As August, 2002, was reaching its end, a terrorist suspect was arrested as he
attempted to board a plane in Sweden when a handgun was found in his luggage.
The 29-year old man, later confirmed to be Kerem Chatty ( aka Karim, if CNN is
to believed ), denied that the handgun was his, and claimed that he didn't
know that it was there.
Regardless of whether the handgun was his, or if it was planted there
deliberately by someone with some devious motive, it doesn't matter; the
authorities, and the media, have decided he's as guilty as hell.
Although the suspected attempt to hijack the plane was considered by many experts
to be amateurish, Reuters, the international press agency, have subsequently
published a report which says our, guilty until executed and then we can
forget him, terrorist was planning to crash the plane into a US Embassy.
Security sources are reported to have told Reuters that there were others
working with Chatty, and police are looking for four accomplices,
one of which is an explosives expert. "We know for sure that the plan was to
crash the plane into a US Embassy in Europe", is what intelligence
sources ( later revealed to be the Swedish military and the CIA ) are said to
have told the agency.
Frightening stuff, but there has been no evidence produced which confirms this
story. For all we know, it is just anti-terrorist propaganda, based upon what
the intelligence services in Sweden believe, or think may be the case.
The normally reflective BBC have stated that, "The Reuters report will shake
US officials around the world and raise fears of another 11 September-style
attack".
It probably will, but this is after all just a news agency report, without a
shred of evidence having been presented to support the story. Have US officials
now taken to believing everything they hear over the newswire ? Are we meant to
run in fear of our lives because some reporter suggests we should ? Is this
a report based on fact or fiction ?
And what of the media which seizes upon such stories and presents them, in
the full glory of unverified originality, with an unwritten sub-text reading,
"Be afraid. Be very afraid", echoing the words which the political leaders of
America and Britain have been spouting for a year now ?
Where they are often the voice of reason, and considered journalism, the BBC
has become increasingly sensationalist over recent weeks, particularly
noticeable during the weeks surrounding enquiries into the disappearance of
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and are being
equally sensationalist over this latest, alleged, hijacking attempt.
Commenting upon the Islamic conference which Chatty said he was travelling to
attend ( destination Birmingham, England ), the BBC royally trashed the event
saying, "The conference is for followers of the Salafi school of Islamic
thought, believed to have connections to Osama Bin Laden, the 11 September
hijackers and alleged plane shoe-bomber Richard Reid".
This is offset against their report that, "The leaders of the Salafi school
have always denounced acts of violence or terrorism", so are they trying to
infer that this is a bunch of terrorist sympathises or not ?
They say it is
"believed" that they have connections with Bin Laden, and another "alleged"
terrorist, but how do such unproven accusations balance against their otherwise
acceptance that there is no evidence that the school, conference or its
organisers are in anyway involved in terrorism or the support of it ?
Are the BBC reporting real news, or is it opinion that passes
for news these days ? Finding any one person who believes something, and
reporting what they believe doesn't make it fact, but is an easy way to
get your own message over, when you believe something yourself.
The BBC, along with others, did report
that the organisers of the conference had condemned the latest attempted
hijacking incident, saying that it was, "highly unlikely", that Chatty was
planning to attend the conference, inferring that they did not believe he
intended to.
The press have been happy to take the word of the conference organisers that
the suspect wasn't going to attend the conference, as evidence that he was
indeed a potential highjacker, with a poor cover story. This is despite the
organisers having made it clear that this was a 'pay on the door' event, with
no list of attendees, and they had no idea who would ultimately be attending.
The fact that there has been no confirmed booking that someone from Sweden
would be attending, has been taken as final evidence that we have
indeed hooked ourselves a terrorist in the midst of acting.
Unbelievable, considering that twenty other passengers on the plane
were also travelling to the conference, were not on any attendance list, and
the conference organisers were obviously not aware that they were coming either.
That the suspect is believed to be a Muslim, born in Sweden, but with Tunisian
parents ( whatever point that fact is meant to make ), with previous
convictions for theft and assault, has been enough for the press to decide that
he is a terrorist, and as guilty as they come. Foreign Secretary, Jack
Straw, has told us that the arrest confirmed that, "the threat of international
terrorism remains".
No Jack, you are talking out of your backside, again. You are using the arrest
of a man, deemed to be innocent until he has been convicted of a crime, for
wholly political, and, in the present climate, militaristic, ends.
International terrorism, or the potential for it, does
exist, and will probably continue to do so for a long time to come, but an
arrest for a handgun offence does not 'prove' such a threat exists. It may make
us believe there are some nutters out there, and we may believe there are
individuals who want to hijack planes, but an arrest doesn't prove
anything at all in itself. Nothing is proven by an arrest until the case is
heard, and the guilt or otherwise of the suspect is determined.
Kerim Chatty may well be a terrorist. He may have been
working alone, or he may be part of Al-Qaeda or any other cell of extremists,
but I will reserve judgement upon him, until there is some evidence presented
which goes beyond rumour, speculation, and hasty judgements based upon press
reports and newswire stories.
At the time Reuters released their sensational report of a US Embassy target,
the Swedish authorities had not even formally charged Chatty with any offence.
Chatty's lawyer has said that his client will be able to explain away the
discovery of the gun in his luggage, and intends to show that there
was no hijacking or terrorist intent.
Whether Chatty will be officially charged remains to be seen. The Reuters
report that the police were hunting for four other accomplices, has been
roundly rejected by the police themselves.
The Chief of Sweden's National Security Police, Margareta Linderoth,
commentating upon the claims from Reuters ( about the embassy target and the
police search for accomplices ), said, "It's false information. I
deny it absolutely". Which makes one wonder if there is any truth whatsoever in
Reuter's scaremongering report ?
In the light of the outright rejection of the Reuters report by the Swedish
authorities, the CIA have back-tracked on their claim that a US Embassy was
an intended target. Obviously, what they had meant to say in the first place
was, "We know nothing about this man, his motives or his intentions. What we
intend to do therefore, is to fabricate a story which will serve our own
political agenda. We hope the press will come along for the ride".
Revelations that Chatty had taken flying lessons in the USA,
but did not finish his training ( although he may have obtained flying
qualifications later ), did little more than pour oil on the fire of
speculative reporting.
The BBC's history of 'responsible journalism' appears to have been cast aside
as they ramp up the emotion in, what appears to be, populist news reporting.
Where journalist would once take the time and effort to check that incoming
reports were verifiable, the BBC appears to have decided that, "news is news",
no matter what its source, reporting, along with ITN, eye-witness stories of
the event as fact ( that the suspect was a Somalian ), which are also at odds
with their other reports that the suspect was arrested before boarding the
plane, and not after he had boarded it.
CNN for their part, are reporting that the suggestion of a US Embassy attack
originated in Sweden, neglecting to mention any statements having been made
by the CIA. In the disinformation war, it is almost impossible to get at the
real facts behind any story.
The real winners of the biased reporting award must however go to ITN who have
eclipsed the BBC's offerings, telling us that, "Although the perpetrator has
links to Islamic fundamentalists, one report from Sweden said the incident
stems from mental problems he suffers".
Using Islamic fundamentalism as a synonym for terorism, held as a popular
belief as a result of other media reporting, they suggest that he is a
terrorist, while hiding behind the defence that they said no such thing. As to
the report which says Chatty has mental problems; it may be as much a
fabrication as the suggested embassy target. Perhaps it's simply reporting of
the much heard public house comment when the story broke that, "You'd have to
be mad to hijack a plane these days" ?
Adding that the party Chatty was travelling with was, "On its way to a festival
for followers of Salafi, a fundamentalist sect whose teachings are reportedly
popular with Osama bin Laden's terror group al-Qaeda", reveals that ITN have yet
another report in their possession which no one else has seen. Perhaps the
report is based on that from the BBC which "believes" there is such a link,
perhaps in turn based upon the comments by ITN ?
The outright denial from Sweden's police, of claims that they were looking for
anyone else associated with the 'hijacking incident', has been mostly ignored,
as British Intelligence are reported as continuing to investigate the
possibility that Chatty was operating as part of a wider network. The Sunday
press have persisted in printing the embassy target claims, even after it had
been withdrawn by the CIA ( which was well before their print deadline ).
If one source publishes an allegation, it's a scoop. Two, and it's a hard
fact. If the news bandwagon jumps on the case, it's a definite certainty.
Just because there's no agreement on whether Chatty is Swedish or Tunisian
should not cloud the issue; never let the facts stand in the way of a good
story.
Now it has been revealed that Chatty knew the gun was in his luggage, it
makes one wonder just how few correct facts a journalist needs to create a
story.
Going for the human interest angle in the hijacking story, the BBC, ignoring
the plight of an 'innocent until proven guilty' man, reported that one of
the passengers on the plane, surrounded by security officers pointing
loaded, automatic weapons at their heads, had turned to his daughter in the
seat next to him and told her, "It can't get more scary than this".
Well actually it can. Imagine you are a Muslim, and some joker's slipped a
handgun into your luggage on the way to the airport, for a bit of a laugh.
