Gary Monro’s blog

The super soaraway Sun’s headline a few days ago - ‘Tell Tony he’s right’ - was accompanied by an horrific picture of bloodied London bomb victim, John Tulloch. Quite clearly, The Sun and Mr Tulloch knew what they wanted and they wanted ‘terror suspects’ to be subject to up to 90 days’ detention if the police could convince a judge the suspect was up to no good. And they wanted Mr Blair to know they wanted this too.

Except, it isn’t quite like that. It transpires that Mr Tulloch isn’t quite the victim that the government - and The Sun - might have hoped for. In fact, he’s nothing like what they might have hoped for.

From The Guardian:

The bloodied victim, John Tulloch, feels deep anger with Tony Blair and politicians for the role they played in stirring up the violence that came to London on July 7.

His views on The Sun aren’t flattering:

“This is using my image to push through draconian and utterly unnecessary terrorism legislation. Its incredibly ironic that the Sun’s rhetoric is as the voice of the people yet they don’t actually ask the people involved, the victims, what they think. If you want to use my image, the words coming out of my mouth would be, ‘Not in my name, Tony’. I haven’t read anything or seen anything in the past few months to convince me these laws are necessary.

I am totally offended by what the Sun has done. Rather than just depriving me of a voice, they have given me somebody else’s voice. Blair’s voice.”

Of course, The Sun has gone a step further and described anyone who doesn’t agree with 90-day internment as being a ‘traitor’. The Sun evidently does not even know what the word ‘traitor’ means. Yet isn’t voting for legislation that is arbitrary, would have done nothing to prevent the 7th July bombings, is unsupported by any concrete evidence that it’s even needed and, importantly, flies in the face of the traditional British liberty to be free from imprisonment unless actually convicted of something bordering on the treasonous? If the authorities arrest somebody and, 14 days later, still haven’t got enough of a case to even charge him (charge, remember - not convict), shouldn’t they perhaps have done a little more ground work before nicking him?

As the police chiefs run around doing Blair’s bidding (prior, as it happens, to a reorganisation of police forces that will see the unchosen ones lose their jobs - where ‘unchosen’ might just mean those who haven’t toed the party line) yet another London bombing victim refuses to play the game. Rachel North (a pseudonym) was on an underground carriage on 7th July when it blew up:

I am not surprised that terrorists seek to do what they can to attack my democratic society, to threaten my liberties, to spread fear, to seek to divide us.

I do not expect my democratically-elected government to do the same. I cannot, and do not speak for all the victims, and nor can, and nor should Tony Blair and Charles Clarke.

I do not see why this ill-thought out macho posturing, which can only destabilise and divide us, by robbing men and women of the ancient and fundemental right of habeas corpus, and making sections of the community afraid, is going to defeat terror.

And I will not meekly accept claims that this is to be done in my name. This is panicking, this is fearful, this is not helpful. I expect better than this, and I deserve better than this. We all do.

I remain disgusted that you should use ordinary people - because that is all we are - bombed people - bloodied people - in this way. Who gave you the right to speak for me, Mr Blair, Mr Clarke? When did I give my blessing to fear-mongering?

I’m not of the opinion that because these people were direct victims of the bombings that their views are somehow more pertinent than anybody else’s - yours, mine or the government’s. They aren’t. But their support for draconian detention laws was taken for granted and it’s good to see them speak out. I look forward to a long Sun article describing accurately and fairly the views of those who do not support the 90 day rule.

CCTV evidence suggests three of the July 7 bombers carried out a practise run 9 days before the bombings.

And relatives of those who died will receive £10,000 compensation.

Will this include relatives of the bombers? More to the point, which public figure would you bet yor last 10 quid on as being stupid enough to even suggest such a thing?

One of the problems with the story of the London bombing was that the apparent suicide bombers were so unlike previous suicide bombers.

In particular, there was no message left by any of them explaining why they did what they did. Now, al-Jazeera has broadcast a video of the oldest of the bombers, 30 year-old Mohammad Sidique Khan, doing just that. The statement Khan makes in his short video places the blame for his actions on the shoulders of Tony Blair and his Iraq escapades.

Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people and your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.

Until we feel security, you will be our target. Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight.

The possibilty, for some time now, is that all four were duped into blowing themselves up. A theory says they were carrying the bombs to where they were to detonate by timer rather than set them off themselves. This theory has two drawbacks. First, police have found no evidence of timing devices at any of the scenes of the explosions. And now this part of Khan’s statement also casts doubts on the unwitting suicide bomber idea:

I’m sure by now the media has painted a suitable picture of me, this predictable propaganda machine will naturally try to put a spin on it to suit the Government and to scare the masses into conforming to their power and wealth obsessed agendas.

These sound like the words of a man who doesn’t expect to be around to actually know whether the media painted a suitable picture or not. Khan, at least, seems to have expected to die.

Seems the No. 30 bus bomber called his accomplices shortly before his bomb exploded. But they were already dead.

He did not try to contact anyone else, which suggests there was no “mastermind” or that he did not want to implicate them, said Daniel Sandford.

The most likely explanation was that he had tried to board the Northern Line, but it was closed, so when things started to go wrong he tried to phone his co-conspirators, he added.

Terrorism expert Michael Clarke, of King’s College, said the calls showed Hussain was in a panic and probably rang his accomplices to make sure their bombs had exploded.

The bomb attacks killed 52 people and injured over 700. Three of the four July 21 bombers are in UK custody with the fourth awaiting extradition from Italy. Another 11 people have also been arrested.

A leaked police investigation report into the killing of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes is taking curious twists and seems to be coughing up more questions than answers.

It’s already been noted that the initial witness statements suggesting Mr Menezes vaulted the ticket barrier to get into the station may have been incorrect and that the witness actually saw a pursuing police officer vaulting the barriers.

Witness statements and photographs from an independent police investigation leaked to ITV News also show that Jean Charles de Menezes did not run away from police at Stockwell Tube station in South London and was wearing only a denim jacket before he was shot dead on July 22.

Then, it seems, the officer watching Menezes’ flat was taking a leak when Menezes left and nobody checked to see whether the man they were following resembled the alleged bomber they were keeping under surveillance.

Gold Command at the Yard which was running this operation, declared a “code red” and handed responsibility to CO19 - the firearms team. The armed team had been given photographs of the alleged bombers, yet no one realised that Senhor de Menezes bore no resemblance to any of those men.

The photo (right) shows Menezes to not be wearing the thick coat that was originally claimed but, instead, a denim jacket. Further, new witness statements suggest Mr Menezes was actually sitting down by the time police reached his carriage.

…a surveillance officer guided four armed police into the same carriage in which Senhor de Menezes took his seat.

A man sitting opposite him is quoted as saying: “Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me.

“He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man’s head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man’s head when the first shot was fired.”

The report also reveals for the first time that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, got involved and grabbed Senhor de Menezes before he was shot: “I heard shouting which included the word ‘police’ and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

“He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 officers …I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.

“I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had been previously sitting … I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage.”

Somebody has to quickly round up the facts of this matter and put them into the open because it’s all smelling pretty rotten. What started off as a hideous mistake (in most people’s eyes) is now becoming something even more sinister. If the police are to maintain credibility we need to hear the truth - however bad it is - rather than leaked snippets that contradict the currently understood version of events. We need confidence in our security services and this isn’t fostering much of it.

Home Secratary, Charles Clarke says there is no judicially proven link between the bombers of 7th July and those of 21st July.

“It’s obvious that there was a group that worked on the 7th of July and another group that worked on the 21st July.

“The extent to which they had support, training, induction and even tasking from outside the groups that actually committed the attacks themselves is something which is being investigated very, very fully and comprehensively.

“I think it would be very, very surprising if they weren’t linked in some way, (but) there is not a direct linkage yet formally established to be able to make that assertion.”

He commented also on the shooting of the Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, an incident which is raising more and more questions:

He also refused to be drawn on media reports that there is no CCTV footage of the shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, on July 27 at Stockwell underground station. He said the whole incident was “worrying” and he would await the results of an inquiry into the death.

Worrying is the word. The British people will fully support security services that made an innocent mistake. But the longer the questions linger the more people are inclined to fill the gaps with their own theories. None of those theories will enhance the security services’ reputation.

Salman Rushdie is less than enamoured with Sir Iqbal whose features frequently grace our television screens these days.

While giving him credit for admitting that the bombings were his community’s responsibility Rushdie points out that

this is the same Sacranie who, in 1989, said that “Death is perhaps too easy” for the author of The Satanic Verses. Tony Blair’s decision to knight him and treat him as the acceptable face of “moderate”, “traditional” Islam is either a sign of his Government’s penchant for religious appeasement or a demonstration of how limited Mr Blair’s options really are.

(I understand Sacranie’s full quote as being “Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him… his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah.” The Guardian, February 15, 1989).

Sacranie is a strong advocate of Mr Blair’s much-criticised new religious hatred Bill that will make it harder to criticise religion, and actually expects the new law to outlaw references to Islamic terrorism. He said as recently as January 13: “There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered [ie, banned] by this provision.”

Two weeks later his organisation boycotted a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in London, commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz 60 years ago.

If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Mr Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem.

Rushdie might also have added that Sir Iqbal was part of the delegation that met with Home Office Minister Paul Goggins recently in a bid to have the Qu’ran and the hadiths exempted from the religious hatred law.

And this is one of the central problems with Islam. It’s a religion with something for everyone. If you wake up one morning in a good mood you can find all sorts of stuff that are peaceable, loving, kind. On the other hand, if you wake up in a foul temper then there’s plenty of hateful stuff to help you vent your spleen. In reality, if you believe the Qu’ran is the word of god then you have to take both on board. You can’t pick and choose.

Which is, it seems, what Rushdie then goes on to suggest in the rest of his piece. He wants Muslims to engage in a ‘reformation’ of their religion and to see their holy text as something that came from within history - ie it was a product of it - and the Prophet Muhammad’s - time - rather than as something supernaturally outside of history.

Impossible. No religious person will demote hs texts to the status of historical schoolbook. They might very well acknowledge the history contained within it but accepting it as a sign of its times comes perilously close to admitting that it was written by men of those times. Rushdie himself seems to acknowledge that - and so he demolishes his own argument:

The insistence within Islam that the Koranic text is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical scholarly discourse all but impossible. Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of 7th-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger’s personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?

Exactly. He wouldn’t be. Which is why Muslims take their religion literally and why, if interpreted in a particular way, a minority can kill themselves in its name. And Salman Rushdie should know better than most others that to ask Muslims to reinvent their religion as a historical narrative rather than the express commands of god is the equivalent of whistling in the wind. Pointless.

Michael Howard managed to exclude people from this country and he wants to know why this Labour government refuses to do so:

Mr Howard told BBC News: “When I was home secretary, I excluded people from the country who hadn’t been convicted of a crime here.

“So I believe that either that power should be exercised without delay or, if there is some reason which I haven’t thought of why it can’t be exercised, we should be told very clearly what that reason is.”

It’s a good question.

And here’s another:

If Bakri, currently enjoying a welfare-financed trip to Lebanon, decides to return to the UK for his welfare-financed heart operation will we let him in the country?

Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has said he would never warn police if he learned of an impending suicide bomber attack by fellow Muslims, is due to have treatment at St Thomas’s Hospital, just across the Thames from the Palace of Westminster.

The preacher is expected to return for an angioplasty procedure. That involves inserting and inflating a balloon in the coronary artery to improve blood flow.

He has been receiving treatment at North Middlesex Hospital, near his home, as well as at St Thomas’s.

Anti-British, pro-terrorist, unrepentant and laughing all the way to the bank. Evidently he saw the writing on the wall and skipped the country ahead of today’s detentions. The good news is his wife and seven kids can still claim his welfare for the next 6 months and he may very well be able to come back, enjoy free health care and then encourage somebody to kill more of us. So. Business as usual. Welcome to the UK. Enjoy your stay - we’ll do all we can to help you have a wonderful time here.

From the BBC:

Ten foreign nationals who the Home Office says pose a threat to national security have been detained in the UK.

Mr Clarke confirmed: “The immigration service has today detained 10 foreign nationals who I believe pose a threat to national security.”

He added: “The circumstances of our national security have changed, it is vital that we act against those who threaten it.”

Due to the Human Rights Act we have to be careful where we send these people. We must keep dangerous people in our own country to possibly threaten and murder us if the country we want to send them to - usually their own homeland - might be beastly to them.

Under the Human Rights Act, the UK cannot deport anyone to a country where they may face persecution.

But the government has been negotiating with 10 countries, including Lebanon, Algeria and Jordan, to gain guarantees any deportees will not be mistreated.

Mr Clarke announced that “following months of diplomatic work” he believed he had the necessary assurances that deportees to Jordan would “not be subject to torture or ill-treatment”.

Liberty isn’t so sure:

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said she was not convinced “despotic regimes” would honour such agreements.

She said: “It is going to take more than a piece of paper to convince me that Jordan and some of these other possible north African and Middle Eastern regimes are suddenly safe.”

One of the detainees is Abu Qatada (pictured) who already faces a life sentence in Jordan. He must be wondering if his comfortable days in Londonistan are coming to a close…

From the Daily Telegraph:

Apparently the London bombing’s were all Tony Blair’s fault and we should expect more of the same:

Ayman al-Zawahri, the al-Qa’eda deputy leader, has threatened further attacks on London in a video broadcast by Arab television station Al-Jazeera.

Blaming Tony Blair for the attacks, Zawahri said: “Blair’s policies will bring more destruction to Britons after the London explosions.”

He also threatened America, warning of horrors “worse than they faced in Vietnam”.

Charming. I wonder what side of the bed he got out of this morning.

He’s really narked at the west for interfering with the otherwise idyllic societies of the middle east:

“Our message is clear: you will not be safe until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and wealth and stop supporting the corrupt rulers.”

Well, I’m a little slow on middle eastern affairs so remind me again: which rulers in that part of the world aren’t corrupt?

By the way, for anybody questioning the existence of al-Quaida (how do you spell that word?) al-Jazeera covers the same story on its on-line front page and they regard him as al-Kyeeda’s deputy too. In fact, they refer to his as “al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy as well as al cayieda’s deputy”.

“To the people of the crusader coalition … our blessed Shaikh Osama has offered you a truce so that you leave Muslim land. As he said, you will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in Palestine, and until all your infidel armies leave Prophet Mohammad’s lands,” he said.

President Bush took it all very lightly:

“They’re terrorists and they’re killers and they will kill innocent people…so they can impose their dark vision on the world,” Bush said as he stood alongside Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

“Zawahiri was a part of that team that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001,” Bush said. “He was part of an al Qaeda group that said, ‘Well, we’ll try to achieve our objective in attacking America.’

“They must not have understood the nature of our country. I vowed then that we would stay on the offense against these people. We owe it to the American people and other freedom-loving countries to bring these killers to justice.”

Okay, so he wants to kill the guy. But apart from that, he took it well.

From The Daily Mail:

Leaked guidelines from the Bedfordshire force say that when officers raid Muslim homes they should remove their shoes, not use dogs and not mount pre-dawn raids because at that hour people might by ’spiritually busy’.

Are these people kidding us?

Hot on the heels of Mrs Blair’s insistence that the British, in dealing with a murderous, home-grown terrorism threat should following the foreign laws of the unelected and totalitarian European Union and the equally inappropriate UN Human Rights legislation we now have the Home Office Minister telling police how to carry out their stop and search operations.

Police should not use racial profiling in their efforts to prevent further terror attacks on London, Home Office Minister Hazel Blears has said.

People should not be stopped and searched just because they are Muslim she said, before the first of a series of meetings with community leaders.

Words fail me.

If British Muslims are serious about combating this poison in our midst then they are going to have to put up with the discomfort of being the primary target of police stop and search activities. How much time are we prepared to waste frisking little old white ladies in our search for jihadists with semtex in order to placate the sensitivities of British Muslims?

If police were looking for violent football thugs I would expect them to profile the typical football thug and expend a larger proportion of their time and energy on people matching that profile. So I would expect Muslims, for example, to form a very small fraction of their attentions whilst white males between the ages of 20 and 40 - like me - to face the occasional police stop and search.

Nevertheless, Ms Blears regales us with further wisdom in the pursuit of effective policing:

“Just picking people up just on the basis that they’re Muslim is never going to get the result you want,” she said.

Of course. When looking for Muslim terrorists it’s always best to shake down a few Jews, worry the occasional Hindu and, of course, harass those godless atheists. That’s where you are most likely to find Muslim terrorists.

At least the National Black Police Association’s Ch Supt Ali Dizaei has a few more functioning brain cells:

“People do not mind being stopped and searched, provided that it is explained to them, provided they’re dealt with respect, and provided they’re dealt with courtesy, and I think that is the key, and there’s every indication so far since the seventh of July that that understanding has been taking place across London.

“These are extraordinary times and people are committed from all communities to work together with the police in order to sort this problem out.”

Now that’ s much better news. I hope it’s true that people do understand the predicament we’re in and are co-operating with the police because it’s one thing to condemn the atrocities but unless the words are followed by the necessary actions - uncomfortable as they may be - then it’s all to no avail. I personally believe that most British people are fine with polite, professional policing.

A British Transport Police (BTP) spokesman insisted the force did not intend to ’single out’ any particular community.

“Clearly if we are looking for people and being operationally efficient, we have got to target the people who we think are maybe involved,” he said.

“It is going to be disproportionate. It is going to be young men, not exclusively, but it may be disproportionate when it comes to ethnic groups.”

Good. I don’t want to be blown up and nor does any Muslim reading this. So we need to allow the police to do what’s necessary to minimise the possibility, don’t we?

Seems not:

But Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala warned the strategy could be “counter-productive”.

“While it is understandable that the police need to undertake every step to thwart would-be bombers it is crucial that they do not unnecessarily alienate and stigmatise an entire segment of society,” he said.

Ihtisham Hibatullah, of the Muslim Association of Britain, said such a policy would worsen the situation.

“It won’t help in terms of building a relationship or trust between the communities,” he said.

“It will alienate the youth and create unnecessary fear about the authorities, especially in the wake of the death of the young Brazilian man.”

What Mr Bunglawala needs to understand is that feeling alienated is partly a matter of choice. If people being stopped choose to see this as being an inconvenient but necessary means of defending ourselves against indiscriminate murderers then these feelings will not arise. However, if a person wants to regard it as an intrusion and an affront then feelings of alienation will surely follow.

Instead of pandering to these feelings these leaders ought instead to be asking their constituencies to stiffen the upper lip and accept some inconvenience for a while. Part of being British is co-operating with the authorities when the chips are down, not covering oneself in victim status and crying to the politicians.

This is the lady defending suspect bomber Osman Hussain as he attempts to avoid extradition from Italy to the UK to face terrorism charges. Her name is Antonietta Sonnessa and she is a court-appointed lawyer for Mr Hussain. I’m sure he can’t thank the court enough.

Seems Ms Sonnessa’s previous work centred around more mundane cases - illegal building for example. This is her first high-profile case and she’s getting to it with gusto. Last night she launched into a defence of her client:

“My client says his action was purely demonstrative. In fact, all four attempts did not result in any injury or damage at all. Moreover, he maintains that he was nothing to do with the events of July 7.

“He has justified his actions as a form of protest against the fact that civilians are suffering in wars at the present time. He has taken part in many peace marches and has never had any contact whatsoever with any terrorist organisation,” she continued.

“He is not at all a violent person and made sure he would not cause any damage, injuries or deaths. There wasn’t a very clearly defined plan, the whole thing was set the day before, in a meeting with this group of friends.”

Such undiluted nonsense providing proof, then, of the wisdom of not judging a book by its cover.

Actually, I hope Mr Hussain is going to do the decent thing and object to having a revealingly dressed member of the opposite sex defending him. God would be pleased with him - as would the next prisoner who ends up with Ms Sonnessa as a result of Mr Hussain’s principled stand.

One of the occasional commenters on this blog has several times alluded to - but not explained - a government conspiracy behind the recent bombings/attempted bombings in London. I invited him to submit an article to me by email which I would then post in this blog. He has done that; I am now posting it.

I have read the article once and make the usual disclaimers about the views stated by the writer may not be shared by those of the writer of this blog. It is reprinted here in its entirety with no alterations to the text of any kind. In order to make his url references clickable I have created the keyword ‘Reference’ which will take you to the site the author suggests you might like to view.

=====================================================================

7/7 London …. Islamic Terror or Manufactured Nightmares?
by Christopher Brooks
29th July 2005

Are we really certain the “Muslim conspiracy theory” fits the facts and political realities?

If we believe the popular press reports and statements attributed to those charged with investigating the London Bombing event, the four Muslim men are already proven guilty as suicide bombers. Case closed.
Or is that just the perception intended though in fact when a serious analysis of all the claims, retractions and
suggestion are eliminated the case really has not been presented at all. The options are still wide open.

Could there be other possible explanations that could equally fit or better account for the facts and known character and background of these Muslim men? Their families and friends expressed utter shock and disbelief that these boys could have been responsible for the bombing as alleged. Is it impossible that the men are innocent?
It is not possible that these men and their families and communities are the greatest victims of this crime? Readers, I plead with you to give some rational consideration to this possibility.

There is not the slightest hint of motive intent or ambition towards carrying out such a brutal criminal act in the lives and character of these young men. In fact their prospects were good and two had young families or expectant wives. I say this with the expectation that readers are intelligent enough to discard the habitual mischievous slanting of the mundane and ordinary as suspicious and radical. It would not be the slightest surprise to discover that these men had spoken in anger against the conduct of the UK and the US military in Iraq or even elsewhere. I do so myself. I believe it to be justified. It is hardly evidence of a murderous intent or unstable mind though of course clever phrasing and dishonest journalism can twist anything.
What other explanations might there be? Reference.

As I write this article the “bomb” pictures are released to the media suggesting 16 bombs were found in a car hired to these young men and left in a railway station car park. The variety of exhibits reminds me of a terror bomb exhibition. Is this evidence real or staged? Why would the suicide bombers go off to their death leaving an exhibition for the media in their car? If the young men are mere characters in a drama of another’s design then this exhibit makes a lot more sense. What might be revealed in a court of law about this “evidence”?

The innocent Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes killed in cold blood was maligned by claims that he ran from the “police” foolishly leaping over barriers wearing suspicious attire and “feeling” guilty about a visa problem.
Further information questions this whole apologetic script that now leaves many questions unanswered.
Reference.

The traumatised public have certainly had a familiar seductive scenario painted by a stream of “information” that often was contradicted the following day only to be once again contradicted the next day.
Speculative suggestion relying more on imagination and stereotyping seemed to be the order of the day.
Consider what may have been the judgement of our Egyptian biochemist if he had not been alive to defend his innocence. We were told his flat contained dangerous chemical explosive material. He was headlined as a
“master” bomb maker. Very fortunately he was alive and is now declared unconnected to the crime.
What about his “explosive material”. Could this have possibly been innocent elements in hair spray or tooth paste? Is this the standard of justice the dead men are receiving? Have we been possibly deceived with
ambiguous interpretations to fit the “official” theme.

We now live in an age where confronting the propaganda lies of Governments and demanding that our historical standards of proof and judicial process be upheld has become a revolutionary act. Dr Mohammed Naseem suggests that we may need to question what we are being presented. Reference.

He questions the reality and nature of Al Qaeda. British MP Robin Cook also drew attention to this question recently. Reference. Why do many continue to pretend Al Qaeda is real?

(more…)

Police have caught what they believe to be all four bomb suspects from the July 21 attempt.

One was caught in Birmingham on Wednesday.

Two were caught yesterday in London. They were Muktar Said Ibrahim (pictured) who is suspected of trying to bomb the 26 bus and Ramzi Mohammed who tried to bomb at train at Oval.

One was caught by Italian police in Rome yesterday. He was Osman Hussain suspected in the Shepherd’s Bush train bombing.

And a possible 5th bomber - not caught on CCTV so far as we know - is being questioned also.

Hats off to the police, the intelligence chaps and all the security - and otherwise - men and women (including hospital and medical people) involved in the ongoing operation against terror.

Ongoing is the word though and police stress that this business is very far from over. The master-minds behind this operation are still at large. It can be hoped that those arrested will provide the information necessary to capture the planners and suppliers behind the eight - or possibly nine - bomb attempts. One can also hope that, if further attacks are planned, that the police will be able to thwart them before they take place.

Apparently, one of the two nabbed yesterday in west London was heard to inform the police, in a statement that more or less sums up all that is rotten in British society, ‘I have rights.’

Well, thanks to the United Nations and the European Union this is indeed true. And our craven politicians - and, in Blair’s case our craven politicians and their wives - will be sure to make a pretty penny out of enforcing those rights.

There’s always one…

Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of Birmingham’s central mosque believes Muslims are being unfairly blamed in the war on terrorism. He claims also that the eight suspects in the two bombing attacks on London “could have been innocent passengers”.

Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of the city’s central mosque, called Tony Blair a “liar” and “unreliable witness” and questioned whether CCTV footage issued of the suspected bombers was of the perpetrators.

He said that Muslims “all over the world have never heard of an organisation called al-Qa’eda”.

So Blair’s a liar. Nobody doubts that but what’s that got to do with the police and the security services that are running the counter-terrorist operation?

The irony of the cleric’s outburst was that he made it at a press conference that involved police and Birmingham City council and was designed to allay fears of racial or religious tension after a spate of arrests there. From today’s Daily Telegraph:

He said: “Tony Blair has told lies on going to Iraq and in a court of law if a witness has proved to be a liar he ceases to be a reliable witness. So we cannot give our blind trust to the Government.

“To have that trust it is important that the process of law should be independent, open and transparent. I am also sad that unfortunately the impression has been given that Muslims are to be targeted in this war against terror. There seems to be a directive to target Muslims. Why do we not have an open mind about this?

“Muslim bashing seems to be more earnest than the need for national unity and harmony. Terrorists can be anybody - we will have to see [whether the bombers are Muslims]. The process is not open; the process is not transparent; the process is not independent. I do not have faith in the system as it stands.”

Quoted on the BBC News site he explained his doubts about the existence of al-Qaeda:

Speaking to BBC Radio WM on Thursday he questioned the existence of al-Qaeda.

“I don’t think al-Qaeda exists because we Muslims all over the world have not known this organisation,” he said.

“The only information about this organisation is coming from the CIA. Now, the CIA is not known for telling the truth.”

How representative of British Muslims is this man? I suspect - would like to suspect - that today British Muslims reading his words are breathing a collective sigh of frustration and wish the man would just quietly disappear. Thing is, I only have the insistent assertions of the politically correct police ‘authorities’ - the very PC PC Blair - and the very gay, sometime contributor to anarchist publications Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick - to go by. Paddick has already shown his own mental insanity by saying that ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorist’ don’t go together when clearly, to a minority, they go together like toast and marmalade.

Methinks British Muslims need to tell these mullahs where to get off.

Thankfully, one already has:

Mr Khalid Mahmood, the first Muslim to be elected into Parliament, said: “What he has done is brought into disrepute the role of the chair of the Central Mosque and the Muslim community in Birmingham.

“If he wants to make cheap political points then he really ought to relinquish his position as chairman and let somebody who is neutral and has the interests of the community do it.”

Yes, he ought to relinquish his post. Or, maybe, British Muslims should give him the push he needs to vacate it…

Police arrested a man in a house in Birmingham early this morning. He is suspected of being one of last Thursday’s (July 21) London bombers. Three other people were arrested in a seperate house in Birmingham.

They shot the bomb suspect him with a Taser stun gun.

A suspect package was also found and, on the advice of the Army, local residents evacuated. BBC News this morning say the package was blown up in a controlled explosion.

Two other men were arrested in Lincolnshire on a train heading for King’s Cross. They were picked out by two off-duty police officers. Apparently they began their journey in Newcastle.

In other news, Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair told Channel 4 News that police have dealt with 250 suicide bomb scares since the July 7 bombings.

In the Brazilian hometown of Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, shot 8 times last week after being mistaken for a suicide bomber, relatives and friends have staged a protest march, demanding arrests be made.

Police are still speculating there may have been a fifth bomber after a bomb was found in a telephone box near Little Wormwood Scrubs on Saturday.

Speculation as to the bombers’ next moves is rife. Possibly they will carry out another attack. Or, bowing to the inevitable - that they’ll be tracked down - they may hole themselves up somewhere, wait for the security forces to arrive and then go out in a blaze of glory, as per the Madrid bombers.

The Guardian has produced this ICM poll.

As anybody with more than three functioning brain cells could predict, a small percentage of Muslims believe (or say they believe) that the bombings were justified - and, even, that more would be justified.

Add just a couple more brain cells and you can do the sums: in a country with 1.8 million Muslims even a small percentage is still a lot of people.

So we’re informed that 63% per cent of Muslims had considered leaving the UK in the wake of the bombings. Big deal. If that figure is true, I reckon it’s at least as representative of the UK’s population overall as it is of British Muslims. I’m sure 63% of the entire UK population has at least once considered life abroad before. I have; every time I see Blair on television I reach for my passport.

Much more worryingly though is this:

A small rump, potentially running into thousands, told ICM of their support for the attacks on July 7 which killed 56 and left hundreds wounded - and 5% said that more attacks would be justified. Those findings are troubling for those urgently trying to assess the pool of potential suicide bombers.

Drawing on those additional brain cells, if there are 1.1 million Muslims over the age of 18 (as The Guardian says there are) then 5% is over 50,000 people. If just 1% of that 50,000 is actually prepared to involve himself directly in attacks on the British public then we have at least 500 people walking around willing to commit murder and mayhem in the UK.

And that is seriously bad news.

One in five polled said Muslim communities had integrated with society too much already, while 40% said more was needed and a third said the level was about right.

I wonder what ‘too much’ means - and how they came to that conclusion? Are these conservatives who regard not wearing a burka as integrating too much? Or simply moderates who regard drinking and fornication as integrating too much? The 40% offer some hope for the future. British Muslims will always be better Muslims than foreign, non-integrated ones.

More than half wanted foreign Muslim clerics barred or thrown out of Britain, but a very sizeable minority, 38%, opposed that.

Thrown out just for being foreign? Maybe British Muslims feel that way because, first, they recognise that the uncompromising violence that some of these foreign imams bring with them is not only objectionable but it’s getting them a bad name; and, second, perhaps they recognise a need for a British Islam - as opposed to an Afghani one or an Iranian one.

It does seem that there’s a polarisation - and a huge gulf - between those that emphatically reject violence carried out in their name and those that support it. The latter are very much the minority but, worryingly, they still represent a substantial number of people.

Keeping the cheerleaders to and organisers of terror out of the UK has got to be the government’s first major step.

So - do we know if this chap is still scheduled to visit our green and pleasant land?

One of the big questions on my mind regarding the Brazilian chap the police shot last week - namely, why did the man run? - may have been answered.

His visa had expired.

Seems the Met Police has experienced a surge in applications to join up. From the Telegraph:

“We have seen a huge increase,” said an official at the recruitment centre in Hendon, north London. “Many want to do volunteer work, but we’ve also had inquiries from people who ask specifically about anti-terrorist and undercover work.”

The fatal shooting aside, many of us are impressed with the police’s performance in tracking down the 7th July bombers. It’s likely that people feel confident Thursday’s failed bombers will be caught too.

When they are I guess the recruitment office will be greeted with even more wide-eyed action man wannabes…

A couple of commentors on this blog hint at - or are downright blatant about - government conspiracies and the practice of dark arts in the matter of the London bombings.

This latest shooting incident is baffling, to be honest, and I suspect there will be people with alternative explanations to the ones offered by the authorities.

If you want to add them to this post feel free. May as well keep them in one place where people can debate them if they wish to.

We’re told the man the police shot was not connected ot the recent bombings. He’s been named in a BBC report as 27 year old Jean Charles de Menezes - a Brazilian.

He emerged from a house that was under police surveillance.

When approached by officers he ran.

He leapt the tickets barriers and ran onto a train.

Witnesses saw a bomb belt and wires coming from his body.

But he’s got nothing to do with the terrorism in our streets.

I absolutely do not want to go down the road of conspiracy theories and I’ll choose ‘trust’ as my default attitude towards the security services. But this is going to take some explaining.

Why was this house being watched?

Who was this man?

Why did he run when challenged?

Were the witness reports of wires coming out of his body wrong?

If he was innocent then it is a truly horrible occurrence but until we have answers to basic questions then I for one am left a little sceptical.

An excellent piece in today’s Daily Telegraph entitled Ten urgent steps to make Britain safer

I support particularly the first point (see below). The fairly unique point about the Islamic terrorism in Britain is that it was carried out not by foreign imports but by people born in our hospitals, educated in our schools, who walk our streets and breathe our air.

Yet they regard us - not themselves but the rest of us - as aliens, foreigners. This must partly be due to the weak sense of identity we, the British, have of ourselves. New Labour, Tony Blair and the general leftist attempt to make us ashamed of our history, our achievements, our dynamism, our courage and inventiveness have combined to create a flaccid, ignorant, weak nation that has nothing to nail its colours to - indeed, outside of the occasional international football match it has no colours to nail - and little self-respect in terms of nation and history.

It is little wonder that if we at best are indifferent to ourselves and, at worst, despise ourselves, then anybody with an alternative culture to Britishness might just go for the alternative. Instead of using foreign-born murderers - as must happen when planning outrages for New York or Madrid - plotters can rely on home-grown, British citizens to do the job against their fellow countrymen.

We can rail at violent Isalm all we like. In many ways though we nurtured this poison in our midst when we decided to embrace multi-culturalism and reject Great Britain.

Here are the Telegraph’s 10 points. The headings seem a bit tame but the text that accompanies each is very sensible and well worth reading. Click here to read the entire article.

1. Confidently assert British values

2. Exclude foreign undesirables

3. Repeal the Human Rights Act

4. Crackdown on propaganda

5. Intercept evidence admissable in court

6. Visible police presence

7. Sensible policing

8. Expectation for Muslims to join the police and security forces

9. Effective border controls

10. Increased detention facilities

In today’s Daily Telegraph Pakistan’s President, Gen Pervez Musharraf gives Britain a few home truths:

“We certainly have a problem here [with Islamic militancy] which we are trying to address, but may I say that England also has a problem which needs to be addressed.

“There are the extremist organisations in Britain such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun which operate with impunity. They also give sermons of hate and violence.”

He dismissed the idea that the London bombers could have been indoctrinated during their short visits to Pakistan. “Three out of the four are accused to be from Pakistan, the fourth is from Jamaica. If the aspersion is that they got indoctrinated in Pakistan, where did the Jamaican get indoctrinated?

“Three are from Pakistani parentage. But they have been born, educated and bred in the UK. There is a lot to be done in Pakistan, but may I suggest there is a lot to be done in England also.”

As it turns out, one of the three who allegedly went to Pakistan actually did not. We may have a case of mistaken identity.

Either way, Britain’s reluctance to deal with Muslim hate mongers is roundly criticised by security agencies world-wide. The French coined the phrase ‘Londonistan’ for the capital’s willingness to give free reign to the worst of them while the Americans have expressed dismay several times at the laxity of the British approach to radicals and extremists.

Briefest of reports here on the BBC site.

Here’s their full report in case you can’t get on to the site:

Man shot by armed police on Tube

A man has been shot at Stockwell Tube station by armed police officers, police confirm.
Passengers were evacuated from a Tube train on the Northern Line station in south London after the incident.

Passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen an Asian man shot five times by “plain-clothes police officers”.

Services on the Victoria and Northern lines have been suspended following a request by the police, London Underground said.

Police are hunting four would-be bombers after Thursday’s London blasts.

The bombers fled after detonators went off, causing small blasts, but failed to detonate the bombs themselves.

Mr Whitby, told BBC News: “I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.

“One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him.”

Passenger Briony Coetsee said: “We were on the Tube and then we suddenly heard someone say, ‘Get out, get out’ and then we heard gunshots.”

Yesterday’s London bombings - exactly two weeks after the previous which have killed 52 people - failed to kill or injure any Londoners. For that we breathe a huge sigh of relief - but the bombers themselves are now on the run.

The attempts at widespread murder - on three trains and a bus, just as on July 7th - failed because the small explosives that made up the detonators failed to ignite the rest of the explosives in the rucksacks containing the devices.

Witness statements reoprts a man exclaiming out loud when his device failed to go off; a second was seen to flee when his detonator activated. One of the bombers was standing next to a woman and her baby when his detonator went off.

From The Guardian:

Witness said they had heard a sound “like the popping of champagne corks” from a large black rucksack on a train seat, and the carriage had begun to fill with smoke.

When the train pulled into the station a young man next to the bag dashed out of the train and fled into the street.

The driver of the No 26 bus, Mark Maybanks, heard a bang coming from the top deck of his bus. He ordered his passengers off and went upstairs to investigate.

Mr Maybanks, 38, said: “I’ve never been so frightened in my life as when I went up the stairs. After what happened earlier this month I didn’t know what I would find.”

Four bombs, each in a rucksack, have been recovered from each of the scenes.

The trawl through CCTV footage has already begun. Confidence in the ability of the police and security services to catch these four must be sky-high at the moment. After outstanding work in tracking down the last four these four must know the game is up. It’s only a matter of time.

Detectives are assuming these men are part of a bigger team although the possibility is that they are simply copy-cats. However, a security consultant interviewed on television this morning believes there is little chance that, on seeing the bombings of 7 July, anybody could have planned and prepared a replica in just 14 days. He suggests the explosives - which are thought to have come from the same batch as those used on the 7th - failed to detonate simply because they had degraded over the intervening period.

Blair yesterday (quoted in The Telegraph) (emphasis mine):

At lunchtime, the Prime Minister said those who advocated suicide bombing ‘’whether it’s in London, whether it’s in Afghanistan or Iraq, or it’s in Palestine or it’s in Turkey or Kashmir, or anywhere … have got no place in our country'’.

So is Yusuf al-Qaradawi allowed into the UK or not?

As I mentioned yesterday, this chap - who has been banned from the US since 1999 - regards suicide attacks as “the highest form of Jihad”. So I think he meets Blair’s criteria for exclusion.

If we are to send out a serious message to the haters and racists that come here we have to be resolute and uncompromising. For Blairites - who, let’s face it, just don’t get it - this means: not pandering to correctness but to rightness, putting Britain and the British first (now there’s a radical idea), stopping crawling to the Muslim block vote - they don’t want haters here either and, in the event of possibly making a wrong decision we should be erring on the side of the British people’s well-being rather than the foreigner’s.

So. We watch. And we wait.