– 2005-10-09 09:19:36
Disclosures by a former British Cabinet Minister suggest that the relationship between Muslim terrorists and US/UK intelligence agencies is so close and intimate that they may both have been jointly involved in orchestrating 9/11.
(Note: In Profits of War, former Israeli Military Intelligence agent Ari Ben-Menashe describes how Israeli MI orchestrated the 1985 “Palestinian” attack on the cruise ship Achille Lauro (killing an elderly Jewish man in a wheelchair and throwing him overboard) by using middlemen to convince the actual perpetrators that they were working for a Palestinian group.)
Meacher Claims MI6 Recruited Muslim Extremists for Terror Training
LONDON (October 2, 2005) — An astonishing claim that MI6 [British Intelligence] recruited Muslim Extremists in Britain for Terror Training abroad has been made by Oldham MP and former cabinet minister Michael Meacher.
Mr Meacher also suggested that a British Muslim held under sentence of death in Pakistan for beheading a US journalist is being kept alive because he was a British double agent.
The Oldham West and Royton MP makes these sensational claims in an article for Asian News’ sister paper, The Guardian.
The former Environment Secretary claims that Britain’s ‘overseas’ security organisation, M16, set about recruiting UK Muslims directing them to support US efforts to overthrow communist governments in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.
He highlights a Delhi-based research foundation that estimates anything up to 200 UK Muslims could have undergone training in overseas terrorist camps under the protection of the Pakistani secret service, the ISI, who were backing the armed Islamic insurrection against the Afghan communist regime and its Soviet backers.
He writes: “During an interview on Fox TV this summer, the former US federal prosecutor John Loftus reported that British intelligence had used the al-Muhajiroun group.. to recruit Islamist militants with British passports for the war against the Serbs in Kosovo.”
The now-disbanded al-Muhajiroun group held meetings in Manchester after 9/11 praising the courage of the suicide bombers and claimed to be helping UK Muslims to fight US troops in Afghanistan.
Mr Meacher also highlights the case of UK-born Muslim Omar Saeed Sheikh, sentenced to death for the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. Mr Meacher writes that Sheikh has been allowed 32 appeals against his sentence, the last being adjourned “indefinitely”.
He says the same Delhi foundation describes Sheikh as a British agent.
Mr Meacher adds: “This is all the more remarkable when this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lomel, director of FBI’s financial crimes unit.”
Mr Meacher’s argument is that the UK and US security service do not want a proper investigation into these links because it would expose how they encouraged and helped to recruit Islamic ‘warriors’ when it suited their purposes but that these same forces eventually turned on the west, inflamed by what they saw as anti-Islamic occupations and pro-Israeli international policies.
Oldham MP Michael Meacher argues Britain’s security services helped to create Islamic warriors who eventually bit back against the west. The videotape of the suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan has switched the focus of the London bombings away from the establishment view of brainwashed, murderous individuals and highlighted a starker political reality.
While there can be no justification for horrific killings of this kind, they need to be understood against the ferment of the last decade radicalising Muslim youth of Pakistani origin living in Europe.
During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, the US funded large numbers of jihadists through Pakistan’s secret intelligence service, the ISI. Later the US wanted to raise another jihadi corps, again using proxies, to help Bosnian Muslims fight to weaken the Serb government’s hold on Yugoslavia.
Those they turned to included Pakistanis in Britain. According to a recent report by the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, a contingent was also sent by the Pakistani government, then led by Benazir Bhutto, at the request of the Clinton administration.
This contingent was formed from the Harkat-ul-Ansar (HUA) terrorist group and trained by the ISI. The report estimates that about 200 Pakistani Muslims living in the UK went to Pakistan, trained in HUA camps and joined the HUA’s contingent in Bosnia.
Most significantly, this was “With the full Knowledge and Complicity of the British and American intelligence agencies”.
As the 2002 Dutch government report on Bosnia makes clear, the US provided a green light to groups on the state department list of terrorist organisations, including the Lebanese-based Hizbullah, to operate in Bosnia — an episode that calls into question the credibility of the subsequent “war on terror”.
For nearly a decade the US helped Islamist insurgents linked to Chechnya, Iran and Saudi Arabia destabilise the former Yugoslavia.
The insurgents were also allowed to move further east to Kosovo. By the end of the fighting in Bosnia there were tens of thousands of Islamist insurgents in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo; many then moved west to Austria, Germany and Switzerland.
Less well known is evidence of the British government’s relationship with a wider Islamist terrorist network. During an interview on Fox TV this summer, the former US federal prosecutor John Loftus reported that British intelligence had used the al-Muhajiroun group in London to recruit Islamist militants with British passports for the war against the Serbs in Kosovo.
Since July, Scotland Yard has been interested in an alleged member of al-Muhajiroun, Haroon Rashid Aswat, who some sources have suggested could have been behind the London bombings.
According to Loftus, Aswat was detained in Pakistan after leaving Britain, but was released after 24 hours. He was subsequently returned to Britain from Zambia, but has been detained solely for extradition to the US, not for questioning about the London bombings. Loftus claimed that Aswat is a British-backed double agent, pursued by the police but protected by MI6.
One British Muslim of Pakistani origin radicalised by the civil war in Yugoslavia was LSE-educated Omar Saeed Sheikh. He is now in jail in Pakistan under sentence of death for the killing of the US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 — although many (including Pearl’s widow and the US authorities) doubt that he committed the murder. However, reports from Pakistan suggest that Sheikh continues to be active from jail, keeping in touch with friends and followers in Britain.
Sheikh was recruited as a student by Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Muhammad), which operates a network in Britain. It has actively recruited Britons from universities and colleges since the early 1990s, and has boasted of its numerous British Muslim volunteers.
Investigations in Pakistan have suggested that on his visits there Shehzad Tanweer, one of the London suicide bombers, contacted members of two outlawed local groups and trained at two camps in Karachi and near Lahore.
Indeed the network of groups now being uncovered in Pakistan may point to senior al-Qaida operatives having played a part in selecting members of the bombers’ cell.
The Observer Research Foundation has argued that there are even “grounds to suspect that the [London] blasts were orchestrated by Omar Sheikh from his jail in Pakistan”.
Why then is Omar Sheikh not being dealt with when he is already under sentence of death? Astonishingly his appeal to a higher court against the sentence was adjourned in July for the 32nd time and has since been adjourned indefinitely.
This is all the more remarkable when this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI’s financial crimes unit.
Yet neither Ahmed nor Omar appears to have been sought for questioning by the US about 9/11. Indeed, the official 9/11 Commission Report of July 2004 sought to downplay the role of Pakistan with the comment:
“To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance” – a statement of breathtaking disingenuousness.
All this highlights the resistance to getting at the truth about the 9/11 attacks and to an effective crackdown on the forces fomenting terrorist bombings in the west, including Britain.
The extraordinary US forbearance towards Omar Sheikh, its restraint towards the father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb, Dr AQ Khan, selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea, the huge US military assistance to Pakistan and the US decision last year to designate Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally in south Asia — all betoken a deeper strategic set of goals as the real priority in its relationship with Pakistan.
These might be surmised as Pakistan providing sizeable military contingents for Iraq to replace US troops, or Pakistani troops replacing Nato forces in Afghanistan. Or it could involve the use of Pakistani military bases for US intervention in Iran, or strengthening Pakistan as a base in relation to India and China.
Whether the hunt for those behind the London bombers can prevail against these powerful political forces remains to be seen.
Indeed it may depend on whether Scotland Yard, in its attempts to uncover the truth, can prevail over MI6, — which is trying to cover its tracks and in practice — has every opportunity to operate beyond the law under the cover of national security.
First published by the Asian News © Copyright 2005 Guardian Media Group
Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.
The Real Insurgency, and the Fake One
Xymphora / Global Research
(October 7, 2005 ) —The latest story is that the Iraqi insurgents are using American vehicles stolen in the United States in committing their attacks. This has to remind you of the discovery that the insurgents were using Italian-made hand guns manufactured without serial numbers, an order almost certainly placed by some intelligence agency (it should also remind you of the inconsistencies in the assassination of Nick Berg). The ‘experts’ claim that the American vehicles are used because they more easily fit in, but that is obvious nonsense, as they stand out like a sore thumb.
The insurgency is ninety-five percent local — the other five percent of the insurgents are from neighboring Muslim countries radicalized by the obscenity of the American violence against innocent Iraqis, and will no doubt go on to cause the United States years of trouble in the future — and use exactly the assets you would think they would use. Things they have at hand. Things like local delivery trucks and armaments hidden in Saddam’s arms caches.
They are not some international organization with contacts with American organized crime that would have access to vehicles stolen in the United States. Since the British agents provocateurs were caught red-handed in Basra, it has become more and more difficult to reject the theory that much of the insurgency — in particular those acts intended to create tensions between Sunnis and Shi’ites and create a civil war that will break up the country — is a concerted effort by intelligence agents from the United States, Britain, and Israel. There are two parallel ‘insurgencies’:
the real one, which consists of attacks against foreign occupying soldiers by people, mostly from Iraq, opposed to the occupation; and
the fake one, which consists of attacks by American, British and Israeli agents provocateurs against groups of civilians, and against foreign aid workers and journalists, which is intended to break up the country in a civil war and obfuscate what is really going on.
Mixing these up is intended to hide the reality of the real opposition of the people of Iraq to the occupation.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
© Copyright Xymphora, Xymphora, 2005