AL-QAEDA IN BRITAIN:
Does The “Secret State” Lend A Hand?
A
few months ago I had an E-mail conversation with Sahib Mustaqim Bleher about
the “Islamic” terrorist network that since September 11, 2001 we have been led
to believe exists in the United States, Britain and throughout the West. Unlike
those who for all manner of lurid reasons perpetuate the wild and woolly
conspiracy theories that have been flying around since the Twin Towers
atrocities, I have never given any credence whatsoever to the claims that the
Mossad, the Bush Administration or the Order of the Illuminati was behind these
attacks, but like many people I have been curious about some of the arrests and
at times dubious convictions of alleged terrorist suspects. After 9/11 we in
the West were led to believe – with good reason – that Al-Qaeda was an
octopus-like entity whose tentacles extended into every major Western city, and
that its well-funded and dedicated operatives – trained in Afghanistan and
Pakistan – were awaiting the order from Osama Bin Laden, upon which they would
wreak death and destruction on all Westerners and non-Moslems in the name of jihad.
Although
there is a very real terrorist threat in Britain and other Western nations
which may indeed be likened to a cancer in our midst, there are now good
reasons for believing the nature of this threat – if not its magnitude – has
been greatly exaggerated for political and other purposes. The attack on civil
liberties and increased powers of state and private surveillance have been the
most visible legacies of this disinformation campaign. If habeas corpus ever truly existed in Britain it is as good as dead,
and in the United States it isn’t just dead but was buried with the opening of
the Guantánamo Bay camp. In this article though I want to raise a slightly
different issue, that of the use of agents
provocateurs not just to exaggerate the terrorist threat but to incite the
gullible and “hot headed” amongst the Islamic community to plan terrorist
outrages. The reasons for this will be made clear in due course. I should state
at this point that this is not an entirely theoretical exercise, and that in
addition to researching this subject for many years in the world’s most
prestigious archives, I know from personal and at times quite painful
experience that this sort of thing actually does happen.
Up
until about the age of 24 I’d had no real interest in politics. Although I was
raised in a bog standard (traditional) Labour-voting working class home I was
inclined somewhat towards Conservativism, but it wasn’t until I had been living
in Leeds for a couple of years that I became politically active. And then I
became a Nazi! It is de rigueur for
those who have been attracted to such verboten
political causes and realised the errors of their ways to wring their hands and
offer the most grovelling apologies in later life for their past misdemeanours
and youthful follies. Although now I look back on some of the beliefs I had
then with a certain embarrassment I have never regretted the two years or so
that I spent as a Hitlerite and fellow traveller. But there is one reason not
intimately related to the far right that has made me forever grateful for my
misspent youth.
When
I joined the British Movement in 1980 I was viewed by the local activists with
a certain suspicion, principally because I was not the usual “Paki-bashing”
skinhead. The head of the local branch, an articulate if at times violent
skinhead known as “Shop” told me on one occasion that he and other members had
good reason to be suspicious of all new members, because they had already been
targetted by a Special Branch agent
provocateur, who had only been uncovered by accident.
Sometime
before I signed up, a skinhead who had joined the same branch, had on more than
one occasion expressed a desire to attack defenceless Asians, deface Asian
property, and to generally stir up trouble. He had been exposed by Shop, who
had met him working out at his local gym where he had rather stupidly signed up
under his own name and used his warrant card as ID. When he realised what was
going on, Shop threw the inept James Bond wannabe out of the branch, and that
was the end of the matter. I didn’t regard this tale with suspicion as I was
able to confirm it from another source. I had also fairly recently become aware
of a similar case in which a police agent
provocateur had incited a very serious crime not for any political purpose
but solely to settle a score. This happened in my native London, and it always
amazed me – although it doesn’t now – that it received so little media
coverage, and that there was not a proper investigation by some muckraking
journalist.
George Davis was a career criminal who moonlighted as
a mini-cab driver. At that time, blagging (ie armed robberies by criminal
gangs) was quite common, and in May 1975, Davis was sentenced to a total of
twenty years imprisonment after almost certainly being wrongly convicted on
identification evidence. There was a big campaign at the time, and “George
Davis is innocent” protestors had even dug up the pitch at the Headingley
Cricket Ground a few miles from where later I lived in Chestnut Avenue, Leeds.
The
outcry over his perceived wrongful imprisonment led to a review by then Home
Secretary Roy Jenkins, and he was pardoned in May 1976. However, in July 1978
he was back in court where this time he pleaded guilty to an armed robbery, on
the Bank of Cyprus. He received a fifteen year sentence. Undoubtedly, the
people who had campaigned for his release would have faced a clamour of “I told
you so’s”, but when the case was reported in the Times, the guilty pleas of Davis and his co-defendants were
augmented by a curious rider. Defence Counsel Richard Du Cann QC said the bank
raid was “induced” by an agent
provocateur, a “mysterious man” who supplied the guns, arranged the stolen
transport, went on the raid. And disappeared. If this story sounds
unbelievable, it is not because there was no such person, but because no one in
his right mind plans a crime with the intent of being caught.
Of
course, the man who planned this bank raid had no such intention, at least not
for himself. It was obviously from start to finish a sting operation. Exactly who was this man remains a mystery,
undoubtedly though he was a police officer, probably from another force who had
been drafted in especially, not to take a violent criminal off the streets, but
to put temptation in his way hoping he would take the bait and fall into the
trap. Although he must have known he was a marked man, Davis was clearly either
stupid enough to oblige, or arrogant enough to believe that he could get away
with it.
If
the reader thinks this claim is somewhat fanciful let him put forward an
alternative hypothesis. In fact, sting,
entrapment and incitement operations by the legal authorities are not only
commonplace, they are often officially endorsed. A good example is the use of
under-age boys and girls by trading standards officers and police to make test purchases of alcohol and tobacco.
An unwitting shopkeeper who sells alcohol to a minor risks a heavy fine and
perhaps the loss of his licence, but the trading standards officer who
knowingly sets him up is considered to be a conscientious public servant who is
“only doing his job” – where have we heard that before?
Of course, there are times when it is justified for
the legal authorities to actively seek out wrongdoers, but putting temptation
in the way of a normally law-abiding citizen or even worse someone who has a
proven track record for criminality and who may be doing his level best to go
straight, is a different matter entirely. I remember a very sad case I met in
Brixton Prison, a young(ish) black man, an at times petty criminal who was
incited to supply cannabis to an undercover police officer. He received a gaol
sentence for “intent to supply” even though no drugs had actually been
supplied. What there was of his life was left in ruins.
Although
terrorist outrages can be spectacular, most murders and related crimes are not
politically motivated; many are domestic, and even those that are not committed
purely on impulse are seldom well planned. It is then curious is it not that so
many disenchanted men and women who plot the deaths of their spouses and other
family members solicit undercover police officers to do their dirty work? The following
small selection – in chronological order - was gleaned from a troll through the
on-line Newsbank database.
In November 2003, Mohammad Arshad was convicted of
inciting an undercover police officer to murder his son-in-law – a contract
killing. The following month he was gaoled for seven years.
In August 2004, Yogesh Rao was gaoled for eight years
at Leicester Crown Court for soliciting the murder of a love rival. He tried to
enlist a number of people to carry out the hit before stumbling over an undercover
police officer.
In September 2005, forty-four year old Karen Quinton
pleaded guilty at Norwich Crown Court to soliciting an undercover police
officer to murder her husband the previous November. She was subsequently
sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
In October 2006, publican Malcolm Winter was gaoled
for seven years at Plymouth Crown Court after allegedly attempting to recruit a
friend and an undercover police officer to murder his wife.
In Ireland in November 2006, 38 year old Patrick Rafferty
pleaded guilty to soliciting Detective Garda Patrick Crowley to murder his
wife. He was subsequently gaoled for seven years.
In
March 2007, wealthy businesswoman Carol Ann Hunter was gaoled for eight years
at the Central Criminal Court after persuading her lover to hire a hit man to
murder a former lover and his new wife. Her witless co-conspirator attempted to
hire an undercover police officer.
Also
in March 2007, security guard David Thorneycroft pleaded guilty at Northampton
Crown Court to soliciting the murder of his wife. He had offered an undercover
police officer a nine thousand pound contract fee. His motive appears to have
been purely financial.
Such examples are not difficult to find; can it really
be that people throw caution to the winds when plotting the ultimate crime, or
are they actively sought out by police intelligence?
The use of agents provocateurs is not of course
limited to Britain nor indeed to the legal authorities. In the United States,
the FBI ran a counter-intelligence programme against both the far right and the
far left, and against radical black organisations. Although the extent
and effectiveness of COINTELPRO has been greatly exaggerated, the mere fact
that it existed should give all American citizens cause for concern.
A
high profile case of incitement which undoubtedly had a political dimension to
it was that of John De Lorean (1925-2005), an American engineer, executive and
founder of the De Lorean Motor Company. Although he was a multi-millionaire, De
Lorean’s business had floundered, and by early 1982 in spite of massive inputs
by private investors and over a hundred and fifty million dollars by the
British Government, his Northern Ireland based company was in receivership.
Desperate to save his dream, De Lorean turned to cocaine trafficking, of all
things. His first meeting with James Hoffman, a drug smuggler turned FBI
informant, was held on July 12 of that year. In October, De Lorean was arrested
and charged with trafficking cocaine by the US Government. In August 1984 at
his trial he was cleared without calling a single witness; his legal team used
the procedural defence of entrapment. Earlier that year his attorney told Time magazine that his was a fictitious
crime. Without the government, there would be no crime, he said.
Fictitious it was not, the
law of the land – on both sides of The Pond - states clearly that trafficking
in Class A drugs is a serious criminal offence attracting a substantial gaol
sentence on conviction; the question should not be why was De Lorean charged
but why weren’t his co-conspirators in the dock with him? As FBI agents had
clearly incited the crime they were not only guilty but more guilty, because without this shabby little conspiracy an
otherwise law-abiding if desperate citizen would not have been tempted to break
the law in the first place. Such entrapment (read incitement) operations
persist to this day in Britain, the United States and all over the world, yet
regardless of the fates of the hapless victims no FBI, police or customs agent
ever joins the defendants in the dock. Ever.
Like
John De Lorean, the current writer was targeted by an undercover police officer
who incited him to commit a serious crime – this one a murder. This happened in
January 1999, and much as I would like to believe it was related to my
political activities, in particular to my writings, the available evidence
suggests that it was the work of renegade officers who acted out of malice and
revenge after their sordid little plot to destroy me in 1996-7 failed when an
independent-minded jury found me not guilty on two counts which would have
undoubtedly brought me a ten year sentence.
The undercover officer who
offered me a firearm was part agent
provocateur and part honeytrap. Obviously I wasn’t stupid enough to take
the bait, but in retrospect I could have handled the situation better, although
I’m not sure if that would have done any good because my later attempts to
expose this operation were typically stonewalled, and I was derided as a
harmless if nasty crank whereas previously I had been described as “an
unstable, dangerous individual”. I could
write a lot more about this, but the point should be taken, this article is not
speculative nonsense, it is not theory, it is about how the powers-that-be operate
in the real world, unchecked, uncontrolled, and outside the rule of law.
In war time, the use of
“black operations” expands considerably; during the Second World War, the
British Psychological Warfare Executive ran all manner of at times bizarre
operations against the enemy. German-born Sefton Delmer who ran the department
published his two volume autobiography in 1961-2 in which he related with smug
satisfaction how he and his gang planted fake stories in newspapers, spread
rumours and even set up a fake radio station. In Black Boomerang, Delmer wrote “...the simplest and most effective
of all ‘black’ operations is to spit in a man’s soup and cry ‘Heil Hitler!’” It
goes without saying that many of the PWE’s operations were far more
sophisticated and far more effective than that.
Political
movements in Britain have always been monitored closely by both the police and
the security services; this is generally recognised, although hard evidence
from official sources seldom comes to light; one example from World War Two
will suffice. An MI5 file held at the Public Record Office reporting on the
activities of the Imperial Fascist League in 1940 says that its leader Arnold Leese spoke at an IFL meeting on April 19 “stating his disgust at the German
action in Norway...” Leese was said to be angered by Hitler’s pact with Russia,
and thought Hitler should retire in favour of Goering. His audience was
unsympathetic.
This intelligence clearly
came from a spy at the meeting who had joined the IFL. Arnold Leese was a
fanatical anti-Semite, and naturally this coupled with his self-professed
Fascism made him a bona fide target for state surveillance, but although
he had been pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler for many years, the Nazi invasion of
Scandinavia (the spiritual homeland of the Aryan
race) revolted him. This information did not prevent his being interned under
the notorious Regulation 18b, and he was arrested in November 1940.
Although
the Second World War ended in 1945, British forces have been engaged in
military operations to this day. In September 1953, a British serviceman who
had joined the Rifle Brigade in January 1945 arrived in Kenya where he was
promoted to Major. By his own account, Frank Kitson was sent there “to do a job
connected with Intelligence”. The main threat at that time was the Mau Mau
cult.
Kitson hit on a somewhat
unorthodox method of dealing with Mau Mau; he created his own gangs! His book Gangs and counter-gangs contains
photographs of him and his men blacked up in Black And White Minstrel fashion, although he also used loyal
natives. His charades were so successful that he even managed to introduce a
new Mau Mau oath. He was able to get away with this not because he was
combating primitive and superstitious Africans but because there was no central
Mau Mau authority. When “The Troubles” began in Northern Ireland, he was
relocated, and there is reliable evidence that he used the same tactics,
suitably refined, to combat the IRA.
The
fight against the IRA was a different scenario altogether, not only were they
better organised than the Mau Mau but there was a central authority of sorts,
although when the Provisional IRA split from the Official IRA in December 1969
the situation grew more complex. The Provisional Army Council directed the
majority of IRA activity, but “rogue” operations and “individual actions” were
numerous.
The techniques used to gather intelligence on the IRA and other paramilitaries operating in Northern Ireland and on the Mainland were at times bizarre, and undoubtedly included illegal wire-tapping as well as setting up bona fide business fronts including a massage parlour and a laundry! In May 1977, an undercover SAS man was murdered by the IRA when his cover was blown. Captain Robert Nairac had gone to extraordinary lengths to infiltrate the terrorist network including working on a London building site to pick up an Irish accent and knowledge of the building trade. He was transferred to Northern Ireland in 1974, when the SAS was not operating there. Officially, at any rate.
This
was an undercover operation that went tragically wrong, but what about the
success stories? Obviously an undercover police officer or FBI agent who
manages to infiltrate a terrorist cell will at some point have to prove his
mettle. How does he do that? Just as obviously by committing or participating
in some criminal or terrorist act. But where does he draw the line? Does he
turn a blind eye to the murder of one person, or a dozen, a sacrifice of a few innocents for the greater good?
As stated, it is not only
the legal authorities who use these type of tactics. In Britain, the activities
of the Searchlight Organisation have crossed the line on more than one
occasion. Although it claims to be an “anti-fascist” magazine which keeps tabs
on the extreme right, this small but dedicated group of largely Jewish fanatics
decided long ago that the best way to expose Nazi terrorists would be to
encourage them to play up to their Hollywood stereotypes. In the mid-1970s, the
Nazi Underground, a sinister organisation named Column 88, reared its ugly
head. All or most of the reports of this shadowy group emanated directly from
Searchlight and its then controller Maurice Ludmer, and some people who ought
to have known better took its lunatic ravings as gospel. Writing in the second
edition of his book The New Fascists
in 1983, “terrorism expert” Paul Wilkinson claimed: “A recent authoritative
study found evidence that Column 88 had infiltrated military units and
established weapons training-camps and exercises. SS Wotan had been responsible
for fire-bomb attacks on left-wing and immigrant targets.”
The reality is that the greatest outrage Column 88
ever committed was celebrating Hitler’s birthday. The infiltration of military units refers to one man who joined the Territorial Army. In July 1975, Richard David Roberts, Searchlight’s main source inside the far right, was convicted of
conspiracy to assault and rob the staff of an Indian restaurant. Far from being
a right wing fanatic, Roberts was a fanatical Communist – the son of Communist
parents - and a “mole”.
After
the death of Maurice Ludmer in 1981, Roberts was disowned by Searchlight, but
by then he had already long been superseded by Ray Hill. Unlike the idealistic if misguided Roberts, Hill was not a fanatical anti-fascist but a Judas goat
who sold his soul to Organised Jewry in South Africa whence he had fled while
on bail on an assault charge. Hill had joined the British Movement in the late
sixties for all the wrong reasons; in South Africa he became a founding member
of the short-lived, diminutive but very nasty South African National Front
before returning to Britain and rejoining the British Movement. In 1981, about
the same time as the death of Maurice Ludmer, the Notting Hill Carnival bomb
plot was exposed. The man who exposed it was, surprise, surprise, Ray Hill.
Although Searchlight sung Hill’s praises when he “came out”as a mole, a careful investigation and
analysis of this plot indicates that
as far as it existed at all, Hill incited it.
The
truth about the Notting Hill Carnival bomb plot is that it was no more than
“barrack room” talk. Or more likely pub talk. Although there were calls for an
investigation, the police gave the plot no credence whatsoever. From the 1960s
to the 1990s, “Nazis” - ie anyone who wanted Britain to remain white and had
the temerity to say so – were fair game. To this day racists are still subjected to arbitrary legal and other
persecution, notwithstanding the media’s forever whining about the evils of racism, but after September 11, 2001,
even the dumbest of the goyim
realised that a far more deadly menace lurked in our midst, even if they did
wrongly identify that menace as Islam. Now, “Islamic” extremists have become in effect the new Nazis, and while it was once dangerous to be
identified as a racist, it is
becoming increasingly dangerous to be identified as an Islamist. Likewise, loose talk has become dangerous. If two white
labourers are sitting in their local watering hole sounding off about the
government, and one of them remarks that he’d like to bomb Downing Street, it
will be dismissed as pub banter. If two Asian men have the same conversation in
a Mosque, it becomes a conspiracy.
Since September 11, 2001 we in Britain have seen a
number of serious plots intended to maim and murder innocent civilians on a
scale that puts the Provisional IRA to shame. Thankfully, the only such plot
that could be called a success is that of the 7/7 gang which in addition to the
four conspirators killed 52 people and maimed a staggering seven hundred,
including many foreign-born and tourists. A fortnight later to the day, a
copycat plot failed, mercifully, when the explosives failed to detonate.
Although
all these plotters had links to
extremists, the idea that they were sleeper agents implanted by the
all-pervasive Islamic World Conspiracy is not tenable. True, the Al-Qaeda
Network may be likened to a snake or octopus-like entity whose tentacles reach
into the heart of all the West’s great cities, but one must never forget this
is only an analogy, and that these links are light years away from the picture
painted by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a TV interview
(available on YouTube). The diagram below, which is supposed to be Al-Qaeda’s
Afghan HQ, was endorsed by him enthusiastically. “It’s a very sophisticated
operation”, said the interviewer; Rumsfeld agreed, adding “and there’s not one
of those, there are many of those”.
Rather than being Bin Laden’s secret underground base,
this diagram is a total fantasy. As Jason Burke, the author of the definitive
study of Al-Qaeda said, when the Americans and British raided Bin Laden’s
supposed strongholds they found nothing but a few startled shepherds. Burke
went further and said that rather than a worldwide network of terrorists under
the control of one man or a group of men, what exists is an idea that is
prevelant amongst angry young Moslem males throughout the Islamic world, and it
is this idea that is the real threat, the real menace.
So how do the legal authorities combat this idea? The obvious way is to use better ideas. In his suicide video, Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 cell, told his audience (us): “Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world”, completely ignoring the fact that British troops were sent into Bosnia specifically to stop massacres against his brother Moslems. Completely ignoring the fact that democratic governments are always in the forefront of famine relief and aid to areas stricken by natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Khan also ignored the fact that the acts he and his fellow hatemongers were planning were atrocities of staggering proportions. “...I am a soldier...” Indeed.
Combatting bad ideas with good ones is always preferably to simply suppressing bad ideas either by censorship or other means, but of course the results from this sort of campaign are purely negative. Arresting a terrorist cell or catching the perpetrators of a bombing resonates better with the public than dissuading angry young men from conspiring to commit mass murder in the first place.
On the other hand, tracking down terrorists, who may
be armed, is a dangerous, laborious and for the most part thankless task, but
creating your own terrorists by inciting known hotheads to commit or better
still to plot or simply to talk about murdering people, that is a strategy that
gets result, wins applause from both the public and the government, and is also
relatively inexpensive and safe. I am not saying that every single “Islamic”
terrorist cell in Britain is the creation of Larry O’Hara’s ubiquitous and
all-powerful Secret State, but exactly how dangerous are most of those who are
brought to book?
In November 2006, Dhiren
Barot was gaoled for life for conspiracy to murder; according to the BBC
website, he was called “a determined
terrorist” by New Scotland Yard, but revealingly – or rather, unrevealingly –
the same website tells us that while he planned to use a radioactive dirty bomb,
to hijack petrol tankers and to explode a bomb under the Thames drowning
hundreds of people on the tube network, “The prosecution conceded the police
had not found any evidence that materials had been acquired to carry out the
plans”. In other words they found nothing at all except for “plans” which for
all they knew could have been the synopsis of a novel. Barot’s co-conspirators
were no more impressive. Obviously these were men who had bad intentions, but
at the end of the day the only crimes they committed were purely theoretical,
and would quite likely have never come to fruition.
Under
the coming repression – which is here in all but name – we are likely to see
many more such convictions, not just of people like Barot, but of anyone who
has a grudge against the government or some arm of the state and is foolish or
indiscreet enough to sound off about it. Everyone, especially Moslems, should
be wary not just of wide–eyed fanatics but of anyone who advocates any form of
violence as a means to an end.
There is though another issue here, that is the question of loyalty. Contrary to the facile assertions of both fanatics and Islamophobes there is no conflict between Islam and good citizenship. Any Moslem who resides in this country, whether or not he was born here has an obligation at the very least not to engage in any activity which can be detrimental to the welfare of its citizens. This doesn’t mean that Moslems cannot and should not protest against perceived injustice, whether here or abroad, but there is a right way and a wrong way to protest. If Mohammad Sidique Khan had really cared about the welfare of his brother Moslems there were plenty of things a man of his undoubted abilities could have done besides murder strangers indiscriminately. He could have joined a voluntary organisation, raised funds for humanitarian relief, or simply lobbied to increase awareness of the issues he professed concern for. This path is though considered too slow and too futile by the likes of Khan, but terrorism has been with us long enough for most people to realise that it is not a quick fix, and that in many ways terrorists play into the hands of the people they profess to be combatting. The current assault on civil liberties would never have taken place, would never have been possible, would never even have been considered, if it were not for the likes of Khan, Mohamad Atta, and the Emmanuel Goldstein-like figure of Osama Bin Laden who even now some Moslems are still foolish enough to worship.
Notes
I have not referenced this article in my usual
academic fashion because I didn’t want to cramp my readers’ style. Most of the
information contained herein is now freely available on the web, but a few
points.
Entrapment
and incitement also has its seedier side; homosexuals who cruised for anonymous sex were once regularly targeted by
undercover police officers who would stand around smiling at strangers in
public toilets. The most high profile victim in recent years was the British
singer-songwriter George Michael, who was arrested by an undercover police
officer in California in April 1998.
We
are now supposed to allude to the Public Record Office as The National
Archives, but its original name always sounds better to me. The M.I.5. reports
relating to Arnold Leese alluded to here can be found in HO 45/24967. The PRO
is open to members of the British public and tourists alike. Its website can be
found at http://www.pro.gov.uk/
Arnold Leese served in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps rising to the rank of captain. In spite of his misguided anti-Semitism, his patriotism was never impugned. It should be remembered that at that time
Fascism was regarded as a legitimate albeit authoritarian form of government,
and it was possible to be both pro-Fascist and anti-Hitler. The Fascist movement had Jewish members in both Britain and Italy.
Regarding Captain Robert Nairac, in the index
for the 1977 Army List, “493007
Nairac, R.L.” indicates his name appears under column 571, which would mean he
was serving with the Queen’s Regiment, but his name is missing. One wonders if
the 007 was intended as some sort of joke or if this was just an odd
coincidence. When former spy David Shayler ended up in Belmarsh Prison he was
given the number HP6 007, apparently by chance. There has been some speculation
that Nairac was not working with the SAS but for some even more secretive unit.
As far as can be ascertained, his role was simply to gather intelligence.
Simple or not, he paid for his undoubted bravery with his life.
Jewish organisations have a
track record of subversion going back decades. As long ago as October 1936, the
much maligned Sir Oswald Mosley warned of their activities in his newspaper The Blackshirt: “Some do this in perfect
good faith and honesty, and thus unconsciously help the enemies of their cause.
Others, no doubt, as the struggle develops, will actually be employed, often
unknowingly, by those very clever people, the big Jews, to make wild and
foolish attacks upon Jews in general, in order to discredit anti-Semitism.”
The word links is a favourite of the Searchlight
Organisation’s Gerry Gable. Ultimately it is a piece of innuendo that means
nothing.
Larry
O’Hara is an academic who did some excellent work on the Searchlight Organisation,
although he misinterpreted its motives. Later though he began to see the hidden
hand of MI5 everywhere, including behind the current writer, apparently.
[The
above article was originally published on the Islamic website Mathaba.Net in
September 2007 as Al Qaeda in Britain: helped by the state? It is published here with a few, very minor typographical
alterations.]
Back To Mathaba Index
Back To Site Index