https://arab.news/z84b3
- Briton Faisal Akram had ranted about 9/11 attacks a day after they happened
- Brother: ‘He’s known to police, got a criminal record. How was he allowed to get a visa and acquire a gun?’
LONDON: The British man killed by police after taking people hostage in a US synagogue was known to British security services, The Independent has reported.
Faisal Akram, from the town of Blackburn, also had previous criminal convictions but was still able to obtain a visa and travel to his target in Texas.
The Independent reported that it was not known when MI5 became aware of Akram, 44, but that he had not been considered an imminent threat.
He was known to local police for criminal offenses, and in 2001 had been banned from a local court after ranting about the 9/11 terrorist attacks a day after they took place.
A letter sent to Akram from the court at the time read: “In a clear reference to the terrorist attack on New York the previous day you said on more than one occasion to one of my court ushers ‘you should have been on the ******* plane’.”
Speaking with Sky News, Akram’s brother Gulbar questioned how he had been allowed to travel to the US in the first place and then acquire a gun while there.
“He’s known to police, got a criminal record,” Gulbar said. “How was he allowed to get a visa and acquire a gun?”
US President Joe Biden branded the attack an “act of terror,” and said Akram had made “antisemitic and anti-Israel comments.”
The FBI, with support from British counterterror police, is investigating why Akram targeted the synagogue and took hostages.
British Home Secretary Priti Patel pledged “full support” from the UK police and security services throughout the investigation.
Two British teenagers were arrested on Sunday in relation to the attack, but no further details have been released.
During the attack, Akram had demanded the release of Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui, who is jailed in Texas for trying to kill US military officers in Afghanistan.
An FBI agent said after the attack that they believed Akram was “singularly focused on one issue and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community,” but added that they will continue to “work to find motive.”