Thursday, 30 September 2010

7_7 The Fourth Bomb by Daniel Obachike - Review

J7 Book Review: The Fourth Bomb


A review of The Fourth Bomb, a book by Daniel Obachike

daniel oba chike - the 4th bomb
"The 4th Bomb" is an account of the events of 7/7 by Daniel Obachike in which he claims that:
  • he was a passenger on the number 30 bus that exploded in Tavistock Square on 7th July 2005
  • Hasib Hussain, the alleged bomber, was not on the bus
  • a bomb was planted on the bus by an MI5 operative
  • the bomb was detonated by means of the mobile phone network
He also claims that he saw Christian Small (Njoya Diawara) alive and well ten minutes after the authorities allege that he died in one of the explosions on the underground.
As well as the events of 7th July 2005, Obachike describes how he believes he came under surveillance by MI5 operatives afterwards, and how he went about making his story public. His only attempt to go through the mainstream media was via Michael Duffy of the Sunday Mirror, on 12th July 2005. "The 4th Bomb" claims that Duffy lost interest because Obachike refused to confirm that Hasib Hussain was on the bus (p 94). It would be interesting to hear Duffy's account of their meeting. In July 2006, Obachike's story was published in "New Nation", "Britain's number 1 best selling black newspaper" (not to be confused with the American white supremacist web site of the same name). Subsequently, Obachike trailed "The 4th Bomb" on a web site and blog. The book was originally described there as a novel, but when this was queried Obachike promptly made clear that even though he described the book as a novel it was non-fiction. It was finally published in July 2007 (around the same time as a collection of Christian Small's writings). "The 4th Bomb" is essentially self-published. This is notoriously not a route that leads to fame and fortune, so it is reasonable to discount such unworthy motives in the author.
It needs to be borne in mind that eye witness testimony is generally regarded as inferior to other forensic evidence. This is because of the way the human brain works. Memory can be fallible even when there is no intention to deceive. For this reason even if Obachike's claims cannot be disproved we must beware of attaching too much weight to them. By the same reasoning, though, his account cannot be dismissed as unreliable just because it has a few anomalies.
Obachike claims that he was at Euston on July 7th because he decided to change to the underground rather than continue on his mainline train from Enfield Town all the way to Liverpool Street. The only reason he gives for this change is to avoid the "grey brigade" (p 6). Sure enough, the aptly named Seven Sisters provides attractive females for Obachike's contemplation, but we are left wondering whether someone running late for work (p 5, p 239) would have chosen this route.
oba chike daniel new nation At Euston, Obachike does not take a 205 bus (which would have taken him to Old Street where he wanted to go) because its driver informs him, "in a heavy African accent", that he should take the number 30 (p 24). One strange feature of the number 30 bus is that the apparent destinations of many of its passengers would have been better served by the number 205. "The 4th Bomb" offers an explanation for this: the driver of the 205 bus mistakenly told them to take the number 30. Note, however, that Obachike did not include this incident in his July 2006 account in "New Nation".
"The 4th Bomb" describes how the number 30 bus was held up on Euston Road for several minutes by a blue BMW and black Mercedes, before it turned right into Upper Woburn Place. At the time of the explosion Obachike states that there was "only Daniel, the bus driver and a handful of people seated towards the rear remaining on its lower deck" (p 20). This handful included "three females" (p 21), but no mention is made of the middle aged man listening to his IPod referred to in other reports. Later on, Obachike asserts that he was "the only male passenger on the lower deck as it was diverted to Tavistock Square" (p 220).
After the explosion, Obachike remained still for 12 seconds (p 22). He then ran 40 metres and took in the sights of someone filming the bus with a camcorder and a police cordon (p 23). When he turned round, which must therefore at the very least be 15 seconds after the explosion, he saw a section of bus roof "pirouette in the air in slow motion before floating gently to earth" (p 24). If the roof was blown off by the initial explosion, it could not still be in the air that long afterwards. Note, however, that in his July 2006 account in "New Nation" Obachike said he left the bus within 10 seconds of the blast.
60 seconds after the explosion, Obachike found a man in a grey suit with a bandaged head and torn trousers 70 metres away from the bus (p 25; on p 225 he is placed 50 metres away). The only video footage of this man shows him receiving assistance in the Russell Square area. If he was injured in the Piccadilly Line explosion, as this footage suggests, it is extremely unlikely that he would have been in Tavistock Square at the time of the bus explosion. Obachike explains his presence by claiming that Peter Power was running a terror drill at Russell Square, and that this bandaged man was a part of it before being relocated for another terror drill in Tavistock Square (p 229).
Daniel Oba Chike"The 4th Bomb" presents no evidence that Peter Power was running a drill at Russell Square, other than Power's media statements that his exercise was for incidents at precisely the same locations as the explosions. This is not conclusive as it is unclear whether Power would have regarded Kings Cross or Russell Square as the station affected by the Piccadilly line explosion. We know that Power's exercise did include "mock broadcasts", though. The time has long since passed when Peter Power should have made a full public disclosure of his exercise. No consideration of "commercial confidentiality" can justify the withholding of this information when so many were killed and injured. It is a disgrace that the news media continues to use him as a terrorism expert without questioning him about this. Until we know the truth about that exercise, the claims made about it in "The 4th Bomb" cannot be ruled out.
There are some slight inaccuracies in the way that Power is quoted by "The 4th Bomb". It claims (p 193) that Power said on the radio he "had been conducting 4 terror drills at 3 tube stations and a train station". In fact, Power referred to a single exercise and did not state explicitly the number of stations involved. It was only in his television interview that he mentioned a mainline station. It should also be noted that in his interview with the Manchester Evening News Power stated that the exercise did not involve a bus bomb.
Obachike claims that as a result of a Google search he found a report that "A bicycle courier called Andrew Childes saw a black man running away from the bus seconds after it exploded" (p 50). Whilst a number of articles citing Andrew Childes can still be found on the Internet, none of them has this statement about a black man running away.
There is a strange interlude in Obachike's narrative where we are taken to the home of Rachel North on Sunday 10th July 2005 (p 69 - 72). It is not clear what the point of this is given that she had no direct connection to the bus bomb. North's only other appearance in the book is on p 228 when she confirms that the bandaged man referred to earlier was photographed near to Russell Square. North dissents strongly from Obachike's view that Hasib Hussain was not on the bus and that MI5 carried out the explosion, so it is very odd that she has not dissociated herself publicly from "The 4th Bomb". [Update 31/10/07: See comments]
On p 157, Obachike claims that he has a photograph from the Internet of Christian Small lying dead in Tavistock Square, but he does not appear to have published this on his web site. The photograph would confirm Obachike's claim that Small was still alive ten minutes after the underground explosions (p 12). It is the only evidence "The 4th Bomb" provides that Small was on the number 30 bus as Obachike does not claim to have seen him board the bus. From this, it can be inferred that Small was among the three or four people who boarded the bus before Obachike (p 94). However, if Obachike did not see Small board the bus it must therefore be a possibility that Obachike also missed Hasib Hussain boarding the bus, and therefore Obachike cannot state with the absolute certainty that he does that Hussain was not on the bus.
Obachike wonders whether there is a link to Simon Murden, who was inexplicably shot dead by police in March 2005 in Yorkshire (p 195). This is an excellent observation. Like Small, Murden was by all accounts a young man of outstanding character, and had spent time doing charitable work in Ghana. Obachike points out that one of the defendants in the 21st July 2005 trial used the name of the son of a Ghanaian official (p 196).
Obachike claims that Brian Downer, a mutual friend of himself and Christian Small, had informed him that Small's car had been found parked at Kings Cross (p 197). This contradicts the statement made by Small's father that the car was found parked at Blackhorse Road underground station.
The July 7th Truth Campaign has attempted to contact the Njoya Foundation to ask its opinion of Obachike's claims about Christian Small, to whom "The 4th Bomb" is dedicated, but has received no response.
daniel oba chike - statementThe police finally took a statement from Obachike after he applied for compensation (p 215). This is interesting because initially passengers on the bus were not included in the list of those eligible for compensation by the Criminal Injuries and Compensation Authority (section 16).
Inevitably, "The 4th Bomb" discusses the bus witness who featured most prominently in the media immediately after the explosion, Richard Jones. Obachike says that Jones was not on the bus at all, and that he has found evidence which corroborates this claim. This is a video clip of some survivors of the Piccadilly line explosion being interviewed. In the background, a man who looks very much like Richard Jones is seen crossing the street, walking in a direction that is away from Euston station. Obachike claims that the video clip is at 9:25am (p 230), but there is no evidence for that time. Even so, it adds significantly to the doubts about the credibility of the testimony given by Richard Jones, itself easily called into question on the basis that the man he describes seeing does not match the appearance of Hasib Hussain in the one CCTV image released that purports to show him at King's Cross station on the morning of 7th July 2005.
Obachike explains how he believes the explosion was carried out on p 224. He claims that the two cars he saw delaying the bus did so because the mobile phone network was down; they moved out of the way once the network was up again. When the bus reached Tavistock Square, a mobile phone signal triggered a bomb that had been left on the bus by an MI5 operative who had got off minutes before (p 19, p 225). Obachike claims that a report in the Daily Express of 8th July 2005 carried a police statement confirming that the mobile phone network had been down. This Daily Express report cannot be found on the Internet, nor can the police statement. Other press reports on 8th July 2005 state that the mobile phone network was not down. The Greater London Assembly report (sections 3.11 and 3.12) states that the only time the network was down was for about four hours between noon and 4:45pm (within a 1 km radius of Aldgate station, at the request of the City of London police). The evidence therefore seems to be against Obachike's theory.
Throughout "The 4th Bomb" episodes of suspected surveillance are recounted. There is no way of telling whether these suspicions were well grounded or not, so the book as a whole would probably have been more convincing without them.
Overall, the discrepancies in "The 4th Bomb" are of such a magnitude that Obachike's main claims must be regarded as unsubstantiated. Unlike the government, which utterly refuses to answer any questions about its blatantly flawed official narrative, Obachike has shown a willingness to engage with those who have questioned his story. He expresses appreciation for such truth-seekers in the Epilogue (p 242). This review is offered as further constructive criticism, in the hope that Obachike will clarify the contentious issues that have been raised.

Please sign the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition




Monday, September 27, 2010

Kidnapping/Rape/Torture Victim Dr. Aafia Siddiqui Says Israel Did 9/11

By Muslims for 9/11 truth,

(Dr Aafia Siddiqui was condemned to 86 years of prison last week, without any evidence or charge. The West under Zionist control is a total racist dictatorship)
From the New York Post (9/26/10):

"Some segments within the US government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and to save the Zionist regime," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in his Thursday UN speech.

The same day, about three miles south, a veiled Aafia Siddiqui, sentenced to 86 years for trying to kill Americans in Afghanistan and who also plotted New York attacks, charged Israel was connected to 9/11. "I'm not anti-Israel, but, yes, I have said they masterminded 9/11 and I have proof of that," said the MIT-educated Pakistani. 

Read more:

See also:

Aafia Siddiqui: ‘I have proof Israel masterminded 9/11…big wars are being planned’ -PakAlert Press

Pakistan weighing ways to win Aaafia's release


Kevin Barrett of Muslims for 9/11 Truth interviews Dr. Aafia's lawyer, Tina Foster: article

listen to interview (Tina Foster joins Kevin for the second half hour of the show)

US-NATO and Xe (Blackwater) zionist crusaders destroying Pakistan



Wednesday, September 29, 2010

War on Pakistan : Israel is dismantling Pakistan through US-NATO and Xe (Blackwater) zionist crusader contractors terrorism

                                     Pakistani "tribesmen" offer funeral prayers for the innocent victims of a US  missile strike massacre

The REAL Leaders Of The World (Must See Documentary)


NATO Expands Afghan War Into Pakistan

By Rick Rozoff,

On October 7 the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization military allies will begin the tenth year of their war in Afghanistan, over 3,000 miles from NATO Headquarters in Brussels.

The following month midterm elections will be held in the U.S. and NATO will hold a two-day summit in Portugal. The American administration is eager to achieve, or appear to have achieved, a foreign policy triumph in an effort to retain Democratic Party control of Congress and NATO something to show for the longest and largest military mission in its 61 years of existence.

President Barack Obama has tripled the amount of American combat troops in Afghanistan to 100,000 and along with forces from other NATO member states and partner nations there are now over 150,000 foreign troops in the nation, the most ever stationed in the war-wracked country. 120,000 of those soldiers are now under the command of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the most ever serving in a North Atlantic Alliance-led military operation. NATO Kosovo Force at its peak had 50,000 troops, but they entered the Serbian province after an almost three-month air war had ended.

The 120,000 NATO forces currently in theater – from 50 nations already with more pegged to provide troops – are at the center of the world’s longest-lasting and increasingly deadly hot war. NATO’s first ground war, its first combat operations in Asia.

Last year was the most lethal for the U.S and NATO in what is now a nine-year conflict and this year has already proven even more costly in terms of combat deaths. And there are three more months to go.

Washington and Brussels could decide to save face and end the fighting through some combination of an internal political settlement and a true international peacekeeping arrangement – rather than the subversion of the International Security Assistance Force that was established by a United Nations mandate in December of 2001 but which is now the Pentagon’s and NATO’s vehicle for waging war in Afghanistan. And in neighboring Pakistan.

But the military metaphysic prevalent in Washington over the past 65 years will allow for nothing other than what is seen as victory, with a “Who lost Afghanistan?” legacy tarnishing the president who fails to secure it and the party to which he belongs being branded half-hearted and defeatist.

As for NATO, the Strategic Concept to be adopted in November is predicated upon the bloc’s expansion into a 21st century global expeditionary force for which Afghanistan is the test case. A NATO that loses Afghanistan, that loses in Afghanistan, will be viewed more critically by the populations of its European member states that have sacrificed their sons and daughters at the altar of NATO’s international ambitions. In the words of then-Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer six years ago: “What is NATO doing in Afghanistan? Defending values at the Hindu Kush in the present day international climate. We have to fight terrorism wherever it emerges. If we don’t do it at the Hindu Kush, it will end up at our doorstep. In other words, this perception gap [of the North Atlantic military alliance operating in South Asia] in the long run must be closed and must be healed – that is, for NATO’s future, of the utmost importance.” [1]

Not satisfied with the Vietnam that Afghanistan has become, NATO has now launched its Cambodian incursion. One with implications several orders of magnitude greater than with the prototype, though, into a nation of almost 170 million people, a nation wielding nuclear weapons. Pakistan.

As the U.S. delivered its 20th deadly drone missile attack of the month inside Pakistan on the 27th, five times the amount launched in August and the most in any month since they were started in 2004, NATO conducted a series of attacks with helicopter gunships in Northwest Pakistan. Claiming the “right of self-defense” and in “hot pursuit” of insurgents that had reportedly attacked a NATO camp, Combat Outpost Narizah, in Afghanistan’s Khost province near the Pakistani border, this past weekend NATO attack helicopters conducted two forays into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas where U.S. drone strikes have killed a record number of people this month.

Estimates of those killed, dutifully referred to in the Western press as insurgents, militants or terrorists, were 30, then 50, afterward 60, 70 and later “82 or higher.” [2]

The amount, like the identify, of the dead will never be definitively known.

Press reports stated the targets were members of the Haqqani network, founded by veteran Afghan Mujahedin leader Jalaluddin Haqqani, who when he led attacks from Pakistani soil against Afghan targets slightly over a generation ago was an American hero, one of Ronald Reagan’s “freedom fighters.” Two years ago the New York Times wrote: “In the 1980s, Jalaluddin Haqqani was cultivated as a ‘unilateral’ asset of the CIA and received tens of thousands of dollars in cash for his work in fighting the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, according to an account in ‘The Bin Ladens,’ a recent book by Steve Coll. At that time, Haqqani helped and protected Osama bin Laden, who was building his own militia to fight the Soviet forces, Coll wrote.” [3]

As to the regret that the otherwise praiseworthy Haqqani has of late allied himself with the Taliban, one voiced by among other people the late Charlie Wilson who once celebrated Haqqani as “goodness personified,” in an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press last year Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari told his American audience that the Taliban “was part of your past and our past, and the ISI and the CIA created them together. And I can find you 10 books and 10 philosophers and 10 write-ups on that….” [4]

On September 27 two NATO helicopters attacked the Kurram agency in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, killing six people and wounding eight. A local Pakistani government official described all the victims as civilians. According to Dawn News, “Nato has also shelled the area before.” [5] Three attacks in three days and as many as 100 deaths.

On the same day a U.S. drone-launched missile strike killed four people in the North Waziristan agency. “The identities of the four people killed in the attack were not known….” [6]

The above events occurred against the backdrop of the revelation in Bob Woodward’s new book Obama’s Wars that “a 3,000-strong secret army of Afghan paramilitary forces run by the Central Intelligence Agency had conducted cross-border raids into Pakistan.” [7]

After mounting in intensity for two years and consisting in part – helicopter gunship attacks and special forces assassination team raids – of covert operations, the U.S. and NATO war in Northwest Pakistan is now fully underway and can no longer be denied.

The Pentagon – the helicopters used in the attacks on September 25 and 26 were American Apaches and Kiowas – defended the strikes over the weekend as falling within its rules of engagement and Defense Department spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said the U.S. had adhered to “appropriate protocol” and “Our forces have the right of self-defense.” [8]

A spokesmen for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force initially denied that Alliance forces had launched any attacks inside Pakistani territory, although Afghan police officials had confirmed that they did. On September 27, however, the International Security Assistance Force verified that NATO forces had conducted the deadly strikes. As the third attack by NATO helicopters occurred on the same day, “Coalition officials said the cross-border attacks fell within its rules of engagement because the insurgents had attacked them from across the border.” [9]

A NATO official informed the press that “ISAF forces must and will retain the authority, within their mandate, to defend themselves in carrying out their mission.” [10]

Mehmood Shah, former top security official of the Pakistani government in the region where the helicopter gunship and drone strikes have killed over 200 people so far this month, said of the recent NATO attacks: “This should be considered a watershed event. They [Nato] must be warned: the next time you do this, it can lead to war. Our units should be deployed to fire upon them. This border has sanctity. Nato must realise they have a mandate to operate in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.” [11]

On September 27 Interior Minister Rehman Malik denounced the NATO raids as a violation of Pakistani territorial integrity and national sovereignty and told the nation’s Senate that the Afghan ambassador to Islamabad would be summoned to explain the attacks. Malik and the Pakistani government as a whole know that the Hamid Karzai administration in Kabul has no control over what the U.S. and NATO do in its own country, much less in Pakistan. The interior minister’s comments were solely for internal consumption, for placating Pakistani popular outrage, but as Pakistan itself has become a NATO partner and U.S. surrogate [12] its officials, like those of Afghanistan, will not be notified of any future attacks.

Nevertheless domestic exigencies compelled Malik to denounce the strikes inside his country and assert “I take the drone attacks in Pakistani territory as an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan.” A senator from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz “asked the government to inform the parliament about any accord it had reached with the US under which drone attacks were being carried out.” [13]

At the same time Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit went further and lodged what was described as a strong protest to NATO Headquarters in Brussels over the weekend’s air strikes, issuing a statement that said in part: “These incidents are a clear violation and breach of the UN mandate under which ISAF operates,” as its mandate “terminates/finishes” at the Afghan border.

“There are no agreed ‘hot pursuit’ rules. Any impression to the contrary is not factually correct. Such violations are unacceptable.” [14]

By the evening of September 27, after the Pakistani complaints were registered, NATO’s ISAF attempted to conduct damage control and reverted to the military bloc’s original position: That it has not launched attacks inside Pakistan at all. On that very day it had dispatched two more helicopter gunships for the third raid in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

NATO will continue to launch lethal attacks inside Pakistan against whichever targets it sees fit and will proffer neither warnings nor apologies. The U.S. will continue to escalate attacks with Hellfire missiles against whomever it chooses, however inaccurate, anecdotal and self-interested the reports upon which they are based prove to be.

The death toll in Pakistan this month is well over 200 and for this year to date over 2,000. The justification for this carnage offered by the U.S. and NATO is that it is intended to extend the policy of Barack Obama to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” insurgent networks in Afghanistan into Pakistan, supposedly the sooner to end the war.

Forty years ago Obama’s predecessor Richard Nixon began his speech announcing the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia with these words: “Good evening, my fellow Americans. Ten days ago, in my report to the nation on Vietnam, I announced the decision to withdraw an additional 150,000 Americans from Vietnam over the next year. I said then that I was making that decision despite our concern over increased enemy activity in Laos, in Cambodia, and in South Vietnam. And at that time I warned that if I concluded that increased enemy activity in any of these areas endangered the lives of Americans remaining in Vietnam, I would not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation.” [15]

He claimed that “enemy sanctuaries” in Cambodia “endanger the lives of Americans who are in Vietnam,” and “if this enemy effort succeeds, Cambodia would become a vast enemy staging area and a springboard for attacks on South Vietnam along 600 miles of frontier: a refuge where enemy troops could return from combat without fear of retaliation.”

The course he ordered was to “go to the heart of the trouble. And that means cleaning out major North Vietnamese and Vietcong occupied territories, these sanctuaries which serve as bases for attacks on both Cambodia and American and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam.”

The practical application of the policy was that “attacks are being launched this week to clean out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border.”

In language that has been heard again lately in Washington and Brussels – with nothing but the place names changed – Nixon claimed: “We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia, but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam….”

Washington indeed expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia, with what disastrous effects the world is fully aware, and soon thereafter departed Southeast Asia in defeat, leaving vast stretches of Vietnam and Cambodia in ruins.

Afghanistan and Pakistan will not fare any better.

1) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, November 12, 2004
2) New York Times, September 27, 2010
3) New York Times, September 9, 2008
4) Meet the Press, May 10, 2010
5) Dawn News, September 28, 2010
6) Daily Times, September 28, 2010
7) Financial Times, September 27, 2010
8) Associated Press, September 27, 2010
9) New York Times, September 27, 2010
10) Dawn News, September 27, 2010
11) The Guardian, September 27, 2010
12) NATO Pulls Pakistan Into Its Global Network
Stop NATO, July 23, 2010
13) Dawn News, September 28, 2010
14) Dawn News, September 27, 2010
15) Richard M. Nixon, Cambodian Incursion Address
Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work in various capacities for forty years. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. Is the manager of the Stop NATO international email list at: