The 7/7 bombings and their failed follow up are presented as the ultimate ‘blowback’. They are the price paid for a deeply flawed policy of alliances with Islamic radicals based on values of chivalry and trustworthiness, values that are fundamentally incompatible with the terrorist’s way of life.
The 7/7 bombings and their failed follow up are presented as the ultimate ‘blowback’. They are the price paid for a deeply flawed policy of alliances with Islamic radicals based on values of chivalry and trustworthiness, values that are fundamentally incompatible with the terrorist’s way of life.
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed – The London Bombings
Books on contemporary politics generally fall into two categories: the hideously inane and the outrageously biased. Crushed by the need to remain relevant and their tiny audience these publications resort to shock tactics, sweeping claims and spend their time in pursuit of a certain political agenda. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed eschews this in favour of high quality investigative journalism. He does not demand the end of the Iraq war, openly castigate America or push any Islamic cause. He collates analyses and distributes the facts behind last year’s London Bombings and allows the reader to decide.
Ahmed – yes, he’s a Muslim, yes, he’s English and yes, he strongly opposes fundamentalism – has one demand: for the public to be fully informed of their government’s actions in a public inquiry. He has painstakingly assembled the various statements issued by police and security sources in chronological order and allows the inherent inconsistencies to create their own argument.
Nothing is pre-supposed, but with freely available information he pieces together the unholy alliance between the British government, Anglo-American big business and Al-Qaeda that led to the attacks. British intervention in Balkans and the relationship with American oil supply provided instrumental in supporting guerrilla resistance throughout the mid 1990s – why were military aircraft used to fly terrorists into Serbia? Why did British ‘peacekeepers’ in Sierra Leone organise a pre-9/11 diamond exchange with Bin Laden?
Most worryingly, why has the British government actively pursued a ‘covenant of terror’ with extremists, allowing them to operate freely under MI5 supervision? Nazeef describes the decisions taken at the highest level which allowed the Finsbury Park mosque to radicalise and send young jihad-ists to fight British troops in Afghanistan. Despite constant contravention of criminal law these openly fundamental characters were allowed to continue their mission of hate well into this century.
The 7/7 bombings and their failed follow up are presented as the ultimate ‘blowback’. They are the price paid for a deeply flawed policy of alliances with Islamic radicals based on values of chivalry and trustworthiness, values that are fundamentally incompatible with the terrorist’s way of life. Yet the government have not only refused to admit their mistakes (or investigate strong claims that there were warnings of the attacks) but has attempted to disguise the results of the investigation into the actual strike.
Despite the wide availability of forensic tools to instantly analyse explosives over a year later there has yet to be an official rebuttal to accounts that the bombers used military grade explosives, something that would hint at outside involvement, or that an Algerian financer/fixer co-ordinated the planning. Even the account that the bombers were caught on CCTV entering Luton station before being spotted leaving Kings Cross 40 minutes later is flawed; due to the wonders of British Rail the only train that would fit that bracket had been cancelled. Yet the government continues to produce their ‘hard evidence’ to back their version of events. If they are lying over simple methods of transport then what else is being covered up?
The book comes dangerously close to, but never drops into, the world of conspiracy theories. Ahmed hints at the possibilities but does not claim as fact – instead he challenges the government to investigate and publish their findings for all to see. He admits that such openness is unlikely – many chapters of this publication are simply blank due to censorship – but adds that the proliferation of such unsubstantiated information will be far more damaging than an open, honest admission. We’re increasingly used to being fed titbits of news, replete with spin and direct from the official statement. Nafeez Ahmed displays the pioneering, questioning spirit that made Britain great while condemning the policies that look set to undermine the nation.
Words: James Waterson.