The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 59: 4 September 2005

The 7/7 Bombers Explain Part III

Contents

Editorials - Saturday

Editorials - Sunday

Gassing

The Best Reporter...

THE 7/7 BOMBERS EXPLAIN - PART III

EDITORIALS - SATURDAY

One last word about Saturday's editorials. The Independent indicated the approach taken by the entire available media spectrum in one fatalistic phrase:

'This has been a week of disaster, both natural and man-made. And at the eye of the storm lies Iraq. We are reaping the whirlwind of the duplicitous and arrogant manner in which our leaders took us to war. And we now find ourselves tied to the consequences of the calamity we have created in that nation. It is no wonder we are finding it so hard - in Tony Blair's unfortunate phrase - to "move on" from Iraq.'

Nothing can be done. We cannot withdraw. That is the message of the right-wing press, and it is the message being given by the 'left-liberal' press.

EDITORIALS - SUNDAY

There were no editorials on the Khan-al-Zawahiri tape in either the Observer or the Sunday Telegraph. The Sunday Times devoted its editorial to the topic of whether or not the families of the 7/7 bombers should be invited to the memorial service for the victims of the attack. There was no mention of the motives of the bombers. The Independent on Sunday (paid-for access) ranged over a number of topics, ending with the rousing cry, 'Let us hope that the titular leaders of the Muslim faith in Britain will speak [out against terrorism and affirming loyalty to Britain] with a comparable lack of ambiguity'.

There was a reference to the bombers' motivations in the IOS, though. The editorial 'The terror is not over', noted that there were few calls for the Khan video not to be broadcast, in contrast to the reaction to bin Laden's post-9/11 video:

'More sensible to show the video so that, in the Prime Minister's words, the ideology that lies behind suicide jihadism can be challenged. So that the absurdity of accusing the British of "gassing" Muslims can be exposed. So that the poison of presenting Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir as a single "war" against Muslims can be drawn. So that it can be pointed out that, in Iraq, al-Qa'ida is killing Shias for being the wrong sort of Muslims.'

The Independent on Sunday does not deny that atrocities are being committed. It does not deny that Britain is supporting states that commit atrocities against Muslims. It does not deny that Britain is itself engaged in atrocities in Iraq or elsewhere.

These denials don't need to be made, they are assumed.

The IOS is against the censorship of 'not-showing'. It prefers the self-censorship of 'not-mentioning', 'not-discussing' and 'not-rebutting'.

GASSING

On the topic of gassing, a Google search with the terms 'gassing' and 'Muslims' brings up this question from a BBC viewer:

'Sidique Khan says that our democratically elected governments have been involved with the murder, bombing, gassing and torture of Muslims worldwide - but what, I wish I could ask him, was Saddam Hussain doing to his fellow Muslims for decades? Why was he never opposed by these people?'

'And where, exactly, is the gassing and torturing taking place?'

'Show me the evidence that these things are going on, and that my government is involved in them, and you won't need bombs to bring down our governments - after all, they are accountable to us, and i do not think the people of this country will stomach a government that inflicts such horrors on any people of any faith. But alas, you will not. Indeed, you cannot, for although there may be a grain of truth in his accusations, that grain is all there is, twisted and warped and inflated until it assumes monstrous proportions in your minds.'

Kelvin Walker, Glos, UK

That was No. 3 in the search returns. No. 6 is a reference in Jihadwatch that leads to this ABC story from 27 October 2004:

Thailand says 78 Muslims died in army custody

Almost 80 Muslims died in military custody in southern Thailand, suffocated while being transported in trucks to an army barracks after a violent demonstration, officials said.

Only six people were previously believed to have been killed when troops and police opened fire to quell a riot outside a police station on Monday in the restive, Muslim-majority region.

The huge leap in the toll, and the manner of the deaths, are bound to add to tensions. One local Muslim scholar accused authorities of gassing the victims and called it a massacre.

...The deaths appear to have occurred while the detainees, who were stripped semi-naked after their arrest, were being taken by truck to barracks in Pattani, a journey that took five hours, Major-General Sinchai Nutsatit told the news conference.

"We have never seen this sort of torture in Thai history before. It is just like gassing them," said Ahmad Somboon Bualuang, an Islamic scholar from the Prince of Songkhla University in Pattani province.

"It is a deliberate massacre. They rounded protesters up and crammed them into closed trucks. They died from lack of air."

... "This is typical," Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said when asked about reports of scores dead. "It's about bodies made weak from fasting [during Ramadan]. Nobody hurt them."

It hardly needs to be mentioned that this is a larger death toll than London suffered on 7 July.

At this point, we do not know what Mohammad Sidique Khan was thinking of - it's possible more documents or video s may be released which expand on his brief statement - but it seems likely that this massacre in Thailand is the reference to 'gassing Muslims' that he had in mind. The word 'gassing' is not an accurate description of the atrocity, but it captures the outrage we might have felt - and then forgotten.

Outrage exacerbated by the Prime Minister's explanation for the deaths.

The actions of the Thai state can clearly not be laid at the door of the British Government. But many Muslims might see British indifference to the oppression of Muslims in Thailand as an example of what the Home Office and Foreign Office described as the 'passive oppression' of Muslims around the world. (See the Young Muslims and Extremism report.)

We presume no answer is required to the question 'where is the torture of Muslims taking place'. The starting point must be Abu Ghraib. The list is long, for those who care to search.

THE BEST REPORTER...

Jason Burke, author of Al Qaeda and chief reporter for the Observer, is one of the best informed reporters in Britain on this topic. His article on the 7/7 bomber video is therefore of great interest.

How does Burke address the central message of the Khan video, that the cause of the bombing is Britain's involvement in atrocities against Muslims?

How does Burke address the central message of the al-Zawahiri video statement on the same tape, that Britain and other European countries had failed to respond to the offer of a truce, made by Osama bin Laden in April 2004?

Well, the al-Zawahiri reference to al-Qaeda's offer of a truce does not get a mention in Burke's article in the Observer: 'Secrets of the bomber's death tape' (pages 8-9).

On the other hand, Khan's explanation of his intended actions is discussed - after fourteen long paragraphs. It comes on the second page of this two-page article.

The first fourteen paragraphs discuss where and when the tape might have been made, al-Qaeda's film production capabilities, and whether the video changes our understanding of the links between the 7/7 gang and the al-Qaeda core.

Unlike other commentators and reporters, Burke has some sort of excuse for prioritising the production aspects of the tape, as he has a programme on the topic of al-Qaeda media work coming out on 26 September ('Channel Terror', on BBC4, a digital television channel).

Nevertheless, it is clear that the most significant aspect of this story comes in paragraph 15:

'However, though probably not filmed here, Khan's words are directed at Muslims in the West. Khan makes various points, in clear English devoid of religious rhetoric, reference to the Koran or Islamic history. He explains why civilians are targets, saying that in a democracy everyone bears responsibility for the government's actions. These, in this case, involve 'the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture' of Muslims. He rejects national identity in favour of the ummah, the global community of believers, explaining that the violence will continue as long as the government continues to "perpetuate atrocities" against "his Muslim brothers and sisters". He also makes an important theological point often overlooked by Western observers but deeply relevant to activists who might be considering violence. He says bombs are justified because the ummah is under attack, violent resistance is an obligation on all believers and "collateral damage" in the form of the death of innocents is thus acceptable. Where the tape is in Arabic, there are English subtitles - a first.'

The fact that Muslims are being attacked in a very large number of states, without any appreciable response from the civilized West, apart from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, is not discussed.

Burke's article ends by noting that with the advent of modern communications,

'all Khan, al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda need are some images, a computer and something of sufficient interest to make their statements newsworthy. The audience will then come to them, ready-made.'

What is missing from this piece, as from the coverage generally, is any sense at all of the rage that Muslims feel over the killings, suffocations, torture, dispossession and humiliation suffered by Muslim communities around the world.

All Khan and al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda need to do is to show that they are doing something dramatic about this disaster. What they do is immoral, utterly ineffective in relieving the suffering of Muslims, and indeed counter-productive. But it recognises and affirms the rage many Muslims feel, and it promises a way out of helplessness.

In contrast, the British media deny and self-censor both the rage and its causes - not only among Muslims. They entrench feelings of helplessness and despair - not only among Muslims.

Who is doing more to incite terrorism?

JNV welcomes feedback.