9:56PM
The "Egyptian chemist"
Issandr El Amrani
"Find the chemist" was the headline in the UK tabloid The Sun a few days ago, and he has now been found. I've spent the past several days on the track Magdy Al Nashar and was actually not far from him when he was arrested (although I did not know it then.) There's been a media blitz over this, but one of the more curious aspects is that the Egyptian ministry of interior seems to think he didn't do it.
And they're not the type to entertain much doubt -- more "torture now, ask questions later."
I've done several stories on this as it broke -- in the Times and the Express in the UK (first site asks registration, second doesn't put up its stories) -- and a lot of radio and TV interviews (including for Fox News, which makes me perhaps the first person to have worked both for Fox and Al Jazeera -- if only they knew). The Fox News people in particular were intent on calling this man "very suspicious" and saying he had "sinister unanswered questions about him" and didn't seem to like it too much when I said that prima facie he doesn't seem guilty (even if the fact that he let a bomber use his house certainly had to be explained. The way I see it, not only did he not have a history of connections with Islamist groups, but he had everything to lose. This is a guy who was born dirt poor and through his studies managed to get scholarships to study abroad. Even a bigger indication that it's probably not him is that he chose to return to Egypt, which amounts to self-rendition.
I don't claim to have any answers, these are just impressions. The investigation continues and I'm well know soon what role he had in the London bombings. But some people in the press seem to be jumping to conclusions a bit too soon with little evidence, looking for another Muhammed Atta.
You can read the fairly extensive backgrounder story we wrote about him for Cairo here.
And they're not the type to entertain much doubt -- more "torture now, ask questions later."
I've done several stories on this as it broke -- in the Times and the Express in the UK (first site asks registration, second doesn't put up its stories) -- and a lot of radio and TV interviews (including for Fox News, which makes me perhaps the first person to have worked both for Fox and Al Jazeera -- if only they knew). The Fox News people in particular were intent on calling this man "very suspicious" and saying he had "sinister unanswered questions about him" and didn't seem to like it too much when I said that prima facie he doesn't seem guilty (even if the fact that he let a bomber use his house certainly had to be explained. The way I see it, not only did he not have a history of connections with Islamist groups, but he had everything to lose. This is a guy who was born dirt poor and through his studies managed to get scholarships to study abroad. Even a bigger indication that it's probably not him is that he chose to return to Egypt, which amounts to self-rendition.
I don't claim to have any answers, these are just impressions. The investigation continues and I'm well know soon what role he had in the London bombings. But some people in the press seem to be jumping to conclusions a bit too soon with little evidence, looking for another Muhammed Atta.
You can read the fairly extensive backgrounder story we wrote about him for Cairo here.
Reader Comments (7)
I would say if Egypt's State Security says he didn't do it, then he probably didn't! They're good at studing profiles, and he doesn't fit the profile. But its amazing to me how Egyptians manage to get them invovled in almost every terrorist act out there, either by being masterminds of the attack like in 9/11 or by being plain dumb like this guy!
Juan Cole thinks that the communiqué issued directly after the bombing was probably written by an Egyptian - and comments that it doesn't sound like al Qa'eda rhetoric.
In that light the Interior Minister's comment that al Nashar didn't have anything to do with al-Q looks a bit more ambiguous.
But who knows?
I love the "self-rendition" part. : )
Issandr -- Many good points taken (particularly self-rendition), but the fact that he himself is a chemist, and that explosives (apperently) were found in his house provide a lot of smoke. I haven't seen anything yet conclusively saying that the explosives in his house were the same as the explosives used in the attacks, but this seems reasonable to assume.
He's a BIOchemist guys and there's a big difference. Why does Tony Blair and the media keep saying chemist when they KNOW he is a BIOCHEMIST.
Also, they had said before that the explosives were advanced and of the military type, not homemade.
I never meant to suggest that he would have never done it, and the evidence against him in Leeds -- particularly that he lent his house to be used by the bombers -- is strong. But from the Cairo side of things, the psychological profile we can put together from what we know about his life, his parents, what his colleagues and neighbors say make it quite unlikely. Then again, serial killers can seem quite nice people.
This morning's Masri Al Youm has a story saying he grew up with the family of a Christian priest, who praised him and said he would be incapable of doing something like the London bombings.
I think the strongest evidence is going to come from London on this -- they need more than the fact that his house was used in his absence.
Hi -- I don't know, his psych "profile" looks about typical for a guy involved in this type of stuff. The friends and neighbors of almost every Islamist terrorist who has hit out at the far enemy say he was a nice guy, incapable of such acts and so on. His class and educational background are also typical -- upwardly mobile, made a transition to a higher social class thanks to education in the sciences, first generation of the family to receive a higher education. This is the classic profile for recruitment to both militant and peaceful islamist groups, first put together by (of all people) saad eddin ibrahim in the early 1980s and confirmed by subsequent studies.
As for me -- I'm agnostic. But there is no evidence of his innocence (or guilt) in his family background or psychological profile. Again, if the explosives found in his apartment are tied to the explosives used in the attacks, and it turns out they required expertise to make (the skills of a biochemist are much the same as a chemists, just tends to focus on reactions involving enzymes) it will look very bad for him.