20 September 2006

If links back to UK or US sources are revealed

"All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances; each man in his time plays many parts."


"Dealing with Islamist extremism, the messages are more complex, the constituencies we would aim at are more difficult to identify, and greater damage could be done to the overall effort if links back to UK or US sources were revealed."

- William Ehrman
Director General (Defence & Intelligence), FCO

The stage for the the war on terror was once again set in that most unlikely of places, East London.

East London's Forest Gate recently featured in the news, as part of the global anti-Islamic witchhunt, when 250 of Reid's armed State bootboys raided the home of Abul Kahar Kalam and Abul Koyair Kalam, 'accidentally' shooting Abul Kahar Kalam in the chest while doing so. The raid had been instigated by 'intelligence' which even the 'torturers-R-US' 'intelligence' services in the United Mistakes of America would have discounted, owing to it having been passed by a mentally challenged MI5 informant with an IQ of just 69.

Both of the Kalam brothers have since been released without charge.

Today Leyton, less than a mile from the Forest Gate shooting, played host to the British Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, who made an appearance in order to 'challenge British Muslims to come forward with information about suspected terrorists', urging parents to "look for the tell-tale signs" of radicalisation in their children. Brainwashing against brainwashing.

Half way through Herr Dr Reid's speech and faux appeal - right on cue - a British Muslim, Trevor Brooks, now known as Abu Izzadeen - yet another in the long line of British converts to Islam that always rear their heads for the odd press and photo call - interrupted the Home Secretary with a tirade in defence of the over 1,000 Muslims that have been rounded up by the state.

That Izzadeen even managed to find and attend the invite-only event at all, much less subvert Reid's 'security' as someone associated with two banned organisations, and interrupt it in such a manner, was rather an impressive feat being, as the event was reported to be by the Press Association, "at a secret location in Leyton".

"How dare you come to a Muslim area when over 1,000 Muslims have been arrested?" Izzadeen said to Reid. "You are an enemy of Islam and Muslims, you are a tyrant. Shame on all of us for sitting down and listening to him."

For the record, of the over 1,000 Muslims that have been rounded up by the state, the majority are released without charge and, of those that are charged with anything at all, the charges are for petty crimes entirely unrelated to terrorism. The release without charge of innocent Muslims, however, is not something that receives much, if any, media coverage at all, especially in the face of such 'radical' outbursts as that by Brooks today.

Izzadeen continued with accusations against the Government of 'state terrorism' which, given the overt examples such as the illegality of the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing butchery of Iraqi civilians, in conjunction with the calls from wide cross sections of the community, including the likes of Military Families Against the War, for Tony Blair to stand trial for his war crimes at the International Criminal Court, are accusations that could be said to be not entirely unfounded, nor without considerable evidence to support an easy and successful prosecution.

Following his outburst, Izzadeen was ejected from the venue by the world's smallest policeman, but not before being allowed to utter some choice words in front of the assembled crowd, cameras and microphones, thereby making sure that everyone received the full weight of the not-quite-so subliminal messages being conveyed.


World's smallest policeman in action


Trevor Brooks aka Abu Izzadeen

Izzadeen just happened to be the latest leader of a group proscribed by The State, Al Ghurabaa (the strangers), an offshoot of another previously banned group, Al Mujahiroun, as led by Omar Bakri – the 'Islamic' radical who fled Britain after his work here was done, and just prior to being arrested. Quite how Omar Bakri might have known he was about to be arrested and quite how he made it out of the country despite the imminent arrest from which he was fleeing, is left as an exercise for the reader to fathom.

Abu Izzadeen was born in Hackney, East London, to a family originally from Jamaica, as Trevor Brooks, a communication engineer by profession, who converted to Islam at the age of 17. His conversion to Islam was influenced by his brother Abu Abdul Rahman, another convert to Islam.

Abu Izzadeen, or Trevor Brooks if you prefer, is no stranger to controversy. Shortly after the London bombings, Brooks told BBC2's Newsnight programme that the bombings were "mujahideen activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee." On the surface, his comments were sensational, unfounded and controversial. Beneath the surface, however, it would appear there is more truth to his allegations of the 'mujahideen activity' behind the London bombings than the controversy they provoked might suggest.


Afghanistan, the CIA and the London Bombings

On 17 January 1999, the Guardian published an article by Jason Burke in Peshawar, entitled, 'Frankenstein the CIA created'. The article was subtitled, 'Mujahideen trained and funded by the US are among its deadliest foes, reports'. The article cited the estimations of American officials that, "from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up", and that $500 million poured into Afghanistan, directly from the CIA.

Two years later, in December 2001, Scottish born James McLintock, dubbed the 'Tartan Taliban', was arrested while trying to cross illegally from Pakistan to Afghanistan under the guise of being an 'aid worker'. At the time both Scotland Yard and Britain's Foreign Office declined to comment on McLintock's arrest but confirmed that anti-terrorist officers had flown out to Pakistan.

Confirmation of McLintock's arrest and detainment came instead from the concern of a Scottish Nationalist MP, Mike Weir, who wrote to the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, about the issue and who said of McLintock, "He has been held in Pakistan for almost a month and we're still not sure what, if anything, he's been charged with or what is to happen to him."

Regional home secretary for Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, Javed Iqbal also confirmed the story of McLintock's arrest and was quoted as saying: "We have not ruled out a link between this man and other al-Qaeda suspects. We are not happy with his story. Even if he has committed no other offence, it is a serious matter to cross the border at a no-entry point. He may be tried or deported."

Further confirmation of the arrest came from his wife, Shaffia McLintock, who eventually spoke publicly about her husband's plight. She described his arrest as a "huge mistake" and criticised the lack of action from the UK government to have him released.


James McLintock aka Mohammad Yacoub aka the 'Tartan Taliban' and 7/7

The 41-year-old Scot was born to two University of Dundee lecturers. His mother taught maths and his father was a chemistry lecturer, chemistry being a particularly useful skill in bomb-making. McLintock also speaks several languages including Arabic, Pashtu and Urdu although how, when and where he acquired such versatile linguistic skills is unknown.

The young James McLintock was raised as a Catholic and developed an interest in Islam while at university. He grew a beard, donned traditional Muslim clothing, dropped out of his university course in Zoology and began attending mosques in Dundee. So great was his apparent commitment to Islam, McLintock went on to fight against the Communists in Afghanistan with the CIA trained, armed and funded - to the tune of $500 million - mujahideen.

In the mid-1990s, James McLintock had moved to Bradford and in June 1995 married a Muslim woman, Shaffia Begum, now Shaffia McLintock, having taken McLintock's non-Islamic name, perhaps indicating the level of McLintock's committment to his new-found 'Islamic' persona. By 2000, McLintock was working at "Rays of Truth", an Islamic bookshop in Leeds, where one of his colleagues was Martin “Abdullah” McDaid, a fellow Muslim convert and former UK Special Forces operative who served in the elitest of British regiments, the Special Boat Service.

Martin "Abdullah" McDaid would later go on to work 'several hours a week' at the Iqra Islamic bookshop in Beeston, Leeds, at which it is alleged at least some of the alleged perpetrators of the London bombings were radicalised by extremist propaganda. This Jihadi material and 'extremist propaganda' was not produced by either McDaid, or McLintock, nor even by a British convert to Islam, but instead by a white, British former Hells Angel by the name of Martin Gilbertson.

When the Sunday Times approached Martin "Abdullah" McDaid about Mohammed Yacoub's involvement with the Iqra bookshop shortly after 7/7, McDaid responded with typical radical convert-to-Islam aplomb, “Whether he was at the Iqra bookstore or not is none of your business — you should fear Allah.”

Little has since been heard regarding the activities of James "Mohammed Yacoub" McLintock, but, given his history of fighting for the mujahideen, illegal border crossings, his connections to the Rays of Truth bookshop in the run up to the Bradford race riots of 7/7/2001, and his involvement with the government-funded Iqra bookshop that the alleged London bombers are meant to have attended, Abu Izzadeen's comments about 7/7 demonstrating 'mujahideen activity' appear to have rather more foundation in reality than anyone might have suspected.

Dr John Reid, Abu Izzadeen, 7/7 and "mujahideen activity"

Dr John Reid's appearance at the 'secret location' at which he patronised Muslims today, Izzadeen's amazing discovery of, and interruption at, the 'secret location', after circumventing the invite-only and on-site security, in conjunction with his outspoken comments about the 'mujahideen activity' that facilitated the planning and execution of the London bombings have indeed led a great number of people 'to wake up and smell' something.

The smell, however, is not of coffee, but rather the putrid stench of the now blown cover of radical conversions to Islam behind which British ex-special forces, ex-anti-terror operatives and CIA-trained militia-men have hidden themselves from public view.

At least some of William Ehrman's much feared 'links back to UK or US sources were revealed' and they provide, in part, the explanation for Abu Izzadeen's post-7/7 comments about the 'mujahideen activity' of the London bombings of 7 July 2005.

70 comments:

TimOsman said...

The oddball was grilled by John Humphrys on R4 at 8.10 today, the fact he keeps lying abuot 7/7 and 9/11 makes me not trust the 'radical' Muslim one iota.

"HOME SECRETARY HECKLER SPEAKS OUT - STUDIO INTERVIEW: MR ISADIN, HATES HOME SECRETARY - my address to John Reid was to deal with his behaviour in the past year and his position as defence minister, he's been killing Muslims abroad and presiding over the arrest of them here. The law of the land is oppressive. He wants the Muslim community to spy on each other. The UK is on a crusade, a thousand have been arrested and homes raided when there's been no evidence whatsoever. Reid came to address us like he was our friend, he is the enemy of Islam. We've had enough of the raids and Forest Gate, it's a war against Islam, if they don't stop it there will be a strong reaction from the community, the government should open their eyes and smell the coffee, they can only push people so far until they explode. Bush and Blair are the biggest terrorists in the world. How many died in 911? Three thousand? Since then the British and American crusaders have killed in bombings alone seventy thousand, some say a hundred thousand. Muslims are suffering many 911s and 7/7s around the world, Blair is a murderer and has blood on his hands. Khan released a video after 7/7 explaining why he did so. He said if you bomb us we bomb you back. There can be no debate when they kill and murder Muslims. The reality is Blair is a crusader and enemy of Islam. The reality is so clear even a blind man can see. If my wife was being killed in Afghanistan I wouldn't accept it. Allah runs everything, you don't own this country, neither does the Queen. "

the show has been bombarded with outraged Liberals for the last half hour.

Sinclair said...

I heard the interview this morning with Abu Izzadeen/Omar Brookes - it was designed to enrage the Today programme Listener, much as his heckling of John Reid was designed to enrage the Viewer.

Check the Radio 4 Today programme Messageboard here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F2767107?thread=3499954
& notice how many of the early comments have not been displayed & instead the following message is displayed:
This posting is currently queued for moderation, and will be visible as soon as a member of our Moderation Team has approved it (assuming it doesn't contravene the House rules).


I am certain that the messages queued for moderation are ones complaining about the banality of the interview.

However, the BBC Moderators saw fit to let messages through such as:
Message 16 - posted by Joe-Public (U2333665) **, 39 Minutes Ago

The true face of Islam.The sooner people wake up that it is NOT isloted extremeists the better!


Disgusting

Rachel said...

From your home page...'Feelers'

'Investigative journalists are a bit like you - keen to know truth, willing to plough through detail. diligent and determined.'


What you missed out - and this says it all, frankly. Twisting the truth to serve your own self-seeking, bizarre agenda.


'Investigative journalists are a bit like you - keen to know truth, willing to plough through detail. diligent and determined. The difference is, they are independent and don't have an agenda that they twist the facts to fit. They are not paranoid and they don't start with the theory that all is a lie and everyone is out to get them. They are hard to fool. They'll chase up leads for a story. Many of them are no fans fo the government. Why do you think that they are not following up your stories and allegations, but instead meekly swallowing whatever they are told in a highly unusual non-journo like way?



I'd like to ask why you repeatedly deny I was on the train, and survived. Why you call me a 'survivor'' in inverted commas, and imply I am some kind of official propogandist? When I provably, demonstrably was there and was almost killed?

Why do you deny that a suicide bombers murdered 26 and wounded 240, (including me) on the Piccadilly line on 7/7/05?

Why you continue to peddle such utter lies?

It really does horrify me, and it upsets many others who were there.As you know, from the commenbts of Mitch and Holly, fellow survivors.

And I cannot understand it: perhaps conspiracy theories are fun for you, but you are exonerating murderers, inslting the survivors, injured and bereaved, and lying, lying, lying... and to what purpose?

It is truly dreadful, and it is sad and it is pathetic and it is loathesome.


I ask you, please to contact me. I would like to meet you face to face and ask you these questions. Perhaps with other survivors in attendance.

Thej you might see the hurt and anger that your lies cause, and you might cease.

And I bet you a) don't let this through

b) attack me yet again.

Whatever. All I want is for you to be faced with the truth, and to understand. Surely someone who is so interested in the subject of 7/7 would welcome the chance.

But I doubt you have the courage to face up to your actions in the real world.


And that says it all.

And no, this is not a trap set by M15 to bump you off, or whatever you imagine. Grow up. It is an honest attempt to get you to listen, and to hear you myself, before I publish, and you are damned.

The Antagonist said...

For someone with 12 years in advertising and marketing strategy you're not very good at making an offer that can't be refused.

The only agenda you'll find here is that of a quest for the truth, the sort of truth one might find during a moment of introspection.

Rachel said...

So...too scared to meet up then?

Thought so. Not so much fun in the real world to be confronted with your actions, your allegations and their consequences on real people , is it?

For someone interested in 'investigating truth', you sure are shy about the chance to test out your theories. I am offering to meet you, and to answer your questions, and to ask you some. In a pub, or some public place.

You know my email, and yet I note that you cannot bring your self to talk face to face with one, or more, 7/7 survivors.

Which says a lot, don't you think? All those posts, all those theories, all that talk....and then, when faced with an opportunity a real investigative truthseeking person would jump at - you retreat into empty posturing.

Well, you had your chance. Moment of introspection? If you ever had one, you might blush for shame.

The Antagonist said...

Simply, Rachel, I have nothing to say to you in private that cannot be said in public.

If fear were an element in this I would have ignored the events of 7 July 2005 entirely in the same way as the mainstream media have done, along with the majority of UK bloggers who have chosen to ignore it and the many unaswered questions that still exist. That these questions still exist so far down the line is in itself as criminal as the events that caused these questions and led to the 'largest criminal inquiry in English history'.

I am aware of your numerous requests for meetings with anyone who dares to question the anomalies, inconsistencies and outright factual inaccuracies in the official and media-spun stories of events, almost as if it is your job to set everyone straight. Yet when one person with such questions, Bridget Dunne, endeavoured to introduce herself to you, she met with much the same offensive approach with which your 'invite' to me was issued and was further subjected to a not-inconsiderable amount of bile, vitriol and abuse that poured forth from you in one or two of your favourite Internet haunts.

The truth about what happened on 7 July has nothing to do with your own personal experience but instead with the facts and evidence, such as any of it may turn out to be. The onus is not on you, Bridget or I, but on the government and police to produce those facts and evidence in a manner satisfactory to the general public whom they serve.

Perhaps you have forgotten your own refusal to have anything to do with the July 7th Truth Campaign and your own words in one of the many interviews that you have given since 7 July 2005. Quoting from a Guardian article published on Tuesday June 27, 2006:

--- BEGIN QUOTE ---
Dunne and the Antagonist aren't the only ones who would like to see all the evidence. Rachel North, who was travelling in the front carriage of the Piccadilly line train with Lindsay when he detonated his bomb deep beneath Russell Square, and who miraculously escaped with only minor injuries, has also called for an independent public inquiry.

But unlike Dunne she does not think there is any mystery about what happened. "We all know what happened," she says. "We were there. What we want to know is why it happened."

She says that conspiracy theorists have repeatedly twisted her words to make out there was no bomb on her train and even that she is a professional M15 disinformation agent. When she challenged these claims, she says she was subjected to vitriolic abuse. As a consequence, she refuses to have anything to do with the July 7 Truth Campaign or related sites, arguing that they risk undermining the legitimacy of survivors' calls for a public inquiry.

"I have had endless run-ins with these people," she says. "Some of them are fairly well intentioned, if eccentric, others hugely offensive. I worry that they are making all of us look like conspiracy theorists and/or traumatised people who shouldn't be taken seriously."

Source: Seeing Isn't Believing
By Mark Honigsbaum, The Guardian
--- END QUOTE ---

numeral said...

"Rachel North, who was travelling in the front carriage of the Piccadilly line train with Lindsay when he detonated his bomb deep beneath Russell Square"

Just careless journalism perhaps but the train in question was, as far as we know, very close to King's Cross.

Jetstar Boss said...

going back to the post......

Another Islamic convert?

Jetstar

Numeral said...

What about a pub quiz night? J7ers and survivors. Here is a couple of sample questions:

What was found in the bathtub at 18 Alexandra Grove?

a. TATP b. HMTD c. Coal d. Skank


Why did Tanweer's trousers change colour between Woodall Services and Luton Station?

a. Wardrobe Malfunction
b. He had a spare pair just in case the white ones got dirty from praying in the carpark
c. He was photoshopped
d. There is no explanation for this change at present.

The showstopper is the likelihood that there would be no consensus on what the right answers are. If we could persuade Sir Ian Blair, Paul Stephenson and Andy Hayman to come along (with Cressida Dick to define clear rules of engagement), they could be judges. A possible snag is that, while they knew all the answers, they wouldn't tell anybody.

Should the pub be a smoker or a non-smoker?

Bridget Dunne said...

@ numeral

Now that's what I call an invite!

Rachel said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rachel said...

@ 'Anything that defies my sense of reason'author( I don't quiite think you grasp the irony inherent in that title, do you love?)

So, yet agan, you decline the offer of of a meeting with me or with any other July 7 witness?

Just like Bridget Dunne when I offered to meet her, once, long ago. Neither of you seem to be able to rouse yourselves to follow up your public and contrversial allegations in conversation with a real live witness of said events. How extremely odd in a so-called 'truthseeker'! When every independent investigative journalist has followed up such leads. It is almost as if you were only concerned with making a reputation swapping theories on the internet, and were shying away from any opportunity to follow up your theories by testing them in the real world!

But I am sure that you have your own reasons for publicly revealing yourself as a wriggling, craven coward in this way.

Of course, there's safey in numbers...At the book launch of a well-known peace activist, Ms Dunne turned up with a bunch of heckling '9/11 Truth Activists' who appalled the numerous 7/7 survivors in attendance by shouting and interupting the meeting and maintaining that the bombers were innocent. You know, on that night, I felt my sympathies were with my fellow passengers, not those who had sickened the audience with their rudeness and their repetition of provable lies. I simply didn't feel like chatting with Ms Dunne, after all, her fellow attendees had been grotesquely rude to my host. At that meeting, Ms. Dunne attempted to press upon me a pamphlet full of falsehoods, meanhwhile though, I had noted that my personal previous attempt to meet with her or talk to her had been rejected. On that night, therefore, I elected to spend time with people I cared about, rather than with a pamphlet-pushing crank who had turned up with abusive hecklers and who had refused my offer of a meeting earlier. I was not at all offensive to Ms Dunne, I merely did not want to have anything to do with her, given that she and turned up with a bunch of people whom had been appallingly offensive.Therefore, when she came up to me, I simply said ' I know who you are', and I moved on to talk to others who were nearer and had other things to say.

I should have thought that a person holding such peculiar views as yourself or Bridget would be well used to people moving away from him in polite company, but perhaps you don't get out and mingle much these days? If not, be assured I can quite see why! Especially after that mocking Guardian piece!

Onto this: ' almost as if it is your job to set everyone straight'.

But it very clearly is not my job, is it?. So what are you saying? My job was until recently advising upon corporate FMCG youth product advertising stragegies, and now it is freelance writing. Your frequent references and inferences to me being some kind of official plant are provably utterly wrong, and merely make you appear to be a paranoid fool.

As to numeral's idea for a pub night, I assume, numeral that you have considered inviting the parents of Holly and Jessica Wells to a pub night where you discuss whether children who have been raped are more likely to pass out and drown in a few inches of bathwater?
And set amusing questions to Leah Bett's parents about the maximum amount of water that can be safely drunk whilst dancing? No? Oh, you surprise me?

I'm assuming that you are in fact autistic, Numeral, and indeed I have always assumed this.

Bridget, however, I don't think you are. Shame on you.

Numeral said...

Rachel said:
I'm assuming that you are in fact autistic, Numeral, and indeed I have always assumed this.

That's what I call casting Aspergers.

Bridget Dunne said...

Hi Rachel

You claim that it is clearly not your job but to quote you:

And I was asked to take you lot on since it was thought that it would be pretty catastrophic to have the sane, rational, clear-eyed campaign for a 7/7 inquiry linked with nutters who think it was an inside job by Mossad, the CIA, M15, lizards, Jews, etc.

Sounds like a 'job' to me.

Jessica & Holly analogy, beneath contempt.

As for the rest of your bilious outburst, quite frankly, Bollocks.

Kier said...

Rachel, I replied positively to your offer to meet at the beginning of this year on the Cox forum, and you never responded.

Annie Machon also offered to meet up with you after you and Kirsty Jones turned up at the London 9/11 group's meeting and you never responded to her, either. Why make these offers and not follow them through?

I am not even sure such a meeting would be constructive now - especially as you've made it clear you would not listen to a thing any of us could say to you.

You're not even reading what's said to you on this comment thread judging from your responses. It seems the only reason you would want to meet the Antagonist is to once again force your view and ignore what is said to you in return. I have lost count of the times I have stated and restated to you that the J7TC is not intended to prove the innocence of the accused or designed to exonerate them, yet you persist in describing the campaign thus.

The Antagonist, Bridget and myself have attempted for many months to explain why we feel there is a need to campaign for the truth about 7/7. The anomalous issues are clearly documented on our site. The fact that you feel none of these merit an answer from the authorities suggests that you feel these issues are unimportant and your refusal to respond to the question about how much an inquiry would achieve under the IA2005 - an act many judges refuse to conduct inquiries under - says more about your desire for 'the truth' than ours, I think

The Antagonist said...

Rachel,

Milan Rai is a well known peace activist who successfully managed to compile a bunch of erroneous newspaper reports into a whole collection of erroneous newpaper reports and flog it to a publisher while pretending he had written a book, all with the publicity that comes with being the first person charged with organising an illegal protest for his host at the book launch, Maya Evans. Well done to you for acknowledging that the specific event to which you refer was in fact a 'book launch' and not, as is your usual assertion - presumably for dramatic effect - a 'survivor meeting'.

If you have issues with 9/11 Truth folk, I suggest you take up your perceived injustices with them.

As for your role as 'witness', you appear to have gone all the way from not knowing there had been a bomb on your train to knowing precisely how a bomb went off in your carriage, incorporating various versions of both stories along the way. This curious tale is well documented online for anyone that cares to look.

With regard to Ms Dunne, your claim of "I was not at all offensive to Ms Dunne" is the exact opposite of your usual approach to anyone with questions, questions you advise us that it is not your job to answer. There is plenty of evidence of your outrageous and offensive diatribes dotted around online, poured forth as 'BadgerKitten' or Rachel, particularly on Urban 75 and excepting of course the places where you later went back to edit or delete your comments entirely for future audiences.

Could you please explain what you think gives you the right to speak almost single-handedly on television, radio, in print and online for the dead, the wounded, the seriously injured, their families and anyone else otherwise affected on 7 July 2005? While you're at it you might also address the point, raised again above by Kier, about the Inquiries Act 2005.

"Corporate FMCG youth product advertising stragegies" - that's called selling shit to kids and it means a statement you gave to the 7 July Review Committee about King's Cross United was not quite the whole truth: "We think we have achieved something like £500,000-600,000 worth of coverage for free, which went entirely the way we wanted it to go, which is an astonishing thing for a public relations (PR) company to pull off, and we are not PR people; we are passengers and we just did it."

The moral of the story being that you can sell shit to some of the people some of the time, but you can't sell shit to all of the people all of the time. Or should that be well-rotted ten year old horse manure?

With regard to pamphlets full of falsehoods, has there been any word from the Home Office about theirs?

As far as I am concerned, Rachel, you lost any credibility that you might have had when you said:

"I tell you what. I don't give a stuff how the bombers got to Kings Ctross"

Your efforts since then have done nothing to reverse that process.

Rachel said...

Bridget - for the last time - no, it is not my job.
Kier, I have been asked about the IA2005, and have made my position clear: whilst I personally think it is a bad act, I am not additionally campaigning to repeal it because I can only do so much, and campaigning to repeal laws as well as for an independent inquiry is not something I have the time or energy for. To make the setting up of an independent inquiry wholly dependent on the repeal of a law means the chance of such a campaign suceeding is minimal.

Antagonist, I have never referred to the book launch as a survivor meeting: go and check. Urban 75, my blog - all referred to as a book launch .Other peopel on u75 got the wrong end of the stick, and I took the time to set them right.

'9/11 Truth folk' were the people who allowed a repeated false accusations and personal abuse thread attacking me to go on for over 20 pages. The thread remains locked for posterity. I have tried to engage with them, perfectly politely, on both the Cox and 9/11 forums, and have recieved little but vitriolic abuse in reply. I once deleted my posts - which were not at all rude - by the way, and I wish that I had left them up so that you could see that - as at that point I saw no further point in engaging with people who were determined to beleive I was a team of M15 agents, a shill, a liar, and so on.

I am surprised that you have not noticed any other survivors or families on TV, in print, or online, or on the radio, or giving evidence publicly at the London Assembly. Perhaps you missed John, Kirsty, Michael, Jacqui, Danny in the last fortnight? Perhaps you only see what you want to see?

You can peruse my blog and find a link to all the other KCU bloggers. YOu can see any article I write I quote other survivors where possible, and usually write it at their request since they have said they'd rather talk to a fellow passenmger writer than someone who was not there. All articles by me, and as many articles as I can find about a public inquiry are all listed on my blog sidebar, should you bother to check. There you willl see many voices represented.

As to why the press keep coming back to me, it's because they know me - they read my blog, they can see that I have opinions which I publish on my personal website, they know I can write and am able to talk in front of a camera. They go for a contact whom they have spoken to once before, and many survivors quite understandably find the constant press interest distressing. I'm by no means the only one they come to, however.Holly Finch writes for the Guardian, Michael made numerous appearances on Sky, BBC as did Jacqui and Kirsty last week, all talking about the need for an inquiry. Joe and Gill, Amy, Susan, Ben, and many others all agreed to speak out at the anniversary and we shared the media load between us as best we could.

The fact that I continue to write a personal blog about the personal and political fall out of J7 in my life makes me no different to at least 8 other J7 bloggers. If people like the way I write, then great, and if they want me to write more, fine. But don't accuse me, as you frequently, falsely do of being the 'only voice' - when that is quite clearly, bollocks.

As to my job, I wonder if you will ever work out what I do? Or rather, what I was doing until I resigned last week? I am now a full time writer. Previously I have been accused of working in PR - nope, of controlling all communications emanating from survivors - nope- what I used to be was a specialist in the 16-34 advertising market working across radio, TV and magazines. Marketing stuff like beers, or antidrug camapigns from the COI, or gaming products, or FMCG articles such as shampoo, moisturiser, soft drinks, etc.

Finally, as to the quote you repeatedly take out of context - I tell you what, I don't give a stuff how the bombers got to KX - what as usual you neglect to put in is the rest of the sentence - in which I add - because I know that once they got there, they proceeded to blow up the 3 trains, or words to that effect. If you are run over by a car, what you know is that you have been run over, and whether the car came round the ring road or the A12 before it struck you is a matter of less interest to the victim than the fact that they have been hurt in the first place.

The comment was made in anger, and you have quoted it out of context ever since in a depressingly-familar way. Once again though, you miss the point. Someone who was bombed knows they were bombed, and is probably less likely to be interested in a conspiracy theory that the bomber was innocent than you. The whole crux of the J7 campaign seemed to be that the train time was wrong, many people on u75 pointed out they could quite easily have got the delayed 7.25 and this was later confirmed to be the case. From this, some of you have extrapolated a series of bizarre theories which, whatever you say, seem to be designed to allege the bnombers innocence; in fact Dunne on u75 maintained this, as have many other members of your group. To try to conceal this controversial assertion, you say you simply cannot be sure of what happened. I am sure that there are peopel who simply cannot be sure that the Holocaust happened. I know what is usually said of such people.

I asked the Antagonist specifically if he wanted to meet up because I am pig-sick of him going round implying that I am some kind of official plant, and I thought the quickest way to stop these smears would be to turn up and prove to him that I was, in facvt, there on the day, as it is insulting to me personally and damaging to my reputation as a writer, survivor, campaigner and founder of a survivor group, to be constantly depicted as a fraud by him.

Finally - if you sent me a PM Kier, I didn't get it - I would meet you - Annie seemed to be wanting to convert me to 9/11 truth which was the impression I got from her email - so no, I didn't reply which I should have done, though I publicly thanked her for her friendliness. Antagonist, I knew there had been an explosion on the train - what I did not know at the time was how close I was. I desribed to the police where I thought the explosion had been and they confirmed that I was correct, the BBC site diagram was duly amended. My police statement on 7/7 and my call to the police on 8/7 and the detailed statement on 9/7 all say that there was a bomb on the train. This would be apparent should it ever be used in a public inquiry or any other public giving of evidence.

For the alst time, what I object to is The Antagonist's constant inferences that I was not on the train, that I am some kind of official plant. I would like him to withdraw these allegations. Which he has made all over the internet.

The reasons why I want an independent inquiry are well-documented, however, I cannot make common cause with you whilst you persist in denying that the bombers were innocent and it was all a Government cover up. Because I know this to be utterly false.

And whilst we're on the subject of falsehoods, has the Antagonist ever withdrawn his hugely offensive accusation that the no. 30 bus was full of 'actors and stuntmen' and 'pyrotechnics'?

Kier said...

Hello Rachel,

My response to your offer to meet was not made via pm, but on the forum for public view. The only time I pm'd you was when you stated that you would no longer attempt to engage with us earlier this year, on that same forum, and I wrote and wished you peace.

I will attach the message to the end of this comment, in case you didn't see it, although it certainly appeared to have been read because it was in the sentbox rather than outbox.

All my other communication with you has been in the public domain, and I agree with the others that this is the best place for it, given your attitude towards us. I ask again, given how you feel about us and what we are trying to achieve, would it now be constructive for any of us to meet with you, when it could be reasonably deduced that you would not listen to a thing any of us might say? I cannot see that a private meeting with the Antagonist would be any different to a discussion on the internet on public record.

Only last night I said to you once more:

"I have lost count of the times I have stated and restated to you that the J7TC is not intended to prove the innocence of the accused or designed to exonerate them, yet you persist in describing the campaign thus."

yet you sill reply:

"you have extrapolated a series of bizarre theories which, whatever you say, seem to be designed to allege the bnombers innocence"

May I make it clear once more, not just for your benefit but for those reading this who may be confused by your constant misrepresentation of our campaign.

The July 7th Truth Campaign asks for the truth about what happened on July 7th 2005, in the form of either releasing the evidence that backs up the official account, or holding a fully independent inquiry outside of the remit of the IA2005.

We do not extrapolate theories from the lack of evidence and we do not seek to exonerate those men. You persist in saying this because we are not satisifed with a ridiculously evidence-free assertion...what you say is a non-sequitur.
The J7TC has never alleged a government cover-up - does this really have to be the only alternative? You have simply inferred it by confusing what individuals have expressed as their personal opinions, whether connected to our campaign or not, with what the campaign itself is trying to achieve. There are certainly things we aren't being told, but the source of any 'cover up' is not for us to say, since we are not trying to fill in the blanks ourselves.

The J7TC has no theory; there are a series of hypotheses on our site which we have listed since many of them have done the rounds of the internet at one time or another. Listing eight or nine scenarios that have been proposed by people other than ourselves - including the one proposed by the authorities - does not equate with us proposing a hypothesis of our own.

The crux of our campaign never hung off the train time issue. We were extremely pleased when our continual raising of it was finally addressed by the home secretary and we widely publicised his statement. Once more, if you look at the section of our site where we have listed all of the anomalous issues which still require addressing, such as the absurdity of the authorities still not knowing what explosives were used, you will see that the train time was only one of many issues which concerned us.

Annie Machon stated that she extended the hand of friendship to you because she felt you and she had many things in common, including being in a life-threatening situation. Yet, you decided that her only purpose in meeting you would be to convert you to her version of 9/11 truth. You did not allow an opportunity to find out if this would actually have been the case. Had it been the case, though, it is surely no different to you now proposing to meet with representatives of the J7TC, because you don't agree with what they are doing and want them 'converted' to your version of the truth of July 7th.

Kier.
-----------------------------------

From: Kier
To: Rachel
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:53 pm
Subject: Best wishes
I hope you will take the time to read this, Rachel. I have read and understood your last post on the Cox forum. The only reason I am writing this pm to you rather than replying on the forum is that I did not want people to think I was attempting to restart the discussion in any way - as you would have seen from my previous post, I do think it had reached the point where nothing good was going to come of it.

I also felt it was inappropriate I should come to your blog, as I don't want you to think I am invading your space there.

I went to the nineeleven forum a couple of days ago and re-read the thread which you took part in. I was quite sad to read it, since it seemed apparent from your first post there that a productive dialogue might have occurred and you were very patient with people. I am sorry that insults were allowed to get in the way of people getting their points across effectively. I do not belong to that forum, and don't think that any contribution I could have made would have made a difference to you - especially as I know you think I am trying to 'convert' you to my way of thinking. Please allow me to reiterate one last time that it was never my intention to do that. All I hoped was that you would understand why I felt it was important that questions needed to be asked and that we should all keep open minded as to how this event occurred. It's for that reason that I refuse to formulate a 'theory' until I see some convincing evidence for any kind of scenario. I have never disbelieved your personal account of what you suffered, or doubted your motives.

I am just a girl who used to live in North London. I have found out a lot of things this past year that I would rather not have learned. It has not taken away my hope, and at the very least it has made me less self-absorbed and changed the way I think about things.
Please believe that I sincerely wish you peace and happiness in your life - I was never your enemy either.

Love & light,

Kier.

Rachel said...

Kier,

Okay, I apologise to you, personally, because you say that you do not actively push the theory that the bombers were innocent/there is no such thing as extremist terror/it is all a Govt. false flag op which other members of your site and blog team espouse. I am willing to beleive that you simply have issues with the official version.And so do I, in some respects. But probably not in th esame way as you.

It is simply impossible for me to remain personally unoffended by people who deny Holocausts, the existence of Islamic terror, or who profess the innocence of the bombers of 7/7. It is also difficult for me to withstand endless allegations and smears that directly or indirectly say

a) I am a liar
b) I am a shill
c) I am a paid disinformation agent
d) I am the only voice of the survivors

when all oof this is provably, demonstrably untrue. It is also deeply upsetting.Yes, I am still much affected by my experiences. Yes, I wrote about them and continue to do so on a personal blog, like millions of other personal bloggers. Yes, I campaign like other survivors of atrocities for an independent inquiry, and in my case, also for better tube safety, communications, compensation for the severely injured, and bereaved, better victim aftercare and so on. No, I do not subscribe to the theories that they murderers were as innocent as new born lambs. Nothing I have seen shows any merit in this theory whatsoever. Yes, I do campaign for the preservation of civil liberties, and the cessastion of aggressive over-reaction to criminal acts of terror, by for example, stirring up race hate, bombing civilians, illegal invasion of sovereign states, inprisonment without charge, the use of torture, inhumane internment and so on. Yes, I will make common cause with anyone who is in favour of truth and justice. The difficulty I have is that I do not see the benefit in making up wild theories of what happened on July 7th. Particularly when said theories are then indulged and used to exonerate murderous criminals. They also reflect badly on anyone campaigning for a public inquiry, since a quick glance into the murky world of those who obsess overa New World Order quickly throw up links to antisemitism,and bizarre theories concerning occultism, lizards, mind control, numerology and so on all of which seem to me to bear the hallmarks of clinical paranoia. I might have PTSD but I'm not mentally ill and seeing dark visions where there are none.I do not, as I said, see truth and justice served by getting mixed up with speculation, mistrustful allegations of grand conspiracies, wild imaginings, selective misquotations,misuse of sources, sloppy research and general unfairness. And I'm afraid that is what m