Monday, May 15, 2006

7/7 Bombshell: MI5 knows the "suicide" bomber was no suicide.

Yesterday's Sunday Times carried a shocking article. The real bombshell is buried in the second paragraph. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the (alleged) chief "suicide" bomber on July 7th 2005, was heard "talking about how to build the device and then leave the country because there would be a lot of police activity." Who heard him? MI5. And they heard him "months before the London attacks". And they did nothing to stop him.

The Sunday Times May 14, 2006

Spies ‘hid’ bomber tape from MPs

David Leppard and Richard Woods

MI5 is being accused of a cover-up for failing to disclose to a parliamentary watchdog that it bugged the leader of the July 7 suicide bombers discussing the building of a bomb months before the London attacks.

MI5 had secret tape recordings of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the gang leader, talking about how to build the device and then leave the country because there would be a lot of police activity.

However, despite the recordings, MI5 allowed him to escape the net. Transcripts of the tapes were never shown to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC), which investigated the attacks.

So: Blair's Narrative of the London Bombings is shown to be a pack of lies. The Sunday Times article establishes that:

a) the alleged ringleader was under MI5 surveillance, and his very phone calls were being recorded;

b) British intelligence heard him planning to build a bomb, and made no attempt to stop him;

c) he did NOT intend to commit suicide, but to flee to another country.

Rachel North is justifiably furious and could use some support: “I am shaking with anger.... I feel badly, desperately let down.” As must the entire Muslim population of Britain, which has been collectively slandered for the last year on the basis of a Narrative concocted by the people who gave us the Menezes Yarn.


  1. Yes, I agree with the poster above. This is a terrible blog. The author seems to be suffering from a mental illness that requires him to believe in the most silly of conspiracy thoeires.

  2. Buck, congratulations on your sanity. But what's a thoeire?

  3. Peter Blapps1:56 AM

    I wonder what the "most silly of conspiracy thoeires" is. Personally, I reckon it's the thoerie about the 19 amateur pilots/drug dealers with pen-knives outwitting the multi-trillion dollar US air defence system four times in a day. Seems pretty far-fetched to me.

    Q, that Times story is amazing. Funnily enough, I notice that very few people seem to be talking about it. A certain thread over at The Tomb was noticeably struck dumb when it was mentioned. Weird.

    Meanwhile, the release of the "new" Pentagon video seems to have ushered in a new movement to discredit all of us crazy conspiracy thoerists. Have a look at this piece of shit article from the BBC if you want to get your blood boiling.

  4. "A certain thread over at The Tomb was noticeably struck dumb when it was mentioned."

    Struck noisy, rather. But I agree with you that it was weird in the extreme to see the regulars at Lenin's Tomb (anticapitalista, johng, Heather B, Tony, etc.) expending thousands of outraged words on a less-than-fascinating side-issue: How nice is the person who posted this information? Shouldn't he be banned, purged, eliminated? Isn't his sarcasm sometimes less than perfectly-pitched? Do we really have to tolerate this shit?

    "This shit" being the posting of the link to the Sunday Times article. And the information enclosed therein was either not mentioned at all (i.e. very carefully ignored) or else declared to be infinitely interpretable and therefore not worth bothering about.

    Bizarre. But in fact this is always and very predictably the reaction when certain convenient fairytales are undermined. And I think Chabert diagnosed correctly what's at the root of it:

    "the thing that disturbs me most is this admitted preference for the fantasy, the self-dramatising fiction - the position taken by tony and anticapitalista and johng. It doesn't matter what the truth is; we must prefer and advance that spectacle that suits our self image. We 'the Left' seem more principled and high minded if we object to the war on terror even if there is terror; if blair is responsible for rachel north's pain, that would make us look not as good. so everyone must be prevented from finding out the truth; we have to choose the better teleplay, the one that suits our self image best. Tony literally said it didn't matter what the truth is and its better for the revolution if its never found out. It's like listening, genuinely, to psychotics and the bush posse."

  5. Peter Blapps5:45 AM

    "Struck noisy, rather"

    For a while, anyway. What I meant was that when the Sunday Times article was finally linked (and in a very pleasant manner, I should add), there was precisely one more response. I guess somebody still wasn't being nice enough.

    Thanks for the Chabert link - I'd missed those comments.

  6. Yup. In four-and-a-half-hours, Meaders' spiffingly sarcastic one-liner was the only response to the Sunday Times revelations. Then I responded with mild sarcasm to his sarcasm, and all hell broke loose. How dare I?!

    I should know better by now, but I still find it disturbing to see so many people on the left react with such irrationality - and such evident *distress* - to such clear evidence of government lies. Take it away! Don't make us look at it!