BACKGROUND
In 2008, the J7 Campaign, who think the London bombings of 7/7/05 were an 'inside job'/state provocation, sent an article critiquing NFB which we were happy to publish unaltered in Notes From the Borderland issue 9 (p.17-19). They also put this article on their site, and while the article below does make sense in itself (hopefully) nonetheless you might find it useful to read J7's article first--see here. To date, they have not responded to the piece below--read it, and you might understand why...Page numbers referred to are from the J7 article in NFB 9. 6/10/10
J7 CAMPAIGN: A REPLY by Larry O'Hara
INTRODUCTION
The first thing to be said about the response from the J7 Campaign above is how happy we are to print it. In this kind of area, nobody has a monopoly on knowledge, and dialogue between those of differing perspectives is healthy, and an important means by which we all may get closer to the 'truth', whatever that might be. In any dialogue, the need to defend one's position must inevitably, if undertaken in good faith, require some re-examination of past statements, and just as NFB's forte has often been holding others to account for inconsistencies and lacunae in how they cover issues, so it is entirely legitimate for the J7 Campaign (hereafter J7) to turn the tables on us, or at least try to....
I particularly welcome the J7 response's courteous tone, a departure from the occasionally acid rhetoric characterising this debate--although J7 non sequiturs and logical fallacies do encourage my flippant side still. To be fair, J7 have always been more reasonable in exchanges with us than the spooks fruit-loops censors and downright disturbed who overpopulate the 9/11 Cult in the UK.
What follows can be divided into three parts, although there is some overlap in each segment.
First, a refutation of J7's specific criticisms concerning the NFB/Cultwatch perspective (with reference to those things they have got right).
Second, a brief but essential outline of the areas and issues where NFB shares common ground with J7We object not to them criticising the secret state, but the paucity of the evidence they advance in order to do so.
Third, the precise differences between the NFB and J7 approaches are spelt out, with reference both to particular court cases and also the 'oppositional' articles on the J7 site they drew my attention to as exemplifying the type of radical 'research' they want more of.
(1) LARGELY WASTED ARROWS? J7's CRITIQUE OF THE NFB POSITION
NFB has not covered 7/7 in detail
There is a grain of truth to this claim, that regarding 7/7 there has been a "lack of serious investigation and analysis" (p.17). However, while the amount has not been as much as J7 (and ourselves) might have liked, it is misleading to say NFB has not covered 7/7: J7 admit NFB 7 (p.40) outlined 11 issues to be investigated, in a four page article that started the process. Areas such as the 'Covenant of Security', possible MI5 foreknowledge, the relationship of 7/7 to Islamist ideology and how 7/7 was used by spooks and the media to influence policy were discussed. In rather more detail than the flag-ship articles by messrs Bowles MacGregor & Rahman on J7's own web-site.
In NFB 8 we reviewed two influential DVDs and do not apologise for that-more people nowadays (sadly) get information from this medium/YouTube than the written word in such matters. Far from merely comprising "various side-swipes" (p. 17) the article confronted two central J7 tenets-that the Peter Power 'Visor Consultants' exercise was linked to 7/7 (p.44-45), and that 7/7 bomber video testimonies were doctored/bogus (p.45-46). It is ironic, then, that J7 suggest we examine the martyrdom videos (p.19). For J7 to ignore our substantial points does not augur well for their investigative capabilities. Disagree with us, but don't use the lack of overwhelming detail in coverage to date as an excuse to ignore our analysis altogether. We do not, currently, think the Visor Consultant exercise was operationally linked to 7/7, and set out why we believe that. Argue with us-but don't pretend we didn't investigate or analyse.
NFB has been reluctant (along with others) to "examine...the ...scripted 'War on Terror' and the increasing moves in the UK towards a police state" (p. 17)
In a second NFB 8 article (on ex-MI5 Director General Eliza Manningham-Buller) we also covered 7/7. This in a 3 page section entitled (rather big clue this) 'The War on Terror--A Deadly Pantomime For The Dame' (p.34-6) which not only looked again (as had NFB 7 at MI5 & 7/7 specifically, but analysed how plots and rumours of plots are used by MI5 to enhance their budget/remit. So J7's claim here resoundingly falls-those who only read their reply on the internet may fall for this analytical casuistry, readers of this magazine will not. Or perhaps it's just sloppy research-either way, not very convincing.
the official version of 7/7. with "minor tweaks" is NFB's "accepted narrative" but is "entirely unproven. unsupported by evidence" (p.17)
Two slightly separate claims. NFB certainly believes the government, police, MI5 & MI6 committed grave errors of misjudgment concerning 7/7, including lying about possible foreknowledge, and have systematically attempted to conceal this. However, NFB does not accept the implicit J7 position that the four deceased said to be behind the bombings weren't there, or were controlled patsies. We have before drawn attention to J7's flawed logic whereby premises (initial positions) are identical to conclusions (NFB 8 p.46), replacing research by divination, and rigour by wish-fulfilment. Furthermore, an absolutist statement the official narrative is "unsupported by evidence" flies in the face of information in the public domain, including film footage--for example the picture [NOT REPRODUCED HERE] shows three 7/7 bombers at King's Cross Station nine days prior to the bombings. It is valid to argue about the significance of this footage and other data, including DNA evidence. Would footage of three known bank robbers casing a premises be in itself enough to convict? No-but might form part of an overall case. However J7 rule themselves out of reasoned debate by asserting evidence is "entirely" (not even largely!) "unsupported". J7 argue the guilt of those said to be responsible has "never been tested in a court of law" (p.17). Well, since John Wycliff was exhumed after the 1381 Peasant's Revolt, the state hasn't made it general policy to try corpses, for various reasons even J7 could work out...
Bin Laden denied any part in the 9/11 attacks, just as those convicted in the Operation Crevice trial deny any conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK (p. 18)
I am grateful to J7 for confirming their ideological debt to the 9/11 denial movement-and it is par for the course that they focus on a (tactically necessary) Bin Laden statement from September 2001, not subsequent pronouncements [1]. As for the post-Crevice denial by those convicted, how seriously you take that depends on which aspects of trial evidence you focus on, or ignore-as will be seen.
NFB should "learn from history" (including) "British state complicity in atrocities-in Eire and the Six Counties" (p. 18)
Not merely patronising, but amusing. Should J7 care to read it, my 1994 book Turning Up The Heat: MI5 After the Cold War' extensively covers Irish-related British state dirty tricks not just in Ireland but England too (p.28-59). Furthermore, Gianfranco Sanguinetti, cited above J7's response, is also quoted in that book---not as a substitute for analysis, or mere decoration, but to summarise the preceding analysis concerning neo-Nazis Combat 18 & the state [2].
Leaving that book aside-after all, is it real if not on the intemet?--it is nonetheless remarkable that J7, in an article headed 'Response to NFB 7 & 8' should so blithely ignore Irish-related items in NFB 8. Not just Martin McGartland's post-employment contract (p.6-7), but also a passage analysing 'MI5 & the Dirty War in Ulster'-focussing specifically on the 2002 Castlereagh police complex raid and the 2005 murder of MI5 asset Denis Donaldson (p.33). I will be interested to see if J7's take on these matters differs from NFB's-but suspect they have none, instead they plucked a portentous phrase from the air with which to metaphorically berate us. More generally, I have always thought NFB does seek to "learn from history" and apply it to contemporary events-indeed, I imagined that the Redwatch article (NFB 8 p.8-26) did just that. Or perhaps not? I await with bated breath a detailed J7 critique of the above writings--on second thoughts, not exactly "bated breath"...
Shayler Machon & 9/11 Truth
A direct quote would help little, as what J7 are trying to say is convoluted--I suggest readers look again at the two paragraphs below the picture in Column 2 on p. 18 above. The import seems to be that J7 see Shayler & Machon as genuine opponents of the secret state regarding 9/11, challenging the "official version of events" in an "outspoken" way (p. 18).
J7 have once more simply ignored contrary arguments-most specifically the NFB 7 article clearly if provocatively entitled 'The Cuckoos Change Nests-Machon & Shayler Target British and Irish 9/11 Campaigners' (p.13-17). Additionally, given J7's focus is, presumably, J7, why make no reference at all to the fact one DVD reviewed in NFB 8, 'Mind the Gap' was narrated by...David Shayler, and for good measure has yet another take from him on Al Qaeda, now declaring it mythical (p.45). Once more, J7 are welcome to disagree with our interpretation of Shayler Machon & 9-11/7-7 'Truth'-but to simply ignore our analysis while rhetorically taking us to task by citing Shayler and Machon as "outspoken" critics is weak indeed.
"Perhaps some of the...criticisms NFB aims at so-called 'conspiracy theories'-.would be better levelled at the State itself" (p. 19)
If we criticised only conspiracy theorists and not the state, this point might carry weight. However not only do we always 'speak the truth to power', NFB further contends that conspiracy theories, in contrast to evidence-based research, actually let the state off the hook. The J7 attack on NFB here can only be sustained by largely ignoring not just what we say about 7/7 (as seen) but much else besides-or was the Lecomber murder plot coverage in NFB 7 & 8 (for example) merely a mirage? I think not, except for those with a mind-set that demands they blank out contrary evidence. Comforting, but hardly credible research.
(2) POINTS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN NFB & J7
In what has preceded, and is to come, sharp differences with J7 are spelt out. Nonetheless, there are two important areas where we agree.
The civil liberties aspects of recent prosecutions
Exactly what constitutes terrorism, and a terrorist, has been ever more broadly-defined in recent years, frighteningly so. It appears that merely knowing somebody deemed to be a terrorist is almost sufficient these days for a prosecution-an intolerably wide pretext whatever the danger. It is not good enough for supporters of repressive legislation to plead an 'urgent' threat--as Benjamin Franklin remarked, those who sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserve neither.
Especially invidious is one case J7 highlight, that of Khalid Khaliq, a father of three who knew some of the 7/7 bombers, but after 7/7 voluntarily assisted police with their inquiries. His premises were searched, and a CD containing an Al Qaeda manual downloaded from the US Department of Justice web-site was found in July 2005. Nearly two years later, in March 2007, he was charged with (among other things) possessing the manual, and in March 2008 got 16 months jail [3]. The delay in prosecution, and this of somebody who had assisted the authorities, speaks of bad faith and arbitrary power, even aside from the fact there is no indication Khaliq had ever read, or intended to use, information that in any case originated with US law enforcement. It really is an Alice in Wonderland world where this type of prosecution can be successfully undertaken.
The secret state can and does use traditional methods in this sphere
It would be implausible for entrapment techniques used by the British secret state since Francis Walsingham's time (the Babington plot) and more recently in Ireland, to not be tried in this sphere. These include disinformation, character assassination, infiltration, agent provocateurs, dirty tricks, pseudo-gangs, fabricating evidence and the occasional murder. J7 rightly pinpoint individuals already on NFB's radar as suspect, such as Hassan Butt, a notorious self-publicist who in 2002 boasted about recruiting volunteers to launch attacks in the UK [4]. He was (eventually) arrested but released in May 2008 after admitting inventing claims about recruiting for Al Qaeda, meeting the 7/7 bombers etc [5]. The role of Junaid Babar & Agent Q [6] in Operation Crevice is equally questionable. Hence, to repeat, we do not oppose any public inquiry into 7/7 & Operation Crevice, as J7 demand.
In short, spook operating practices refined elsewhere have certainly been deployed in the 'War on Terror' by MI5/MI6/CIA/ISI etc. But not each technique, all the time, and this does not mean there are no individuals ready and willing to become suicide bombers whether with or without outside 'help' from spook assets. Each instance has to be looked at on merit, and the evidence.
(3) WHERE NFB DIFFERS FROM J7
We do not deny there are suicide bombers
A simple proposition, but as already shown, one with which J7 seem to disagree. I say 'seem' because despite discussing it on their forum, there are (for example) no headline articles on the site home page concerning the failed 21/7/05 bombings. Is this because the bombers were captured alive? It is sleight of hand worthy of Jesuits for J7 to reiterate that the "official version" of 7/7 is untested in a court of law (p.17). They say the 7/7 helpers trial at Woolwich "presented no conclusive evidence to prove the guilt of the four men accused of perpetrating the London bombings. Quite the contrary" (p.18). This is disingenuous-the four were not on trial by virtue of being dead. The jury were asked to deliberate on whether the three defendants were also involved--another matter. J7 quote prosecution counsel Nigel Flewitt on the 7/7 bomber ID documents (p.18), but omit his claim that DNA from two defendants, Sadeer Saleem and Waheed Ali was found at a reported 7/7 'bomb factory' in Alexander Grove, Burley. At the first trial the jury could not reach a verdict. At retrial, the three were acquitted of helping the bombers, their claim they visited London with the deceased for sight-seeing before 7/7 could not be disproved beyond reasonable doubt. Fair enough. That Wahid Ali and Mohammed Shakil intended to visit a jihad training camp in Pakistan is undeniable, for which they got 7 years--their claim this was unconnected to possible UK operations I doubt [7]. Anyway, no defendants put the J7 line at either trial--for an obvious reason....
By not denying there are suicide bombers we do not rule ourselves out of understanding why they do it
Hardly an earth-shattering assertion, relying on the first proposition, but with far reaching ramifications. Continued denial anybody from the Muslim community sympathises with suicide bombers up to and including possible emulation helps three groups.
First, those who want to recruit further bombers and escalate religious and racial tension.
Second, organised racists like the BNP and their tabloid cousins, whom it suits only too well to paint Islam as a doctrine of evil and murder. Third, those in the police and security services with something to hide, whether incompetence or indeed entrapment. How, in circumstances of blanket denial, can genuine instances stand out? Furthermore, if nobody attempts to understand why some young men (as they invariably are) become drawn to this kind of ideology, what is to stop further imitators?
Once you go beyond knee-jerk denial, analysis becomes more, not less, interesting, as genuine open-ended questions come into play.
A fascinating book, which I heartily recommend to NFB readers, is 'Human Being to Human Bomb: Inside the Mind of a Terrorist' [8] by Consultant psychiatrist Dr Russell Razzaque, himself a Moslem working in East London. Having encountered what he calls 'extremist Islam' while at University in 1989, Razzaque has kept a watching brief since on such phenomena, and after 7/7 decided to apply his professional skills as a psychiatrist to understanding both the 9/11 and 7/7 bombers. He came up with an interesting typology of those who in the right (or wrong!) circumstances can become a bomber in the West-often not very religious in early life (or even a convert), a distant father-son relationship, who at first made significant efforts at Integrating into Western society, often interested in strenuous sports [9]. In a crucial passage, after describing the inevitable journey taken by second generation Muslims towards the West (values, ways of living) Razzaque says such a "journey can be rudely interrupted. In a time of insecurity and uncertainty coming up against a major experience of racism or rejection can be instantly destabilising...The actual event may be anything from a slight to being ignored, being treated differently in an unexpected way, or an overt verbal or physical attack. Often it takes the form of the denial of a goal or an ambition that the young man had, apparently on the basis of race" [10]. Of crucial importance here is the word apparent-whether the knock-back is actually due to racism or just the perception of it is not material here. At this moment, the individual is vulnerable, by virtue of character, upbringing and environment (sometimes the novel surroundings of a University) to those who seek to explain who they are, how they are superior to unbelievers, and the means to resolve social problems (violently). In this situation theocratic Islam of the Wahabbist kind is a toxic but psychologically seductive offering, and those recruiting for bombing networks like Al Qaeda have a wide array of theological arguments and initiatory practices to ensnare new blood.
As well as what he calls a 'cognitive reframing of death' [11]. Razzaque does not flinch from drawing out the sexually repressive and, one could say, latently homo-erotic nature of 'terror cell' socialisation. Razzaque doesn't just deal with psychology-he traces some displaced emotional affiliations of cell members back to the extreme sexual frustration of key Al Qaeda source ideologist Sayyid Qutb for example. He is also definitely mindful of the foreign policy context of Al Qaeda sympathies among Western Muslims [12].
Whatever might be thought of Razzaque's proposed 'Ideological Extremism Vulnerability Scale' (a questionnaire devised to ascertain the susceptible) his research nonetheless has predictive power. Razzaque's typology does seem to fit cases other than those he has analysed. For example, take those charged (of whom three were convicted) in the Liquid Bomb Plot of 2006, which trial finally ended in September 2008. Cell leader Abdulla Ali only became fervent religiously at aged 15. Like another jailed, Assad Sarwar, he became radicalised in Afghanistan. Interestingly, Sarwar had dropped out of his degree course and subsequently had a string of temporary unskilled jobs. The third man convicted, Tanvir Hussein, only became a strict Muslim in 2005, before that, by his own account, drinking and chasing girls. Leaving aside the one defendant acquitted, Mohammed Gulzar, a supposed Al Qaeda 'fixer' from abroad, the other four (who may face a retrial) have intriguing CVs. Arafat Khan had a 2001 conviction for possessing Class A drugs, and Ibrahim Savant and Umar Islam were new converts to Islam. The final defendant, Waheed Zaman, had met Savant at a martial arts class, although his support for Liverpool FC brings a Scandinavian dimension into play [13]. What leaps out is how well they fit Razzaque's typology--the lateness of religiosity and the failed aspirations in particular. However charismatic Abdulla Ali was (three defendants he had known since school) he would not have been able to inveigle them into anything if there had not been a burning sense of injustice felt about Western policies, and of course a ready-made ideology and support network overseas, with whom Sarwar had liaised most of all. Especially given the relatively recent adherence of those involved to what (following Ed Husain) I term Islamist ideology, it would be particularly inappropriate (as do the simplistic and bigots) to see this sort of activity as deriving in a straightforward way from Islam itself-in that case, you would expect to find life-long believers involved, not returners/parvenus.
Belief there are suicide bombers does not rule out agents provocateur
Another unremarkable statement--though one that J7 have difficulty in grasping, given their reluctance accepting those planting bombs on 7/7 could have done it precisely because they died, hilarious were the events not so macabre. J7 labelling the Operation Crevice proceedings a 'Show Trial' (p.2*) is pertinent-in a show trial, evidence is almost entirely manufactured, and posited connections false. Yet there are undoubted linkages between those accused of 21/7, and allegedly involved in 7/7 and other 'plots', which even if manipulated by state agents were not entirely fictional. Provocateurs can only succeed if those they seek to entrap are amenable to some degree.
The J7 website recommends three articles on Operation Crevice. The first two, from The Guardian, bear the hallmarks of leaks from within the state apparatus, especially given two journalists involved often seem 'on message' regarding spook agendas [14]. Which flags up another J7 methodological deficiency. They have no idea that individual journalists might be close (or not) to one or other state agency, yet such knowledge is often essential to make sense of the vicious information wars they fight. The third recommended article is exemplary parapolitical research deserving a wide audience: The Entrapment of Omar Khyam: Parts One & Two' [15]. An excellent contemporary overview of the troubling questions concerning the 'Fertiliser Bomb Plot', it makes a convincing case that Junaid Babar and Mohammed Quayyum Khan (the ostensible original focus of Operation Crevice) are quite possibly directed agents of the security services, without whom this 'plot' might well not have happened, at least the way it did. Nevertheless It is worth noting what the blogger 'Szamko' says in conclusion:
"I have not argued that 7/7 was an 'inside job'—it doesn't seem that way to me, despite a long list of questions that an inquiry should ask and have answered. Most of them can be found at the July Seventh Truth Campaign. What seems more likely to me is that 7/7 was a case of blow-back from covert attempts to infiltrate radical groups in Pakistan...as well as groups supporting fighters in Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine etc. Most emphatically, I believe that MI5 has been active for a long time infiltrating, redirecting and breaking up groups that are opposed to the Saudi monarchy" [16].
The blow-back hypothesis is alien to 7/7 and 9/11 cults, but nonetheless viable. The article itself, as shown, does not endorse the J7 'inside job' approach, and is far more in line with the NFB world-view than J7's, where research starts with conclusions.
Proper research not shallow sloganising is needed
J7 drew my attention to articles on their site by messrs Fazal Rahman, William Bowles & David MacGregor [17], "well worth reading to advance the necessary debate and critical understanding of how the Left can analyse these events in their correct historical and political context" (p.2). So I read them....
(A) Fazal Rahman
At best, his two articles are a collection of hypothetical non sequiturs. The quality can be gleaned from this passage, written August 2005, referring to "whatever forensic evidence was found or concocted" (which is it?), going on to state that suicide bombs were unlikely because the "most rational option most probably was to leave the explosives on the targets" and then "disembark". Dr Razzaque is more convincing. Speaking, it seems, of 21/7, Rahman wrote it "may have been staged to further implicate the 'Muslim Extremists"'-news to defendants who pleaded guilty. A fact-free article draws to a close by declaring that "whatever evidence is being produced could have easily been planted by resourceful planners and perpetrators" [18]. Or not!
Time has not honed Rahman's critical faculties-by 2006 little is added, save praising J7 (on their own site [19]). He admits the first article was hypothetical, but the second is simply bizarre. For example, Rahman attacks "idiots" who said in the early years of the Vietnam War the Vietnamese could not resist the US-failing to see he is a contemporary equivalent if he thinks nobody influenced by Islamist ideology could carry out a suicide bombing. He does make a logical point that given CIA dirty tricks in various countries "why would it not do the same in the UK...when needed"-indeed-but credible evidence they might have done in this instance is not provided by him or anybody else in J7.
Carried away by J7's speculation, Rahman extravagantly posits a scenario involving organised crime groups, with the secret service co-ordinating-whether CIA MI5 or MI6 not stated. Also, an extremely busy "fifth man who followed the four men to one of the trains. This man was carrying the explosives. He left them near the four men and then got off the train. He noted down the car number and its location etc so that his contacts in the secret service knew exactly where to find the body parts of the four men who then, through some key contact in the police managed to link each of the four to the different sites of the explosions".
(B) William Bowles
Apparently a Marxist, he claims to survive capitalism needs "a new strategy based upon the existence of a seemingly irrational individual the suicide bomber, against which the only defence is almost a complete lock-down of the population" [20]. The current situation is used by ruling classes to do just that-though the roots of Islamist ideology and resurgence do not lie in Western ruling class strategy alone, but the interplay of that strategy and geo-political reality. Bowles refers disparagingly to "setting off a few home-made bombs"--an insensitive reductionist way to dismiss 7/7 & Madrid, let alone 9/11. To say, as he does, that "international terror doesn't exist, except as a propaganda message" is to let off the hook Western rulers (like Brzezinski) and agencies (like the CIA) who fed and nurtured the hydra that became Al Qaeda. On 7/7 Bowles offers little, save his "own take" that the bombers were "patsies"-no evidence given. He says "the war on terror represents a desperate attempt to deal with the vast over-accumulation of capital that has taken place since the fall of the Soviet Union". Exactly how (alleged) overaccumulation led to 9/11 & 7/7 is asserted not explained. Jargon may fool the gullible—I prefer evidence.
(C) David MacGregor
In a striking phrase, MacGregor terms 7/7 'Machiavellian state terror"--"spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself" [21]. After citing instances abroad, e.g. the Putin-inspired Moscow apartment bombings, he references Peter Dale-Scott comparing the JFK assassination to 9/11. Dale-Scott is an interesting thinker of weight [22]--MacGregor, not quite. He notes "three possible culprits usually impugned during episodes of Machiavellian state terror, a foreign state, a marginalised group...a lone nut". Maybe, but not exclusively so-therefore a redundant remark. MacGregor sees a similarity between 9/11 & 7/7 in simultaneous 'training exercises'. For 7/7 NFB has already covered this--with no J7 response. MacGregor praises 'Ludicrous Diversions' (a DVD J7 criticises NFB for reviewing). He ends with a two page description of the Hamburg bombing in World War Two, intended to undermine post-7/7 legitimacy of references to the 'Blitz' mentality. It cannot, for folk memories of the Blitz rely on popular experience here-not Germany.
Ultimately, none of these three convinces-and thus the standard of research J7 holds up as exemplary hardly advances critical understanding, though it does show where they are at.
CONCLUSION
The above isn't NFB's last word on 7/7-and readers with anything evidence-based to contribute welcome. Many (indeed virtually all) stories covered in NFB will either not be featured in the main-stream media, or not treated in our unique way. We reserve the right to examine 7/7, 9/11 (or anything else) as and when we decide, not when critics demand we should. End of.
FOOTNOTES
[1] see 'Messages to the World' edited by Bruce Lawrence Verso London 2005
[2] 'Turning Up the Heat' p.83 (p.65-86 covers dealings with fascists).
[3] see Yorkshire Evening Post 11/3/08 (Tony Gardner), Yorkshire Post 12/3/08 (Kate O'Hara), BBC News on-line 11/3/08 'Man Jailed over Al Qaeda manual', Daily Mail 11/3/08 (Chris Brooke) and of course 'Justice Defiled-the conviction of Khalid Khaliq' J7 Campaign blog 12/3/08
[4] BBC News on-line 'UK Terror Target claim dismissed' 7/1/02
[5] Channel Four News 21/5/08 (Simon Israel)
[6] Not to be confused with NFB's very own (late) 'Agent Q', editorial director & all-round inspiration.
[7] see BBC News on-line 'Jury dismissed in 7/7 plot trial' 1/8/08, 'Flawed Trial of Leeds Trio' 28/4/09, The Independent 29/4/09 (Cahal Milmo)-for a start...
[8] Icon Books, Cambridge 2008
[9] ibid, especially p.79-108
[10] ibid. p.94-5
[11] see especially p. 109-57
[12] ibid. p. 159-82
[13] Daily Telegraph (9/9/08: no named journalist). Scandinavian bit is a joke...
[14] The Guardian 1/5/07 (Ian Cobain, Jeevan Vasagar & Richard Norton-Taylor). Vasagar is the unknown quantity..
[15] http://szamko.ann.tv.blogs/23122/ The Entrapment of Omar Khyam Part One-links to Part Two. 3/5/07
[16] op. cit. Part Two p. 14
[17] see footnotes 19-22 below the J7 Response for exact on-line references.
[18] Fazal Rahman 'London Bombings Unasked & Unanswered Questions' 8/8/05
[19] Fazal Rahman 'On the hypothesis of the article on London bombings' 31/10/06
[20] William Bowles 'The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained' 26/2/07
[21] David MacGregor 'July 7th As Machiavellian State Terror' 7/3/07
[22] Originally comment on http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2008/06/peter-dale-scot.html which is where any reply can still be posted. The comments on Dale Scott are also reproduced on this web-site.
