LONDON, England – A few months ago I wrote a short item suggesting that radical Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary might usefully be compared with Johnny Rotten. Thinly argued - if widely slammed - as that post was, it's a comparison that retains value.

A protest against British soldiers in Luton, England.

The real argument, though, as I attempted to clarify in the comments to the original article, is not over the use of the acronym "UK," but rather over the media, and the symbiotic relationship Choudary enjoys with certain sections of it.

CNN itself has not stood entirely above the fray on this, and there's an argument, of course, that this post itself is just adding to the exposure. But I don't see a way round that given the point I wish to make here.

Like Rotten and the Sex Pistols, Choudary knows the media loves nothing more than the opportunity to express outrage. The trick is then to exploit that outrage and fold it back into the greater narrative: the core message aimed at the real audience.

Punk, in its early days, traded on its outlaw status, which gained greater and greater currency the ruder and more shocking the Pistols became. The media lapped it up because they could portray it as a simple story of moral decline and social decay. It sold newspapers, which in turn helped sell records. Which then sold more newspapers, which sold even more records. Everyone was happy.

Choudary and his group, known once as Al-Muhajiroun until it was banned, play a similar game. Last year I attended two of its meetings within the space of a couple of weeks. It's not hard to get in to these events and reporters who suggest otherwise are being disingenuous.

Most, if not all, will have received an SMS from Choudary inviting them to come. Even so, some prefer to come incognito. I've had a cameraman at one event telling me he worked for Hungarian television and a reporter at another purporting to write for the Irish Times newspaper. Both later turned out to be working for British tabloids.

At the first event, held to mark the anniversary of 9/11, the message from the platform was a familiar one. The 9/11 perpetrators were described as "disciplined role models" responsible for a "great day in history." The people of Britain would "one day live under the sharia – so get used to it!" More than enough material for the assembled journalists, perhaps half a dozen in number, to get their story in the paper.

At the next event, a week or so later, this time highlighting "Muslim Youth - Spark of the Fire," those very news stories arising from the first meeting were brandished from the platform like evidence planted on a dupe: "See how they twist our words! This is not a war on terror, this is a war on Muslims!"

Choudary's expertise in all of this has come to the fore yet again with the excessive coverage given to the protest in Luton last week during the parade by British soldiers returned from Afghanistan. A small, though provocative, demonstration, which solicited an angry response from some of those who turned out to salute the infantrymen, garnered acres of coverage in the press and on TV. The Evening Standard, London's main local newspaper, even devoted three pages to an interview with Choudary, including the front-page splash "I want to see flag of Allah flying over Downing Street."

There will be plenty of winners from this. The papers, presumably, were happy with their stories. Choudary and his followers must be absolutely delighted: they can mine this one for weeks, if not months. And the far-right British National Party, the BNP, are exploiting it heavily as well: the story is all over the front-page of its Web site.

The main losers are the vast majority of people - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - who are getting a highly-skewed picture of what constitutes Muslim opinion in the UK. Because no matter how sincerely Choudary and his acolytes may hold their views, their support within Muslim communities is paltry.

Indeed, it's been suggested to me by people intimately involved in de-radicalization that Al-Muhajiroun is losing ground, its followers' heightened public presence over the last six months or so actually born out of frustration over lost momentum.

If that is indeed the case then it's surely time for the media to move on and stop over-inflating the importance of these particular proponents of division and separatism.

LONDON, England (CNN) - When Northern Ireland's police chief, Hugh Orde, warned a week ago of a heightened threat from dissident Republicans he did not mince his words.

"We are very clear," he said, "they are determined to kill police officers going about their normal duty of keeping people safe."
It now appears those fears have been confirmed.

The fatal shooting of a police officer in the town of Craigavon, not far from the capital, Belfast, comes just 48 hours after gunmen shot dead two British servicemen at a barracks in the province.

The Republican splinter group, the Real IRA, claimed responsibility for that attack. And no one in Northern Ireland will be surprised if they claim responsibility for this latest one as well.

Membership of the Real IRA, a rump of Republican activists who refused to go along with the main Provisional IRA, and its political partner Sinn Fein, after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that set Northern Ireland on the road to peace, is put in the low hundreds. But as so often with violent extremists, they have a power to shape events out of all proportion to their size. Or so at least they will wish to believe.

These targets are not randomly chosen. By targeting the police, and particularly the British army, they are hitting Republican weak spots. Sinn Fein, fully signed up to the peace process and a key partner in the power-sharing government, makes no bones about the fact it wants to see all British troops out of Northern Ireland. Like it or not, Gerry Adams finds himself in a difficult position being forced to condemn an attack on the British army. Calling on Republicans to grass on those who carried it out is another, even more problematic, step to take.

What the Real IRA wants to see happen is an over-reaction from Unionists and a move by the British government to put soldiers back on the streets. Political Republicans are highly sensitive to these possibilities. Hence the sharp criticism from Sinn Fein before these attacks to news that the intelligence arm of British special forces had been called into the province to meet the rising dissident threat.

The response to the attack over the weekend suggested the consensus that governs Northern Ireland - that all sides keep dancing together in the name of devolved government and the peace process - was holding. If that changes then the dissidents will hope their shocking show of strength can win new support.

What's worrying is where that support might come from. Paul Dixon of Kingston University points out the apparent anomaly that support for those political parties that have most readily embraced the peace process has tended to come not from the young - those, on the face of it, with the most to gain from peace - but from the older generations, those who've grown weary of decades of violence. The fear is that the readiness of many younger voters to support those parties who've taken a tougher line on the peace process might translate into a new generation ready to abandon peace altogether.

One Northern Ireland politician said after the latest killing that the province is "staring into the abyss." It's a frightening thought that the foundations of peace in Northern Ireland might really be so shallow.

But amid the pessimism, it's worth recalling that previous attacks in the province have sometimes succeeded in actually embedding the peace process further, through a shared revulsion to the violence from across the communities. The challenge to Northern Ireland's politicians, its police force, and the British government, is that they collectively hold their nerve and bring their people with them.

LONDON, England - Wednesday saw no dramatic developments in the investigation but instead witnessed a steady drip of reports and information about what happened and how.

Up to twenty people were arrested but none of the gunmen responsible for the attack were apparently among them. 

Many have commented on the apparent ease with which the gunmen melted away into the city after the attack, and suggested this points to them receiving assistance from rogue elements within the military or the intelligence structure. While there may or may not have been collaboration of this kind, it's a mistake to make this assumption on this piece of evidence alone.

It's easy, for instance, to forget that the men who tried to bomb London on July 21st, 2005 were also able to make good their escape and hide undetected for days. Some of those men, remember, were escaping, unarmed, from busy underground railway stations. It was six days before the Met police had the first would-be bomber under arrest, and detectives in London had all the benefits of the city's massive CCTV infrastructure at their disposal. Lahore, it seems safe to suggest, and notwithstanding the new video out Wednesday evening, is not quite so well endowed with surveillance cameras.

What's more interesting is the number of reports now suggesting that the gunmen were carrying far more arms and ammunition than would be needed to execute an ambush only. Add to that the multiple reports they were also carrying dried fruit, nuts and water bottles in their rucksacks, and it does seem to point towards the possibility they had intended taking the Sri Lankan cricket team hostage. This possible scenario, of course, provides further similarities with the Mumbai attack three months ago.

Perhaps predictably, there have been growing voices blaming India for Tuesday's attack. Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's military intelligence agency, has described it as "all too obviously the handiwork of Indian intelligence." Meanwhile, Pakistan's serving Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, has said he does not "rule out a foreign hand." Foreign hand is code for India, of course.

It's not surprising that Pakistan's government might wish to point the finger abroad. At home and around the world, it has been slammed over this security failure. Whether or not individual police officers did their duty on the day – and one can understand why suggestions they did not have hurt when six police were killed in the attack – it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that the ruling party's squabble with its political rivals might also have played a part in the failure. 

Last month saw the dismissal of the provincial government in Punjab – of which Lahore is the capital – run by the party of Nawaz Sharif, the main nationwide opposition figure to President Asif Ali Zardari. Along with the outgoing administration, the most senior figures in the province's police force were also removed from their jobs. Faced, then, with a major security challenge – policing an international cricket match – it seems some of the main men responsible were still getting their feet under their new desks.

LONDON, England - It's just hours since the attack in Lahore but on one thing most observers seem clear. The real target of the attack was not the Sri Lankan cricket team, but the Pakistani government. Terror operations like this are aimed at creating maximum international impact, and sport finds itself increasingly in the crosshairs of global terrorism. No sport is more popular in Pakistan than cricket.

A video grab shows a suspected gunman near Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore, Pakistan, Tuesday.

The only reason Sri Lanka were touring Pakistan at all was because the Indian team had pulled out of its planned tour, citing security reasons. After receiving assurances over the team's safety, Sri Lanka stepped in at the last minute. It will surely be the last team to visit the country for the foreseeable future.

That means a loss of prestige and income for Pakistani cricket, and further reinforcement overseas of the idea that Pakistan is not a safe place to visit or to do business. That's just the sort of outcome the attackers will have wanted, and just what the Pakistani government is so desperate to avoid.

The operation certainly appears to have been very well planned, if not, perhaps, entirely well executed, if reports about some of the attackers' weapons failing turn out to be correct.

It seems as though about a dozen gunmen were involved - a large number of people to coordinate in a single operation. The convoy carrying the cricketers was ambushed at a roundabout on its route from the team hotel to the stadium. It was not the opening day of the Test match, but day three - suggesting reconnaissance might have been carried out over the past two days about the route taken by the team bus.

The attackers carried an impressive arsenal of assault rifles, grenades and rocket launchers. "These people were highly trained and highly armed," said the province's governor. "The way they were holding their guns, the way they were taking aim and shooting at the police, it shows they were not ordinary people," he added.

While it appears that that some grenades failed and the rocket launcher failed to hit a target, all of the attackers appear to have escaped successfully after a gunfight with police and security lasting 15 minutes.

So who did it? It seems reasonably safe to rule out the Sri Lankan separatist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, in this attack. The Tamil Tigers have been engaged in a bloody civil war in the north of Sri Lanka for decades. But it's suffered a series of defeats in recent months at the hands of the Sri Lankan army, and most commentators believe the group just does not have the capability to mount such a complex, well-coordinated attack like this on foreign soil.

Instead, the focus surely falls on one, or perhaps several, of the jihadist-terrorist groups based on Pakistani soil. One such group is the Tehrik-e-Taleban, the Pakistani Taliban movement led by Baitullah Mehsud from the tribal areas in the west of Pakistan. It was blamed for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007. And it's been linked with the truck bomb attack on the Marriot hotel in September last year, which killed more than 50 people.

Some initial accounts lend possible support to this being the work of the same group. Lahore's police chief said the men who took part looked like Pashtuns, the ethnic group that hails from the tribal regions close to the Afghan border, the stronghold of al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But some commentators question this. Sajjan Gohel, of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, points out that the Pakistani Taliban, or groups allied to it, have never struck this far from their base in the tribal areas. Taliban-linked attacks also tend to be more rudimentary in nature, and not as sophisticated as Tuesday's ambush, Gohel says.

Certainly, it's striking that this operation was not a suicide bomb attack but one instead carried out by what appear to be highly trained gunmen. It's also perhaps worth noting that they were casually dressed in jeans and jackets. Both these point to similarities with last year's attack in Mumbai, when 10 gunmen laid siege to two hotels and other locations over a period of three days.

That operation has been widely blamed on another jihadist-terrorist organisation, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), a group with links to al Qaeda. Unlike the Taliban groups, LeT has its roots not in Afghanistan but in the conflict with India over the disputed region of Kashmir. Even though it would be unusual for LeT to stage an attack within Pakistan, there are good reasons why it may wish to do so now.

Under intense international pressure after the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani officials arrested a series of LeT leaders. Interior Minister Rehman Malik then made the unprecedented move of publicly acknowledging that the Mumbai operation had been in part staged from Pakistan.

Never before had Pakistan made such an admission over an attack in neighboring India, and there are some within Pakistan's military and security apparatus who will not have been pleased to hear it. Many security analysts say those are the people who believe destabilizing India is a strategic objective. They're also the people who in the past helped set up groups like LeT to fight in Kashmir.

Whoever carried out the attack, it certainly represents the most significant challenge to date from within Pakistan to the survival of the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari.

Two UK terror trials came to an end this week.

Al Qaeda operatives used invisible ink to write down key phone numbers. This pen was found by police during a house search

On Tuesday, a jury in London convicted Bilal Abdulla of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. Abdulla was one of two people who tried to detonate car bombs in London and then, on a suicide mission, drove a jeep filled with gas canisters into Glasgow airport. His partner, Kafeel Ahmed, died in the second attack.

The trial rightly received plenty of coverage. But the case itself failed to open up much, if anything, in the way of links to Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist organisation. It was, it appears, a stand-alone operation.

Far more interesting, I think, was the result from Manchester this afternoon. For the first time in the UK, a jury convicted a man, Rangzieb Ahmed,  of directing terrorism. Not only that, they also convicted him, and his co-defendant, Habib Ahmed, no relation, of belonging to Al Qaeda.

We talk a great deal about people or plots being AQ-linked or AQ-inspired. Well here's a case, according to Greater Manchester Police head of counterterrorism, Tony Porter, that's indisputably AQ-core.

In many ways, the Manchester case was the polar opposite of the London one. It didn't have any plot or planned attack per se, but it had links to all manner of interesting people and plots. 

Here's a few:

Phone links between Rangzieb Ahmed and Yassin Omar, one of the failed London bombers.

Habib Ahmed named as a fellow traveller by Mohammed Junaid Babar, the supergrass whose testimony helped convict the fertiliser bomb plotters in May 2007.

Phone links with Abdul Rahman, who pled guilty last year to recruiting people in the UK to go and fight coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Habib Ahmed married by Omar Bakri Mohammad, founder of Al Muhajiroun, the UK's highest profile organisation supporting bin Laden ideology.

Finally, there are the links with a man at one time credited with being bin Laden's number three, Hamza Rabia.

The investigation itself included bugged conversations in Dubai, a luggage intercept at Amsterdam Schipol, and phone numbers written in invisible ink.

For a taster of the story, click here.

With Barack Obama preparing to assume the Presidency, it's a good time to cast around for neat descriptions of a changed world.

Gilles Kepel, author of 'Beyond Terror and Martyrdom'

Gilles Kepel, a noted French scholar of Islam, has a succinct delineation of how things have changed in the seven years since 9/11, in a new book, Beyond Terror and Martyrdom.

Both of the grand narratives at work since the attacks on New York and Washington have run into the ground, he argues.

Those narratives were the Global War on Terror, the project of George W. Bush and the neocons, and the Global Jihad, as authored by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Both these narratives were intended to swing public opinion behind them – creating mass support within their respective constituencies for a highly aggressive, combative posture. Violence first; politics, maybe, later.

Both narratives, Kepel argues, foundered on the same issue: the occupation of Iraq. The United States succeeded in creating a new army of jihadists able to cripple all efforts at rebuilding the country, at least until the twin developments of the military surge and the Sunni Awakening, by which time the U.S. had long since lost the argument anyway.

And for Al Qaeda, the bloodshed unleashed by its leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was such that jihad became fitna. Put crudely, holy war became civil war. The horrendous violence between Sunni and Shi'a had a profoundly alienating effect across the Muslim world and support for bin Laden declined sharply.

The great irony resulting from this mutual ideological knockout is the rise of a foe shared equally by AQ and the US: Iran.

Kepel's not the first to put forward this line of argument but it is, among other things, a very tidy encapsulation of the law of unintended consequences. Otherwise known as the cock-up theory of history.

A court in London has been hearing evidence from Mohammed Asha, one of two doctors accused of conspiring to detonate car bombs in London and Glasgow in June 2007.

Taking the stand for a second day, Jordanian-born Asha described his relationship with his co-accused, Bilal Abdulla.

Asha said he and Abdulla were two entirely different characters. Asha described himself as serious and obsessed with his career in neurology. Abdulla, he said was not like that. Indeed, Abdulla regularly criticized him, he said, for being too materialistic and insufficiently concerned with the suffering of fellow-Muslims.

Asha told the jury how he had pleaded with Abdulla not to return to his native Iraq in the middle of 2006 after Abdulla had failed an important medical exam in Britain. "I made him swear on the Quran not to do anything foolish," he told Woolwich Crown Court.

Asha said Abdulla had become increasingly emotional and angry about the situation in his home country and he feared his friend was going back there to fight with the insurgency. "I will come back to Britain if you get me a job," Asha described Abdulla as telling him.

The court heard how in Abdulla's absence Asha succeeded in getting him an interview for a position at a Scottish hospital. Abdulla then returned to Britain almost immediately and, after being prepped by Asha, successfully landed the job.

Asha's lawyer, Stephen Kamlish QC, then proceeded to ask Asha about a series of phone conversations and meetings he had had with Abdulla in the months leading up to the attacks. The prosecution asserts these communications played an integral part in the alleged conspiracy.

Asha told the court he had handed over a mobile phone to Abdulla, at a meeting in Preston in February, because he had more than he needed. He described how he had bought four phones from a shop in Birmingham that offered cashback and free international calls so long as multiple phone contracts were purchased. Addressing the jury directly he asked: "Why would I give a mobile phone in my name to a person I know is about to commit a crime?"

The prosecution has argued that Abdulla and another man, Kafeel Ahmed, an engineer from India, drove down from Scotland to London in two Mercedes cars and tried to detonate them in the city's West End entertainment district. The jury was told the bombs' mobile phone detonators had failed to go off properly. The next day, the prosecution has said, the pair drove a third car into Glasgow airport and tried to blow it up in the terminal building but it too failed to explode. Ahmed later died of injuries sustained in the incident.

Asha and Abdulla both deny charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. The trial continues.

 LONDON, England – One day after Lord West's ominous warning of one  'great plot' being monitored by UK security forces, there was a reminder today  of the terror threat at the other end of the scale.

 Nicky Reilly, a 22 year-old convert to Islam, admitted launching a failed  suicide bomb attack on a busy family restaurant.

 The attack was carried out not in London, or in any other of the UK's major  cities, but in Exeter, a town of just over 100,000 people in the southwest of  England.

 Reilly had never travelled to Pakistan, for instance, to receive training; his  research was carried out on the Internet. Nor does it appear that he was part of  any cell – though more on that later.

The Old Bailey heard that Nicky Reilly entered the Giraffe restaurant in Exeter on a Thursday in late May carrying six bottle bombs, three containing caustic soda, three containing kerosene. He was also carrying nails packed around the devices to maximize the planned carnage.

CCTV footage shows plenty of people inside the restaurant as Reilly walked in, including a table of two women, one of whom is seen spoon-feeding her baby in a highchair.

Reilly made his way to the toilet cubicle to prepare his devices – which began to explode as he was doing so. He staggered out of the cubicle bearing serious facial injuries and was arrested by police.

Nicky Reilly was a convert to Islam who took the name Mohammad Abdulaziz Rashid Saeed-Alim The court heard he became a Muslim in his mid-teens and that over time he became drawn to violent action and the idea of himself becoming a martyr.

It's well-established that converts are of particular interest to intelligence agencies. Security officials tracking the terror threat say one in ten of those they are concerned with were not born into Muslim families. In Reilly's case, though, it's only part of the story.

That's because, in the words of his defence team, he has "rather simple characteristics." When he was interviewed by police he was treated as a "vulnerable adult." According to his mother he has a mental age of about ten and suffers from Asperger's syndrome.

She believes he had been "brainwashed" into carrying out his attack. Police statements appear to back that up. They say he was "preyed upon, radicalized, and taken advantage of" by extremists in his home town of Plymouth.

Perhaps more worryingly he was also in frequent contact with two individuals over the Internet from whom he received encouragement and information about the attack.

One of the conversations included a discussion about the type of person to be targeted: public servants like the police, or ordinary citizens. In the end, the decision was to target the latter.

Police say they are still trying to trace Reilly's Internet correspondents. It's believed they do not live in Britain.

Reilly will be sentenced next month when the judge will have to weigh the significance of psychological and psychiatric reports promised by the defence. In doing so he will have to decide to what extent violent extremists are now deliberately targeting some of society's most vulnerable individuals to carry out acts of terrorism.

LONDON, England - Paula Newton writes below on the British Government shelving plans to extend pre-charge detention limits for terrorism suspects from 28 to 42 days.

UK Security Minister Alan West.

As a follow-up, it's worth noting comments today from the the country's security minister, Alan West, about the nature of the threat facing Britain.

Now, West has "misspoken" in the past. He had to be rapped on the knuckles last year after he appeared to express a certain ambivalence towards the very counterterrorism legislation he was about to pilot through the House of Lords. (Something he clearly failed to do with the loss of the vote in the upper chamber yesterday.) But his latest comments are stark and give pause for thought.

"The threat is huge," he said.

Yes, we've heard that sort of thing before. But it's the next bit, albeit awkwardly worded, that's more interesting.

"The threat dipped slightly and is now rising again with the context of severe, large complex plots, because we unraveled one the damage it caused to Al Qaeda actually faded slightly.

"They are now building up again. There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this."

It's the last bit that grabs my attention. Rather than the numbers game that MI5 has played in recent years, we have a reference, it seems, to one, great, specific plot.

The analysis about the ebb and flow of the threat is interesting as well and it tallies with something I heard from a senior figure in the UK counterterrorism firmament earlier this year.

His analysis at that time (May) was that there had been a pause in centrally directed Al Qaeda operations in the UK. There was still a huge amount of activity being monitored by police and the intelligence agencies, he said, but no big plots.

His assessment was that Al Qaeda had taken a bit of a beating in the UK with more than sixty terrorism convictions. He characterized it thus: "Somewhere someone [in Al Qaeda] has been saying, ‘we've taken losses in the UK, what do we do now?'"

That was then, this is now. And things really do appear to have changed.

Lord West's comments follow hot on the heels of a security briefing from a "senior Whitehall source" that the current threat level is almost as high as it was immediately after 7/7. It's not critical yet (the highest level), according to the "source," but it is at "the severe end of severe."

A significant terror trial opened in Manchester this week. Significant because it is the first time anyone in Britain has been brought to trial accused of directing terrorism.

Rangzieb Ahmed (above, left) is the man charged with the offence. He also faces a charge of belonging to Al Qaeda, as does another of his co-accused, Habib Ahmed (above, right).

The court has heard how the two men – who are not related – met up in December 2005 in Dubai, where Rangzieb Ahmed handed over what prosecutors described as a "contacts book for terrorists."

Written in invisible ink in an ordinary diary, the court heard, was a series of phone numbers, including one for Hamza Rabia, described in court as the then number three in Al Qaeda.

The contacts book was uncovered in Habib Ahmed's luggage at Amsterdam's Schipol airport. Agents searched through his bags during a layover on his journey back from Dubai to Manchester.

Neither of the two men has been accused of any particular plot. However it's alleged the Dubai meeting was called after Rangzieb Ahmed was forced to abort some sort of mission.

The court heard he was part of an active three-person cell involved in what was described as "major activity." He had been due to fly on to South Africa when his alleged Al Qaeda commander in Pakistan, Hamza Rabia, was killed and the mission was called off.

Also on trial is Mehreen Haji, the wife of Habib Ahmed. She's charged with funding terrorism by transferring money to her husband while he was on a trip to Pakistan, where he was allegedly attending a training camp.

The jury was told the married couple had connections to radical Islamism and the now-banned group Al Muhajiroun. The group's leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed, officiated at their wedding in June 2001.

All three deny all the charges against them. The trial is expected to last about twelve weeks.