/** Tools */

26 February 2008

Osama bin London Exclusive - terror training and extremism gets BBC sponsorship

This is a picture of BBC journalist extraordinaire, Nasreen Suleaman. She is the roving BBC reporter who presented a Radio 4, Koran & Country programme 'Biography of a Bomber' in November 2005, which professed to provide an insight into the life of alleged 7/7 bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan. The BBC Koran & Country web site described the programme thusly:
What turns a British-born Muslim into a suicide bomber? Nasreen Suleaman talks to those who knew Mohammad Sidique Khan, the eldest of the July 7 bombers. She tries to unravel the mystery of what turned this well integrated, popular and intelligent young man into a terrorist.
For some reason (take a wild guess) this particular episode of the BBC's Koran & Country series is not available via the BBC web site Listen Again service. Prior to its broadcast Suleaman's show was listed in The Times' Entertainment section:
BIOGRAPHY OF A BOMBER
Nasreen Suleaman has been a journalist with BBC News for 11 years. Here she presents a strong case for being groomed as the service’s next celebrity reporter as she tells the most detailed story I’ve yet heard of a man who, like her, was born in Britain to Pakistani parents and brought up in Yorkshire. On July 7, though, Mohammad Sidique Khan and three other men caught a train to London, where they blew themselves and 52 innocent people to bits. Why? It is a question asked a thousand times ever since — and Suleaman goes a long way towards answering it.
So the myth goes. Maybe The Times journalist listened to a different show to the one that was broadcast.

During the Radio 4 'documentary' about Mohammed Sidique Khan, Suleaman claimed that Khan had been paintballing and that paintballing was, "for some, a guerrilla warfare like activity." Note Suleaman's violent and graphic portrayal of paintballing. Paintballing features again in the continuing story of Ms Suleaman -- and the man now known as Usama bin London -- only with a slightly different spin from Suleaman.

Last Wednesday, a Muslim man, Mohammed Hamid, was convicted for apparently organising "al-Qaida style training camps" across Britain. Although nobody has been allowed to know about the conviction until now, owing to extended "reporting restrictions" that are counter to the public interest and any notions of justice that might once have existed. Let's face it, when was the last time you read or heard about the case for the defence in any 'terror' trial that you weren't physically present at? Plenty of coverage of the case for the prosecution, plenty of coverage about the 'evil terrorists' and all their evil terrorist ways and precisely no coverage at all for the defence. Hamid's co-defendant, Mousa Brown, made this point during the trial, a comment which has been interpreted in customarily incensed and emotive terms by the BBC as an, "attack" on journalists.

So deeply immersed in terrorism and terrorist training activity were Hamid and his fellow defendants that the Guardian reports, "The jury heard no evidence of weapons or explosives – the prosecution relied on MI5 surveillance tapes and recordings made by an undercover police officer." MI5 recordings of people speaking are now 'terrorism', at least if you happen to be Muslim, or some other perceived enemy of the State. All of which is rather unlike the U-SUK warmongering efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan which are, of course, peacekeeping missions -- bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to those that never asked for it to be delivered, especially not via bombs, butchery and genocide -- that don't involve any terrorism, nor the world's most dangerous weapons in the hands of the most highly trained terror-mongers.

The accused in the Mohammed Hamid 'Usama bin London' trial had no weapons, no explosives, no money and no terrorist abilities whatsoever, unless you count wielding twigs, rolling around in the mud, somersaults, pole-vaulting and cutting up a melon, in advance of eating the melon, as the acts of hardcore Jihadi terrorists.

Harking back to Nasreen Suleaman, the "journalist with BBC News for 11 years" who, according to someone at The Times, "presents a strong case for being groomed as the service's next celebrity reporter". In her apparent 11, by now 13, years with BBC News, Suleaman seems to have done precious little in the way of reporting. In fact, even the most objective analysis of Suleaman's reportage could not fail to discover that she has done little else other than a provide a small but crucial bit of coverage in relation to two recent major terrorist attacks on Western soil. First up is her reporting on Zacarias Moussaui, who remains the only person ever to be convicted in connection with the events of 11th September 2001 (despite many of the alleged hijackers still being alive). Second up is Suleaman's profiling of Mohammed Sidique Khan, one of four people against whom not a shred of admissable evidence has been presented in connection with the events of 7th July 2005.

In a radical departure from her staple fare, Suleaman has also contributed to the ongoing and entirely baseless demonisation of the 21st century's new Jews, Muslims, while superficially appearing to do the exact opposite. Prior to Biography of Bomber, Suleaman worked on a BBC television documentary called "Don't Panic I'm Islamic", which was shown in June 2005, a month before the Islamic panic began to be manufactured from thin air in earnest. The documentary featured none other than Mohammed Hamid, the man who jokingly referred to himself as Usama bin London.

During filming, Nasreen Suleaman -- who later the same year described paintballing as "a guerrilla warfare like activity" -- and the BBC team filmed Hamid and a group of others as they went paintballing. In fact, it was at the behest of Nasreen Suleaman herself, and the BBC who stumped up the funds for the trip, that Hamid and fellow defendants Muhammad al-Figari (who claimed he had drifted into crime after becoming a chauffeur under contract to the BBC, supplying clients with drugs and "female partners") and Mousa Brown went paintballing at the Delta Force centre in Tonbridge, Kent in February 2005. Mousa Brown went on to have an interesting tale to tell of how MI5 tried to recruit him and now appears to be saying that they failed, yet he was the only defendant acquitted. Hamid, however, was paid £300 by the BBC to take part in the documentary and said he wold use the funds to pay fines he had incurred as a result of a previous misdemeanour - that noble and long-standing duty of the working classes, antagonising the police.



Such was the involvement between Suleaman, the BBC and Hamid & Co., that Suleaman was called to give evidence during Hamid's trial. The Times reported:
Ms Suleaman told the court that Mr Hamid was keen to appear in the programme. She said: “He was so up for it. We took the decision that paintballing would be a fun way of introducing him.

“There are many, many British Muslims that I know who for the past 15 or 20 years have been going paintballing. It’s a harmless enough activity. I don’t think there is any suggestion, or ever has been, that it’s a terrorist training activity.”
On 17th November 2005 Ms Suleaman claimed in her Radio 4 'documentary' that paintballing is "for some, a guerilla warfare like activity". Yet two years later she is happy to state, under oath, that paintballing is "harmless", "fun" and not "terrorist training activity", which smacks a little of disingenuousness at the very least, if not perjury.

The tale of Mohammed Hamid and Nasreen Suleaman features yet another intriguing twist. Following the non-events of the no-bombs 'bombers' of 21st July 2005, Hamid recognised two of the suspects, Muktar Ibrahim Said and Hussain Osman (aka Rome-Runner Hamdi Isaac) and contacted Suleaman to tell her as much. Suleaman said that she informed "senior BBC managers" of the contact but was not told to approach the police with this information. Suleaman told the court, “I got the sense that he was already talking to the police. I referred it to my immediate boss at the BBC. I wasn’t told that there was an obligation. In fact it was referred above her as well. It was such a big story.” She added: “I don’t think it’s my obligation to tell another adult that he should go to the police.”

Of course, there's nothing odd about that. Why would Suleaman report to the police that someone she had taken on "guerrilla warfare like" training just happens to know a couple of bombers who didn't have any bombs. Nothing odd at all, except when you consider the case of the 21/7 no-bombs bombers. Following the non-events of 21st July 2005, when nobody was killed or injured, the accused, their wives, girlfriends, relatives and associates were all rounded up and locked up -- in much the opposite way that absolutely nobody was rounded up after 7/7 -- and many have since been charged with various misdemeanours, all now considerered terrorism, including, "withholding information and assisting an offender", amongst other things.

Armed with this information, one might be tempted to ask why Nasreen Suleaman and "senior BBC managers" aren't being charged with "withholding information and assisting an offender" and, further, why they aren't also being charged with financing terrorists by paying for the "guerrilla warfare like" training activity of paintballing and donating £300 to Mohammed 'Usama bin London' Hamid, now a convicted terrorist for having done precisely nothing that could be constituted as terrorism.

Technically, both the BBC and Nasreen Suleaman are, -- much like a certain disturbingly regular consultant to the BBC, Mr Peter Power, who happens to be getting upset about his own errant behaviour -- bang to rights.



--
Note: This article was originally going to finish with a different ending but, given the current climate, an editorial decision was taken that it was probably best not mention Nasreen Suleaman's work alongside FCO representatives because, as William Ehrman, Director General of the FCO wrote:
"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."
Also omitted from this article, a link to a rather contrived and badly managed interview with Nasreen Suleaman plugging Biography of a Bomber and a link to Gonzo Terrorism. Watch out in Nas's interview clip, yet again, for the standard practice of showing CCTV footage from 28 June 2005 as the voiceover talks of 7th July, some 9 days after the footage being shown and from which no CCTV footage has ever been released.

Finally, a clip of Mohammed Hamid and his thoughts on the events of 11th September 2001 was omitted from the above article, just in case anyone was left with the impression that questioning official doctrine might be hazardous to one's health and liberty.



"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance." -- Alan Bullock

40 comments:

paul said...

(£300) Sterling stuff!

Shahid said...

Brilliant.

If I wasn't so cross, I'd be more eloquent.

DAVE BONES said...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about Nasreen Suleaman here. Cheers for the link to her work. She seemed pretty straight up to me, and it appeared she did the leg work for don't panic..

I didn't hear Mousah Brown's testimony but the journo who did told me he gave a good account of himself.

Shahid said...

Very revealing video clips btw.

And Usama is a beautiful name. Far more beautiful than "Ariel" or "Yitzhak" in my humble opinion.

The Antagonist said...

Hi Dave, thanks for the comment and for all your work in covering the various 'terror' trials and individuals floating around the Finsbury Park mosque. There are some valuable insights into some of the characters contained in the footage on Socialist Wanker.

With regard to Nasreen Suleaman, there are a couple of points:

One is the way in which she seems unable to hold a consistent point of view about the relationship between Muslims and paintballing. It was OK for her and the BBC to fund a paintballing trip for Muslims and pay at least one of the participants for the privilege yet, months later, she describes paintballing as "a guerrilla warfare like activity".

So, did she take Hamid & Co, on guerrilla warfare training, or was it, as she later claimed, "a fun way" of introducing the subjects of Don't Panic I'm Islamic?

She then follows this up in December 2007, under oath, by describing the same pursuit as "harmless", "fun" and not "terrorist training activity". She also said, “There are many, many British Muslims that I know who for the past 15 or 20 years have been going paintballing. It’s a harmless enough activity. I don’t think there is any suggestion, or ever has been, that it’s a terrorist training activity.”

If there was never any suggestion that paintballing is "a terrorist training activity", then the statement she made in Biography of a Bomber is blatantly false. The flip side of this is that, given that it was Suleaman herself who suggested that paintballing is "a guerrilla warfare like activity", she perjured herself during Hamid's trial by testifying otherwise.

The other issue was succinctly summed up by Paul, "She seems to have focused solely on Muslim bad boys and her output makes JD Salinger look like a workaholic." This focus and output has only occurred over the last three years of what we can deduce to be a thirteen year career.

Such things always set one or two alarm bells ringing in the minds of some and it was to these points that the post endeavours to draw attention.

lwtc247 said...

Suleaman told the court that Mr Hamid was keen to appear in the programme. She said: “He was so up for it.

Hummm. 'up for it' Empirical evidence suggests a cadre's terminology imparts itself amongst its members.


"We took the decision that paintballing would be a fun way of introducing him." Is it daft of me to think this leans towards Nasreen herself taking them to a paintball session? Surely not.


Its a good job Nasreen has brown skin and a Muslim sounding name. I'd have a hard time believing her otherwise!

DAVE BONES said...

OK. I've read your post a couple of times and I think I've got the hang of what you are saying. I didn't realise you linked to my blog, thanks a lot.

Re Suleaman-

I am not sure what to say. Have you met her? You seem to have constructed a narrative into her career which says what?

She works for MI-5?

Maybe you should ask her?

If the prosecution had known what she had stated previously about paintballing they would probably have picked her up on it like you have. What does that suggest?

That the prosecution don't do as much research as you maybe.

That is probably true. I was suprised how easy they go on defence witnesses. I would imagine that they don't want to appear evil to the jury.

Suleaman appeared for the defence, and both she and Phil Rees seemed happy to. I don't think that they think Hamid is a terrorist.

I've heard her broadcast about Sadique Khan now, (thanks for the link, I will post it on my blog)

Its a good article. You think she gets Muslims into trouble? How?

She focuses on Bad Boys

Its where the market is isn't it. Not that I've made a solitary bean so far myself but with absolutely zero journalistic experience my story has got me through a few doors. You know, its where the market is isn't it?

when was the last time you read or heard about the case for the defence in any 'terror' trial that you weren't physically present at? Plenty of coverage of the case for the prosecution, plenty of coverage about the 'evil terrorists' and all their evil terrorist ways and precisely no coverage at all for the defence.

I can't fault this. You are right. This is why I was glad that I was there as much as possible and wrote Hamid's defence down.

Why?

I've thought about this a number of Times. Daniel Sandford invited me into the BBC. He has a different take on all this which we discussed, he appeared to me to believe in what he was doing. He agreed that a frightening story "sells" better.

2003-2005 No one wanted to hear

"Hamza preaches against bombing innocents in London."

Yet that is what he preached a good number of times.

If I would say anything about all the journalists I have met around this subject they just appear a bit institutionalised. I find it interesting that you are suspicious of Suleaman. I'm not.

I'm going to write a blog focusing on inaccuracies in the reporting around this trial, but probably after sentencing.

Thanks for linking to me again I will reciprocate and pop by occasionally.

paul said...

I just wished I said jd salinger on mandrax
but then, the moment goes

lwtc247 said...

I'm going to write a blog focusing on inaccuracies in the reporting around this trial

Dear Sir.
Please post the inaccuracies BEFORE this man is sentenced to rot in jail. If you believe there are inaccuracies and you stay quiet about it, you will be partly to blame for the deliverance of rough justice, whereas publication of points before the trial ends, may help an innocent man.

A journalist worthy of the name, should always seek to report the truth, no matter what stands in the way.

Thank you.

The Antagonist said...

Dave,

I've not met Nasreen Suleaman, nor do I know who she works for, other than the BBC. There are known knowns though and we know a little about how her career has picked up in the last three years, the articles that she has written and the content of a few of her broadcasts to an audience facilitated by the BBC. We also know a little of she said under oath during Hamid's trial and this is enough to be getting on with. In this respect, whether Suleaman might have some spooky connections is largely immaterial because her output and actions speak for themselves, as I tried to highlight in the article.

In light of yesterday's revelations about the way in which the entire British media agreed to sit on the non-story of Harry heading off to bump up the opium crop and keep the oil flowing -- a level of "cover up" that extends across all broadcast and print media, including local rags and radio stations, for a period of ten weeks -- it would appear to matter not whether any given journalist is in the direct employ of SIS/State/Corporate interests. Jon Snow repeatedly used the phrase "totalitarian regime" throughout his presentation of the Harrygate story on tonight's Channel 4 News. (Incidentally, before the show ended Snow had been accused of treason.) Snow even wrote in his Snowmail update: "One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust media bosses again." Apart from the assumption implicit in that statement, that viewers, readers and listeners entirely trusted the media in the first place, I concur with his sentiments and add this latest fine example of nationwide media duplicity to the long list of others.

You hit the nail on the head with your truism, "If I would say anything about all the journalists I have met around this subject they just appear a bit institutionalised. Some of the bolder ones will even admit it. On a 2006 Newsnight blog entry about "conspiracy theories", Adam Livingston ended his piece with, "So which CTs should you buy into? Well you'll just have to make your own minds up. I've got a mortgage to pay." It would be fair to say that Adam Livingstone isn't the only person with a job who has a mortgage to pay, or rent to pay, or income tax to pay, or council tax to pay, or who has to pay for food, water, gas, or electricity. Yet this 'distinction', that isn't a distinction at all, is used to justify a lack of journalistic integrity to an audience that is lumbered with the exactly the same burdens as the institutionalised journalist.

I don't doubt for a minute that a large number of journalists have every faith in the work they do, that's probably how they manage to sleep at night. I would wager that degree of faith, like that which you attribute to Sandford, is partly related to their own personal degree of institutionalisation (mortgages, etc.) and partly due the degree of indoctrination and commitment to the same increasingly ruthless system at the mercy of which they too find themselves. As you say, it's where the market is, and the market dictates that breaking free of that cycle is more challenging now than it ever was before, especially in onesies and twosies. This is where mass-movements of the people in the form of unions, collectives, cooperatives and cohesive communities (such as the communities of brothers and sisters built around mosques) enter the equation.

You're also right in saying that nobody wanted, nor wants, to hear "Hamza preaches against bombing innocents in London." It doesn't fit the hook-handed terrorist villain character, in a similar way that knowing that Hamza served three years at Sandhurst Royal Military Academy doesn't really fit the profile. (Coincidentally, Hamza spoke of his time at Sandhurst in one of your videos.) These are cognitively dissonant bits of information. Such dissonance often forces subtle involuntary changes in perceptions of the world as the thesis and its anti-thesis synthesise into something that is neither entirely one, nor the other.

The same applies to Suleaman: Paintballing is like guerrilla warfare, and at the same time, under oath, there has never been any suggestion that it might be anything of the sort.

Another example is Osama (bin Laden, not poor “been London” Hamid) - official doctrine pins 9/11 on him and 19 suicidal ‘hijackers’. Many of the mainstream media news sources which propagate this information will also tell you that some of the hijackers are still alive, feature stories reporting Osama denied having any connection to 9/11, that the FBI has no evidence linking 9/11 to Osama and, in some cases, they’ll even tell you that Osama died, or was killed, years ago.

Nothing is true, everything is possible. While this might be a catchy phrase, it represents an entirely unnatural situation and one which cannot be sustained indefinitely.

In nature some things are true and not everything is possible. A meteor may land on someone’s head but it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that someone will land on the head of a meteor. Unfortunately, it would seem journalists, editors and the media in general are so institutionalised that, as it stands, they have no inclination or intent to restore some much needed honest, accurate and factual truths.

As a closer (this is a much longer response than I set out to write but I wanted to address the points you raise) I'm glad you mentioned Phil Rees, for it was he that was interviewed by Jon Snow for Channel 4 News. I thought it might be opportune to finish up on a few choice quotes from Mr Rees’ interview:

"The point about Mohammed Hamid, is he was an open book. There was nothing secretive about him. So that makes me wonder about the nature of this case."

"I think what you've got now though is that British laws on terrorism … can basically prosecute somebody for what they say because of the impact they might have on others, even if they're not aware of this, and I think that is concerning."

"I think the reality of this, and I think that what is of most concern today is that British Muslims will feel that if they speak their mind, because after all what message was so dangerous - the message that he was criticising British foreign policy in Muslim lands - that if you actually have that message and if you speak openly about that message, you're in danger of ending up in jail."


Rees is right. He could only have been a little more complete in his analysis had he reminded people that the laws by which Muslims are being subjugated are the very same laws that can be used against every one of us.

paul said...

I've thought about this a number of Times. Daniel Sandford invited me into the BBC. He has a different take on all this which we discussed, he appeared to me to believe in what he was doing. He agreed that a frightening story "sells" better.

As does a mutually agreed and collegiately reinforcing 'script' which its narrators can feel comfortable with.

The dangerous radicals we are constantly presented with, who could not pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heel, are merely hapless, and I think quite tragic (especially in the light that dave's reports cast), repertory actors in this process.

What on earth a smug broadcasting functionary for a publicly funded news organisation is up to using the callow market cant of 'selling' stories completely escapes me.

It serves as neither explanation nor excuse.

DAVE BONES said...

Cheers. I've not spent a lot of time in Conspiracy blogland. My position for a long time is that I neither believe nor disbelieve conspiracy theories. I tried to believe 9/11 conspiracy theories once and gave up. I make myself aware of all this, but mainly because Atilla believes (or believed it). Its information and I draw no conclusion.

All of the people I have spoken to who know him seem to say that the only people Hamid convinced with his bullshit were judge, jury and the journalists. This is no insult to Hamid- he said himself he was talking cobblers and exaggerating all the time in his defence. Obviously no one believed him.

I saw Phil Rees comment, I thought it was very good.

I can see what you are saying about journalism, carrerism and "the truth".

As for inaccuracies, don't panic. The judge should sentence from what he has seen himself in court not from what he has read. I have no idea what he will do, which is why I prefer not to comment now. March the 7th will be a bit nerve wracking for me. I spoke to the court reporter there and both of us thought the judge seemed fair. Apparently he is about to retire which could either be very good or very bad news for Hamid et al eh.

One of the reasons I first went to Finsbury park was to see for myself the difference between what actually happened and what went on telly.

After two years of doing that I didn't really suspect anything sinister. People believe what they want to believe, and I am in the minority.

There does seem to be a bit of a narrative but maybe its just sheep baa ing in unison. To me it looks like there is a narrative amongst conspiracy theorists as well. Which is true? I don't know.

I've enjoyed filming what people believe and very much enjoyed gaining peoples trust. I've gone on a bit of a journey with Atilla. I don't regret it and its not over.

As I say I better leave it there till the 7th. I've got lots of "behind the scenes" coming. Thanks again for linking my stuff at least someone is reading and Paul-

that Gonzo Terrorist line is fucking great. I wish I had written it.

DAVE BONES said...

Talking inaccuracies it was Jon who made the Gonzo remarks wasn't it.

paul said...

Yes it was jon, the smartarsed cunt.

DAVE BONES said...

Bloody Hell I just read some of your exchanges with Rachel. What's your problem? I don't get it.

The Antagonist said...

*My* problem?

Did I miss something?

The Antagonist said...

I can see what you are saying about journalism, carrerism and "the truth".

It's endemic and institutional, the net result is that precious little of what is reported has much in the way of value.

I tried to believe 9/11 conspiracy theories once and gave up. I make myself aware of all this, but mainly because Atilla believes (or believed it). Its information and I draw no conclusion.

The issue with events like 9/11 and 7/7 is that the official conspiracy theories don't satisfactorily explain, in a cogent, coherent and demonstrable way, the events of either day. It would be possible to construct any number of alternative theories but, without direct access to any of the evidence, such theories are as speculative as the official accounts.

However, once the the official conspiracy theory is proven to be false, as has happened with the 'narrative' of 7th July 2005, then there is a legitimate case for suggesting that something other than what was originally postulated must be the case.

I very much look forward to reading your "behind the scenes" scenes piece about Hamid, do let me know when it's published.

paul said...

As a person with a walk on part in that exchange, I am not a part of J7 though I think they are almost perfect exemplars of what concerned, active citizens should be, I'll take the liberty of commenting.

I have to say that I came away with the impression that rachel could start a fight in an empty room.

She certainly over-reacts to people who do not agree with her. She does not like 'conspiracy theorists' whatever that ridiculous and thought stopping term means.

I certainly fall into that wide category as all that is left otherwise is what michael parenti calls 'stochastic theory' which boils down to 'shit happens, what are you going to do?'.

Anyone with even a cursory awareness of imperial history, which is all I have, will be open to the idea that events, enemies and outcomes can be managed. India, Kenya, Northern Ireland and Lockerbie all spring to mind. It might be summed up as evidence of free will, if only of the powerful.

Much of the conspiracy world, to my mind, is as managed. I think the genesis communications network is a fairly good example of this.

In my vanity, I do not consider myself to fulfil any of the qualities that are thrown in the direction of anyone who has less than religious faith (to paraphrase ms north) in our state and the financial structures it bolsters. I could pass u75's glib voight kampf test in my sleep.

I realise that last sentence betrays some of my psychiatric genesis. I was lucky enough to attend a comprehensive that had both early editions of pk dick and greg philo's work in the glasgow media group.

I often wonder if that is possible in these days of gradgrindian education and the terror of mass education/infection.

I said it over at conspiracy centrale but I'll say it again.

Dave, you're stuff is solid gold and I'll be looking forward to reading more of it.

paul said...

ps

I often wonder if that is possible in these days of gradgrindian education and the terror of mass education/infection.


I think this blog, and j7 confounds my fears, and compounds my generally cheerful nature

DAVE BONES said...

I am a bit hung over to read through everything. I'm sorry you have fallen out with Rachel. You should meet her she is ace. Tough cookie and great fun.

She is obviously angry about conspiracy theorists who question her version of events. Well, she's going to be isn't she. I probably would be to if I had been randomly blown up.

She wants to have survived for a reason, and that reason is to try and stop all this. I want to help.

Conspiracies and the people that believe them interest me. They don't make me angry. I am fairly convinced by The Disclosure Project.

I could run around screaming about aliens, but what would be the point?

I like trying to befriend people with views which are far away from mine. It occurred to me as a mission as soon as our great nation got involved in Iraq which is why I went to Finsbury park and also why I spend a lot of time with Rightwingsparkle and friends.

She agreed to meet Atilla and co a long time ago with two of her buddies which I proposed as a documentary to the BBC.

I don't suspect any conspiracy, I just think the miserable fuckers have got no imagination.


I will always be sad that this didn't happen as at the time I thought such a meeting would make some headway into the problems we all face. I really believe that some sort of solution can only come from the people outside government.

I think Rachel does too.


I am sad that I didn't see Atilla more often after they were chucked out of the mosque even though he was so horrendously difficult to film but there you are.

Cheers for the encouragement, I'm going to stop now. I am so hungover I can't look at this screen anymore.

DAVE BONES said...

Oh, I forgot to say that Policewise I've only really had mild interest from them. The FIT squad take lots of photos of me when they see me and look like they think they are doing something important. I don't give a fuck. I like their inventor, Barry Norman. He had a very impish attitude to filming with me in Finsbury park and seemed to be enjoying himself.

As far as what MI-5 have done in this trial I haven't any complaints really. They obviously think the guys are terrorists. You know, they have recorded some conversations and presented them to a jury who convicted. Simple as.

They should give Musa his stuff back.

I don't think its a "Police state" for me.

For Muslims it blatantly is a Police state.

Bridget Dunne said...

Dave Bones: "I don't think its a "Police state" for me. For Muslims it blatantly is a Police state".

This is a round-up. Who will speak for you?

DAVE BONES said...

I speak for myself. I'm not really part of any group. You think you are going to be rounded up some time soon? Do all of you think this?

The Antagonist said...

You think you are going to be rounded up some time soon? Do all of you think this?

I'm not sure there's a uniform set of beliefs among those that don't believe we have been told anything that vaguely resembles the truth about 7/7, other than that we haven't been told the truth.

Historically speaking, the likes of Hitler seized power in a 'democracy' perfectly legally while the demonisation and rhetoric regarding ethnic minorities was certainly used to eliminate political opposition. It wasn't the first time and it most definitely wasn't the last. History repeats, first as tragedy, then as farce.

An interesting exercise might be to research the number of 'Muslim' 'terrorists' locked up in recent years and the percentage of those with some degree of involvement in charities and other organisations who hold at their core the welfare of their Muslim brothers and sisters in far-off lands.

DAVE BONES said...

Yeah. I don't doubt its a Police state- for Muslims.

DAVE BONES said...

I still don't get why its a Police state for you lot. I would assume if it was we would be picked up no?

The Antagonist said...

As David Cameron said, in response to the leader of Birmingham Central Mosque, Dr Mohammed Naseem, "We have the rule of law, we have an independent police force and they do an extremely good job - they should be supported."

Forgetting for a moment the 'terrorism' of Brian Haw, Walter Wolfgang, Bollocks to Blair t-shirts, Lindis Percy, RAF Fairford protestors and a whole host of others, what an "extremely good job" the police do:

JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES, 27, Shot dead by police on 22 July 2005 after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

PHILIP PROUT, 53, Shot by a police marksman after a baton gun failed to fire, in Cornwall in May 2004.

DEREK BENNETT, 29, In July 2001, police shot him four times in the back in Brixton, south London. He had been holding a gun-shaped cigarette lighter to a man's head.

JAMES ASHLEY, 39, Shot during a police drugs raid on his house in Sussex in 1998. Ashley was unarmed, naked and with his girlfriend.

CRAIG KING, 32, Bouncer from Greater Manchester was shot by police on 11 September this year.

JOHN SCOTT, 42, Killed in Northumberland in July after he fired a gun as police broke up a disturbance.

AZELLE RODNEY, 24, Shot in Edgware in April after bullets were fired into car of suspected drug dealers.

SIMON MURDEN, 26, Killed in Hull in March after brandishing a sword.

KEITH LARKINS, 33, Former mental patient shot in June at Heathrow after brandishing a blank pistol at police.

DAVID EWIN, 38, Former robber killed in London in March 1995 in a stolen car.

NICHOLAS PALMER, 23, Shot by police in south London in 2004. Failed to answer bail after arrest on arms offences.

COLIN O'CONNOR, 39, Thief shot in 2003 in Bedfordshire after being caught with a pistol in a stolen Jaguar.

FOSTA THOMPSON, 20, Jamaican shot in Bristol after defying police in 2002.

JASON GIFFORD, 27, Shot in 2002 in Aylesbury after he confronted officers with a sword and shotgun

MICHAEL MALSBURY, 62, Shot in 2001 running out of his house in Harrow firing at police.

STEVEN DICKSON, 30, Shot in 2001 waving a home-made shotgun in Derbyshire.

ANDREW KERNAN, 37, Schizophrenic with sword shot in Liverpool in 2001.

PATRICK O'DONNELL, 19, Killed in 2000 after taking his mother and girlfriend hostage in north London.

KIRK DAVIES, 30, Former soldier was shot in West Yorkshire in September 2000 after he threatened an officer with an air rifle.

HARRY STANLEY, 46, Shot by police in 1999.

DEREK BATEMAN, 47, Shot in Surrey in 1999 after girlfriend told officers he was armed and was threatening to shoot her, or himself.

ANTONY KITTS, 20, Shot in Falmouth in 1999, threatening police with an air rifle thought to be a shotgun.

MICHAEL FITZGERALD, 32, Shot in Bedford in 1998 aiming a replica Colt 45 at police.

DAVID HOWELL, 41, Psychiatric patient shot in 1996 at a Co-op supermarket.

DIARMUID O'NEILL, 27, Unarmed IRA suspect shot in raid in west London.

JAMES BRADY, 21, Shot in 1995 in police ambush at village near Newcastle.

ROBERT DIXON, 45, Wild West fan fired at police, but gun may have been replica.

DAVID STONE, 35, Killed in 1993, carrying pistol in north London.

IAN HAY, 39, Mentally ill farmer shot in Devon in 1993 after police tried to investigate gunshot reports.

DAVID LUCKHURST, 46, Publican in Hertfordshire shot in 1993 after he fired rifle at officers in siege at home.

ROBERT HAINES, 41, Known as 'Teflon Bob', a bouncer who has been suspected of being connected to M25 road rage killer Kenneth Noye, he was shot and killed by one of the officers responsible for the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes during an attempted raid on a building society in New Romney, but not before being tasered first.

ANN SANDERSON, 37, Shot dead by police on Monday 11 June 2007. Reported as having "a history of mental illness" and brandishing a ball bearing gun before being shot with "a single shot to the chest". She died at the scene and was the "first woman in Britain to be shot dead deliberately by a police marksman".

DAYNIEL CHARLES TUCKER, 39, from the Swale area was shot by officers in Tumblefield Road, Stansted, shortly before 9am on Saturday, December 29 2007.

PROSECUTIONS SO FAR: 0

Capitalising on Terror: Who is really destroying our freedoms?

paul said...

Anne Sanderson
No tense movie style negotiations there.

I remember reading about that one while I was abroad, it really jumped out for some reason, hardly mentioned when I got back.

Home office figures for uk:
There were 50 homicides involving firearms in 2005/06, down 36 percent from 78 on the
previous year and the lowest recorded since 1998/99.


So if 2007 is typical and this suggests it is

The number of gun-related deaths went down from 55 to 49 in the year to September 2007.

An equivalent of 4% of uk gun deaths for the uk happened through police action in Kent.


Kent newspaper reports
From the start of April until the end of October this year, there have been 21 recorded gun crimes in east Kent.

A police spokeswoman said most of them involved air guns.

“I can confidently say the vast majority, if not all, of those 21 crimes relate to air weapons. Dangerous gun crime is not rife across the district.

“It is very rare for a ‘real’ firearm such as this to be in our patch.”


I can't identify other gun related deaths in kent (13 murders in 2007 according to their report, method not specified, but the above quote suggests none)

What with Danyiel Tucker later that year,Sevenoaks certainly seems to have a problem with gun crime

flats said...

Great videos, yes I like Shahid opinon, better than Ariel or whatever. cheers

DAVE BONES said...

Sorry, I have been editing some new "Osama Bin London" stuff, will be up later.

To get back to what you are saying 23 of the people you have cited were shot carrying guns or swords. I was asking about evidence that it is a Police state for the majority of us now- this says what? I don't get you.

The Antagonist said...

Police state for Muslims? And the rest:

MI5 seeks powers to trawl records in new terror hunt --Counter-terrorism experts call it a 'force multiplier': an attack combining slaughter and electronic chaos. Now Britain's security services want total access to commuters' travel records to help them meet the threat 16 Mar 2008 Millions of commuters could have their private movements around cities secretly monitored under new counter-terrorism powers being sought by the security services. Records of journeys made by people using smart cards that allow 17 million Britons to travel by underground, bus and train with a single swipe at the ticket barrier are among a welter of private information held by the state to which MI5 and police counter-terrorism officers want access in order to help identify patterns of suspicious behaviour.

Put young children on DNA list, urge police
--'We must target potential offenders' --Teachers' fury over 'dangerous' plan 16 Mar 2008 Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain's most senior police forensics expert. Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

DAVE BONES said...

Right. You see I understand what you think, I am looking for why you think it. Maybe you've had experience of this sort of stuff? I haven't you see. It doesn't bother me if cops photograph me etc. I'm sure they think they are doing their jobs.

Do you think there is some sort of fascist society in our not too distant future? Who is behind it? the Bildeberg group? Zionism?

lwtc247 said...

It would be interesting if the BBC tried to get stuff for the 'conspiracy files' through the back door having been told to go away - wouldn't it.

Conspiratorally yours...

The Antagonist said...

DAVE BONES said...

Do you think there is some sort of fascist society in our not too distant future? Who is behind it? the Bildeberg group? Zionism?


Dr Evil, in the conservatory, with the rope.


lwtc247 said...

It would be interesting if the BBC tried to get stuff for the 'conspiracy files' through the back door having been told to go away - wouldn't it.


Wouldn't it just.

jon doy said...

@Dave: thanks for your kind words about the Gonzo thing, but i cannot take responsibility for it, really, standing as i am with one foot on the shoulder of Hunter S Thompson, and the other plastic carrier bag wrapped foot on the shoulder of NLP - all i did was blend HT and NLP - albeit that i have made the decision to remove the insidious nature of NLP from the equation by using overt rhyme and meaning rather than sneaky thought reprogramming techniques (neurolinguistic programming being the method of burying one meaning/'thought system' inside the apparent syllables and meaning of another not-so-straightforward passage of speech), in the case of Gonzo, simply trying to rhyme 'It never sets fear enough for we' with 'It never got weird enough for me'

nlp is being used all over the place, i have witnessed what i believe to be nlp in the lyrics of songs, Question Time, other TV, and even testimony given within the legal domain and parliament - if a voice is ever talking to you and the sentence itself seems not to make such good sense but is instead replaced in your mind with another feeling, thought or emotion - especially if there is some incongruity between your previous point of view and a point of view you inexplicably come to hold, then that might be an indicator that a practitioner of nlp is trying to do their dirty work on you...nlp is a sordid parlour trick learnt by charlatans, chancers, and miscellaneous tricksters and can be studied at greasy self advancement seminars and in miserably glossy 'how to shit on everyone and get what you want' style self help books

be wary of n-l-p !

the point you raise about narrative and what we might call antinarrative is worth mention, i would say that whilst the official western world narrative - being one of safety, freedom and democracy (spread by the curbing of freedoms and dictatorial violent force if necessary) against the powers of "Islamic fascism" - is prevalent and goes mostly uncontested in the beloved and trusted mainstream media, the antinarrative that the global hegemony of 'you are free to get into debt' - the hegemony of banking cartels, corporate domination of government, and the misappropriation of human dignity and environmental concern in the name of (transdimensional beings/aliens/shapeshifting lizards not involved) elitist plans such as the murder of most of the people, and the taxation of the rest for the crime of breathing co2, is the more compelling and realistic of the two

to further elaborate on my not aliens bit in brackets above: the nazis, and later the cia, had been working on "impossible" aircraft over sixty years ago, the former for their 'war winning' technology projects - though it is unclear how far they got, the latter for the primary reason (one assumes) of guaranteeing aerial spying/battlefield domination, whether or not the intention was to fake spacecraft from the outset is another interesting topic, but the fact is, that from 1940s onwards, these craft were sold as "flying saucers", and "UFO" has lost its true meaning and come to be incorrectly synonymised with 'impossible alien craft'

there are plans to impose a world dictatorship (euphemistically referred to as "government") upon the Earth, and there are several means through which this might be accomplished, climate change (which neatly obviates all real pollution concern and ensures corporate welfare, 'trading' in but not reduction of co2 emissions (co2 being a weaker 'greenhouse gas' than water vapour is - and note also some of the co2 conspiracy theories from 'experts'), as well as the guarantee of passing all carbon tax to us - the end users), aliens, terrorwar, asteroids, et cetera

placed into this context, UFOs - and the 'disclosure project', become no more than tools of the military industrial complex and broader military economic 'elite' to push X-filestianity for possible future use - the potential for faking alien invasion-dominations a la The Day The Earth Stood Still is tremendous

I still don't get why its a Police state for you lot. I would assume if it was we would be picked up no?

in my opinion, the "Muslim threat" is being used to put in place laws that would not be possible without an 'enemy within' - as the Muslim community is often portrayed to be in parts - the key issue here is a two-part one: Muslims are being denigrated much as Jews were as Ant comments above, but more to the point for those unconcerned by this, the nazis used those 'enemy' laws to squash all dissent even from non-Jews once consolidated - the very same is the intention here and now, and you must not doubt that for a moment, anyone who is not a 'good consumer' (debt ridden serf) will some day not too far off be a "terrorist"

the utilisation of a tacit acceptance of what people believe to be racist laws (ultimately, they are NOT race or religion specific) is the way the 'elite' think they'll get there, and thanks to the media it's largely working - at least it appears to be, most people i speak to get what i'm talking about in an instant, but they're no more allowed to speak their mind on tv or in the papers than i've found i am able to

these laws are about enforcing our one true freedom as the 'elite' would have it - the freedom to get into debt, but other than that, the freedom to shut up and suck it up

for now, it's 'softly softly only catchie darkies'

give it time, though...

Stef said...

Right. You see I understand what you think, I am looking for why you think it. Maybe you've had experience of this sort of stuff? I haven't you see. It doesn't bother me if cops photograph me etc. I'm sure they think they are doing their jobs.

Do you think there is some sort of fascist society in our not too distant future? Who is behind it? the Bildeberg group? Zionism?


I'm not sure that people thinking they're 'doing their jobs' are grounds for any degree of comfort

And as for the old 'Who is behind it? the Bildeberg group? Zionism?' question the folks posting here are far too experienced and astute to stumble on that old chestnut.

It doesn't matter what name people choose to use for the interests behind the changes taking place in our society. The changes themselves and the flimsy nature of the excuses being used to justify those changes are real and self-evident enough

Do we live in a totally restrictive surveillance state? Not yet, but the tools to enable such a state are being rushed into place.

Does anyone know the full extent of how directly managed this process is and what the eventual objective is? Nope. Is that a reason for complacency and acceptance? Nope again

Stef said...

f*** me JD

you had a few things to get off your chest didn't you

Stef said...

@lwtc247 7:23:00AM

LOL

DAVE BONES said...

Yup. Gotcha. Fair enough.

Great stuff. For me the anti narrative is the gonzo.

It certainly was in Finsbury park.

I think i quite enjoyed the terrorist?/mad guys shouting about shit? dichotomy anyway.

I'm not sure who is doing what either but I am certain of one thing- there IS a better narrative. One that can bring us out of all this. I've always had a feeling that "We the People" can do it if we try. Meanwhile I am glad for the freedoms I do have, anyway.

jon doy said...

climate change (which neatly obviates all real pollution concern and ensures corporate welfare, 'trading' in but not reduction of co2 emissions (co2 being a weaker 'greenhouse gas' than water vapour is - and note also some of the co2 conspiracy theories from 'experts'), as well as the guarantee of passing all carbon tax to us - the end users)

see, it's beginning already, this bullshit's got to be called out, and stopped, same as all the other bullshit