7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction

5 October 2010

With the fifth anniversary of 7/7 coming and going with the slightest of official acknowledgment and with no sign of an official inquiry, it remains up to the independent media and campaigners to keep up the pressure on the authorities. In that vein, Howard Beale's News Hour is pleased to present the feature-length documentary 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction. A 2 1/2 hour production, 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction is an extensive exploration of many of the questions and conspiracy theories about the bombings in London on July 7th 2005. Comprised of footage gleaned from mainstream news websites and youtube, it situates the debate about July 7th firmly in the context of the lengthy history of Western covert operations, and the ongoing policy of the global 'War on Terror'. The first part of the film covers three specific periods - Central America circa 1954-63, Italy from 1945-1990, and Afghanistan/Pakistan/the Balkans from 1979-present day. The exploration of Operation PBSUCCESS - the overthrow of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz - Operation Pluto/Zapata - the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs - Operation Gladio - NATO's false flag terrorism in Europe - and Operation Cyclone - the CIA's sponsorship of the mujahideen in Afghanistan - focuses largely on the psychological warfare elements of these black ops, including their attempts to manipulate the media and public opinion.

Though not by any means a comprehensive history of such operations, this exploration provides ample evidence of official deceptions, black operations and false flag sponsorship of terrorism. These tactics are nothing new. Though it is perhaps a mythical account of events that may or may not have actually happened, Homer's Iliad provides a wonderful example of the value and power of such military tactics. One of the oldest works in Western literature, it tells the story of several weeks of the decade-long siege of Ilion by an alliance of different states from what we now called Greece. Commonly known as the Trojan War, the conflict showed how deception was an inherent part of Europe's first great empire.

The Iliad primarily tells the story of period where a quarrel between King Agamemnon (overlord of Mycenae and Argos) and Achilles (the legendary warrior who was virtually invulnerable) saw the Greeks being forced back towards the beaches near Troy, in what is now Turkey. As told in books 15 and 16 of the Iliad, as the Trojan forces threatened the Greek ships, a Greek soldier named Patroclus rushed to Achilles, his cousin, to try to persuade him to rejoin the fighting. Achilles refused, saying to get back in touch with him when the Trojan reached his own flotilla of around 50 vessels. However, Achilles did concede to allowing Patroclus wear his armour and lead his soldiers, the fearsome Myrmidons, into battle to help the other Greek forces. This provided the dual benefit of enabling Patroclus to lead Greece's best soldiers back into the fray and also scaring the Trojans into believing that the awesome Achilles had rejoined the battle. However, pride got the better of Patroclus and once he'd saved the ship he pursued the Trojans inland and ended up being killed by the Trojan hero Hector. This brought Achilles back into the battle and he killed Hector to avenge his cousin, trailing the body around the walls of the city of Troy behind his chariot. The conflict culminated with the Trojan Horse, the best known false flag attack of all time. At least until 9/11 anyway.

What might we make of this in modern times? Whether this actually happened, in this way, is impossible to know. At best we make educated guesses as to history before the written record. However, it is important to realise that without the psychological effect of Achilles' armor, the Greeks might have lost the Trojan War at that point. Violence on its own is half as effective, if even that, compared to violence combined with an intelligence propaganda and deception strategy, what are now known as psychological operations. Patroclus not only deceived his enemy, the Trojans, but also his allies, the Myrmidons commanded by Achilles. The equivalent today is one interpretation of 'Al Qaeda', i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Awlaki, Ayamn Zawahiri, Omar Bakri and so on. They serve as a object of fixation for our foreign policy, an 'enemy image' such as that talked about by neoconservative intellectual Carl Schmitt, this much is widely recognised. However, they also serve as an object of fixation for the many disenfranchised, alienated or just angry/unhappy Muslims of the world, a 'hero image' like Achilles armor.

Bin Laden in particular is an increasingly obvious psyop. His latest tape, a comparatively rational call for help for the flood-stricken areas of Pakistan, is not a call to arms like his two fatwas of the 1990s, or his other recordings of the 2000s, and so indicates a shift in policy. Though Bin Laden the man has probably been dead for years, Bin Laden the symbol, the image, can live on indefinitely. So, whoever the speaker on the tape actually is, their attack on the failings of the Pakistani government to deal with the floods that have so far claimed thousands of lives and rendered millions homeless, only serves to foment instability in a country increasingly being seen as a target by Western foreign policy makers. This makes far more sense if Bin Laden is a Western psyop than if he's an Islamic fundamentalist seeking to destroy the West and establish a caliphate. In this role, he not only provides the means for very real violence (the war in Afghanistan, most obviously) that excuses our foreign policy, but also for the psychological violence of our domestic policy. Just as young Muslims in Pakistan are turned towards joining the mujahideen or Taleban, inspired by Bin Laden and his ilk, young Muslims in the UK and elsewhere are turned towards acts of petty (or non-existent) criminality. This provides a justification for the destruction of civil liberties and for the arrest of hundreds of mostly young Muslim men who are instantly labelled 'terror suspects'. Assuming Bin Laden is not a complete fucking idiot, why would he so willingly play this role given how convenient it is to those advancing the 'war on terror' ideology, now rebranded as the 'struggle with violent extremism'?

Into this context came 7/7, the bombings in London on July 7th 2005. The explosions on the underground supposedly took place at 8:50 a.m. and the news broke at around 9:15. For over an hour the news media unanimously reported that 'power surges' were to blame, and that the explosions were primarily electrical in nature. At 9:47 a bus blew up in central London, and the story began to shift. At around 10:45 the BBC began reporting that the security services had informed BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner that they believed the explosions were bombings caused by Al Qaeda. This set off a chain of comments from officials and media commentators that that the events 'bore all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda', even though Al Qaeda as it is officially identified had never attacked public transport systems before. The 2004 Madrid train bombings were, at least according to the Spanish government, perpetrated by a local Spanish/North African Islamist group, who had no connection to Bin Laden. A two-year investigation in Spain found no evidence of an Al Qaeda link, and so unless MI5 knew something the Spanish authorities did not, MI5 had no evidence of Al Qaeda being involved in Madrid, hence had no evidence that attacks on the London public transport system 'bore all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda'. That they were making this claim less than two hours after the initial explosions very strongly suggests a cover story, and hence a psyop. That they were making this claim through an anonymous claim via the state-funded broadcaster pretty much confirms a cover story, and hence a psyop.

Curiously, the security services then went into a complete reverse, saying that the bombings were carried out by four homegrown 'self-radicalised' suicide bombers, working entirely alone, with no connection to a wider network and no connection to Al Qaeda. The phrase 'clean skins' was bandied around like it was going out of fashion, with the intelligence service lurching from being so sure who was responsible less than 2 hours after the initial phase of the bombings to claiming to have had no foreknowledge whatsoever. MI5 and Special Branch said they had no records of the men alleged to have been responsible, and therefore were completely innocent of any 'intelligence failure' in their mission to stop this exact sort of attack. This became the official story, published in the second report of May 2006, written by the Intelligence and Security Committee. However, the report contradicts this broad conclusion, stating:

36. Investigations since July have shown that the group was in contact with others involved in extremism in the UK, including a number of people who ***. There is no intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers.

37. Siddeque Khan is now known to have visited Pakistan in 2003 and to have spent several months there with Shazad Tanweer between November 2004 and February 2005. It has not yet been established who they met in Pakistan, but it is assessed as likely that they had some contact with Al Qaida figures.

55. It is also clear that, prior to the 7 July attacks, the Security Service had come across Siddeque Khan and Shazad Tanweer on the peripheries of other surveillance and investigative operations. - ISC Report, 2006

Far from being 'clean skins' with no connection to any kind of wider network, two of the alleged bombers had visited Pakistan where MI5 presumed they met Al Qaeda figures, and the same two (Khan and Tanweer) had been observed by MI5 as part of an investigation into a suspected terrorist group in Britain.

More information about this came to light during the trial of the 'fertiliser bomb plotters', i.e. Omar Khyam and his miscellaneous associates. The suspects in this plot had been arrested in March/April 2004, and though they had been photographed, videotaped and bugged talking to Khan and Tanweer, MI5 did nothing to follow up the two men who would allegedly become suicide bombers a year later. An excerpt from this surveillance can be watched here. It was also claimed in the trial that the mastermind of the fertiliser bomb plot was a man known as 'Q' but named after the trial as Mohammed Quayyum Khan. However, 'Q' was never arrested, never questioned about his role in the plot, never called as a witness at the trial. Suspicions abound that he was a double agent, an informant for MI5 and/or Special Branch. This is of particular importance to 7/7 because at the fertiliser bomb plot trial it was claimed that 'Q' was 'instrumental' in getting Mohammed Siddique Khan, the alleged 7/7 ringleader, to Pakistan in 2003.

While there, Mohammed Siddique Khan, along with the supposed leader of the fertiliser plot Omar Khyam, received 'terror training' at a camp in Malakand set up by Mohammed Junaid Babar. Babar is a Pakistani American who grew up in New York, but apparently set out to participate in the jihad in Afghanistan after he was inspired by watching the 9/11 attacks. He set up the camp in Malakand, and provided training to two alleged ringleaders. Junaid Babar gave a couple of inflammatory interviews when he first left the US, saying he was going to 'kill every American I see' in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to the Washington Post:

U.S. counterterrorism officials said Babar first hit their radar screen in late 2001, after the incendiary comments he made to ITN were broadcast. - Dan Eggen, Washington Post

Babar returned to the US in April 2004 and a few days later the FBI arrested. According to the Feds he was turned and became an informant almost immediately, but the indications are that he'd at least been under surveillance, if not an active double agent, since late in 2001. He became the 'Al Qaeda supergrass', a term purloined from the days of prosecutions of the Mafia, and was the key witness at the fertiliser bomb plot trial, and the trial of three men alleged to have been co-conspirators to the 7/7 plot.

This doesn't add up. If Babar was a compliant informant in 2004, then even if he didn't identify the alleged 7/7 bombers at that time he certainly identified them after the bombings had happened. According to the above Washington Post article:

He has identified at least one of the suicide bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, through photographs and has provided other details that may be helpful in unraveling the plot, according to law enforcement and intelligence sources. - Washington Post

As such, MI5 knew in the latter part of 2005 who it was that Mohammed Siddique Khan met in Pakistan in 2003, and so that the ISC couldn't figure it out in 2006 beggars belief. It became clear that the intelligence services and the authorities employed to oversee their work were not telling the truth about what they knew and when they knew it.

This is only one of many crucial elements of the official story of 7/7 that has been radically revised over time. Everything from the nature of the explosives used to the direction and location of the tube trains hit by the bombings, to the extent to which the security services had opportunities to interdict the plot has been rewritten in truly Orwellian fashion. Each new version is heralded by the mainstream media as 'the truth' and each prior version left behind as an irrelevance. Ultimately, those who talk of 'the official story' or 'the official version' are referring to a plural entity, chock full of internal contradictions, and subject to massive external contradictions with all of its various bedfellows over the years of revision. Hence the title of the film, '7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction', as the official story contains the tools for its own dismantling, the blossom of its own falling apart. Like the ancient cities of Latin America, now taken back by the forests and jungle, it is an artifice, perhaps designed to be subject to ever increasing change and redrafting. Given this perpetual destabilising of the key aspects of the government's story we can be forgiven for asking why it is that the only constant aspect of the story that the four alleged bombers were responsible. You can watch 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction in sections on youtube, or via the embedded player below.

You can also watch or download the film on stagevu. With the inquests due to begin for real next week I firmly encourage concerned citizens of all stripes to follow proceedings both through the media and on the official inquest website. I will be attempting to cover them in detail on this blog, and there are plans afoot for a followup film to 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction examining the repeated failure of justice institutions to proceed with impartiality in virtually every aspect of their role in the ongoing war on terror.