The London Blasts: Media Review

THREE MONTHS ON - FOUR YEARS ON

DAY 94: 9 October 2005

Contents

Denial - Nick Cohen: Those 'Liberals' / Bali

Repression - Ricin Jurors Speaks Out / Ten More Detainees

DENIAL - NICK COHEN

THOSE 'LIBERALS'

Nick Cohen, who is sort of a less belligerent David Aaronovitch, has a long piece specifically dedicated to denying any connection between al-Qaeda atrocities and US/UK foreign policy, entitled 'Self-delusion kills'. Subtitle: 'Liberals will blame anybody else for atrocities rather than accuse murderous Islamic terrorists'. (Observer, page 27)

Cohen's argument is that 'Avoidance of what al-Qaeda stands for began in 9/11 and has become endemic since.' True, but the 'avoidance' has been pursued energetically by the US/UK governments and their slavish supporters in academia and the media, rather than by those Cohen refers to as 'liberals'.

Let us recall at this point that the 'liberals', or what the Guardian at one point called 'the hard left', includes (see Briefing 84) British intelligence (the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI5 and the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre); the Home Office and Foreign Office (in the Young Muslims and Extremism report); the Royal Institute for International Affairs; British business; and three-quarters or so of the British public. They all link the threat of terrorism in the UK to British foreign policy in support of the US 'war on terror' - especially the war in Iraq.

BALI

Anyhow, Cohen has many lines of 'argument'. One of them concerns the latest Bali bombings:

'what needs saying is that no mainstream commentator mentioned that we have the grievance of Indonesian Islamists on the record. It has nothing to do with the foreign policy of the first Wilson administration or stingy tipping in Bali's restaurants. After the 2002 explosions in Bali killed 200, Osama bin Laden declared: "Australia is the one that we have warned before not to participate in Afghanistan, not to mention its continued awful chapter in East Timor. They ignored our warning and they woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali." '

'My guess is that people don't want to look at al-Qaeda's condemnations of Australia's role in saving (largely Catholic) East Timor from destruction by the militias of (largely Muslim) Indonesia. It's too frightening to contemplate; it takes you into the darkness to confront Islamism's impossible and therefore unappeasable demand for a caliphate and reminds you of its imperial urge to dominate Muslims and subjugate all others.'

It is absolutely true that bin Laden regards (Catholic) East Timor as part of (Muslim) Indonesia's territory. It is absolutely true that bin Laden wants all the Muslim lands to integrate into a single Caliphate ruled in accordance with his version of Islam.

However, this long-term vision of bin Laden's (and al-Qaeda's) is not necessarily the primary motor for the atrocities being committed in the here-and-now. We have already pointed out that extremism is growing in Indonesia, and it is growing in large part because of US foreign policy:

'A survey in 2000 showed 75 percent of Indonesians had a favorable opinion of the United States. By 2003, however, 83 percent said they have an unfavorable opinion of America, particularly after the war in Iraq. 'Islamic scholar Azyumardi Azra said certain U.S. policies have alienated the moderate Muslims in the nation.'

'That growing distrust towards the United States has become radical Islam's most powerful recruitment tool. Though authorities began clamping down on radical groups after the Bali bombing last year that killed more than 200 people, the appeal of radical Islam's anti-American message remains strong.' (CNN, December 2003)

What Cohen doesn't want to face up to is the part of bin Laden's statement that refers not only to East Timor, but also to the war in Afghanistan, something which is almost as important to al-Qaeda militants as Iraq, it seems. East Timor, on the other hand, is barely on the radar.

Let's leave the rest of Cohen's ranting and misrepresentation and move on.

REPRESSION

RICIN JURORS SPEAK OUT

The Observer (page 4) carries a piece based on tonight's Panorama programme on the new Blair-Clarke laws. Included are interviews with three jurors from the 'ricin'/'no-ricin' trial:

'One juror, speaking anonymously, told the programme: "Before the trial I had a lot of faith in the authorities to be making the right decisions on my behalf ... having been through this trial I'm very sceptical now as to the real reasons why this new legislation is being pushed through." '

'Two jurors told The Observer they were shocked when a number of the men they had freed after a seven-month trial were re-arrested earlier this year.'

'One juror said: "I was dumbfounded ... During the trial there were clearly different degrees of evidence against different defendants. But in a couple of cases, the evidence was so flimsy you couldn't see where the arrest came from in the first place. To re-arrest them seemed totally unreasonable." '

'A female juror added that the trial revealed failures by the authorities: "[There was] poor intelligence, police having misinformation and not really understanding the background, the government willing something along because of the impending war and it gathered its own momentum ... Now they are trying to justify why the arrests happened." '

The Observer says it is 'unusual' for jurors to speak to the media. Er, yes. That's because it is actually illegal for jurors to talk about what happened in the jury room, according to section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (see the CPS website, the section on 'Improper Approaches to Jurors'). Even academic research is banned.

Once again, it is necessary to remind us that:

'The trial revealed that no traces of ricin has been found in the flat occupied by the suspects in Wood Green, north London.'

We put out a briefing on the 'ricin'/'no-ricin' case, and there was an item about it on 16 September.

TEN MORE DETAINEES

There were straight and unadorned reports in the Sunday Telegraph (page 2, not online) and Observer (page 7). The Sunday Times (page 1) was characteristically melodramatic: 'Car bomb attacks foiled'. This threw in every thing they could hope for:

'Scotland Yard has arrested 10 Islamist terror suspects who were thought to be plotting multiple car bombings against targets in Britain in a "follow-up" to the July 7 attacks on London. The 10 men were detained in co-ordinated dawn raids in London, Derby and Wolverhampton yesterday.'

'They are believed to have been part of a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the notorious chief of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. As well as planning bomb attacks in this country, the suspects may have been preparing to send Islamic extremists from Britain to fight the coalition forces in Iraq, security officials said.'

All that's missing is the chemical/biological weapons.

Er. Actually, the conventional explosives for this 'plot' are missing as well. Over the fold on page 2 (are we noticing a pattern here?) some important admissions are made:

'They [the police] emphasised that no explosives had been recovered in the searches, which will continue today.'

'A British official said the latest arrests involved men who might have links to the Iraq-based terrorist chief. "They may have been preparing to help jihadists [holy warriors] go to Iraq," he added.' (Emphasis added)

And the latest arrests may lead to miscarriages of justice, and they may produce jurors willing to speak out in years to come.

JNV welcomes feedback.