On July 7th 2005 London experienced its most serious terrorist attack since the V-2 raids of WW2. At first the police were sure that the bombers used weapons-grade plastic explosives and sophisticated timers. Two weeks later they changed their minds – the bombs were home-made and were detonated manually.  After that the official account changed repeatedly, and remained riddled with anomalies and confusion.

At the time of the book’s publication, the government was resisting calls for a full inquiry, preferring to present a ‘narrative’ written by a civil servant.  Ahmed used exhaustive investigation to demonstrate the inadequacy of this approach.  He also  placed the attacks in a context of extensive co-operation between the Islamist extremists and Western Intelligence in Central Asia, and U.S.–U.K. state interests.

The London bombings, much like the attacks on New York in 2001, were a widely predicted consequence of the West’s global strategy.  People needed to know the extent to which our government had accepted this as the price of business as usual.

First published by Duckworth (UK) in 2006.

“A lucid and persuasive account of how our security mandarins talked themselves into believing we could make quiet, backroom deals with terrorists.”
Bryan Appleyard, Sunday Times

“Respected terror analyst Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed pulls apart the official narrative of 7/7, pointing out its gaps and contradictions… The authorities seem to be unable to answer many of the most basic questions about the 7/7 bombings … it has taken a study by an academic outsider, Ahmed, to assess the extent of the bombers’ international terrorist connections.”
Editorial, Independent on Sunday

“Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed provides important material to support those survivors of the London bombings who are demanding a proper inquiry into the events of that day.”
Paul Donovan, Irish Post

“Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed [is] one of the most knowledgeable writers about the actualities of Londonistan.”
Law and Politics (University of Nis)

“Ahmed offers a devastating critique of the official British government’s report… Recommended for public and academic libraries.”
Library Journal