July 09, 2005

London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants www.visorconsultants.com/index.html , which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

The transcript is as follows.

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

Click www.prisonplanet.com/audio/090705exercise_clip_2.mp3 here for a clip of this dialogue www.prisonplanet.com/audio/090705exercise_clip.mp3 . Click here for a longer clip where the comments can be heard in their full context.

The fact that the exercise mirrored the exact locations and times of the bombings is light years beyond a coincidence. Power said the drill focused around 'simultaneous bombings'. At first the bombings were thought to have been spread over an hour, but the BBC reports just today that the bombings were in fact simultaneous.



Mr. Power (pictured above) and Visor Consultants need not have been 'in on the bombing' or anything of that nature for this to be of importance. The British government or one of their private company offshoots could have hired Visor to run the exercise for a number of purposes.

Terrorism expert Tommy Preston of Preston Global in Frankfort, Kentucky, said sources in the intelligence community reported that at least one person in London, England was warned of Thursday morning's terrorist attacks moments before the initial blast. Preston, citing sources in the intelligence community, said former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was in London this morning for an economic forum. "Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion," Preston said.

Hindu leaders ask community members to be vigilant after London attack

Intellibriefs received this statement from leading Hindu lobbyist in US which asks it's members to be vigilant


Hindu temples and centres need to be vigilant after London attack

Note:Please circulate this message to as many temples and
organisations as you can.

HFB letter for vigilance...

Hindu temples and centres need to be vigilant after London attack

Namaste and Jaya Shri Krishna. The recent terror attacks in London can
pose an immediate security issue for Hindu places of worship and
individuals. It is not uncommon for a backlash against particular
communities after such incidents. However, perpetrators of hate crime
will rarely make a difference between a mosque, a temple and a
gurdwara. They may attack any place of worship that looks different.
We are therefore urgently appealing to all Hindu temples and community
centres to be extra vigilant, particularly at night and during
festival times and gatherings.

As a precautionary measure, all temples and community centres are
requested to follow the guidelines below:

1. Be more vigilant in the aftermath of the attacks. If you
notice any suspicious individuals or packages, please become more
alert and report to the Police

2. Make sure that your CCTV equipment (if it exists) is working
and is able to record

3. For any public event or gathering, please increase the number
of security stewards in fluorescent or high visibility jackets.
Increase the patrol outside your temple or centre.

4. If you receive any hate mail or other item, do not handle it.
Place it in a plastic bag until it is handed to the Police.

Please follow the following guidelines, if your temple or community
centre becomes victim of a hate attack:

1. Immediately contact your local police. Get their number
through Directory Enquiries. For emergencies you can dial 999
directly.

2. Call the Hindu Forum Security Help Desk by speaking to Hemant
Patel, our Chief Security Consultant on 07973 668 892 and report your
concerns. If you cannot get through to him please speak to Hindu Forum
staff at our office on 020 8965 0671 or by fax on 020 8965 0672 or by
email at info@hinduforum.org

3. Lodge your complaint with the Anti-terrorist Hot Line on 0800 789 321

4. Register the event with the Commission for Racial Equality
Safe Communities Unit on 020 7939 0178 or by fax on 020 7939 0001

5. If you are concerned for the safety of a missing person please
ring 0870 156 5344

Please feel free to call the Hindu Forum of Britain to discuss any
fears you may have regarding the security of your temples or
individuals. We are here to serve you.

Ramesh Kallidai

Secretary General
Unit 3, Vascroft Estate, 861 Coronation Road, Park Royal, London NW10 7PT
Phone 020 8965 0671, Fax 020 8965 0672 email: info@hinduforum.org
Website: www.hinduforum.org

8th July 2005

British Hindus do not want terrorism to divide communities

7 July 2005 - The Hindu Forum of Britain today condemned the
explosions in London as a barbaric attack on human dignity, democratic
freedom and modern civilisation and called for extra vigilance
following the tragic events.

Ramesh Kallidai, Secretary General of the Hindu Forum of Britain said:
"While the Police investigate the causes of these terrible incidents,
we must all remain alert and vigilant."

"One of the most shameful fallouts of terrorism is that it aims to
divide communities by creating fear and suspicion," he continued.
"Britain is a good example of a multicultural society where all faith
communities have been living together peacefully. It is now more
important than ever to ensure that we do not succumb to terrorism by
allowing ourselves to be divided. All faith communities in the UK
should make an even stronger resolve to work together in our fight
against all forms of terror."

Chair of the Security Committee of the Hindu Forum, Arjan Vekaria
said: "Although the full facts as to the causes of the explosions are
not yet know I would say that if this is a terrorist attack then we as
a nation must be strong and firm headed when dealing with terrorists
and send a message that the UK will not bow down to them. The Hindu
community fully supports the Police's efforts to bring the culprits to
justice. I would like to express our gratitude to the emergency
services on their sterling efforts so far and would like to convey the
Forum's condolences and sympathies to the families of those who have
died and to those that have been injured during the events of today."

Ends

For more information contact Sanjay Mistry on 07810 368 772 or Ramesh
Kallidai on 07915 383 103 or 07867 837 241
Editor's Notes:

1. The Hindu Forum of Britain is the representative
body for British Hindus with formal membership of over 250 Hindu
organisations from different regions and cultural backgrounds in
Britain. The Hindu Forum of Britain has conducted some of the largest
community consultation activities on behalf of the Hindu community to
influence Government policy and runs a number of projects for Hindu
youth, women and temples.

2. Although the Hindu Forum is a national
organisation, it has a large regional presence through its membership
from the largest regional umbrella organisations, religious
organisations, community organisations and youth organisations. These
include the Hindu Council of Brent, Hindu Council of Birmingham, Hindu
Council of Harrow, Leicester Festival Hindu Council, the Hindu Council
of the North, Bolton Hindu Forum, National Hindu Students Forum, Hindu
Youth UK, Kutch Leva Patel Community, Lohana Mahajan UK, Prajapati
Association UK, and the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness.

3. At the core of the Forum's activities is a
strong belief in the richness and diversity of the Hindu culture, its
value system that encompasses respect for all beings and faiths, and a
cultural heritage that facilitates community cohesion and coexistence.
Further information can be secured from HFB Website:
www.hinduforum.org.

London's Islamists unusually mum

By Seth Rosen
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 9, 2005

London's notoriously outspoken Islamists, a media-savvy faction who have publicly praised the September 11 hijackers and called for Islamic law in Britain, have fallen unusually silent since Thursday's rush-hour attack on commuters.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical cleric known for giving his cell phone number to reporters, did not answer yesterday or the previous day.
The Web site of the sheik's followers was offline, and Anjem Choudhary, his top assistant, refused to comment on the blasts that left scores dead.
In contrast, Muslim clerics and residents of London condemned the bombings without reservation, including one of Mr. Bakri's supporters.
"My reaction is the same as the British public -- it is an act of terrorism and I'm deeply saddened," said Abu Bakar Siddique. "Many innocents lives were lost and many Muslims died."
In his lectures and interviews, Mr. Bakri often walks a fine line between the right to preach and the criminal offense of incitement of violence.
He has repeatedly called the September 11 hijackers "magnificent," and in Internet sermons, as reported by the Times of London, he implores Muslims to fulfill their "duty" of jihad and to support the mujahideen abroad.
Mr. Bakri defended the March 2004 Madrid train bombing, and said that British Muslims should "kill and be killed" for Islam.
To his young supporters, he provides religious guidance and advises them on how to survive in what they perceive as a corrupt and racist society.
His detractors say that behind the cryptic language is an extremist whose incendiary sermons radicalize disenchanted youth.
"Do they think they can continue in this anarchism without paying the price?" Mr. Bakri asked more than 60 men who filled a community center in East London in March. No more than a handful were over 25.
The Syrian-born Mr. Bakri was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1986 for his inflammatory preaching and involvement in the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. He eventually settled in London.
He rose to notoriety during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when he said Prime Minister John Major would be a legitimate target for assassination once on Muslim soil. His public invective became too much for the Hizb ut-Tahrir leadership, and in 1996 he resigned and formed Al-Muhajiroun.
Al-Muhajiroun disbanded in October 2004, amid a spate of public criticism and heightened scrutiny by British authorities, even though the sheik has continued to preach.
During an interview earlier this year at a McDonald's in East London, Mr. Choudhary predicted there was a very high risk of a terror operation happening in the coming months.
"Someone will take it into their own hands," he said. "I think it is just a matter of time.
"The Muslim community is under siege ... and it is an obligation for every Muslim to prepare themselves mentally and physically for any outcome and eventuality," he said.

Where is the Gandhi of Islam?

Where is the Gandhi of Islam?

By Charles Moore
The Telegraph, UK
Saturday, July 9, 2005

Yes, there was a Blitz spirit. As we waited in large
crowds for a train out of London on Thursday
afternoon, everyone was peaceful, cooperative, calm
and slightly more jokey than usual. A woman near me in
the carriage was talking on her mobile phone: "There's
nothing left for them to bomb," she said cheerfully.
"You'll find the sausage rolls at the bottom of the
fridge."

And, yes, the emergency services were magnificent.
They had trained; they were coordinated; they were
ready. The strength of a civilisation is shown not
only in its great monuments and works of art, or in
its famous people: it appears also in the instant,
instinctive behaviour of millions at a moment of
crisis. By this measure, London is part of a great
civilisation.

Yet there seems to me to be a radical disjunction
between our heroic capacity to deal with the immediate
effects of terrorism and our collective refusal to
confront what lies behind it. The effects of this
disjunction are, literally, fatal.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was in Singapore
on Thursday, having helped London's successful Olympic
bid. His stricken face showed his shock, and of course
he condemned the attacks. Then he analysed them.

They were not, he said, attacks "against the mighty
and the powerful", but against "working-class
Londoners". Would they have been all right, one
wondered, if they had been against the mighty and
powerful, or if they had cleverly found a way of
killing only middle-class Londoners?

Then Mr Livingstone said: "This is not an ideology or
even a perverted faith." Why did he want to say that?
How -- if, as the authorities tell us, the attacks
were carried out by Islamist extremists -- could this
be true?

The main spokesman for the Metropolitan Police on
Thursday was Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian
Paddick. He also complained about attacks on "purely
innocent members of the public", thereby making one
think that there might be other people (police?
soldiers? politicians?), who are not purely innocent
and should have been attacked instead. Asked about the
nature of the terrorists, Mr Paddick said: "Islam and
terrorism don't go together."

It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are not
terrorists, or involved in terrorism, and this needs
to be said strongly if people assert otherwise. But if
the Metropolitan Police really believe what Brian
Paddick says, if they really, truly think that the
words "Islam" and "terrorism" must not be linked, then
we have little hope of catching the killers, of
understanding how the terrorism works, or of
preventing new atrocities.

You can show this with a simple comparison. When
Britain was afflicted by Irish republican terrorism,
most Irish people repudiated that terrorism. It was
nevertheless the case that the great majority of the
terrorists -- more than 95 per cent -- were Irish, or
of Irish origin, and they drew overwhelmingly on Irish
people to help and hide them.

This was not a funny coincidence. It was because the
IRA preached a doctrine about Ireland and called on
the loyalty of a perverted version of Irishness.
Therefore, the words "Irish" and "terrorist" went
together, hard though this was on the majority of
Irish people. The Brian Paddicks of the day would have
been appallingly negligent if they had not
concentrated their investigations among the Irish. And
the vigilance of the public, which the police then and
now rightly call for, inevitably directed itself
towards Irish neighbours, Irish accents, Irish pubs.

So it must be with Muslims in Britain. In fact, the
situation is more serious because we are dealing with
a religion, not merely a national aspiration, and the
demands of a religion are more absolute than anything
else. If fanatics can persuade people that their
religion insists that they kill others (and often
themselves) in its service, then they will obey. And
whereas the IRA, though utterly sadistic and
fanatical, kept in mind a political aim which, once
achieved, would mean that they need kill no longer,
the religious fanatic lacks even this check on his
behaviour.

From time to time, perhaps, he will kill for a
specific reason -- to take power in one country, to
drive foreign troops out of another -- but, in
principle, there is no end to his killing until
everyone who does not share his particular version of
truth is exterminated.

What strikes one again and again about the reaction of
the public authorities, of commentators, of the media,
is the terrible lethargy about studying what it is we
are up against. We are dealing with an extreme
interpretation of one of the great religions of the
world.

We flap around, looking for moderates and giving them
knighthoods, making placatory noises, putting bits of
Islam on to the multi-faith menu in schools, banishing
Bibles from hospital beds, trying to criminalise the
expression of "religious hatred", blaming George Bush
and Tony Blair. But if we do not know the way the
faith in question works, its history, its quarrels,
its laws and demands, we will not have the faintest
chance of distinguishing the true moderate from the
fellow-traveller or of bearing down on the fanaticism.

If you look at the Koran, you will find many
glorifications of violence. In Sura No 8, for example,
God is quoted as saying: "I shall cast terror into the
hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike
off the very tips of their fingers!" This punishment
comes to them for having "defied God and His apostle".
It seems reasonable to ask Muslims what this sort of
remark means in the modern world.

Some will counter that there are plenty of equally
nasty dictums in the Old Testament. This is true --
though it is surely significant that they are very
much harder to find in the New Testament. History is
full of violent deeds done in the name of the
Christian God.

But it is an important fact about Christianity in the
past two or three centuries that it has conducted a
great reinterpretation of these texts and of how the
faithful should follow them. The struggle against the
enemy in the Book of Joshua, say, or in Judges is now
seen as a strictly spiritual one. The idea that these
are divine 007 licences to kill has been explicitly
repudiated.

Has the equivalent happened in Islam? Certainly, most
Muslim leaders advocate peace and most are surely
sincere in doing so. But push a bit harder, and you
encounter some interesting problems.

I have asked, for example, if the Muslim Council of
Britain, the mainstream umbrella organisation in this
country, will condemn the killing of British troops in
Iraq. They will not do so in absolute terms. They
prefer instead to condemn the war itself, which is by
no means the same thing.

Take a case from the dramas on Thursday. One
heartening tableau was of the Bishop of Stepney,
Stephen Oliver, appearing with Mohammed Abdul Bari
from the East London Mosque, both condemning the
attacks. But if you look up Mohammed Abdul Bari, you
find that he welcomed to the opening of the London
Muslim Centre Sheikh Abdul Rahman al Sudais, the
Saudi-government-appointed imam of the Grand Mosque in
Mecca.

In Mecca two years ago, al Sudais described Jews as
"scum of the earth", "rats of the world" and "monkeys
and pigs who should be annihilated". Yet, criticise al
Sudais, and Mohammed Abdul Bari leaps furiously to his
defence.

As I write, I have beside me an article that appeared
during our recent election campaign in Muslim Weekly.
By Sheikh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi, it calls for the
replacement of British parliamentary democracy with "a
new civilisation based on the worship of Allah",
attacks the Conservatives for being "in the hands of
an illegal Jewish immigrant from Romania" and speaks
of the "near-demented judaic banking elite".

These views are expressed by an educated Muslim in a
Muslim publication. Are these Muslim views, non-Muslim
views, anti-Muslim views?

The mayor of our bombed city has himself got involved
with Muslim leaders who say some interesting things.
Last year, Mr Livingstone extended a warm welcome in
London to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a mainstream,
world-famous spiritual leader based in Qatar.

Qaradawi has supported suicide bombing against
Israelis, the treatment of all Jews as legitimate
targets, the whipping of homosexuals and the killing
of all Americans -- civilian and military -- in Iraq.
Surely, Ken recognises an ideology here, and a faith
of sorts? Yet he praised, rather than condemned, and
so now, when the logical extension of such ideas hits
King's Cross and the Edgware Road and kills dozens of
his voters, he has to say that such deeds arise from
no belief at all.

There seem to be two broad reasons why many Muslim
leaders appear unable or unwilling to break absolutely
with the teachings that give cover to violence. The
first is that their religion is much more literal and
much more political than modern Christianity. Its
Prophet was a political and military leader.

The faith Mohammed taught does not just hope that the
world will become Muslim. It wants all human society
and politics to be governed by religious law: it draws
no distinction between the secular and religious
sphere (except to condemn the secular). Therefore,
Muslim leaders find it very difficult to resist the
hotheads who say that Sharia -- the divine law --
should be imposed wherever possible.

In addition, the religion is absolute in its attitude
to particular bits of territory. It is forbidden, for
example, that any other religion be practised in the
Arabian peninsula, because that land is considered
sacred to Islam. Therefore, it is hard for a
"moderate" to oppose the second-class citizenship of
Christians or Jews in Muslim lands, or to say that
"infidels" fighting in Muslim countries should not be
murdered -- even when they are his fellow citizens in
a Western country.

When someone like bin Laden says that Islam should
confront the "Cross-worshippers" and the "Zionists",
he is making a claim in which politics and religion
dangerously reinforce one another -- a claim which
most Muslims might not like, but which most of their
leaders cannot find quite the right words to resist.

The second reason is that the leaders are frightened.
In private conversations with the moderates, one is
always told that they are under "enormous pressure",
that they risk losing control of their own people, and
therefore they cannot say very fierce things against
the extremists. One must accept that this pressure
exists, which only goes to show how serious the
problem is.

The Bishop of Stepney, say, would not have to look
over his shoulder before he dared to condemn Christian
suicide bombers (if there were any). But if his friend
Mohammed Abdul Bari wants to condemn Muslim ones in
Israel, then his life -- or certainly his career --
might be threatened.

So we have in our midst a religious minority in a
state of ferment, and somewhere inside it a number of
people (though a tiny proportion of the whole) who
want to kill the rest of us. Now, it would seem, they
or their foreign allies have succeeded. This country
has suffered a greater land-based terrorist death toll
than it has ever known before. Instead of subjecting
our entire population to the loss of liberties and
increase of bureaucratic power which identity cards
involve, we should develop a strategy that works out
much more precisely where the danger lies, and seeks
it out.

Are we satisfied that our immigration and asylum
system, and our ceding of much of it to European
conventions, keeps a proper check on who comes in? Do
our own laws give too ready an entitlement to people
to join or marry family here? Do our judiciary now
interpret the rights of immigrants and asylum-seekers
so generously as to give the country almost no
protection from those who abuse those rights?

What about the methods of the police? Sir Ian Blair,
the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has shown
himself so obsessed with the implementation of the
recommendations of the Macpherson report that followed
the Stephen Lawrence case that he has been officially
criticised for "hanging out to dry" three officers
falsely accused of racism.

His approach to policing Muslims appears to be to seek
the consent of those he supposes to be community
leaders before "going in". It is surely not right that
they should have a veto on whether or not an inquiry
is pursued, and it must be asked whether all of them
could be trusted not to protect some of those who
merit police attention.

The methods matter, too. Although offence should
always be avoided if possible, if the police will not
use dogs in their investigations of Muslims (as they
may do with almost anyone else), and if they undertake
never to go into the religious parts of Islamic
buildings, then some people with things to hide will
hide them.

If the Blairs and Paddicks won't look at the link
between faith and terrorism, how can they ever learn
from the evidence in the websites and madrassehs and
sermons which incites the trouble and brings
like-minded extremists together?

And what about public vigilance? Yesterday, the Met's
press conference called for public vigilance -- but
would you want to go and tell Sir Ian your anxieties
about a Muslim neighbour? Might you worry about being
turned away as a racist?

The most important question is for Muslims, and the
authorities' attitude towards them. Embedded in modern
government are too many advisers who believe in a
quietist policy. To them, the most important thing is
to avoid a "backlash" against Muslims. But the truth
is that the backlash only threatens because the terror
strikes. Mired in ignorance, our Government (let alone
the Opposition) has little idea how to find the trends
in Islam that could really improve the life of our
country, and run with them.

It is only when you start thinking about what we are
not getting from leaders of British Muslims, and
indeed Muslim religious leadership throughout the
world, that you start to see how much needs doing. The
moderates are not pressed hard for anything more than
a general condemnation of the extremists.

When did you last hear criticisms of named extremist
groups and organisations by Muslim leaders, or support
for their expulsion, imprisonment or extradition? How
often do you see fatwas issued against suicide bombers
and other terrorists, or statements by learned men
declaring that people who commit such deeds will go to
hell?

When do Muslim leaders and congregations insist that a
particular imam leave his mosque because of the poison
that he disseminates every Friday? When did a British
Muslim last go after a Muslim who advocates or
practises violence with anything like the zeal with
which so many went after Salman Rushdie?

Why is not more stigma attached to the Muslims who are
murdering other Muslims every day in Iraq and the
Middle East?

What communal protection is offered to those Muslims
who really are brave and confront Islamist violence,
or the poor treatment of women, or call for democracy
in the Middle East? How much do mainstream political
parties with Muslim councillors and candidates really
insist on their religious moderation and co-opt them
to extrude the bad people lurking within their
communities?

I understand and accept that there are many moderates
among British Muslims, but I want to know why Britain
gets so pitifully little to show for their moderation.

When a nation, a race, a political movement, a group
of workers, the followers of a religion have
legitimate grievances, there generally arises amongst
them a champion who can command respect for his
advocacy of peace, his willingness to fight without
weapons and to win by moral authority. There may be
many such grievances for Muslims in Britain, and in
the West, but we are still waiting for the Gandhi or
the Martin Luther King to give them the right voice.

We all love it when the British people shrug their
shoulders and move stoically on in the face of attack.
It is a powerful national myth, and a true one. But it
contains within it a great danger -- a self-fulfilling
belief that there is nothing to be done to avert
future disaster. That's not the Blitz spirit -- what
made London's suffering in 1941 worthwhile was that,
in the end, we won.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=
/opinion/2005/07/09/do09.xml&sSheet=
/opinion/2005/07/09/ixopinion.html

New structure near Taj Mahal unearthed

New structure near Taj Mahal unearthed

Archaeologists have found a new structure adjoining the Taj Mahal, which according to preliminary investigations, served as a rest house for travellers. The discovery was made during excavations to determine original water levels surrounding the Taj Mahal, ANI reported

``Excavations were being conducted to study original water levels here. We have found one tank in the centre of the hall, and a whole water channel system. We are making further excavations to enable us to review the entire system and find out the actual purpose of the place,'' said D. Dabhalan, chief archaeologist of the Archaeological Survey of India.

Excavations are being done since April this year. Shyam Singh, who retired as an archaeologist with the ASI, said there was a likelihood of finding more such structures.


``There is a possibility that we find more structures on the eastern side and on the other bank of the Yamuna. While there has been talk of the Black Taj Mahal, we have actually found evidence of the pleasure gardens and several other elements like the central tanks. These have been developed after 1996. It is possible that we may find more structures on both sides,'' he said.

Many people believe that corresponding to the sparkling white Taj, Shah Jahan had planned to build another Taj Mahal in black marble, which was to be his own tomb on the opposite bank of the Yamuna. The irregular position of the cenotaph of Shah Jahan as compared to that of Mumtaz Mahal is said to be proof of this assumption.

According to an IntelliBriefs source , who wish to remain anonymous at this point , stated the following :

Around 1982, I had visited Taj Mahal along with my family. This was our 3rd Taj visit. At that time, we used to live in Jaipur. In each of these visits, I recall, that my parents would talk about how Taj was a Hindu palace. Their arguments were esentially based on a read of Oake's famous book [Taj Mahal is a Hindu Palace]. During each visit, some of the arguments laid out in Oake's thesis would be revisited, and we would try to link Oake's observations with our understanding of Taj's architecture and history.

Anyway, during our 3rd visit, once we had finished viewing the Taj, we walked out, and saw that there was some excavation going on near the side of Taj. Goaded by Ma, we approached as a family and queried the excavators. They informed us that the ASI was digging below the surface, and had found some new structures below the actual Mahal. Curious as we were, we definitely wanted to see the new finds. The ASI guys had told us that the finds were closed to general public under strict orders from Central Govt. However, my mother is a very determined person. She said that she was an archaeologist, and wanted to see the new finds for sure. That did the trick. We climbed down several stairs (perhaps more than 30) to find a very long corridor which lied directly under [I think] Mumtaz's cenotaph. So, in other words, the corridor led us to a spot which laid directly below Mumtaz's purported tomb. Even though it was summer time, we felt a very cool breeze hitting us in the corridor. That breeze, we later found out, was directly coming from Yamuna. On both sides of the corridor, we found plaster patterns, that were clearly in the shape of a door-entrance, suggesting that the corridor used to link several rooms below current Taj, and the doors of these rooms were sealed later for some reason. Finally, we saw the walls of corridor liberally ornated in traditional Hindu style. That was what I recollect from that visit.

In retrospect, I feel that the truth of Taj has not come out yet. For instance, what would be the purpose of sealing of these rooms below Taj's present structure. Also, why would we have a corridor running down under Taj. And why would the corridor then be closed, only to be re-opened later. Now we find thru recent "findings" that there was a "rest house" adjoining the Taj. But a tomb is supposed to be a place of peace, and solmenity. Why would someone attach a "rest house" to a mausoleum. Also, I wonder as to what happened to the findiings of ASI under the Joshi regime.

July 08, 2005

Ayodhya attack : Cell shows calls abroad

Lucknow, July 8: Investigations into the terrorist attack in Ayodhya
have finally started throwing up vital clues. The STF team has managed
to get the printout of the mobile phone that one of the terrorists
handed over to Rehan, the jeep driver, just before they attacked the
Ram Janmabhoomi complex.

The printout of calls made from the mobile phone, which was recovered
from the driver without a SIM card and battery, indicates that the
terrorists made calls to Faizabad, Lucknow, Delhi, and some other
countries about 24 hours before the actual attack.

"On the basis of the "Imei" of the phone, we have traced the mobile
number as well as the printout of the calls. The investigators are now
verifying the calls and we cannot reveal more than this at this stage
unless investigations in this direction are complete.

However, now we can claim that we have obtained clues that could help
us unravel the identities of the militants," Mr Acharya Palnivel, ADG,
law and order and intelligence, told reporters here on Friday. He
added that Central intelligence agencies were also analysing the phone
printouts.

The ADG said two visiting cards, of shops in Delhi and Lucknow, had
also been found in the purse of one of the slain militants, and that
the interrogation of the concerned persons had begun. The STF team has
already left for Delhi in this connection.

The CID team of the Jammu and Kashmir police visited Faizabad on
Friday and took copies of photographs of the terrorists. "The J&K
police will match the photos with militants in its records and give us
any information that they may have about their identities," Mr
Palnivel said.

Meanwhile, suspicion about the driver's role in the attack has
deepened with his passport revealing that he had visited Saudi Arabia
thrice in recent years and had made several trips to Bahrain. The
purpose of his visits and the persons with whom he came into contact
there will also be thoroughly investigated.

Another interesting fact that has come up during investigations is
that the terrorists, when they came to Faizabad from Akbarpur, first
hired a Tata Sumo to travel to Ayodhya, but suddenly, without any
apparent reason, they switched to Rehan's jeep.

The driver of the Tata Sumo has been identified and is being
interrogated. "It is important for us to know why they preferred
Rehan's jeep over the Tata Sumo," the ADG said. Incidentally, the
terrorists came with five haversacks, in which they had put the arms
and ammunition used in the attack.

Mr Palnivel added that forensic and ballistic experts who visited the
attack site and examined the weapons were of the opinion that the
firepower used by the terrorists was of a "high grade". "They have
said that the explosion in the jeep was triggered off by a remote
mechanism and a high-powered explosive was used.

The details will come out later in the report," he said, adding that
the anti-tank grenades that the terrorists carried were off of high
explosive value.

http://www.deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp

Between London & Ayodhya --KPS Gill

Between London & Ayodhya --KPS Gill

9th July 2005

Between London & Ayodhya

KPS Gill

There can be no comparison between the magnitude and impact of the
coordinated July 7 terrorist attacks in London and the failed
fidayeen operation in Ayodhya on July 5, but it is useful to look at
the political and media responses to these two incidents, which offer
an edifying study in contrast.

Both India and Britain have a long history of confronting terrorism,
though Islamist terrorism is relatively new to UK. Nevertheless,
decades of dealing with the IRA have helped the British develop
efficient response patterns, and these have been significantly
enhanced as a result of system-building exercises since 9/11. In
India, the experience with terrorism goes back decades as well, but
it appears that, apart from a narrow base within the security forces
themselves, the management of responses remains rudimentary, ad hoc,
even primitive.

An analysis of the post-incident non-enforcement responses in the two
situations demonstrates, in general, that the broad Indian response
was to exploit; the British response was to enable.

There can be little to complain about in the reactions of the first
responders in both cases. There has been some nonsensical talk of
a 'security lapse' in the Ayodhya attack, but it must be clear that
the terrorist operation was, in fact, an utter failure. Only the
outer cordon was breached - always a possibility, since the element
of surprise is on the side of the terrorists - but the terrorists
failed to penetrate their target, and all were killed.

Not every terrorist attack is a 'security lapse', and the excellent
response of the security forces in neutralising the terrorists was
laudable. In London, while the multiple explosions could not be
prevented - soft targets like public mass transport systems are and
will remain vulnerable, irrespective of the degree of precautions
taken - the post-incident emergency services response was excellent,
and relief was quickly provided in an extraordinarily ordered manner,
despite the suspension of critical public transport services induced
by the terror attacks.

It is important to notice, also, that people in general behaved well.
There was no panic, public disorder or obstructive behaviour either
in Ayodhya or in the London street. It is, in fact, at the leadership
level and in the mass media that the most deplorable examples of
irresponsibility and failure were noticed in India, contrasting
dramatically with the institutional responses in the UK.

It is, however, fortunate that there were some TV cameramen present
on the spot at Ayodhya, and they were able to give a blow by blow
account of the incident virtually as it occurred. This prevented
possible distortions which particular sections of the media and Human
Rights groups have tended to project. In almost every encounter
between the security forces and terrorists - even in the highly
visible attack on Parliament - there have been demands
for 'independent inquiries', and other strategies adopted by
terrorist front and Human Rights organisations to project a distorted
picture of the forces. In this we must be grateful for the almost
ubiquitous electronic media presence all over the country.

At another level, however, the media, particularly TV channels, must
be faulted for their sensationalist reportage and the amount of time
and prominence they chose to give to Hindu extremist organisations to
project negative and communally oriented propaganda and unconstrained
vituperation. The choice of who they put on air displayed total
irresponsibility, and it is notable that this continued long after
the incident reports, into the coverage of the orchestrated
demonstrations and bandhs opportunistically called for by the BJP and
other right wing Hindu organisations.

Tight shots of small groups, ordinarily no more than a few dozen
people engaged in sloganeering and occasional acts of public
disruption, were repeatedly projected by TV channels to create a
false impression of mass protests and 'public anger' over the Ayodhya
attacks. The truth is, these bandhs were manifest flops and the
public remained icily indifferent to the efforts to whip up Hindu
sentiments.

It is not the case that radical nationalist and far-right Christian
groups do not exist in Britain, but no media organisation saw it fit
to rush to these mischief-makers to elicit anti-Muslim invectives.
Rather, they sought out sane voices - including those among the
Muslim leadership in Britain - to strengthen the public perception
and recognition of a secular and diverse society standing firm and
united in a moment of national crisis.

Information chains in India also leave much to be desired. The
Government and its multiple agencies speak in many and often
conflicting voices, but no authoritative source of information is
ever established - whether it be in the Ayodhya case, or in many past
cases involving mass casualties, where the flow of information has
critical bearing on public confidence and the containment of personal
distress among victims and their families. 'Leaks' connected to the
identity of the terrorists, their route into the country, their modus
operandi, their linkages, continuously find their way into the
reportage, and the public domain is awash with speculation and rumour.

Meanwhile, every political leader, minister and senior enforcement
official seeks to exploit as many 'photo ops' as possible, even where
they have nothing to say, adding confusion to an already messy
situation. We thus have heads of police organisations addressing
press conferences without even confirming the correct time of the
incident; ministers and political leaders giving gratuitous 'clean
chits' to Pakistan or blame specific terrorist organisations long
before the perpetrators have been conclusively identified; and
everyone generally saying whatever comes into their heads at the
specific moment when a camera or a microphone is thrust into their
faces.

In the British case, on the other hand, specific chains of
authoritative information were immediately established; officials and
ministers coordinated information and spoke only when they had
authentic facts, figures or policy perspectives to communicate. The
objective there was not personal projection, or, indeed, to mislead,
suppress information or underplay the enormity of the attacks, but to
quell rumour and provide information that had been properly verified.

This effort was supported even further by the balanced and mature
statements made by political leaders across the spectrum, all of whom
were unambiguous in their condemnation of terrorism, no one spoke
of 'root causes' and 'historical grievances', or sought to blame the
Government for inviting the tragedy by its policies or for 'security
lapses', or, in any other way, attempted to milk the incidents for
partisan political capital. Indeed, the many statements by various
political leaders were strong and unambiguous both in their
condemnation of the terrorists and the unconditional support they
offered the Government to deal with the crisis.

In India, regrettably, the exact opposite has been the case, and
every single entity had an axe to grind. The media sought to create
baseless political controversies over the incident, and political
leaders appeared to be eager to feed this process. A person no less
than a former Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister called for a
bandh, and one of the reasons cited was that the National Security
Guard (NSG) had been sent to Akshardham when the temple there had
been attacked, but the Centre had not sent the elite force to Ayodhya.

Nothing could be more utterly nonsensical - the Ayodhya incident had
been efficiently handled by the local force long before any Central
force could have reached the site. Indeed, even the Akshardham crisis
would have been over hours before the arrival of the NSG, had the
local forces not been specifically instructed not to terminate the
operation before the arrival of the commandos from Delhi. Scoring
debating points in the wake of a terrorist incident demonstrates a
tremendous lack of maturity. Such political and media responses feed
tensions between the communities, and can only directly and
immediately further the objectives of the terrorists and their
sponsors.

http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?
main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3

Fight against ‘communal forces’ is fight to keep the BJP out of power

Another ‘jehad’ is needed today

BY TAVLEEN SINGH

[b]The government’s fight against ‘communal forces’ is no more than a political fight to keep the BJP out of power.[/b]



The scariest thing about the terrorist attack in Ayodhya is the government’s response. To call it namby-pamby would be an understatement. It would be more accurate to describe it as a non-response. The Prime Minister postponed his trip to flood ravaged Gujarat to call an emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs and in his usual mild, gentlemanly fashion said the government would deal with terrorism with ‘determination and resolve’.

Well, Sir, thanks a lot but would you be kind enough to explain why since your appointment to the most important job in the country there has been this upsurge in both terrorist and Naxalite violence? Was it because you were dealing with the problem with determination and resolve? If it was then you need to do more.

My view is that the reason why even Khalistani human bombs are suddenly creeping out of the sewers in which terrorists breed, after more than a decade of peace in Punjab, is because the United Progressive Alliance government gives the impression of being a complete pushover. It gives the impression of being the sort of government that would barely be able to respond even if we found ourselves at war.


Terrorism is war. It is likely to be the only war that will be fought in South Asia in the 21st century and it is a war India is losing because the Sonia-Manmohan government has given it less importance than it gives to ‘secularism’.

Its fight against ‘communal forces’ is no more than a political fight to keep the Bharatiya Janata Party out of power but it has taken such precedence on this government’s political agenda that terrorism does not even appear except at the bottom somewhere in very small print. This government signalled its tolerance of terrorism almost from its first moment in office by repealing POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). The repeal was designed to win the sympathy of Muslims who – on account of the fact that most terrorist groups currently are Islamic – have suffered more as a result of POTA.

In repealing POTA the prime minister appears to have forgotten that preventive detention under TADA (Terrorism and Disruptive Activities) was first introduced by a Congress government because when Khalistani terrorism was at its height it was impossible to bring it under control using normal laws. Had normal laws been used and normal policing – instead of K P S Gill’s policy of fighting terror with terror – we might never have seen an end to the Punjab problem.

Human rights groups have hounded him ever since without stopping for one moment to consider if it is not a violation of human rights when terrorists kill unarmed civilians, women and children. Human rights groups have an inordinate hold over this government because they are usually leftist in their politics and the Sonia-Manmohan government depends for its survival on sixty Marxist MPs.

Human rights groups have their place but when they begin to influence government policy they become dangerous. Was it their influence that persuaded this government to let Hurriyat leaders like Yaseen Malik and Omar Farooq travel to Islamabad and abuse India and sing the praises of ‘freedom fighters’ like Pakistan’s Information Minister, Sheikh Rashid, who ran terrorist training camps on his farm?

The Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi have been unusually silent about the purpose of the Hurriyat visit. What was it for? What did we hope to achieve? What did we achieve? And, more importantly, what is this government’s Kashmir policy and what is our Pakistan policy? It is not enough to say we want peace which is all that has been said so far.

Of course we want peace and we want a solution in Kashmir but are we prepared for a solution that amounts to virtually dissolving the borders Kashmir shares with Pakistan?

The Prime Minister has been praised by my more liberal colleagues for having told General Pervez Musharraf that there will be no changes in the borders of India.

But, softening the borders to the point of dissolution amounts to changing them and we appear to be doing this without Pakistan giving up its war against us that goes by the euphemism of terrorism. The human bombs that killed themselves in the attempt to blow up the temple in Ayodhya are believed to have belonged to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. For those of you unfamiliar with the murky world of terrorism allow me to explain that this is a Lahore based group that has long been funded by the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence).

The General, in his image makeover, likes to tell the world that despite supposedly being in the frontline in the war against terrorism he cannot control the terrorist groups that he once nurtured. They are loose cannons and so much their own masters that there have been attempts on his own life.

The truth is that Paksitan’s war against terrorism is as duplicitous as its talk of peace with India. The General has made serious efforts to control those groups responsible for terrorism against America and those groups responsible for terrorism against Pakistan but the Kashmir ‘jehad’ is still on. From our government what we need is a ‘jehad’ against this ‘jehad’ and there are no signs of this happening. If Sonia Gandhi could devote as much time to this jehad as she does to the jehad against ‘communal forces’ there may be some chance of us winning the war against terrorism otherwise we may as well consider it lost. Strange that she should find our own toothless fanatics more dangerous than armed fanatics from across the border.

Dar ul-Harb 'territory open for muslim conquest'

Colonialism has not ended in Bharatam. Colonialism has been replaced
by communalism which is a millstone round the neck of the Bharatiya
polity.

If we think Bharatam has achieved 'independence' from a British
colonial regime, we should pause and consider if Bharatam territory is
under a spell of the evil doctrine of Dar ul-Harb. In such a doctrinal
formulation of Deobandi or Wahhabi islamism, there can be no muslim
minorities or muslim immigrants. For the nation of islam to be
achieved, 'kafir' have no sanctity for life or property. The analysis
provided by Daniel Pipes equally applies to the situation created by
the terror attack on Ayodhya. Dhimmitude of the type engaged in by
British Government or the secular fraudulent formulations (euphemism
for communal politicking) engaged in by Indian Government will
continue to encourage people like UBL with grand visions of the
caliphate in their life-time (or martyrdom as they perceive it).

Dhimmitude is a a self-imposed colonialism created for appeasing the
minorities as a political class. In the context of Bharatam, there can
be no acceptance of muslims as a 'minority' because they chose to stay
in Hindu rashtra which was formed after Pakistan was carved out as the
Muslim rashtra. The special treatment of 'minorities' in the Bharatiya
constitution should end, coterminus with the enactment of a Uniform
Civil Code and abrogation of Article 370 providing special treatment
for a part of Bharatam territory in Jammu and Kashmir. Unless such a
dispensation is agreed upon by amendment of the Constitution, the
self-imposed colonialism governed by dhimmitude will continue to haunt
the Bharatiya polity.

The tragedy of an Advani talking 'secular' little realising that the
term is a synonym for 'communal' in the context of Bharatiya politics
should be undone rapidly so that a coherent hindu voice can assert the
imperative of a true swarajyam with all Bharatiyas living as one
national entity without any categories of minorities or privileged
classes.

Fundamental duties article of the constitution, together with all
other Directive Principles of State Policy should be made justiciable
to ensure that Bharatam does not land in the category of Dar ul-Harb
in the eyes of the terror operatives.

What should Bharatam's stand be vis-a-vis the oft-called for global
war on terror? If US is really serious in putting together a global
coalition, the first condition which should be satisfied is USA
stopping aiding Pakistan state which is the world's madarasa of terror
and declare that Jammu and Kashmir are an unalienable part of
Bharatam.

Should there be a concerted effort at paraavartan of Pakistani and
Bangladesh muslims back to the path of dharma, a process of
paraavartan? This prospect has to be deliberated upon. Can such
paraavartan begin, to start with, with the muslims of Bharatam?

It appears that the time is now to come to grips with this fundamental
issue: paraavartan, to avoid continued 'communal' or 'secular'
onslaughts on dharma and to create a society of dharmin (as the Jina's
call them).

Waffling on the issue by treating terror with kid-gloves will be
counter-productive. The only language that the proponents of Dar
ul-Harb are likely to understand is violence to counter intended
violence. Yes, Bush is right when he calls this a War on Terror. Does
he really understand the purport of Dar ul-Harb?

Dhanyavaadah.

K.

[London Terrorism:] British "Covenant of Security" with Islamists Ends

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
July 8, 2005
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2742

Terrorism usually comes like a bolt from the blue, but not so the four
explosions yesterday in London, killing at least 37. Some British
Islamist leaders have been warning for months that such violence was
imminent.

An Islamist British group called Al-Muhajiroun - "the immigrants" in
Arabic - for some time publicly stated that Britain was immune from
Islamist violence because of its acceptable behavior toward Muslims
within the country's borders. In an April 2004 conversation, the
24-year-old Sayful Islam, who heads Al-Muhajiroun's Luton branch,
announced that he supported Osama Bin Laden "100%" in the quest to
achieve "the worldwide domination of Islam," but went on to voice an
aversion to himself performing terrorist acts in Britain.

Yet, Mr. Islam endorsed terrorism in Britain in a broader sense "When
a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my
own children. … But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in
acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I
have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us
Muslims to live here in peace." He further explained. "If we want to
engage in terrorism, we would have to leave the country. It is against
Islam to do otherwise."

Covenant of security? What is that? In an August 2004 story in the New
Statesman, "Why terrorists love Britain," Jamie Campbell cited the
author of Inside Al Qaeda, Mohamed Sifaoui, as saying, "it has long
been recognized by the British Islamists, by the British government
and by UK intelligence agencies, that as long as Britain guarantees a
degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt [an overtly
pro-terrorist Islamist], the terrorist strikes will continue to be
planned within the borders of the UK but will not occur here."

The New Statesman story drew from this the perversely ironic
conclusion that "the presence of vocal and active Islamist terrorist
sympathizers in the U.K. actually makes British people safer, while
the full brunt of British-based terrorist plotting is suffered by
people in other countries."

A Syrian immigrant to Britain who headed Al-Muhajiroun, Omar Bakri
Mohammed, confirmed the covenant of security, describing companions of
the Prophet Muhammad who were given protection by the king of
Ethiopia. That experience, he told the magazine, led to the Koranic
notion of covenant of security: Muslims may not attack the inhabitants
of a country where they live in safety. This "makes it unlikely that
British-based Muslims will carry out operations in the U.K. itself,"
Mr. Mohammed said.

But in January 2005, Mr. Mohammed determined that the covenant of
security had ended for British Muslims because of post-September 11,
2001, anti-terrorist legislation that meant "the whole of Britain has
become Dar ul-Harb," or territory open for Muslim conquest. Therefore,
in a reference to unbelievers, "the kuffar has no sanctity for their
own life or property."

The country had gone from safe haven to enemy camp. To renew the
covenant of security would require British authorities to undo that
legislation and release those detained without trial. If they fail to
do so, British Muslims must "join the global Islamic camp against the
global crusade camp."

Mr. Mohammed went on overtly to threaten the British people: "The
response from the Muslims will be horrendous if the British government
continues in the way it treats Muslims," explicitly raising the
possibility of suicide bombings under the leadership of Al-Qaeda.
Western governments must know that if they do not change course,
Muslims will "give them a 9/11 day after day after day!"

When Sean O'Neil and Yaakov Lappin of the London Times asked Mr.
Mohammed about his statements on the covenant, he said his definition
of Britain as Dar ul-Harb was "theoretical" and he provided a
non-bellicose re-interpretation:

It means that Muslims can no longer be considered to have sanctity and
security here, therefore they should consider leaving this country and
going back to their homelands. Otherwise they are under siege and
obviously we do not want to see that we are living under siege.

In a less guarded moment, however, Mr. Mohammed acknowledged that for
him, "the life of an unbeliever has no value."

Yesterday's explosions mark the end of the "covenant of security."
Let's hope they also mark the end of an era of innocence, and that
British authorities now begin to preempt terrorism rather than wait to
become its victims.

Terrorism and rail Security




No rail security system will be perfect, but America needs a coordinated counterterror effort to define the federal role in preventing or mitigating attacks, to prioritize investments needed for preventing all transport-related attacks, and to define the roles and responsibilities of other parties in preventing and responding to terrorist attacks.

Click for full document

As I stand next to the Great White Leader -- Mr.Manmohan Singh








A satire

As I stand next to the Great White Leader Mr. Tony Blair of the Great Nation, Great Britain the following thoughts run through my mind :

1. I am not the only low-life, Muslim loving, spineless jerk in this world. Shri. Tony Blairji is also one such a$$-hole, only difference is that I am a brown-skinned a$$-hole with a blue turban on my head while Mr. Blairji has such perfect white skin like my leader Bharat Mata Sonia Gandhiji.

2. I am happy to note that I am not the only world leader accepting huge deposits in my Swiss bank account from the Saudi Royal family. We world leaders also need money. And who else pays like the Saudi Royal family. In exchange we close our eyes when the very people who voted for us are raped, burnt, blown up and executed in the most horrible way. We invariably put the blame on the victims and do everything to shield the muslims who committed those crimes.

3. We world leaders from the Kafir nations have been mandated by the Saudi Royal family to convert our nations from a Dar-ul-Harab to a Dar-ul Islam in 10 years time. I think Shri. Tony Blairji is racing ahead of me in this mission. How will I show my face to our great White leader the Great Mataji from Rome when I get back to New Delhi ? I should call up all the muslim MPs from the Congress alongwith Tytler, Mani Shankar and all those other anti-Hindus and ask them to inform their contacts in the ISI to kill a few thousand Hindus in India. This attack in the London Metro has given me an idea. I can ask my dear friend Mian Pervez Musharaffji to blow up the Delhi Metro end to end. This will gladen the hearts of Sonia Gandhiji and her friends in the Saudi Royal family and the Vatican. I can always put the blame on Narendra Modi and the RSS and ask them not to politicise the issue. I will get another $ 1 million from the Americans over and above the monthly salary I am receiving from the CIA. My daughter will also get a Federal government sponsored scholarship for her Post-Doctoral research on Secularism which she is presently doing in the US.

4. I have already received a huge amount from the Vatican to inaugurate the Sethusamudram project on the southern tip of India. This project has been sanctioned on the orders of the Vatican to destroy any evidence that may exist under the Indian Ocean to prove that the Ramayana was not a myth but a historical fact. I will be inaugurating my next project to build an underground highway connecting Rishikesh, Haridwar, Gangotri and Yamunotri. This will completely destroy all the Hindu temples in this area and all those Hindu Swamijis will be forcefully evacuated from the Himalayas to execute this project. I am waiting to see the smile on my Great Leaders face when I announce this project. The money that I get for this from the Vatican and the Organisation of Islamic Countries will be sufficient for me to purchase a bungalow overlooking Lake Geneva for this is where I plan to settle after my retirement which I am expecting any time now.

My turban is getting heated up with all these thoughts, so I shall stop for now.

U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE AT RISK IN CENTRAL ASIA

With Moscow in the lead, the Russo-Chinese tandem has advanced from a containment policy to a rollback policy toward the United States in Central Asia. Moscow and Beijing have used the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's (SCO) July 5 summit in Kazakhstan to challenge the rationale for the U.S.-led military presence in Central Asia and to call for setting deadlines for that presence (see EDM, July 6).

The SCO's initiative is meant to instigate national demarches by the host countries -- Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Russian policy planners count on these countries themselves to ask the United States and other Western countries to discuss placing specific time limits on the functioning of coalition bases and installations. Such demarches seem to be in the offing.

On July 7, a communique by Uzbekistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the United States of failing to carry out the terms of the October 7, 2001, agreement that governs, inter alia, the operation of the Karshi-Khanabad base. According to the Uzbek communique, the United States has not been paying the landing and takeoff fees for its flights as stipulated; has not reimbursed Uzbekistan for the costs incurred in guarding and servicing the base; and has not compensated Uzbekistan for ecological damage and the inconvenience caused to the local population. This last point, especially, seems to signal that Uzbekistan is not averse to ending the basing arrangement. Tashkent has already suspended major parts of that arrangement by suspending flights of C-17 heavy transport planes as well as nighttime flights at the U.S. base.

The Uzbek communique goes on to cite the goals of the U.S. military presence under the 2001 agreement: eliminating threats from the Taliban and international terrorism originating in Afghanistan, enhancing the security and stability of Uzbekistan, and supporting military operations in northern Afghanistan. "These considerations will determine any decision by Uzbekistan regarding the prospects of the U.S. military presence in the country," the communique states (Interfax, July 7).

Uzbekistan has already accused the United States of failing to live up to those commitments in connection with the May 12-13 rebellion in Andijan. President Islam Karimov repeated those accusations in his SCO summit speech (Uzbek Television First Channel, July 6).

In Kyrgyzstan, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Roza Otunbayeva held a news conference to rehash the SCO declaration's arguments for setting a deadline on the U.S.-led military presence. She echoed the contention that Afghanistan has basically been stabilized and that active military operations are no longer necessary in that country, thus implying that the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan has lost its raison d'etre. Citing the U.S.-Kyrgyzstan agreement of 2001, which stipulates that either side may discontinue the basing arrangements with 180 days advance notice, Otunbayeva stated, "We intend to act in line with this and discuss the matter. We want to know how long the base is going to stay" (Itar-Tass, Interfax, July 6).

In a similar vein, Acting Deputy Prime Minister Adakhan Madumarov stated that any decision to discontinue the basing arrangement would be an "internal decision by Kyrgyzstan," in which case the country would not obligated to explain the reasons for it. (Interfax, July 7).

Otunbayeva (who is presumed to be pro-American) and Madumarov came to power in April as part of the U.S.-supported regime change. Another post-revolution leader, acting Prime Minister Felix Kulov, called last month for the creation of a second Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan. This could not have been the U.S. game plan for regime change in that country.

Tajikistan seems to take a far more nuanced view, partly due to the fact that it only hosts a small French contingent on its territory at this time. The Deputy Director of the Strategic Research Center attached to Tajikistan's presidential office, Sayfullo Safarov, lost no time refuting the SCO summit's and even Moscow's theses. He bluntly argued that the SCO and the CIS Collective Security Organization are ineffective, lack resources to counter international terrorism and drug trafficking, and unable to maintain security in Central Asia. Consequently, "It would be premature to impose [time-limitation] requirements on the United States and NATO military" (Avesta, July 6).

Responding to the SCO's declaration, the U.S. State Department and the American embassies in Moscow and in Central Asian countries have pointed out that the basing arrangements and other aspects of the military presence are determined by bilateral agreements with each country. Consequently, Washington will only use bilateral channels for any discussions on this issue with each host country. The French embassy in Dushanbe has taken a similar position (Avesa, July 7).

In Moscow, the former prime minister, minister of foreign affairs, and intelligence chief Yevgeny Primakov hailed the Kremlin's performance in using the SCO summit to trigger national demands for withdrawal of U.S. forces: "For the first time, a [diplomatic] formula has been announced that can put an end to the American military presence in Central Asia," Primakov commented (Interfax, July 7).

--Vladimir Socor

Putin Calls for United Front on Terrorism

By Simon Saradzhyan
Staff Writer
The Moscow Times

President Vladimir Putin offered his condolences over Thursday's bomb attacks in
London and said the attacks showed that the civilized world was not united enough in fighting terrorism.

Speaking at the Group of Eight summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, Putin also said there should be no "double standards" in assessing terrorist attacks, in an apparent reference to bomb attacks in Russia that have claimed the lives of thousands of people.

"What happened today demonstrates yet again that we are doing too little to unite our efforts in the most effective way in the battle against terrorism," Putin said.

There must not be any "double standards whatsoever in assessing bloody crimes similar to those carried out in London today," he said.

Also expressing his sympathy was Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II, who offered his prayers for the victims and said that thousands of Russians had died in terrorist attacks since 1993. "We know how important any support is at such a difficult time," he said.

While Putin did not directly say that Russia had warned the West against differentiating between Chechen rebels and terrorists, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin made the Kremlin's position known, albeit implicitly.

"First, terrorists must be caught and tried -- in Britain too, where sometimes, in our opinion, they have been granted asylum," Kudrin told Channel One television, in a clear reference to Chechen rebel envoy Akhmed Zakayev. Zakayev was granted asylum in Britain in 2003, and a British court has refused Russia's requests to extradite him.

Yet while the London bombings could encourage the Kremlin to push for more support from G8 nations for Russia's own anti-terrorist agenda in the North Caucasus, it was unclear on Thursday how far the West would go toward dropping its distinction between terrorist attacks by al-Qaida and those by Chechen separatists.

Authorities in Moscow on Thursday said they were stepping up security in response to the London attacks, with metro chief Dmitry Gayev telling reporters he had ordered extra police patrols to carry out ID checks at metro stations throughout the capital. Police commandos were also dispatched to man checkpoints around the Moscow Ring Road.

No flights from Moscow to London had been canceled, but additional security measures were being taken at airports and other transportation terminals, such as seaports and railway stations across Russia, Deputy Interior Minister Alexander Chekalin said, Interfax reported.

"The events in London show a heightened activity by terrorists. ... As a result, Russian police are stepping up security measures on our country's territory," Chekalin said.

He said security would also be increased in and around strategic locations and diplomatic missions.

The Russian Embassy in London announced shortly after the bombings that it was trying to determine if any Russians had been among the victims of the attacks.

In Moscow, lawmakers and security analysts said it was likely that the attacks were carried out by fundamentalist Islamists linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network to coincide with the opening of the G8 summit, and pointed to the similarities between Thursday's attacks and the Madrid train bombings in March 2004, which have been blamed on al-Qaida.

Mikhail Grishankov, deputy chairman of the State Duma Security Committee, said he was "confident" that the attacks had been timed to coincide with the G8 summit, and described them as a "challenge to the entire international community and, particularly, to the G8 leaders," Interfax reported.

Gennady Gudkov, a senior United Russia deputy, said the attacks could have been the work of groups seeking to intimidate Western nations into withdrawing their troops from Iraq.

Alexei Mitrofanov, a Duma deputy from the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party, also saw "revenge for Iraq" as the most likely cause of the bombings.

While not pinpointing the attack as originating from any particular country, Alexei Malashenko, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center, said Thursday that the terrorist attacks bore the same hallmarks as others carried out by fundamentalist Islamic groups.

"Who else would do this?" he said.

Kremlin-connected political analyst Sergei Markov said Thursday's attacks were as horrible as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and the September 2004 attack on Beslan. Such attacks mean that "the principle of security should prevail over the principle of individual freedom," he said, Interfax reported.

The London attacks could spur Russia to broaden the planned focus of its G8 chairmanship next year from energy security to security in general, Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the Russia in Global Affairs journal, wrote in his weekly column on Gazeta.ru.

As well as seeking to put security at the top of the G8's agenda, the Kremlin may see Thursday's attacks as an opportunity to put pressure on Britain to soften its stance on Chechnya, said Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow office of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information. Moscow could also renew its efforts to extradite Zakayev, the Chechen rebel envoy, arguing that he is allied with the same network of international terrorists that hit London, Safranchuk said.

In the wake of the Beslan school attack last September, Putin compared the treatment of Chechen rebels in Western countries to the appeasement of Nazi Germany before World War II.

The Kremlin may also seek greater security cooperation with Britain and the United States in exchanging intelligence on suspected rebels and their sponsors, given the fact that Russian authorities have asserted that several British citizens have been killed fighting on the rebels' side in Chechnya, Safranchuk said.

However, British courts will probably not factor in relations with Russia when deciding whether to grant asylum to Chechen rebels, Safranchuk said.

"Morally, Russia would feel more comfortable if criticism decreased, but this will not solve its internal problems," Safranchuk said. "MI6 and the FBI could well become more cooperative, but not the courts."

Alexei Pikayev, an independent defense and security analyst, said Thursday that British-based Islamic fundamentalists might well have played a leading role in the attacks, given the meticulous preparation they would have required.

But while the British authorities would step up their efforts to dismantle terrorist networks in Britain, they would not likely respond to Russia's repeated appeals to extradite those Moscow has labeled as terrorists, Pikayev said.

And Britain would not likely end its repeated calls for Russia to try to find a political solution to the conflict in Chechnya, even though there is no authoritative moderate rebel leader left in Chechnya after the killing of Aslan Maskhadov in February, the analysts said.

Attempts by Russian officials to equate attacks in the West and in Russia would likely fail, the analysts said, as the attacks in Spain and in the United States were aimed at punishing those countries for their policies in the Middle East, while the perpetrators of attacks in Russia have usually sought to expel federal forces from the North Caucasus.

"Russian officials could now say, 'We told you so,' but Beslan does not stand out from this trend, as there was too much of an internal agenda there," Safranchuk said.

In line with the agenda to equate al-Qaida with Chechen separatists, state-controlled Channel One in its evening newscast said that "until recently ... Chechen cells" had been operating "freely" in Britain and lamented that Britain would not extradite "terrorists for years." The channel also reported as fact earlier allegations that two British citizens were among the attackers of the Beslan school. Britain's The Observer newspaper wrote last year that two Algerian-born British residents who attended a radical mosque in London were among 32 terrorists killed at the school.

An informal survey of Moscow residents on Thursday indicated that they sympathized with the victims of the London bombings but said that countries such as Britain should now show more sympathy toward Russia's position in its anti-terrorist campaign in the North Caucasus.

"Naturally, I sympathize with the victims, but the most important thing is that the British should now sympathize and understand that this happens not only in Russia, but anywhere in the world," said Igor Varankov, 40. "Now, they should have a more realistic attitude toward us and understand that these things really do happen -- it's not just something you see on television."

Computer programmer Vasily Ivanov, 35, doubted whether Britain would change its stance over Chechnya, but expressed the hope that Britain would understand Russia's position better.

"I sympathize with the victims on a human level -- we all understand each other," he said. "But on a political level, each country has its own priorities, and I don't think anyone can say that Britain is really going to change its attitude toward Russia. But it will now be more aware of terrorism, just as our country is. At least now they will understand what we are going through."


Antonio Lupher contributed to this report.

LONDON BLASTS: THE LESSONS

by B.Raman

LESSON NO 1: Widespread Muslim anger all over the world due to the manner in which the US-led coalition has been waging the so-called war against terrorism has been the root cause of all post-9/11 acts of jihadi terrorism attributable to the Al Qaeda and the International Islamic Front (IIF). The fact that the US has been waging the war in foreign territory against foreign nationals and not against its own nationals in its own territory has deprived its operations of any measure of self-restraint. No weapon is out of bounds to the US troops participating in this war and no methods are above the law. Weapons and methods, which have never been used by other countries in their counter-terrorism campaigns, are being used by the US against the jihadi terrorists----such as air strikes and use of heavy artillery and armour. There have been blatant violations of human rights and the terrorist detenus have been subjected to a kind of degrading treatment, the like of which will enrage any community. More Indian civilians have died at the hands of jihadi terrorists than nationals of any other country. Yet, we try to observe considerable self-restraint in our counter-terrorism campaigns. No air strikes, no use of heavy artillery, no armour, no shaving off of the beards of the detenus, no shackles on their legs, no restrictions on their praying in a group, no isolation, no ban on their relatives meeting them periodically, no instances of degrading treatment or disrespect to their religion. Allegations of torture are often made against the Indian security forces---some of them true---but nobody has ever accused them of practices like descecrating the Holy Koran, forcing the detenus to undress and indulge in simulated sexual acts with each other etc. Counter-terrorism as practised by the US has itself become the root cause of the post-9/11 aggravated terrorism. Unless this is admitted and rectified, the world will see more and more of jihadi terrorism. Of all the Western security services, the MI-5 is considered the most competent. It has identified more sleeper cells in the UK and arrested more terrorist suspects than any other service. The fact that despite this it was taken by surprise on July 7 shows that the more it identifies and arrests suspects, the more the number of new volunteers, unknown to it, to replace them. The continuing flow of new volunteers cannot be stopped unless and until the US changes its counter-terrorism methods.

LESSON NO.2: The flow of preventive intelligence continues to be unsatisfactory. Even the law-abiding members of the Muslim community, who do not approve of terrorism, are unwilling to co-operate with the security agencies by passing on information coming to their notice either because of intimidation or because they share the anger of those who have taken to terrorism. Intelligence agencies continue to face difficulties in penetrating terrorist organisations and their ability for the collection of technical intelligence (TECHINT) has been eroded. Before the advent of the mobile phones, the terrorists were largely using land-line phones for their communications. It is easy to intercept land-line conversations. It is much more difficult to intercept and analyse in time communications over the mobile phone and through the Internet. Moreover, the terrorists have become much more adept in strengthening their communications security. How to get over this? This is a question, which has to be jointly addressed by the intelligence agencies of the world.

LESSON NO.3: The terrorists are decreasingly using hand-held weapons, which can be easily detected, and increasingly using explosives, which are more difficult to detect. While the international community has paid some attention to action against the spread of small arms and ammunition, it has paid inadequate attention to action against the spread of explosives. Since the New York World Centre explosion in February,1993, the terrorists are increasingly using commonplace explosives such as nitrogenous fertilisers etc, which can be easily procured without creating suspicion. How to deny them access to even commonplace explosive material is a question which needs urgent attention.

LESSON NO.4: Means of transport have always been the favourite targets of the terrorists. The panic and dislocation created and the casualties caused are more. It is reasonably possible to provide effective physical security to air-borne and sea-borne transport. Physical security for land-based transport such as trains, the tube and buses is much more difficult. The only way of providing reasonable security is by having anti-explosive checks at every station and in every bus. The cost involved will be prohibitive and it will be difficult to implement. At the same time, one cannot throw up one's hands and say that nothing can be done to reduce the vulnerability of land-based transport to terrorist attacks. A via media has to be found, which will have at least some deterrent effect. One way could be to have random, rotational anti-explosive checks at rail and tube stations and in buses.

LESSON NO.5: The so-called war against jihadi terrorism cannot be won without effective action against States, which have been using them or conniving at their activities or tolerating them in their territory. The international community has to find a more effective way of dealing with the jihadi terrorist and proliferation infrastructure in the territories of countries such as Pakistan.


(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi , and,presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. E-Mail: itschen36@gmail.com )

London Terror attacks : Level the field now --Sandhya Jain

Per square kilometre of its small land surface, Great Britain has far more residential “guest” terrorists and unsavoury characters than any nation in the world. Far from being a source of concern, the host country has viewed their presence on its soil with equanimity, smugly confident that men sought by police in other countries would fulfill their subversive agendas from British territory without pointing their guns inwards.



If that confidence was shaken by 9/11 in New York, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration certainly did not let it show. There was virtually no crackdown on the growing lunatic elements in the country, and despite the fact that native citizens were increasingly being targetted by criminal elements professing a distinct affiliation, all crime was covered up under the generic label of “Asian.”



Now, the pigeons have come home to roost. Deeply embarrassed before the world community at the opening of the prestigious G-8+India+China summit in Scotland, Mr. Tony Blair has called the 5 July 2005 serial blasts in London an attack upon the civilized world. He has expressed determination to defeat the terrorists’ designs, and to their credit, British emergency services and ordinary citizens have shown exemplary ability to cope with the first serious homeland attack since the Second World War.



But sadly for Mr. Blair, US President George Bush, his foremost ally, in whose support he even staked his political career, used the occasion to reiterate commitment to faulty policies in Iraq. This is hardly conducive to improving domestic security in Britain, and unless one has seriously underestimated the character of Islamic fundamentalists who have ensconced themselves there over decades, more attacks are on the cards. Scotland Yard will certainly go after the men involved in Thursday’s blasts; reportedly a minimum of ten to twelve persons were involved in planting the devices. The coordinated nature of the explosions also gives credence to the claim that an Al-Qaeda group was behind the attacks.



The presence of Al-Qaeda raises the question of the mindset behind the attacks, and the international community would do well to stop evading this issue. Although no country has suffered as constantly and severely as India, the network of terror has now embraced America, Britain, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Spain. It is being said that Denmark and Italy are the next targets, and we can trust the terrorists to fulfill this grim promise. The fact that Saudi Arabia, fountainhead of the rigid Wahabi Islam that is intimately linked with Al-Qaeda and international Islamic extremism, has itself suffered terrorist violence, as have Saudi-Pakistan allies like America and Britain, is evidence that Islamic fundamentalism is not a genie that can be bottled at will.



It is time, therefore, to call a spade a spade. A beginning must be made with the self-definitions of those perpetrating these acts of barbarism: if the terrorists say they are motivated by faith and are acting its defence, it is not for us to proclaim that terrorists have no religion. They do. This religious affiliation is recognized within the wider community; within hours of the explosions, UK Muslims were given a call to stay indoors to avoid a possible backlash from the citizenry.



No doubt Mr. Blair’s Government will take steps to contain any possible violence against minorities. But perhaps it is time the international community dispassionately examined why a growing network of terror across the globe links back to one faith. Can national and international laws governing freedom of religion declare that religious concepts that preach intolerance towards other faiths and their adherents are illegal? Can Islamic seminaries be persuaded to omit the concepts of Jihad and Ghazi while teaching the Koran to youngsters? Can churches be forbidden form calling other belief systems “false”?



In India, secularists have become addicted to their pretty speeches, without regard for reality or the sufferings of those for whom they have little empathy (read the Hindu community). Those who watched the television news on Tuesday when the Ram Janmabhoomi was attacked, and again on Thursday when London was jolted, could not but be struck by the utter indifference of all news anchors towards the highest seat of Hindu reverence as opposed to their brimming concern for the former colonial State.



Many channels prepared special clips on the Twin Towers tragedy in New York, but no one thought that this might be the time to ask why the world adopted different yardsticks when 100 pilgrims were gunned down in a single attack on the Amarnath yatra some years ago, why the Raghunath Temple, Akshardham, and the Ram Janmabhoomi were assaulted, why the victims of the Godhra inferno are largely unrecognized, not to mention the almost daily aggravations against citizens in Jammu & Kashmir. There could never be a more eloquent expose of the denationalization of the Indian media.



Friday mornings’ newspapers were hardly any better, primly reiterating their well- known pieties. The fact of the matter, however, is that the so-called communal divide exists in the minds that conceive and execute acts of violence towards others on the ground that they belong to a different faith; it exists in minds that acquiesce in these acts of barbarism and defend them on weak moral and intellectual grounds; and it exists above all in minds that work to ensure that there is no fallout for the aggressors. To accuse victims of communalizing a situation not created by them is disingenuous and dishonest; it is also now subject to diminishing returns. Were this not so, Congress president Sonia Gandhi would not have modified her statement on the Ayodhya attack while visiting Rai Bareilly on Thursday, in order to sound more sympathetic to the Hindu community.



End

Source : Organizer

Standing next to Blair, what could be on Prime Minister Singh’s mind



NEW DELHI: If Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was planning to raise the question of terrorism with world leaders at Gleneagles on Thursday, he has been spared of the extra diplomatic effort.

Heading to London, immediately after the attack on Ayodhya, terrorism, rather than the complex questions of technological choices on energy generation, must have been at the top of Singh’s mind. The barbaric terrorist attacks in London now form the backdrop of the G-8 summit at Gleneagles and its plans to discuss the challenges of climate change, globalisation and African development.

The rush-hour attacks on innocent people in London are a rude reminder that the war on terrorism remains to be won. The coordinated attacks in London, amidst tight security for visiting heads of government, underline the reality that the war on terror remains the biggest political issue before the world.

Although there have been many warnings in recent months about potential attacks in major Western capitals, the London mayhem has once again demonstrated that the terrorist groups will always retain the initiative on both targets and timing.

As it faces terrorist attacks from diverse sources and directions, India has been trying to signal to the world as well as its neighbours not to take the challenge of terrorism lightly—with little effect until this week.

Even more important, jockeying among great powers had begun to undermine the global coalition against terrorism established in the wake of September 11.

One signal of the fragmentation has been the recent demand from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation led by China and Russia that the US set a date for its withdrawal from the military facilities in Central Asia it had acquired after September 11.

Russia, China and Pakistan also have concerns about the strategic partnership agreement the US and Afghanistan signed a few weeks ago. Russia and China, which supported the US after September 11, now seem to be developing second thoughts about its military presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

The disarray in the international coalition against terrorism is bound to have serious consequences for India’s security environment. Of special concern for New Delhi is the resurgence of the Taliban, which in recent days has staged some serious attacks deep inside Afghanistan.

If the Taliban gathers momentum amidst great power divisions and support from across the border in Pakistan terrorist groups in Jammu and Kashmir will be further energised. On his way to London, Singh gently reminded Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf that continuing terrorist attacks in India will undermine public support to the current positive engagement with Pakistan. The peace process, then, will no longer look "irreversible”.

For India, the Ayodhya attacks highlight the importance of sustained actions by Islamabad to root out the sources of terrorism inside Pakistan. Meanwhile the US has been stepping up pressure on Musharraf to take action against the Taliban and other terrorist groups operating on Pakistan’s borders with Afghanistan.

While applying more pressure on Islamabad, India must also offer greater bilateral cooperation in combating terrorism and on accelerating the peace process.

When he travels to Washington in ten days, Singh will have an opportunity to discuss the unfolding situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan with President Bush and potential new cooperation between India and the US.

India also faces Maoist terror on its northern borders and from a variety of sources on its eastern frontiers. To combat these threats, India needs the renewal of the global coalition as well as greater regional cooperation in the subcontinent.After Ayodhya and London that should be the main foreign policy message from the PM.

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?
ID=IEH20050707225907&Page=H&Title=Top+Stories&Topic=-402

Islamification must be stopped --British National Party

BNP leader makes emergency appeal

7th July 2005

News article filed by BNP news team

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=379



"Stay calm. Give blood. Blame Blair not ordinary Muslims." This is the earnest and sincere advice from British National Party leader Nick Griffin in the wake of this morning's terrorist outrages in our capital city.

Following the Islamic fundamentalist massacres in London, two tendencies will rapidly become apparent: First the pro-government media will swing into action, bringing out a steady stream of injured ordinary Muslims and a flood of 'moderate' Muslim spokesmen to condemn the extremists. Second, millions of ordinary Brits just won't believe them, with severe extra strain on race relations as a result. And, of course, those sceptics will be right to doubt what the media and the political Establishment tell them, not least because, for all the ritual condemnation by the Labour Party puppets in the Muslim Council of Britain, a significant minority of young Muslims in this country do support the terrorists - the celebrations among the traders on Bradford Market this morning being a case in point. No doubt we will hear of more such instances as time goes on.

Blame the politicians

But, equally, large numbers of more Westernised Muslims do not support them. The BNP therefore appeals to everybody to stay calm, and for those who are angry about the mass murder in London to direct that anger towards the people who turned our country into a prime terrorist target. That was the inevitable and utterly foreseeable result of decades of foreign policy decisions which meddled in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and against the Palestinians, culminating in the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq on the coat-tails of George Bush's attempt to seize control of large amounts of oil and to please the powerful pro-Israeli neo-con lobby. Summed up, people should blame Blair and New Labour, rather than ordinary Muslims. The way to hit back is to eject Labour candidates at every election from now on (and not by voting Tory because the Conservatives are also stained forever by their support of the unjust war that led directly to today's targeting of our capital city).

It is almost inevitable that, within a week at most, the liberal intellectual newspapers in particular will be full of wailing about how the atrocities have sparked an upsurge of 'Islamophobia' - that piece of political cant that demonises legitimate concern about the inherently undemocratic, anti-Western nature of the Islamic religion and labels it as unthinking 'hate'. It is vital, at this time of national grief and anger, that the propagandists of the liberal multi-culti 'dream' are not given any ammunition for their campaign to bury the truth and stifle the debate that should now take place about how we are going to avoid today's strains between West and East becoming a future war on our own streets.

Do something useful

So if you are angry today - as we are and as you should be - get that anger out of your system by doing something truly useful, something that will really help: Call the National Blood Service or your local hospital and find out how and where you can give blood to help the injured and maimed. And, once you know, persuade a car-load of friends to go with you and help as well.

One last thing, a personal message from me: I was heavily criticised last year by the BBC, Labour politicians and Guardianistas for calling Islam a "wicked, vicious faith", and later this year I face a trial for saying that and for exposing instances of racist attacks on innocent young whites by gangs of young thugs from the Islamic community. I did not, and I do not, say that Muslims are wicked and vicious, but I maintain that a faith that provides the justification and the 'moral' climate for some of its most ardent followers to plant bombs on crowded tube trains and buses in London, or to beat and stab lone 'kufirs' on the streets of dozens of British towns and cities, is indeed wicked and vicious. The Islamification of Britain can and must be stopped by political and then legal changes. And the same methods mus t be used to reverse it.

Britain and the West will be free and Western, or they will be an endless bloodbath. Today's horrific events have shown that, in the end, whatever propaganda the BBC produces over the days ahead, that is the only choice we have to make.

Nick Griffin
Chairman, British National Party

Book

The 'West', Islam and Islamism: Is ideological Islam compatible with liberal democracy? Read the review and order now from here.