| The
London Blasts: Media Review
DAY
57: 2 September 2005
The 7/7 Bombers Explain
Contents
MEDIA OVERVIEW
Right-wing Papers Give
Better Coverage, Front Pages
The 7/7 Bombers
Explain
The Two Statements,
The British Media And The Two Statements, Distraction
And Erasure
Transcripts
The Khan Tape, The Al-Zawahiri
Tape, The Timing Of The 7/7 Bombings
Ken Clarke Intervention
Out Of Time!
MEDIA OVERVIEW
RIGHT-WING PAPERS GIVE
BETTER COVERAGE
If it hadn't been for
the video of Mohammed Sidique Khan, lead 7/7 bomber, Kenneth
Clarke's anti-war speech would have been our top story,
and it would have deserved to be a front page story. Before
discussing the two interventions, and the media coverage
of them, in detail, let's just get a sense of the way the
British newspapers treated these two stories.
The first story was dynamite:
one of the 7/7 bombers explains why the bombings happened,
a question that has been at the centre of political debate
since they happened.
The second story was also
extraordinary: a senior Conservative is attempting to win
the leadership of his party (which requires support from
grassroots Conservative Party members) by attacking the
decision to go to war with Iraq in general, and, in particular,
the way in which it has heightened the risk of terror in
Britain.
Once again, we have a
version of the Telegraph Anomaly: the right-wing newspapers
give more attention and priority to these effectively anti-war
stories than the liberal newspapers.
FRONT PAGES
The dichotomy is clearest
with the most right-wing and most anti-war tabloids. The
Daily
Mail gives its front page over to a massive picture
of Khan, and just 28 pages encapsulating (without bias)
the whole story. On the other hand, the Daily
Mirror puts New Orleans on the front page, and clips
a picture of Khan to the top right hand corner as a link
to a story on page 15.
Online, the story is not listed in their top
stories of the day (there are nearly 50 of them).
Onto the 'quality' papers.
The Telegraph
is firm: the front page is dominated by a picture of Khan,
accompanied by a substantial story, which again is a fairly
unbiased statement of the facts. The
Times does the same trick as yesterday - New
Orleans text on the left (more important), and pictures
for the bomber on the right (three pictures in fact). The
one-paragraph summary is again factual.
The Guardian
has the same approach, but gives New Orleans both pictures
and text on the left (more important) and two-thirds of
the whole front page, while squeezing the Khan video into
top right with a tiny picture of Khan (below the fold).
The Financial
Times leads with New Orleans on the front page, and
has a top left teaser for the story (at the head of the
Business Briefing column) with a one-para summary leading
to the story on page 2.
Online, the story is not listed either in the UK
Home News section, or in the London
terror section of their site.
The Independent
has New Orleans on the front page, and no indication at
all of the Khan video either on the front page or any other
page, until it arrives on page
7. Online, it is the second listed story on the home
page.
So, to sum up, the right-wing
press has given more prominence to Mohammed Sidique Khan's
explanation that the bombings were motivated by Britain's
involvement in Iraq than the left-liberal Guardian
and Independent. The FT
and Mirror have pretty
much erased the story online.
Interesting, and an indication
of where this story is going. The same way as the Young
Muslims and Extremism report and the
Ken Clarke's Iraq speech
did not get onto any front pages in any shape or form.
THE 7/7 BOMBERS EXPLAIN
THE TWO STATEMENTS
The Khan video was handed
to al-Jazeera on a tape which also contained footage of
fighting in Iraq, Chechnya and Afghanistan, and a message
from al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The one clear message
of the Khan video is that the London bombings, while an
act of revenge, were at the same time designed to help deter
future 'atrocities' by Western governments:
'Your democratically elected governments
continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all
over the world. And your support
of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly
responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers
and sisters.'
'Until we feel security, you will
be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing,
imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop
this fight.'
The one clear message
of the al-Zawahiri video is that al-Qaeda is determined
to encourage and/or organise terrorist attacks until the
US and Britain have ended their interference in majority
Muslim countries:
'Our message to you
is clear, strong and final: there will be no salvation
until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil
and resources and end support for infidel, corrupt [Muslim]
rulers.'
THE BRITISH MEDIA AND
THE TWO STATEMENTS
Did this central message
get reported? In the sense that in most newspapers the crucial
words were quoted, the main message of the two statements
was technically 'reported'. However, when we look at the
framing of the reports, we see that this message was effectively
erased in most newspapers by the treatment given to the
two statements.
The treatment is summed
up in the Independent headline,
'Videotapes
reveal al-Qa'ida's link to July 7 London bombings'.
The key concern in most of the reporting is what the video
means in terms of the connection between the four 7/7 bombers
and the al-Qaeda hard core in Central Asia.
The Telegraph
has, 'Experts
are finally given the missing link to outside group'
- alongside the main story 'In a measured Yorkshire accent,
the July 7 suicide bomber delivers his message of hate'.
The FT
had two articles: 'Al-Qaeda
lays claim to July 7 London attacks' and 'Two
messages of hate aimed at reasserting terror network'.
The Guardian
had two stories: 'Video
of 7/7 ringleader blames foreign policy', which was
on the front page, and which did
reflect this central message, and '7/7
tape put under intense scrutiny', which was once again
concerned with the al-Qaeda link.
The
Times front page headline, '7/7 bomber's al-Qaeda
video blames the West for attacks' (not online), and page
2 headline, 'Suicide
bomber's video confession blames Iraq war', both reflected
the key message. The articles didn't really address the
point very much, but at least they didn't focus on the degree
of connection to the al-Qaeda core.
DISTRACTION AND ERASURE
It is an important question
- the extent to which these bombings were organised or instigated
by the al-Qaeda leadership, rather than just inspired by
them - but what has happened in almost all the coverage
is that the total focus on this issue means that the plain
words being said, by Khan and by al-Zawahiri, are being
rendered invisible. They are erased in front of your eyes
by the way the videos are framed and analysed.
Most of the media coverage
is, unfortunately, vindication for Khan's comment in his
video that, 'our words have
no impact upon you'.
TRANSCRIPTS
THE KHAN TAPE
The full text of the video
statement by lead bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan runs as follows:
'I'm going to keep this
short and to the point because it's all been said before
by far more eloquent people than me. And our words have
no impact upon you, therefore I'm going to talk to you
in a language that you understand.'
'Our words are dead until we give
them life with our blood.'
'I'm sure by now the media's painted
a suitable picture of me, this predictable propaganda
machine will naturally try to put a spin on things to
suit the government and to scare the masses into conforming
to their power and wealth-obsessed agendas.'
'I and thousands like me are forsaking
everything for what we believe. Our driving motivation
doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world
has to offer.'
'Our religion is Islam - obedience
to the one true God, Allah, and following the footsteps
of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad... This is
how our ethical stances are dictated.'
'Your democratically elected governments
continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all
over the world. And your support
of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly
responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers
and sisters.'
'Until we feel security, you will
be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing,
imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop
this fight.'
'We are at war and I am a soldier.'
'Now you too will taste the reality
of this situation.'
'I myself, I myself, I make dua (pray)
to Allah... to raise me amongst those whom I love like
the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's
heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman
al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other
brothers and sisters that are fighting in the... of this
cause.'
'With this I leave you to make up
your own minds and I ask you to make dua to Allah almighty
to accept the work from me and my brothers and enter us
into gardens of paradise.' (BBC
translation)
The second part of the
statement (in italics) is more indistinct.
The whole statement is
reproduced in the Daily Mail (page 3). The first
part is printed in the Telegraph
(page 7) and the Guardian
(page 11). No substantial section of the statement is in
either the Independent
or the FT, though both
carry quotes. The Daily Mirror
article (page 15) quotes two words from the statement.
You can watch the Khan
tape on the BBC website by clicking on the link on this
page. It's obvious that his statement has been edited
into two parts; it's not clear who by or if anything was
left out. It seems likely.
THE AL-ZAWAHIRI TAPE
It is difficult to find
anything like a complete text of al-Zawahiri's statement,
but here are bits and pieces taken from different sources,
starting with a partial translation by CNN:
'I talk to you today
about the holy attack on London, which came as a slap
in the face of the arrogant British crusaders.'
'Now you can taste a sip from the
glass Muslims have drunk from for centuries. This attack
adds to the attacks before in Washington, New York and
Madrid. We have moved the battle to the land of the enemy
after they battled us in our land for so long.'
'After centuries of invading our
land and occupying it ... this is for you to taste some
of what you have made us taste before.'
'Didn't the lion of Islam the Mujahid,
the sheikh Osama bin Laden, offer you a truce?... Look
what your arrogance has produced.'
'We have warned you over and over
again. We repeat the warning. ... We will erupt volcanoes
of hatred in their countries.'
Al-Jazeera itself has
a (partly overlapping) translation:
'I talk to you today
about the blessed London battle
which came as a slap to the face of the tyrannical, Crusader
British arrogance. It's a sip from the glass that the
Muslims have been drinking from.'
'This blessed battle has transferred
- like its glorious predecessors in New York, Washington
and Madrid - the fight to the enemies' land, after many
centuries of the battle being on our [Muslim] land and
after [Western] troops have occupied our land in Chechnya,
Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.'
' Blair not only disregards the millions of people in
Iraq and Afghanistan, but he does not care about you as
he sends you to the inferno in Iraq and exposes you to
death in your land because of his Crusader war against
Islam.'
'We have alerted and warned you,
people of Crusade allies, but it appears that you want
us to make you taste death in all its horribleness.'
'So, taste some of what we have been
made to taste.'
"Did not the Lion of Islam,
the Mujahid Shaikh Osama bin Laden, offer you a truce
so that you might depart from Islamic lands?'
'But you were obstinate and were
led by arrogance to more crimes and your Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw said that these proposals "deserve to
be met with our contempt".'
'Rejoice the outcome of your governments'
arrogance.'
'Blair brought upon you disasters
in the centre of your capital and we will bring upon you
more. He is still fooling his
people and insisting in his obstinacy to treat
them as if they are idiots incapable of understanding.'
The Guardian
has an extra, crucial, bit of this last
sentence:
'Blair has brought catastrophes to
his people in the middle of the capital, and will bring
more, God willing, because he is still fooling his people
and insisting and stubbornly treating them like ignorant
fools when he keeps repeating
that what happened in London has nothing to do with the
crimes he has committed in Palestine, Afghanistan and
Iraq.'
According to the
BBC, al-Zawahiri explicitly defined the crucial issues
for al-Qaeda. He said,
'The lands and interests
of the countries that took part in the aggression against
Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are targets for us.'
And he also
poured scorn on the condemnation of the London bombings
by British Muslim leaders, whom he describes as 'the scholars
of beggary'. The Guardian
quotes this rebuttal: 'We tell them treatment in kind is
just.'
The Guardian
has a section of al-Zawahiri's statement directed at the
US:
'If you continue the same hostile
policies you will see something that will make you forget
the horrors you have seen in Vietnam.'
'There is no way out for Washington
except by immediate withdrawal. Any delay in this decision
means more killing and losses. If you don't withdraw today,
you will inevitably withdraw tomorrow, but only after
tens of thousands are killed and injured.'
'Our message to you is clear, strong
and final: there will be no salvation until you withdraw
from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources and
end support for infidel, corrupt [Muslim] rulers.'
According to Arabic
News, the video tape also included footage of bin Laden
making his truce offer (discussed in an
earlier Media Review).
THE TIMING OF THE 7/7
BOMBINGS
Very importantly, The
Times says that al-Zawahiri 'claimed
the timing for the attacks was the anniversary of Britain
and other European countries ignoring a truce offer from
bin Laden to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan or
face a terror campaign.'
Bin Laden made his truce
offer on 15 April 2004. In it he said,
'The reconciliation
will start with the departure of its last soldier from
our country.'
'The door of reconciliation is open
for three months
of the date of announcing this statement.'
That offer ran out on
15 July 2004. The anniversary would have been 15 July 2005.
Bizarrely, this is almost exactly between the two attacks
on 7/7 and 21/7.
Police and security service
sources have been quoted as discounting any strong connection
between the two groups, but this bracketing of the truce
offer expiry anniversary is quite a coincidence if there
was no coordination between the two attacks.
It may be that the first
attacks were brought forward and 7 July was chosen because
of the G8 summit, and the consequent shift in security forces'
attention north of the border, but if al-Zawahiri is correct
in his explanation of the timing, July 2005 was chosen for
reasons completely unconnected with Britain hosting an international
summit.
Note the reference to
'democratically-elected governments' in Khan's statement
(which might have been recorded a year earlier, according
to various reports).
It may not be coincidental
that these bombings took place after
the May elections. Though the Labour Party lost a lot of
votes, and most people who voted didn't vote for them, the
election result was interpreted as an acceptance (however
reluctant) of Tony Blair's leadership, despite his crimes.
This is not to justify
the bombings in any way, but to explain how the course of
events may appear to the kind of people who are willing
to carry out these kinds of suicide bombings.
KEN CLARKE INTERVENTION
We ran out of time!
We'll try to write about
this important development tomorrow or Sunday.
We haven't finished with
the Khan/al-Zawahiri tape and their media coverage either.
The tape is going down the memory hole rapidly, you can
feel the suction as it begins to disappear.
JNV welcomes feedback.
This page last updated 2 September 2005
|