So much for Cole's pontifical assertion: "Britain's South Asian Muslim community is almost certainly not the origin of this attack."
My question is, did he get anything right on the London attack?!
Update 2: Now Cole writes this: "Either the two Arabic-language claims of responsibility for the bombings posted to jihadi web sites last week are frauds, or the Leeds cell was working on behalf of an Arab one."
Oh really!? Why didn't he posit such possibilities earlier when he wrote that pathetic philological nonsense? As I wrote in my "InterCole" post, it was not only illogical, but incredibly superficial and narrow, leaving out all kinds of possibilities, including the ones currently cited by Cole such as the possibility of disinformation, or the "foot soldiers" not being the ones who actually wrote the statement, etc. Let alone the fact that he based his entire analysis (and his credibility) on poor philology and nonsensical assertions, and he left out forensics and actual investigation! Why, to use his own words, didn't he "scratch deeper"?
But this is an important point. Why did he shoot from the hip, running out of the gate so pompously and assertively and getting it exactly wrong!? Forget the caveat in his logic, that the perpetrators were unlikely to be British, only if his philological anlysis is correct. That's the escape hatch. The assertions behind it, that they were not British born or South Asian, were the blinding a priori premises. He was so eager to assert that premise that he gambled his credibility and lost. He got everything wrong, and now he's trying to tidy up the mess. But this being Cole, his ego cannot permit him to fully acknowledge error (we've yet to hear about that Jenin flop). So even after everything he's said turned out to be exactly wrong, he still has to add the following: "A Guardian poll last year showed that British Muslims were angered by "the war on terror" and the Iraq War, that many were deserting the Labour Party en masse, and that about a quarter (up from a sixth) believed British Muslims were too integrated into UK society." Or this: "Since 9/11, many Pakistanis have faced an increase in racism, especially young men, who are now more likely to be stopped and searched than any other ethnic minority group. They feel that people now view them as terrorists and that the media has become anti-Muslim. Thus in the current political climate, UK born Pakistanis can be more radical and into Islam than those born in Pakistan." I.e., after error comes justification.
Then Cole writes this: "But, obviously, the cult these young men joined managed to manipulate their minds to the point where they were no longer capable of thinking about the consequences of their actions for their loved ones, or for the victims, for that matter." Really, Professor? Thanks for the info. But you being the supposed expert on these movements and all, probably should've guessed that! Anyway, forget the consequences on their loved ones. What about the consequences on those who died or were injured, and their families, and the entire country and the EU as a whole?
"Cults avoid scrutiny by harassing critics and whistleblowers," writes the Professor. Yes, they also avoid scrutiny when Western "experts" immediately become "outraged" when investigators and commentators start voicing fears about the "chilling possibility" that terrorists may be in our midst, and when these "experts" dismiss them out of hand and point in an entirely different direction.
The conclusion is, thank God Cole and his ilk aren't leading the investigation!
Update 3: Readers looking for a seriously hilarious reply to "the grand Imam of Cole-abad's" (© Rich the Caveman) "vanishing" fatwa against Kramer, should check out Martin's latest. I'm still wiping the tears from my eyes!
Also, it seems even the British tabloid The Sun beats Cole when it comes to analysis on the London attacks, ain' it?. Hactually, I might get more "Informed Comment" from Ali G. Bouyakasha. Respect!