<www.j-n-v.org>
1) New Media Review (31 July): 21/7 Bomber Confesses Iraq War Was The Motive
CIA Expert Blames Western Policy
2) New Briefing 'US/UK OUT: UN IN - Insurgents And Experts Favour UN Troops'
3) New Daily Email Service
4) Media Review In Full
Dear all
1) New Media Review: 21/7 Bomber Confesses Iraq War Was The Motive / CIA
Expert Blames Western Policy
JNV has produced a Media Review on the London bombings every day since 8
July. Below is our latest column, reporting how the media has handled the
confession from one of the 21/7 bombers, Hussain Osman, that he and his
group were motivated by 'hatred' of the war in Iraq. We hope you find it
useful.
Justice Not Vengeance believes there is no justification for the bombings
and attempted bombings in London, but we believe that there is no way of
reducing the risk of such terrorism unless we understand the reasons for it
- as CIA bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer argues in the Media Review.
(A version of the Media Review, with links to the relevant sites, is
available on our site.)
2) New Briefing 'US/UK OUT: UN IN - Insurgents And Experts Favour UN Troops'
We have also just produced a briefing on how the UK and US should withdraw
from Iraq, supporting the UN Replacement Option. It quotes Juan Cole, the
Iraq expert, and uses a survey of Iraqi insurgent opinion gathered by a US
journalist, to support the case for replacing the US-UK occupation with a UN
transitional peace-enforcing mission.
The briefing is avaiable at <http://tinyurl.com/9gmf4>.
3) New Daily Email Service
If you would like to receive daily mailings about the London bombings and
other JNV briefings, please reply to this message with SUBSCRIBE in the
subject line. Messages will generally shorter than today's.
Please do feel free to forward this message if you think this column would
be useful to others.
(If you receive this message as a forward, and you would like to receive
daily updates, please reply to to <info (at) j-n-v.org> (replacing (at)
with @).)
4) Media Review For 31 July In Full
The London Blasts: Media Review DAY 24: Sunday 31 July 2005
CONTENTS:
Iraq Connection Confession: Hussain Osman / Dubious Claims / Buried Reports
/ Suppression Without Suppression / Blair's Repositioning Reconsidered /
Scheuer: Grim Realities
Right Question, Wrong Answer
IRAQ CONNECTION CONFESSION
HUSSAIN OSMAN
One of the 21/7 bombers, Hussain Osman, has told interrogators in Rome
(where he was arrested) a set of conflicting, confusing and dubious stories.
One thread, however, seems entirely plausible.
The Observer report: One of the men accused of taking part in the failed
terror attacks in London on 21 July has claimed the bomb plot was directly
inspired by Britain's involvement in the Iraq war.
In a remarkable insight into the motives behind the alleged would-be
bombers, Hussain Osman, arrested in Rome on Friday, has revealed how the
suspects watched hours of TV footage showing grief-stricken Iraqi widows and
children alongside images of civilians killed in the conflict. He is alleged
to have told prosecutors that after watching the footage: 'There was a
feeling of hatred and a conviction that it was necessary to give a signal -
to do something.'
But some of the Italian media reports told a conflicting story. Some reports
quoted Osman as saying: 'I hardly know anything. They only gave me a
rucksack to carry on the tube in London. We wanted to stage an attack, but
only as a show. Who gave me the explosive? I don't know. I didn't know him.
I don't remember. We didn't want to kill, we just wanted to scare people.'
Milan's Corriere della Sera newspaper said Osman first told authorities he
did not know what was in the backpack he took on the London underground,
then changed his version, saying he was told the attackers were only
supposed to carry out 'demonstrative' attacks. But the Rome daily Il
Messaggero said the suspect told investigators: 'We were supposed to blow
ourselves up.'
Osman allegedly said: 'More than praying we discussed work, politics, the
war in Iraq ... we always had new films of the war in Iraq ... more than
anything else those in which you could see Iraqi women and children who had
been killed by US and UK soldiers.'
Some of these quotes are rendered differently in the Independent on Sunday,
which quotes La Repubblica newspaper, and an Italian news agency:
The would-be bombers watched films, "especially those in which you saw women
and children killed and exterminated by the English and American soldiers,
or widows, mothers and daughters who were crying".
The propaganda helped to foster the group's "political conviction that it is
necessary to give a signal, to do something", Hussain was quoted by La
Repubblica as saying.
DUBIOUS CLAIMS
The Independent on Sunday also has these quotes from Mr Osman (the Iraq
angle is the dominant theme of their front page story, from its first
sentence):
"We never had contacts with the Bin Laden organisation. We knew that they
existed. We had access to their platforms through the internet, but nothing
direct."
He told investigators the cell was surprised by the 7 July bombs. "We have
no link with the Pakistanis," he said. However, his group took the 7 July
carnage as a signal that it should also act.
According to another report, from the Ansa Italian news agency, Hussain
said: "We had to do something. We had to react to the climate of hatred and
hostility that was created after the 7 July bombs. We were not supposed to
kill anyone. That bomb would not have been able to cause victims."
The denial of a connection with al Qaeda, or any link with the 7/7 bombers,
or of any intention to actually kill civilians are all self-serving, and
highly suspect. The conflicting stories quoted in the Observer above are
similarly self-interested and to be disregarded. However, it is difficult to
see what advantage there is to the would-be bomber in telling investigators
that he was motivated by hatred generated by watching bloody videos from
Iraq.
BURIED REPORTS
The Sunday Telegraph headlines their front-page story 'Police investigate
Saudi link to London attacks', and does not report Hussein Osman's Iraq
video revelations in the 13 paragraphs on the front page. There is a
two-page spread on the investigations on pages 14 and 15, and it is halfway
through page 15 that we learn for the first time about the videos:
'The Italian media quoted police sources as saying that Osman denied any
link to the July 7 bombings or al-Qaeda, and said that religion had nothing
to do with the attacks. Rather, it was the war in Iraq, with its injured and
murdered women and children, which had spurred the action. The July 7
bombings had served only as “a signal” for the second wave of violence, he
said.'
The only reference to these issues in the front page story is the mid-story
caution that, 'Scotland Yard is sceptical of many of the alleged claims -
sometimes confused and contradictory - made by Osman, a British citizen born
in Ethiopia.' This scepticism is entirely merited in connection with the
claims discussed above. What has to be shown though, is what possible
advantage it would be to Hussain Osman to make the Iraq connection.
The Sunday Times also buries the revelations, but does at least put them on
the front page. The headline and subheading run, 'Third terror cell on
loose: Intelligence warns of new wave against soft targets'. The Iraq
connection comes without advance notice in paragraphs 13 and 14:
'His group decided to carry out the attacks as a statement about the war in
Iraq but was not linked to Al-Qaeda or any other terrorists. Contrary to
some reports, he told his interrogators that the plotters did intend to
explode their rucksacks but that they did not intend to kill anybody.'
'He is reported to have said: “Religion had nothing to do with this. We
watched films. We were shown videos with images of the war in Iraq. We were
told we must do something big. That’s why we met.” '
SUPPRESSION WITHOUT SUPPRESSION
The controversy over whether the London bombings are connected with the war
in Iraq is at the heart of political debate in Britain. The fact that one of
the bombers has reportedly confessed that his group was motivated by
'hatred' generated by the occupation in Iraq should be headline, front page
news, and the subject of extensive commentary.
Instead the story is being muted or buried. The media's handling of the
story can be gauged from the front page headlines and subheadings for the
Hussein Osman story:
'Third terror cell on loose - Intelligence warns of new wave against soft
targets' (Sunday Times)
'Police investigate Saudi link to London attacks - Terror suspect made
mobile phone call to Middle East kingdom hours before his arrest in Italy'
(Sunday Telegraph)
'Terror suspect gives first account of London attack - Rome captive "says
Iraq sparked plot" / Security chiefs fear new wave of assaults / Huge hunt
for bomb mastermind / Death gangs were linked, say police' (Observer)
'My role in the plot - Extraordinary admission to interrogators by London
bomb suspect - Iraq war, not religion, "was main motive for bombings" /
Suicide outrages of 7 July "were signal for second attack" / Terror was
"planned in gym in a Notting Hill basement" ' (Independent on Sunday)
Incidentally, this is the BBC headline online:
'Bomb suspect to fight extradition' (BBC News Online) (There is no mention
of the Iraq connection confession.)
See, once again, our summary of Chomsky's description of how the media
suppresses without suppression. <http://tinyurl.com/9zgl2>
BLAIR'S REPOSITIONING RECONSIDERED
All of this casts a different light on the government's repositioning of its
line on the Iraq connection over the last ten days. As discussed in previous
Media Reviews (Straw changes the line, Prime Ministerial Realism), the
government has softened its line, now admitting that Iraq provides a
'pretext' which is used by al Qaeda to recruit impressionable young Muslims.
It may be that, in addition to the opinion polls showing majority belief in
the Iraq connection, the Chatham House report, and the intelligence leaks,
the government also realised that if the bombers were captured alive, the
Iraq connection might well surface in the course of investigation and
interrogation, in a way that could not be controlled.
The arrest of Hussein Osman (who apparently has at least one other
name/identity) in Rome (he apparently grew up in Italy), and the immediate
leaks from the Italian investigation, have accelerated the process in way
that the government may or may not have expected back on 27 July, when the
Prime Minister held his press conference.
Now at least the government is in a position to accept that Iraq is 'used'
to recruit, but continue to argue, in the face of evidence and logic, that
the invasion and occupation of Iraq have not increased the risk of terrorism
in the UK.
This argument is necessary to avoid the conclusion that withdrawal from Iraq
would decrease the risk of terrorism in the UK. The government is not
prepared at the moment to move to the politically costly position that it
would be better for the people of Britain to withdraw, but that we should
continue to suffer terrorism in London, and British casualties in Iraq, in
order to allegedly 'benefit' the people of Iraq.
Here is another masterclass in evasion from the Prime Minister, from his 26
July press conference:
Question:
I am going to return to Iraq, I am afraid, simply as a fact, rightly or
wrongly, do you accept the possibility that Britain's involvement in Iraq
has increased the danger of terrorism in this country?
Prime Minister:
I don't think I am going to answer that in different terms than I have
already answered I am afraid, which is to say that these people will use it.
But I honestly think this, and it is up to you whether you agree with it or
not, that the roots of this go a lot deeper. You come back to 11 September
and 11 September happened before Iraq or Afghanistan.
Question:
Would you accept the possibility?
Prime Minister:
I know what you are trying to do. [End of answer]
Is this genius or is this genius?
The simple fact is that without withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan the
risk of terrorism in the UK will continue at the present level. It's either
policy change, or more bombs.
SCHEUER: GRIM REALITIES
Michael Scheuer, the CIA's bin Laden expert from 1996 to 1999, has this to
say about policy:
America really has a choice between war and endless war, not between war and
peace. And what we have to do is to find a way to slow the growth in the
Muslim world of support for Osama bin Laden. And that comes down to
understanding that the motivation for the people fighting us has to do with
our policies.
Until America reviews those policies in an open and democratic way to decide
whether they still serve the interests of the United States, we’re really
just buying time a little bit at a time, in the sense that, again, the
military can’t possibly win this war over the long term.
... the idea that public diplomacy, which the 9/11 Commission Report
recommends as way out of this box, is also mistaken because we’re not going
to talk these people out of what they’re up to.
I think it’s a mistake to think the Muslims don’t understand our policy.
Whether they understand it correctly or not is another question, but it’s
certainly viewed as predatory policies in terms of the exploitation of
natural resources in the Islamic world, in terms of supporting police states
across the Islamic world, whether in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or in support
for Israel against virtually everyone else on any Islamic world.
... I think it would make a difference if there was some kind of change in
our policy toward Israel.
... You can ask me, as you did, what should we do. My answer to that is,
first of all, we need a shot of democracy inside the United States. The
just-completed Presidential campaign was completely barren on both sides of
any discussion of the foreign policy issues that are at play in this war
against Islamic militancy. The American people, I think, deserve to at least
have a voice in policies that have basically been on auto-pilot for 25
years, whether toward Israel, energy policy, support for the Saudis and the
Egyptians -- all of that -- I think it deserves a debate.
If, at the end of the debate, in our democratic process, the decision is to
keep those policies kind of as they are -- well, I think that might be a
mistake. But, at the same time, if that's what the country would want, then
at least the country would be going into the war against Islamic militancy
with its eyes open, knowing that those policies, more than anything else,
motivate our enemy.
We would go into it with our eyes open. We’d be expecting a very long war,
and a very bloody and costly war.
RIGHT QUESTION, WRONG ANSWER
David Cracknell of The Sunday Times poses the right question: 'How can we
stop this happening again?'
This question ought to be at the centre of political debate. It isn't.
It is barely posed.
It is presumed tacitly, without debate, that repression on a variety of
levels is to reduce the risk of further attacks.
And, indeed, the only answers examined by Cracknell are forms of repression
(anti-terrorist laws, ID cards, detention without charge, closing Muslim
schools, and so on).
The panel of 'experts' consulted include an MP with a large immigrant
population in his constituency, and a race relations expert at Warwick
University, a 'security expert', and a former police minister, and so on.
The Sunday Times panel is all white, all male, all middle-aged. None is
identified as a Muslim, and from the profiles available on the web of the
panelists, none of them holds to that faith.
Given that the threat being discussed is said to arise out of the young
Muslim population, the fact that not a single member of the panel belongs to
this social group is another sign of the demonisation of the Muslim
community.
Right question, wrong answers, wrong respondents. But at least The Sunday
Times deserves credit for explicitly asking how we can prevent further
atrocities.
(For some suggestions from JNV, see our briefing 'How to stop bin Laden'.
<http://tinyurl.com/apkjo>)
END OF MEDIA REVIEW
________________________________________
Sent via the Justice Not Vengeance announcements list
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.j-n-v.org/mailman/listinfo/jnv-announce.
JNV's website is at http://www.j-n-v.org
|
