This story is so full of holes that it isn’t even funny, particularly when the UK press have accepted the story so uncritically.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5154714.stm
-
The man in the video doesn’t look particularly like the other pictures we’ve been shown of Shehzad Tanweer. In fact, this picture
and this picture
probably aren’t of the same person at all. -
He says, “What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger.” He is clearly refering to past attacks, not the bombings in London. Whoever this man is (whether or not he is Tanweer), he isn’t talking about London.
-
There are constant mentions of Al Qaeda, for no apparent reason. Nowhere in the video clips that I’ve seen done the man (Tanweer or otherwise) mention Al Qaeda. Indeed, his claim that the attacks would stop only when Britain ceases its support for America and Israel and removes troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is at odds with the radical Islamic philosophy that all people involves in the corrupt western democratic system (which makes people the authority, rather than Allah) should be killed. Indeed, the position expressed is a sort of moderate-radical-militant-islamic position, if you can have such a thing. This contradiction is particularly obvious and yet UK mass media is practically silent on this issue.
-
Scotland Yard said that the timing of the release was designed to cause maximum outrage and hurt. Funny, it also played right into the government’s hands at a time when their anti-terrorism policies were coming under immense scrutiny due to the Forest Gate-gate scandal. Indeed, all the recent stories about deaths in Afghanistan, this video, the first anniversary of the attacks, all happening together, has given the government their first piece of good news in months.
-
Despite the fact that we’ve never had a public inquiry into the attacks, most people still accept the official story, despite the gross intelligence cockups/manufacturings that led to the Iraq war, the killing of Jean Carlos de Menezes and the Forest Gate mess, they trust the government over this. A few CCTV images and mention of DNA evidence are enough for a lot of people.
Some very real people died in those attacks, and others were severely injured. Indeed, the government’s response in helping the victims has been minimal, particularly when it is compared to the resources they’ve put into fabricating laughable convictions of supposed terrorists (including one man who was convicted for owning a gun and newspaper clippings about a soldier in Iraq, supposedly for planning to murder the soldier) and increasing the size of MI5 and so on. I’m still waiting for a proper, believable account of what happened in London a year ago, and all I see is flaccid contradictions and weak-minded journalism, and a government who at the very least are taking advantage of the attacks to justify things that they would not otherwise have been able to do.