Observer front page

[markblue]

Just read the front page article about the leaked goverment 7/7 documents. The fact that the video, which seemed to show the 7/7 bombers admitting what they were going to do, has not been used as evidence in this case seems - shocked me . The government says the video has been altered in some way. If this is true, and if there are no links to Al-Qaeda as stated in this article, then who altered the video. Doesn`t this mean there are even more reasons why there should be an indepedent enquiry into 7/7 ?

[ian neal]

In the same paper (the arts section) there is a piss poor 'article' on the 9/11 truth movement (Chaos and cockup trumps conspiracy). The Guardian group clearly loves patronising us and having their inboxes filled up with irate emails. As ever if anyone does respond I recommend politeness rather than ranting

[Annie]

For those of you who missed it, here's the text of the article.

Annie

Leak reveals official story of London bombings

· Al-Qaeda not linked, says government
· Internet used to plan 7/7 attack

Mark Townsend, crime correspondent
Sunday April 9, 2006
The Observer


The official inquiry into the 7 July London bombings will say the attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the internet, that there was no 'fifth-bomber' and no direct support from al-Qaeda, although two of the bombers had visited Pakistan.
The first forensic account of the atrocity that claimed the lives of 52 people, which will be published in the next few weeks, will say that attacks were the product of a 'simple and inexpensive' plot hatched by four British suicide bombers bent on martyrdom.

Far from being the work of an international terror network, as originally suspected, the attack was carried out by four men who had scoured terror sites on the internet. Their knapsack bombs cost only a few hundred pounds, according to the first completed draft of the government's definitive report into the blasts.

The Home Office account, compiled by a senior civil servant at the behest of Home Secretary Charles Clarke, also discounts the existence of a fifth bomber. After the bombings, police found an unused rucksack of explosives in the bombers' abandoned car at Luton station, which led to a manhunt for a missing suspect. Similarly, it found nothing to support the theory that an al-Qaeda fixer, presumed to be from Pakistan, was instrumental in planning the attacks.

A Whitehall source said: 'The London attacks were a modest, simple affair by four seemingly normal men using the internet.'

Confirmation of the nature of the attacks will raise fresh concerns over the vulnerability of Britain to an attack by small, unsophisticated groups. A fortnight after 7 July, an unconnected group of four tried to duplicate the attack, but their devices failed to detonate.

However, the findings will draw criticism for failing to address concerns as to why no action was taken against the bombers despite the fact that one of them, Mohammed Siddique Khan, was identified by intelligence officers months before the attack. A report into the attack by the Commons intelligence and security committee, which could be published alongside the official narrative, will question why MI5 called off surveillance of the ringleader of the 7 July bombings.

Patrick Mercer, shadow homeland security spokesman, said the official narrative's findings would only lead to calls for an independent inquiry to answer further questions surrounding 7 July.

He said: 'A series of reports such as this narrative simply does not answer questions such as the reduced terror alert before the attack, the apparent involvement of al-Qaeda and links to earlier or later terrorist plots.'

The official Home Office report into the attacks does, however, decide that the four suicide bombers - Siddique Khan, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay - were partly inspired by Khan's trips to Pakistan, though the meeting between the four men and known militants in Pakistan is seen as ideological, rather than fact-finding.

A videotape of Mohammed Siddique Khan released after the attacks also featured footage of Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The Home Office believes the tape was edited after the suicide attacks and dismisses it as evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement in the attack.

Khan is confirmed as ringleader of the attacks, though the Yorkshire-born bomber's apparent links to other suspected terrorists are not discussed for legal reasons.

The report also investigates the psychological make-up and behaviour of the four bombers during the run-up to the attack. Using intelligence compiled in the nine months since, the account paints a portrait of four British men who in effect led double lives.

It exposes how the quartet adopted an extreme interpretation of Islam, juxtaposed with a willingness to enjoy a 'western' lifestyle - in particular Jermaine Lindsay, the bomber from Berkshire.

According to the report, the attacks were largely motivated by concerns over foreign policy and the perception that it was deliberately anti-Muslim, although the four men were also driven by the promise of immortality.

[insidejob]

If the Narrative is saying there was no Al Qaida link, this is ominous for black people, primarily, but also white people. It means that the UK security forces will target black people who are hostile to UK foreign policy, and it won’t stop with black people.

What it means is that if there are UK Muslims who are angry about racism and UK-US foreign policy, alongside many black people, then there are a lot of potential terrorists in the UK. And, these people don’t need the expert and exceptional help of Al Qaida. In fact, the more amateur they can say the 7/7 operation was, the more people there are who could do something similar. Therefore, it can be argued that greater surveillance and suppression of and black people is needed and that the means and capacity to do this is also needed.

What the criminal elite, their secret service conspirators and their supporters want is for ordinary, non-political white people to accept that black people need to be subject to the intimidation that can be done by the state security services. They already accept a reduction in civil liberties. But for the criminal elite, UK black people are not the target, it is ordinary white people. Because state intimidation will be extended in varying degrees to white radicals, dissidents and the whole oppositional movement that exists in the Labour movement, political activists, voluntary sector etc. By the time non-political white people become concerned about civil liberties, it will be too late. The security services can then go after non-political people who start protesting against the Government because of road building or airport development. And the criminal elite will hope that the majority have already been coerced into accepting conformity.

One of the objectives is party political. Part of the options of the criminal elite is the bringing about of a neo-liberal political party that pretends it’s a centre party. They have come to this because they don’t think the public will accept the Tory Party as it is as a vehicle for neo-liberalism and they fear that New Labour will be challenged by its members who want a centre-left party. So, their only vehicle is a new centre party. People will have to be coerced into voting for it because the party will enact neo-liberal policies that harm the majority. So, it will have to attack any centre-left party and that’s where the clamp down on civil liberties, the attack on black people and radicals come in.

There are other reasons why they have to drop the Al Qaida link. One is that many intelligence services researchers, consultants and academics won’t buy it. The elite had to leave the “bomber’s identity documents” around the crime scene so that they could be fingered. But security consultants regard this as such a howler for trained terrorists that they end up questioning it. Stratfor do not depart from the idea that UK Muslims did the bombing, but they are not comfortable with the official explanation. This may then lead to mainstream opinion formers in general asking too many questions and demanding public inquiries.

Also, the link to the Egyptian chemist who was supposed to be the bomb maker fell apart when the Egyptian government said he had nothing to do with the bombing. Pakistan then insisted that they had nothing to do with the London bombing and suggested that UK should look to Britain for its origins. These countries would protest if London in their search for the Al Qaida link pointed the finger at them.

MI5 and the police have also been monitoring what 7/7 sceptics have been saying and have had to change their official explanation to take this into account. It seems to be leading MI5 into looking to the Left to validate their cover story and also to come up with a story that would satisfy the Left. Milan Rai is a member of Justice not Vengeance and wrote ‘7/7, the London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War’. I haven’t read the whole book but it seems to be coming up with this explanation of 7/7 that would satisfy the Left and MI5. He believes the four did the bombing. He believes the religious fundamentalism that the bombers had was hostile to Bin Laden’s Wahhabism. He believes that their political motivation was Iraq. He believes that racism and poverty experienced by UK Muslims is another motivation. This appears to be radical because it refutes Blair’s denial of the Iraq War link. But what it also does is to finger UK Muslims as potential terrorists. The Government’s narrative will no doubt echo Milan Rai’s position.

But the official explanation has an expert terrorist vs amateur terrorist problem: amateur using the web could not have done 7/7.

insidejob