Not reported much lately on our old friend Farooq Siddique, the Evening Cancer’s entirely sane and rational representative of Bristol’s Muslim community and Bristol University’s man from the mosque.
So reliable is Farooq that he was recently stood down by the Avon & Somerset Police as as a Muslim community spokesman after he brazenly claimed in a police press conference – without evidence – that ‘The Techno Terrorist’, Andrew Ibrahim, had never visited a Bristol mosque.
This, of course, turned out to be bollocks and Farooq and his agenda were hurriedly replaced for future press conferences by the vastly more circumspect, coherent and sensible types from the Council of Bristol Mosques.
So what’s this he’s saying – on behalf of Bristol’s Muslim community natch – in today’s local paper? Apparently, “there are many unanswered questions about what happened on 9/11.”
Really Farooq? And you’re going to answer them then are you?
Of course he isn’t. Instead the rambling conspiracy nut assures us, “The time is now right to be able to raise those questions, without being accused of being an apologist, conspiracy theorist or terrorist sympathiser – to look at the evidence rationally.”
Indeed. And Farooq’s brilliant, rational conclusion?
“If Muslims are to be blamed for carrying out 9/11, surely there has to be more convincing evidence, and less conjecture.”
So if wasn’t Muslims, who was it Farooq? A rogue cell of Methodists perhaps? Rastafarians? Confused Budhists? Men from Mars? Or was it perhaps the Jews wot did it?
At this stage it should perhaps be pointed out that Farooq’s fellow travellers in the Ummah spouting this kind of 9/11 denialist junk include Islamists, virulent anti-semites, holocaust deniers, suicide bombers and all kinds of violent Jihadis*.
Jesus wept. How does this shit get in our local paper?
*See Paul Stott‘s ‘Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History’ (Word doc) for an introduction to 9/11 Truth issues and the Muslim Ummah
“ON 9/11, the world truly changed. It became divided: good guys on one side, bad guys on the other; everything became black and white.”
Your mileage may vary.
“Here in Britain, the perception of the Muslim community changed overnight, from being known as peaceful, hard working and law abiding to one viewed with suspicion, fear and hate, to the point where there is now an online game called Muslim Massacre, about wiping out Muslims. It’s disgusting, but sadly a sign of the post-9/11 world.”
I didn’t notice the perception of UK muslims changing much. The game “Muslim Massacre” wasn’t made by a UK person. The game “Muslim Massacre” is taking the piss out of the US’s war on terror.
“Yet, back in 2001, there were many unanswered questions about what happened on 9/11. Despite all the enquiries, analysis and counter analysis, seven years later, those specific questions remain unanswered.”
Not really. The questions the “troofers” raise have been answered endlessly.
“The time is now right to be able to raise those questions, without being accused of being an apologist, conspiracy theorist or terrorist sympathiser – to look at the evidence rationally.”
Conspiracy theorist talk.
“The 9/11 hijackers were portrayed as devout, “very religious” Muslims. Yet, they were seen visiting strip clubs, gambling and drinking alcohol – hardly the acts of devout Muslims.”
They believed that as martyrs Allah wouldn’t mind them having a bit of fun.
“What about the “clear evidence” that Colin Powell was going to present to the world linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11? It never came. Tony Blair did present some evidence, but he began his report by saying, in his own words: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law. To this day, the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist webpage about Osama, while listing him as wanted for bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, makes no mention of 9/11. The FBI’s chief of investigative publicity said: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It’s a technical thing. Scroll down to “FBI ten most wanted fugitive list” here:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Osama_bin_Laden
“Remember the video of Bin Laden apparently admitting to 9/11? The FBI obviously does not consider that video hard evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11. According to the 9/11 Commission, the main evidence for Osama’s responsibility comes from the interrogation of star witness Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the 9/11 Commission was not allowed to see or speak to at all. Yet, his statement was based on “enhanced interrogation techniques”, like torture.”
There’s plenty of evidence for OBL’s involvement in 911. As he hasn’t been indicted in a court of law he’s not listed as wanted for the attacks. It’s a technical matter and not evidence of non-involvement.
“After the destruction of the World Trade Centre, the FBI found the passport of one of the Flight 11 hijackers on the street. Another passport and “a red headband” were also discovered at the crash site of United 93.”
Passports of three hijackers were recovered from two crash sites.
” Nothing else survived.”
Lol. Apart from all the other bits of luggage, papers from the flights, personal possessions, bits of planes and bodies of passengers.
” Both these were crucial pieces of evidence showing that the hijackers were Muslim. Both are patently absurd.”
There’s a huge heap of evidence. The flight training and the claims of responsibility come immediately to mind.
“What about the luggage that was found at the airport which was supposed to be transferred to Flight 11, but didn’t make it? What good would flying aids be inside a suitcase in the plane’s hold? Why would he have wanted his last will and testament on a plane he planned to crash?”
It wasn’t. It was left in a car in the car park.
“Also, why were there no DNA tests carried out to prove the identity of the hijackers?”
DNA tests were carried out and did establish the identies of the hijackers.
“And remember the security video of the hijackers boarding the flights? Not true. That video was from a different airport, boarding a different flight.”
Security video footage from Dulles airport, where flight 77 boarded, show five hijackers passing through. I think Farooq has either made up this claim about footage or gets it from an unreliable source.
“If Muslims are to be blamed for carrying out 9/11, surely there has to be more convincing evidence, and less conjecture.”
Shut up, conspiraloon.
Apparently you’re supposed to say “alleged Techno-Terrorist”
“The 9/11 hijackers were portrayed as devout, “very religious” Muslims. Yet, they were seen visiting strip clubs, gambling and drinking alcohol – hardly the acts of devout Muslims.”
Phrases like this never fail to amuse me.
In my experience the “very religious” are usually the worst of the lot.
I worked at Eurodisney when it opened in 1992 as a barman in the most expensive restaurant in the entertainment area just outside of the Park.
On many, many occasions families from one of the Gulf states would sweep in – husband first in Arab dress, a couple of wives in tow and a Indonesian nanny with the kids. Always said grace in Arabic prior to eating, were friendly, polite and very generous with the tips.
More often than not, the father would sidle up to the bar and ask me to serve him the most expensive Cognac or Armagnac in the house out of a teapot into a cup and saucer. The wives knew full well that their husbands were drinking but they didn’t want their kids to realise what they were up to.
I lost count of the number of times this occurred. Meant great tips for me, but working there and having known quite a few Muslims in my life – some “very religious” – I really don’t buy this crap that religious Muslims don’t drink or party because it’s just not true.
No, no, no!
You’ve all got it wrong. Anyone who examines the evidence properly cannot fail to come to the conclusion that 9/11 was is fact perpetrated by a rogue methodist cell operating within the CIA, and that they were aided by an alliance of giant reptiloids and toenail worshipers.
The International Zionist Conspiracy has worked very hard to cover up these facts, and to hide the truth from the general public, but all intelligent people can see the truth.
As you lot obviously don’t agree with this, you are clearly either fools, or, agents of ZOG, and the New World Order.
Cease these mindless attacks on Farooq at once.
The Evening Post have such a marvellous panel of contributors, don’t they?
So dedicated to facts, and the truth.
And on a related note, remember this?
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/22/ucu-and-the-david-duke-fan/
http://www.chickyog.net/2008/08/27/harrys-place-down/
It’s my firm view that the terrorists, aside from the obvious goal to harm as many as possible, are seeking to create divisions between communities where none would naturally exist, with the ultimate aim of generating pretexts for war
Of course any rational person knows that a human is a human, regardless of minor# differences (for example differrences in ideolgy) and there’s no genuine reason why we should not all be able to get along perfectly well
So I always get suspicious of those who try and chip aay at our similarities, and this guy comes into that bracket. It’s not that the average person wanted the terrorists to specifically be Muslims, it’s just an unfortunate truth that they were. To suggest that Muslims were made scapegoats is not only insanely untrue, but also helps fuel the “us and them” mentality which I see as also being the goal of the terrorists
To conclude, terrorism need not only be achieved by violence. Sometimes words can do the job just as effectively. Surely this guy needs to be watched, for the good of people everywhere – including those in the very community he’s claiming to represent.
# N.b. by minor I mean that we’re all basically the same; it’s not like one nation is made up of carnivorous lizards with another’s imhabitents being made of intangible matter
Great post BB.
Great comments from several people too.
Farooq’s view is irrational, unreasonable and divisive….
I read it with some dismay.
I wonder what Farooq hoped to achieve with that piece. He would have been better advised to emphasise how remote the terrorists were in their thinking from the vast bulk of Muslims, at least those in the UK. To suggest that there is little evidence that they were even Muslims seems over ambitious, to put it mildly.
SilentBob wrote: “Of course any rational person knows that a human is a human, regardless of minor# differences (for example differrences in ideolgy) and there’s no genuine reason why we should not all be able to get along perfectly well”.
Yesbut …. There is more to human nature than physical biology. Mental outlook is a key determinant of a person – just ask any of those millions who have fought or been killed for their beliefs.
The world is all too malleable to the hammers of the mind.
“There is more to human nature than physical biology. Mental outlook is a key determinant of a person – just ask any of those millions who have fought or been killed for their beliefs.”
Indeed Dona, it was Martin Luther King who said
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
People can chew on this, and draw their own conclusions.
Somewhat cryptic comment, Spectator. Are you pointing out that implicit in King’s words is the importance of judgement as between good and evil characters?
May I trade quotations with you:
“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke.
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/29
Followed by:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” — Plato.
And this week’s community-enhancing generalisation from Mr Siddique:
“Atheists proudly take God out of the equation but still allow themselves to be fascinated by the probability that little green men from another world may have brought the knowledge to build the pyramids to Earth, and by the “scientifically possible” permutations of life on other worlds. As yet, no atheist, indeed no one, has seen a little green man. But atheists believe in the possibility of little green men existing.”
Yes, of course. All atheists believe this, don’t they. Just as all Muslims believe … (just fill in whatever lunatic idea comes into your head) …
Would such a tendentious and divisive writer be allowed even on Indymedia?
Doesn’t look like Farooq has quite got the hang of this ‘community cohesion’ thingy yet.
Pingback: All the news that’s fit to print? « The Bristol Blogger