by Saad al-Faqih, though he denies it:
Alleged backer of al-Qaida is linked to bomb website
A WEBSITE used to claim responsibility for the London bombings has been linked to a British-based Saudi dissident suspected by both US and UK officials of being a supporter of al-Qaida.
Saad al-Faqih, who is based in Willesden, north-west London, has been connected to a statement claiming responsibility for the London terrorist attacks by two Israeli groups. But al-Faqih has denied any link to the message and said he doubted whether it was authentic anyway.
The statement published on the al-qal3ah.com site after the bombings on Thursday read: "The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid on London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters." (...)
The US claims al-Faqih controls websites which are used to post al-Qaida statements.
More:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=764132005The second statement (by the "Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade") "was posted on a website run by Mohammad al-Masaari, a well known Saudi Islamic activist living in exile in London."
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050709/w070936.htmlOn edit:
According to this report in Italian, the website in question is called www.tajdeed.org.uk :
Londra: Nuova rivendicazione
Con un nuovo comunicato diffuso via internet (il terzo in ordine di tempo) il gruppo Falangi di Abu Hafs el Masri ha rivendicato la paternità degli attentati di Londra. (...)
Il comunicato di rivendicazione, datato sabato 2/6/1426-9/7/2005, è stato pubblicato sul sito in arabo con sede a Londra www.tajdeed.org.uk e minaccia nuovi attacchi: «Prima Madrid e Istanbul, adesso Londra. Domani i mujaheddin si faranno sentire di nuovo <...> I prossimi giorni vedranno i più grandiosi atti della jihad contro coloro che hanno dichiarato guerra all'Islam e ai musulmani. Non ci calmeremo e non ci fermeremo fino a quando la sicurezza non sarà una realtà sulla terra d'Islam».
http://www.ardea-online.org/The website "
http://alneda.com" is "no longer in use":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/10/MNGHADLOR01.DTLMy guess is that either the person that posted on bellaciao.org or somebody at CNN got it wrong:
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6906