Mi6 Asset & London Bombings: Interesting!!

[Larry O'Hara]

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere (it doesn't seem to be) but I have seen a clip from Fox TVs Security Correspondent John Loftus (30/7/05) arguing that Haroon Rashid Aswat named in the US (but not consistently here) as a key organiser in relation to the London bombings is in fact a protected MI6 asset, and as such has long been protected from the CIA, even up to & including MI6 claiming he was dead. Thus, he has been released from Pakistan detention before now, & despite being on international watch lists, allowed to fly in & out of London recently unhindered. the link showing this news item is http://www.infowars.com/articles/london_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm

None of this would mean in any simplistic sense the British state as an entity 'organised' or 'planned' the bombings, but it certainly points to the bombings having been in effect licensed (ie turned a blind eye to) by MI6. Which is all grist to my own perspective that the different fractions of the security state enjoy a large degree of 'relative autonomy' (as Poulantzas would say)

Allegedly, this guy infiltrated (or was a member of) Abu Hamza's circle a few years ago. Given that MI6 paid a local Libyan cell to assassinate Colonel Qadhafi in 1996, this wouldn't be the first time MI6 associated closely with free-lance illegals.

This information, if it stands up, needs to be put in overall context. But it is certainly interesting: apologies if it has already been covered elsewhere.

 

[DaveCinzano]

i wrote a post with lots of press reports on haroon, but it sank.

he certainly seems an interesting character.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Strangely...

although on my computer the link I typed above comes out right, it doesn't on U75!!. So I'll try again http://www.infowars.com/articles/london_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm

Done so, & still doesn't come out right--after the word articles the missing bit is [B]/london_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm

 

[DaveCinzano]

...but it certainly points to the bombings having been in effect licensed (ie turned a blind eye to) by MI6.

i'm not sure how you can get that from the available evidence - history is littered with iffy types in the pay of spooks still doing their own under-the-counter business. surely, if anything, it would suggest that mi6 were played by haroon?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

i wrote a post with lots of press reports on haroon, but it sank.

he certainly seems an interesting character.

I've now seen that, thanks. What you have is certainly not inconsistent with him being an MI6 asset. And it is standard spook practice to cover delicate stories in a meteor like way: brief publicity burst, then silence. Far better than simple suppression. This then allows them, when awkward questions do get raised to say "Yes, we knew all about that, a dead end". The classic case being early publicity for Iran/Syria/PFLP involvement in Lockerbie.

So, in terms of this guy possibly being MI6, there is something quite promising (in a research way) here. If he is, you can bet the controlled media will drop it like a stone, soon.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

i'm not sure how you can get that from the available evidence - history is littered with iffy types in the pay of spooks still doing their own under-the-counter business. surely, if anything, it would suggest that mi6 were played by haroon?

Well, maybe the difference between us here is semantic. When I say 'license' I don't mean foreknowledge or authorisation, merely that

1) He was allowed in & out of the country unhindered

2) he was not stopped from contacting whoever he so chose in the UK

3) If the Fox Report is right, he has been given 2 get out of jail cards.

If you see the term license as in a pub license: that you are legally allowed to sell beer doesn't necessarily mean you will sell much, (or any), but if you do, then the 'licensing authorities' will have facilitated such.

In any event, it may well be he conned MI6: after all they are/were so desperate for intelligence, they'll have anybody. I seem to recall that Al Qaeda sympathiser infiltrated Dutch intellgence & thereby got knowledge of Van Gogh's movements? (Didn't come out at trial, but you wouldn't expect it to

 

[DaveCinzano]

I've now seen that, thanks. What you have is certainly not inconsistent with him being an MI6 asset.

this is certainly something that i'm not dismissing - but i'm not sure if there's much else that could be extrapolated yet...

(your repaired link is now throwing up a 404 message!)

 

[Larry O'Hara]

this is certainly something that i'm not dismissing - but i'm not sure if there's much else that could be extrapolated yet...

(your repaired link is now throwing up a 404 message!)

1) What is a 404 message? I saw the original on Indymedia, if that helps...

2) As for the extrapolation: I agree this is but one piece in a bigger jigsaw.

 

[DaveCinzano]

re post #6: ah, i see what you mean. i think the term 'licence' is probably too loaded to be useful though, as i'm sure i would not be the only one to see it as i did, and it would tend to distract attention away from the more important contention (a possible link with intelligence).

any links to the van gogh stuff?

 

[DaveCinzano]

1) What is a 404 message?

'not found' - i shall try and track it down through indymedia & infowars...

edit: found it on 'infowars' but it's just a link to a wmp video clip, and my mac no like wmp

just figured out who infowars is - bit fishy if you ask me... he has his own (alleged) links to haroon and the london bombings...

 

[Larry O'Hara]

re post #6: ah, i see what you mean. i think the term 'licence' is probably too loaded to be useful though, as i'm sure i would not be the only one to see it as i did, and it would tend to distract attention away from the more important contention (a possible link with intelligence).

any links to the van gogh stuff?

1) I do like the term license, because it is connective, but weaker than 'planned' 'authorised'. I suppose I have in mind the Copeland parallel, which I am still angry about after all these years.

2) As for Van Gogh case, nothing virtual springs to mind, though Statewatch might have covered it. It's all in here (points to skull)

 

[editor]

None of this would mean in any simplistic sense the British state as an entity 'organised' or 'planned' the bombings, but it certainly points to the bombings having been in effect licensed (ie turned a blind eye to) by MI6..

Woooargh there boy!

That's quite a leap of logic, no?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

'not found' - i shall try and track it down through indymedia & infowars...

edit: found it on 'infowars' but it's just a link to a wmp video clip, and my mac no like wmp

just figured out who infowars is - bit fishy if you ask me... he has his own (alleged) links to haroon and the london bombings...

1) I don't know infowars? Are you saying he knows Haroon??

2) The Fox clip I have seen, honestly, & I do remember seeing Loftus on Fox before. I based my comments on having watched that, not the (potential) fruitloop who alerted me to it.

3) Speaking of which, most people in the Gold Rush failed--but there was some gold! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Woooargh there boy!

That's quite a leap of logic, no?

see my post 6: I'm quite amenable to an alternative word than licensed, as it seems to be one very open to misinterpretation. Suggestions??

 

[DaveCinzano]

1) I don't know infowars? Are you saying he knows Haroon??

well, infowars is run by alex jones, who broke into bohemian grove with jon ronson, who in the course of writing 'them' and making his tv series had a close relationship with abu hamza (iirc), who - if the oregon allegations are true - was involved with haroon...

small world innit!

 

[DaveCinzano]

tbh i think it might be more fruitful to put the emphasis on an apparent relationship between haroon and mi6, rather than a connection between mi6 and the bombings.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

well, infowars is run by alex jones, who broke into bohemian grove with jon ronson, who in the course of writing 'them' and making his tv series had a close relationship with abu hamza (iirc), who - if the oregon allegations are true - was involved with haroon...

small world innit!

1) Do you mean the Bilderburg Conference where they were chased?

2) On reflection, that Ronson interview with Hamza might be worth rechecking.

3) In any event, the key 'narrative' in this affair is the Fox TV one. Not to be dismissed just because of Murdoch I hope!!

In any event, all I'm saying about Haroon is his role/possible MI6 connections is interesting. And it is odd, is it not, that a US extradition request is apparently, in an uncontested way, taking priority over the Brit one? Those alleged 20 phone calls & visits to England alone are surely sufficient prima facie grounds for an application, at least? Unless they really did lie to the US that he was dead, & are letting them have him to sweep it under the carpet.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

tbh i think it might be more fruitful to put the emphasis on an apparent relationship between haroon and mi6, rather than a connection between mi6 and the bombings.

I agree, but we should not lose sight of the allegation he visited England & potentially made contact/phoned some of the alleged bombers. In that sense, MI6 incompetence (putting it mildly) would have allowed him to encourage those actions. It raises the interesting question of how many of the 'assets' spooks think they have inside Muslim communities are 'double agents', both now & in the future....

 

[rednblack]

yeah what larry says above^

 

[TeeJay]

...is in fact a protected MI6 asset, and as such has long been protected from the CIA, even up to & including MI6 claiming he was dead. Thus, he has been released from Pakistan detention before now, & despite being on international watch lists, allowed to fly in & out of London recently unhindered.

Just because he has been detained before now for questioning and was on a 'watchlist' - presumably because he was suspected of having links to Islamist terrorists - doesn't really amount to anything does it? Has he ever been charged with anything? Have the authorities even uncovered evidence that they can use against him?

Even this latest evidence - that he was in the UK before the 7/7 attacks and then left the country and had phoned two of the 7/7 bombers shortly the attacks, by itself isn't actually enough to *prove* that he has commited a crime is it? If he was in the UK he could probably be held for the statutory amount of time, but after that unless there was any actual evidence to charge him with something he would have to be released wouldn't he?

I don't know how it works in other countries of course...

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Just because he has been detained before now for questioning and was on a 'watchlist' - presumably because he was suspected of having links to Islamist terrorists - doesn't really amount to anything does it? Has he ever been charged with anything? Have the authorities even uncovered evidence that they can use against him?

Even this latest evidence - that he was in the UK before the 7/7 attacks and then left the country and had phoned two of the 7/7 bombers shortly the attacks, by itself isn't actually enough to *prove* that he has commited a crime is it? If he was in the UK he could probably be held for the statutory amount of time, but after that unless there was any actual evidence to charge him with something he would have to be released wouldn't he?
...

The precise legal status of Haroon isn't what interests me, so much as the claim he is a protected MI6 asset. And as such (if such) it may well be he is never questioned in a British court--while up & down the country thousands of law-abiding Muslims are getting their collars felt.

 

[TeeJay]

If he was a UK national how would they have prevented him coming to the UK any way? He doesn't need a visa or anything does he? If you have x number of 'suspects', and each one phones y people, and each of these people phones z people, you would probably end up with a massive number of 'suspects' every month. Are each of these people to be considered as potential suicide bombers? If each of these people are not raided and they are not closely monitored, has MI6/MI5/SB 'messed up'? Where are they meant to draw the line? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but surely we should at least wait until a bit more information comes out about the 7/7 bombers, what they were up to for the last year or two, and what kind of pattern of contracts they had with whom, before we start saying that anyone was negligent, let alone complicit.

 

[TeeJay]

The precise legal status of Haroon isn't what interests me, so much as the claim he is a protected MI6 asset. And as such (if such) it may well be he is never questioned in a British court--while up & down the country thousands of law-abiding Muslims are getting their collars felt.

Maybe the Americans think that every time the UK embassy in a third country (be that Pakistan, The Gambia, Zambia or wherever) objects to a UK citizen being kidnapped, 'rendered' to some Cuba or middle eastern hell-hole and tortured, that it is those pesky people from MI6 (aka the FCO) protecting one of their 'agents'? Maybe they then leak their comments to one of their 'pet reporters' as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the FCO to turn a blind eye to the illegal and downright fuckwitted practises.

(btw I am saying all this as a dual US/UK national before anyone gets annoyed by any perceived 'bashing'. Ironically this gives me (along woth some advantages) the particular legal 'priviledge' of not being able to claim UK protection from the US, or US protection from the UK. )

 

[Larry O'Hara]

If each of these people are not raided and they are not closely monitored, has MI6/MI5/SB 'messed up'? Where are they meant to draw the line? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but surely we should at least wait until a bit more information comes out about the 7/7 bombers, what they were up to for the last year or two, and what kind of pattern of contracts they had with whom, before we start saying that anyone was negligent, let alone complicit.

1) It is not my role, or intention, to suggest who should/shouldn't have been 'raided'

2) The allegation, aired on Fox, is that the CIA are furious with the Brits (MI6) for protecting this person.

3) If indeed Aswat is an MI6 asset, I do not really expect that fact to come out if a DA (censorship) notice is slapped on it.

Ultimately, I trust neither MI5/MI6/SB nor the mainstream British media/legal system to fully disclose all relevant facts. Therefore, I am not prepared to "wait" until they decide what their final agreed version is. A graphic illustration of official lying is surely the multiple and contradictory Met Police explanations for the de Menezes shooting, which in rapd succession included lies about his affiliations/intentions/colour/clothing/manner of entry into station/police warnings. If the Met can lie about that one public incident in so many ways, so rapidly, then I can assure you spooks & their media allies can lie about anything/everything else, and have long done so.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Maybe the Americans think that every time the UK embassy in a third country (be that Pakistan, The Gambia, Zambia or wherever) objects to a UK citizen being kidnapped, 'rendered' to some Cuba or middle eastern hell-hole and tortured, that it is those pesky people from MI6 (aka the FCO) protecting one of their 'agents'? Maybe they then leak their comments to one of their 'pet reporters' as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the FCO to turn a blind eye to the illegal and downright fuckwitted practises )

You have a point there, and as yet it isn't proven this man is an MI6 asset. Although of course in this particular case there is no seeming campaign to get him extradited here rather than the USA . But you rightly draw attention to the fact that we need to look at just what the US allege he has done/why they are interested. Although a devious take on this could be the CIa want to extradite him to the US to ensure he doesn't return to the UK, thereby doing MI6 a big favour.

 

[TeeJay]

Ultimately, I trust neither MI5/MI6/SB nor the mainstream British media/legal system to fully disclose all relevant facts.

Do you trust the US media and the CIA any more? Sounds like the CIA are pissed off with the UK complaining about Guantanemo and their 'rendition' programmes, and want to brief against them through the media to increase the pressure so they can go round the world ignoring local laws and kidnapping whoever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want - to pack them off to places like Morocco where they then use torture and have no legal protection or support.

They get 'furious' when the Foreign and Colonial Office point out that they are not happy with UK citizens being treated like this, require access to detained UK citizens and insist that internationbal laws and treaties are respected.

A petulant stamping of the feet and cries of "well they would say that, they are trying to portect themselves - he is one of their agents who has gone off and killed people, they have lost control and are incompetant, etc etc etc...": This fits in very well with what we know about the CIA surely? Why look for complex conspiracies when simple ones will do?

 

[TeeJay]

...a devious take on this could be the CIa want to extradite him to the US to ensure he doesn't return to the UK, thereby doing MI6 a big favour...

I expect they just want to kidnap him and throw him in Gauntanemo with the rest of their captives - either that or disappear him off to Morocco, Egypt or wherever...

...it helps if people don't even know which country he is in, or if he is dead or alive: the old explanation of 'mistaken identity' and travelling on false papers.

Have any independent and reliable reporters even confirmed where he is and 'who' he is?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Obviously...

Of course I don't trust the CIA, or rather I trust them as much as I do other spooks. However, I do not automatically dismiss anything/everything said by any spook as automatically lies--each statement has to be examined on a case by case basis. After all, it is rivalries between spook agencies within & between countries that often lets juicy morsels of information slip out. Differentiated anlysis is what's called for--to avoid the twin pitfalls of excessive naivety on the one hand, & conspiracy theorising on the other.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

I expect they just want to kidnap him and throw him in Gauntanemo with the rest of their captives - either that or disappear him off to Morocco, Egypt or wherever...

...it helps if people don't even know which country he is in, or if he is dead or alive: the old explanation of 'mistaken identity' and travelling on false papers.

Have any independent and reliable reporters even confirmed where he is and 'who' he is?

I suggest, before asking even more rhetorical questions, you look up

1) the Haroon thread alluded to by Bristle-KRS above

2) the Fox Report by John Loftus

 

[laptop]

Woooargh there boy!

That's quite a leap of logic, no?

Indeed. In fact you have to go into the further reaches of maths to find "a logic" that it could qualify to be part of.

1) From the transcript at globalresearch.ca - not an obviously very flaky site - your interviewee is at least as sloppy, He says, for example:

But what they had in common was they were all emigrant groups in Britain, recruited by this Al-Muhajiroun group. They were headed by the, Captain Hook, the imam in London the Finsbury Mosque, without the arm. He was the head of that organization. Now his assistant was a guy named Aswat, Haroon Rashid Aswat.

Now, I'm pretty sure that Sheikh Abu Hamza, late of Finsbury Park Mosque and now of HMP Belmarsh, was not a member of al-Muhajiroun. (It declared itself dissolved in 2004.) Wikpedia certainly doesn't think so, neither does news.google.com: it is widely reported merely that he addressed one of their meetings.

2) In my experience, stories that pop up in one major news outlet like this are and are not picked up - and a quick search reveals no other outlets picking it up - are frequently disinformation. They may be later reported under the "everyone is gossiping..." rubric.

The first instance that comes to mind as following this pattern is the "Yellow Rain" story of alleged chemical weapons - which ended in the real world with the classic New Scientist headline "Yellow Rain is Bee Shit" but which, I am only mildly surprised to discover, has a continuing following of conspiranoids.