pageok
pageok
pageok
Sun Reports: Arrested London Bombing Suspect Met Often With MP George Galloway.--

The British press is reporting the arrest of a prominent student Muslim leader, Waheed Zaman.

Minutes later plain-clothes cops swooped on nearby 104 Queens Road and arrested biochemistry student Waheed Zaman, 23.

He had been watching TV with elder sister Safeena minutes before being led to a van in handcuffs.

The devout Muslim, who prayed five times a day, is well known in the Islamic community.

He was the head of the Islamic Society of Metropolitan University, London, and regularly spoke at Muslim rallies.

Last night Safeena, 24, said her brother was proud of being British and being born in Britain.

She said: "He loves fish and chips and Liverpool Football Club and his favourite TV programme is Only Fools And Horses.

"He even wanted to join the police as a forensics expert.

"As part of his work with the Islamic Society at university he would organise Muslim events and would often give talks. He is a great believer in the importance of integration between our community and the Western world."

But pal Nasser Fazal, 23, revealed: "I spoke to Waheed about the September 11 attacks a few times. He told me he was convinced it was all a Jewish conspiracy." The suspect has a part-time job at world-famous toy store Hamleys in London's Regent Street. He prays at the Masjid-e-Umer mosque opposite his home, along with several others of those arrested.

The Sun is also reporting that the London bombing suspect met often with MP George Galloway (who was reportedly involved financially in the Saddam's Oil-for-Palaces program):

TERROR suspect Waheed Zaman met controversial MP George Galloway many times, his sister said last night.

Safeena, 24, said of her 23-year-old brother: "He saw it as his duty to stand up for his community and that's what led him to know George Galloway. He has a lot of respect for him and has met him many times."

A spokesman for MP Galloway . . . said: "Waheed Zaman is not a name that George is familiar with. He is not known to him on a personal level."

[There is no suggestion Galloway is an associate of Zaman.]

Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
Egad! Is this the smoking gun that finally assassinates that idiot, Galloway?
8.11.2006 2:31am
David M. Nieporent (www):
If publicly pining for Josef Stalin, and openly rooting for Saddam Hussein, can't tarnish Galloway, I don't see why this would.
8.11.2006 2:39am
Justin (mail):
Not that George Gallaway is a saint, but this borders on slander. Gallaway, an activist against the war, has met with a guy whose public face is the head of the Islamic Society of what I presume is Gallaway's district's university.

I assume what they spoke about, in addition to Liverpool football and fish and chips, was politics, not Zaman's alleged terrorist plots. To try and pin this on Gallaway by this roundabout guilt by association is what appears to pass for argument by the VC these days, but that doesn't make it anything other than lazy propoganda.
8.11.2006 2:57am
James Lindgren (mail):
Justin,

You must be kidding.

I wasn't suggesting that Galloway had anything directly to do with the plot, if that's what you mean.

I didn't think that anyone could read me as suggesting that, but just in case anyone else could misread me in the same way, I just added an additional sentence from the original report, which I left out because I already was quoting more of it than I should have for fair use.

But if you mean that it's not worth mentioning that Britain's most active elected apologist for terrorism and Saddam met often with a big fan of his who happened to be a suspected bomber, then I guess I disagree. I didn't make any argument, but I thought (and still think) that many VC readers would find this interesting.
8.11.2006 3:19am
dafydd (mail) (www):
I don't know. The link seems awfully thin...
8.11.2006 3:28am
o' connuh j.:
Don't be silly. If it's the truth, it can't be slander.

If it's slander, then it's his siblings who are the original source of the slandering - the Sun is only reporting what they said.

Pray tell where anybody said Galloway was "guilty" of alleged terrorist plots? Or is this just "propoganda [sic]"-esque hysterics from you, Justin?
8.11.2006 3:29am
James Lindgren (mail):
I'm always surprised when people take offense when I point out a fact without making an argument.

I like reading bloggers (eg, Reynolds) who inform me of things that I didn't know without always making an argument or telling me what I'm supposed to think about something.

And if I had chosen instead to spin an argument off of my posting of a fact (eg, about Galloway and a suspected terrorist), it's usually precisely those who are least likely to agree with any argument I might make who demand that I make one.

It's not that I don't have an opinion or that there's no argument that could be made or that facts speak for themselves. It's that sometimes I'd rather just post a fact (or read a blogger posting a fact), without having me or some other blogger telling people what to think.

Why must everything be an argument?
What happened to curiosity?
8.11.2006 3:40am
Armen (mail) (www):
When I was in undergrad, a psych grad student in a research methods class told me that the first test any research proposal had to pass was the "My Grandma Test." That is, can my grandma answer the question that the research aims to investigate?

This is a long-winded way of saying that not everything has to be an argument, but at the same time a post should pass a basic "what's the point of this?" sort of test. Your earlier comment makes the case for this post...fine. But I think if that was in the body of the post, it'd much easier for the readers to consume the information you're trying to pass.
8.11.2006 5:24am
Just:
"Why must everything be an argument?
What happened to curiosity?"

People generally don't drink from a poisoned well.
Your words here give us an idea of where you come from.
We've read you in the past.

I agree with Armen. You found a link that reflects negatively on Galloway. Why not use it? Then you can say, "Why I never meant to imply a thing. Just curious."

Funny how there's no balance, that the curiousity and critical thinking skills disappear so quickly when it's Team Bush doin the defendin. We aintso stupid as yas think.
8.11.2006 6:44am
PersonFromPorlock:
Presumably, as the head of the Islamic Society of Metropolitan University, Zaman meets regularly with many official people. Why mention Galloway specifically if the intent isn't to smear by association?

Also, the fact of a conspiracy's existence doesn't mean that every person alleged to be a party to it is, especially when that person's usual activities may be annoying to the government making the charge. The undoubted evil of radical Islam doesn't confer automatic sainthood on its opponents.

Time enough to comment on Zaman's association with Galloway after it's been proven that Zaman is a conspirator and the association is a guilty one.
8.11.2006 7:39am
Tood:
Does this mean that all students should be investigated for roles in terrorism? How about buying terrorism insurance like how you can buy Online Auto Insurance or get an auto insurance quote? As far I as I am concerned, the people making money would be the insurance companies.
8.11.2006 7:53am
RainerK:
The Sun is a horrible tabloid engaging in politics. Anything they write should be taken with a huge grain of salt
8.11.2006 10:13am
Some Guy (mail):
Heh, it's a smear! Wait, am I from "Team Bush," now? I thought I was just a "Bushbot" for Chimpy McBushitler! You know, I was a lifelong Democrat and I voted for Gore and Kerry, but in the last few years because of Iraq, I've realized that 30% of my party's base hated this country more than I could have previously believed, and the party was scared of them. Funny, I guess that makes me a empty-headed Bushbot, right kiddies?

To those of you who are quick to defend an MP's close political association with a terrorist actively plotting to murder Englishmen, and for those who say no association with such a criminal should reflect poorly on Galloway, I have two words.

Jack Abramoff.

I'm not holding my breath for Galloway to "go down," though. His constituency are the terrorists. Of course they're going to keep voting for him. Hell, he might as well come out in favor of jihad and rename himself Muhammed. This news will probably get him votes, and God knows there's no one left in Britain with enough sack to kick him from Parliament.
8.11.2006 10:20am
Huh:
A side note about what Zaman's pal "revealed": I would imagine that an awful lot of muslims view 9/11 as a jewish conspiracy. It might not be a mainstream idea among muslims, but the viewpoint seems so widely held as to preclude it as a dependable indicator of terrorism. That is to say, I bet quite a few non-terrorists would describe 9/11 in those terms.

They'd be wrong, of course. But that doesn't mean they're terrorists.
8.11.2006 10:33am
raj (mail):
James Lindgren 8.11.2006 2:40am

Sorry, Mr. Lindgren, your attempted exculpation doesn't work. It is fairly obvious that your intention was to link MP Galloway with the alleged terrorists. Otherwise, why would you have mentioned Galloway and the terrorists so closely in the same post?

Your last paragraph (in the comment) more than makes clear that your intention in the post was to link Galloway with "islamofacist terrorists" and by extension the London plot. You aren't stupid. If you had really wanted to separate the plot issue from Galloway, you could have posted these two subjects in two separate posts. Since you are a contributor to this blog, apparently you aren't limited in the number of posts that you can post. So, the fact that you included both the plot and Galloway in the same post more than indicates that you want the two conflated in the minds of your readers.

I was born at night, Mr. Lindgren, but not last night.
8.11.2006 10:40am
ctb:
So I guess if George Bush, or Joe Lieberman had met several times with this guy it would not be worthy of mentioning? At least not until you could prove both that the guy actually was attempting to carry out a mass murder in the US and that one of the above named was a co-conspirator, Right? An of course it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some of you are just crazy. Of course its noteworthy that a member of parliament met several times with an alleged terrorist in the process of carrying out an attack on the US. Go bother someone else.
8.11.2006 11:05am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Huh writes:


I would imagine that an awful lot of muslims view 9/11 as a jewish conspiracy. It might not be a mainstream idea among muslims, but the viewpoint seems so widely held as to preclude it as a dependable indicator of terrorism.
Unfortunately, it appears to be a mainstream idea among Muslims. See the various public opinion surveys taken among Muslims of various nations about whether Arabs did 9/11, summarized here.
8.11.2006 11:23am
James Lindgren (mail):

I agree with Armen. You found a link that reflects negatively on Galloway. Why not use it? Then you can say, "Why I never meant to imply a thing. Just curious."

I am honestly surprised at the seeming willingness to misread me on this thread. I am not claiming that my post was positive or neutral on Galloway; of course it reflected somewhat negatively.

Given that Galloway has been an important player in the news for the last few years, his meeting regularly with one of the accused terrorists was a link that was not previously known, and thus might be of interest to VC readers.

The facts that I quoted point to Galloway being a hero of a terrorist suspect. This is not surprising, given Galloway's irresponsible support for terrorist financier Saddam and his opposition to the war on terror. Terrorists would support politicians who oppose a war on what they promote.

But do you honestly believe that I was trying to say that Galloway was a co-conspirator in a plot for bombing airplanes? I still find that just ridiculous.
8.11.2006 1:39pm
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
James Lindgren:

I like reading bloggers (eg, Reynolds) who inform me of things that I didn't know without always making an argument or telling me what I'm supposed to think about something.

Interesting. I've contributed to blogs where that was actively discouraged.
8.11.2006 1:44pm
ATL (mail) (www):

I am honestly surprised at the seeming willingness to misread me on this thread.


>180 degrees
8.11.2006 2:18pm
volokh groupie:
give me a break raj and other spinners. nowhere in the post did it say that he was conflating galloway with the terrorists. specifically in the facts of the article it did say that galloway was a hero to this accused terrorist. That is enormously relevant.

It's a great cause for concern if one of the most controversial politicians in a country in one of the more diverse areas of the country is in fact expressing such political views that a band of terrorists (even if he's oblivious to it) see him as a hero and even come to talk to him. In a democracy politicians are known by what ideas they support and as a consequence what type of following they attract.

By the way, the Abramoff comment was spot on before. All you hypocrites are still definitely crying bloody murder while many of the 'associated' senators haven't been found guilty of anything. And I love the reactive why don't you bash bush comments. First, like most reasonable debators, legitimate claims or arguments can be made by a source which may otherwise not have a person's full credibility. Otherwise, democrats/republican/liberals/ conservatives/statists/libertarians would never be able to have a discussion.
8.11.2006 2:30pm
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat (mail):
George Galloway: corrupter of youth.

A normal, healthy, fish-and-chip eating, telly watching, footy loving kid has a couple of meetings with the famous terrorist apologist and associate and, the next thing you know, the youngster's plotting to blow up airliners.

Lock up Galloway. Do it for the children.
8.11.2006 3:15pm
MnZ (mail):
Slander against Galloway? I have a low opinion of Galloway, but I even can't see how this damages his reputation. It is well known that Galloway thinks that the WOT is a ruse, Bush/Blair are murders, Israel is a terror state, etc. Is it at all surprising that an alledged terrorist would be attracted to Galloway's message?

On the other hand, Zaman's sister seemed to think that his association with Galloway gave him credibility. That is very interesting and might explain a lot about the mindset of the friends and families of terrorists.
8.11.2006 3:41pm
Ryan Waxx:
The Sun's information is factual. James Lindgren presented it without comment, yea or nay. None of this is in dispute.

If you don't like the implications of the facts, that is YOUR problem. Not the Sun's. Not Lindgren's. YOURS.

Have a GREAT day =)
8.11.2006 6:29pm