The Mystery of Rashid Rauf 23


Finally, with its second jury, the State obtained the conviction of three people for attempting to blow up airliners with liquid bombs, as the end result of the greatest of all terrorist plot media hypes. We are left with the continuing War on Shampoo at the airports.

Let us for now accept the convictions as safe, although the whole history of “terrorist” trials in the UK calls for especial scepticism at this point. It does indeed appear that some British born men of Pakistani origin were motivated to attempt a terrorist atrocity. What more does the case tell us?

Well, firstly this is yet more proof of the alienation of British born Muslims from their natural affection for the country of their birth, by Blair and Bush’s policy of securing access to mineral resources by war in Islamic lands. It counters exactly the Gordon Brown claim that occupying Afghanistan somehow keeps us safe here. Every civilian death from NATO action in Afghanistan and Pakistan actually stokes terrorist sympathies here. We are creating, not combating, terrorist sympathies.

Secondly, there is little evidence that the plot was actually viable. There remains great doubt about the ability of the bombers to create liquid explosive of sufficient potency. The airport security idea that liquids are somehow more dangerous than powders or solids is a nonsense.

But the key question, as with the “Islamic Jihad Union” trial in Germany, the “La Guardia” plot in the US and the “Sears Tower” plot in Canada, is who put these useless idiots up to it? How far does surveillance and penetration blend into instigation by agents provocateurs?

Which leads us to the quite extraordinary story of Rashid Rauf, said by the UK and US governments to have been the “mastermind” of this plot Rauf was allegedly the source of the initial information, through the Pakistani ISI. Whether under torture, or whether as a double agent, remains obscure.

The extraordinary thing is that although Rauf was the so-called “mastermind”, and although he was already wanted as a suspect in the UK for the alleged (non-political) murder of an uncle, the British authorities were so keen for him not to appear in a witness box that for over a year they failed to put in any request to Pakistan for his extradition to trial in the UK.

Then, still more amazingly,Rauf mysteriously “escaped” from maximum security detention in Pakistan, in circumstances which have yet to be explained. Finally in November last year the US government announced they had killed Rauf in a targeted drone bombing in Pakistan – a non-judicial execution which (if true) is illegal under Pakistani, US, UK and international law. Rauf was a British citizen, but there was no protest at his murder from the UK authorities.

(His family’s theory is that he was killed in captivity, and the “escape” and subsequent bombing death are simply a twist on the old “Shot while escaping” line.)

We will, therefore, never know the truth of the genesis of the infamous so-called liquid bomb plot. Everything indicates that the British government never had any interest in us knowng the truth, made no attempt to secure Rauf’s appearance at the trial, and appeared unperturbed, to say the least, by his murder.

What conclusions should we draw from that?


23 thoughts on “The Mystery of Rashid Rauf

  • Cobblers

    ^Conclusions:

    * That the ‘War on Terror’ is a load of cooked up baloney?

    Good point raised, Craig – ‘How far does surveillance and penetration blend into instigation by agents provocateurs?’ – This question is rarely raised/answered by the media who go into parrot mode, reporting the (changing) prosecution case details.

    Around 19 persons were initially arrested for this plot, & we now have 4 found guilty, which has been arrived at by a comination of 2 trials/4 juries/plea-bargaining etc.. There were 7 alleged ‘martyrdom videos’ found, however only 4 are guilty, which must mean that the evidence did not convince either of the 2 trial juries.

    ‘Martyrdom videos’ alone, a case do not make:

    See http://j7truth.blogspot.com/

  • Clark

    Courtenay Barnett,

    you should’ve pointed out that the “interview” you’ve linked to is ficticious.

  • MJ

    “Rauf mysteriously “escaped” from maximum security detention in Pakistan, in circumstances which have yet to be explained”

    Atually it has been explained. He was allegedly taken to a mosque in Rawalpindi where he was allowed to pray alone and then escaped. Shortly after the alleged escape his lawyer Hashmat Habib predicted that his death would be announced in due course.

    I’d be interested to know the evidence on which the claim that he was killed in a drone attack is based.

  • Ruth

    I’ll explain a similar case but not in a ‘terrorism’ case but a VAT fraud where evidence strongly points to it being set up by the SIS in conjunction with Customs & Excise. The case was conjoined to another fraud at trial; the principal was said by C&E to have run both frauds in which huge sums of VAT disappeared abroad. C&E said they were looking for the principal and had contacted the Belgian authorities. They had the ‘prinipal’s’ address but didn’t visit him at home. They concocted this guy’s ‘previous convictions’ which must have been to hide the fact that during the investigation and trial, he appeared at court in Belgium and thus it would have been quite simple to apprehend him. Why didn’t they want him in court with the other defendants? The evidence points to the fact that he wasn’t the principal in the first fraud; the evidence very strongly suggests that the principal of the first VAT fraud was an SIS agent. The companies owned by this person had links in Monrovia in 2000 and other interesting places. One of the guys in the first fraud mentioned deals with arms, timber and diamonds.

    It is interesting to note that many of the real Mr Bigs behind carousel VAT frauds are never caught and it’s even more interesting to see that many of the companies involved in such frauds are linked.

    So the question all this raises is were/are ‘gangs’ created by an agent provocateur to hide the fact that VAT is/was secretly being taken out of the country to finance illegal activities?

    If this is done as a matter of course then it would be quite natural for the government to follow the same procedure in concocting acts of terrorism.

  • gus

    Ruth,

    As you are aware, VAT fraud cases were of interest to the Postie (God bless him). What was incredulous was the way that lost VAT was not pursued, or that a number of cases collapsed without convictions (search “carousel fraud” on htp://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/ )

    There is something odd about the timing of the breaking of the ‘Liquid Explosive Airline plot’, as the names of the initial arrests were announced by the Treasury (a statement of financial sanctions, issued by the Bank of England), instead of the Met Police. The Evening Standard of Friday 11th August 2006 wrote in a piece headlined “Doomsday plan for Wednesday”:

    “A WHITEHALL turf war broke out today as it emerged that the Home Office wanted the Treasury to delay publication of the terror suspects’ names.

    “At 3am the Bank of England identified 19 people whose assets it was freezing under UN sanctions rules. The Met was worried this could prejudice its inquiry.”

    Blair was also out of the country at the time.

    I’m certain that there is VAT fraud intertwined with ‘terrorism operations’ – a number of terror ‘suspects’/’accused’ have had links with vehicle import/export companies. It is a subject worthy of deeper research, but no journalist will go near this stuff.

  • David McEwan Hill

    I found myself watching childrens’ “Newsround” on BBC at 5 pm and was apalled to listen, about six minutes into it, to a piece about Afghanistan which was a collection of distortions and a number of lies with the overall effect being crass political spin in support of our interference there.

    For our children!

    Worth a look.

  • Ruth

    gus,

    Yes, the hidden principal(the suspected SIS guy}had many companies linked to car import into the UK.

    In my experience, too, journalists won’t touch the subject, which is extraordinary as, if we do live in a democracy we should know if our hard earned money is being secretly taken out of the country and particularly if it’s being used for buying weapons to arm African conflicts.

  • Clark

    Ruth and Gus,

    I seem to remember that Craig asking, while Iran was holding British Navy personnel, what business the British Navy had searching car transporting ships. Probably just coincidence, but I thought I’d mention it…

  • Ruth

    gus,

    Yes, the hidden principal(the suspected SIS guy}had many companies linked to car import into the UK.

    In my experience, too, journalists won’t touch the subject, which is extraordinary as, if we do live in a democracy we should know if our hard earned money is being secretly taken out of the country and particularly if it’s being used for buying weapons to arm African conflicts.

  • Ruth

    I’ve noticed that when a comment sensitive to the government is added, it’s frequently followed by one that is bizarre, off-topic etc. So I’ve pasted my comment again

  • writerman

    A friend of mine has been interested in this case from the start, because he’s highly regarded chemical engineer,and since he was a boy has enjoyed making things go Bang! Small scale, controlled, ‘bangs’ in the lab, not bombmaking, in case anyone from the security services are monitoring any of this!

    Anyway, in his professional opinion, liquid bomb-coctails of the type described are close to impossible to detonate and cause an explosion, there is simply so much that can go wrong, and the interface between the detonator and the explosive is a real bitch of a problem. About the only successful liquid bomb is the famous Molotov cocktail, but there one has an absolutely enormous, powerful, detonator, and kenetic energy involved.

    How credible was this threat, in reality? The problem is, there were no real bombs and the ‘threat’ of bringing down planes was virtually non-existant.

    Were these chaps really serious terrorists, with a workable plan, or were they just very angry twits, fantasists, blowing off steam, and blabbering themselves into very hot water?

  • Clark

    Ruth,

    sorry you find my comment bizarre or off-topic; it really is just something I remember from back then that I thought I’d mention, as Gus had mentioned vehicle import/export. Craig’s post was dated March 26, 2007.

    Sorry about “that Craig asking” which I wrongly edited from “that Craig asked”. I’m not a spook (as far as I know!) and I’m all for accountability, so…

    Craig, please give Ruth my e-mail address if she asks.

  • Kebz

    Mac is correct. Rauf’s lawyer did not swallow the guff about escaping by the back door at the Mosque and reported that his client has suffered horrendous torture. Huge wound scars were visible on his body the last time he was seen and he was confined to a space that he could not even sit up in for months. I’m sure anyone would admit to anything under those circumstances. The lawyer also predicted that Rauf would be reported death probably caught in a cross fire.

    Would anyone with even half a brain believe that police would allow a max security prisoner to go walkabout to a local mosque [particularly given the treatment that he suffered at the hands of security people] and then allow him to pray unobserved and then to not even guard the doors? Yet, this is what the majority of the British media have reported and accepted without question.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ Cobblers – if it was a ficticous interview then I too am duped….just goes to show what conspiracies can do…had I known cobblers – would not have posted it believing it was genuine!

    Thanks.

  • Clark

    Courtenay Barnett;

    that should be “@ Clark”! Names come after the comment on this site!

    Right at the end of the “Interview”, after Charlie Sheen’s signature, is the line:

    “Author’s Note: What you have just read didn’t actually happen… yet.”

    Clark

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @Clark…thanks for the correction.

    What remains quite interesting is that the facts embedded in the fictitious interview remain just that – “facts”. To the extent that there is internal logical consistency in the reasoning based on such facts – then – there remains much to be weighed in thought and reflections on 9/11 and its true origins.

  • anon

    I do not buy into the idea that the UK’s activities abroad increase the risk of terrorism. The activities of the British Raj, like our activities centuries ago in Ireland and every other country on this planet, has left us with enemies from outside and within.

    We wish our criminal leaders would stop committing colonial war crimes. There is no legitimacy of any kind to our presence in Afghanistan. We have no duties to protect local people there, only a compelling duty NOT to be there at all.

    Muslims are conscious that the punishment of past and present illegal invasions on our populations, is miniscule compared with the punishment of Hell that is going to be given to the invaders. Our mindset is: If you want to rape and steal from us and go to Hellfire, Bring it on.

  • anon

    So all of the terrorism we hear about is enacted by agencies of the state, which then send recruiters to stir up simple people who are angry about what is happening in the world. They form embryo groups, who before they know what has happened find themselves buying materials for bombs, busted by the police and paraded by the Zionist media as the culprits behind the state’s terrorism.

    The recruiters walk free and the state carries on invading foreign lands.

    It’s such a bad plot and such an irrelevant story line that nobody takes any interest or asks questions about what the state might be trying to achieve by this criminal behaviour.

    Just when you think of Islam you think of danger and weird goings on.

    I suppose that might stop most people from looking further into Islam. Job done.

Comments are closed.