More
Was Hidden Than A Bomb In Some Underpants: Case Of Umar
Faruk Abdulmutallab
8 February 2010By Mustaqim Bleher
Kurt Haskell, the lawyer on the Detroit bound flight
who witnessed the Nigerian "underwear bomber" suspect
to be boarded by a "handler" at Amsterdam Schiphol
airport without a passport, has just published some of
his conclusions how this could have happened and why
mainstream media took only a cursery interest in his
story. The alternative news agency Mathaba has
published some extensive background information on the
incident.
The fact that in spite of clear warnings and
intelligence information Abudlmutallab's multiple
entry visa was not revoked is currently subject to
much debate in the USA, and Haskell quotes an article
in the Detroit News stating that his visa was kept
valid in order to not foil a larger investigation into
al-Qaida threats against the United States, so that
investigators could get closer to apprehending the
terror network he is accused of working with.
So effectively, the latest twist is that American
security agents knew about Abdulmutallab and let him
enter the United States unhindered, or even helped him
enter the United States, so that he could lead them to
other members of his terrorist network. Haskell quotes
the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC),
Michael E. Leiter, admitting that: "I will tell you,
that when people come to the country and they are on
the watch list, it is because we have generally made
the choice that we want them here in the country for
some reason or another."
For a law-abiding patriotic American law professional
like Haskell this is a stark discovery, but in his
analysis he fails to take the matter to ultimate
conclusion:
If US intelligence followed Abdulmuttalab, then they
would not want this to be apparent to his alleged
co-conspirators. However, they must have been
following him for some time, in fact given the help
they provided him with, he must have already turned
informer or, have been trained and handled by them as
an infiltrator of the alleged terror network. Hence,
they must also have known about the explosives he was
carrying aboard the aircraft. Now if they did not want
him and their tracking of other terrorists to be found
out, then they would not want an incident that
obviously would warn off any others and stop him and
them from getting anywhere near them. On the other
hand, unless they expected him to try and detonate the
device, they would not have had somebody filming the
whole episode as witnessed by Haskell.
Further, if they knew about the man carrying a "bomb",
then they either a) also knew that the device would
not detonate or b) willingly put themselves and the
travelling public at serious risk. The first option
sounds more plausible.
Now if they knew he would attempt to detonate a device
that could not cause serious damage, then the purpose
of the exercise must be different from the one
officially declared as the scare and his subsequent
arrest would have foiled any plans of following him
and tracing others through him, in fact warning them
off. There only remain two possible objectives: either
the whole occurrence it was staged to generate public
fear or it was a test run to see how a youngster like
that carries out a mission like that. If the first
holds true, then the war on terror has become a grand
propaganda exercise. If the latter is the case, then
US officials are actively involved in the training and
deployment of alleged terrorists. Either scenario
raises a lot more serious questions than Haskell has
dared to voice.
I doubt that he will be able to go any further with
what he and his wife clearly saw. He has already
received some intimidating phone calls as a result.
The logical facts of the course of events also explain
why the mainstream media won't touch the story or
probe into it as it is the story of the collusion
between the security services and the alleged terror
networks they claim to fight, similar to the earlier
CIA involvement in the "red scare", where whole
communist cells in the USA where run exclusively by
secret agents.
In my forthcoming book "Surrendering Islam",
co-authored with American historian David Livingstone,
we show how the subversion of Muslim organisations to
further the ends of unholy and clandestine interests
beset with wanting to dominate the world is not a
recent phenomenon but one that has been accomplished a
long time ago. Far from being dead, the Neocon clash
of civilisations theory put forward by Huntingdon is
being put into practice, fermenting an increasingly
violent show-down between "Islam" and the "West", with
both controlled in their declarations and actions by
the same people.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments