Parsons Green suspect is literally a cardboard cutout

At the time of writing there is still no image in the public domain which informs as to the real identity of the Parsons Green “bombing” suspect, Ahmed Hassan. There is no image garnered off a Facebook page, nor even any mugshot released officially by police by which the gullible British public can be conditioned to recognise and hate the face of the enemy – which is usually what happens quite quickly is these cases (we’ll get on to Yahyah Farrouk by and by). Instead the corporate-media has been using a court drawing that features a figure that wouldn’t be out of place illustrating a Roald Dahl book. Accordingly, at this point in time, as far as the public are concerned, we can say that the Parsons Green suspect is a cartoon character – and a rather clownish one at that. Moreover, he is a literal cardboard cutout figure not unlike the sort that pops up on a shooting range to act as a target – in this case to catch the blame for what looks mightily like something much bigger than the work of a solitary schmuck. As the reader might know, it is the role of a cardboard cutout to fill a void – a space – so there is something instead to see – something to attribute activity to where none can possible happen (it is a cardboard cutout). And the really handy thing about a cardboard cutout is that the person it portrays doesn’t even have to actually exist in reality. It just has to stand up and appear to be an animated creature.

Fascinatingly, the drawing of Ahmed Hassan somewhat reminds of some images of a fellow mischief maker, a certain Damon Smith, who got in trouble in 2016 for taking a “bomb” on to a tube train (follow this link). We’ll be comparing the cases of Ahmed and Smith – noticing that neither were up before the judge on a terrorism charge – although the prosecutor in the more recent case accused Ahmed of “express…[ing] hatred for the UK government and society” (so we’ll wait and see where that approach leads to). This would be the assertion of a certain Mr Ingham – let’s see more of what he is reported to have said at the opening hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court:

Outlining the case,…[Ingham] said: ‘Extensive CCTV coverage was identified by the police, spanning a period in the hours before and after an explosive device went off on the District line train at Parsons Green underground station at 8.20 on the 15th of September last week.

‘And they show the suspect carrying the device, consistent with being the IED, in a bag from his home address to the train, onto which it was placed before he got off, leaving it behind to explode.

‘Items were then found in searches at his home address consistent with him having constructed that device at that address.’

He continued: ‘Police obtained and recovered CCTV, it must be said, surprisingly quickly, leading to images of the suspect to be circulated amongst police staff in a matter of hours, resulting in his arrest.

‘They identified the suspect carrying the large bag in the hours before the explosion at 8.20, towards Sunbury-on-Thames station, and then on an overground train to Wimbledon.

‘And then on to Wimbledon underground station, before getting on the District line.’

Mr Ingham said: ‘The explosion created a fireball which injured 30 people. Including a lady with more serious burns.

‘Chemical analysis has identified the high explosive TATP. That is an improvised – in other words, home made – explosive.

‘In this case there were many hundreds of grams of TATP in the device. There had been a partial explosion at the scene.’

The items recovered included several hundreds of grams of TATP, an electronic timer, and several containers, the court heard.

Mr Ingham continued: ‘The device also contained metal shrapnel, including knives, screws and other items.

‘The device appears in fact not to have functioned as intended. That’s probably down to an incorrect construction. Initial examinations of digital devices show the suspect had purchased all the key ingredients for manufacturing TATP from internet sources, including Amazon.’

(Source).

There are a number of important details to take from this report before we go on to consider the charges brought against Ahmed Hussan. Firstly, the accusation seems to be that the “bomb” originated at the foster home at which Ahmed was living. Secondly, the element of the “bomb” that made it an “explosive device” was the compound TATP – with no other chemical component of the bomb being mentioned (for the time being – the way the charge is worded leaves this open). Should we also assume from Ingham’s remarks that CCTV exists that clearly show Ahmed’s features? It appears to have led directly to an arrest. It has to be said that in cases that are universally announced, on corporate-media rolling news as being terror, moments after they happen, there is always this magic CCTV that proves guilt – and yet the public is not allowed to see it. Instead the police release nothing quite so damning, and in this case we only have an image of a chubby character in grey sweats with his head incredibly well wrapped up in some purple material (is it a hood or a balaclava?) so that identification is impossible.

Now we come to an analysis of the two charges levelled at Ahmed. Of these perhaps the easiest to deal with must be this one:

That he “maliciously caused by triacetone triperoxide (TATP) or other explosive substance and explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property, contrary to section 2 Explosive Substances Act 1883.”

In the trial of the 21/7 London bombers a similar indictment was dropped† – and this is significant. In the previous FBEL article (here) on this subject, it was theorised that if the “bomb” consisted solely of TATP, and was constructed like at least one device involved in the 21/7 plot (with a detonator made from fairylights and TATP), then it could not possibly be true that an ignition detonation could have caused the reported “fireball” that we are told indicated the occurence of a partial explosion at Parsons Green . TATP does not produce heat or light. Even ahead of that consideration, an observer using critical thinking should wonder at the chances of TATP being prepared well enough to become an explosive when it has – as the remarks by Ingham seem to suggest – been cooked at the home of MBE-winning pensioner foster parents. There is clearly scope for a defence team to challenge the veracity of a “fireball” story, and question as to it ever really happening. And then, of course, there is contrast with precedent: consider how there were, in the execution of the 21/7 plot, essentially only minor “blow offs” which the “leader”, Muktar Said Ibrahim, insisted were nothing but smoke-creating effects in a hoax to raise awareness of British aggression in Iraq.

The same defence of not being in earnest was used by Damon Smith – and so this is why, perhaps, he had to plead guilty to a charge of perpetrating a bomb hoax. Smith’s “bomb” didn’t go off at all – and apparently there was no opportunity for anyone to claim that it did. Presumably this is why he was also charged with possession of an explosive substance with intent. He was found guilty, but it appears the case rested entirely on the say-so of an “expert” who deemed his “bomb” capable of being explosive. There is a great mistake in the layman to suppose that just because an expert decrees a fact in court, it doesn’t actually always make it anything more than an opinion. If a judge allows it, and if a defence team can be bothered – or has the skill – an expert can be challenged. Indeed, there seems to be a great controversy on the topic of whether or not homemade “bombs” as used in typical British terror plots are even capable of exploding to any degree whereby they are worthy of being called a bomb.

Observers of this trial should expect this same controversy to be a factor in the consideration of the second charge against Ahmed (although it probably won’t). This second charge is:

That he “attempted to murder persons travelling on a District Line Train from Wimbledon”.

A similar charge stuck in the case of the 21/7 “plotters”, who were found guilty of a conspiracy to “murder other persons”, despite their “bombs” demonstrably being incapable of hurting anyone. Guilt, it appears, came from what the court decided was the intention of the accused. But consider this: if one tries to kill another person with a rubber duck, and fails because the tool for murder is clearly not equal to the task, then what does the attempt amount to – what does the intent amount to? The anwer is nothing. On the other hand, if we imagine that a rubber duck is a credible instrument to commit murder so that we can make the intent meaningful, are we not just sharing in the fantasy of the perpetrator? Shouldn’t a judge, and a court, be of sound mind so that he and it can come to good decisions and uphold the law, rather than be as delusional as the suspect and open up the way to chaos? What good is he as a judge, then, in the latter case? What good is a justice system if it reaffirms the mistaken beliefs of fantasists – and turns them into social and legal facts – rather than assert reality?  If it does not insist on truth, then it is worse than no good, it is downright dangerous.

Yes, the British Establishment is getting itself into all sorts of trouble – there will be so many twists and turns and contortions that one day it will just not be able to support itself. Yet another pustular boil on the rancid flesh of the dying British Establishment is indicator and symptom of ever worsening health. We could tell things were going septic when Yahyah Farrouk, demonised as being quite literally the “face of terror” in the corporate-media, was released without charge (the author hopes Farrouk can sue). Now it seems the Establishment must rely on a cartoon character – a cardboard cutout – to fulfil the vacated role of stigmatised Muslim for purposes of inculcating fear. How appropriate.

† All info about 21/7 plot gleaned from Nick Kollerstrom’s book “Terror on the Tube”.