Sunday, July 24, 2005

Indian Muslim Convicted of 9/11 Plot
To Fly Jet Into British House of Commons

British blogger, and newspaper columnist, Melanie Phillips brings us the news that a man was convicted in a Bombay court the other day for conspiring, with a group of seven other men, to hijack airplanes and fly them into the British House of Commons on Sept. 11, 2001. Yes, that' right, concurrent with the attack on our own World Trade Center and Pentagon

Had anyone ever heard about this before? Doesn't this seem like big news?

Not to the London Times, who buried it on Page 12:

The Times reports:

‘An Indian man was jailed in Bombay yesterday for plotting to fly passenger jets into the House of Commons and Tower Bridge in London on September 11, 2001.

‘Mohammed Afroze was sentenced to seven years after he admitted that he had a role in an al-Qaeda plot to attack London, the Rialto Towers building in Melbourne and the Indian Parliament. His lawyer has claimed, however, that the confession was “forcefully taken” and that Afroze was tortured by Indian police.

‘Afroze admitted that he and seven al-Qaeda operatives planned to hijack aircraft at Heathrow and fly them into the two London landmarks. The suicide squad included men from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Afroze said.

They booked seats on two Manchester-bound flights, but fled just before they were due to board.’

I did a double-take when I read this. One of the central claims by the appeasenik crowd is that Britain would never have been an al Qaeda target had it not joined the US in its war on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. It was always obvious to anyone with eyes to see that Britain was always a target along with the rest of the free world.

But the only reference to an actual plot against Britain on 9/11, as far as I am aware, was made in Rohan Gunaratna’s book Inside al Qaeda. Now, in a small story on page 12 of the Times, we are told that a man has been convicted of an al Qaeda conspiracy to hit Britain on 9/11. Shouldn’t this be a major story?

So much for the arguments of the appeasers.