|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Britain
British MP Michael Meacher suggests Security Services are
shielding July 7 bomb plotters
By Chris Marsden
14 September 2005
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Senior Labour member of Parliament and former environment minister
Michael Meacher has written in the Guardian newspaper,
alleging that a thorough investigation into the July 7 terror
bombings in London may be thwarted by the intelligence services.
Under the headline, Britain Now Faces its Own Blowback,
Meacher charges that British and US intelligence agencies have
had longstanding relations with Islamic fundamentalists from the
time of the Mujahideen war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan
through to the wars in Bosnia in the 1990s. He states not only
that British intelligence cannot be trusted to investigate the
London bombings, but also that the CIA may be protecting key figures
involved in 9/11.
Blowback is the term widely used to refer to the
unexpected consequences of CIA support for the Mujahideen in a
conflict that first saw the emergence on the international stage
of Osama bin Laden and the seeds of his Al Qaeda network. The
CIAs relationship with the Albanian nationalist Kosovo Liberation
Army is also well documented.
However, Meacher begins by focussing on the largely unexplored
connections established by British intelligence with these and
similar Islamic fundamentalist groups, centring on Pakistan.
Earlier this month, the Arab TV network Al Jazeera broadcast
a video message from Pakistan-born Briton Mohammed Sidique Khan,
one of the suicide bombers responsible for the July 7 attacks.
In a second message on the same tape, Al-Qaedas Ayman al-Zawahri
claimed responsibility for the blasts.
Meacher comments that the videotape emphasises that the London
bombs must be understood against the ferment of the last
decade radicalising Muslim youth of Pakistani origin living in
Europe.
He writes: During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
in the 1980s, the US funded large numbers of jihadists through
Pakistans 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 governments
hold on Yugoslavia. Those they turned to included Pakistanis in
Britain.
The break-up of Yugoslavia was viewed by Washington and London
as the best means of re-establishing control of the Balkan region
and extending their influence into the former Soviet territories
and spheres of influence in the oil- and gas-rich Caspian Basin.
Referring to a recent report by the Delhi-based Observer Research
Foundation, Meacher explains that to this end the Clinton administration
requested assistance from the Pakistani government of Benazir
Bhutto.
Pakistan sent a contingent of the Harkat-ul- Ansar (HUA) terrorist
group to Bosnia which had been trained by its security service.
Possibly 200 Pakistani Muslims living in Britain were involved
in the Bosnian operation. The report states that this was with
the full knowledge and complicity of the British and American
intelligence agencies.
Meacher also cites a 2002 Dutch government report on Bosnia,
which detailed how Washington gave a green light to groups
on the state department list of terrorist organisations, including
the Lebanese-based Hizbullah, to operate in Bosnia.
At this point it is necessary to quote Meacher extensively.
He writes, 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 governments
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.
Meacher cites one alleged incident in which the British security
services stepped in to protect someone who could possibly have
been involved in the July 7 attacks. He writes:
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.
Another high profile Islamic fundamentalist, Omar Saeed Sheikh,
is also a British citizen of Pakistani origin who was educated
at the London School of Economics. Currently imprisoned in Pakistan
for the killing of the US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, he
too is still politically active and is suspected of possible involvement
with July 7.
Meacher writes that 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.
Meacher asks the obvious question, why it is that Omar Sheikh
may have been allowed to continue playing a part in terrorist
activities and has so far successfully avoided the death sentence
imposed against him by the Pakistani government? Numerous appeals
against the sentence have been adjourned, leading to its delay
on 32 separate occasions by a regime not normally associated with
respect for democratic rights.
Meacher links this directly with 9/11 and possible CIA involvement:
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 the FBIs 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 significancea
statement of breathtaking disingenuousness.
Meacher writes that these facts highlight 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.
He places this against similar inexplicably conciliatory positions
by the Bush administration towards people with connections to
Pakistan, in particular its restraint towards the father
of Pakistans atomic bomb, Dr. AQ Khan, selling nuclear secrets
to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Meacher offers as a possible explanation the fact that Pakistan
is considered by Washington to be a major international ally.
He concludes, 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.
Meachers remarks are devastating in themselves. But they
raise an issue which he himself does not explicitly address. Given
the extensive connections between the security services and Islamic
fundamentalists operating in Britain, one must ask: Did MI6 or
any other agency have prior knowledge that some form of terrorist
action was planned for July 7?
To date there has been no credible explanation offered as to
why the threat assessment, used to estimate the likelihood of
a terrorist attack, was lowered just weeks prior to the bombings
and kept at the reduced level during the G-8 summit of government
heads of major industrial nations in Scotland. The July 7 attacks
occurred mid-way through the summit.
The intelligence services have continued to plead ignorance
of any terrorist preparations, despite the fact that Mohammed
Sidique Khan had come to the attention of the intelligence services
in 2004 as part of an inquiry into an alleged plot to explode
a truck bomb outside a London target.
Khan had also made several trips to Pakistan, and senior Israeli
intelligence officials confirmed that he had visited Israel in
Spring 2003, just prior to a suicide bombing carried out by two
Britons of Pakistani origin on a Tel Aviv nightclub. This was
the first time that Britons had been involved in a suicide bombing.
Yet Khan had supposedly never been placed under surveillance,
not even when, according to the US-based Stratfor web site,
unconfirmed rumours in intelligence circles indicate that
the Israeli government actually warned London of a potential
terror attack several days before July 7.
In the past, Meacher has raised the question of foreknowledge
and possible collusion between the CIA and the perpetrators of
9/11. On September 6, 2003, he again chose the Guardian
to publish an op-ed piece, The War on Terrorism is Bogus:
9/11 Gave the US an Ideal Pretext to Use Force to Secure its Global
Domination.
In that article he stated that the US authorities did
little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11... It is known
that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US
of the 9/11 attacks.
He questioned whether US intelligence had connections with
those alleged to have organised the attacks, established during
the Afghan conflict, before asking who had ordered the US national
security apparatus to stand down on 9/11.
The World Socialist Web Site drew attention to the significance
of Meachers remarks in a September 8, 2003 article. In contrast,
Meacher was either ignored or denounced by the US and British
media.
This time, only one Pakistani newspaper reproduced Meachers
Guardian article. The rest of the press has remained silent.
See Also:
9/11 Commission admits excluding
intelligence on lead hijacker, Atta
[12 August 2005]
British official charges
US stood down on 9/11
[8 September 2003]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |