Introduction – May 28, 2019
Eight people were killed and 48 injured when Khuram Butt and two other accomplices ran down pedestrians on London Bridge before launching a knife attack in a nearby market.
However, the inquest into the 2017 London Bridge terror attack heard yesterday that Khuram Butt’s family became so concerned about his increasingly extremist views that they had contacted an anti-terror hotline.
That was 18 months BEFORE the actual attack. According to the Guardian report, below, Butt was the subject of a police counter-terrorism investigation from 2015 to 2017. So in the run-up to the 2017 attack he was under investigation for terror-related activity. He was also under active investigation by MI5 at the time of the attack. So why did the police and the security services fail to spot preparations for the attack?
Were they blind?
Or could it be that they knew what Butt was preparing? After all, he was under surveillance and yet he was somehow able to prepare for a terror attack, which begs the question: did the authorities know of the impending attack? Did they in fact allow the London Bridge attack to go ahead anyway, so as to ramp-up public anxiety in the “War on Terror”?
The idea the security services may have had foreknowledge of an impending terror attack should not be dismissed. In fact it is a recurrent feature in many recent terror outrages:
The above are just a few of the numerous cases where the security services had known of terrorists or had them under actual surveillance before the militants struck. This is more than a coincidence; it is a recurrent feature in many terror attacks. It suggests at least foreknowledge and maybe even complicity on the part of the authorities.
In other words, the very agencies that are supposedly fighting terror have foreknowledge of terror attacks and in some cases may even help facilitate them. Ed.
Family had reported London Bridge attacker to police, inquest hears
Vikram Dodd – The Guardian May 28, 2019
The family of one of the London Bridge attackers became so concerned about his extremism they reported him to police 18 months before the atrocity, an inquest has heard.
Khuram Butt and two other terrorists killed eight people on 3 June 2017, first driving a hired van into two pedestrians before stabbing another six people to death.
The inquest into the deaths heard from acting DCI Wayne Jolley of Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism command that Butt was an acolyte of the extremist preacher Anjem Choudary and was “energised” and like a “lion out of a cage” in his company. Choudary was jailed for encouraging support for Isis and is linked of scores of people who went on to carry out terrorist acts.
Jolley said the police investigation had shown that Butt’s views and religious adherence were unremarkable until about 2013. He had been described as a shy and earnest student who liked reggae music, smoked cannabis, supported Arsenal and whose sister once described him as a “party animal”.
The inquest sitting at the Old Bailey in central London heard he started to become more orthodox, then extreme, before expressing support for Islamic State.
Jolley told the inquest that Butt’s brother-in-law Usman Darr had to be physically separated from him in September 2015 after becoming enraged when Butt defended Isis for burning to death a captured Jordanian pilot, which was filmed and released as a propaganda video.
Jolley said Darr, a brother of Butt’s wife, Zara, called the authorities. “He was extremely concerned about these views and he contacted the anti-terrorist hotline to report his brother-in-law.”
The inquest heard Butt’s wife rejected his request to take a second wife and his family and friends became increasingly concerned from 2013 onwards as he immersed himself in extremist material and watched beheading videos. In early 2015, he had wanted to go to Syria but was stopped by his family, who destroyed his passport.
Butt, 27, carried out the attack on London Bridge with Rachid Redouane, 30, and Youssef Zaghba, 22.