We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
TWO MEN HAVE been sentenced to eight and three years in an English prison after being found guilty of sending money to Brussels and Paris terror attacks suspect Mohamed Abrini.
Mohammed Ali Ahmed and Zakaria Boufassil gave £3,000 (€3,550), mostly comprised of housing benefit, to Abrini when he visited Britain last year.
Ahmed withdrew over £3,000 – mostly taken from housing benefit payments – from a bank account set up by a third man who is now believed to be fighting for Isis in Syria. Ahmed and Boufassil then gave the money to Abrini.
Abrini had travelled to the UK to meet the men and collect the money. Ahmed assumed the money would reach the third man now believed to be fighting for Isis.
Abrini would become known as the “man in the hat” after his image was caught on security cameras before the Brussels attacks in March, which left 32 people dead.
He is in custody in Belgium, but is also suspected of providing support for the Paris attacks in November 2015, in which 130 people died.
Sue Hemming, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said:
“These men have been jailed today because they handed over money with the intention that it would support international terrorism.
It is clear that you do not need to leave the country to be prosecuted for preparing terrorist acts or assisting others to do so. Offences can be committed in your bank, your place of work, even in your own home.
“If you prepare or help others to prepare acts of terrorism then you can be prosecuted and, as this and other recent cases have demonstrated, in all likelihood jailed.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“Say what you like about Donald Trump, he knows how to get attention”
So does any average 3 year old child, so proud to be alive in the times where the ability to not allow yourself to be ignored is considered a positive, admirable, to be inspired trait…
Elections are all about getting your name out there. You want to be the first name which comes to mind when people go to the ballot boxes and being as public as possible is how you do this. That being said Trump seems to have subscribed to the ‘all publicity is good publicity’ model which could backfire.
It’s great being the first name on people’s minds but you don’t want that to be for the wrong reasons either. He’s absolutely talented at keeping his name in the public eye but the reasons why will be his undoing in the campaign.
He expanded on the money he inherited from his father (people forget that uncomfortable fact when calling him a business ‘genius’ that and his corporations keep going bankrupt…) by using the business model of “make noise in the media / get attention / get name out there – sell name as a brand”.
He thinks you can win a Presidential that way – you can’t. You need to be trusted as the guy who, if woken up at 3am by the NMCC and told STRATCOM has detected 20 Russian ICBM’s incoming, can deal with that situation without destroying the planet and he comes off as someone who would fire all the US’s missiles without even considering if the attack was real. He might win the GOP nomination because, as with the dems voting for Bernie they are looking for a non-traditional politician, but this guy wont’ convince independent voters when it comes down to it – not a hope, Sanders or Hillary would crush him in a 60% 48 state landslide.
Trump is dangerous looney.
…and Clinton is a witch!
On Steroids at that.
Trump may be a dangerous looney, but can you blame the American people for wanting to look outside the politicocracy? The last guy was hailed as the second coming of Cicero and won a Nobel Peace Prize. How did that go?
A lot better than the previous 8 years and Trump like anyone else who stands for election is a politician.
Hillary Clinton expresses alarm for Israeli Jews, and not one word about Palestinian victims
The world is in far worse condition today after nearly eight years of Obama than it was under Bush.
The Hildebeast makes the fictional Claire Underwood seem like Snow White in comparison!
Ben, Trump is not the answer. However I do agree a Clinton v Bush is just another political/lobbing self interest grouping and establishment election prospect.
@Ben he might be from outside politics but he has the same policies as the establishment where it matters, he might be surprisingly liberal on things like healthcare (he’s in favor of free healthcare) and that might give him some crossover appeal, but that appeal is destroyed when you look at where he is on banking (against reform), immigration (Attached to a totally unrealistic plan that would cost 3trillion to implement and turn the US into a police state), foreign affairs (where he’d be a weird mix of totally unengaged and President Cheney, depending)
@Right, I don’t like many of Obamas decisions but he is mostly dealing with cleaning up Bush’s mess in foreign policy, ISIS would not have existed if not for the Iraq war.
@Ryan – seriously, what are you on about? The Obama admin created ISIS and their ilk. Where have you been for the last 5 years? What do you think the whole Clinton Benghazi affair was about? Isis have nothing to do with bush. It was Hussein Obama who withdrew all is forces from the area.
Should read ‘withdrew US Forces’.
ISIS have been around far longer than Obama mate. In fact, ISIS aren’t ‘against the west’, they are Islamic Fundamentalists who want to instil their version of Islam on other Muslims. It’s been in operation since the 1990s. The U.S. didn’t create this, it may if fuelled it by bombing the Middle East.
Try reading up on a bit of local history before you make stupid statements as if they were facts.
Thought Clinton was very poor. Evaded a lot of questions and refused to take any definitive stances. Scored a lot of cheap points by laying into the Republicans and doing “I’m a woman” stuff. Sanders on the other hand was clear and concise. The only reason he struggled on gun control was because he was being realistic whilst Clinton laid into him without saying what she was actually going to do herself. At one point Sanders began his rebuttal of a Clinton attack by saying “No, that’s wrong”, whilst Clinton forced a smile. She looked very uncomfortable for large parts of the debate.
Of the smaller fry, O’Malley definitely came out on top. He landed some heavy hits on Clinton which she didn’t deal with very well. His strategy seems to be hanging in for as long as possible in the hopes that either Sanders or Clinton will mess up and he can steal their votes. Webb was very right wing, and although he provided a few laughs when complaining about his lack of time it seemed like he’d be a better fit in the Republican camp. Chafee was hopeless and it was fairly clear by the end that even he knew it was a lost cause.
Sanders seeming to be hesitant on gun control – it must be remember he was a Senator for Vermont, a mostly quiet rural state where people owned shotguns for hunting and shooting vermin or pests on their farms, so many of his arguments where for reform that could protect those people, he was no from a big urban state so he was fighting his own patch.
I watched the debate (didn’t follow Trump’s tweets because he’s s bigoted fundamentalist blow-hard). All the media are saying Clinton “won”, telephone polls say Sanders… I think it’s between Clinton and O’Malley now for the Dem candidacy. In my opinion, he did really well and seemed genuine. His obvious hatred of the NRA helped.
The Democrat candidacy is unfortunately a one-horse race. The Democrats are obviously gearing up to put Clinton forward even though Sanders, going by the debate, would probably be the better choice at this point. Clinton seems to be acting like someone who’s 100% convinced she’s won the election already.
Clinton would basically ensure 4 more years of the same.
“Clinton is currently polling at about 42% nationally among Democratic voters, while Sanders is at 25%.”
…Four years of bad luck….
Sanders has a good change of winning Iowa and New Hampshire. If he wins those, then he’s got huge momentum. Remeber, Obama was way behind Hillary until he won Iowa.
You can see now why Hillary only wanted a couple of debates. She lost it last time due to her preformences and due to be upstaged by Obama. Sanders is the real deal he has his views and won’t change them due to polls. He will not be president though. If he gets the nomination it will push a lot of centre dems and undecided to the right.
He’s a social democrat in essentially a very christian right wing conservative countty
Would love to see a Sanders Vs Trump campaign and debate.
#feelthebern
Sadly for America and the rest of the world there appears to be nobody good enough to lead. The only hope is that someone emerges from the shadows but it does not look like it.
I thought sanders was an independent?
He is. By all accounts he still isn’t a member of the Democratic party. But apparently you don’t have to be in order to get the Democratic nomination.
Apparently you don’t need to be a member of the House of Representatives to be elected Speaker either.
He was an independent who cacus’ed with the democrats. In most US states (their federal elections, oddly, are regulated at a state level which is how 2000 happened) if you are an independent you can vote (and run) in one primary or the other, just not both.
Trump is BASICALLY an independent too, he’s donated to and supported both sides at diff times, just like all plutocrats in the US he hedges his bets so he owns both sides no matter who wins!
have your say