EXCLUSIVE: London Mayor Sadiq Khan shared a platform with Borough Market attacker's 'close friend

a reply to: UKTruth

Yes he was voted in based on emotions. My question is if these ties were known back at the time, and if only a fracture of these allegations is true, how the hell did he even get that far, be able to voted for?

How the hell a suspected terrorist can work for the Underground access to tunnels to BP? One of the Saturday attackers.

a reply to: szino9

Maybe is Russia fault, after all Russia is right now the fall guy to take the fault for everything that goes wrong this days.

I been sarcastic.

Actually is political propaganda lace with tagging and name calling if you don't vote for somebody because their religious believes and different background upbringing.

This how those trying to destroy nations are going to have a chance of doing so if we let them.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Daily Mail !!!!!!

The newspaper that supported Adolf Hitler and Oswald Mosley's British Union Of Fascist's .

No a Rag i take seriously.

Ridiculous how you guys whine and bitch about fake news yet you read Daily Fail,the worst fake news tabloid trash on the face of this earth.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError


Well does Khan have or not have these connections to figures that are either terrorists or are themselves closely connected to terrorist organisations?

The answer is yes, yes he does.

An investigation by Mi5 is in order I think. Treason is a very serious crime.

a reply to: UKTruth

Didn't Sadiq go bugged back in 2008 by the the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch, because he was having visits in prison with Babar Ahmad.?

I read that somewhere.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Daily Mail !!!!!!

The newspaper that supported Adolf Hitler and Oswald Mosley's British Union Of Fascist's .

No a Rag i take seriously.

Some of the stories include video footage of Khan saying the the things he is accused of. He has not even denied some of the other connections. The stories were not just in the Mail, they were in most every media outlet.

This was written by MAAJID NAWAZ, a man who has known Khan since 2002. In fact this man was an Islamic extremist back then and Khan was his lawyer. He says clearly that Khan is not a Muslim extremist, however he talks about his poor judgement and use of extremists to garner votes. Khan cares about votes, not people, and he will pander to terrorists to get those votes, which should worry us all when considering the threat of more terrorist attacks.

The seeds were sown with Khan’s now-former in-laws. During London’s ’90s Islamist heyday, Khan’s brother-in-law Makbool Javaid was affiliated and listed as a spokesman to the now-banned terrorist group al-Muhajiroun, founded by the hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad, and then led by the infamous fanatic Anjem Choudary. I knew of Makbool back then, too. His brothers were colleagues of mine, affiliated to my former extremist organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Through such connections Khan ingratiated himself in the London Islamist scene. In 2003, he appeared at a conference alongside Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of that same banned al-Muhajiroun. Sajeel ran a camp in Pakistan that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan. Speaking there, too, was one Yasser al-Siri, who had been convicted in Egypt over a political assassination attempt that left a young girl dead.

In 2004, Khan gave evidence to the House of Commons in his capacity as the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee. This is the same Muslim Council of Britain that chose to condole the recent Ahmedi murder victim in Glasgow, by declaring Ahmedis not Muslim. In his MCB capacity, Khan argued in Parliament that the Muslim Brotherhood cleric Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi “is not the extremist that he is painted as being.” This is Qaradawi who, among other things, authored a book called The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, in which he justifies wife beating and discusses whether homosexuals should be killed. Infamously, Qaradawi also issued a fatwa advocating suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, a view which has seen him join the likes of Omar Bakri Muhammad in being denied entry to the U.K.

Khan’s relationships with extremists ran so deep in fact, that he attended events for the jihadist rights group Cage, and wrote a foreword for one of their reports. Cage has since declared ISIS executioner ‘Jihadi-John’ to be a beautiful man live on the BBC. Khan’s defence of such a prolific flirtation with Islamism is that he was a human-rights lawyer.

However, most of these events were not attended in his capacity as a lawyer at all. One suspects he was simply trying to gain votes. By 2010, with increasing grassroots popularity among highly organized Islamists and fundamentalists, but carrying the burden of the Labour Party’s War on Terror record, Khan’s bid to get re-elected in his home-base of South London’s Tooting was facing challenges from another Muslim. For unlike the Labour Party, this Muslim’s party had opposed the invasion of Iraq. Khan’s rival was Liberal Democrat Nasser Butt. Liberal Democrat opposition to the Iraq war posed a serious challenge to Khan and his Muslim power base in Tooting. British South Asian Muslims—myself included—overwhelmingly opposed that war. “Luckily” for Khan, Nasser happened to be an Ahmadi Muslim. Yes, this is as relevant as Sadiq Khan being a Sunni Muslim. In other words not at all, in a perfect world. Alas, Khan’s world was far from perfect. Ahmedis are perhaps the most persecuted minority sects among Sunni Muslims. Khan knew this, and yet this fact didn’t stop his campaign working closely with Tooting Mosque to stir up anti-Ahmedi sectarian hatred in order to secure the Sunni vote for his victory.

For many of my fellow Sunni Muslims Nasser Butt being an Ahmedi was a doctrinal “offence” for which he was personally responsible, while Khan was too junior of an MP at that time to have much to do with the invasion of Iraq. By now, Khan’s religious writing was clearly on the mosque wall. Again, Khan is no Muslim extremist. Indeed, this cannot be repeated enough. Nor can the fact that Khan clearly has a record of terribly poor judgement in surrounding himself with Islamists and Muslim extremists, and in using them for votes.

It sounds like you have just jumped on a Daily Mail article and used it to convince yourself that poor Sadiq is being persecuted by racists - the same mistake Londoners made.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: UKTruth

Didn't Sadiq go bugged back in 2008 by the the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch, because he was having visits in prison with Babar Ahmad.?

I read that somewhere.

Ah yes, Babar Ahmad, a man who went to fight a jihad in Bosnia - who then became a hero to the left because the police beat him up. He ended up being given £60k of tax payers money to compensate him for his troubles. Yes, Khan was one of his sympathisers too and did visit him in jail.

Even by Mail standards this is a complete non story

'Man goes to same gym as someone who once knew a terorist, lets run an election hit piece on him'. Woouldn't be suprised if they follow up with Khan uses twitter/the internet and ISIS also use twitter/the internet, therefore he is ISIS and so is everyone else apart from Theresa May who refused to have the terrorists monitored under TPIM after they returned from ISIS traning and declared support for ISIS.

originally posted by: bastion
Even by Mail standards this is a complete non story

'Man goes to same gym as someone who once knew a terorist, lets run an election hit piece on him'. Woouldn't be suprised if they follow up with Khan uses twitter/the internet and ISIS also use twitter/the internet, therefore he is ISIS and so is everyone else apart from Theresa May who refused to have the terrorists monitored under TPIM after they returned from ISIS traning and declared support for ISIS.

There are plenty of verified accounts of Khan mixing with extremists. No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to erase history.

a reply to: UKTruth

I guess that was a good PR for him in his political career.

He can not stay away from the "mistreated" and "at religious disadvantage" now, right?

a reply to: UKTruth

No surprise here. The Tory Supporting Daily Mail trying to do a hatchet job on a Labour Mayor during the General Election Campaign.

All this is just a re-run from last year when Tory Zac Goldsmith accused Khan of the same misdemeanours.

Here is an article for balance from last years Economist.

www.economist.com...

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: UKTruth

I guess that was a good PR for him in his political career.

He can not stay away from the "mistreated" and "at religious disadvantage" now, right?

He seems to basically be someone who will do anything for a vote, including sucking up to radical extremists and hate preachers. That makes London less secure under his watch.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: UKTruth

No surprise here. The Tory Supporting Daily Mail trying to do a hatchet job on a Labour Mayor during the General Election Campaign.

All this is just a re-run from last year when Tory Zac Goldsmith accused Khan of the same misdemeanours.

Here is an article for balance from last years Economist.

www.economist.com...

I don't care about the daily mail - it's a rag.
Like I said there are plenty of sources which confirm the stories about Khan.
I've given you one from an ex extremist who was represented by Khan and has known him since 2002.
Even your 'balanced' article does not deny these links are real, it just tries to excuse them on the basis of Khan's role as a civil liberties lawyer - something that is addressed by MAAJID NAWAZ.

The cozy relationship Khan has had with extremists in undeniable.

Like I have said in my thread about Khan. He should never have been elected and should resign! Now you understand why he previously avoided referring to the attackers has Islamists until after London Bridge!

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: bastion
Even by Mail standards this is a complete non story

'Man goes to same gym as someone who once knew a terorist, lets run an election hit piece on him'. Woouldn't be suprised if they follow up with Khan uses twitter/the internet and ISIS also use twitter/the internet, therefore he is ISIS and so is everyone else apart from Theresa May who refused to have the terrorists monitored under TPIM after they returned from ISIS traning and declared support for ISIS.

There are plenty of verified accounts of Khan mixing with extremists. No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to erase history.

I'm no fan of Khan but the smear dossier was written by Tory London Mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith, most of the alleged platforms were counter protests against radical islam and work in anti-terror when protesting the now banned group Islam4UK, with.

A couple are true such as his extended brothers link to a group 20 years ago and I find some of his comments that some hate preachers are 'just getting a bit carried away when speaking' but even the Tory loverag The Spectator is defending Khan and attacking May and Goldsmith's dodgy dossier where the claims are fact checked with reality that Goldmsith actually invited many of the extremists mentioned in the smear campaign to talks with government and to help his campaign.

reply to: alldaylong

Dang beat me to it, the current one was drawn up by May's mandarins but heavilly copies the flase allegations of - though they've now dropped the campaign after Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. launched a load of lies on twitter about Khan following the London terror attacks and is getting a bollocking from the Tories at the moment for trying to interfere with the UK election and may well be banned from the UK as a result.

The Trump claims in his smear cmapaign are comedy gold, he claims that after the attacks huge crowds gathered in London chanting 'Trump, Trump. Trump' and had a street party in his honour and started attacking Khannafter he was ridiculed for saying London was a no-go zone run by Sharia Law back in 2015. Hopefully he'll finaly get banned so we won't have to foot the bill for detaining him under the mental health act if he visits.

www.snopes.com...

terrorism-a3558721.html

London has a confirmed terror Mayor, when are the Brits going to rise up and stop the madness?

Oh, and people made fun of Trump for opposing this certified enemy of the free world, Trump was right, so much winning.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: bastion
Even by Mail standards this is a complete non story

'Man goes to same gym as someone who once knew a terorist, lets run an election hit piece on him'. Woouldn't be suprised if they follow up with Khan uses twitter/the internet and ISIS also use twitter/the internet, therefore he is ISIS and so is everyone else apart from Theresa May who refused to have the terrorists monitored under TPIM after they returned from ISIS traning and declared support for ISIS.

There are plenty of verified accounts of Khan mixing with extremists. No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to erase history.

I'm no fan of Khan but the smear dossier was written by Tory London Mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith, most of the alleged platforms were counter protests against radical islam and work in anti-terror when protesting the now banned group Islam4UK, with.

A couple are true such as his extended brothers link to a group 20 years ago and I find some of his comments that some hate preachers are 'just getting a bit carried away when speaking' but even the Tory loverag The Spectator is defending Khan and attacking May and Goldsmith's dodgy dossier where the claims are fact checked with reality that Goldmsith actually invited many of the extremists mentioned in the smear campaign to talks with government and to help his campaign.

Goldsmith used information and jumped to conclusions - he ran a poor campaign.
You are wrong though when you say most of the associations Khan had related to platforms against radical islam. Quite the opposite. Khan played both sides. He is interested in votes and will consort with radicals if it wins him an election. he's dangerous to the safety of London, and the rest of the UK, for that reason

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
London has a confirmed terror Mayor, when are the Brits going to rise up and stop the madness?

Oh, and people made fun of Trump for opposing this certified enemy of the free world, Trump was right, so much winning.

No Trump lied, here's the video proving trump lied, Khan spent his entire speech condemning the attack, announcing more police and measures, We are all shocked and angry today - but this is our city. We will never let these cowards win and we will never be cowed by terrorism. - www.independent.co.uk... a7773766.html

When Trump was shown the video he continued lying and claimed all the videos of the conference and condemnations were all faked by every single media organistion in Europe - even the US embassy, ambassaor and capitol hill have issues official statements appologising for Trumps lies and have praised Khan's speech and track record in tackling extremism.

her'es one of the UK government attacking Trump for his lies. www.independent.co.uk...

“I have been very clear that what Donald Trump has said about the Mayor of London is wrong," Ms May told Sky News. - Theresa MP

He didn't win, he lied, he got caught and he continues to lie, he's a laughing stock as everyone knows he's only doing it because he's still triggered that Khan and 1.6m Brits asked if it was wise to grant Trump a state visit when many of his policies are illegal in the UK and Europe.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Daily Mail !!!!!!

The newspaper that supported Adolf Hitler and Oswald Mosley's British Union Of Fascist's .

No a Rag i take seriously.

Something that might have happened over 50 years ago, under a different owner... Then according to you we should isolate completely Germany, after all most Germans were going along with Hitler... Heck, we should isolate everyone. The Japanese attacked the U.S. while claiming they wanted a treaty and we were working on one. The Italian government sided with the likes of Hitler through Mussolini... The Austrian/Hungarians also allied themselves with the Axis of power, eg Germany, alongside Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire...

Not to mention... We had the left in the U.S. back then side with the Germans as well... Have you heard of "The German American Bund" formed in July 1933?

Americans For Hitler – the Bund

Of course, the liberals in general back then sided with HItler, and sympathized with the nazis macabre eugenics programs.

So, there you have it...