| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
astro3
Suspended
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: Crevice: an open letter to Nafeez Ahmed |
 |
|
On October 3rd, a paper by Nafeez Ahmed was launched at a CAMPACC meeting (Campaign against Criminalising Communities), written for MPs to brief tham on the Al-Qaeda threat in Britain:
www.campacc.org.uk/Library/071003_iprd_press_release.doc
Nafeez is Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London, as well as having a position at the School of Social Science and Cultural Studies at the University of Sussex. He has kindly agreed to reply to this Open Letter.
Open letter to Nafeez Ahmed
Concerning his new Parliamentary Briefing Paper, ‘Inside the Crevice, Islamist terror networks and the 7/7 intelligence failure’
Dear Nafeez,
Your new publication may have some considerable influence upon British MPs, especially with its Introduction by former head of CID Desmond Thomas. I’m sure we can all agree with this Intro where it declares,
| Quote: | | It never pays to underestimate your opponent. It seems that this atrocity was the product of a mind that understood both British politics and the culture of the security services. The principal and political purpose of the 7/7 attacks may have been to facilitate the introduction of repressive legislation and oppressive policing resulting in the frightening and alienation of the Muslim community .. |
You have now established your position fairly firmly, which one might summarise as follows:
1. The suspected four young Muslims did perpetrate the deed of 7/7;
2. There exists an extended network of Al-Qaeda terrorist agents in Britain and abroad, with whom these four young men were in touch.
3. Because of this, the UK intelligence community had been monitoring the suspected four, especially Khan and Tanweer, for some while before 7/7, despite initial proclamations that the young men were ‘clean skins.’
I hope that a cordial dialogue will continue to be possible with persons like myself who don’t quite see it that way.
You argue that MI5 and MI6 have for long nourished and helped to sustain Al-Qaeda cells, for their own reasons, and even conferred upon them immunity from prosecution, and that MPs need to become aware of this. ‘Potential terrorist cells’ in the UK are in fact interlinked with an interconnected al-Qaeda network, you have argued.
I’d like to focus on the single question: what evidence is there for claiming that the four lads suspected of the bombing had connections with ‘Al-Qaeda,’ agents and that various sources were therefore monitoring them? I am concerned, that your paper relies totally for its argument either upon documents and stories that have been generated after the event of 7/7, or upon documents that are alleged to exist from before that event, but cannot in fact ever be produced.
I suggest that we live in a time of extreme media credulity concerning the notion of ‘Muslim terror,’ and that the mere fact that papers have published stories given to them, should not be taken as evidence of veracity. I am disturbed by the extent to which you have apparently accepted Met, MI5 and MI6 statements, about links allegedly pre-existing 7/7, to these young men, and used them to explain the event when it happened. Let’s take a few examples.
Before we do, I hope you will entertain however briefly my position, that Muslims did not do it, the four lads were innocent and have been framed, that no scrap of valid evidence puts them in London on that morning, that they had very little interest in politics, and had not actually visited the ‘radical’ Finsbury Park mosque. Admittedly it might not help your political future to adopt such a view, which is generally regarded as beyond the pale.
Please also kindly consider my conclusion concerning Khan, that he was a pillar of his local community, trusted and respected by all, known for his work in getting youngsters off drugs and in nonviolent conflict resolution between local gangs, and in educating the underprivileged. He’d been to the House of Commons and Benn had come to open the Hamara Healthy Living Centre where he worked, and his stepmother had been invited to Buckingham Palace as a token of respect for her work. He was known for his pro-British and pro-American attitudes and his lack of interest in religion. He had achieved a remarkable amount in his brief thirty years. Thus I too have a perspective on why MI5 had been taking an interest in Khan, which differs from yours.
* Mobile phone calls confirm Haroon Aswat’s regular contact with the 7/7 cell, especially Khan’ (pp.16). He had spoken to Khan on the morning of 7/7 – your evidence?
* A Saudi Arabian warning was issued to Britain in December 2004 (‘specifically dismissed by the House of Commons Intel & Security Report March 2006’) stating ‘that a cell of four British Muslims was planning a terrorist attack upon the London Underground within 6 months.’(p.1 – your evidence?
* Khan and Tanweer were arrested in March 2004 as part of Operation Crevice, who ‘appeared as petty fraudsters in loose contact with members of the plot’ (p.23). – your evidence? If this arrest happened in 2004 then one hopes you might have some discernable pre-7/7 record for that claim, if you are going to make it – and indeed, it is central to your argument.
* Khan met Bluewater plot ringleader (Omar Kyyam) five times in February and March 2004, with Tanweer attending 3 meetings, ‘each time tracked and photographed by MI5’ (p.2 – your evidence? (NB, would be happy to chase up any references eg to trial documents, if you wish to refer me to them)
* In the context of this Crevice trial, The Sunday Times has a tape recording of Khan ‘talking about how to build the device and then leave the country’ (p.29) – evidence? Can anyone hear this tape, or is there even anyone claiming to have listened to it who can be asked about it?
* Prosecution lawyers disclosed a document to the defence in the Crevice trial which cited MI5 surveillance recordings of Tanweer discussing bombings ‘as late as two weeks before 7/7 2005’ (p.35). I haven’t quite understood this because Crevice was a year before 7/7, but if any such document existed it would be crucial (you cite MI5 as dismissing this document as ‘false’).
* You also accept the story of Khan training in an Al-qaeda camp in Pakistan specifically to conduct an attack inside Britain.
* that Omar Bakri Muhammed was proclaiming the inevitability of an attack upon London in 2004 (p.3 - I checked out the article (The Times 17 Jan 2005) and it had Bakri denying that he was calling for violent action and saying that Muslims should consider emigrating to their homelands because of the oppression they experienced in the UK, as if they were under siege. I query whether that was really Islamic terror.
* Khan was linked to ‘the Luton cell’ which is a ‘focus of terror’ in the UK (p.40). Is there a ‘focus of terror’ in Luton?
Any evidence for these assertions that does not involve believing retrospective claims by UK police and Intelligence - whose word I suggest to you cannot be trusted in any context of Islamic terror – would be of great value here. Also, concerning the Crevice trial which ended 30 April this year, your paper might have commented upon the statement made by lawyer Tayab Ali, on behalf of Salahuddin Amin, given outside the Old Bailey, concerning how information obtained by torture had been used:
| Quote: | | I am innocent. An outrageous confidence trick has been played on the jury, and against me. I was convicted by false evidence and the fruits of torture. I am innocent. I told the jury the truth. I am innocent. I told the jury I had been tortured and mistreated by the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence services, over a ten month period of illegal detention in Pakistan during 2004 |
, etc. This might possibly be relevant to information alleged about this case. Do you remember, Nafeez, your scornful comments about the Heathrow Liquid Bomb hoax, whereby it had been brewed up using information extract by torture in Pakistan? I hope we are not now to infer that you have lost your scruples about information extracted in this manner?
See http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2007/05/inside-crevice-77-and-security-deba cle.html for Nafeez comments on Crevice, similar to above.
See http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page385.html for MI5's comments on the 'Crevice' trial vs July 7th suspects, especially Khan.
See http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5601 for Global Outlook's comments on the Crevice trial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
astro3
Suspended
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The danger-assessment for 'terror' in London was lowered just prior to 7/7, enabling much of the Met to be sent up to Scotland, so that other special police forces were left behind to look after London. Let's quote here from a 'Global Outlook ' article:
| Quote: | Why was the threat assessment, used to estimate the likelihood of a terrorist attack, lowered just weeks prior to the bombings and kept at the reduced level during the G-8 summit of government heads of major industrial nations, which was meeting in Britain at the time of the July 7 attacks? And how much did MI5 know about the alleged bombers?
The New York Times reported July 19 that the decision to lower the threat level was prompted by an assessment issued by the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre, which includes officials from Britain’s main intelligence agencies, as well as police forces and customs services. "Less than a month before the London bombings, Britain’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials concluded that, ‘at present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the UK,’” the Times wrote.
By reducing its assessment of the threat, British officials put the possibility of a terror attack by Islamic radicals only one level higher than the current chance of a terror attack by the Irish Republican Army, now ranked as ‘moderate,’” the report continued.
There was every reason to expect greater vigilance from the UK’s security services on July 7, given that the leaders of the eight most powerful nations, including among them the foremost proponents of the so-called “war on terrorism,” were meeting in Scotland. But there has yet to be an explanation for why Britain’s threat level was downgraded instead. |
The more one wishes to argue, as Nafeez does, that MI5 had intelligence over the likely forthcoming terror-event on July 7th, the harder it becomes to ccount for this downgrading of the terror-alert level just weeks before.
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=820
by Mike Ingram, Global Research, August 8, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulStott
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 326
Location: All Power To The People, No More Power To The Pigs
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Has Nafeez replied? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mick
New Poster
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PaulStott wrote: | | Has Nafeez replied? |
Do you really expect him to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astro3
Suspended
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nafeez has not yet replied but has promised that he will - but says this might take a while as he is busy. In the meantime, I'm sure he would not mind others expressing a view on this matter.
For a view endorsing his thesis, see 'Did MI5 miss the London bomber?' BBC Panorama | April 30, 2007:
| Quote: | On 2 February 2004, MI5 officers noted two strangers talking to Khyam. They would later turn out to be Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer - two of the London suicide bombers.
I have seen MI5's surveillance log - and what it records happened next. The details were never revealed in court because of reporting restrictions. According to the log, a Honda car, registration R480 CCA, was seen in Langley Parade, Crawley. Omar was in the passenger seat and the driver was Khan.
MI5 ran a check on ownership of the vehicle. The name meant nothing at the time. It was registered in the name of Khan's wife. Although they did not know who he was, the officers followed the car after it left Crawley, not knowing where it was going. After Khyam was dropped off, Khan drove onto the M1 and headed north.
When it stopped for petrol at Toddington services, MI5's log states that photographs were taken of the passengers. MSK was covertly snapped in the vicinity of Burger King at the entrance to the services' refreshment area.
Was the photograph clear enough to identify him? The intelligence services say the quality was very poor. But other sources who have seen it told me that Khan was identifiable. Panorama asked to see the photograph, but the request was refused. We understand that one other photograph, said to be of marginally inferior quality, was subsequently taken of MSK going into an undisclosed internet café.
According to MI5's log, officers followed the Honda for a further 150 miles to Leeds. It notes the addresses and locations where some of the passengers got out. The Honda, with Khan at the wheel, was eventually seen parking out side his family home in Dewsbury. The log notes the precise address. |
www.jonesreport.com/articles/300407_mi5_london_bomber.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mick
New Poster
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="astro3"]Nafeez has not yet replied but has promised that he will - but says this might take a while as he is busy. In the meantime, I'm sure he would not mind others expressing a view on this matter.
For a view endorsing his thesis, see 'Did MI5 miss the London bomber?' BBC Panorama | April 30, 2007:
By Peter Taylor the guy who gave evidence, with Prof Paul Wilkinson, to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 19th October 2005 see Hansard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My thinking on this is that although I find much I personally disagree with in Inside the Crevice, it does represent a realistic approach to encouraging our representatives to at least look at what are, self evidently, serious questions about MI5 and the security agencies generally.
The critique that Nafeez provides is constructed entirely from mainstream sources.
I would say that no matter what our personal "narratives" are, the only effective way to question the official narrative is by using official sources that contradict that narrative.
Inside the Crevice, imo, opinion achieves that aim.
Screaming they didn't do it. Will not. As we have seen and continue to.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulStott
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 326
Location: All Power To The People, No More Power To The Pigs
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any reply from Nafeez yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PaulStott wrote: | | Any reply from Nafeez yet? |
You could, if you feel so inclined, ask Nafeez yourself Mr Stott.
nafeez@globalcrisis.org.uk
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry O'Hara
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 96
Location: depends
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is that the full extent of your critique of what NFB has to say on 7/7 this issue? If so, give up now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Larry O'Hara wrote: |
Is that the full extent of your critique of what NFB has to say on 7/7 this issue? If so, give up now! |
No, that's not all. I particularly liked the following passage:
| Quote: | | ... possible reasons to withhold footage include unusual (covert) camera angles, the use of camouflage/anti-surveillance techniques (such as swapping hats) by the bombers ... |
Golly, you have breached security. Now we all know we must swap hats to avoid detection.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skeptic
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 485
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Excellent work, Astro 3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astro3
Suspended
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It looks as if Nafeez is declining to reply, despite his categorical promise given to me over the phone (twice) that he would. Maybe it has dawned upon him how wrong he was. After all 'Crevice' was merely a code-name for something which never really existed, a phantom plot given to British intelligence by the NSA in fort Maryland, allegedly detected by their big computer wiretapping somebody in Pakistan.... but let's not go into all that.
I wrote to ‘john Doe II’ about Nafeez’ argument, as to whether all the ‘Crevice’ etc documents about Khan and Tanweer were only dateable to after July 7th. Mr ‘John Doe II’ has access to the huge database called Lexis Nexus which can search all newspaper back-issues. Here are my questions and his answers:
Q: I am interested in ANY documents that can be shown to have existed
prior to july 7th which purport to show that any of the four
‘bombers’ were being tracked by MI5 or were suspected of terrorist
links before this event, or in general to predict July 7th. Do you
know of any?
A: I've checked out Lexis Nexis (archive of basically all media stuff).
There is nothing. So I believe that certainly it is possible what you think and there is actually no document proving the official statement. And in a normal State of Law the prosecutor would exactly have to present that. Media of course is too happy babbling the official stuff without questioning.
Q: The main scholar promoting this theory is Nafeez ahmed. He is very
brilliant, but I suspect he is wrong here. He sees this event as a
failure of british intelligence given that there had been many
indications of a forthcoming Muslim terror-attack upon London.
A: Perfectly possible and makes a lot of sense. Typical fall back scenario. We created Frankenstein and now Frankenstein killed us.
So we're guilty of creating Frankenstein .... but not more .... and nobody questions whether we didn't plant the bombs ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| astro3 wrote: | ‘john Doe II’:We created Frankenstein and now Frankenstein killed us.
So we're guilty of creating Frankenstein .... but not more .... and nobody questions whether we didn't plant the bombs ourselves. |
Frankenstein was the scientist doing the "creating," not the "created" monster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
