Mr. Craig Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

August 14, 2006
www.craigmurray.co.uk

The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try
and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the
so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts
doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very
highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of
professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane
ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the
UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite
some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports,
it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that
individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash
stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a
year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like
me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot
to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned
up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani
dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed
in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way.
Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want,
and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't
give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for
questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt
to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors
other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much
is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy.
Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this
activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do
with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the
possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain.
Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another
9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11
they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the
rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home
Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening
us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our
traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda
machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could
be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like
all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the
night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist
with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he
was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party
ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten
was
a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up
those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a
bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you
would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and
young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would
have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in
letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would
have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is
deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one
thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only
twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment
of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most
of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are
not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the
Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had
shattered.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

***

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0814-06.htm

 Published on Monday, August 14, 2006 by the Independent / UK
 Bush 'Viewed War in Lebanon as a Curtain-Raiser for Attack on Iran'
     by Andrew Buncombe

  The Bush administration was informed in advance and gave the "green
light" to Israel's military strikes against Hizbollah ­ with plans drawn up
months before two Israeli soldiers were seized ­it has been claimed.

      The US reportedly considered Israel's actions as a necessary
prerequisite for a possible strike against Iran. A report by a leading
investigative reporter says that earlier this summer Israeli officials
visited Washington to brief the government on its plan to respond to any
Hizbollah provocation and to "find out how much the US would bear".

      The officials apparently started their inquiries with Vice-President
Dick Cheney, knowing that if they secured his support, obtaining the
backing of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice would be easier.

      The report by Seymour Hersh quotes an unidentified US government
consultant with close ties to the Israelis who says: "The Israelis told us
it would be a cheap war with many benefits. Why oppose it? We'll be
able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air.
It would be a demo for Iran."

      A former intelligence officer, also quoted, says: "We told Israel,
'Look, if you guys have to go, we're behind you all the way. But we think
it  should be sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the less time
we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office'."

      Both Israeli and US officials say that the Israeli military operation
against Hizbollah was triggered by the seizing of two Israeli soldiers,
apparently to be bargained with for a possible prisoner swap. But Hersh's
report, published in today's issue of The New Yorker, adds to evidence that
Israel had been anticipating a Hizbollah provocation for some time and
planning its response ­ a response that was widely condemned for being
disproportionate.

      Last month the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Israel's
military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation
last week by Hizbollah militants was unfolding according to a plan finalised
more than a year ago". The report said that a senior Israeli army officer
had been briefing diplomats, journalists and think-tanks for more than a
year about the plan and it quoted Gerald Steinberg, professor of political
science at [Israel's] Bar-Ilan University, who said: "Of all of Israel's
wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared."
Last week the New Statesman magazine reported that Britain had also
been informed in advance of the military preparations and that the Prime
Minister had chosen not to try to stop them "because he did not want to".

      This latest report is the first to tie the Israeli operation to a
broader framework that includes a possible US strike against Iran.

      Unidentified officials said a strike could "ease Israel's security
concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive
attack". Shabtai Shavit, a national security adviser to the Knesset, said:
"We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America's
requirements, that's just part of a relationship between two friends.
Hizbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced
technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time."

      An anonymous Middle East expert claimed that while the State
Department supported the plan because it believed it would help the
Lebanese government assert control over the south, the White House
was focussed on stripping Hizbollah of its missiles.

      The expert added: "If there was to be a military option against Iran's
nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hizbollah could
use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush was going after Iran, as part
of the 'axis of evil', and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going
after Hizbollah as part of his interest in democratisation."

   Last night the White House denied the allegations contained in Hersh's
piece with a brief statement from the President describing it as "patently
untrue". Mr Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, added: " A
suggestion that the US and Israel planned and co-ordinated an attack on
Hizbollah ­ and did so as a prelude to an attack on Iran ­ is just flat
wrong."

      © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited









---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to