[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
To mark the 20th anniversary this past week of the devastating July 7 Islamist bombings in London, Netflix has released Attack on London: Hunting the 7/7 Bombers, a four-part documentary series directed by Liza Williams. This compelling and meticulously crafted series revisits the terror attacks that killed 52 people and injured over 700, while also chronicling the intense police investigation that followed. Through survivor testimonies, previously unreleased footage, and interviews with key figures, including former MI5 Director General Eliza Manningham-Buller and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, Attack on London serves up a gripping reconstruction of the events and their aftermath.
However, while the series excels in its storytelling and historical detail, it treads too carefully around the broader societal implications of the attacks, particularly regarding the ideology that drove them and the divisive impact of mass Muslim immigration on the tiny United Kingdom. This caution, reflective of today’s Islamophilic sensibilities of Britain’s political elites, underscores a dangerous reality: the memory and meaning of the 7/7 bombings are being dishonored by the official suppression of any criticism of Islam, which is smeared as “Islamophobic.”
The series opens with a chilling account from survivor Dan Biddle, who describes locking eyes with one of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, moments before the latter set off the explosion on the Circle Line. Biddle’s harrowing description of the chaos—limbs severed, darkness enveloping the carriage—sets the tone for the documentary’s unflinching portrayal of the human cost. Biddle himself suffered the loss of his legs, which makes for a breath-catching reveal in the documentary.
Other survivors recount their experiences as well, including Mustafa Kurtuldu, who describes the added scrutiny he faced as a Muslim when police searched his bag post-explosion. The series weaves these personal stories into a detailed timeline of the attacks, which saw four suicide bombers—Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain, and Jermaine Lindsay—detonate homemade explosives on three Underground trains and a bus during the morning rush hour commute. The bombings, the deadliest in London since World War II, shattered the city’s sense of security and exposed the threat of homegrown jihad.
The documentary excels in its portrayal of the police investigation, which faced the daunting task of identifying the perpetrators, all of whom died in the attacks. A breakthrough came when CCTV footage revealed four men with large backpacks at King’s Cross station. Tracing their movements back to Luton, police found a Nissan Micra containing homemade explosives, leading them to a bomb factory in Leeds. The series highlights the forensic ingenuity and relentless pursuit that identified the bombers, all radicalized, British-born or -raised Muslims.
Episode three shifts to the failed bombings of July 21, 2005 and the tragic police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian mistaken for a suspect. This incident, detailed through the perspective of a marksman and archival footage, underscores the chaos and high stakes of the manhunt.
Stylistically, Attack on London balances raw emotion with clinical precision. Director Liza Williams wisely avoids sensationalism, opting for a sober narrative that respects the victims while maintaining a thriller-like pace. The inclusion of the bombers’ own voices, such as a chilling audio from one of the perpetrators, highlights their fanaticism.
This is where the documentary disappoints, albeit predictably. It shies away from a deeper, more honest analysis of the ideological roots of the attacks or the broader implications of the Muslim resistance to integration into Western society. The documentary’s reticence aligns with a cultural climate in which legitimate criticism of Islam or mass Muslim immigration is increasingly taboo and stifled with totalitarian fervor by law enforcement. If you are a white English citizen expressing such concerns about the national identity being fundamentally transformed by surging, unassimilated Muslim immigrant communities, you can expect interrogation, if not arrest for hate speech, in your home at the hands of an entire squad of police officers – while literal mobs of Muslim protesters are allowed to march the streets chanting genocidal pro-Hamas slogans.
This suppression dishonors the memory of the 52 fatal victims of 7/7, in addition to the trauma inflicted on hundreds of others. The attacks were not merely a criminal act but an open declaration of war from evil fanatics who remain an existential threat to the future of the UK and the West more generally. By silencing discussion about Islam’s role in such violence or the cultural tensions arising from dramatic demographic change, political elites like Muslim mayor of London Sadiq Khan and Islamophilic collaborators King Charles and Prime Minister Keir Starmer are ensuring that the true meaning of 7/7 is officially denied. The Netflix documentary series, while powerful, mirrors this avoidance, emphasizing victim narratives and police heroics at the expense of uncomfortable truths. Its 6.9 IMDb rating reflects mixed viewer reactions, with some praising its execution but others criticizing its “cover-up” of jihad’s roots.
Commemorating the attacks, Starmer posted online a statement utterly devoid of any mention of Islam or jihad, referring only to “those who try to divide us.”
To which Dr. David Wood replied, “KEIR STARMER: ‘We honor those who were killed.’ ALSO KEIR STARMER: ‘If you question the ideology of the killers, we will throw you in prison.’”
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer added his lugubrious judgment:
… [I]n the 20 years since the July 7 jihad attacks, the jihadis have completely won in Britain. It is now a crime to criticize their motivating ideology, and the complete Islamization of Britain is only a matter of time. Starmer doesn’t dare risk offending the conquered nation’s new overlords.
Attack on London is essential viewing for its vivid retelling of a dark chapter in modern English history, but this reluctance to grapple with the ideological and cultural challenges a full 20 years later leaves a chilling void. As Britain remembers the 7/7 victims, the lessons of that ghastly attack are being undermined by willful ignorance. European political elites must begin taking seriously the anger and frustration of the constituents they so contemptuously dismiss if the continent is ever to avoid the civilizational suicide toward which it is hurtling.
Follow Mark Tapson at Culture Warrior