Tuesday, June 12, 2007

An open comment for Inayat Bunglawala

As mentioned in an earlier post. Inayat Bunglawala, Assistant Secretary-General Muslim Council of Britain, left a comment under his own article in the Guardian’s Comment is Free saying that people who have doubts about the Official Narrative of 7/7 are ‘nuts’

This struck me as a inconsistent position to be taken by someone who claims to represent the ‘Muslim Community’ in Great Britain so I submitted my own comment under the article yesterday

I had a look this morning to see if my comment had passed moderation and discovered instead that comment submission had been closed and the following message had been appended to the comment thread

Our policy is to close threads after three days. Comments have now been closed on this entry.

Which isn’t exactly true as they’re not posting comments that were accepted for moderation and reproduction. There’s a little bit of retrospective malarky going on over at CiF

Nice

Anyway, I’m reproducing my comment here just in case Inayat ever Googles his own name. I liked it and it seems a shame to waste it...


Given that 59% of Muslims polled have expressed doubts about the Official Narrative of 7/7, Inayat has a couple of honourable courses of action open to him IMHO

Establish why so many Muslims have those doubts and either :

  • explain to them why those doubts are ill-founded by addressing the grounds for their concern directly

  • represent their point of view

I can’t see how simply dismissing a large group of people as nutters whilst claiming to represent them can be tenable

He’d also be doing us non-Muslims who feel uneasy about the 7/7 narrative a favour too, one way or the other

And BTW does anyone actually know if permission for a march was given and, if so, who applied for it?



Of course, the irony of all this is is that if people who are sceptical about statements made by the proven liars in our government really did suffer from some form of mental illness all the choppers who call them 'nuts' couldn't get away with it.

.

3 comments:

Alex Fear said...

I haven't read all the comments but I though this little nugget was interesting in the second comment posted by Inayat:

"(quotes another commenter) riazatbutt: 'My own theory is that security services want this demo to happen so they can draw out these nutters.'

(Inayat) Yes, that makes sense. It may also explain why a demo that gives every indication that it is organised by the remnants of three banned organisations has been given the go-ahead by the police."


Wouldn't this idea fall under the auspices of a... hmm... let me see... conspiracy theorist?!

I have no particular take on 7/7 as you know, but how can Inayat dismiss gov. involvement in the bombings to justify increasing civilian control measures, yet agree with a conspiracy by the police to allow banned organisations to demo?

Typical casuistic reasoning.

Stef said...

caustic reasoning?

I would have used the word bollocks myself

same difference I suppose

Stef said...

and, believe it or not, if someone did nail down the Official Narrative of 7/7 with the kind of physical evidence that must have been produced by such an event I'd accept that

But, surprising as it might sound, being called a nutter in lieu of production of that evidence isn't working for me