Sections 'removed for legal reasons' from Nafeez Ahmed book

[foliagecop]

I know this is a long shot, but does anyone know what the large chunks headed 'Section removed for legal reasons' in Ahmed's new book, "The London Bombings, An Independent Inquiry", might contain?

They cover two sections: 'Omar Bakri Mohammed and Al-Muhajiroun' and 'The Covenant Of Security' (pp 56-72).

[ian neal]

In the first instance why not contact Nafeez and ask him?

[Ally]

I'm half way through it, he says the official story is totally fake but the four accused are guilty, what bull, has Nafeez had access to the CCTV?

[foliagecop]

Hi Ally. Don't spoil the story for me, I'm only on page 58!

Seriously though, on page 50 Ahmed writes:

"In light of the totality of data available, it is my suggestion that the four men identified as the bombers were involved in the operation - but probably not in the exact manner that police have described."

This is not quite the same as saying he thinks they're guilty (unless, of course, he comes right out and says that further on in the book). It does not, for example, rule out a scenario whereby the so-called bombers thought they were taking part in an exercise. Were that the case, they certainly would have been involved, but "not in the exact manner that police have described."

I've certainly with you on the CCTV thing. If footage from Luton can be released, why not footage from Kings Cross?

[Dan Knowles]

I just received this email from Nafeez Ahmed concerning the two deleted sections in the London Bombings book:

unfortunately under uk laws i'm not in a position to describe the
contents of those sections in any detail. i'm waiting for a point when
the book becomes more widely known and supported in some form in the
uk -- if it gets to a significant stage, then i'll consider publishing
this material online via a US webserver.

i can say that the first section concerns very significant and
specific information on the involvement of a longtime mi5 operative in
liaising with al muhajiroun members generally, and possibly financing
the london bombings specifically. the material was edited repeatedly
to reduce the risk of defamation, but even in its final form (in which
there are only reports and facts referred to), the risk was sufficient
enough for the lawyers to censor the material.

the second section concerns links between the alleged bombers and a
wider network already partially arrested by authorities. publication
of my argument is currently a contempt of court. i can't elaborate any
more than this. all the information in these sections is available in
the public record, but due to the constraints of law, the release of
this information, which is without doubt in the public interest, is
currently impossible.

best wishes

nafeez

[Ally]

So Nafeez publisher blacks out the bit that provides any sort of real evidence that links the 'alleged' bombers to a European Al-Qaeda cell who radicalised them, that fool Omar Bakri couldn't even organise a smoking session in Amsterdam never mind brainwash three bright lads from Leeds into believing they had 50 virgins waiting for them if they blew up the Undergound.

[ian neal]

I doubt it but perhaps some brave MP (are there any?) could use his or her parliamentary privilage to put this evidence (more) into the public domain. Possible links between the July 7 and MI5/6 was the line being suggested by Michael Meacher but he seems to have lost his nerve/tongue

[foliagecop]

Well done on getting this information, Dan.

Cheers.

[dry kleaner]

Damn interesting book. Only on page 32, but I am hooked.
Good work.

Peace and love

DK

[scubadiver]

I've just received it myself through Amazon today.

[TonyGosling]

Nafeez is quite right from a lawyers point of view - but his book would shoot into and up the bestseller lists if he were embroiled in a legal case. Just remember Spycatcher. The government would be very unlikely to sue over the revealing of Intelligence services' botched and ineffective techniques.

The contempt of court stuff is more serious and probably best left for a later date.

Its such a shame there are so few gutsy publishers out there. I would - of course - publish this stuff and go honourably to jail if necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

I also heard that the publisher persuaded Nafeez to change 'alleged bombers' to 'bombers'. Oh dear.

That sort of compromise would be unacceptable to me. Since there is not a shred of evidence in the public domain that they either planted or detonated the bombs.

I would have waved goodbye and trudged the country in search of another publisher.


Tony

[scubadiver]

[karsey]

my books appear to have pages teared out and soon after pages are masked in a shade of grey. is this how the 2 missing chapters are presented

[suspecta]

Hi all - I've just joined.

Have also just bought the book and am reading it at the moment.

Re the author describing the four as involved, I think we can take it as read, because they've all disappeared without trace since that day. Either they were suicide bombers, people who knowingly planted bombs or people who planted bombs without knowing what they were. The only way for them not to have been involved in any shape or form is if they were somehow snatched and killed that day.

I think we can probably take it as read that they were somehow involved, but that they didn't set out to harm anyone. Nothing in the descriptions of them by their families backs up the idea that they were either suicide bombers or paid mercenaries.

Suspecta

[ian neal]

[marky 54]

OMG IM IN A STATE OF SHOCK! im new here and had been looking for a uk site but could'nt find one. however i found this one. i've been looking into 9/11 in more detail as there was strange stuff i wanted to read up on. but it never crossed my mind that the london bombing could also be suspious, why am i say gullible to goverment story's, i didnt realise 9/11 was suspious untill i came across the pentagon footage of the plane hitting the building and thought to myself thats not a plane its to small. nonsense now im really stunned that this could be fake to, although it makes great sense now, and explains why blair is in love with bush. and also explains why theres so little mention of 9/11 being a conspiracy in the media in the uk to. how can this happen it scares me alot more than the terroist threats from real terrorists, if they exists

[marky 54]

OMG IM IN A STATE OF SHOCK! im new here and had been looking for a uk site but could'nt find one. however i found this one. i've been looking into 9/11 in more detail as there was strange stuff i wanted to read up on. but it never crossed my mind that the london bombing could also be suspious, why am i say gullible to goverment story's, i didnt realise 9/11 was suspious untill i came across the pentagon footage of the plane hitting the building and thought to myself thats not a plane its to small. nonsense now im really stunned that this could be fake to, although it makes great sense now, and explains why blair is in love with bush. and also explains why theres so little mention of 9/11 being a conspiracy in the media in the uk to. how can this happen it scares me alot more than the terroist threats from real terrorists, if they exists

[halm]

Just finished the book, and I think I've spotted a clue about the contents of the omitted sections. The very last sub-section is a commentary of the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee report into the bombings. It contains information that cannot be found elsewhere in the book.


The following passage refers to Operation Crevice, which uncovered a UK terrorist network of which 8 from 13 members were arrested, with 4 of those not being arrested apparently the London bombers:

"More seriously, British security officials expressed serious concern about the five individuals who had escaped arrest, and intelligence sources informed BBC News that they had wanted to place Khan on a higher level of investigation, but were prevented by senior officials (pp. 56-65)"

Note that pages 56-65 contain most of the omitted sections, and that there is no mention elsewhere of a request to place Khan under surveillance. Also note that there is a quote on page 56 from Nicolas Sarkozy saying that 'some' of the suicide bombers had previously been arrested.


Another interesting thing I noticed is that for the omitted sections, even the reference material in the back of the book has been omitted. This is strange because if you look at the other references, all appear to be available in the public domain. Therefore I can't understand why he should have to omit references that are available in the public domain.

So if anyone has contact with Nafeez, maybe you could ask him to publish the missing reference material on his blog or somewhere. Alternatively I'll check out all of the 500+ references..... if I can find a spare hour or two