7/7 Inquiry Called For - Or We'll Keep Having More Bloody Conspiracy Theories!
To understand 7/7, we need an official account
An inquiry into the 7/7 bombings would provide some much-needed empirical evidence on which to base policy responses
Jonathan Githens-Mazer guardian.co.uk, Saturday 2 May 2009 11.00 BST Article history
Given the recent acquittals for those accused of assisting the 7 July 2005 attacks, and much recent media attention about the job done by the police and security services on this occasion, questions continue to be asked about how and why this attack happened. How could Mohammed Siddique Khan, who appeared so well integrated and adjusted to modern British society, decide not only to end his own life, but to deliberately kill others? How did his belief and practice of faith make a suicide attack seem a rational action? What was the interplay between personal crises and collective senses of injustice and disempowerment which brought Khan to take this kind of decision?
As long ago as 2005, some suggested that these questions were unanswered because of the British government's anxiety that an official inquiry into these events would highlight the role that perceptions of foreign policy played in the bombers' "radicalisation". Today the lack of an official examination of what might have caused these events primarily neglects the needs of victims to know what really happened (see Rachel North's contribution here), and sits oddly with the government's insistence that counter-terrorism is such an important area of policy.
So what can we glean from the information publicly available? For the conspirators who killed 52 London commuters that day, "suicide bombing" was a choice inspired or directed by al-Qaida. In the suicide bombers' post-dated videos there is clear evidence that they drew inspiration from Osama bin Laden's propaganda statements claiming legitimacy for the tactic. The attacks would be justified by the men who carried it out in exactly the same way bin Laden rationalised 9/11 and 3/11:
What happened in September 11 [in New York and Washington] and March 11 [in Madrid] is your own merchandise coming back to you. We hereby advise you … that your definition of us and of our actions as terrorism is nothing but a definition of yourselves by yourselves, since our reaction is of the same kind as your act. Our actions are a reaction to yours, which are destruction and killing of our people as is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine …
Legitimacy here is premised on reciprocity. For Mohammed Siddique Khan and the other 7/7 bombers, political grievance and the shame of defeat were assuaged by bin Laden's views on acts of reciprocal violence:
By what measure of kindness are your killed considered innocents while ours are considered worthless? By what school [of thought] is your blood considered blood while our blood is water? … Therefore, it is [only] just to respond in kind, and the one who started it is more to blame …
Therefore, it can hypothesised that a 7/7 public inquiry might highlight grievance and shame as motivational factors. These same factors inspired those who attacked London commuters in earlier periods, such as the Provisional IRA, which drew upon a long tradition of seeing "honour and pride" restored through "noble" death (the messianic nature of the Easter Rising, the use of Patrick Pearse's treatises on blood sacrifice, and the power of the hunger strikes). Yet one key strand of government policy continues to insist that these forms of terrorism are ideologically distinct – "radical nationalism" (in the case of the IRA) and "religious and quasi-religious extremism" (in the case of al-Qaida) – and therefore require different responses.
All of this raises the question: is the lack of a public enquiry into 7/7 about the power to control policy agendas, being uncomfortable about the domestic effects of foreign policy, or both? The lack of an enquiry means it is impossible to challenge any government position, because no interpretation of the attacks can be supported in the absence of a full official account, and there is no official account to derive adapted policy responses.
But holding a public enquiry into 7/7 is more than about good governance: in the absence of a rigorous evidence based examination of 7/7, public debate and commentary always breaks down into ad nauseam political sectarianism and point-scoring – take your pick from it's the fault of a) religion, b) ideology, c) foreign policy, d) the intelligence services, e) psychological vulnerability, f) social factors, g) ethnic background etc. This means that we have little ability beyond the anecdotal to support or dismiss arguments such as that put forward recently on Comment is free by Tahir Abbas, that social forces can contribute to terrorist attacks. And this is more than an academic debate: for Muslim communities themselves, the lack of a public enquiry has served to fuel conspiracy theories, often variations on the themes of false evidence (for example, the invalidity of CCTV evidence of the 7/7 bombers at Luton railway station) and a hidden State hand (for example, a covert US or Israeli action).
So the lack of an enquiry on 7/7 cuts many ways. It means that we are no closer to a meaningful and demonstrable understanding of how and why this terrible incident happened, it prevents a publicly-sanctioned and audited learning process for counter-terrorist best practice, and it fuels conspiracy theories and ideological (often sectarian) accounts of why it happened because fact and knowledge are being replaced with guesswork, speculation and emotion. Instead of the clarity and transparency that Lord Scarman and Lord Macpherson brought to bear on events of equal concern to other minority communities, in the wake of 7/7, British communities of every kind have been forced to rely instead on government narratives that carry little credibility.
A public enquiry into 7/7 needs to be more than about blame – concentrating on the relative performance of the security services obscures the important contributions which could be made by community voices, and undermines an ability to understand its root causes. A serious 7/7 public enquiry that examined why it happened, not just how it happened, would provide a fundamental building block for understanding the nature of the very real, persistent threat of al-Qaida inspired attacks in Britain, and aid in their prevention. Therefore, any enquiry needs to include community voices – not just the usual security services and police suspects – in order to ensure its legitimacy in Muslim communities, and in order to foster meaningful basis for long term intra- and inter-community discussions about these issues amongst the wider British public.
Without the enquiry, it is impossible to claim that government counter-terrorism policy is based on anything but emotion and intuition – without a public enquiry, it becomes reasonable to ask the question: what is the evidence base for counter-terrorism policy, and can it really claim to be anything more than ideologically driven?
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
see also these...
Trials and lack of key facts rule out 7/7 inquiry
and from Britain's very own female Jon Gold:
Give us a 7/7 inquiry
Now that the July 7 trial is over, there can be no more excuses. It is time that truth, if not justice, was finally served
Rachel North
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 April 2009 15.36 BST
For almost four years I've been spearheading the survivors' and families' campaign for an independent inquiry into the London bombings and whether they could have been prevented. We've paused our judicial review proceedings into the legality of the government's decision not to have an inquiry, and waited patiently for the trial, then retrial, of three men accused of conspiring to cause explosions with the 7 July 2005 terrorists. That trial ended yesterday, with the men acquitted of the most serious charges, to the disappointment of many stakeholders – including the victims' families and the police, who have worked ferociously hard to investigate the worst terrorist outrage on UK soil.
Truth and justice are what all victims of crime yearn for. There will never be justice for those bereaved and injured on 7/7, because the men responsible will never face a judge and jury: they chose to die by their own hand. But the truth can be told, at last, and it is time for those with the answers to speak out without fear or favour. They have been reassured that we want no witch hunt; this is simply about learning lessons and saving lives.
The Guardian today reveals how the bombers were far from the "clean skins" who "came out of the blue" which the home secretary, briefed by the police and security service, spoke of in summer 2005. Months before the bombings, they were followed, photographed, filmed and recorded, with their terrorist friends who were weeks away from being arrested for planning to detonate a huge fertiliser bomb. There was enough evidence for the police to arrest and question the 7/7 ringleaders, even if the security service could not because their attention was focused elsewhere.
A devastating picture of failures of intelligence and communication has emerged, through evidence in trials, giving a tantalisingly partial picture of the build up to 7/7. Human error is understandable, especially when those tasked to protect us are working at full stretch. However, any desire to cover up mistakes because of embarrassment, or politics, would not be understandable – or forgivable. This is a mass murder case after all. Terrorists and terrorism are the subject of endless debate and media coverage – politicians are not shy about talking about the terror threat in parliament, or to the media. So why this governmental reluctance to take a cool, forensic look at what went wrong on 7/7, how these killers slipped through the gaps, and to show the public that every possible lesson has been learned?
The families still wait for inquests, fearful that when they happen they may be held in secret under the proposed legislation of the coroners and justice bill. The longer this goes on, the greater their suffering. It is not right and it is not acceptable and now the criminal legal proceedings are over, there can be no more excuses.
A lack of honest answers only fuels damaging conspiracy theories, undermines intelligence and degrades public trust in those sworn to protect us from harm. It is time that truth, if not justice, was finally served: give us an inquiry now.
it's like the debunkers are all clones!
RachelNLondon
02 May 09, 6:05pm
Contributor Connie Spiracy & Thea Wrist: After three years of 7/7 research on the internet, we can reveal the TRUTH, and would like to share it with you all now. Everything in the following is taken from a real, credible, internet 7/7 research source. Placed together, we're sure you will see what a compelling case it all makes - much more convincing than the official version. Hold tight - this will change your world.
A few years ago, wicked people agreed upon an evil scheme. In order to bolster their nefarious plans for
(a) introducing ID cards (b) endless war for oil (c) endless war against Islam
a dreadful 'false flag' plot was hatched by
(a) the UK government (b) a shadowy Bilderberg hyper-capitalist neocon cabal (c) the CIA (d) M15/6 (e) Israel( f) Jews, somewhere, (g) an elite part-reptilian super-race
They decided to attack London on 7th July and blame it on Islamist terrorist suicide bombers. (There are no such things as Islamist terrorist suicide bombers, especially not UK ones, who have wives and children and look normal.) The terrible plot went like this:
M15 placed bombs under the trains, which had been timed to explode. They worked with Israel to do this, Mossad probably, and maybe the CIA as well. The Israeli PM, who was staying near Russell Square, knew in advance and was warned, even though what actually happened was that after the Russell Square bomb went off, he was warned to stay in his room with his security detail, so missing the fourth bomb in Tavistock Square round the corner less than an hour later. A huge world-leading Israeli-owned security and surveillance company won the contract to put in enhanced security systems on the London Underground in September 2004, ten months before the bombings, so that proves everything. Oh, and a passenger who was in the same carriage as the bomb at Edgware, who remained with a dying woman then staggered out in shock said he 'couldn't remember' seeing where a bomb or a bag was. Which also proves it. Kind of.
But if you want a final piece of proof, one survivor also mentioned to a journalist outside the station shortly after fleeing the train, that they had seen tiles on the floor of the carriage fly up. This was because of the bomb which had been placed in a rucksack on the floor of the carriage in front. Erm, but it could also indicate a bomb under the carriage, although photographs of the train interior indicate the bomb was inside. As does eye-witness evidence from survivors who were in the carriage with the bomber. Including a man who stood opposite him and survived with terrrible injuries.
The bombers were innocent; they were however standing in the carriages and killed by the bombs in their rucksacks that they were carrying. But that wasn't their fault, because they were innocent 'patsies' who thought they were smuggling drugs or taking part in a mysterious terror training exercise. That was why they'd bought return tickets, even though a cheap day return is cheaper than a single. They'd even made videos describing why they considered themselves soldiers in a war against the UK. And been to terror training camps abroad and everything. They took their acting role very seriously indeed. But they were completely innocent, remember.
The person co-ordinating the mysterious terror exercise was Peter Power, an ex-Scotland Yard officer, who like many other former cops had set up his own company. His company specialises in training management to be crisis-prepared. So on July 7th, in a shocking and unimaginable coincidence, he was sitting in an office teaching some managers, in a publishing company that employed about a thousand people, how to plan for disasters, like he did every day.
At 9am, the start of the working day, he was asking the managers to consider what would happen if major tube stations were attacked at rush hour. I know. Amazing and frankly not believable - even though there had been a rush hour Al Qaeda attack on Madrid commuters, and a London tube attack was widely considered to be a likely terror target. As part of his training material, he used recordings of a Panorama programme simulating a terror attack on London. He'd been on the programme - God knows why the BBC would ask a respected security and risk expert onto a programme about terrorism and the risk to security, but there you go.
When the real attacks happened in London, where he was working that day along with hundreds of thousands of other people, he was shocked - but used the opportunity to mention the prescience of his security firm. A most untypical reaction of a self-employed risk consultant with an opportunity to talk about his company on national news, we're sure you'll agree.
( continued next post)
Recommend? (7)
Report abuse
Clip | Link RachelNLondon
02 May 09, 6:06pm
Contributor The poor not-bombers were killed, along with passengers on the tube trains. But one bomber remained alive. When he realised he was a dupe, he fled to Canary Wharf, where he knew there were lots of journalists in media organisations who would help him. That's what anyone would do in such a situation - hurry across the city to Canary Wharf.
When the young non-bomber arrived at Canary Wharf, he was promptlyshot in broad daylight by black-clad gunmen, in the full view of lots of towering office blocks full of journalists and business people. A much smarter idea than taking him into a van and bumping him off,eh?
His remains were then chopped up, taken back to the exploded bus and carefully scattered about to fool everyone.
The bus wasn't really exploded at all, however. It was full of actors and stuntmen, and used clever pyrotechnics to look like it was exploded. It was all part of Peter Power's mysterious terror drill.
But Peter Power didn't know the real reason why he had been asked to run a complicated terror drill complete with fake exploding bus for the benefit of a few managers in a publishing company who never left their office and were doing a planning exercise on powerpoint with videos in a different part of London.
The wicked plotters behind it all were using Power as a dupe, to add weight to their plot to blow up three trains and blame it all on Muslims. They were so evil that they actually wanted to be found out and send a coded message of their mocking disdain by doing the high-risk strategy of the shooting and faked bus explosion as well; to add insult to this they then cynically arranged for a red London bus with a lift-off roof full of dancers to appear at the Olympic handover to London ceremony.
Thousands of passers-by, police, emergency services workers have all kept quiet about all this, aided by a complicit media. M15 and their masters ruthlessly suppress the truth by allowing bloggers and internet truth campaigners to write about this and distribute DVDs and hold meetings about itregularly.
We realise when I write all this down it looks very silly, almost demented, which is why it is always better not to explain this is what happened, and instead just ask lots of questions and look at isolated details out of context. But I know that the official account is all lies and the ultimate proof is of course, that 9/11 Was An Inside Job.
That is basically the 7/7 conspiracy theories in one handy summary.
Recommend? (9)
Report abuse
Clip | Link RachelNLondon
02 May 09, 6:07pm
Contributor And what a bunch of arse the conspiracy theories are: I don't know how people can repeat them with a straight face.