NHS Doctor guilty of car bomb attacks

[The Grim Squeaker]

Doctor guilty of car bomb attacks

An NHS doctor has been convicted of plotting to bring chaos and murder to London and Glasgow Airport by setting off massive car bombs.

A jury at Woolwich Crown Court found Bilal Abdulla guilty of plotting the home-made bomb attacks in 2007.

Another NHS doctor, Mohammed Asha, was cleared of helping Abdulla and a second attacker, Kafeel Ahmed.

Ahmed died following the Glasgow attack on 30 June 2007, a day after he and Abdulla had attacked London's West End.

Prosecutor Jonathan Laidlaw told the jury the men had been intent on "committing murder on an indiscriminate and wholesale scale" in attacks that would occur without warning, spreading panic among the public.

Abdulla will be sentenced on Wednesday. Meanwhile, lawyers for Dr Asha said he had been served with deportation papers - but would fight to remain in the UK and rebuild his medical career.

'Kill and maim'

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was "pleased" with the conviction.

"The attack on Glasgow Airport and the planned bomb in central London sought to kill and maim through attacks of an indiscriminate nature," she said.

"This conviction underlines again the serious and sustained threat we face in the UK from terrorism - which is a threat we must face and deal with together."

The first attack involved two failed car bombs left in London's West End. Then a burning Jeep filled with gas canisters was driven into Glasgow Airport on its busiest day of the year.

In each case, said prosecutors, it was good fortune alone that there had been no loss of innocent life.

Abdulla, an Iraqi who was born in the UK, was one of two bombers along with Kafeel Ahmed. The 29-year-old was arrested near the Jeep at Glasgow Airport terminal building.

Indian-born PhD aeronautical engineering student Ahmed, 28, suffered serious burns and died five weeks later.

Detectives believe the Glasgow attack was a suicide bomb attempt on holidaymakers in the wake of the two botched attacks on London.

Abdulla admitted in court that he was "a terrorist" as defined by English law. He went on to say he believed the British government and Army could equally be accused of terrorism for their actions in Iraq.

But he added he had wanted to frighten people rather than murder them.

At the time of the attacks he was a junior doctor at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley.

The jury at Woolwich Crown Court found Abdulla guilty of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. He faces a life sentence but showed no reaction as the jury's verdict was read out.

Investigators said they had been shocked to learn of Abdulla's responsible, health sector background.

One senior detective added: "Just the whole idea of people who take the Hippocratic oath who then go on to wantonly seek to destroy human life in the most horrific way imaginable, that is what I find shocking."

Dr Asha, 28, a neurologist at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire, admitted knowing the two bombers but denied any knowledge of their attacks. He was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions.

He leaned back in his seat, his hands clasped behind his neck in apparent relief as the verdict was read out. Before Dr Asha left the dock the two men embraced and shook hands.

Jim Sturman QC, for Abdulla, said his crimes were motivated by politics, not religion.

"This is not a case where his intention was driven by religious faith but by his frustration with what he saw as an unjust war," he said.

The barrister said his client needed time "to allow the consequences of conviction to sink in".

Speaking after the trial, Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Karen Jones said: "If you are planning to scare people you do not pack cars with petrol, gas and nails.

"If the cars had blown up those nails would not only have killed people but maimed others for life."

Tory MP and security expert Patrick Mercer said it was wrong to call the attacks "amateurish" and said Britain was vulnerable to similar incidents.

"These sort of attacks are relatively easily put together. The materials are relatively easily obtained.

'Highly vulnerable'

"Whilst we have seen highly sophisticated attacks in places like Mumbai in recent weeks, we are still highly vulnerable to the lower end of the lower scale of these sort of attacks being put together without very much central guidance from core al-Qaeda operatives."

Deputy Assistant Commissioner John McDowall, a national counter terrorism co-ordinator at the Metropolitan Police, said he believed the London bombs were to have been the first in a series of similar attacks.

"Abdulla and Kafeel Ahmed had at least two other vehicles and further supplies of gas, petrol and other items for constructing bombs," he said.

"It was more luck than judgement that their repeated attempts to detonate the two car bombs by mobile phone failed."

Strathclyde Police Chief Constable Stephen House said he was "delighted" with the result and grateful for the "solid ties" between the force, community leaders and the area's ethnic minority communities.

Amanda McMillan, managing director of Glasgow Airport, paid tribute to the bravery of airport workers, passengers and the emergency services.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/u ... 773410.stm

Posted without comment.

[Sidewinder]

(Thinks about banging my head. Reconsiders. Grabs Abdulla and bangs his head against the wall.)

If you (Abdulla) wanted to scare the Brits out of Iraq, why didn't you go to Iraq and join al-Qaida in Iraq? Why did you have to cause trouble in the UK, which is likely to provoke hate crimes against Muslims and people who look Arabic, i.e., make life absolutely miserable for Muslims and Arabs who just want to work an honest job and make a decent living in the UK?

Hell, there are plenty of places that are in states of anarchy because no government is willing and/or able to enforce its laws, i.e., its will, there. Why don't the Muslim fundamentalists just move to some forgotten stretch of the Gobi or Sahara Deserts, and found a Islamist commune where they'll be left alone because no one gives a damn about that godforsaken place?

[Stark]

Yeah, why weren't the British fighting the Germans in France? Why blow up German stuff in Germany? THE FOOLS!

Look up 'terrorism' in the dictionary, ffs. Hell, look up 'political demonstration'. Oh yeah, why don't they move to a worthless wasteland barely capable of supporting life far from their homes? HMM I FUCKING WONDER HMMM GET THE BAT COMPUTER.

People who post shit without comment should drown in a toilet.

[Samuel]

(Thinks about banging my head. Reconsiders. Grabs Abdulla and bangs his head against the wall.)

If you (Abdulla) wanted to scare the Brits out of Iraq, why didn't you go to Iraq and join al-Qaida in Iraq? Why did you have to cause trouble in the UK, which is likely to provoke hate crimes against Muslims and people who look Arabic, i.e., make life absolutely miserable for Muslims and Arabs who just want to work an honest job and make a decent living in the UK?

Hell, there are plenty of places that are in states of anarchy because no government is willing and/or able to enforce its laws, i.e., its will, there. Why don't the Muslim fundamentalists just move to some forgotten stretch of the Gobi or Sahara Deserts, and found a Islamist commune where they'll be left alone because no one gives a damn about that godforsaken place?

Classic revolutionary technique- seperate people into us vs them and force the apathetic to choose sides.
Or not giving a damn- you think he cares about the greater community?

As for founding a community... they are doing that it Somalia. The Gobi and Sahara are too inhospitable- and the Chinese would be very... pissed.

[K. A. Pital]

If you (Abdulla) wanted to scare the Brits out of Iraq, why didn't you go to Iraq and join al-Qaida in Iraq?

If you want to defeat an enemy, it makes sense to blow up his nation in it's weakest spots (large public places) than face his well-armed and trained Army and most likely be defeated. Terrorism is not stupid. It's one of the multitude of reactions one can use to fight an enemy which is conventionally more powerful than you.

[Stark]

Gosh are you saying hitting them on their home turf where their disinterested citizenry are busy feeling safe and ignoring your plight will create political pressure?

NO. FUCKING. WAY.

[Sea Skimmer]

If you want to defeat an enemy, it makes sense to blow up his nation in it's weakest spots (large public places) than face his well-armed and trained Army and most likely be defeated. Terrorism is not stupid. It's one of the multitude of reactions one can use to fight an enemy which is conventionally more powerful than you.

Rarely has that theory proven true; and generally only against weak powers. In the case of Iraq, spreading the war is generally counter productive. One of the whole reasons the war in Iraq was and is so unpopular is because people don’t see it as being relevant to everyday security at home. If you start spreading an insurgency, suddenly you start giving your opponent a reason to keep fighting by directly threatening him. Because of this insurgents fighting to end an occupation don’t usually fight outside the area being occupied if they want to be successful. You don’t see the Vietnamese sending commandoes to attack San Francisco in 1968 for example, nor even did they try mounting serious attacks in Thailand.

In contrast the IRA’s bombing campaigns against England proved so unpopular that even the splinter groups eventually had to give up, and al-Zarqawi’s 2005 attacks in Jordon created a huge negative backlash against his cause while doing nothing to reduce Jordon’s support for the American occupation. The bombing of apartment buildings sure didn’t terrorize Russia into letting Chechnya go. Some people claim Spain was driven out of Iraq by terrorism, but in reality most projections already expected the opposition to win the election because the Spanish involvement was already highly unpopular. A large part of the reason for this was because Spanish troops had been hit by a number of car bombs and taken proportionally heavy casualties.

Columbia and Israel meanwhile show that terrorist campaigns of even the greatest intensity may utterly fail, and simply hardened opposition, much as strategic bombing in the world wars utterly failed to break the moral of any population, even when they had almost no defence. Successful terrorist campaigns are very highly uncommon for good reason. If terrorists had any sense they’d just concentrate on causing maximum disruption and economic damage, especially by attacking power grids, rather then killing people.

[Sidewinder]

Classic revolutionary technique- seperate people into us vs them and force the apathetic to choose sides.

As Sea Skimmer noted, this is counterproductive, because the "them" might have a significant numerical, logistical, and/or technological advantage over you.

As for founding a community... they are doing that it Somalia. The Gobi and Sahara are too inhospitable- and the Chinese would be very... pissed.

There's still Mongolia. The Mongols will probably leave the Muslims alone (there were several Muslim Khans), as long as the Muslims do not do something stupid to remind the Mongols how Hulagu Khan wiped out the Assassins.

[Samuel]

As Sea Skimmer noted, this is counterproductive, because the "them" might have a significant numerical, logistical, and/or technological advantage over you.

Not if it is an ideological goal. Trying to get Muslims everywhere to identify with a common cause. You can't win in England, but you can increase group divide.

There's still Mongolia. The Mongols will probably leave the Muslims alone (there were several Muslim Khans), as long as the Muslims do not do something stupid to remind the Mongols how Hulagu Khan wiped out the Assassins.

Mongolia. The least densely populated country on the planet. Because it is almost completely inhosptiable. Where are they going to live? It isn't like the country's wilds aren't full with nomads already. There isn't really anywhere you can put people.

[Sarevok]

As Sea Skimmer noted, this is counterproductive, because the "them" might have a significant numerical, logistical, and/or technological advantage over you.

Not if it is an ideological goal. Trying to get Muslims everywhere to identify with a common cause. You can't win in England, but you can increase group divide.

Negative. Uniting muslims under one banner will lead to great deal of personal powers for leaders of extremist movements as mobs rally across national border. It will however weaken muslim countries, create powerful foreign foreign foes and ultimately destroy the islamic world once enough people in the powerful countries start reading MKsheppards threads.

It is a very flawed strategy. I doubt there is even a strategy at all in the entire "global jihad". Most likely extremist muslims and groups are acting along common patterns.