Are We Boiling Frogs?
Page 34
Again in 2003, during another joint MI5 & Special Branch
surveillance operation, called Operation Honeysuckle,
Special Branch recorded McDaid getting a lift with Khan.
They ran a vehicle check and confirmed ownership, but
supposedly didn't pass this information on to MI5. At the
inquests they stated that they hadn't thought the lift was
significant and didn't think it was relevant to the purpose of
the investigation.
Operation Honeysuckle had involved teams of officers
trailing McDaid around Yorkshire for two days. Why they
thought his apparent meeting with Khan was insignificant
wasn't clear. It also raised the question about the purpose of
the operation. If it wasn't for gathering intelligence on
McDaid or the people he met, what was it for? Neither the
Police nor MI5 were willing to disclose this at the inquests.
West Yorkshire Police continued to investigate the Iqra
Learning Centre and, in December 2003, they discovered the
shop was jointly run by Abdullah McDaid and was a
registered charity. The list of the charity's trustees included
Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.
In June 2004 MI5 sent an information request to the West
Yorkshire Police and the Special Branch North Eastern
Intelligence Cell requesting further details about Khan. The
reply they received identified Khan, giving his personal
details including previous addresses and a police caution
he'd received as a teenager. Yet it completely omitted Khan's
278
A Dangerous Ideology
appearance in Operation Honeysuckle.
In light of the inquests narrow remit, focusing upon
'preventability,' MI5 were asked why they had missed this
vital information. Astonishingly they claimed this was
because their database didn't work. This was another
temporary problem, it later functioned perfectly.
The Iqra Learning Centre was considered to be a centre for
the radicalisation of young Muslim men. Khan and Tanweer
were among them, but one of the chief architects of the
radicalisation appeared to have been McDaid. He had been
under surveillance at least twice. His clear links to both
Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer were never
'followed up' by the police or the security services.
Supposedly due to a crap database, if you can believe that?
Following 7/7, the book shop was raided but McDaid, the
former UK Special Forces soldier and apparent hate
preacher, wasn't charged with any offence. He later told
reporters that he was against violence and that Khan and
Tanweer had left the Iqra book shop prior to his involvement.
He also informed them that he had met with Jermain
Lindsay at least twice.[119]
Operation Warlock and Honeysuckle, along with the list of
the charity's trustees, meant he was lying about his
relationship with Khan and Tanweer. McDaid has never been
arrested or questioned about his involvement with at least
three of the alleged 7/7 bombers, including the suggested
ringleader. Having barely featured in the inquests, he has
now disappeared and is thought to be living overseas.
The original focus of Operation Crevice wasn't upon the
fertiliser bomb plotters. Its initial target had been
Mohammad Quayum Khan, an alleged al Qaeda operative
with direct links to Ossama bin Laden.
Codenamed 'Q' he was said to have been an al Qaeda
recruiter who had sent many young British Muslims to
training camps. According to the 2009 ISC report, in 2003
MI5 had recorded phone conversations between 'Q' and
Mohammad Sidique Khan. It was alleged that it was 'Q' who
had sent Khan to train with Babar in Pakistan.[40]
279
A Dangerous Ideology
The inquest revealed that 'Q's phone number had been noted
as part of Operation Honeysuckle. Again this raised the
question of why the Police supposedly neglected to tell MI5
any of this. Broken database notwithstanding.
'Q' was soon dropped from Operation Crevice as the focus
shifted to Khyam and his co-conspirators. Despite being an
alleged terrorist facilitator, with direct links to both Khan
and Khyam, 'Q' does not appear to have been arrested or
interviewed. He wasn't called to testify at the Crevice trial.
Nor was there any subsequent exploration of his links with
Khan. This led to speculation that 'Q' was actually an
informant or asset of the security services.
Peter Clarke was the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of
Special Operations (Counter Terrorism Command) at
Scotland Yard. He was a key member of Operation Hanover,
running simulations of terrorist attacks which closely
mirrored the 7/7 bombings, just five days before they
transpired. He led the subsequent 7/7 investigation.
In an interview with the BBC, Clarke was asked about 'Q's
alleged relationship with the security services. The
conversation left this possibility wide open:
Q: Who was or is 'Q?'
A: There are a lot of people connected to this
investigation. Some of them I know their
identities, some of them I don't........um.....
Q: But you know who 'Q' is?
A: I know who 'Q' is but I am not going to
discuss who he is or what he is or what he
does during this interview.
Q: Why was 'Q' never arrested?
A: Decisions are made during the course of
an investigation based upon the evidence
that's available and..er..the decision of who
should be arrested is based
entirely..er..upon what evidence is available
at the time.
280
A Dangerous Ideology
Q: Was 'Q' not arrested possibly because he
was working for you or MI5?
A: ..mm..I..I'm not prepared to comment
on..on any speculation like that.
There seems little doubt the alleged 7/7 bombers were
involved in Islamist extremism to some extent. In particular,
the evidence suggests Mohammad Sidique Khan and
Shehzad Tanweer were planning to fight jihad abroad. Both
appeared to have voluntarily attended al Qaeda and other
Islamist training camps.
For many this will provide all the explanation they need to
maintain their belief the four men were solely responsible for
the murder of 52 innocent men and women. However, for
many others, the evidence surrounding 7/7 appears to
indicate a far more complex narrative than the one we have
been given.
For the bereaved family members and survivors, there are far
too many questions left unanswered. Having fought long and
hard to find something approaching the truth, most have
now been forced to accept their concerns may never be
addressed.
Graham Foulkes, who lost his 22 year old son David at
Edgware Road, is a prominent spokesperson for the 7/7
victims' families. He summed up their frustrations after the
conclusion of the inquests:
In 2005 the Home secretar
y stated quite
clearly that he'd been told by the intelligence
community that the four bombers were
previously unknown to them. They were
'clean skins.' They couldn't prevent the
attack because it had come out of the blue.
Now, since 2005, we know that's completely
untrue.
We know that the intelligence community
had been...had a full surveillance team in
place shadowing or following or whatever
they do.....Mohammad Sidique Khan for over
281
A Dangerous Ideology
two years. They had tape recordings of him
being in contact with people who are now
serving sentences for plan...for planning
bomb attacks. They..they'd followed him to
his home address. So they had a full
surveillance team.
So the first question is why did they lie to
the Home Secretary? What are the
consequences of that because there don't
seem to have been any? But also it's
really...really upsetting for me, and all of us,
to know that the intelligence community had
such detailed information about Sidique
Khan and his intent and yet they did
naught. The key question for me is why
didn't they act? Why didn't they prevent
this?
As with most people, the only conceivable possibility, even
for the families of the victims, is the security services 'failure'
to act. Yet the connections between the alleged ringleader of
7/7, Mohammad Sidique Khan, and individuals who may
well have been state operatives raised other questions.[120]
If Babar was a U.S. intelligence asset inside al Qaeda, what
role did he have in the training and preparation of the
alleged 7/7 terrorists? Why did the British security services
send obscured, unidentifiable images of Khan and Tanweer
for Babar's attention if they had perfectly clear photographs
available?
Who was Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid and who did he work for?
Is his story of the ex-Special Forces counter-terrorism soldier
who converted to Islamist extremism even remotely
plausible? What role did he play in the radicalisation and
training of the alleged 7/7 bombers?
Was 'Q' working for British intelligence and what role did he
have in the recruitment and training of the alleged 7/7
bombers? Why weren't his connections with the 7/7
bombers investigated thoroughly?
Given the evidence we have, has it been proven beyond
282
A Dangerous Ideology
reasonable doubt the four men were, in fact, the 7/7
bombers. Or is just as likely that they were expendable
patsies? If not them, then who was responsible? Why was
there so much evidence of possible military grade devices
placed underneath the carriages? How and why was this
discounted?
Why were the British government so reluctant to hold an
independent inquiry and why did they go to such lengths to
limit the scope of the inquests? Why didn't they just follow
the existing, standard legal procedures?
In light of the evidence, is it reasonable to consider the
possibility that 7/7 didn't represent a 'failure' of the security
services to act but, whether intentional or not, was rather a
consequence of their deliberate actions?
These questions do not arise as the result of irretrievable
lunacy. They don't infer any blame or attempt to offer an
alternative explanation. They spring from the very obvious
holes in the evidence given thus far. The evidence does not
appear to support the account we are all supposed to
unhesitatingly accept.
Without meaningful responses to these questions, why
should we believe the 'narrative' we've been given?
Terrorist events like 7/7 and 9/11 have shaped the nature of
our society in recent years. Like it or not, they have provided
the justification for the wholesale bombing of other
countries, a dangerous escalation in international tensions,
the killing of millions of people, and the introduction of
draconian legislation designed to limit our freedoms.
Speaking in Parliament in 2007, Tony Blair rejected
demands for an independent public inquiry into the 7/7
attacks. He said:[123]
“I have ruled out having another proper and
independent inquiry. The fact is the ISC
went into all of these issues in immense
detail.”
The duplicity in his statement was breath taking. The
Intelligence and Security Committees were entirely
283
A Dangerous Ideology
government appointed. There was nothing independent
about them. There had been no “proper and independent
inquiry.”
However, Blair was by no means finished with his witter:
“The reason why people want another
inquiry - and I totally understand both the
grief of the victims of 7/7 and their anxiety
to have another inquiry - is because they
want another inquiry to reach a different
conclusion.”
Regardless of his continuing deceit concerning a previous
inquiry, why would the surviving victims of 7/7 want one to
reach any kind of predetermined conclusion? What they
most wanted was an independent review of the evidence to
find out what happened, not the creation of another
government approved 'account.'
They also wanted this process to take place in reality, rather
than exclusively in the imagination of Mr Blair.
As 7/7 survivor Rachel North put it:
“What we want is an independent person -
properly independent of the government and
security services - who can trawl through all
the information available and make
recommendations. That is not happening.”
Undeterred but such piffling concerns, Tony Blair then
proceeded to raise significant questions about what the state
really knew about 7/7, when they knew it, and why they
were so worried about a proper examination of the evidence:
[124]
“If we end up now saying that the
Intelligence and Security Committee was not
an adequate inquiry, we have another
inquiry, we will simply cause great anxiety
and difficulty within the service.
We won't get any more truth, because the
truth is there in the intelligence and Security
284
A Dangerous Ideology
Committee, but what we will do is
undermine support for our security services
and I am simply not prepared to do it.”
Posing the question, what was it the Prime Minister of
Britain thought would be revealed by an independent inquiry
that would “undermine support for the security services?”
Before we simply accept what we are told, shouldn't we at
least try to ascertain if the 'facts' we are given are plausible?
The only way we can do this is by examining the evidence.
If the state can simply refuse to provide any proof to back up
/> its narratives by claiming 'national security;' if our media
don't question the official statements, but simply repeat
whatever they are told; if the stories the state provides don't
stand up to scrutiny, and then it decrees we are going to war
based upon 'secret intelligence' we aren't even allowed to
know, then what is this thing we call democracy?
************************
There is no such thing as a dangerous ideology.
There are only dangerous actions. The ideas of the individual
don't threaten social stability. It's our willingness to
unquestioningly follow ideas, to be led by others, which
fosters the necessary conditions for war and chaos. For evil
to prosper, good men must be organised.
Freedom of speech and expression are our best protection
against tyranny. Where the right to openly challenge ideas is
protected, when debate is encouraged and critical thinking
venerated, hateful or violent ideologies rarely flourish.
Most of us understand, no matter our differences, we each
want what's best for our families and loved ones. We have no
individual desire to harm others. Of course there are a few
exceptions, but when we are free think rationally, to
question the doctrines of hate or division, they seldom
spread beyond the fringes of society.
285
A Dangerous Ideology
Those who want to elevate themselves to positions of
authority are a miniscule minority. They always have been.
Few of us desire power over other people. It is advisable to
suspect the motives of those who do.
We are many and they are few. Yet human history is
characterised by conflict and mass violence.
Tribes are capable of staggering cruelty. However, before one
tribe attacks another, it must be convinced the enemy wants
its destruction. Tribesmen and women must genuinely
believe their children and loved ones are threatened before
they will kill the children and loved ones of other tribes. The
collective acceptance of an existential threat is always
required.
The miniscule minority know this. Power over the rest of us
is all they crave and they will do anything to acquire and
maintain it. Not always because they want to cause harm
but always because they believe they know best. If the world
is to benefit from their exclusive grasp of the truth, they
must have the authority to enforce their ideas upon the rest
of us.