by Ann Williams
BRUTAL TERRORISTS
After the bombings, the government immediately issued a statement naming the Basque separatist group ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) as the culprits. Since the 1960s, ETA had mounted numerous bomb attacks in Spain in the past, killing and injuring dozens of people. Their campaign had reached a peak from the 1980s as car bomb attacks, attempted assassinations, brutal shootings and kidnappings increased. Most Spaniards condemned ETA for their violent tactics, and there was not a great deal of sympathy for their cause, even among the Basque people themselves. In recent years, ETA had begun to alienate themselves still further from their own people by murdering, kidnapping and blackmailing Basque politicians, newspaper editors and others who spoke out against their terrorist attacks.
THE TRAINS OF DEATH
However, it soon became clear that, in this instance, ETA was not to blame for the bombings. A stolen van was found near the scene of one of the station bombings, containing a supply of detonators and a tape in the Arabic language. Not only this, but soon after the event, a letter was sent to an Arabic newspaper in London, claiming that the attacks were mounted by Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group thought to be associated with al-Qaeda. The group, named after a former terrorist, had in the past claimed responsibility for a number of attacks around the world. They referred to the attacks as ‘The Trains of Death Operation’. Later, another organization, The Lions of Al-Mufridun, also claimed responsibility for the attack.
The claims of these groups were regarded with some scepticism at first, but then more evidence came to light. A bag of explosives that failed to detonate was found, and in it was a mobile phone. The phone was traced to Jamal Zougam, a Moroccan thought to have links with Abu Dahdah, the suspected leader of an al-Qaeda cell in Madrid. Several more arrests were made, including Moroccan and Indian nationals, all of whom were thought to be connected to the bombings in some way. Zougam, who ran a mobile phone shop, was suspected of being involved in the making of the bombs. He was already under surveillance as a suspect in the suicide bombings of Casablanca in May, when 33 people were killed in an anti-Jewish attack. The Casablanca atrocity was attributed to Salafia Jihadia, a Moroccan-based Islamic fundamentalist group with links to al-Qaeda. Zougam had also been mentioned in connection with the attacks of 9/11 in the USA.
PROTESTS AGAINST TERRORISM
Meanwhile, forensic evidence was beginning to emerge that the bombs were unlike any other bombs that had been detonated by ETA in the past. The attack was also on a much larger scale than any that ETA had hitherto mounted. Nevertheless, the Spanish government had immediately blamed the Basque separatists, in a move that was now seen as opportunistic and mainly motivated by its desire to win the upcoming election.
As a result of these complications, the Madrid bombings became the subject of much political controversy, and there were angry demonstrations protesting against the manipulative behaviour of the government in dealing with this tragic situation. To this day, there continues to be many differing accounts of who exactly was to blame and why the attack took place.
On the day following the blasts, millions of Spanish people took to the streets to protest against ETA, who were presumed to be behind these latest atrocities. Later on, it became clear that it was Islamic fundamentalists, not Basque separatists, who were behind the attacks, and a major investigation was launched to try to bring the culprits to justice.
SUICIDE BLAST
The first suspects were rounded up on March 13, 2004. The seven men, three of them Moroccan, two Indian and two Spanish, were alleged to have provided support for the perpetrators of the attack. On March 18, five more suspects were picked up, all of them, except one, Moroccans. There were more arrests on March 22, and the trail led to a Moroccan national, Abdelkrim Mejjati, who was alleged to be the mastermind behind both the Casablanca attack and the Madrid bombings.
The following month, police began to close in on a group of Moroccans in an apartment block in Leganés, a town near Madrid. As they did so, they evacuated the residents of the block and the surrounding areas, fearing a shoot-out. Then there was a massive explosion, which killed a special forces agent and injured several other policemen. It appeared that the Moroccan terrorists had blown themselves up. They were later identified as Jamal Ahmidan, Abdennabi Kounjaa, Asri Rifat Anouar and Sarhane Ben Abdelmajid Fakhet. Fahket was a Tunisian, and he was thought to be the main perpetrator of the Madrid bombings.
MASS MURDER
More arrests followed as police in Milan caught up with Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, suspected of planning the Madrid bombings with co-conspirator Fahket. In Serbia, Abdelmajid Bouchar was picked up and identified as one of the other terrorists involved, and a request was made to extradite him from the country. Meanwhile, the Spanish judiciary charged the three Moroccans who had first been arrested with murder – not of one or two people, but a 190 in total – and of the attempted murder of 1,400 people. In addition, the men were accused of belonging to a terrorist organization. The two Indian suspects, Suresh Kumar and Vinay Kohly, were charged with collaborating with terrorists and falsifying documents.
Under Spanish law, the five suspects could be held in jail for up to two years while the prosecution gathered evidence for the case against them. Accordingly, they were taken to prison to await trial. That same year, more suspects, José Emilio Suarez, Abderrahim Zbakh, Abdelouahid Berrak and Mohamed El Hadi Chedadi, were charged with a variety of crimes, from murder and robbery to collaboration with terrorists.
The terrorist bombings in Madrid exposed many of the deep political rifts within the country, and they continue to do so. While on one level the government, the authorities, the media and the public were united in grief at the tragic loss of so many ordinary citizens of Madrid, it was also clear that there was a great deal of political capital to be made out of the attack, coming as it did just before a national election, and in the context of ETA terrorism, which had in recent years been a major issue in the country. Because of this, the attack had major repercussions on the political scene in Spain, and it continues to be a major source of controversy both there and internationally.
The July 2005 London Bombings
I think we all know what they are trying to do – they are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cower us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do, of trying to stop us going about our business as normal, as we are entitled to do, and they should not, and they must not, succeed.
Tony Blair
The London Bombings of July 2005 confirmed what everyone had feared since the attacks of 9/11 in New York: that the UK, as well as the USA, was now a major target for Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks. On Thursday, July 7, 2005, a co-ordinated attack of four bombs, three on the underground and one on a bus, killed 52 people and injured 700 more. This was the scenario that the public, the security services and the government had been dreading for months, years even – a direct attack on London’s massive, overcrowded public transport system during a peak rush-hour period.
BLOOD, DUST AND DEBRIS
As the emergency services moved in, the full horror of the scenes below ground, and in the street where the bus exploded, began to become clear. Underground, emergency workers braved the darkness, smoke and carnage to rescue those who were still alive and to retrieve the bodies of those who had died. Above ground, the remains of the bus bore witness to the blast that had taken place on board, as victims staggered about the streets covered in blood, dust and debris. Such scenes horrified the nation when pictures of the atrocity began to be released on television and in the newspapers.
Yet, characteristically, the British public reacted calmly on the whole, and it was not long before Londoners resumed their normal lives. Later, when the details of those who had died were published, it became clear just how indiscriminate the attacks had been, and an unexpectedly moving picture emerged of London as a tolerant community in which people of all races, backgrounds and faiths lived and worked side by
side. Far from attracting sympathy to their cause, the bombers had merely succeeded in showing how well integrated the community of the city was on a day-to-day level, offering a snapshot of people from all over the world who had come to London to pursue their careers and build successful lives. In contrast, the bombers could only be seen as a retrogressive force dedicated to a nihilistic death cult set on destroying modern civilization.
SUICIDE BOMBERS
Exactly two weeks after the bombings, four attempted bombings took place in London. Like the earlier attacks, there were three bombs placed on underground trains and one on a bus. Thankfully, the attacks were foiled by the security services and none of the bombs were detonated, but they served as a frightening reminder that terror attacks were still a threat to the lives of everyone in the nation’s capital city.
When the suicide bombers of July 7 were eventually identified – all of the terrorists died in the attacks – new questions were raised as to the pathology of the culprits. For the most part, the bombers were young men from relatively stable backgrounds; they were not people whose lives had been fragmented by war, loss and poverty. So why had these individuals turned against their families and their society in this way, condemning themselves to their own deaths in the process? The pathology of the suicide bombers was perplexing, and it is still an issue that is under-researched in the discussion of the phenomenon of terrorism in the 21st century.
HOME-MADE BOMBS
Thursday July 7, 2005, in central London was busy as usual, with the underground and bus services working at full stretch. Just before the rush hour began to draw to a close at 8.50 a.m., three bombs hidden on underground trains detonated: the first on an underground train near Liverpool Street, the second near Edgware Road, and the third on a train as it travelled through a tunnel between King’s Cross and Russell Square. An hour later, at 9.47 a.m., there was another explosion, this time on a double-decker bus at Tavistock Square, near King’s Cross. In all, there were 26 victims at Russell Square; 13 died at Tavistock Place; seven at Aldgate; and six at Edgware Road.
The first bomb, on a Circle Line train, also damaged the Hammersmith and City Line from Liverpool Street to Aldgate East; while the second bomb, again on the Circle Line, damaged other trains as it passed by. The third bomb exploded at the rear of the first carriage in a train on the Piccadilly Line, damaging two carriages and the tunnel around it. The bomb on the bus, which was a number 30 travelling between Marble Arch and Hackney Wick, exploded as the bus took a diverted route. Ironically, people who had been evacuated from the tube had boarded the bus as an alternative method of transport.
The blast ripped off the roof of the bus and destroyed the rear section. Those at the front mostly survived, including the driver, but most of the unlucky victims at the rear were killed. In many cases, their bodies were so badly damaged that it took a long time to identify them. Since the bomb exploded near the offices of the British Medical Association, a number of doctors were on hand to provide immediate medical attention to the victims of the bus explosion.
TERRORIST ATTACK
Immediately after the underground bombs exploded, there was confusion as to what had happened. Initially, the authorities reported that there had been a power surge on the underground. Some now believe that this was an explanation designed to prevent an outbreak of mass panic on the trains, which would have resulted in chaos. Others argue that the way in which the bombs detonated caused power failures at certain points on the lines, prompting the theory that circuit breakers had come into operation as a result of a power surge. Whatever the truth, within two hours, the police admitted that the explosions were in fact the result of a major terrorist attack on central London.
Forensic examinations of the scenes of the crime yielded the information that the bombs were home-made devices using easily obtainable materials. Each of the bombs contained 4.5kg (10lb) of high explosive, using acetone peroxide. According to some reports, the bombs were placed in such a way that the explosions would form a ‘cross of fire’, centred on King’s Cross, thus symbolically representing the destruction of the Christian Western world.
THE CULPRITS
Using a combination of evidence from CCTV footage and forensic evidence, police tracked the bombers down and conducted raids on houses in the Leeds area, as well as in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The bombers were identified as: Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Germaine Lindsay. Initially, it was confirmed that they had all died in the attacks, but it was not until later that they were said to be suicide bombers. None of them had previously been identified as violent extremists, and in most cases their families, friends and acquaintances expressed extreme shock and dismay that they had been involved in the bombings.
FAMILY MEN
Three of the men were from the north of England: Mohammed Sidique Khan was from Dewsbury, where he lived with his pregnant wife and young child; Shehzad Tanweer was from Leeds, where he worked in a fish and chip shop, living with his mother and father; and Hasib Hussain was also from Leeds, and lived with his brother and sister. The fourth, Germaine Lindsay lived in Aylesbury, Buckingham, with his pregnant wife, who had converted to Islam.
The bombings took place at a significant time in Britain, while Prime Minister Tony Blair was hosting the G8 summit, and just after London had won the contract for the 2012 Olympics. In addition, there had recently been a huge Live 8 concert in London for the victims of famine in Africa. The bombings also coincided with the anniversary of race riots in the north of England, in Bradford, four years earlier, and with the beginning of the trial of a noted Islamic fundamentalist, Abu Hamza al-Masri.
MISTAKEN IDENTITY
One of the most troubling aspects of police response to the bombings was the shooting of an innocent man on July 22, 2005, in a case of mistaken identity. The incident occurred the day after a series of attempted bombings in the capital, and police had mounted a huge antiterror operation, hoping to catch the perpetrators before they escaped. That day, they were searching for suspects, using information obtained from unexploded packages.
The trail of clues led them to a block of apartments in Tulse Hill, where they watched the block until a young man emerged. He was a Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, who turned out to be entirely unconnected to terrorism of any kind. The Brazilian had come to London to earn money, hoping to return home and start a ranch with his savings. However, he bore an unfortunate passing resemblance to one of the suspects, which was never properly verified.
SHOT IN THE HEAD
That day, Menezes was setting off to mend a broken fire alarm in Kilburn. As he began his journey, he was followed by several plain-clothes policemen, and after riding on a bus, he entered a tube station. Menezes sat down in a train, waiting for it to move off, but before it could do so, officers rushed onto the train, grabbed him and shot him dead. They fired a total of 11 shots into his head and shoulder, in full view of witnesses on the train.
Afterwards, the police claimed that Menezes was trying to resist arrest, but eventually they admitted this was not the case and that a tragic error had been made. The Metropolitan Police subsequently issued a full apology for the incident and the British public had mixed reactions to what had happened. Many sympathized with the need for the police to make a split-second decision, while others condemned the killing as police brutality.
Demonstrations later took place in Brazil, but as some commentators pointed out, the record for police brutality in that country was considerably worse than it was in Britain. Even so, both July 2005 bombings and the police reaction to them, in the shape of the killing of Charles de Menezes, have proved a serious threat to the capital’s reputation as a safe city in which law and order can be relied on to prevail.
Bombs Rock Egypt
The perpetrators of these heinous acts of terrorism will be tracked down and punished.
Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president
Since 1992, Egypt has suffered a series of terro
r attacks largely aimed at tourists in the country. Today, tourism in Egypt represents the most lucrative part of the country’s economy, so such attacks are extremely damaging. The attacks have been mounted by various Moslem militant groups, some of whose members are thought to be directly connected to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. However, in many cases, it is not entirely clear who was responsible for the attacks, and exactly why they were carried out. In general, it seems that the attacks are part of a generalized Islamic fundamentalist offensive against the westernization of Egypt. In recent years, the country has rapidly been transformed into a modern capitalist economy, with tourist resorts featuring luxury hotels, swimming pools, golf courses and the like. While for many this has been a positive development, bringing jobs and prosperity to the region, there are also those who feel that large sections of the indigenous Egyptian population have been ignored, and they continue to live in poverty while surrounded by foreign wealth.
In addition, the regime of President Hosni Mubarak has been widely criticized as being autocratic. Following the assassination of his predecessor Anwar Sadat in 1981, Mubarak declared a state of emergency in the country, giving himself and his government wide constitutional powers. Today, 25 years later, this ‘state of emergency’ is still in effect, and Mubarak continues to rule the country with a rod of iron. The difficulty of mounting an effective opposition to Mubarak’s government within a democratic framework may perhaps go some way to explaining why Egypt has experienced a series of terror attacks whose motive is somewhat obscure. However, it is also possible that these attacks would have occurred whatever the country’s political system, since they appear to have been perpetrated by Islamic groups who are fundamentally opposed to any form of Western democracy.
