from the world's favourite broadcaster.
"A man has been jailed for nine years for providing weapons and funds to a terrorist group."
"Mohammed Ajmal Khan, 31, from Coventry, admitted his involvement at an earlier hearing."
Naughty, bad boy.
"He supported Lashkar-e-Toiba - now Jammat-ud-dawa - a militant group fighting against India in Kashmir."
This Lashkar thingy is "a militant group fighting against India in Kashmir"? Sounds serious. What sort of "militant group" is it, and "why are they fighting against India in Kashmir"?
'"Mr Justice Fulford, sitting at the London court, said Khan was a "person of authority" in the group - which is banned in the UK - who could call on millions of pounds raised by UK supporters."'
What is this group and why is it group banned? Crikey, if it can "call on millions of pounds" from its "UK supporters", it will be able to buy a lot of guns and bombs and stuff. And this sort of thing is happening in the UK?
Okay, okay. Enough of this. Lashkar-e-Toiba is a well-known Islamist terrorist/militant group that is fighting Indian rule in Kashmir. Kashmir, like Palestine, troubles the Ummah greatly and is high on the list of official Islamic grievances; the region is also a popular 'holiday resort' for many jihadi warriors.
If this group can bank on millions from its UK supporters, money which will then be used to kill Indians in Kashmir, then I would humbly suggest that the BBC might have mentioned this in this article? It does not: it gives no indication of who the group is, what it represents or what its aims are.
Is this simply an oversight on the BBC's part or another example of the corporation omitting key information lest we pass judgments on the people (Muslims) behind the story?