By Albert Samaha
By Steve Weinstein
By Devon Maloney
By Tessa Stuart
By Alison Flowers
By Albert Samaha
By Jesse Jarnow
By Eric Tsetsi
British authorities claim 600 now in the U.K. were trained by al Qaeda, some of whom may have been behind the July 7 terrorist bombings in London that killed at least 52 commuters. Hundreds of suspected jihadists have been arrested in recent years and thrown into the Belmarsh high-security prison. While it's possible to round up the usual suspects in Britain, there is not a great deal of compelling evidence -- just as in the U.S. -- that security services have exposed any more than a handful of true al Qaeda members.
Beyond the bombers, who may or may not have been on a suicide mission, there are the rhetoricians. One organization, called the Party for Islamic Renewal, regularly loads my mailbox with a collection of tirades. Since the group is angry, it's labeled radical. Operated through an Arabic language website, tajdeed.net, the party is organized by Mohammed al-Massari, a Saudi dissident. In the past, the British government unsuccessfully tried to deport him, and in the mid 1990's he helped Osama bin Laden open a London office, according to the BBC.
The rants delivered through the Party for Islamic Renewal mailing list discuss reciprocity, the idea that the terrorism in Britain is tit-for-tat, a price for the country's cooperation in George W. Bush's war in Iraq, another cost of which should be Tony Blair's impeachment.
A few reprints, essentially as they appeared in my inbox immediately after the London bombings:Shock and Awe in London Blame It on Blair London Is Burning A Letter to the British People From a Daughter of Iraq
"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war ... We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world." (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
First, it ("Shock and Awe") was displayed in Baghdad, and in response it was seen in Madrid and Istanbul; now it has come to London but on a far smaller scale. It seems we live in a world where the Anglo-Saxon civilisation, assumes the right to unleash their military forces on anyone, but expects everyone to howl terrorism, give minutes of silence, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder, when they face retaliation.
As expected everyone is howling and describing it as barbaric, an act of terrorism, attack on humanity etc. because the bombs were detonated in London not in Baghdad or Kabul! Otherwise I would have expected the same response for the 54 people killed in the wedding party in Iraq and many similar incidences throughout Iraq and Afghanistan by trigger happy US pilots and soldiers.
The US could not identify a wedding party of men, women and children despite being equipped with most sophisticated equipment and training. So, they are either trained monkeys short of brain cells or they were high on alcohol and drugs prior to engaging in combat missions, or they are terrorists that deliberately killed civilians. The latter is more likely, given that they have been following a policy of shoot first and ask questions later, so they bombed the civilians from a high altitude, then apologised for their "mistake". That gets packaged and marketed by the media terrorists as collateral damage, a small price for the war on terror.
Blair and Bush referred to their noble work of discussing how to relieve poverty in the G8 summit (as if the West had no role in causing the poverty in the first place) contrasting that with the acts of the terrorists in London. Hence, Bush and Blair, both absolutely blameless, poor innocent victims! The G8 summit is actually facilitating the new scramble for Africa, lets face it, Capitalism and altruism does not mix together, they are opposites.
They (Bush and Blair) portray the attacks in London without any cause what so ever. Examining the "cause" is an uncomfortable topic; it can be self-incriminating. A way to deflect discussing the "cause" is to say that examining the cause gives some sort of justification to the attackers. Well, do we not need to understand and debate their grievances even if we do not agree with their action?
What is even more perplexing, is that the "man" who is leading the war on terror from the rear or from his bunkers, George Bush, says: "The war on terror goes on" as if this incident is justification for the war waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, the problem is, the incident happened well after the war was waged. So, this is a bit like prodding someone with a knife and then when that person retaliates in self-defence that becomes the reason for the initial prodding.
If anything, the incident in London is the product of the initial aggressions in Iraq and Afghanistan; and rationally it cannot be its cause. Quite often terrorism and state terrorism depict the same cause and effect relationship; state terrorism is usually the cause, terrorism is the effect. Recognising this would go a long way towards brining peace and resolving the conflict.
An example of this cause and effect is the attack in Madrid. Spain was only attacked (terrorism as effect) when it attacked (state terrorism as cause) Iraq without any provocation in the first place. Iraqis did not harm the Spanish, the English or the Americans. When Spain withdrew, no further attack to date has taken place and it is unlikely to happen in the future unless there is a genuine reason once again.
Who did it?
Now the basic question, who did it and why? Of course once you know who then why becomes self-evident.
It could have been the IRA but this does not carry the hallmark the IRA and they have been dormant for a while. The splinter group, the real IRA, do not have the logistical ability to carry out such attacks and since the Omagh bombing have self censured and been muted.
Theoretically, some may point to extreme French nationalists as the likely suspect for loosing the Olympic bid and seeing the Brits recently gloating by celebrating the battle of Trafalgar, not to mention reviving the old wounds of history from Agincourt to Waterloo. But this is unlikely. As Europe has learnt from the two world wars, the price of war can be heavy. Agreed, many might even find this point amusing.
Many of the sceptics, war opponents and many Muslims may point to the CIA and/or Mossad as the likely parties, for carrying out such an operation for various reasons; to discredit their domestic opponents; justify prolonging their aggression upon the Muslims; building a climate to attack Iran, hence we may expect other attacks of the sorts.
The most likely suspects, as already pointed out by the media, are the MuslimsWhy because they have reasons to retaliate. The reason is often not elaborated upon, usually hidden behind the labels of "terrorism" and "extremism". Anyway, the Al-Qaeda network comes to everyone's lips. But nobody is prepared to utter that it could have been carried out by the relatives of those who perished in Fallujah, Ramadi, Anbar, etc. Let us not forget Hilla, where the British forces deliberately dropped cluster bombs on a civilian town maiming many, where there were no Iraqi or resistance forces present even before the war.
Why this was was done (motive)?
Blair referred to the "terrorists" wanting to destroy their way of life. If that is the case, then why have they chosen to attack after all this time? What is the motivation for wanting to destroy your way of life? How does it benefit them? Is Blair suggesting that they are mindless serial killers like those walking the streets of America, just looking for victims! Hence, Blair is a Bliar, by his own words!
If it was an act of retaliation from the Muslims, then the reasons are obvious. It is partly vengeance and partly to make the citizens of the West feel the reality of what their governments are doing in Iraq daily, so that they might get up and do something about it. Like the Spaniards did to Aznar. Whatever the case, it has nothing to do with British way of life; all the Iraqis are interested in is freedom from occupation and justice for the crimes committed against them. Even Al-Qaeda did not demand from the US and UK to dismantle their way of life only that they want to see their lands free of occupation and oppression.
Condemn or Condone?
To exclusively condemn this atrocity in London in isolation to everything else, is to condone the real and bigger criminals (Bush and Blair) sitting inside the G8 summit! For diplomatic protocol and niceties all the G8 members stood shoulder to shoulder. The Muslims moderates as usual cannot do anything else but to follow their masters or do what is fashionable and acceptable. However, where was that voice speaking out for the unprovoked aggression in Iraq, that has taken the lives of 100,000 plus to date, which, if balance were sought, would take around 2000 more incidents of the kind that took place in London?
If killing innocent people is wrong and heinous for the "terrorists" then surely it is also wrong for these governments to do exactly that, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is worse killing innocent civilians without provocation or killing them in retaliation? Surely the former (aggression) is worse than the latter (revenge).
So condemn not the bombers first (terrorism as effect), but Blair who is the cause (state terrorism as cause). I work and live in London, if I fell victim to the acts of retaliation, I would put all the blame squarely on those who have caused this retaliation. After the initial rage diminishes hopefully everyone would see this point of view. Prior to the war like Madrid, London was never a target, nor was it ever targeted by the Muslims assuming they were behind it in the first place. You can be sure that when the British troops are eventually withdrawn the probabilities of another attack will decline but unlike Madrid it will not disappear as Britain has played a greater role in the war. This is why both Muslims and Non Muslims in the UK ought to reflect about the incident in its totality. The remedy should be sought by:
a) Calling for the removal of the British troops from Iraq.
c) Denounce the US and its Ziono-fascist and the neo-cons, who are the real architects behind the war.
d) Encourage US to remove its troops or isolate US as a rogue state. If necessary, Britain along with Europe should be looking to build stronger ties with Europe, china, Russia and the Islamic world, looking for its long term future interests instead of short term benefits from the US.
e) Assess war compensation to Iraq, repaying this debt by helping the Iraqis to rebuild their society.
f) Denouncing state terrorism as well as terrorism of the individuals and groups. Recognise that state terrorism is usually the father of terrorism!
[Blame it on Blair] is what came to mind when I heard about the London bombings.
Lets cast our minds back over the past 14 years from Gulf War I when the Kuffar officially began the Crusade by attacking Iraq with the assistance and connivance of most of the Muslim world u in particular the Arab part of it.
During the actual war thousands of tons of bombs were dropped on Iraq's civilian infrastructure e.g. air raid shelters, water treatment plants, roads, bridges etc. The whole idea was to cause so much civilian damage that it would break Iraq's back without a proper military battle. That is basic Kuffar (Anti Islam establishment) military strategy-kill the innocents (the really innocent) to pressure the opposition military.
Since then they implemented sanctions-again with the assistance of the apostates in the region e.g. Iran, Saudi-occupied Arabia, Jordan, Syria etc. This caused the deaths of over 500,000 children alone through starvation and disease (official UN figures).
The Crusade on Iraq started a long time before 2003. A Crusader air campaign was being implanted much earlier to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as a "casus belli" i.e. an excuse for going into war.
Crusader warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002-10 tons that month, according to British government figures. For a September total of 54.6 tons.
Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.
Iraq protested to the United Nations but didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For US-UK planners, invading Iraq for oil and Israel was a far higher priority than the so-called "war on terror".
Since the Crusade officially began in March 2003 over 100,000 Muslims have been massacred in Iraq. The women of the Ummah (Muslim community) have been raped in Crusader jails.
Who did anything for these innocents? Nobody in the West or in the East.
Remember all those millions in the UK who demonstrated against the war. As soon as the bombs began raining down in Iraqi homes and hospitals then many of these anti war people then turned round and said, We must support our boys.
Bear in mind that the British police are always asking friends and families of suspected criminals to turn in their people. Yet when the British army goes into a colonial crusade they expect the British public to support these thieves and murderers simply because they're British.
Remember Fallujah? It was attacked with the inhabitants massacred in their homes. Remember the pictures of wounded Muslims being executed in the mosque? It was the British army, which ringed Fallujah to help prevent the Mujahideen (Islamic fighters) to come to the assistance of the real innocents.
Remember when the Crusaders toppled Saddam. John Simpson, the BBC's chief foreign affairs reporter, suggested in his TV report that the Mujahideen had threatened to retaliate for the attack on Iraq and it had not materialised. He was mocking the Mujahideen for the failure of the Iraqi army and Saddam's apostate regime to do other than what a secular Arab army traditionally does u run away in the face of opposition. Simpson was saying to the Mujahideen do your worst, you Muslims are a bunch of windbags. He and the rest of the Kuffar believed their own lies and deluded themselves into a sense of invincibility.
However a few non-Muslim analysts not suffering from delusions of grandeur understood the Muslims better. They understood that the cockroaches ruling Muslim lands and their government-backed scholars don't reflect Muslim character. These non-Muslims probably studied Islamic history and Qur'aan. For example, on the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the American intelligence community's centre for strategic thinking, predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam. Douglas Jehl reported in the New York Times in December 2004, the NIC warned "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself." Bear in mind that the New York Times is one of the leading mouthpieces for the Kuffar. The report then translated in Islam talk is basically saying that the Mujahideen would be boosted and become more proficient as a result of a crusade against Iraq.
How true that was, because basically this is what the Qur'aan says.
190. And fight in the Way of Allah against those who fight you.
191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Fitnah (reversion to polytheism, turning a disbeliever after one has believed in Allah) is worse than killing.
if they (Disbelievers) turn back to enmity then take them and kill them wherever you find them, and choose no friend or helper from among them. (v 89) The Mujahideen understand this to mean exactly what it says. There are no boundaries. The Crusade is global and so the Jihad has to be global.
Surah 2 section 194:
The sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the law of retribution (redress, equality in retaliation) (Qisas). Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with the pious.
This means you do to the Crusaders what they do to you. Islam allows retaliation-like for like. This means that the relatives of the Iraqis who were beaten to death in Abu Ghraib have the right to beat to death the crusaders who killed their loved ones. The Muslims who had their transportation, hospitals, water treatment plants and industries bombed continuously since 1991 have the right given by Allah to do to the Kuffar what the Kuffar did to them! This is what happened in London today.
The Kuffar's own intelligence services predicted what would happen to any Kuffar that joined Bush's crusade and the Mujahideen made their intentions clear at the outset of the Iraq war. Sheikh Bin Laden even told the world to ask itself that why countries such as Sweden never get attacked or have to fear an attack?
The blame for what happened in London falls squarely on Blair's shoulders.
He is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent non-combatants in Iraq. The Mujahideen have read the Qur'aan and carried out the necessary retaliation according to the Law of Allah. By doing so they demonstrated their skills of organisation, and planning as well as daring bravery and cunningall qualities lacking so far amongst the armies of the apostate regimes of the Middle East. They chose the day when the G8 summit started and the world's attention was focused on London which was also the day that a large part of the London police force was in Scotland to guard the G8 Kuffar gathering.
The best thing for the people of Britain is to understand it was Blair who tricked them into a dirty colonial war and now the chickens have come home to roost. They failed to defeat the IRA and now they are dealing with people who welcome death for the sake of Allah just as the Kuffar welcome life.
It's ironic that this retaliation attack occurred the same week that Sheikh Abu Hamza's trial began for alleged terrorism in London. Here is the Kuffar charging an invalid with no hands and just one eye with being a terrorist mastermind to hoodwink their public into believing they have the alleged Muslim terrorism threat under control. Yet the biggest attack on the British establishment since the Second World War was underway as the alleged terrorist mastermind was being put through a rigged show trial to humiliate the Ummah. It just shows the level of incompetence and corruption within the Kuffar's much vaunted security apparatus, which spent millions of pounds harassing innocent Muslims when in reality the real people in the business of terror were going about their business without any hindrance.
Whoever thought that corruption only existed in Third World countries ought to think again because the Kuffar put on trial an invalid Muslim to con their population into believing they were efficiently prosecuting the War on Terror when the reality is they were wasting public money, our tax money (in addition of getting the British boys getting killed and mutilated for the Zionist cause, that is for nothing, in Iraq).
Whoever thought that Arab rulers and their sidekicks reflected Muslims ought to think again because a highly motivated and intelligent group of Muslims working independently of any government brought the Crusade back to where it came from.
I say to the people of Britain to wake up and kick out these parasites who are bleeding the country for an easy life for themselves. Note the difference in security around British political intuitions compared to what the British public are getting.
Do the right thing a first step: IMPEACH BLAIR!!
London Is Burning
By Gilad Atzman
July 7, 20005
We are used to seeing images of horrors from the Iraqi capital. For most Londoners and Britons, those images are nothing more than a remote call from a foreign country. Somehow, most of us have managed to forget that it is basically our government who is responsible for the continued horror in Iraq.
Today's images of horror are coming from London, seemingly, Baghdad and London appear to share a very similar fate.
I am sitting in my front room watching BBC 24 learning that the metropolitan police and the emergency services are operating according to a plan. Clearly they all anticipated such an attack. A government that is fully engaged in some criminal colonialist activity better prepare its voters for the outcome of its policies. A minute ago I heard Tony Blair telling the nation that 'our' determination to defend 'our values' of life is greater than 'their' determination to cause death and destruction. I ask myself, what values is he referring to? Surely the continuation of the robbery of Arab oil is a major value for Blair but it isn't my value. Tony Blair, a man who initiated a war without UN backing, a man with blood on his hands wants us to believe that he is really concerned about African poverty and climate changes.
Whether we like it or not, we must admit that Terror is a message and we better learn to listen to it attentively:
First, it tells us that we are as vulnerable as anyone else.
Second, it tells us that we may have to let other people live their life according to their values and beliefs.
Third, it tells us that we must never again give our votes to war criminals.
More than anything else it tells us that we have a moral duty. It is down to us to stop our governments. It is our duty to stand up and to demand the resignation of Blair who is responsible for the death of so many Iraqis and arguably now many Innocent Britons. We must remember that voting in a non-ethical politician makes us all into active shareholders in a criminal company.
We know already that both in America and Israel the consequences of terror led the general public towards an endorsement of right wing zealously. I do hope that the British people will follow the Spanish public's reaction. Warmongers and militant aggressors must be ousted from our political climate. Only then peace will prevail.
A Letter to the British People From a Daughter of Iraq
By Iman al-Saadun
July 8, 2005
I'm sending this letter to the British people and in particular to the residents of London. For a period of hours, you have lived through moments of desperate anxiety and horror. In those hours you lost a member of your family or a friend, and we wish to tell you in total honesty that we too grieve when human lives pass away. I cannot tell you how much we hurt when we see desperation and pain on the face of another person. For we have lived through this situation-and continue to live through it every day- since your country and the United States formed an alliance and laid plans to attack Iraq.
The Prime Minister of your country, Tony Blair, said that those who carried out the explosions did so in the name of Islam. The Secretary of State of the United States, Condaleezza Rice, described the bombings as an act of barbarism. The United Nations Security Council met and unanimously condemned the event.
I would like to ask you, the free British people, to allow me to inquire: in whose name was our country blockaded for 12 years? In whose name were our cities bombed using internationally prohibited weapons? In whose name did the British army kill Iraqis and torture them? Was that in your name? Or in the name of religion? Or humanity? Or freedom? Or democracy?
What do you call the killing of more than two million children? What do you call the pollution of the soil and the water with depleted uranium and other lethal substances?
What do you call what happened in the prisons in Iraq u in Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca and the many other prison camps? What do you call the torture of men, women, and children? What do you call tying bombs to the bodies of prisoners and blowing them apart? What do you call the refinement of methods of torture for use on Iraqi prisoners-such as pulling off limbs, gouging out eyes, putting out cigarettes on their skin, and using cigarette lighters to set fire to the hair on their heads? Does the word barbaric adequately describe the behavior of your troops in Iraq?
May we ask why the Security Council did not condemn the massacre in al-Amiriyah and what happened in al-Fallujah, Talaeafar, Sadr City, and an-Najaf? Why does the world watch as our people are killed and tortured and not condemn the crimes being committed against us? Are you human beings and we something less? Do you think that only you can feel pain and we can't? In fact it is we who are most aware of how intense is the pain of the mother who has lost her child, or the father who has lost his family. We know very well how painful it is to lose those you love.
You don't know our martyrs, but we know them. You don't remember them, but we remember them. You don't cry over them, but we cry over them.
Have you heard the name of the little girl Hannan Salih Matrud? Or of the boy Ahmad Jabir Karim? Or Saaeid Shabram?
Yes, our dead have names too. They have faces and stories and memories. There was a time when they were among us, laughing and playing. They had dreams, just as you have. They had a tomorrow awaiting them. But today they sleep among us with no tomorrow on which to wake.
We don't hate the British people or the peoples of the world. This war was imposed upon us, but we are now fighting it in defense of our selves. Because we want to live in our homeland-the free land of Iraq-and to live as we want to live, not as your government or the American government wish.
Let the families of those killed know that responsibility for the Thursday morning London bombings lies with Tony Blair and his policies.