The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 24: Sunday 31 July 2005

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.

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'.)

JNV welcomes feedback.