26 June 2006

7/7 Official Narrative in Shreds

The news is brimming with tidbits of information that fundamentally undermine the government's account of the intelligence background to the London bombings. The bombers, we've been told, were 'clean skins'. They hadn't even been identified prior to 7th July 2005, and had surfaced only on the periphery of other investigations.

Last week, we found out from the investigations of Ron Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, that the CIA was so worried about Mohamed Sidique Khan, he had been banned from flying to the USA in 2003. Suskind's source is Dan Coleman, who headed the FBI's al-Qaeda investigations. Now the FBI, still reeling, is denying the revelations.

But Suskind insists: "There is no doubt, from the many sources that I interviewed in the US for my book ... this incident involved Mohammad Sidique Khan."

Now we learn that Special Branch had been monitoring Khan so closely, they had a tracking device on his car.

The chorus of denial is almost deafening. “We don’t discuss matters of surveillance or intelligence,” said a Metropolitican police spokesman. Yes, well, that's why we need an independent public inquiry, because authorities like to keep things secret, especially when they screw-up, or perhaps worse, systematically fail and then lie about it.

We also learn that an IT expert who worked with some of the bombers in Leeds alerted police to Sidique Khan and Shahzad Tanweer, who were, he says, involved in disturbing extremist activities conducive to terrorism.

But the West Yorkshire police, it seems, did nothing. And are still doing so. “We do not discuss intelligence matters and therefore we can’t comment on specific actions.” Hmmm. I don't think most of the British public will be very excited by this sort of blase dismissal of the issue.

As 7/7 survivor Rachel North told the Times, “The bombers were allegedly working alone and not part of any radicalised group. Yet it now appears they were part of a wider network of terrorism and had been known to Special Branch and the security services prior to July 7, for some years in fact."

That's precisely the conclusion I draw in The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry based on a review of the evidence available in the public record. In fact, we already knew even before the recent revelations that Khan and Tanweer were being bugged by MI5, which had listened into their conversations about "jihad", along with their plans to construct a device and flee the country.

We also know that Khan and co. were part of a wider network of terrorists under surveillance in Operation Crevice. I talk at length in the book about these interconnections, as well as the dozen or so other advanced warnings of a terrorist attack on the Tube planned for July 2005 by al-Qaeda received by British intelligence services.

In the ensuing weeks and months, more information is going to come out confirming my thesis that the government had every opportunity to shut down the terrorist network that incubated the London bombers, but failed to do so.

The question is: why did they fail?


  1. I have put down your latest book for my summer holiday reading. I do have one question about your post since it suprised me that you take Ron Suskind at face value. Is this story about Khan and the US not just another example of the legend building we are all too familiar with in the context of 911 and of Zarqawi in Iraq?

  2. I'd like to see proof the four accused were even in London on 7/7 before people start writing books calling them murderers.

    Shame on you Naz if you're embellishing this MYTH.

  3. i look at your link timosman and in same page one story talks about that haroon rashid aswat, 77 mastermind, is an mi6 asset. but at same time another story says that bombers could not have got to london. i don't understand how you can mix these two stories as if they work together. if the bombers weren't in london on 77, who was mi6 asset aswat training and masterminding?

  4. I believe the four from Leeds were framed, anyone writing books calling them murderers when there isn't a shred of proof should be ashamed of themselves.
    Does Naz believe they did it?
    If so it's a bit rich him attacking Melanie Phillips.

  5. As with so many of the issues of our times, the answer to the question 'why did they fail?' boils down to whether you believe our government and security forces to be either wicked or incompetent.

    Not much of a choice really

  6. You ask, "why did they fail?"

    They didn't fail. They succeeded.

    Can't you see it? You, and many others, place too much trust in the Police, Special Branch and the Security Service. You assume they are always acting for the greater good, and therefore come to the conclusion that on 7/7 "they failed". But when you consider the behaviour of the ‘rogue elements’ in our military and intelligence apparatus, then it becomes clear that 7/7 was NOT failure, but success.

    Have you read what David Shayler said about MI5 and MI6? Kevin Fulton? FRU/Loyalist collusion in Northern Ireland? How innocent Catholics were shot by SAS to provoke the IRA? How infra-red devices were allowed to be purchased from America and used in Northern Ireland?And then the classic in Basra, where the two SAS dressed as Arabs with bombs were 'rescued' by the British Army breaking into their jail?

    These people 'have form' on this sort of thing.

    How many people have been arrested under anti-terrorism laws? And how many of them were subsequently either released without charge, or charged for other offences?

    [clue: they were generally Asian/Muslim and most were released without charge, or charged for other offences.]

    And yet Kahn was tracked to terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, was suspected of being fully versed in bombmaking, was named among material sent to Special Branch by Gilbertson, and was even bugged, right up to the very day of the bombings, and recorded saying he wanted to join Jihad, but he was ignored. WHY?

    How can this contradiction be explained? One explanation could be ‘failure’. But there are at least two others.

    What could have been prevented if Kahn had been brought in for questioning, just a few questions, just to let him know he was being watched.

    Maybe the psychological jump from accepting MI5 'failure' to accepting MI5 'complicity' is just too much for some people, but to me the latter is much more probable. They cannot be that incompetent, tasked with defending the realm? Tasked with defending the world financial centre, The City of London? The British Intelligence apparatus has been going for hundreds of years, since about Elizabeth I. From then the British Empire became the greatest Empire in modern history, and that is down to a good intelligence apparatus at home and abroad. Now, why is that same British Intelligence all of a sudden now ‘failing’? The answer is it is not ‘failing’, but succeeding. Police States have been installed all across the world. So how do you install a Police State in Great Britain? Easy. Scare the British people.

    Is it possible that not that many plots are being planned, but when one comes along that’s not too big that a public inquiry can’t be ignored, and not too small so that what effects it has are minimal, then it is allowed to happen, so further calls for clamping down on us can be justified without too much scrutiny of who knew what and when?

    Consider the use of 7/7 too. 90 day detention and even torture were requested, and all because of 7/7. Politicians, Police and Security Service were all too happy to request these. But what’s that you say? You want an independent public inquiry? Go away you silly general public. How can you ask us to take valuable resources away from our fight against [synthetic] terror and ask what we get up to? That’s none of your business. Leave us to fight the terror, and if we need to enact a Police State, don’t worry, it will be for your protection.

    The biggest terrorist attack on the British mainland and they want more police state powers. Will this country become like Argentina, or Chile, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany? The people running this world exercise that control through the USA and Great Britain They got that power by purposefully creating tyrants like Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and all through a sick, fraudulent banking system that allows them to create as much electronic and paper money as they want for their sick, megalomaniac schemes, and holds the world in their perpetual debt. An open society allows us to access that information, through the internet and the freedom of publication. A Police State will not. The only way Great Britain will become such a Police State is if we allow it to become so, by being too bloody apathetic or are tricked into it by state-sponsored synthetic terror.

    At the very least 7/7 was LIHOP, but may well have been a 100% made in British Intelligence HQ synthetic terror attack on the unwitting Great British public.

  7. Never been a Blogger before! How exciting. Re the London bombs, did you not htink it strange that our Tone was having a G8 party at the time? I did. Then we learn that there were"exercises" going on in the very stations that were attacked at that precise moment. How very 9/11. It stinks! Your book should be with me any day now. Thank you so much for your work. On a different point have you seen that FTW has been attacked? You take care.

  8. Those that think that the Leeds 4 were framed and that Nafeez is calling them murderers should note that Nafeez's book doesn't offer any overarching theory of what happened on 7/7, but merely establishs the anomalies in the government's official narrative.

    As with 9/11 there is no need for independent researchers who doubt the official narrative to split according to what they believe happened. All we need to do is present the evidence that challenges the official MYTH and to the gaps and questions that arise.

    And as with 9/11 once the wider public is aware of the full range of compelling evidence that challenges the official myths, they will be able to make their own conclusions

    Ian Neal


  9. It comes to something when Ian Neal of nineeleven asks people to get off the back of this disinformation clown Nafeez Mosad deq Ahmed. Mr Neal, this ba**ard calls them murderers it is completely irrelevant that he has no overarching theory.

    Mosad deq has done exactly what that other little ba**ard Milan Rai has done cobble a book together to make money and go to the US.

    Mr Neal writes that once the wider public is awareof the full range of compelling evidence....they will be able to make their own conclusions.

    Mr Neal, what planet do you live on, Mosad deq clearly states that 4 young muslims are MURDERERS. Does Mr Neal believe that 4 young muslims bombed London as part of Al Qaeda as Mosad deq states, if so state so, if not get into the 21st Century the Independent on Sunday picked up this crap and did the job MOSSAD itself would be proud of.

  10. lol... nafeez doesn't say that the 4 are murderers you joker. the first chapter of his book undermines most of the key parts of the government story in this regard, including the dodgy train times, bombs under trains, and other inconsistencies. he does also examine the reports about the connections of the 4 to mi5, mi6 and other "islamic terrorists" linked to mi5 and mi6. there's no overall theory, but the overall pattern is clear: govt's evidence about the 4 wouldn't stand up in a court of law; even if they were involved in the operation, mi6 and mi5 were deeply connected. (e.g. listen to this http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/priorknow/270606khan.mp3). if you still feel like slandering everyone left, right and centre, go to your GP and get some sedatives.


Blog Archive