Main Edition
US
FR
October 9, 2024 - 11:00am
“MI5 has one hell of a job on its hands.” That was the warning yesterday from the agency’s Director-General, Ken McCallum, in a speech which touched on everything from Russian espionage to Iranian assassination plots, and from the present competition with China to the violent echoes of last century’s conflict in Northern Ireland.
On counterterrorism, McCallum gave the “headline split” of “75% Islamist terrorism, 25% extreme Right-wing.” Despite delving into the shifting ideological configurations of the violence, McCallum underlined that the threat of most concern is still that posed by al-Qaeda and Islamic State.
It may be surprising to hear that al-Qaeda warrants a mention in 2024, but some of the old guard are indeed still knocking around. We do not yet know the implications of Afghanistan’s fall to the Taliban in 2021, while in August an al-Qaeda affiliate slaughtered several hundred civilians in Burkina Faso.
But what of plots in Britain and Europe? In March Islamic State unleashed a Bataclan-style massacre in Moscow, killing over 130 people, while in August a plot to kill audience members at a Taylor Swift concert was intercepted in Vienna. Islamic State’s appetite to unleash mass murder in European capitals has evidently not abated, though most of these cases are linked to IS operatives overseas.
Beneath these more sophisticated plots, there is the ongoing drumbeat of stabbing attacks across Europe, usually perpetrated by lone actors. While reported at the time, these leave little impression on the psyche of the societies they afflict. They are forgotten and moved on from as quickly as they unfolded, largely because of a widespread discomfort about addressing Islamist extremism. It is especially true when such a high proportion of perpetrators are recent arrivals to the continent, with many linked to asylum claims — as was the case of the knifeman who murdered three at a festival in Solingen, Germany in August.
In the face of this brand of violence, public institutions adopt a strategy of avoidance, for fear of empowering a “far-Right narrative”, but it should be obvious by now that the failure of liberal institutions to confront Islamist terrorism is what drives the Right-wing narrative.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe central issue is that politicians, the MSM and the institutions have deliberately created a climate where people cannot criticise Islam in any shape or form. This structure is the most pernicious; one where you cannot criticise those who wish to destroy you.
The same MSM and politicians also believe in infinity immigration
Diversity is our strength LOL
Director of MI5 claiming that right wing extremism is 25% of overall landscape is delusional.
Most likely just saying what his political masters want him to say to keep his job.
This is frankly extremely frightening and dangerous manifest dishonesty
What is the correct percentage then, Andrew?
I suggest it’s at least an order of magnitude smaller than 25%.
Remember, the exact words were “extreme right wing terrorism”. Actual terrorism. Not extremism.
So I’d expect to see some actual incidents of genuine extreme right wing terrorism.
And yet nothing immediately comes to mind. Did I miss something ?
I can however readily recall both IRA and ulster loyalist terrorism (when younger) and Ismalist-related terrorism.
Curious given the fact that terrorism hasn’t completely disappeared from Northen Ireland and that many terrorists still freely walk the streets that this isn’t troubling the corers over at MI5.
And what do the big brains at MI5 make of Just Stop Oil protests where people actively conspire to cripple vital national infrastructure with untold consequences (missed essential medical appointments, potential severe traffic incidents and injuries, etc) ?
He’s probably talking about Facebook and twitter posts
I think the author gets one thing badly wrong. He claims that the regular stabbing attacks are quickly “forgotten and moved on from” by western countries for fear of “empowering a “far-Right narrative” “. The narrative which he alludes to is instead, stoked by this very “forgetting” due to the impact it has on local populations, in the front line as it were of the jihad.
There’s no more obvious instance of this than the UK riots during the summer, following the murder of several young girls in Southport. Whether or not the perpetrator had Islamist leanings; whether he was a recent immigrant or not, the perception that he seemed to fit a pattern that even the author recognises shows how those who took to the streets will not put up with this kind of continual attack on our freedom to live the lives we’ve developed through hard-won struggles over many centuries.
If anyone thinks Starmer’s tactics of releasing hardened criminals to put those who took to the streets in jail can be replicated again and again, they don’t know the British people.
The resentment and disgust of the silent majority grows with every atrocity. To maintain a stable and harmonious society, it is necessary to not only expose the unacceptable, the genuine threat to stability and survival, but also to deal with it immediately and appropriately (in the way Starmer dealt with the riots which were a consequence of the threat not the threat: the real questions is why do those in power refuse to acknowledge the actual threat) otherwise what is the point of government and the police force.
Vote-bank politics is the reason why politicians appease certain well organised groups.
‘The new leader of Nottingham City Council, Ms Khan, says Nottingham can no longer afford to fund Bonfire Night, so it’s axed.’ Why should she see the point of bonfire night? – the reason she doesn’t is exactly the same reason she should never have had a place on Nottingham council.
Was she elected?
Slightly separate but Bonfire night always been an interesting one – it’s genesis related to anti-catholicism. Personally I think it’s harmless now, well so long as someone applies basic health & safety of course.
I attended a catholic school between the ages of 4 and 8 then a COE school from 8 until 11. I was first taught guy Fawkes was a hero then a villain, but both accepted he is an extremely important part of the history of the UK. Obviously, it is not a part of ms Khan’s history and she has no interest in assimilating, probably identifies with another country which she refers to as her homeland.
Was she elected?
Not sure Bonfire night as part of a worthy citizen test perhaps the best?
What has worthy got to do with it. It is a tradition which goes back hundreds of years. Are you part of the generation who believes it is their duty to judge history from a contemporary perspective rather than understand history which takes a lot more work?
A lot of Netflix is appalling and not interesting because it is constantly judging. I recently saw the film Firebrand at the cinema. It has been years since I last went to the cinema. I was desperately hoping it wasn’t woke. At first, I thought Catherine Parr was going to be a lesbian (must have a gay component) fortunately it was only briefly implied. Henry the eighth was represented as a wife beater (as far as I know, there is no historical evidence that he was) and there was the obligatory black lady in waiting. Catherine Parr was of course represented as the brave hero and Henry the eighth as toxic masculinity to use a woke term.
Not seen the film but Henry the eighth was a useless waster. Given that he chopped the heads off two of the wives I’d suggest wife beater is underselling it somewhat.
My kids were taught about him three or four times through school – he’s important and the six wives are entertaining, but it wound me up that he was covered multiple times when, say, Alfred the Great was not taught at all.
I thought he was relatively good king. Abandoning the Catholic Church planted the seeds for the greatest and most extensive empire that ever existed. People tend to be far more interested in his wives than his accomplishments but then people general prefer to read about scandal.
He’s important, but he wasn’t good, in any sense of the word. Henry may have broken with Rome, but it was only so he could get a different wife – he wasn’t a protestant, that came later. He wasted vast amounts of money on wars with France, the Scots, the Irish and even the Dutch, which he mostly lost. Had to heavily fortify the coast because England was in of fear invasion. Executed sensible advisors and set the country on the path to the civil wars that followed under his children. Destroyed the monasteries as he’d squandered the financially sound inheritance his dad had left.
In terms of bad kings he’s right up there.
(as far as I know, there is no historical evidence that he was)
Are you sure? I thought his wives were divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
There is two beheadings in there.
So more a wife executer than a wife beater. I imagine if he was prepared to behead two wives, beating them was probably also not out of the question.
Henry VIII did not personally behead Anne Boleyn or Catherine Howard. Contemporary accounts indicate he was devastated by Catherine Howard’s adultery and the obligatory decapitation. I doubt he was a wife beater because he could just walk away, move on, pleasure himself elsewhere.
Yes I am aware he didn’t do his own executions.
Just because someone can walk away, doesn’t mean they will.
Either of us could be correct anyway, I’m not sure it’s a matter of great historical importance at this present time to be fair, I shan’t let it worry me either way.
I repeat, there is no historical evidence. Why the need to embroider? He might have remained with Katherine of Aragon if he could have fathered a son with her.
No historical evidence means very little.
He might well have done. I honestly can’t remember all the in and outs of Henry viiis love life.
Didn’t he destroy the church so he could get divorced?
He wasn’t exactly known for moderation. You seem to have a rather a rose tinted view of tudor England.
We really have gone off topic. I’m not sure how we made it from mi5 and terr*rism to Henry viii.
Mind blowing.
To be honest, I think the motivation to ignore the threat and change the subject is mostly just simple fear. The politicians in particular do a lot of speechifying and hand-shaking; they’re probably in constant fear for their lives.
More proof that we need a better class of hapless apparatchiks.
We need to be clear here. Populists are a much bigger threat to the institutions than Islamists. The people heading these institutions don’t give a damn if islamists are a bigger threat to the people living in those countries. It’s all about the self-interest of the institutions.
Who is this extreme right-wing of establishment fantasies and what is it that might be motivating this group to take an interest in politics? I guess it’s easier to simply paint those folks as irredeemable crackpots than to concede that they may have a point between certain policy prescriptions and the foreseeable results of those ideas. But that would require the establishmentarians to take some responsibility for their work and we can’t have that. Ergo, people noticing a problem are now just the same as people who actively blow things up and kill others.
I hear from my former military comrades, and those still in, that the so called MI5 is a grimly unfunny woke joke
‘In the face of this brand of violence, public institutions adopt a strategy of avoidance, for fear of empowering a “far-Right narrative”, but it should be obvious by now that the failure of liberal institutions to confront Islamist terrorism is what drives the Right-wing narrative.’
I find this argument hard to follow. So we had 9/11, 7/7, went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the whole time the msm pumping out the threat of Islamic terrorism, to the point we had to get ourselves a whole load of new hate speech laws and anti terrorist police units, but now the security services don’t talk about terrorism because they are scared of fuelling right wing narratives?
So the government, having basically fuelled what they call ‘right wing narratives’ ( I object to that description) themselves in the past, to justify wars in the middle east and amplify the dangers of Islamic terr*rism, they now won’t talk about Islamic terr*rism incase people say exactly what the government actually said itself, when they started the ‘war on terror’.
When the government says Islamic terr*rism is bad we have to have a ‘war on terror’.
When the people say its bad, it’s right wing extremism?
Unfortunately if “the security services” said it was daytime outside I would go and look myself.
As for “the threat from the GRU” what is it he pretends they will do? Bombs on buses, underground trains, at pop concerts? Oh actually they were done by others…and not prevented by the “security services”. Of course no doubt they prevented many more…but just can’t say…yeh of course they did…
I suggest that everyone reads Mark Curtis’s ‘Secret Affairs: Britains Collusion with Radical Islam’ for an overview of what this Establishment bod and his colleagues have been up to for the last three decades or so. Puts the ‘Clash of Civilisation’ framing in context. I’d be more interested in his opinions if they hadn’t been so recklessly indifferent to blowback and so keen to exploit it when it occurred.
As for Russian operations in the UK, anyone who believes M15’s fairytale about the most serious of these accusations – the Salisbury Poisonings – either hasn’t been paying attention or is a blithering goon.
Qatar funds Islamic terrorism. Macron refuses to supply Israel with arms. A few days later, Qatar invests millions in France..
IS was/ is funded by a number of Middle Eastern States entirely with the complicity of the USA which wanted Syria dismembered.
Forty tons of US ammunition really don’t get dropped by mistake into IS held territory..
.by US forces.
Oops. Not millions, billions