Attack in London Today

Imams Facing More Scrutiny in Europe

By JAMEY KEATEN
Associated Press Writer





PARIS (AP) -- Since the deadly terror bombings in London, Italian authorities have deported eight extremist Muslim prayer leaders for not holding the proper residency papers. France has expelled two imams and plans to ship home another eight. And Britain has put many clerics under close watch as the country re-examines its power to deport them.

Shaken by new terrorism on European soil, officials have stepped up a policy of deporting Islamic clerics accused of whipping up hatred and violence in vulnerable, disenfranchised pockets of the continent's mostly moderate Muslim community.

Several European countries enacted expulsion policies after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, saying legislation was needed to ensure public order and security.

After four near-simultaneous blasts on July 7 in London killed 56 people - including four suicide-bombers - and injured hundreds, application of those laws has become more robust.

London attacks 'deterring' visits

Nearly a third of Britons have been put off visits or travel in London since the July attacks, new figures suggest.

A similar number of French adults said they had been discouraged from making trips to the capital but only a fifth of Germans said they were deterred.

The TNS survey of 3,000 people for news network CNN and Time magazine was conducted between 26 and 31 July.

Tourism chiefs said any downturn was likely to be short-lived as more recent research showed "robust attitudes".

"Whilst the tourism industry is very mindful of the effect of recent events, this research is misleading, meaningless and already out of date," said Martine Ainsworth-Wells, marketing director of Visit London.

"Our figures are showing an upward trend in business to London over the last two weeks."

'Not surprising'

TNS said its survey revealed 21% of Britons - and 33% of those living in London - had become wary of using public transport.

"People in Britain also seem to be generally supportive of the introduction of additional measures on trains and buses to make them safer, even if this meant increased journey times or increases in the price of tickets," said a spokesperson for TNS.

TNS found that 31% of those interviewed in the UK had been deterred by the 7 July and 21 July attacks, compared to 32% in France.

Overall, 40% of women said they had been discouraged, compared with 21% of men.

"The bombs in London - together with those in Madrid in 2004 - have graphically demonstrated the vulnerability of public transport networks to terrorist attacks," said TNS.

"Users of those services are realising that tighter measures need to be put in place to guard their safety in the future."

Tube journeys

On Thursday, a senior Tube manager told BBC News passenger numbers had dropped by 30% at weekends and between 5% and 15% on weekdays since 7 July.


Most regular commuters were continuing to travel - but a significant number of visitors and weekend shoppers were not using the system, the figures suggested.

Colin Stanbridge, chief executive of the London Chamber of Commerce, said the TNS findings were not surprising, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

"I think that we are bound to see that people are going to be nervous about coming to London," he told the BBC.

"But all the experience with Madrid and even New York is that after a time people come back and say 'no no no, I need to go to this destination, I want to go to this destination', and resume their bookings."

Sanctuary No More
From the August 15 / August 22, 2004 issue: It's no longer springtime for jihadis in Britain.
by Gerard Baker
08/15/2005, Volume 010, Issue 45

IT WAS ALWAYS A CHEAP shot to accuse the leaders of the antiwar crowd in Britain of working hand-in-glove with the terrorists. True, some of them in recent weeks have sounded remarkably like apologists for al Qaeda, with their talk of "understanding" Islamic rage about Iraq or Israel, and their calls for Tony Blair to be held responsible for the bombings of July 7 and the near-misses of July 21.

But the idea that they were actively giving succor to terrorists and doing the fanatics' job was a bit harsh. Misguided, certainly. Naive, possibly. Fifth columnists, probably not.

Last week we got firm proof that there is no coalition between the jihadis and those who generously seek to understand them in the U.K. They really aren't on the same page at all.

On Thursday, one of the principal figures in the antiwar movement, Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, trotted out quite succinctly the familiar analysis of the anti-Blair, anti-Bush section of British opinion since the attacks of 7/7 in an article in the Guardian.

Now Ken's a fair man, and his first task was to demonstrate how even-handed he is, so he began by carefully insisting that he was against all terrorism; and yes, that meant the killing of Palestinians by the Israeli military as well as the killing of Israeli civilians by suicide bombers.

Having compassionately deigned to treat the deliberate targeting of innocent Israelis by Palestinian fanatics as morally indistinguishable from the military efforts of the democratic Israeli government to eliminate terrorists, Hizzoner

got on to his main argument. If Britain was to avoid further bloodshed it needed to pull its troops out of Iraq--immediately.

But no sooner had London's mayor delivered himself of this utterance, than another, somewhat more authoritative source on what the Islamists were really trying to achieve in London trumped him.

Later on Thursday, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's deputy leader, issued a finger-wagging lecture, courtesy of Al Jazeera, to the British people, about the evils of British foreign policy.

Zawahiri started promisingly enough, endorsing the views of the London metropolitan elite that Blair was responsible for the bombings, and, like Livingstone, insisting that more would follow unless Britain changed course. But then he veered badly off-script for the "None of this would have happened if Blair hadn't invaded Iraq" brigade.

Withdrawal from Iraq wasn't going to be nearly enough to turn off the spigot of suicide bombings, al Zawahiri said. Instead that would only happen when Britain left all "the land of Mohammed." And for good measure the British and the Americans should stop "stealing our oil and our resources."

Roughly translated, this meant: Leave us free to do exactly what we want from Jerusalem to Jakarta, submit to all our demands, stop driving cars, and we might, just might, agree to stop blowing you into oblivion as you go about your everyday business.

Now, in fairness, it should be noted that there are some in Britain who are happy to comply with al Qaeda's demands for unconditional surrender to their every last wish.

George Galloway, the antiwar "Respect" member of parliament for London's East End, certainly seems to think this prescription for British foreign policy is dead right. He was all over the land of Mohammed last week expressing moist solidarity with the Zawahiris and the Zarqawis. While visiting friendly Syria, he told Muslims, via Al Jazeera, that their two beautiful daughters, Jerusalem and Baghdad, were being "raped" by foreigners. And he had high praise for the "resistance" in Iraq, the people who have been killing innocent Iraqis as well as American and British servicemen: "These poor Iraqis . . . are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day."

I used to think Galloway and his ilk should be incarcerated for such self-evidently treasonous acts (in fact the death penalty, contrary to popular belief, is still available in Britain for the crime of high treason, though we wouldn't want to create more "martyrs"). But events in Britain have led me to revise that view. Instead I am now certain that the more those like Livingstone and Galloway are allowed to vent their poison, the more damage they do to the very cause they espouse.

Though the appeasers are still fighting hard, it is increasingly evident that Britain is not in a mood to follow the Livingstone-Galloway-Zarqawi strategy to peace and justice. Instead, it seems the country is slowly, steadily shifting to a war footing.

On Friday, Tony Blair announced his boldest initiative yet since the terrorist attacks in London--proposals for a string of draconian new laws to be put to parliament. Under the proposals, Britain would be free to deport any foreigner who frequents a list of extremist centers and jihadi websites--with the suspects denied any appeal to be heard in Britain. Justifying or glorifying terrorism would become an offense. Anyone with any connection to terrorism would be automatically denied asylum. The police would be given the opportunity to hold terror suspects for weeks before pressing charges. And a list of extremist Islamic clerics would be drawn up who would be excluded from the United Kingdom permanently.

This is startling new ground in the country that invented habeas corpus and which, rightly, treasures the freedoms of its people. There will be a struggle. Blair will have to take on some in his own party, the Liberal Democrats in the opposition (though not it seems, thankfully, the Conservatives), and perhaps most threateningly, the rest of Europe--much of what he proposes may contravene rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. But Blair made clear last week his determination to see the proposals enacted--and suggested he might recall parliament early from its summer recess to speed the process.

The British government is beginning to grasp, belatedly and reluctantly, that tolerance of those who would destroy it is suicidal. The latest proposals demonstrate to the public as much as to outsiders the reality of a nation at war, with all the painful compromises with authoritarian measures that involves.

The dreadful irony of Britain's status as a liberal haven in which terrorists are protected by the very society which they seek to destroy was well illustrated when Ramzi Mohammed, one of the failed bombers in the July 21 attacks, was finally arrested.

As police moved towards him, this jihadi who, one imagines, is just itching to get Britain's fuddy-duddy old liberal laws replaced by the sturdier prescriptions of sharia, shouted: "I have rights! I have rights!"

If Blair gets his way, the next time some would-be terrorist invokes the Magna Carta in this way, the arresting officer will be able to say: "Oh no you don't, sonny."

Gerard Baker is an assistant editor of the Times of London and a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.

Preachers of hate could be charged with treason
By Duncan Gardham
(Filed: 08/08/2005)

Islamic extremists who incite violence or praise suicide attacks in Britain could face charges of treason, it emerged yesterday.

The head of the anti-terrorism department at the Crown Prosecution Service will meet senior officers at Scotland Yard this week to discuss what charges could be brought against preachers whose endorsement of the suicide attacks could incite further acts of terrorism.

The Government is focusing on three Islamic radicals living in Britain: Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Izzadeen and Abu Uzair.

Bakri has been of particular concern after urging Muslims not to give information to the police and apparently calling the July 7 suicide bombers "the fantastic four".

The move is an attempt to clamp down on extremists even before new legislation is drawn up and as the first of those accused of the failed bombings on July 21 is due to appear in court.

Yassin Omar, 24, will appear today before Bow Street magistrates sitting in the high-security Belmarsh complex in south London.

He is charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to murder and possession of an explosive with intent to endanger life in connection with the attempt to bomb a Tube train at Warren Street.

Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, and Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, met at the weekend to discuss what action could be taken against supporters of the July 7 attacks which killed 52 people.

The charges the Crown Prosecution Service will consider include the offences of treason, incitement to treason, solicitation of murder and incitement to withhold information known to be of use to police. These offences include attacks made against British interests abroad as well as at home.

The charges can be brought against foreign nationals resident in Britain as well as British citizens. A proposed offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism has not yet come into effect.

Aware of possible prosecution, radical Islamic groups are usually careful about what they print or say in public. But in recent days several have made clear their support for suicide attackers.

Bakri, the spiritual leader of al-Muhajiroun ("The Emigrants"), said last week that he would not tell police if he knew that Muslims were planning a bomb attack on a train in Britain and supported Muslims who attacked British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

British-born Abu Izzadeen, of al-Ghurabaa ("The Strangers") said in an interview that the July 7 bombers were pursuing "mujahideen activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee".

Abu Uzair, a former member of al-Muhajiroun who is now believed to be involved with its successor organisation, the Saviour Sect, said on BBC's Newsnight that after the July 7 attacks "the banner has been raised for jihad inside the UK". He said that Muslims had abandoned a "covenant of security" saying they should not resort to violence in Britain because they were not under threat.

"We don't live in peace with you any more, which means the covenant of security no longer exists," he said.

A newspaper report from within the Saviour Sect said yesterday that senior figures were telling Muslims it was their duty to be terrorists and that the July 7 victims were not innocent because they did not follow Islamic law.

A conference of moderate Muslims in Manchester yesterday heard calls for far-Right groups such as the British National Party to be banned on the same basis as extremist Islamic groups.

It emerged at the weekend that police on the streets have been told that terrorists may use women or children in suicide attacks.

No terror mastermind behind London bombers - report

Sat Aug 13, 2005

By Kate Holton

LONDON (Reuters) - Groups behind the July London bomb attack that killed 52 people and a failed attempt to strike again soon after appear to have been acting independently of an al Qaeda mastermind abroad, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

The Independent, quoting police and intelligence officials, said it was also likely that four July 7 suicide bombers were probably not linked to another group of four who failed to blow up explosives on buses and underground trains two weeks later.

But some of the report's conclusions were questioned by a terror analyst, who said it would be difficult for Islamic militants in Britain to prepare and set off explosive devices without some training in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere.

The newspaper said police and intelligence sources felt the fact there was no leader from abroad showed how other "self-sufficient" units could be hiding in Britain.

"All the talk about 'Mr Bigs' and al Qaeda masterminds looks like something from a film script at the moment," the newspaper quoted a police source as saying.

"Of course, things could change if new intelligence comes through, but it looks increasingly as if these people were largely working on their own. It is not something we expected."

Four young British Muslims blew themselves up on three London underground trains and a bus on July 7, killing 52 people. An apparent bid to repeat the attacks on July 21 failed and police have arrested four people they say were behind it.

The newspaper report quoted one counter-terrorist source as saying: "the key point is that the events were not connected. It appears they were self-contained, rather than being organized by some kind of mastermind."

The attacks have raised alarm in Britain that militants are living and operating in the country. Police have yet to establish whether they are acting alone or being directed by international networks like al Qaeda.

CRUDE DEVICES

A police spokesman said they were investigating several lines of inquiry and would not comment on the details of the newspaper report. He would not rule them out either.

But a terrorism expert who did not want to be named said it took time and knowledge to prepare such attacks, and would not rule out the involvement of a foreign-trained mastermind putting the plots together either, possibly from inside Britain.

"They're crude devices, but I think there is a mistaken belief that you can just go on the Internet and download these things," he said.

"It was possible that they (the two groups of bombers) are not linked, but it's inconceivable that you could just spontaneously get a group of people together in two weeks, get the material, build the devices and carry out the attacks."

He said that "the old al Qaeda" had been "shattered" after U.S. military action in Afghanistan and the crackdown on militant groups in neighboring Pakistan since 2001.

But that did not mean that people who lived and trained in those countries could not now be operating in Britain.

He said both sets of men suspected of being behind the attacks were not particularly well educated and described them as "misfits."

"People like that generally aren't capable of building bombs. There is definitely someone who has catalyzed them, who has given advice on materials, provided technical expertise and maybe paid for all this," he said.

"I wouldn't rush to discount the idea that there is a mastermind or puppet master somewhere, it just may not fit the traditional description.

"The ringleader may be someone who lives in this country and spent sometime in somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan where they honed these skills."

"don't give a sucker an even break" - i don't know who coined that .)

Lash wrote:

I think nimh and finn, though I have no doubt they have very good intentions, are incorrect about the Islam v Arab culture = violence, abuse against women, etc argument...

It is not to say these horrid aspects of Islam are universal--but Arab culture is shaped by Islam. Islam runs through that culture in such a way that the two cannot be separated.

Islam does have a strain (or more than one) that advocates these horrible actions by some adherents. Wahhabism is one. Read Bernard Lewis, Zakaria, Thomas Friedman. They aren't ideologues. They are lifetime student of the Middle East.

However, if you can disprove their (and my) theory, I'd really like to see your evidence. Sincerely.

Devout Christians have been intolerant, misogynist, violent and oppressive. Are these flaws, therefore, characteristic of Christianity?

It is possible to examine the scriptures of Christianity and, by removing them from context, reveal messages of violence and intolerance. So too with Islam.

The peoples of the world who have flocked to Islam are not so different from those who have flocked to Christianity. They are not seeking an excuse to kill, maim and oppress they are seeking a way to make sense of their lives and and a course to follow that will align them to the will of the Creator. That there are (to use a Lewisian term) "bent" individuals who would debase these religions by falsely using them as a platform for their misdeeds is not a stain on the religion, but on the individuals.

Imperfect man seeks a way, which cannot but be imperfect, to understand the perfect. --- religion.

It is the height of human vanity and ignorance that demands that religion somehow result in perfect behavior.

New claims emerge over Menezes death

· Brazilian was held before being shot
· Police failed to identify him
· He made no attempt to run away



Rosie Cowan, Duncan Campbell and Vikram Dodd
Wednesday August 17, 2005
The Guardian


The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night.
It also emerged in the leaked documents that early allegations that he was running away from police at the time of the shooting were untrue and that he appeared unaware that he was being followed.

Relatives and the dead man's legal team expressed shock and outrage at the revelations. Scotland Yard has continued to justify a shoot-to-kill policy.

Jean Charles de Menezes died after being shot on a tube train at Stockwell station in south London on July 22, the morning after the failed bomb attacks in London.

But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.

It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:

· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;

· was unaware he was being followed;

· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;

· never ran from the police;

· and did not jump the ticket barrier.

But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: "I heard shouting which included the word 'police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 [firearms squad] officers ... I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."

The leaked documents and pictures showed the failures in the police operation from the time Mr de Menezes left home.

A surveillance officer admitted in a witness statement that he was unable to positively identify Mr de Menezes as a suspect because the officer had been relieving himself when the Brazilian left the block of flats where he lived.

The police were on a high state of alert because of the July 7 and July 21 bombings, and had been briefed that they may be called upon to carry out new tactics - shooting dead suspected suicide bombers in order to avoid another atrocity.

The IPCC investigation report states that the firearms unit had been told that "unusual tactics" might be required and if they "were deployed to intercept a subject and there was an opportunity to challenge, but if the subject was non-compliant, a critical shot may be taken".

But it now appears, that contrary to earlier claims, Mr de Menezes was oblivious to the stakeout operation. On the morning of July 22, police officers were in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, watching a property they believed contained one or more of the would-be bombers who had tried to detonate four bombs on London transport less than 24 hours before.

One firearms officer is quoted as saying: "The current strategy around the address was as follows: no subject coming out of the address would be allowed to run and that an interception should take place as soon as possible away from the address trying not to compromise it."

But the report shows that there was a failure in the surveillance operation and officers wrongly believed Mr de Menezes could have been one of two suspects.

The leaked papers state: "De Menezes was observed walking to a bus stop and then boarded a bus, travelling to Stockwell tube station.

"During the course of this, his description and demeanour was assessed and it was believed he matched the identity of one of the suspected wanted for terrorist offences ... the information was passed through the operations centre and gold command made the decision and gave appropriate instructions that de Menezes was to be prevented from entering the tube system. At this stage the operation moved to code red tactic, responsibility was handed over to CO19."

CCTV footage shows Mr de Menezes was not wearing a padded jacket, as originally claimed, and that he walked calmly through the barriers at Stockwell station, collecting a free newspaper before going down the escalator. Only then did he run to catch the train.

A man sitting opposite him is quoted as saying: "Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me. He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man's head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man's head when the first shot was fired."

A senior police source last night told the Guardian that the leaked documents and statements gave an accurate picture of what was known so far about the shooting. But the IPCC refused to confirm the documents were genuine adding: "Our priority is to disclose any findings direct to the family, who will clearly be distressed that they have received information on television concerning his death."

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, said: "It is critically important for the integrity of the independent police investigating process that no pressure is put upon the IPCC before their full report is published and that no comment is made until that time."

Harriet Wistrich, lawyer for the family, said: "There is incompetence on the part of those watching the suspect and a serious breakdown of communication."

Asad Rehman, spokesman for the family's campaign, called for a public inquiry. "This was not an accident," he said. "It was serious neglect. Clearly, there was a failure both in police intelligence and on an operational level."