Part II: Motive

 

While Part I focussed on forensic evidence, or its absence, Part II presents circumstantial evidence that complements what was presented in Part I. 

 

I begin by demonstrating that no real Muslim, regardless of his opposition to British foreign policy, would have perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11, not so much because such an attack would contradict his religion (it would) as because it would be completely senseless.  The next section presents testimonies from people who knew the accused. Without exception, they were described as decent young men, devoid of extremism of any sort. There follows a short section presenting evidence that shows that the accused did not envisage dying on 7/7. 

 

A substantial section is devoted to a set of extraordinary coincidences which have not been properly explained and which give rise to serious questions about the official account.  Among these coincidences are a BBC Panorama program broadcast in 2004, which presented a mock scenario of terrorist attacks similar to that of 2005, and a terror exercise conducted on the very morning of 7/7 by Visor Consultants, the scenario of which almost exactly tracked the actual bombings. The penultimate section deals with the mysterious crisis that reportedly occurred at Canary Wharf on the morning of 7/7, and included the alleged shooting of three “suicide bombers.”  In the last section, I present my conclusions and place them in a wider historical and strategical context that might help explain the nature of the 7/7 events.

 

11.  Whose interests did the 7/7 bombings serve?

 

The 7/7 bombings could have been foreseen to have disastrous consequences for British Muslims. Indeed, these events rendered British Muslims suspicious and prompted police surveillance of Muslim communities. It was also evident that such acts would stiffen the British authorities’ determination to increase their participation in the international “war on terrorism”, initiated after the events of 9/11, including the continued occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The losers, again, would be the Muslim nations around the globe, who had to fear military interventions by the United States and its British allies. These consequences should have been evident to whoever planned the bombings of 7/7. When planning a complex operation over a period of months, conspirators would most likely weigh the cost/benefits of the operation according to their own interest. In the case of four alleged Muslims, it must be assumed that they would have realised early on the harmful consequences of such an operation for Muslims. They could also have realised that they would not be celebrated as martyrs by their families, within their community and in the Muslim world.{214} As the four alleged bombers were not regarded as insane, but as rational and intelligent young men, it follows that they would not be oblivious to such rational considerations, particularly if they had planned the operation for a long period. It is thus extremely difficult to discern any motive for their participation in an operation that would be extremely damaging to their personal interests and to their alleged cause.

On the other hand, the bombings provided a number of foreseeable political opportunities to the British government. And the British government did avail itself of these opportunities.

 

An immediate effect of the bombings was to increase Tony Blair’s popularity, which had suffered considerably because of his support for the war against Iraq. An opinion poll taken two days after the London bombings showed that his satisfaction rating had shot up from 32 percent to 49 percent.{215} “Just as Margaret Thatcher was able to speak as a national leader across party lines at times of crisis...so does Mr. Blair now in expressing the public mood over the terrorist attacks.”{216}

 

British politicians did not publicly link specific policy decisions to the events of 7/7.  However, Efraim Halevi, former head of the Israeli Mossad, disclosed in the Jerusalem Post on the very day of the London bombings his awareness of the opportunities opened by the attacks. He wrote, revealingly:

 

There will be supreme tests of leadership in this unique situation and people will have to trust the wisdom and good judgment of those chosen to govern them. The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting. The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted to cater to the necessities of this new and unprecedented situation, and international law must be rewritten in such a way as to permit civilization to defend itself.

 

Whether and to what extent the British government heeded Halevi’s advice is beyond the scope of this study. British global military policy remained, however, firmly coordinated with that the United States, including Britain’s participation in the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.  The British government continued after 7/7 to promote the myth of Islamic terrorism as a grave threat to national security.

 

12.   Did the accused possess a violent or criminal disposition?

 

So-called terrorism experts agree that there is no such a thing as a typical profile of a suicide bomber. People identified as having committed suicide attacks have come from the most diverse backgrounds, educational levels, religions and ages. In most cases they are highly principled persons committed to a cause. Yet those who decide to sacrifice their lives for a cause are usually surrounded by a community of supporters. The future suicide bomber draws courage from the admiration of his community and the expectation to be celebrated later in his community as a martyr. Experts designate the existence of such a supportive community as a significant motivational factor for suicide bombers. In the London bombings case, no such supporting community existed. The alleged suicide bombers are said to have kept their plans secret from their friends and families and had no reason to expect to be celebrated as martyrs. As things turned out, no former friend or family member applauded their deeds. There is no known precedent for such self-destructive and senseless conduct by sane people, let alone by individuals who had a bright future in front of them.

 

Practically all who knew the four young men talked positively about them and expressed their deep bewilderment regarding their alleged participation in the mass murder. They could not reconcile the person they knew with such odious acts. Public officials and mainstream commentators attempted to explain this apparent paradox by suggesting that the young men had led double lives and actually deceived their spouses, families, friends and colleagues for a long period. They were thus claimed to have been excellent actors, able to hide their murderous plans from their surroundings and willing to deceive their beloved ones, compounding mass murder with perfidy. In order to support this view, it has been pointed out that they had not at all times been truthful to those closest to them.  Yet there can be many reasons for people to lie to their spouses, including, as transpired at the inquests, secret love affairs.{217} A completely different reason for lying to one’s nearest friends and relatives could also be participation in a covert intelligence operation that they were not allowed to disclose. Those who claim that these four young men deceived their loved ones in order to commit murder and act against their religion bear a heavy burden of proof that this was actually the case.

 

We will now consider what family members, friends and colleagues said about the four young men. Rumors and insinuations as well as allegations by intelligence agencies will be disregarded.

 

Mohammed Sidique Khan

 

Mohammad Sidique Khan was born on 20th October 1974 in Leeds. His father is Tika Khan, a foundry worker. His mother is named Mamida Begum, but it is not settled whether she is his biological mother or his step-mother.{218} Sidique was the youngest of six children and grew up in Beeston, attending Matthew Murray High School, now known as South Leeds High School.  He met his wife Hasina, a British Muslim of Indian origin while at university and they married in 2001. They had a daughter in May 2004. While still at university, his interest in helping disadvantaged young people appears to have developed, and he took in part-time youth and community work before graduating in business studies in 1996. After his marriage in 2001, he moved to Batley, and then to Dewsbury, but continued to work as a primary school teaching assistant and youth worker. His role at school was that of “learning mentor”, working with children who were struggling with their work, as well as those with behavioural problems. He was highly regarded by both teachers and parents, showing real talent for encouraging difficult children, many of whom viewed him as a role model.{219} 

 

Khan's mother-in-law, Farida Patel, also dedicated herself to education. In 2004 she was a guest at a Buckingham Palace garden party, where she received an award for her work as a...