Why are the four men cited by the police guilty as alleged? Anthony Lawson asks the questions no one else wants to ask.

I am concerned that the Muslim community, in Britain, seems to accept the that the four young men, named by the police, are guilty of the London bombings. In the comments posted on the BBC's Have Your Say there is NOT ONE which questions these findings. I have written to Have Your Say, but my comments have not been posted.

Read the establishment media, watch CNN, ITV and the BBC and look or listen for the word "alleged". You will not see it written and not hear it spoken too often, in relation to the bombings. I have seen many Muslim leaders interviewed, but not one of them seems to have shown any doubt that what the police are saying adds up to a guilty verdict on these young men; young men whose families and friends say that they cannot believe that they could have done these terrible things.

I am not a Muslim, but I hope you will read the following, and do some research into what others are thinking and writing. My comments to the BBC were as follows:

To Talking Point (BBC). Four young Muslim men have been identified as the perpetrators of the July 7th London bombings. On Prime Minister Blair?s instructions, there will be no inquiry, because they have already been found guilty by the police, with no pertinent questions asked by the British media, and the stoic British public seems to accept this. Why?

There must be at least a dozen plausible scenarios which could explain why these men, carrying military-looking back packs, as captured by a CCTV camera shortly before the bombings, looked suspiciously out of context, at that particular time, but who were innocently going about their legitimate pursuits. They may even have been temporarily employed to take part in an operation which was supposed to simulate concerted terrorist attacks, in exactly the same locations where the real ones occurred. The man who planned those simulations was Peter Power, of Visor Consultants, and he told the world about them on BBC Radio Five?s Drive programme, on Thursday 7th July at 17.06 on, so that?s no secret.

Of course, Mr. Power declined to name the organization which had contracted his company to arrange these terrorist-attack simulations, and the police do not seem to be interested in finding it out, unless they already know the name and are not going to reveal it, either.

So, confidentiality seems to work for the living, who might have been involved in the bombings, but not for the dead, who might simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or worse, duped into something which cost them their lives, yet their families will now suffer for crimes that these men may not have committed.

Linking scenarios could easily be dreamed up to explain the explosives which were found in a house and a car connected with the men, and none of the above would require the talents of a John Le Carr? or a Len Deighton in order to be at least as plausible as the one which has already been used to confer a posthumous guilty verdict ? by the ex-lawyer turned prime minister ? on the men named by the police.

And what about the very pertinent question: "Who gains?" It is well known that the motto of Israel?s secret police, Mossad, is By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Make War and Israel always stands to gain when other countries suffer from ?terrorist? attacks, because they have the perfect excuse to clamp down on the more militant Palestinians, from whom they have already stolen so much, and are poised to steal more. Could Israel have been involved? Sticky question, but aren?t they all, when it comes to murder?

If the British public, including doctors, lawyers, journalists, schoolteachers, university professors and the average London Bobby are prepared to swallow what they are being fed, whole, and without question, then they are all fools. Comments to the BBC end.

With no disrespect, I feel that Muslim leaders could be specified in that list, particularly as there is bound to be some community backlash directed by those who have a tendency to label people, because of their religion or colour.

Please remember that Blair had no compunction in joining Bush to invade Iraq, on the basis of what is now known to be false ? not merely misunderstood ? intelligence. These two murderers, in the face of massive demonstrations, worldwide, went ahead with their bloody invasion and they and their advisors, including many members of Blair?s cabinet, are now directly responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 human beings, mostly Muslims. Therefore, Blair is a known terrorist, and he should not be allowed to sully the names of four men who may well be innocent.

If you don?t care or have a conscience about over 100,000 deaths, then 50 plus deaths, in London ? including four men who, under British law, are innocent until proven guilty ? would not cause Blair to lose a moment?s sleep.

There are many Muslim lawyers, in England, and some of them should get together, out of their respect for the law, and represent the four dead Muslims who are currently thought, by most people in Britain, to be guilty of the London bombings, just as Bush told the world that 19 Arab suicide hijackers were responsible for the events of 9/11.

Yet, only a few weeks later, at least eight of those 19 turned up, very much alive, and a subsequent search for those behind the attacks has resulted in only one prosecution. That was in Germany, and the action was later dropped, because the Americans would not allow one of their operatives to give ?evidence? at the trial.

For further research and comments please go to rense.com. On the home page, there is a panel which is dedicated to items about the London bombings. Other sites are libertyforum.org and prisonplanet.com

-----
The original post may be found on the MPAC website here www.mpacuk.org