the threat of legal action from Cintec, Edinburgh University withdrew their support.
The below links follow in date order:
My investment proposal
Finally I conclude this section by repeating again my January 04 letter to proposed shareholders. The money was there. It can still be done. Do you have a view?
Edenside
Kelso
TD5 7BS
2004-01-23
Dear
I am writing further concerning the Dellex investment proposal I discussed with you in October 2003. Could you please confirm if you are still interested and if so the extent of your interest and the probable amount of funds you may wish to apply. To recap my earlier discussions the following is an aide memoir.
Over the last 18 years Mr John H Parkes and Professor Stephen Salter have created a number of concepts concerning explosive suppression and explosive removal. Either singularly or jointly they have patented a number of their ideas. In addition they have acquired considerable knowledge along with the rights to a variety of intellectual property. Since 1999 Mr John H Parkes along with his son Mr John W Parkes have developed a range of products based around the concept of water suppression. Some of these products have NATO purchase approval. In like manner under the auspices of Edinburgh University, Professor Salter directly developed a range of low cost and low maintenance land mine and explosive removal devices. Since conception a reasonable estimate of the money expended on this technology by Mr John H Parkes, Professor Salter, and Edinburgh University is some £2,000,000.
Given the above, the business concept, to which I am seeking your support, is a very simple one. Professor Salter, Mr John H Parkes, in conjunction with Edinburgh University and various government security services will continue to invent and make product up to the pre-mass production stage, all under the Dellex umbrella. Manufacture of the product will be subcontracted out to approved contractors. Supply of the product together with security and usage advice will be provided via franchise companies set up in each segmented marketing area. Apart from the product range (which is discussed below) the unique marketing edge our company will possess is that each franchise company will consist of retired explosive engineers. Dellex will offer a service and expertise that no other body in the world will be able to emulate. To this end Edinburgh University offered Dellex a research base in the university’s technology unit and again it is planned to use the university’s facilities during the summer months to educate, update, and train each franchisees staff. Dellex will receive as income, franchise fees, royalties and a percentage upon sales.
As you are aware, the above plan was put on hold due first to litigation in Scotland and England and thereafter further litigation in the USA. Cintec International Ltd, a Welsh based private company with a net worth of around £700,000 believed that their product range of water suppression devices did not infringe the patents held by John H Parkes and Professor Salter. John H Parkes and Martin Frost lost a patent threats action in London in October 2003 against Cintec and are obliged to pay Cintec’s costs which may amount to some £150,000. Following the loss of the London action, Cintec threatened Edinburgh University along with Professor Stephen Salter with a separate damages action. In the USA, Cintec has again brought patent proceedings against Mr John H Parkes. The current state of play is that Mr John H Parkes re-mortgaged his home (up to £200,000) to fund his costs for the London action and provide some additional development capital. These funds have been fully utilised in paying further development costs and the requirement to fund a defence to the US action. John is currently re-mortgaging his home again to find an additional £100,000 with which to pay an interim costs award of £90,000 to Cintec.
The current proposition is that since you are one of a number of private parties who had expressed investment interest in the proposed Plc I thought your interest in the interim may still remain upon the revised terms.
a)Mr John H Parkes and Professor
Salter have agreed to sell all their
intellectual rights relating to explosive suppression and explosive
removal into a new Dellex limited company, Dellex Holdings Limited. In
broad terms the consideration for this sale is £500,000 which
would be paid (subject to earn out clauses) as follows over 5 years.
The sum of £150,000 would be immediately paid to Cintec on behalf
of John H Parkes and Martin Frost in respect of the costs award made
against them in London. A further sum of £150,000 would be paid
in 2005 to repay the investment made by the land mine charities into
the development of Professor Salter’s land mine clearance devices. The
balance of £200,000 would go to Parkes and Salter as an earn out
upon the products that they had spawned.
b)Dellex Holdings Limited would
issue 250,000 one pound shares to Mr
John H Parkes. 150,000 one pound shares would be issued to Mr John H
Parkes in respect of pre-incorporation expenses in setting up the
company (this sum approximately equates to the sum Mr John H Parkes
first re-mortgaged). 100,000 one pound shares would be issued to Mr
John H Parkes for cash (this cash being obtained by Mr Parkes via his
further re-mortgage of his home, as above).
c)Dellex Holdings Limited would
issue a further 250,000 to 300,000 one
pound ordinary shares to raise another £250,000 to £300,000
from private subscribers, namely family and friends of the parties
involved. Holdings would then have between £350,000 and
£400,000 of cash which it would use as follows: £150,000
for costs to Cintec (see above); £200,000 into a trading 100%
owned subsidiary of Dellex Holdings i.e. Dellex Ecosse Limited; and a
contingency balance of some £50,000.
d)All steps would then be taken
to settle all litigation with Cintec as
Edinburgh University has made such a condition prior to the formation
of the Plc and the continuing and increased use of their facilities.
e)Once the litigation has been
settled the Plc would be formed,
subscribers in Dellex Holdings Limited would then exchange Holdings
shares for Plc shares at the suggested bonus of two Plc one pound
shares in exchange for one Holding one pound share.
In short, subscribers to Dellex Holdings Limited are being asked to
bridge the gap from now to the formation of the Plc. In exchange for
this greater risk subscribers can benefit from an enhanced gain via the
acquisition of Plc shares. The strength of Dellex Holdings, as will be the case with the Plc, is the fusion of brilliant yet simple ideas into products that not only does the market place need but can afford. The byword of the company is trust. Trust of the product and trust of the vendor. Dellex products and services will be offered from known and respected ex servicemen who the customer knows he can trust. For example, Dellex plans a North American franchise that is largely staffed by retired military explosive engineers and ex CIA staff. The US company will purchase the franchise, have its staff trained within Edinburgh University, and pay Dellex a royalty on all products and services sold. Dellex USA will purchase Dellex product from Dellex licensed manufacturers. Dellex Holdings will thus be the fount of excellence, the catalyst, the bridge between the solution and the problem. Currently, Dellex has such embryo franchises for North America; South Africa; Scandinavia; Russia; Egypt; India; Malaya and Japan. Dellex has an inside track of contacts within the explosive world. Via the effective use of contracts Dellex is thus able to become a world wide player of tremendous depth, expertise, and financial strength within a matter years. Above all the symbiosis of the Dellex concept provides Dellex with a huge positive cash flow from which to generate new products and services.
From earlier literature I believe you are already familiar with some of Dellex’s product range, which is already in service with NATO. Less known to you is the ‘Dervish’ range of products developed through Edinburgh University. These consist of land mine removal units which not only are cost effective for third world clearance activity but have the great ability to be upgraded for full military use. The purchase cost of the basic Dervish should be circa £15,000; it should have a working life with ongoing repairs of two years; provide the franchisee with a gross margin of over £8,000; and produce for Dellex Holdings an ongoing sales royalty of some 10%. The basic Dervish will be available for sale and service by late summer of this year. Again under development (for service in 2005) is a cost effective unit known as the ‘Micra’. This unit not only offers mine clearance ability but has advanced robotic attributes which relate to bomb clearance and reconnaissance.
‘Swamp’ is the classified name for a water bomb suppression device for use in an aircraft. Simply put the ‘swamp’ can contain the effects of a bomb explosion on board an aircraft. A ‘swamp’ unit will be sold by the franchisee to an airline for around £5,000 per unit; giving the franchisee a gross margin of £3,000 and Dellex an ongoing royalty of some £500. The ‘prototype swamp’ is currently available for service.
‘Powder Hall’ is the classified name for an anti terrorist or suicide bomber filter. The unit has been developed with the assistance of a Scandinavian security service which in turn has had input from Russia. Simply put ‘Powder Hall’ is an enclosed unit into which the individual is filtered, as say at an airport, bus station, hotel, office block etc. ‘Powder Hall’ is relatively compact and has been described as a designer igloo. As the individual is filtered through the unit he is detected if carrying explosives or munitions; once detected the unit detains the individual; and if then the individual doesn’t quit; the individual can be imploded safely within the ‘Powder Hall’. Current prototypes of ‘Powder Hall’ envisage a through put of four people per minute. A ‘Powder Hall’ should retail at about £40,000 and with maintenance and upgrades last for between 5 to 10 years. The unit will be available for service later this year. The franchisee would expect a gross margin of £20,000; Dellex to receive circa £4,000 per unit. Discussions have commenced with a subsidiary of the HSBC to provide a finance package on the ‘Powder Hall’ and worldwide sales are expected to exceed 10,000 units per annum. Thus, from the cursory glance of the above products you will readily appreciate that Dellex is alive with product concepts, and via the explosive community Dellex has become a recognised medium for explosive suppression. Again, as per my previous note on the Plc Dellex has developed and continues to develop (with the university and security services) top secret equipment relating to the suppression of ‘dirty bombs’; and the suppression of chemical and biological devices.
Dellex in my view is a company with a future. I invite you again at this early stage to take part. I am aware that some of you were shocked when we lost the threat action in London. Dellex legal advisors do not believe that the same occurrence will happen in the US. However, it is my expressed wish and that of all Dellex executives that a peaceful outcome with Cintec is found as soon as possible. The market is big enough for us all and I personally believe Dellex’s product range has little to fear from Cintec. So, even if none of our products were patented (which is not the case) we still have an excellent business, for we are in the right place, at the right time, with the right people.
If your interest remains please give me a phone or write to me above.
Kind regards
Martin Frost