Bombing Mastermind Aswat Works for MI-6


As Fox News tells it, at the very moment the British police were supposedly looking high and low for Dewsbury resident Haroon Rashid Aswat, pegged as the London bombing “mastermind,” MI-6 was quietly stowing him away for safe keeping. In fact, they were protecting him as an asset, although we should not expect Fox News to admit this “embarrassing” fact (watch this Fox video). “The Times said Aswat was believed to have had a ten-year association with militant groups, and met Osama bin Laden at [a CIA-ISI built] al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan,” Breaking News reported almost two weeks ago. “The newspaper said it had obtained FBI documents indicating he was sent to America in 1999 where he had firearms and poison training.”

According to MI-5 counter-intelligence whistleblower David Shayler, “MI-6 is in bed with al Qaeda,” which of course makes perfect sense since al-Qaeda is a masterfully engineered intelligence contrivance (a fake terrorist front organization created through a collaboration between the CIA, ISI, and MI-6) designed to discredit Islam, sow violence and chaos, and bury any possibility of pan-Arab nationalism—or, as the Grand Chessboard master Zbigniew Brzezinski writes, “to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”

In 2002, “Tony Blair … ordered a D-Notice [an institutionalized method of censorship, short for short for Defense Notices] on British media reporting government officials signing court gag orders. This regards the case of former MI5 officer David Shayler, who has evidence to prove MI6 gave £100,000 to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda,” Paul Joseph Watson noted, citing an article published in the Guardian. Another famous Londonistan radical, Abu Qatada (accused of being a key al-Qaeda member) was sheltered in a safe house in northern England by MI-6, the BBC reported in 2002. And then there is the story of British intelligence forking out large sums of money to “an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice,” the London Observer reported in November, 2002.

In the non-Bushzarro world, Britain would be placed on the State Department’s list of nations supporting international terrorism (and attacked like Iraq was, although Iraq did not shelter terrorists). For instance, Britain provided “exceptional leave” to the Saudi expatriate Mohammed al-Massari, the head of the London-based Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights, after he declared as “intellectually justified” the attack on a U.S. military barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers. Gamaa al-Islamiya (Islamic Group), the terrorist organization responsible for killing 62 tourists in Luxor, Egypt, was provided political asylum in Britain and numerous efforts by the Egyptian government to have members extradited were denied. The Algerian Armed Islamic Group, responsible for the assassination of Algerian President Mohamed Boudiaf on June 29, 1992, has its international headquarters in London. In addition, various other groups—including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Hamas, the Kurdish Workers Party, al-Jihad, and others—operate out of the United Kingdom unmolested.

For Fox News, the presence of Haroon Rashid Aswat and radical clerics in Britain is nothing short of “appeasement,” when in fact it is part and parcel of a deliberate policy to undermine Islamic countries and discredit Arab nationalism, a long-standing effort to keep the “Mideast pot boiling,” as Joseph Brewda characterizes British intelligence-terrorist operations. “There is every reason to believe,” writes Webster Griffin Tarpley, “that London is one of the main recruiting grounds for patsies, dupes, fanatics, double agents, and other roustabouts of the terrorist scene” (9/11: Synthetic Terror, p. 156).

“British intelligence nurtures and cultivates—as it learned to do during its official colonial days and as it did with stunning success in southern Sudan for instance—an identity based on rigid ethnic or religious lines that fixates on the alleged difference between the victim population and perceived ‘enemy’ populations,” writes Linda de Hoyos. “In Africa, British intelligence focuses on stirring up tribal conflicts. In the Indian subcontinent, it focuses on religious or caste or ethnic differences. In the Caucasus and Balkans, religious and ethnic differences are played upon. In the global strategic arena, the British field such concepts as ‘clash of civilizations’”…. Naturally, British intelligence or its subcontractors will tend to back all sides in a conflict—since the conflict, NOT the victory of any one side—is the goal.”

In short, British state-sponsored terrorism is a perfect example of the Hegelian dialect in action. “The Hegelian dialectic has never failed because to understand it requires the total breakdown and reconstruction of everything you’ve ever known,” explains Paul Joseph Watson. “Upon the conclusion of the war on terrorism, the counterfeit foe awaits.”

Fox plays a crucial role—although the obvious role of Britain (working in tandem with intelligence operations out of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon) has posed a conundrum for the preeminent Bush Ministry of Disinformation and Lies, enshrined in its “fair and balanced” mythos. Instead of facing up to the reality behind the current situation in London, Fox’s talking heads and propaganda meisters spin a transparent web of deceit and fanciful alternate realities (as the dicta of Bushzarro world demands), all of it suffering miserably (and ludicrously) under the hard glare of truth.

Articles by: Kurt Nimmo

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]