When you gonna learn? What you gonna do?

The Middle Class Proletariat
The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

Source: The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Progamme 2007-2036 [PDF, 7MB]
Published by the Ministry of Defence

So mote it be.

On the seventh anniversary of 9/11 the New York Metro newspaper published the headline: Global Survey says 'U.S. behind 9/11". The survey results reflect a growing level of awareness and understanding throughout the world, including America, about the way in which the intrinsically enmeshed worlds of empire, imperialism and capitalism operate. This awareness and understanding of the activities of the military financial and industrial complex has been building ever apace among ever greater numbers of people since the stakes were raised somewhat after the start of the war of terror.

In many ways 9/11 was the day on which the murderous machinations of the new empire builders began again in earnest, but that is not to deny that murderous machinations of ruling class interests have always manifested themselves to varying degrees.

Some claimed that 9/11 was the day the world changed but in fact the world hadn't changed at all.

9/11 was the point at which the U.S. State began to respond in earnest and with barely a challenge to the Project for the New American Century's largely rhetorical question: "Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" The illusion of Western democracy became an even less consensual illusion than it was previously as aggressive yet pre-ordained modifications were rapidly instituted to U.S. conservative, "neo-conservative" and "neo-liberal" ruling class ideologies. The seemingly knee-jerk but long pre-planned response to the Project for the New American Century's clarion call saw the wheels of the Military Financial Industrial Complex set in motion to cement for private interests the foundations for what State actors in various States and acting roles had themselves repeatedly termed a New World Order. Now Obama promises change so everything can stay the same.

The endless "long war", the origins of which can be traced back through as many years of human history as you are prepared to devote minutes to undertaking the research, became non-negotiable and manifested itself predominantly as U.S. / U.K. led imperialist warmongering and mass murdering in the Middle East. The irony, if not also the truth of the matter, was that the changes were driven by the sufferance of what private ruling class interests had long hoped and in all likelihood prayed for; a "catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" that would leave no option but to force their hand into a "process of transformation" at all costs, "even if it brings revolutionary change" in the quest for the "exercise of American leadership around the globe."

With the genetically modified imperialist carrot rejected in favour of a plethora of history's most lethal phallus-shaped exploding sticks, NATO's coalition of the killing set about systematically slaughtering first Afghanistan's poor, then Iraq's poor, simultaneously decimating beyond repair each country's core infrastructure. The death toll may now be running undeniably in the millions but, when the NATO Circus of Death is in town with its unholy trinity of creation, destruction and rebirth, the clowns who are the destructors -- who also happen to be the self-appointed creationists and rebirthers -- always profit handsomely. The smartest guys in the room or, more accurately, the most organised and the most heavily armed guys in the room. The dead can't count, the bottom line always does. Even if it is rock bottom.

As the war without end got underway, the humanity collective began with renewed vigour its voyage of discovery, armed with little more than the innate curiosity with which it was born, a desire to start making sense of an increasingly insane looking world and a hyper-linked connection to a world in which the kaleidoscope had been shaken and the pieces were in flux.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the path to wisdom is beset with political dead-ends, diversions and other nefarious but carefully crafted and deliberately placed distractions. Despite all this the kaleidoscopic pieces are starting to settle and they are settling in altogether new and different ways. Ways in which projections and contingencies have long existed among our rulers, decreed as statutes by State bodies, quangos and think tanks in the event that their long-feared hypothetical scenarios are brought to life. When such chaos is brought by the greater mass of humanity to the hotly pursued ruling class order, States historically appear to favour incarnating as their ultimate brutal manifestations, naked emperors of aggression, unleashed by bodies of armed men and brought to bear against all comers, brother and sister alike.

The ride along the geopolitical learning curve has not been particularly smooth or pleasant for anyone, irrespective of race, colour or creed, but this is not to deny that some have suffered more than others. The way has been marked by many important milestones, notable specifically for the way in which they expose the gargantuan lies of ruling class ideology and propaganda. These milestones have appeared in many places, some expected but many more quite unexpected, that are more notable for the added element of surprise that they pack and the way in which they force irrevocable paradigm shifts in the political analysis, thinking and consciousness of everyone.

On 11th March 2004 the same Al Qaeda who bombed New York in 2001 attacked Madrid with a series of blasts across the city's train network. Months later it was announced:

The basic truth is that Al Qaeda does not exist and never has. Al Qaeda is a manufactured enemy who was created by the Bush Administration in order to have an excuse to wage a war for the control of the world’s oil resources. || Al Qaeda does not exist nor has it ever.

-- Joseph John Hrevnack
Pravda, 19th August 2004

Such nonsense as "“Al Qaeda” does not exist nor has it ever" is to be expected of the tool of Communist, Red Pinko propaganda that is Pravda. Therefore the statement should immediately be dismissed and forgotten. No doubt such things are also to be expected of the tools of Communist, Red, Pinko propaganda that are the Daily Mirror, the BBC and Adam Curtis.

But a more insidious and even more lethal menace lurks behind the victory of Ole Cross-Eyes. The Republicans mobilised as never before the politics of fear. They convinced a majority of US citizens that their homes and families were under immediate threat from al-Qaeda. They are not.

In fact, the BBC's admirable Power Of Nightmares series showed al-Qaeda does not exist as the world-wide conspiracy presented by US policy-makers, with commanders, cells and "sleepers" in 60 countries. In that sense, al-Qaeda is a figment of the imagination of Pentagon and CIA war gamers - but it is a mightily useful weapon for war. Not the war against terrorists but the real war against the common sense of voters - the shock and awe campaign against us.

They seek to dupe you and me into a state of permanent panic about the fantasy threat of terror striking on the Tube, or in my backyard in North Yorkshire. ONLY when we have been so convinced will we vote for the politicians who peddle these monstrous nightmares. That is the true menace of the Bush-Blair axis of evil.

-- Paul Routledge
Daily Mirror, 5th November 2004

As yet another poke in the eye for the likes of the Communist, Red, Pinko propagandists like Paul Routledge, Adam Curtis, the BBC, anti-war activists, global justice movements, the left, anarchists, the working class, anyone that cared and any other similar tools of Communist, Red, Pinko propaganda, it wasn't long before the "fantasy threat of terror striking on the Tube" -- which itself may well have been based on the BBC's own invented "fantasy threat of terror striking on the Tube" -- did indeed strike on London's Tube.

Immediately news began to break of explosions on London's underground system so too did the hysterical cries of ten-a-penny terror pundits with loose talk of the devastatingly deadly Al Qaeda terror network striking in the heart of London.

The as yet unidentified bombers had obviously forgotten that all the world's leaders against whom they might have held any number of legitimate grievances would be congregating at Gleneagles in Scotland for the opening day of the 2005 G8 summit. The still unidentified bombers apparently decided that, rather than hold those directly responsible for global injustices to account -- and with logic so perverse that it bears not even the scantest of passing scrutiny -- it would be more politically expedient to attack innocent commuters to achieve their hitherto unidentified aims.

Despite the ensuing media hysteria that followed the London bombings pertinent questions were being asked by many who had been through the mill before: How could the "figment of the imagination of Pentagon and CIA war gamers" manage to materially blow up three Underground trains and a bus? Moreover, how could they do so without the Pentagon or the CIA? Just a day later Robin Cook was to provide a few answers and leave an informational milestone as his legacy in The Guardian:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

-- Robin Cook (R.I.P.)
The Guardian, Friday 8th July 2005

According to Cook Al Qaeda did exist, but only as a grouping of mercenaries that had previously been trained and armed by the C.I.A. in what is a still ongoing battle against Communism. Yet just eight days later as the Al Qaeda suicide bomber myth was emerging to be the hugely amplified white noise to drown out all other signals The Mirror asked in an exclusive report about the London bombings: Was It Suicide?

Such questions persisted across a variety of newspaper reports, albeit mainly in the foreign press, right up until the timely release of the Mohammed Sidique Khan 'suicide video'. In the video Khan makes no mention of suicide, attacking London, trains, buses nor anything else that might incriminate him as a candidate for suicide or bombing. In fact, Khan says nothing that would distinguish him from anyone else who opposes the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the Palestinian holocaust perpetrated by Israel and it is this facet of the video that is the cleverest of all. Suddenly, by extension, anyone with anti-war sentiments founded on "perceived inustices" is an extremist, a radical and, potentially, a suicide bomber. Patent, palpable nonsense which is only subliminal if you don't notice it.

In 2005 the Al Qaeda that barely anyone had heard of prior to 9/11 was then either a "figment of the imagination of Pentagon and CIA war gamers" and "[did] not exist nor [had] it ever", or a "computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA".

Three days after the seventh anniversary of 11th September 2001 on which the New York Metro published its Global Survey says 'U.S. behind 9/11' story, the notoriously right-wing tool of Communist, Red, Pinko propaganda, Peter Hitchens, undermined years of hearty propaganda work by his new-neocon-left brother Christopher when he wrote in the Daily Mail:

It's the creepy plotters who rule us we should really be scared of

There is no such organisation as ‘Al Qaeda’. The spooks know this, Cabinet Ministers know this and so do the ‘security correspondents’ who so readily trot out the spooks’ point of view on our broadcasting networks.

-- Peter Hitchens
Daily Mail, 14th September 2008

Hitchens' words marked yet another milestone along the tortuous path to figuring out how the world really works. His words as with those of Robin Cook and Joseph John Hrevnack warrant considerable further contemplation. So too do the explicit implications of those words.

Line 1: "There is no such organisation as ‘Al Qaeda’."

Al Qaeda does not exist. Nor has it ever. The Al Qaeda that attacked, killed and maimed innocent civilians and pulverised WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 with military precision on 11th September 2001 does not exist, nor has it ever. Explicitly: Some actually existing group of terrorists organised and coordinated 9/11, a group not called Al Qaeda. The group actually responsible for this atrocity has never been held to account for its actions.

Al Qaeda does not exist, nor has it ever. The Al Qaeda that attacked, killed and maimed innocent civilians in Madrid on 11th March 2004 does not exist, nor has it ever. Explicitly: Some actually existing group of terrorists organised and coordinated the Madrid bombings, a group not called Al Qaeda. The group actually responsible for this atrocity has never been held to account for its actions.

Al Qaeda does not exist, nor has it ever. The Al Qaeda that attacked, killed and maimed innocent civilians in London on 7th July 2005 does not exist, nor has it ever. Explicitly: Some actually existing group of terrorists organised and coordinated the London bombings, a group not called Al Qaeda. The group actually responsible for this atrocity has never been held to account for its actions.

The list goes on and the pattern and message is clear. The list of terrorist atrocities throughout history for which no one has ever been justly held accountable and for which the real, true and actual perpetrators have never been identified, much less held accountable, is a long one and it is getting longer by the day. In the recent history of terrorist activity on mainland Britain this list includes at least the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes whose inquest is just getting underway three years after his execution by State operatives, the 7/7 London bombings, the Manchester Arndale bombing, the Guildford pub bombings, the Birmingham pub bombings, the M62 coach bombing, and the Hyde Park explosion, among others.

Line 2: "The spooks know this, Cabinet Ministers know this and so do the ‘security correspondents’ who so readily trot out the spooks’ point of view on our broadcasting networks."

Al Qaeda does not exist, nor has it ever. More to the point politicians who profess to be our servants know that Al Qaeda does not exist, yet non-references to the grave threats presented by an entity which they know does not exist, are few and far between. That makes all politicians who talk of the chilling threat that doesn't exist little more than outright liars. They are deliberate and witting liars, fearmongers and propagandists. So great is the deception perpetrated and so long has it continued to be parroted as standard fare that the liars and propagandists are completely devoid of credibility and absolutely cannot be afforded any degree of trust any longer.

Al Qaeda does not exist, nor has it ever. Those spooky media security correspondents whose number is legion know this, yet nary a day passes when they cannot be seen touting their non-existent terror wares on TV or Dead Trees for all to see. Reports of airline terror plots planned by a fictional organisation with fictional and chemically impossible chemistry wreaking havoc and carnage on an unimaginable scale that someone managed to imagine for the purposes of propaganda and fear-mongering. All media security correspondents pushing the non-existent Al Qaeda as reality are deliberate and witting liars, fearmongers and propagandists. So great is the deception perpetrated and so long has it continued to be parroted as standard fare that the liars and propagandists are completely devoid of credibility and absolutely cannot be afforded any trust any longer.

The world of fear as everyone previously knew it is ended. All bets are off. Everything is now officially its opposite. All is lie. Now is a new beginning. The ills of the world are not directly attributable to a bearded man in a cave somewhere on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, nor the non-existent group over which he is reported to preside, their source(s) instead lie elsewhere and are now more exposed than ever before in history. Osama didn't bust the banks, the terrorists did.

The traditional power structures and institutions of authority with their received wisdom, victor-centric historical record and world-view have yet again proven themselves to be nothing more than self-serving liars who are not fit for any other purpose. They had little credibility to start with, now they have absolutely no credibility. The media we relied on for too long to hold the rulers to account had little credibility to start with, now it has absolutely none and it cannot be trusted to do anything other than pollute the world with mindless brain-rotting 'entertainment' wrapped in the tumescent glow of the imperial powers' red, white and blue tricolor.

The terrorists are running the show. The mass media lies, covers-up and misleads the masses to allow them to get away with it. Basta!

Future history awaits the results of how it all plays out from here-on in. A few seconds thought devoted to a comparison between the resources that States command and can mobilise on a whim, and those resources over which the rest of humanity can exercise a similar degree of precise and sustained control, may provide some indication of the way in which the odds are currently stacked.

It has been largely this way since time immemorial.

When you gonna learn?

The Middle Class Proletariat
The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

Source: The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Progamme 2007-2036 [PDF, 7MB]
Published by the Ministry of Defence

What you gonna do?

Global Survey says 'U.S. behind 9/11'

Survey proves global warming has fried brains the world over

The explanation for the shocking, stunning and, frankly, chilling-to-the-marrow headline which, it almost goes without saying, has absolutely no basis in any sort of reality that any sane individual would want any part of is, of course, that everyone surveyed for the poll is a wild-eyed yelling Conspiraloon™ who should immediately be tasered and "taken to one of those secret prisons in Eastern Europe, never to be heard from again".

Who is Morgan Tsvangarai's Guardian ghost-writer?

Yesterday the Guardian published a letter by Morgan Tsvangarai, "leader of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe", which urged international leaders to back their rhetoric with military intervention.

Why I am not running
Morgan Tsvangirai

My people are at breaking point. World leaders' bold rhetoric must be backed with military force

...
Our call now for intervention seeks to challenge standard procedure in international diplomacy.
...
We envision a more energetic and, indeed, activist strategy. Our proposal is one that aims to remove the often debilitating barriers of state sovereignty, which rests on a centuries-old foundation of the sanctity of governments, even those which have proven themselves illegitimate and decrepit.
...
We do not want armed conflict, but the people of Zimbabwe need the words of indignation from global leaders to be backed by the moral rectitude of military force. Such a force would be in the role of peacekeepers, not trouble-makers. They would separate the people from their oppressors and cast the protective shield around the democratic process for which Zimbabwe yearns.
...

All well and good and some moral justification for yet another U-SUK led invasion of a far off land for profit. Except, today, Tsvangarai's article no longer exists on the Guardian web site, although it is cached here. And, while the article itself has disappeared, that didn't stop its central meme -- that of Tsvangarai calling for military intervention in Zimbabwe -- making its way into the Washington Post.

More curious still the little twist in the story that Morgan himself has added to what appeared to be his call for a invasion of Zimbabwe:

An article that appeared in my name, published in the Guardian (Why I am not running, June 25), did not reflect my position or opinions regarding solutions to the Zimbabwean crisis. Although the Guardian was given assurances from credible sources that I had approved the article this was not the case.
...
By way of clarification I would like to state the following: I am not advocating military intervention in Zimbabwe by the UN or any other organisation.

A number of questions arise about the original alleged Tsvangarai article in yesterday's Guardian, here's a few of them.

• From whence did the original and now removed Tsvangarai article come?
• Who were the 'credible sources' that advised the Guardian Tsvangarai had approved the article?
• How did the Guardian verify the article's approval?
• Who at the Guardian approved the publication of the original article?

Thus far, the Guardian has offered no explanation as to how an article by Morgan Tsvangarai managed to pass all its vetting and editorial processes to appear in the paper, only to be denounced the following day by its apparent author as not reflecting his opinion or position regarding what is to be done in Zimbabwe.

If you were still labouring under the misapprehension that the majority of the 'news' is in fact actually 'news', rather than a considerable amount of propaganda presented as 'news', perhaps you might want to reconsider your position.

In the meantime, the Guardian has a little explaining to do.

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