Prevent: A Totally Illiberal Strategy 131

I have now ploughed through all 120 pages odd of the Government’s new Prevent Strategy, which manages to be even more illiberal and more turgid than the original. It claims that the last Prevent Strategy was misguided – but for all the wrong reasons. Rather amusingly, it starts with a message of endorsement from Lord Carlile – who also endorsed the last strategy which it criticises so strongly. The truth is, Carlile will endorse anything for any government which gives him status – he loves status – “It has my considered and strong support” he concludes his endorsement – you have to imagine saying it with marbles in your mouth and a degree of insufferable pomposity – “It has my considered and strong support”- wanker.

The report has many errors. but its fundamental flaw is iits explicit assumption that terrorism is actuated by a hatred of democracy.

” There is evidence to indicate that support for terrorism is associated with rejection of a cohesive, integrated, multi-faith society and of parliamentary democracy. Work to deal with radicalisation will depend on developing a sense of belonging to this country and support for our core values. “

That may in part be true; but with stunning intellectual dishonesty the government refuses to tackle in the report the fact that terrorism in the UK has been driven by disgust at British foreign policy, and especially the invasion of Iraq, and the continuing occupation and civilian deaths in Afghanistan. This is not speculation on my part; the 7/7 bombers not only referred to this specifically in suicide videos, they also indeed cited extraordinary renidition and torture as motives of their actions.

The Prevent Strategy ignores this and instead chooses to adopt the stupidly simple mantra of George W Bush to explain terrorism; “They hate our freedoms”. This is precisely the sole cause of terrorism which the Prevent Strategy defines as the problem. When the problem is defined fundamentally wrongly, you can hardly expect the solutions to be correct.

And those conclusions are stunningly illiberal – much more so than the mainstream media has picked up This is a direct quote. I am not making it up:

But preventing terrorism will mean challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas that are also part of a terrorist ideology.

The (and non-violent) is there in the original. Really.

So peaceful support for a united Ireland should not be allowed, because it is “also part of a terrorist ideology”? That is absolutely the implication of the report. But it is plain it only applies to Muslim groups, on the grounds that they “pose the greatest threat” to the public,

So what it means is that believing that the UK should be governed by Sharia law, even if you hold that belief totally lawfully and without violence, and wish to campaign for it through democratic means, should not be allowed.

But it goes further than that. Universites, healthcare providers, NGOs and faith groups are to be vigilant in searching for those who hold such beliefs, and reporting them to the police. We have already seen where this leads. At Nottingham University two students were thrown out for researching information on Al Qaida on the State Department website, and then a lecturer was sacked for defending them.

Pages 15 to 19 cover support for terrorism and the drivers for it. There is one single phrase in five pages that acknowledges western foreign policy as a motivator for terrorism, but this is then ignored, while all the other factors are treated at great length. The opinion polls cited on pages 16 to 17 on Muslim attitudes to terrorism refrained from asking any question about western foreign policy or giving any chance for respondents to refer to it.

There is an accidentally hilarious part of the report where it denies that Prevent is used for spying on Muslim communities. That, they say, falls under a related programme called Pursue, and should not be confused with Prevent! But twenty odd pages after their lengthy passage claiming Prevent has been unfairly accused of spying, which is the task of Pursue, we find:

“Taking action against propagandists and radicalisers requires careful coordination between work in the Pursue and Prevent areas” p. 52

Which is something of a giveaway.

There is also yet another example of the Tories fulfilling their pledge to reach the target of 0.7% of GDP spent on development aid, by classifying war and “security” expenditure as development aid.

The Department for International Development (DfID) also has a role to play. Although its main purpose is to reduce poverty, overseas development work in some areas can help to build resilience to terrorism through programmes that strengthen governance and security,

With my interest in the university sector, it is some of the stuff on universities I find most chilling. It is full of reasonable sounding propositions that reveal the feeble grasp of a limited intellect:

Universities and colleges have an important role to play in Prevent, particularly in ensuring balanced debate as well as freedom of speech.

There is no obligation on universities to provide “balanced debate”. Do they have to have a creationist speaker at every lecture on evolution? There is still less of an obligation on them to ensure balanced debate in the extra-curricular activities of their students. Does there have to be a Tory speaker at every meeting against the cuts? And remember, that the Prevent Strategy makes plain that the “extremist speakers” they wish to guard against specifically include speakers with a non-violent ideology.

But the great news is, that restrictions on what you are allowed to think at university are all for your own good:

to ensure that all institutions where there is risk of radicalisation recognise their duty of care to students to protect them from the consequences of their becoming involved in terrorism, and take reasonable steps to minimise this risk;

This incredible piece of Orwellian justification for the end of academic freedom is breathtaking in its audacity. The practical consequences could easily be transposed into a manual of the Third Reich, of Stalin’s Russia or Pinochet’s Chile. Again I am not making this stuff up, this is what the report says about universities:

work with the police and other partners to ensure that student societies and university and college staff have the right information and guidance to enable them to make decisions about external speakers.

support local police forces in working with those institutions assessed to be at the greatest risk;

Under New Labour I had the peculiar experience of finding myself banned from entering a Cambridge University building, and therefore delivering a speech to a large crowd of students who gathered in the foyer to hear me as I shouted through the open doorway. I honestly did believe that the Lib Dems and even the Conservatives would be better. I was very, very wrong.

This new Prevent Strategy is a document which sadly proves that the staff of MI5 and the Home Office are, on average, not very bright, and will always favour their own power over liberty. Media reports have focused on the decision to withdarw government funding from those organisations viewed as “extremist”, because that is what the government press release said, and no mainstream journalist will ever actually read the report.

In fact I favour withdrawing that funding. Personally I don’t think the government should fund any faith group or institution.

One organisation which will still receive plenty of government funding under the Prevent programme is the Quilliam Foundation,. This taxpayer funded body attempted by subterfuge to gain personal financial details from me. That says all you need to know about Prevent, which is a secret service led programme.

In fact, if the government got much smaller, and stopped funding attacks on foreign countries, we would all be vastly safer, which would be a real “Prevent Strategy”.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

131 thoughts on “Prevent: A Totally Illiberal Strategy

1 2 3 4 5
  • Suhayl Saadi

    Correction wrt my long-ish post, above: The line ought to have read

    Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto also changed the name of the country from ‘The Republic of Pakistan’ to ‘The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’. Again, he was pandering to the Islamists, who were exerting growing pressure on his regime.

  • mark_golding

    Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is unsure in his recent interview why Bin Laden was announced dead(shot in the head) *at this particular time* considering a number of American and other sources including intelligence suggested his whereabouts was known, certainly by the Pakistan ISI and had been known for a number of years (WikiLeaks), possibly even longer.

    I propose that President Obama and his close advisers are right now backed into a tight corner by a number of rapidly moving fronts that actually threaten Obama’s ability to protect the Presidency. By that I mean protecting the system by which America maintains cohesion, authority, (which includes power), and integrity – prerequisites essential to social stability and vital against anarchy. This also applies to Britain.

    Obama must therefore have options, a flexibility to maintain at least the status quo. His war in Afghanistan is failing and Americans are ‘knocking at the door’ to bring soldiers home or at least retreat behind ‘green zones.’

    The economy is dire, the aristocracy, the elite, the haut monde, the ‘establishment’ or parallel government want results, or a return on their investment. They have dug deep.

    The Middle East is in transition and uprising is spreading; the people are mobilized, they have stimulus and motivation.

    The ‘war on terror’ has had huge set-backs initiated by the failure of public support for the Iraq war caused by a failure of ulterior motive resulting in too much exposure and criticism, it took long, cost too much and the aftermath was unexpected and out of control, hence a British withdrawal compelled by frustrated commanders despite extreme political pressure in the shadows. There was no victory in Iraq so the victory *had* to come from Afghanistan.

    The tenth anniversary of 911 is approaching and anniversaries are an important part of human culture. 911 has irritating problems and many academics and intellectuals sniff a tipping point in public awareness and are becoming more comfortable by numbers to come out, perceiving increasing public calls for inquiry.

    Power is shifting East and energy resources favor an assertive Russia, a prosperous China and an energized and resourceful Iran strengthened by failed sanctions.

    Israel has lost International respect

    The West is nervous as alternate paths become increasingly limited. Another crash could occur many times more acute than the recession of 2008.

    Thinking conceptually if we input all this data into our geopolitical machine all we get as output is, ‘Those who are with us, we advocate and those who are not, they have no place in the community’ – a somewhat cryptic distress signal that should read, ‘we have run out of options and only combat can save us so be prepared to swallow our venom or succumb, recede and crumble from the alternative.

    Personally I am prepared to take the risk.

  • angrysoba

    Mark: “Personally I am prepared to take the risk.”
    Vague gobbledigook shouldn’t be confused with profundity. And declaring that you are taking a risk doesn’t automatically confer bravery.

  • angrysoba

    “The army in Indian Kashmir have also been pretty aggressive on occasions but, I suppose, as the leadership there is now broadly pro-American, it’s best not to mention that, eh, Angry ?”
    Well, Kashmir is the root of much of the problems in Afghanistan and with the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan had, for a long time, been using Afghanistan to train up jihadists to fight against India in Kashmir and the country itself was seen as part of Pakistan’s military policy of “strategic depth”. If India were ever to invade Pakistan, Afghanistan would have been an area for a kind of Ho Chi Minh trail providing a way for Pakistan to fight back.
    The ironic thing is that the Afghan Taliban are using Pakistan as strategic depth, hiding out there from the Afghan government forces, while the Pakistani Taliban are using Afghanistan as strategic depth hiding out there from Pakistan’s government.
    Many of the Islamists are dependably anti-Indian. Except perhaps for those that are backed by India, or the US, or Turkey, or Iran, or Russia etc…

  • Courtenay Barnett

    George Kennan, the US architect of the ‘cold war’ made this honest observation:-

    “Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”

    Extend his observation to the foreign policy actions of the junior UK partner, and then consider the blowback when Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya ( and more to come) are attacked. Therein you have at least some of the explanation for the ‘terrorist’ backlash.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Wrt Kashmir, angrysoba, yes, I think your depiction in the post two above this is right. The term ‘strategic depth’ was coined by Hamid Gul, ex-Chief of the ISI, who was one of the main architects of the Islamists as a military force acting in concert with the security-military elite of Pakistan (not to be confused with the Govt of Pakistan – the two are often literally and in varying degrees at war with each other). ‘Strategic depth’ was a hoodwink, really, since militarily (as I understand it from having read about the subject) it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. It was really a way of driving the Islamist agenda as a way of ensuring power in perpetuity for the same security-military elites which people like Gul (in describing this entity as a ‘person’, I am being very civilised and restrained here, you realise) represent and exemplify. No question – India has committed huge human rights abuses in Kashmir and the military in India do not want it fixed because it justifies their budget and also for strategic geographical reasons – rivers, China and much else. But Pakistan also has committed, through its Islamist proxies, human rights abuses against, for example, Hindu Kashmiri Pandits who have had to leave Kashmir en masse as well as against secular Kashmiri nationalists, etc. And the periodic and very well-modulated Islamist infiltration across the Line of Control is used then to ‘justify’ the presence of massive numbers of (literally) rapine Indian troops in Kashmir. So until both sides decide it’s time to fix it – and it is eminently fixable; the structures for fixing it have been in place for decades – for such a solution, Af-Pak-Kash (to coin a new monstrous term) will continue until, possibly, there is a nuclear ‘incident’. God (or Richard Dawkins) help us all! I hope I am wrong and a solution is found. Pakistan is effectively a particular and well-known kind of military state and if Pakistan can have a mass people’s (not Islamic) revolution, entailing massive land reform and redistribution of wealth, mass health and education programmes over a 5-10-year period, and get rid of its generals (this is the pre-requisite for all the preceding: lock the bastards in their barracks and throw away the key!) and ship off its feudal landowners (or at least defenestrate them of power) to, say, Saudi Arabia or St Helena (but not the UK, please!) then there there may be hope. Until then…. expect more of the same.

  • Kevin Boyle

    The 7/7 ‘bombers’ were patsies, hired as actors to play the part of terrorists in the Peter-Power-led ‘terror drill’ that took place on the morning of 7/7.

    During the 7/7 Inquest it was revealed that there were THREE holes in the Edgeware Road carriage. Khan was ‘identified’ by only one individual, Danny Biddle, who had come out of a coma that lasted many weeks. Biddle (presumably having been shown the Khan video and having been told he was the bomber), said Khan was in front of him holding his rucksack on his lap. Wherever this rucksack (with black pepper and hydrogen peroxide sloshing about inside it it) was, it could not have blown three widely-spaced holes in the floor. First reports were of the train being lifted off the tracks………there is so much more, but the question is why was none of this reported?

    Enough of this referring to the 7/7 narrative as if it is the gospel truth. It is NOTHING BUT LIES. EXTREMELY EVIL LIES that misdirect us all and continue to cause countless deaths, almost always (it is fair to say) of brown-skinned people. Here is a recent article on 7/7 outlining more of the unreported anomalies:

    What will become of a people too mentally lazy and stupidly trusting to take an interest in their own survival?

    Yesterday Mike Adams published an excellent article titled ‘The Gullible Mind Explained’. It could have been describing the wall of uncritical and lazy reporting now hitting the airwaves regarding Lady Justice Hallett’s report on the recent 7/7 Inquest.

    The content of this report was easily predictable. Simply inevitable.

    There are two competing narratives to explain this crime:

    1) The official story of four suicide bombers murdering 52 people and injuring hundreds by exploding four bombs on three tube trains and one bus on the morning of 7/7.

    2) Forces embedded within the establishment carried out a false-flag attack against the British people. As with nearly all false-flag events, patsies were set up to take the blame for the crime. The four Muslims were completely innocent actors paid to participate in a concurrent anti-terror ‘drill’.

    As you will have guessed, I am one of the many who subscribe to conspiracy theory number two.


    After 9/11 the murderous confabulation that is modern history soared and raged all around us under guise of a ‘War on Terror’, providing the necessary pretext for just about anything the western military-industrial complex felt like doing. However, in the UK we (or should I say the Labour government) had a serious problem. Although Blair and his army of stooges signed up to every invasion and participated loyally in every occupation, the one thing our ‘War on Terror’ was short on was…..the terror. It appeared that British Muslims, peeved though they undoubtedly were at watching their co-religionists being slaughtered by the million in Iraq, just wouldn’t turn their energies toward blowing up their fellow Englishmen. The ‘War on Terror’ was happening somewhere else.

    The fact that on 7/7/05 four (or more) explosions killed fifty-two innocent people making their way to work on a Thursday morning changed all that.

    Nonetheless the story, universally accepted by the British media (if not across the country), that four Islamic-terrorist suicide-bombers murdered them remains an unproven and (as I will attempt to explain) highly unlikely conspiracy theory.

    Firstly it needs to be noted that the refusal of both the Labour and the new Tory/Liberal alliance to hold a public Inquiry into the events of 7/7 should ring a very loud alarm bell for every British citizen. This was the largest mass-murder ever on British soil. One might have expected the promoters of the ‘War on Terror’ to use a Public Inquiry to cash in on an incident that would make and massively boost their case.

    In a court of law physical evidence always trumps excuses, allegations, observations or any other kind of verbal contribution to a case, so one should perhaps begin here.

    The Explosives

    Here is a timeline for the 7/7 explosives narrative as it developed:

    The first analysis came from a genuine expert. This is surely the most reliable commentary on the nature of the bombs that went off that morning. The problem is that it would have been all-but-impossible for four young men from Leeds to get their hands on such materials.

    On 12 July 2005, Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, chief of French anti-terrorism Coordination Unit who was in London assisting Scotland Yard with its investigation, confirmed to The Times that,‘The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying….the material used were not homemade but sophisticated military explosives …’ (Nafeez Ahmed The London Bombs, p.24)

    On 13th July it was stated that these were of ‘C4’ explosive….London explosives have military origin – [Science Daily. LONDON, July 13 (UPI)]: Forensic scientists told the newspaper the construction of the four devices detonated in London was very technically advanced, and unlike any instructions that can be found on the Internet.’

    From The Independent on July 14th: ‘A bath filled with explosives has been found at a house in Leeds that was the “operational base” for the London suicide bombers
    17th July 2005 The Observer: ‘22 lbs TATP in the bath.’

    The TATP story survived but faded away in 2007 then, when the 7/7 Kingston trial came along in the summer of 2008 all trace of the TATP story had gone.

    Now the explosives were made of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide. The idea of the four heating up Hydrogen Peroxide in their kitchen to the point where it would make an explosive mix with black pepper is simply laughable. How could they test that their ‘bombs’ were going to go off. Were they going to go lurching across the country with this kind of bomb sloshing about in their rucksacks. Has anybody ever made a bomb out of this mixture? If such a bomb did explode could it possibly have caused the devastation created on 7/7?

    There is much written online that mocks these materials as potential tools of mass destruction. Do we not require a Public Inquiry on this issue alone. The changing storyline above surely makes no sense at all.

    Why Suicide?

    Moving on to another very obvious question: why would terrorists who wished to wreak havoc and punish British people for the UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to blow themselves up along with their victims? These were very crowded trains. They could have set a timed detonator and quietly slipped off the trains a stop or two early, leaving their bags on the floor amongst the feet of dozens of incurious passengers. Where would have been the risk in that? Surely such activists would better serve their cause by continuing and not terminating their mission?


    There were four uncannily accurate drills carried out before the 7/7 bombings:
    1) The BBC Panorama ‘management exercise’ programme of May 2004 during which a panel of ‘managers’, including Peter Power (see below) and Michael Portillo, discussed how they would deal with a terror attack on London that revealed itself to them through mock news reports as the show progressed. The scenario they had to deal with turned out to be one overground and 3 underground explosions taking place over a short space of time during the morning rush hour.

    2) The contemporaneous 7/7 drill: on 7/7 itself Peter Power conducted a terror drill that shadowed the cataclysm as it happened – over the same three tube stations at more or less the same time. On the afternoon of 7/7 he was interviewed on Radio 5’s ‘Drivetime’ programme:
    POWER: …at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!

    3) Atlantic Blue: held over 5-8 April, 2005. All echelons of government participated in this large terror-drill. The Independent reported after July 7th that “By an extraordinary coincidence, all the experts who formulate such plans are together in a meeting at the headquarters of the London Ambulance Service – and they are discussing an exercise they ran three months ago that involved simulating four terrorist bombs going off at once across London.”

    4) Operation Hanover: London’s police hold a little-known yearly terror-drill. On 2005 it just happened to be held on 1-2 July. Its game-plan was threefold: three ‘simultaneous’ bomb attacks on three underground stations. The police have been reticent about discussing this astounding precursor event, mere days before 7/7. They only revealed it in 2009.

    Why No Post-Mortems?

    Another astonishing fact that emerged during the 2010-11 7/7 Inquest was that no post mortems were carried out on the bodies of the victims. A very great deal about the nature of and distance from the explosions could have been discovered from such examinations. The effects of different explosives on flesh are well-known. Such post-mortems would have provided some definitive information that would have at least ruled out some possible explosives from consideration as the source material of the blasts. What could possibly explain such an oversight other than the desire to avoid creating conflicts with a fabricated narrative.

    Body Count reveals no Bombers

    The First Official Body Count on Two of the Trains was One Body Short

    At the 7/7/ Inquest in November 2010 Dr. Morgan Costello gave evidence that he was asked to attend two scenes, Edgware Road and Aldgate, for the ‘purposes of certifying the extinction of life’. He counted six bodies at Edgware Road and seven bodies at Aldgate and declared these as ‘life extinct’. The enormous anomaly, that passed completely unreported in the press, was that the numbers should have been seven and eight if we count the bodies of the bombers. Here is surely the clearest possible evidence that the alleged bombers were never on the trains. No similar count seems to have been carried out on the other (Russell Square ) train but we do know a little about the behaviour of the Russell Square bomber, Germaine Lindsay, before his demise.

    Germaine Lindsay, cool and then confused

    Germaine Lindsay drove from Aylesbury to meet the other (let’s call them) bombers in Luton railway station. He arrived an hour before them and decided to take a little nap. He received a parking ticket while asleep in his car. Were he a terrorist he obviously would have known that he would have had only four hours left to live.

    Germaine Lindsay was one extraordinarily relaxed suicide-bomber.

    A station attendant called Mr. Patel gave testimony to the Inquest that a man he identified as Germaine Lindsay arrived on the concourse of King’s Cross station and asked to talk to “The Duty Manager”. He said it was, “Very important.” Mr Patel remarked that it was very unusual for a member of the public to know the exact name for the person in charge of the station. Normally people asked for ‘the supervisor’ or ‘the manager’. At this time there was chaos on the concourse. The metal grills had been pulled down and shut at the front of the station. Passengers were not being allowed through the barriers. A crowd had built up and people were starting to abuse staff. Numbers of ‘Community Support Officers’ who looked like police were milling around the area trying to manage the situation. No wonder Lindsay was confused. He must have decided to try to speak to someone who ‘was in on the game’ to explain to him what was going on. The most obvious explanation of his behaviour is that it would have puzzled and alarmed him that the drill had started before he, ‘the bomber’, had caught their trains. Perhaps a chilling possibility occurred to him. When Mr. Patel returned with the duty manager Lindsay had gone.

    And More

    There are many, many other serious anomalies in the official narrative.

    The train times presented huge problems for the official narrative causing the Home Secretary to change the story after it was realised that the 7.40 they were said to have caught had been cancelled. Then the next train arrived 23 minutes late at King’s Cross giving the bombers only three minutes to buy four RETURN tickets (think about that one), cross the track by bridge and board the last possible train that makes it just feasible they could have reached the bombed trains in time.

    On the 5th July 2005, Mohammed Siddique Khan took his pregnant wife to Dewsbury Hospital in West Yorkshire. She was bleeding and there was obviously something wrong. Doctors examined Hasina Patel and said that there was a ‘threatened miscarriage’. They sent her home and booked her in for a scan on the 7th. Mrs Patel has never told the time they got home but afterwards Mohammed Khan said that he was ‘going to see his friends’. Hasina Patel never saw or heard from her husband ever again. She miscarried on July 6th . At the 7/7 Inquest there was ‘evidence’ (peculiar and surely untrustworthy) presented of a mobile phone text-message exchange between Khan and Germaine Lindsay at 4.35am on the morning of the 6th July. Would Khan really have abandoned his desperate wife for a whole day while she was in that condition? Khan was a highly respected in his community and by the headmistress of the special school in which he worked as a classroom assistant. The police had used him to mediate between rival gangs in local disputes. He was trusted by all sides. Hilary Benn had taken Khan on a tour of the House of Commons. He was not known to be politically radical. Quite the opposite. He was protective of the good name of his community and was eager to maintain good relations with the local white community. Bearing this in mind it is likely that the reason the police have film of Khan is that he was helping them ‘keep an eye on’ any worrisome Muslim elements in his locality. He was not a troublemaker, he was a healer and a fixer.
    The most likely explanation for Khan’s disappearance on the 6th is that he told his minder for the 7/7 exercise that he was not going to be able to make it. . He would have been told to see that the others could make it without him. The bombings were not going to be called off but……now he had presented his minders with a problem that had only one possible solution. His goose was cooked.

    This would also explain why the attendant at the filling station where Tanweer filled his car (and argued about the change he was given) said he only saw one other person in Tanweer’s car. Hasib Hussain alone (the bus-bomber) was in the car and, unknown to the pair of them, Khan was by now already dead. This would also explain why the now-suppressed BBC radio 5 news reports from the late morning of the seventh said that two men had been shot in Canary Wharf (rather than three, the supposed train bombers. Hussain had been separated from the others).

    Those who have travelled to Beeston and spoken to locals report that, like Khan, Hussain and Tanweer had shown no inclination in their communities towards political or religious radicalism.

    The Evidence against ‘The Four’

    Looking at the detail of latest narrative laid out before the 7/7 Inquest, it must be admitted that it is now just physically possible that the four caught the last possible train at Luton and rushed from King’s Cross Thameslink to the various subway platforms before detonating their deadly cargos. However, their relaxed demeanour in the very few still photos presented as evidence militates against the probability that they were rushing about madly that morning (especially with all that liquid explosive slopping about on their backs).

    Why too in the most CCTV-rich environment on earth are there only a couple of very poor pictures of the four, one at Luton, one at Thameslink, the date and time stamps on which could have easily been photoshopped. Could the photos of Khan have been used from the ‘practice run’ the four carried out on 29th June 2005, just eight days earlier?

    The mobile phone evidence places them all on the correct train at the right time. Three things about this though. Firstly, this is new evidence that was not released in the previous 2006 hearing. Why? Second, is it likely that these men would have been texting each other on train they had all boarded together. Finally, this is the kind of evidence easily faked. It is letters and numbers on a piece of paper.

    Khan and Tanweer could easily have been talked into making the Jihadi videos that have played such a large part in aiding the public to accept their guilt. They were employees, well-paid for two days work, the practice on June 29th and for the day itself. They were told that the exercise has to be made as realistic as possible. The film would be in the hands of the station staff and other authorities giving them a possible means of intercepting the four. The on-camera ‘threats’ from Khan and Tanweer are vague and unspecific. When Hasina Patel first saw these videos it was reported that she said, “That’s not my husband.” Her brother thought it was Khan. It is most likely that she meant, “ I know him. He would never say such things.”
    The ‘bombers’ all had four or more mobile phones each; one of their own private phones and at least three other (so-called) ‘operational’ phones that they are supposed to have used to confound anyone who might attempt to track their communications and obstruct their diabolical plan. It is most likely that these phones were supplied by their minder and that their holding them allowed their ‘handlers’ to track Tanweer and Lindsay down in Canary Wharf after they had panicked and gone on the run, presumably (and naively) hoping to tell their story to the British press who are mostly based there.

    P.S. Muad’Dib

    The first person to present an alternative and more credible narrative for 7/7 was Yorkshireman Anthony John Hill, in his documentary ‘7/7 The Ripple Effect’ (this is a must-see. Please watch if you don’t know the film). Hill, a very unusual character in many ways, has renamed himself Muad’Dib, after a character in Frank Herbert’s sci-fi epic ‘Dune’. It is his basically his interpretation of events that have been presented above, excepting that ‘Dib did not know of the pregnancy problems of Khan’s wife, nor about the 4.35 text-messages, nor Khan’s failure to contact his wife after leaving her on the evening of the 5th of July at the time of making his film.
    When a group of ‘Islamic terrorists’, allegedly associates of Khan, went on trial for offences in 2008 at Kingston Crown Court, Hill posted two copies of his DVD to the court. One envelope was addressed to the judge, the other to the foreman of the jury. Neither DVD reached its target but shortly afterwards a request for Hill to be extradited from Ireland (he lived in Kells, County Meath at the time) was sent to the Irish Ministry of Justice. The request was successful and Hill was collected by a British policeman, accompanied across the water and incarcerated in Wandsworth prison shortly before the start of the 7/7 Inquest.
    Hill relates, amusingly, that he asked the policeman in whose charge he was placed, “Have you watched my film.” The constable replied, “Yes.” “What did you think of it?” asked Hill. The PC offered a look that was wide-eyed and grim. Hill asked him, “Shouldn’t you be arresting Tony Blair and not me?” and the policeman sheepishly went back to reading his newspaper.
    Hill made immediate applications for bail but was only released once the Inquest was finished.
    His documentary has been copied and handed out at mosques to thousands of Muslims in the UK. Most Muslims now believe ‘The Four’ to be innocent, largely because of ‘Dib’s work. The authorities were obviously determined he would not upset the 7/7 Inquest operation by getting his film into the hands of family members, press and God knows who else. This man scares them and has suffered accordingly. His case is being heard in Southwark Crown Court on next Monday Morning 9th May 2011.


    For me, there is only one sensible explanation to explain the facts of 7/7/05. Unfortunately this is a very unpleasant explanation.

    Let us ask the hard questions of all our leaders, MP’s, journalists, teachers, police, military and the rest…..

    …….What will become of us if we continue to allow ourselves to be led by such criminals, people who are prepared to commit acts of false flag terrorism against their own people?

    Think about it Constable, Sargeant, Brigadier, Headmaster, News editor, everyone…….

    There is no such thing as an innocent bystander. To stand and watch is to be complicit. Standing and watching is passive approval.

  • YugoStiglitz

    Kevin Boyle, blah blah blah crazy talk blah blah blah.

    You do realise that Craig Murray thinks you’re a nutter, don’t you?

  • angrysoba

    Hi Suhayl,
    Yes, I think Hamid Gul is a very suspicious character. He’s a bit of a favourite on Russia Today and, I think, Press TV.
    Jus’ sayin’ like!

  • mike

    Nearly everyone posting on this blog, and others like it, are rightly concerned by the erosion of liberal-democratic freedoms which is taking place in the UK, and in many other countries. It’s a fact. This is what’s happening. A decade of waging war on an abstract noun has bolstered the security-surveillance complex to the point where its needs and priorities are now indistinguishable from those of the state. Historically, this has been one of the definitions of fascism — the merger of state and corporate power.

    So what are we going to do about it?

    Is posting on blogs enough?

    I’m afraid we’re going to have to do more than that if we are going to avoid (to paraphrase Orwell) a CCTV camera being pointed at a human face — forever.

  • Herbie

    It’s difficult to see how these fascists will word their Prevent rules to ensure they don’t fall foul of accusations of extremism themselves.
    They, their adherents and agents are clearly the most extreme people in the country.
    There are few of us who advocate, support and indeed engage in violence, slaughter and maimimg of innocents for political ends but this government and the previous one try to make a virtue of such extremism and criminality.

  • mark_golding

    Prompted by Mary’s post I read several Directors reports from the Ditchley Foundation. I would prefer to view transcripts of meetings or video recordings from conferences, nevertheless I was disturbed to find that within the Director’s summary on Radicalisation I found the following paragraphs:

    ‘There were differences of view between those who considered that the internet was a fact of life and that freedom of speech was a principal which could not be sacrificed even in this serious context, and those who thought that specific interventions to close down internet sites and other propaganda sources were possible and indeed essential. This was not resolved, but the tenor of the discussion, at least as far as practitioners were concerned, moved in favour of firm action on internet sites to show where society’s limits stood.’

    The Director is John Holmes
    @HolmesDitchley Ditchley Park, Oxfordshire
    Diplomat 1973-2007,including adviser to Major and Blair, Ambassador Paris. UN USG for humanitarian affairs 2007-2010. Director,Ditchley Foundation, run conferences.

    I also found a poem by Philip Larkin that I reproduce here.

    Next year we shall be living in a country
    That brought its soldiers from lack of money.
    The statues will be standing in the same
    Tree muffled square and look nearly the same.
    Our children will not know it’s a different country.
    All we can hope to leave them now is money.”

  • ingo

    Well said Mike. And what has to happen has to happen off scope off FB and off phone, word of mouth, very hard to achieve in a suspicious society that has succeeded in marginalising progressive thought.
    Opposition to this Leviathan chimera can only come from a fresh and radical youth movement. Ehemm, whats that you may ask, gizmo politcs and festivals and fashion, sex, trivia such as Britains might have some talent, big brother, in the djungle are all mind fodder that prevents progressive thoughts from forming. Orwellian methods are working well.

    I hope that Craig will rattle a few progressive young minds at Doune, thats a must for all of us, guidance and examples have to be set, physically and practicly. Take care.

  • mark_golding

    I have a very good friend (a Naval friend) who worked as an engineer on bank note recognition machines at Thomas de la Rue during that period. I will ask him.

  • Kevin Boyle

    Yugo Stiglitz: “Kevin Boyle, blah blah blah crazy talk blah blah blah.

    You do realise that Craig Murray thinks you’re a nutter, don’t you?”

    Why would that worry me? Mr Murray’s character is as flawed as most and many of his judgements unsound.

    I expose a litany of unreported evidence delivered to the 7/7 Inquest (and the London Assembly in 2006) by people directly involved in the events and you call it ‘crazy talk’.

    You can check every detail of fact for yourself here
    or here:

    This is hard serious information information about a very serious issue.

    It is difficult not to despise venal, lazily abusive people like yourself who think you already know everything without even looking at the facts.

  • Chezzy

    @ Kevin Boyle,
    Very well argued. I feel almost certain that 9/11 and 7/7 were both false flag atrocities.

    @ Mike
    I agree, unless we start to fight back, we will be in a similar position to the German people under the Nazis.What will it take to get the British people riled up enough to revolt? Maybe it is already too late.

  • Chezzy

    @ Kevin Boyle
    I am not impressed with the anti-Semitic nonsense on your website.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Angrysoba, that’s interesting. Of course, Hamid Gul has appeared also on the BBC and other UK channels and, I’m almost certain, on CNN et al. Naturally, Russia and Iran will give someone lots of airtime if they position themselves currently as being ‘anti-USA’. This is especially ironic in the case of Russia, in view of Gul’s role in Afghanistan during the 1980s. A real case of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. But he’s wheeled out (a little as Kissinger is) on the BBC or wherever in the manner of ‘retired elder statesman, respected in the field’, when actually it’s more like asking Jean-Bedel Bokassa to be ‘The Restaurant Inspector’ on the basis that he knows a lot about meat.

  • anno

    Why bother to rewrite sound Zionist policy drafted by Hazel Blears, just because of a small shift in the magnetic poles at Westminster? Just paste Thatcher dog trash into the text and make it more explicitly prejudiced against Islam so that it looks like open government.

    Craig’s analysis of the report is fantastic and useful, but what about Craig’s political make-up? Islam has arrived full-time as a bed-rock and touchstone for a nation that has completely lost its drift. But Craig prefers to sit on the driftwood mast of the sunken ship, Liberalism, to accepting rescue from the ship that has been sent to save us of Islam.

    Very well, Craig, but don’t complain that Allah didn’t send the solution to our problems just because you are too nationalistically proud to accept rescue. I suspect that you value your nationalities imaginary superiority in the same way as the powers that be that have commissioned the prevent report.

    The writers of the report are motivated by Zionist malice against Islam, and they prevail because of the nationalistic pride of the British. Belief in and worship of God is the way forward, and I find myself directly in opposition to Craig as much as the joke that is British establishment policy against Islam. Wot, no UK aircraft carrier and AND UK religion as well.

    The bottoms of the Imams who would like to unseat the Queen as legal and religious authority, are no doubt bigger and greedier for wealth and power than our lovely Queen. Their version of shari’ah would spy more, kill more, imprison more and control more than our present system. But that is because they want shari’ah for the people and not for themselves.

    They hate their Middle-Eastern dictators for their greed and violence, but sit in the West stealing from the benefit system by lies and dreaming about revenge against the UK and US.
    I fear that the next few decades will be dedicated to achieving their dreams. The West is bankrupt and it refuses to negotiate with Islam.

    What is needed is not for the Zionist racists to be setting the agenda for the nationalists in power, but for the intellectuals of this country to examine the benefits of Islam for ourselves, if it was actually implemented. At present the mosques collude with the authorities to gain political power over the ordinary believers. Even Prevent is better than this particular version of Islamic political cure.

  • Kevin Boyle

    I only posted on this blog because Mr Murray referred to the 7/7 suicide bombers.

    If anyone cares to seriously investigate the available (but mainstream-media unpublished) evidence re 7/7 it is immediately clear that the official (universally-assumed) story is false…..but why should anyone care about a little thing like that.

    If three holes in one of the bombed carriages doesn’t generate skepticism and arouse your curiosity then what will?

    As for ‘anti-semitic’ nonsense, what precisely do you mean. People squealing abuse at those who would make what I consider to be fair and necessary comments about the activities of organised Jewry are ONLY abused. It is a characteristic of Jewish propaganda to never engage with the issue at hand but to revert to something an ex-Israeli minister called ‘a trick’ (in an interview last year with Amy Goodman), calling the critic an ‘Anti-Semite’ or ‘Nazi’. It astonishes me how willingly people buy into this dishonest game.

    From your comment I deduce that you are a person who supports the kind of ‘anti-racist’ politics that have resulted in the deaths of more than a million brown-skinned people over the past decade?

    If you do not recognise that mass immigration and anti-racist policies (not that I disagree with these in principle) have been used to disempower indigenous white identity across the western world, then you can only be blind. These policies were first recommended by ‘Frankfurt School’ Psychologists, a group of Jewish globalist academics who worked together on the project of creating banker-led global communism during the middle part of the last century. The banking classes (our true rulers) recognised the usefulness of this idea…..and while we were taking these ideas on as a moral imperative, we did not notice that the oligarchy were simply the same idea to destroy, as best they could, any possible opposition.

    You might also notice, if you look around you, that the one group who have not practiced the kind of power dilution that other groups have experienced were the group that suggested the idea. Most people will not admit to the fact that Jewish people, 0.5% of the population, now dominate just about every area of our public life. 80% of Conservative MP’s are ‘Friends of Israel’, Banking (obviously), broader politics, the media, the arts, publishing, you name it….even football. Jews, this small community, are at the top in extraordinarily disproportionate numbers.

    I’ll tell you what.

    The facts on the ground indicate that this group, the foremost promoters of ‘anti-racism’, are themselves very racist indeed.

    Because of ‘the Holocaust’ there is an insecurity in their community that ensures absolute loyalty to today’s central state power. Most Jews identify with this power in a way that the rest of us do not. Therefore, speaking of ‘organised Jewry’ (a group in which most Jewish people form no active element), this truly racist group are at the heart of the effort for globalisation. Our imperialist wars are a part of the drive for absolute domination of the world and its resources.

    So when a million Iraqis die from our bombs or the people of Tripoli cower under the fire of our Apache helicopters, remember the financial oligarchs, the f*cking savages are who are driving this agenda. Remember too how they can get away with casually implementing such bestial policies.

    Our entire political system is brainwashed and dominated by a grouping that is one with this wickedness. All races are involved. All races work at every level….but Jews are dominant within these groups and that is an issue it is cowardly and immoral to ignore.

    If you do not recognise this dominance then you certainly will not know about Israeli involvement in the crime of 9/11 and (to a lesser extent) 7/7, nor about the fact that when Israel deliberately attacked the US Navy’s ‘Liberty’ in 1968 (trying to sink it and place the blame on Egypt), killing American 34 sailors or board, the American newspapers never even reported the ‘incident’.

    Now that’s power.

    Grotesque, monstrous, entirely inappropriate and treasonous power.

    Anti-Semitism is not some kind of flu-like disease that randomly arises out of nowhere, it is simple cause-and-effect. It always has been.

    Nobody has apriori prejudice against Jews. For myself, I never thought about these issues until 5 years ago when I started studying 9/11. The moneylenders betray their host. When people realise they have been betrayed, they turn on the betrayers. Banking power has no interest in the well-being of any community in which it is resides. It has a project of global expansion that is all-important. Jews, unfortunately (but mostly through their own choice) get identified with this usurious power and have suffered, please God for the last time, as a result of this connection. Some brave Jews are standing up and saying these things today, but not enough.

    Chezzy, we are headed for disaster. The financiers (and, unfortunately, most of them are Jews) are in the process of collapsing the world economy. Then we will have war to reinflate the economic corpse. Finally it is intended that we will be offered universal peace under a single all-powerful central bank. It is vital that we understand why we always get what we do not want while we live under the power of these wicked people.

  • Kevin Boyle


    Sorry, only read second of your comments. Be careful about buying into the ‘anti-semite’ thing though.
    I’m a Christian pacifist.
    Christ came specifically to warn Jews against their leadership. He accused this Pharisaical (now Orthodox) priesthood as being “of Satan”. He said that they had overturned the teachings of the prophets, indeed that they had ‘killed’ the prophets.
    The Jews that accepted Christ became Christians, obviously and founded Christianity, a universalist, not a self-serving, creed.

    Those who stuck with the Pharisees are stuck with satanic teachings today. Read the Talmud and find out for yourself. It is very shocking.

    When Christ warned the Jews against their leadership, He was warning us all.

    I say we’d do well to listen.

    It’s all about the people at the TOP.

    It can only be a kindness to Jews to repeat Christ’s warnings.

  • Azra

    I am what you call a liberal, uncovered, wine drinking, married to a Christine (for over many years) Muslim woman. My allegiance is not only to Islam (the version which I follow!) but to my country of birth and my adopted country UK.

    It is so obvious that this Prevent program and so many others like it, all intended to make sure to divert people thinking away from colonialist tendencies abroad, they don’t want to admit that their foreign policies are the root of grievances amongst Muslim communities. I do not see Spain introducing programmes like that , they pulled out of Iraq and that if the bombing of the train there was really the work of Muslims, put an end to need for such a program. And is the government really that naïve (to put it politely), to think that by introducing such a program Muslim youth will not be radicalized. Osma Bin Laden may be dead, but his grievances were valid and are alive.. and as long as the western government act in their own self interest, and do not change their policies, Muslim youth will be radicalized, not by the imams in the mosques, not by their parents, but by the news of yet another settlement built in Palestine, another bomb killed so many innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan.. another hundred were detained by a western back government such as Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. Stop wasting our taxes by allocating money to such project, paying organizations who are basically preaching to the believers and are distrusted amongst all Muslim, devout or not and start to look inward, that is if you really and sincerely want to get rid of extremism.. but of course we all have heard of 1984!

  • angrysoba

    “@ Kevin Boyle
    I am not impressed with the anti-Semitic nonsense on your website.”
    Chezzy, I tend to find the arguments for conspiracy theories like this generally unimpressive but more than that I find discovery of anti-semitic nonsense thoroughly unsurprising.
    It’s almost funny that Kevin Boyle feels the need to return and explain that the Jews killed Christ and the prophets therefore they deserve a bit of a hounding. A man like this will probably also say that the Ashkenazi Jews were descended from the Kazars. If you think about it you’ll realize that somewhat ruins the other charge against them.
    I can’t expect much less. This man has Fred Leuchter on his website (presumably portrayed approvingly). Leuchter was, as every school boy knows, the author of a fraudulent pseudo-scientific experiment in which he tried to show the Nazi gas chambers couldn’t have been used to kill people. This has been debunked by numerous scholars. The point is that people who buy into Leuchter’s crap (and by extension that of Ernst Zundel, David Irving, Robert Faurrison etc…) tend to think that Hitler didn’t know about the Holocaust and tried to save the Jews from the Holocaust which didn’t happen which only goes to show that Hitler had the right idea about the lying Jews and that they should have been exterminated in a way that Hitler didn’t know about…etc…

  • angrysoba

    “Angrysoba, that’s interesting. Of course, Hamid Gul has appeared also on the BBC and other UK channels and, I’m almost certain, on CNN et al.”
    Yes, you’re quite right. Hamid Gul appeared here with Fareed Zakaria saying that the Zionists or the neo-cons did 9/11. No joke:

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.