|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 7, 2005 11:07:52 GMT
Large numbers of casualties have been reported after at least six explosions on the Underground network and a double-decker bus in London. There is suspicion that this is a terrorist attack. Procedures are in place but London is being ground to a standstill. It seems that we had indeed been the victim of a terrorist attack...
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Jul 7, 2005 12:01:55 GMT
Surprise, surprise, people are already blaming it on al-Qaeda, despite the fact that the latter doesn't exist in any form remotely resembling a coordinated organisation; it exists rather as an idea. I don't doubt that there's a strong possibility that the deeds were done by Islamic terrorists - which seems all the more likely as the bus attack appears to have been a suicide bombing - but government and media alike are already re-stoking the furnace of fear of a vast, sinister and nonexistent organisation with tentacles stretching all over the world with 'sleeper cells' poised to strike at any time.
In any case, Bliar must be very happy.
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Jul 7, 2005 12:42:16 GMT
"An Islamist website has posted a statement - purportedly from al-Qaeda - claiming it was behind the attacks. " Taken from the BBC Website.
Need I say more, Thanatos? I doubt very much that this a time to start criticising Blair, I think we should be focussing on the attacks today and the horrors that happened. Besides, I'm sick to death of conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Jul 7, 2005 13:33:10 GMT
The conspiracy theory is the existence of al-Qaeda in anything resembling what Bush and company would have us believe. It was invented by the US government to enable them to prosecute bin Laden in absentia for the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings (bin Laden is never known to have used the term "al-Qaeda" until after September 11th 2001). What exists is an extremely loose association of many Islamist terrorist groups with links to bin Laden or, rather, his money and his ideology. And it's always the time to criticise Blair; the person most responsible for these attacks, after their perpetrators, is he.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 7, 2005 16:14:59 GMT
"An Islamist website has posted a statement - purportedly from al-Qaeda - claiming it was behind the attacks. " Taken from the BBC Website. Need I say more, Thanatos? Here is the statement in question, as translated by The Associated Press in Cairo;- "Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahedeen carried out a blessed attack in London, and now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west." This statement hasn't yet been verified by anybody, Liquidus, anyone could have said it, and indeed anyone could have posted the claim on the Islamist website. Therefore it's as much a conspiracy theory as any other explanation put forward. And as Thanatos so rightly says, even if it is Islamic Radicals who caused the explosions - and yes, by all means it could be - by definition it can't be al-Qaeda, because that exists about as much as The People's Liberation Front Of Never Never Land. Whether you're tired of conspiracy theories is beside the point; I am suspicious about who is really behind it as there are things that don't add up. Why would the fundamentalists target London right now? Why not last weekend during Live8? Why not target Edinburgh while so many of the world's most prominent politicians are attending? And while I'm certainly not suggesting that Blair is playing both ends against the middle, isn't it just a little odd that London happened to be targeted on the day that he's out of town? Wouldn't bin Laden want to hit the capital while Blair's still there, so that it can affect the "infidel leader" more directly? It's further worth pointing out that, while the modus operandi of the attacks themselves smack very much of certain Islamic Fundamentalist groups, the deliberate, specific targeting of civilians is actually something that bin Laden would not approve of (he accepts that only as inevitable collateral damage in the destruction of a larger target), and what followed does not sound like him at all. With the attacks on American targets in Africa in 1998, the so-called 'al-Qaeda' groups did not accept responsibility for weeks, and with 9/11, bin Laden still hasn't claimed any direct association after four years - such a claim would glorify himself rather than his God, which would go against his Salafist principles. And yet this previously unheard-of group calling themselves the 'al-Qaeda European mujahedeen' have claimed the London atrocity as their own on the same day it happened? Pardon me, but I'm not convinced. Well possibly not (although I for one won't stand in Thanatos' way), but it's the right criticism. This is yet another damning indictment on the war against terrorism - the war that Blair has fervently supported. The terror threat has only increased thanks to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not decreased, and that's because they were the wrong targets. Thanks to Blair supporting these wars, London has been targeted in return. For months and months before the invasion of Iraq everyone was warning Blair it would happen and he ignored them. This is the result. [EDIT: Corrected punctuation errors in typing 'al-Qaeda'.]
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 7, 2005 17:04:37 GMT
Indeed, all of the factions automatically claim responsibility whether or not they had any association at all with the incidents.
The bombings were perpetrated now because of the opening of the G8, and London because far more carnage can be caused there by comparison to Edinburgh. However, I cannot explain why Live8 was not targeted. All I can suggest is that this attack has been planned for longer than Live8, and they decided not to change their plans.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 7, 2005 17:09:51 GMT
Hmm, could be, but I look at what was targeted and it just doesn't seem symbolic enough to be an 'Al Qaeda' target. I'd have expected them to aim for some famous landmark symbolic of Western culture or values, and try to take out as many people with it - not railway stations. The obvious target for today, I would have thought, was Edinburgh castle, or maybe Princes Street, but not London.
By the way, I just noticed, Will, that that was your 911th post! On the day of the biggest terrorist atrocity in the UK, that's a scary coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 7, 2005 17:47:39 GMT
It must be fate And I agree with your inference that the terrorists aren't too professional by their choice of the easy targets - bags aren't, and indeed cannot be checked at tube stations or buses. However, the attacks have harmed the transport infrastructure for a day and have caused an economic problem. NB: Edinburgh Castle would have x-rayed all bags as standard procedure, so they would have found the bomb.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 7, 2005 17:56:40 GMT
Yes, and I suspect the motive behind this attack may indeed be economic, which is one of the reasons why I'm skeptical about bin Laden's involvement. Much as he despises western economic systems, those are not the things he aims at. He is, in the most deranged way, a madman who is obsessed with destroying non-Islamic customs and the things that symbolise such blasphemies. Even the destruction of the World Trade Centre (assuming he really was behind that) was about the symbolism, the American-ness it signified, not the economics.
X-rays? Wow, Edinburgh Castle's security has certainly tightened up since last time I was there! I'm going there in two weeks actually, so I'd best not bring that box of anthrax with me after a-... oops!
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 12, 2005 22:07:16 GMT
Interesting developments in the Police investigation today.
The bombers have been identified as "probably British but of Pakistani origin", native to Yorkshire. Three of the presumed four bombers are believed to have died in the blasts.
Whether this means the attacks were suicide bombings is still not clear, although as there were believed to be seven explosions, four suicide bombers don't quite fit the bill.
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Jul 13, 2005 7:58:37 GMT
Well, it's rumoured around that there were seven explosions, but that's only because they were inbetween tube stations - ONe person heard the bang from one end, one another heard it from the other station, so it's quite easy to assume that there were seven explosions. There might have been only four explosions.
However, this is only speculation. Nothing has been confirmed yet.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 13, 2005 20:22:55 GMT
Last time I checked 4 explosions have been confirmed, and this figure has not changed since the Home Secretary confirmed them in the house.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jul 14, 2005 8:43:41 GMT
It was four according to the bbc this morning (breakfast show on BBC1). In other news, they've arrested some people.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jul 19, 2005 10:43:13 GMT
Yes, an Egyptian teacher has been arrested on suspiion of not being in his house for over a week whle in a foreign country! These scheming arabs must be stopped!
Personally, I'm already banking on a CIA stitch up. The British public has been far too apathetic in the glorious war on terror, and so must be 'stirred up'. MI5 and the British government won't lift a finger to stop it, as it offers the chance for a draconian crackdown on civil liberties (the REAL enemy in the war on terror). That would explain the careful avoidance of Edinburgh (Bush isn't totally expendable, and the risk of losing Blair and the British inheriting some independent PM is too great). As for targeting the transport system, that's a classic palestinian trick, but is included in the CIA terrorist manuals in the School of the Americas (AKA the school of dictators, school of murder, school of general bastardyness).
It's just the kind of trick they'd pull, and it's not clever or well-targeted enough to be a real 'Al-Q' style attack.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 22, 2005 18:30:59 GMT
I doubt the CIA would see British opinions as worth the bother of addressing, but it's a more plausible theory than suggesting Al-Qaeda are behind it.
A botched bomb attack in London yesterday was so incompetently executed that it smacks of a copycat crime. The attack fourteen days earlier probably had nothing to do with bin Laden, this one definitely didn't.
More worrying are the developments today, with a 'suspected bomber' being gunned down by armed police in London. I'll discuss that in the Civil Rights implications thread on the Debate board.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 23, 2005 17:09:52 GMT
The police have now admitted that the man they gunned down at Stockwell Tube station yesterday was not connected to the recent bombing attacks in London. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stmTherefore, yesterday's events now have to go down as a serious crime by the state.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 14, 2005 11:16:44 GMT
Surprise, surprise the government had decided not to hold a public inquiry into 7/7 instead we'll have to put up with a senior Civil Servant compiling a narrative. Wholly unconvincing but not really surprising from Blair's government don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 14, 2005 13:01:50 GMT
Charles Clarke, speaking in September: "Of course there will be an inquiry. There is no question about that."
Charles Clarke, speaking today: "There is no question of a cover-up of any kind,"
Comparing the two statements, and taking the logic to its natural, fullest extent, Clarke appears to be guaranteeing that a cover-up is an absolute certainty.
Not the best way to do it though. It's usually more effective to hold a whitewash enquiry with a premeditated, watered-down result. Although I don't suppose anyone falls for those anymore either.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 14, 2005 18:40:38 GMT
True enough. It's almost impossible to link the suicide bombers to the BBC, and the repeated bungling of the police force had nothing to do with Greg Dyke in any way means shape or form. A cover-up is the only option left, really.
Oh, wait, shit, no, not a cover up!!!! I mean a narrative. Which is another word for a bed-time story. Which is a fictitious tale told to a child so they'll shut up and go to sleep. But this is starting to sound like the inside cover of a Rage Against the Machine album.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 6, 2006 12:29:23 GMT
On Friday, the police embarked on another 'anti-terrorist' raid, forcing their way into the home of Mohammed Abdul Kahar in Forest Gate, at the very heart of one of London's biggest Islamic communities. During the raid, Kahar was shot in the shoulder while going down a flight of stairs.
The police claimed that it was Kahar's brother who fired at him, but the two brothers both maintain that this is not true. Kahar is currently recovering in hospital. Both brothers face being detained for fourteen days under terrorist-prevention laws.
While it is generally-accepted, including by Kahar himself, that the police had to make the raid on the basis of intelligence they received - although the intelligence has not yet been made public - the 'shoot-first-ask-questions-later' policy has again reared its head, just like in the case of Jean Charles di Menezes last year.
(One of the more ridiculous things I've heard in defence of the police handling of this matter was stated yesterday by ex-chairman of the JIC, Paul Lever, who claimed that shooting with prejudice was necessary because Islamic terrorists possess 'Weapons of Mass Destruction.' Can anyone explain to me how that tired old notion insinuated its way into this?)
Kahar has already been questioned three times since yesterday, and yet the police have still to state any allegations to him.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jun 6, 2006 23:18:20 GMT
it's a miracle no one was actually killed. I accept that the police have to act on intelligence they receive, but they seem to be particularly gung-ho about it. I think a lot of officers when they're given guns think they're on an episode of NYPD blue or something.
As for the WMD argument, I've no idea how Lever thought that'd carry any credence given that it's been debunked to death.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 13, 2006 18:40:24 GMT
Nearly two weeks after the raid, and some four days after releasing the two brothers without charge, the police have finally come forward and made a formal public apology.
Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, of the Metropolitan Police Specialist Operations, has said, "I am aware that in mounting this operation we have caused disruption and inconvenience to many residents in Newham and more importantly those that reside at 46 and 48 Lansdowne Road. I apologise for the hurt that we may have caused."
Firstly, it's interesting to note that Hayman is apologising in vague, general terms to the people of the area, rather than specifically to the people the police harmed. Secondly, Hayman seems to be trying to apologise through understatement. Getting shot causes inconvenience, it seems. "I apologise for the hurt that we may have caused." May have caused? Hayman has apparently concluded that getting shot might inflict a modicum of physical discomfort. How very honest of him to concede that.
Of course, many people might assume that it definitely inflicts tortuous agony, but then what would most people know? I don't suppose many of them have been shot before... {endpedanticrightwingbloggerspeak}.
He went on to say, "While we have not found evidence of what we were looking for at the house, the intelligence received did raise serious concerns for public safety. On that basis we had no choice but to mount a robust operation, which required a fast armed response."
This may well be true. But the police have still not offered the slightest explanation for why they felt a force of two hundred-and-fifty - count 'em folks, that's 250 - fully-armed police officers could be construed as a reasonable, proportionate and necessary response to a perceived 'threat' from an army of two. Is it any wonder Moslems in Britain feel threatened by the police when law-enforcement is so sledgehammer?
This attempt at public 'magnanimity' by the police was a response to a press conference given earlier by the two brothers, whose memory of events is - oh stand back in amazement - not altogether in accord with that of the police.
Let's make one thing clear before anything else; it is now absolutely beyond any glimmer of doubt that the police lied when they claimed the shot that injured Mohammed Kahar came from Abul Koyair. Mohammed further states that after he was hurled into a wall by the shot, officers kicked him and screamed at him to be quiet, before unceremonoiusly dragging him outside and pinning him to the ground in the street.
In his own words; -
"I was begging: 'Please, please, I can't move.' He just kicked me in my face, and he kept on saying: 'Shut the f*ck up. Stay here.' I thought they were going to shoot me again or shoot my brother. I heard them shouting: 'Secure the room.' At that moment, I still did not know they were the police, they never said a word about the police."
They went on to complain that the interrogation they faced from the police was physical and menacing; -
"At the beginning, I was more curious. I wanted to know the reason why I got arrested. I knew it was something to do with terrorism. I asked the officer in charge of the police: 'Can you tell me, what have I done?' They mentioned a few names of terrorist organisations. I didn't recognise any of them until they mentioned al-Qaeda. Then they said: 'Are you a member of Jemaah Islamiah?' They kept on telling me I'm a member of a few things. Then at the end they go: 'I know it's going to be a daft question, but are you a member of a white organisation, the Ku Klux Klan?' I didn't even have time to laugh. I thought: 'These people are thinking I'm a white terrorist now', and they wasn't even joking."
"The only crime I have committed is being Asian and having a long beard."
"They haven't had the decency to apologise. Even when I was released I didn't get a word of sorry."
Well, he's got one now, even if it doesn't appear to be directed to him especially. So why doesn't he smile? Well, all right, there's still a massive bullet-hole on the edge of his chest, but surely that's comfortably atoned-for by this vague, grudging, weasly apology-for-an-apology.
Come back, KGB, come back, Brezhnev, all is forgiven.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jun 14, 2006 1:33:27 GMT
Could Hayman have acted any more like a petulant child, dragged kicking and screaming to apologise to his neighbours for breaking their window with the football?
I am not in the least surprised by Kahar's treatment at the hands of the police; they're jackbooted thugs employed by thugs in suits. One fact I'm aghast as is that they had a 250-strong backup force there. What in the hell were they expecting?
I can't believe Kahar didn't even get a direct apology. That should be the very least, the guy deserves compensation. Wouldn't you want that if the police shot you in the chest for no good reason?
[edit: 200th post!]
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 16, 2006 22:11:57 GMT
Going back to the draconian murder of Jean Charles de Menezes last year, the enquiry-into-the-enquiry so to speak, which has lasted rather a long time already, shows little sign of reaching its conclusion soon. In fact, the final report, known as 'The Stockwell 2 Report', looks unlikely to be completed until the end of August, fully thirteen months after de Menezes was murdered, and around eleven months since the original enquiry concluded.
The reason is because the report cannot be completed until the Independent Police Complaints' Commission have had a chance to question Sir Ian "It's-Not-My-Fault-It's-Never-The-Police's-Fault-And-Let-Me-Carry-Guns-Around-And-Spy-On-Arabs-For-Not-Being-White-Or-I-Cry" Blair. And Blair has decided that he will not be available for questioning until late August.
Remember, folks, next time you get arrested for shooting someone, just make it clear to the officers when they try to question you that you won't be available to give them any answers for eleven months. Obviously you'll be let free, I mean they wouldn't treat Joe Public less kindly than their own would they? Nice, reasonable, fair-minded chaps, the Met.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jun 16, 2006 22:57:39 GMT
These knuckle-heads have taken 13 months, and still haven't come up with a nice way to cover up the real reason, which is that they're incompetent racist fucktards who shot someone for looking a bit brazilian in order to get results (whatever they are)
|
|