Rachel from North London has posted her reaction to the verdicts in the terrorism trial at Kingston Crown Court today:
So there will never be justice, but there can be the other thing so badly wanted and needed by the victims; the truth to be told, and the best way for that to happen - for the complex picture of what was known, by whom and when, what decisions were made, such as deciding not to prioritise the men who became the 7/7 bombers as investigative targets and so on - is to have an independent inquiry.
An inquiry independent of the government and the security services and the police, with the power to compel and cross examine witnesses, go through evidence in detail, and write a report and recommendations which will be acted upon and so, we hope, save lives and spare suffering in future. This is what we have asked for, for over three years now. We have been prevented from having one because of the legal processes - the trials that have followed 7/7, as a result of which some men have been jailed for planning terror offences and others have been acquitted. Now those trials are completed, we are still waiting.
The families still wait for inquests - unsure still when they will happen and whether they will be held in secret or not - under the terms of the Coroners and Justice Bill legislation.
The survivors and families wait - along with the British public - for the ISC report, to see if this time it answers our questions about what was known about the bombers before they struck. And all of us wait, not for justice, nor for ‘closure’ - this is not therapy, this is thankless hard and sad work, especially today, when it is my wedding anniversary and I have cancelled the celebrations to go and talk about this yet again on the news and Newsnight - but I wait, we wait for the truth to finally be told, in the hope that, one day soon, it will.
A significant point she makes is that the 2005 bombers were not, as politicians claimed at the time, “clean skins” — Siddique Khan in particular was well-known to the security services, was close to people who were plotting to let off a fertiliser bomb, had been taped talking about jihad (presumably, not just in theory — otherwise he would have been by no means alone in this) and had perpetrated a £20,000 fraud against the Jewsons building supplies company. Of course, it’s next to impossible to be a “clean skin” by the time you get to let off a bomb, as you will no doubt have been mixing with people known to the authorities if they are doing their job properly, but the idea that terrorists could come out of nowhere — that any Muslim could be a terrorist — obviously contributes to the air of suspicion against Muslims in general.
Possibly Related Posts:
- London bombings: fifth anniversary post
- “Left to pick up the pieces”
- British Muslims, alienation and terrorism
- Church meeting fixed for Clarke
- London under siege?
However, as the acquittal in this case shows, it is perfectly possible to have been mixing very closely with people known to the authorities and to have accompanied them on what look very like reconnaisance missions without actually knowing what the future murderers planned. As the people we do know to be murderers had a wide range of contacts in the muslim community, many of whom admired their sincerity and dedication and none of whom noticed any likelihood of their actually blowing themselves and a few dozen other people to bits, it looks as though we- including muslims- can’t tell the difference between theoretical and practical talk of jihad, It also looks as if terrorists do not come out of nowhere and that many muslims could become terrorists; it depends entirely on how sincerely and/or literally they take what they say.
The truth is that the security services is flooded with people whose animosity against Muslims overshadows everything else, hence ofcos “many muslims could become terrorists”.
Just the same way any attempt by Muslims to raise funding for people in need in places such as Africa, Palestine and Kashmir raises concerns as a potential “aid to terrorists”.
Either we demand to play greater role in UK policies, or we continue to be obsolete in both political and economic sense. For now, Muslims are people not considered “important”, and such people whose interest is to demonise Muslims will flourish as they continue to enjoy one too many roles in public offices such the Foreign Ministry and Home Office.
Thank you for the link
What baffles me is why there isn’t an Islamic political party in Britain.
“Islamic political party ” would be a total waste of time. Their would have been political parties of particular faiths if such thing was feasible in a country as diverse as the UK. It is far better to build educational institutions with academic excellence and an Islamic spirit than a non-viable polical party.
Just as it is better to take over a company than to fight them, political parties are similar to companies who only respect those who invest with them.
So rather than having Muslims spend millions on mentally suspect Brazilian football players, they would rather put that money to use in Whitehall and safe their families and face from the constant psychological torture which we get up to everyday by deranged Melanie Philippians.
You do not gain respects by crying foul all the time, but to destroy the enemy without sorrow.
There is one: HuT. However, going by the last one to actually campaign at elections- http://www.islamicparty.com/ - it wouldn’t have much effest except to provide a rival to the Monster Raving Loony Party.
Their would have been political parties of particular faiths if such thing was feasible in a country as diverse as the UK.
There are a number of Christian political parties, one of which has councillors in Canning Town.
An Islamic political party could easily get somewhere between 50 to 100 councillors and 4 to 6 MPs in the first elections they contest.
Just as it is better to take over a company than to fight them, political parties are similar to companies who only respect those who invest with them.
Are you trying to advocate that Muslims should hijack and take over existing political parties rather than create one of their own?
However, going by the last one to actually campaign at elections- http://www.islamicparty.com/ - it wouldn’t have much effest except to provide a rival to the Monster Raving Loony Party.
This was a think tank that never took elections seriously.
What, you mean the IPB or the Monster Raving Loonies?
I suspect that any Islamic party wouldn’t make much headway, for the simple reason that the community would not want to lose their influence (or their sense of influence) in the Labour Party. Muslims actually don’t dominate that many constituencies, and votes for minority parties are wasted, which keeps Muslims (and other minorities) trapped in the pockets of the mainstream parties, usually Labour (but increasingly the Lib Dems). Our voting system also reduces the influence of minority parties who actually get into Parliament; the ruling party has most of the seats in the Commons, even if it had much less than 50% of the votes.
Don’t forget that political parties are important influence-buying mechanisms for community elders, also, and means of having a word in politicians’ ears. Politicians who know they can count on not getting your vote won’t bother doing anything for you.
Then again, a Muslim party could be important in councils and in European and local elections where there is some degree of proportional representation, but not in the Commons.
Exactly, if it is good enough for the Millibands and Straws of this world, it is good enough for us. However, economics matter a lot more than “common shared ideals” which you hear so often. Votes don’t mean anything, but ££ makes the changes we require to safely bring up our children in this country.
Plus, they tell us that the UK is “Multi-cultural”, so why not force them to proof it rather than ghettoising the poor Muslims more than they already are with this religious party. The Christians can get away with it cos they own the country and they number in the tens of millions.
We should not tolerate any more micky mouse ministerial positions such as this Communities Minister they concocted lately. Embassies of Muslim countries should also be galvanised in a coordinated effort to pressure this country to pursue the correct path of “multi-culturalism” or economic sanctions be brought against the UK.
I suspect that any Islamic party wouldn’t make much headway, for the simple reason that the community would not want to lose their influence (or their sense of influence) in the Labour Party.
The people at the top of Labour will never let Muslims have any serious influence on their party because much of what Muslims believe in goes against what Labour stands for. Labour has much more to gain from the Muslim vote than Muslims have to gain from Labour. Several white muslims have told me that almost every service Labour offers Muslims is of a racial, linguistic, or cultural variety rather than a religious variety, and precious little of that benefits white Muslims.
Muslims actually don’t dominate that many constituencies, and votes for minority parties are wasted, which keeps Muslims (and other minorities) trapped in the pockets of the mainstream parties, usually Labour (but increasingly the Lib Dems). Our voting system also reduces the influence of minority parties who actually get into Parliament; the ruling party has most of the seats in the Commons, even if it had much less than 50% of the votes.
Then again, a Muslim party could be important in councils and in European and local elections where there is some degree of proportional representation, but not in the Commons.
You are wrong. An Islamic political party will not do much worse under first past the post than it will under most systems of PR. Unlike with the Greens and UKIP where supporters are spread thinly, Muslims are concentrated into a small number of areas. First past the post does not disfavour small parties at all but parties where support is spread thinly. It rewards parties that have concentrated support. An Islamic political party will get next to no votes in say Tiverton and Honiton or Penrith and the Border, but it could win certain constituencies in London, the Midlands, and Yorkshire.
I was talking to a member of the English democrats who seconds me on this and thinks that a half a million votes for an Islamic political party will elect many more people than half a million votes for the English democrats. He then mentioned the Kidderminster Health Concern party and how it managed to win at local and national level because of concentrated support in Wyre forest despite have almost no support elsewhere. He then said the English democrats don’t have this advantage yet but the Muslims do but don’t make use of it.
Exactly, if it is good enough for the Millibands and Straws of this world, it is good enough for us. However, economics matter a lot more than “common shared ideals” which you hear so often. Votes don’t mean anything, but ££ makes the changes we require to safely bring up our children in this country.
That’s because Straw and Milliband are both Zionists. If you didn’t already know, Zionists have held an iron grip on Labour since the outset and will never let go. Zionists can get to the top of Labour easily. Muslims and those critical of Zionism can’t.
Hijacking local branches of Labour adds fuel to the fire of the BNP. Whenever Muslims hijack a local branch of Labour (and sometimes the Tories and Lib-Dems) they end up pandering to the interests of (mainly ethnic) Muslims and ignoring white non-Muslims. The white non-Muslims (and some ethnic non-Muslims) who feel ignored and betrayed then turn to the BNP.
Plus, they tell us that the UK is “Multi-cultural”, so why not force them to proof it rather than ghettoising the poor Muslims more than they already are with this religious party.
Why would Muslims want to live in a multicultural society? Most of the white Muslims I have met don’t give a damn to non-Muslim blacks and Asians. They say that most of them hate Islam anyway and are destined to go to hell. They also said that one day somebody will set up a multiracial anti-Islamic party.
As a think-tank the O.M.R.L. were more successful too: several of their proposed policies eventually became law: http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001.....179187.stm
I think that is unfair and it suggests that such a “Muslim party” is only sought after by those who wish to isolate Muslims so they could easily be deemed as “extremists”/”hateful” etc by the likes of Jack Straw and Millibands of this world.
An astute ambitious person would know that “white” constituents are just as important as people of any colour. So I do not understand why a Muslim is expected to pander to his lot alone. Would Obama had done it with only black votes?
So you already admit to the existence of people who had hijacked one or more particular political parties, and I stand by the Straw and Milliband fashion as a template to start from than to suddenly crash onto earth from Mars with Islam centric political party. Why reinvent the wheels, when there are plenty of mainstream political parties to exploit?
So you already admit to the existence of people who had hijacked one or more particular political parties, and I stand by the Straw and Milliband fashion as a template to start from than to suddenly crash onto earth from Mars with Islam centric political party. Why reinvent the wheels, when there are plenty of mainstream political parties to exploit?
Straw and Milliband never hijacked Labour because Labour has been 100% Zionist from its outset which was long before Straw and Milliband were even born. Labour was instrumental in establishing the state of Israel which was a dream of many Jewish and Zionist members of Labour during the pre-war era.
The Fabian Society, which is the intellectual wing of the Labour Party, has always worked hand in glove with the Zionists. It’s interesting to note that EVERY Labour prime minister to date has been a fully paid up member of the Fabian Society.
If any Muslims (or indeed anybody opposed to Zionism) think they can hijack and take over Labour from the Zionists then they are fighting an unwinnable battle. Considering that this information has come to me from a variety of independent sources then it must be true.
” Considering that this information has come to me from a variety of independent sources then it must be true.”
Even if your sources of information are independent, that does not mean their sources of information are independent. Even if they are, it still does not mean that what they say is true.
The Labour Party is not “100% Zionist”- many members of the Labour Party have not seen any intellectual conflict between their aspirations as members of the Labour Party and Zionism. The two opinions are separate. The reason muslims cannot hijack and take over Labour is simple- an islamic party would oppose many things nearly all of the membership of the Labour Party supports and support many things nearly all of the membership of the Labour Party opposes. Zionist members of the Labour Party- like zionist members of any other party- have a variety of opinions about domestic policies in the U.K. They even- like anti-zionists- differ about what precisely zionism is and how exactly they supprt or oppose it. Muslims who base politics directly on islamic doctrine are going to support policies which nearly all members of the Labour Party and mearly all nonmuslim inhabitants of the U.K. would unequivocally reject.
Both Straw and Milliband support irrational racialist policies of a particular foreign country which is at odds with the majority of people on this earth. Yet they still make it.
I think the biggest milestone for Muslims will be the day an injection of confidence is found from anywhere feasible. Muslims and Europeans share the ideals of decency and honesty than that of the Straws built upon facade and Houdini politics. Where are the WMDs they convinced the MPS with?
These “think tanks” are clever in a way because they cater to the current McDonald generation of just picking ideas and running away with it as they see fit to exploit whatever opportunity that comes their way.
I saw how Obama was groomed similar to Colonel Powell. The only reason why they were there was because the majority of people believed such persons of Powell’s status and background wouldn’t sink as low as the Pearls and Co. But his image was what they wanted, and they sold it to the UN during those wild nuclear,chemical and biological accusations against Iraq.
Now this Obama is another Powell whose main aim is to attack another sovereign nation to keep the region in the stone age. All of the good will messages to Iran that you hear about is just so they could later on say “don’t say we didn’t try?”
Religeon is not a good source of politics because once you understand both of them, will you become clear how important it is to segregate them otherwise one will molest the other. They are just not compatible at all.
“Both Straw and Milliband support irrational racialist policies of a particular foreign country which is at odds with the majority of people on this earth. Yet they still make it” Really?
“Muslims and Europeans share the ideals of decency and honesty than that of the Straws built upon facade and Houdini politics.” However, even if true (I don’t think Muslims and Europeans are mutually exclusive categories, actually) Muslims and Europeans have rather different definitions of decency and honesty. ##”Where are the WMDs they convinced the MPS with?” Actually, they- rather more than Millibrand and Straw, actually- used a mixture of arguments and patronage to convinve M.P.s.
“Religeon is not a good source of politics … They are just not compatible at all.” Unfortunately many- quite possibly most- muslims disagree with you.
Both Straw and Milliband support irrational racialist policies of a particular foreign country which is at odds with the majority of people on this earth. Yet they still make it.
This is because Zionists are masters of a cunning talent at being able to get the masses or the common population to support them whilst simultaneously working on their own agenda. Labour prior to WWII derived much of its support from the industrial and manual workers all whilst its Zionist masters plotted the creation of Israel. Labour after 1960 managed to persuade ethnic minorities and public sector workers to support them all whilst its Zionist masters continued their agenda.
Religeon is not a good source of politics because once you understand both of them, will you become clear how important it is to segregate them otherwise one will molest the other. They are just not compatible at all.
One of the most notable features of Islam is that it has rules and regulations on the way a country is governed, the laws it imposes, and its financial and economic policy. If Islam was reduced to a ‘personal’ status whereby laws and economic policy were decided through secular means then it wouldn’t be Islam.
This political and economic aspect of Islam is why Islam is so feared and distrusted in the west which has been used to having religion primarily as a hobby or personal issue as opposed to a political or economic force since the Reformation.
The Labour Party is not “100% Zionist”- many members of the Labour Party have not seen any intellectual conflict between their aspirations as members of the Labour Party and Zionism.
To be pedantic, yes. In reality it is difficult to rise to positions of seniority and power in Labour unless one is sympathetic towards Zionism.
The reason muslims cannot hijack and take over Labour is simple- an islamic party would oppose many things nearly all of the membership of the Labour Party supports and support many things nearly all of the membership of the Labour Party opposes.
If half a million Muslims joined Labour all at once then theoretically they could hijack and take over the party through sheer number and majority consensus if you factor out the Zionist dominance. In practice the Zionists would not allow such a hijack to occur. One tactic would be to split the party ensuring the Zionist dominated faction takes the name Labour and most of its non-Muslim membership.
Muslims who base politics directly on islamic doctrine are going to support policies which nearly all members of the Labour Party and mearly all nonmuslim inhabitants of the U.K. would unequivocally reject.
True but there isn’t a political party in Britain with policies based on Islamic doctrine. Whether there is no demand for such a party or whether nobody has got round to creating it is a question I cannot answer.