Spero News : Radical Islam and British Universities

Radical Islam and British Universities: Part One: Leading Muslim terrorists have been educated at Britain's universities

Radical Islam and British Universities: Part Two: The London School of Economics was a locus for Islamist terror recruitment yet universities are now rife with individuals who do not seek to share common values of liberty and democracy

by Adrian Morgan | January 5, 2007

British Universities have long been centers of radicalism, usually of the brand of amateur socialism espoused by the Socialist Workers Party or its ugly sisters Militant and the Worker's Revolutionary Party. Pretending to understand Dialectical Marxism and Trotskyite "permanent revolution", the leftist radicals infested, and still infest, campuses across Britain.

Since the 1970s, these activists have promoted the myth of Palestinian perpetual martyrdom, and portrayed Israel as a bogeyman. During the 1980s, they supported the women who camped rough outside RAF Greenham Common, a US-linked air base in Bedfordshire, Britain. Though ignored by most students, activists promoted an agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-semitism that has infected at least two generations of post-graduates.

Ultimately they contributed to British media's fawning over the notion of Palestinian, and by extension all Muslims', victimhood. Now grown up, the former student union activists are the first to hurl the term "Islamophobe" at anyone who questions the spread of radical Islam. In such a climate, it has been easy for Islamic radicalism to flourish, and even to be welcomed on Britain's campuses.

On September 26, 2005, Britain's Social Affairs Unit published a report by Professor Anthony Glees and Chris Pope from Brunel University. This report, entitled "When Students Turn To Terror", listed 24 universities where radicalism flourished, including Birmingham, Brunel, Durham, Leeds, Leeds Metropolitan, Luton, Leicester, Manchester Metropolitan, Newcastle, Nottingham, Reading, Swansea, and Wolverhampton.

Coming out while Britain was still reeling from the horrors of 7/7, when 52 people died on London Transport, Professor Glees' report galvanized the UK media. Already mosques and radical preachers had been named as contributing factors to the bombings of July 7, 2005. Universities had thitherto been ignored. Yet Britain's campuses had long been the playgrounds of amateur radicals and Islamists.

Many leading Muslim terrorists have been educated at Britain's universities. Azahari bin Husin, the senior bomb-maker from Jemaah Islamiyah who masterminded the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002 (killing 202 people) and October 1, 2005 (killing 20), studied at Reading University in the 1990s. He gained a doctorate in engineering before going off to join Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

On February 26, 1993, Ramzi Yousef drove a truck carrying a 1,200 pound bomb laced with cyanide into the car park beneath the World Trade Center. The ensuing blast killed six and injured 1,000. Four years before he committed this atrocity, Yousef completed a degree in engineering at West Glamorgan Institute (now Swansea Institute of Higher Education).

Dr Rihab Rashid Taha al-Azawi, Saddam Hussein's "Doctor Germ", responsible for his biological warfare programs, learned her trade in Britain. In 1984, she gained a PhD in plant toxins at the School of Biological Sciences at the University of East Anglia.

Individuals such as the above did not flaunt their Islamist credentials at college. Other individuals in British universities linked to terrorism have been allowed to lecture. One such person is 52-year old Bashir Musa Mohammed Nafi, (pictured) who is alleged to be a founder of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Like Sami al-Arian, who formerly lectured at the University of South Florida, Bashir Musa Mohammed Nafi was, as recently as 2003, an occasional lecturer at Birkbeck College at the University of London. Here, he taught Islamic studies. In the 1990s, Nafi collaborated with al-Arian in Florida. Accused by the US of being the UK leader of PIJ, Nafi has denied the claims.

In 2004, Professor Anthony Glees claimed that academics in Britain's universities were actively hampering attempts by security services to defend the nation against Islamist threats. He claimed that many academics were "hostile to the idea of intervention in international affairs and have, since 1980, harbored strong suspicions of American motives."

In July 2004, the Times reported that two UK universities, the University of Wales and the University of Loughborough, had given official approval to two Islamic colleges which supported both the Taliban and terror-group Hamas. The rector of the Markfield Institute of Higher Education is a member of the extremist party in Pakistan, the Jamaat-e-Islami, who was said to have praised the Taliban. Markfield was supported by Loughborough University and has been praised by the pro-Islamic Prince Charles.

The European Institute of Human Sciences in Llanybydder, West Wales, was validated by the University of Wales. It teaches Arabic courses inspired by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Times claimed.

During the 1990s, a new phenomenon emerged on campuses and colleges in Britain - that of open radicals who loudly proclaimed their contempt for Western values, and unequivocally pronouncing their jihadist intentions.

Bizarrely, as Melanie Phillips reported in her book "Londonistan", the department of MI5 which dealt with radical Islamism was closed in 1994, while they considered the issue of the IRA to be more important. With the cat put away, the rats come out to play, in full force. During this hiatus in surveillance, two groups came to the fore, both connected with the Syrian-born Islamist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed.

Bakri had arrived in Britain in 1985 as an "asylum-seeker", after he was deported from Saudi Arabia for belonging to a group classed as too "extreme" even for the center of Wahhabism. This group was called "Al-Muhajiroun", or "the emigrants". Bakri, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood had founded this group in Saudi Arabia in 1983 as a front for Hizb ut-Tahrir, the "revolutionary" Islamist group which is banned in most Middle Eastern countries.

When he arrived in Britain, Bakri founded the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir. In 1996, he also established Al-Muhajiroun in Britain. These two groups have the aim of establishing Britain as an Islamist state, and yearn for the restoration of the Caliphate, a system of Islamic central government. The last Caliphate, that of the Ottomans, was dissolved in 1924.

On Britain's campuses, the two groups established their influence during the latter half of the 1990s, particularly after MI5 stopped treating Islam seriously. Hizb ut-Tahrir members regularly threatened to kill Peter Tatchell, a homosexual rights campaigner, and Al-Muhajiroun openly pronounced their hatred of Jews. In the fall of 2000, they hung posters at university campuses which proclaimed: "The last hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill the Jews."

Threats and slogans aside, both groups had a more real danger inherent in their activities. The presence of Al-Muhajiroun on campuses in various universities led MI5 to set up a unit to monitor student Islamism at the dawn of the millennium. In early 2001, Russian authorities urged Britain to ban Al-Muhajiroun, as their intelligence showed that students from the London School of Economics had been recruited by the group to become terrorists in Chechnya.

In December 2000 Mohammed Bilal, a young British Muslim, who had been studying his "A-levels" at a sixth form college in Birmingham, went to India. Bilal had links to Al-Muhajiroun. He blew himself up in a stolen car. This suicide attack at an army barracks in Kashmir killed six soldiers and three civilians.

In October 2001, Al-Muhajiroun claimed that three British Muslims were killed by a US rocket attack in Kabul, Afghanistan. The group claimed that 1,000 British Muslims had gone to Afghanistan since 9/11.

In November 2001, Hassan Butt of Al-Muhajiroun announced that five British Muslims had died in Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan. Butt said: "They all died as martyrs fighting the so-called coalition against terrorism. They went out there to fight for the Taliban and were prepared to give their lives."

On January 7, 2002, Butt told the BBC's Today program from his base in Lahore, Pakistan, that many of the British Muslims in Afghanistan would, upon their return, launch terror attacks which would "strike at the heart" of Britain. Butt boasted of personally recruiting 200 people to fight the coalition.

Bakri cannily denounced Butt's claims, saying that Al-Muhajiroun did not support military actions. He also said that Butt was no longer a member of the group and was no longer its spokesman.

Bakri was lying. At a meeting in Sparkbrook in Birmingham, held less than a week after 9/11, Al Muhajiroun urged listeners to join the armed jihad against coalition troops. One speaker said that Muslims who supported the invasion of Afghanistan were to be urged not to do so. "But if they do not listen, they are Kufr (unbelievers) too and so it is our duty to fight and even kill them." Leaflets at the meetings proclaimed: "The final hour will not come until the Muslims conquer the White House."

In Derby, Bakri used to regularly visit Al-Muhajiroun members, who had a strong following in the town. In 2000, he told a meeting there that Muslims must send armies "to fight the aggressors and occupiers and establish the Khilafah (Caliphate)." He issued a fatwa saying that "the Israeli cancer in Palestine must be uprooted."

While Al-Muhajiroun targeted students with an attempt to inspire them to jihad, the other group headed by Omar Bakri Mohammed was making inroads at universities and colleges throughout Britain. Hizb ut-Tahrir began to infiltrate student unions and Islamic societies, and its message was equally uncompromising.

Hizb ut-Tahrir's approach was similarly supportive of violence, and used intimidation to achieve its ends. Its most notable influence was to force Muslim women students to wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf. This item had been only used by the older generation of Muslim women until the 1990s. Before the campaigns from Hizb ut-Tahrir, the item had hardly been seen on a campus.

During this decade, while the British government downplayed the seriousness of Islamic radicalism as part of a global movement towards dominance, the behavior of Hizb ut-Tahrir should have raised alarm bells. Britain's Channel 4 even made a documentary of Omar Bakri Mohammed, filmed over a year in and around his base in Tottenham, north London. Screened on April 8, 1997, this show, entitled "Tottenham Ayatollah" portrayed Bakri as a clownish buffoon.

The documentary's approach was almost consciously misleading. In 1996, Bakri had tried to invite Osama bin Laden to Britain, to attend an "Islamic Revival Rally". Though the show supplied evidence of Bakri's preaching of hatred towards Jews, it was condemned by various Muslim groups. Makbool Javaid, chair of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, tried to prevent the broadcast going out.

There was nothing funny about Omar Bakri Mohammed. Before the documentary was shown, Bakri had addressed 200 students at the Newham College of Further Education, on Thursday, February 23, 1995. Bakri had a core group of supporters at this college in east London. The following day an African student, Ayotunde Obanubi, was stabbed in the arm at the college by a Hizb ut-Tahrir supporter. On Monday February 27, a group of several Hizb ut-Tahrir supporting students, led by Saeed Nur, again attacked Mr Obanubi. The Nigerian student was accused of "insulting Islam". The group was armed with hammers and knives. Struck on the head with a hammer and stabbed through the heart, Ayotunde Obanubi died on the steps of the college. Bakri's followers had claimed their first victim.

Part II of a two-part article. Read Part I.

In 1994, the Indian High Commissioner, L. M. Singhvi, claimed that Muslim students at British colleges and universities were being recruited by Islamist terror groups in India. The London School of Economics and the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies were claimed to be places where students were particularly susceptible to such recruitment.

After followers of Hizb ut-Tahrir murdered Ayotunde Obanubi on Monday February 27, 1995, at Newham College of Further Education, repercussions ensued. The National Union of Students banned the group from its meetings in the same year. In 1996, Omar Bakri Mohammed either resigned or was expelled from the British Hizb ut-Tahrir group which he had founded.

Hizb ut-Tahrir continued to campaign on campuses, intimidating Muslim women into wearing veils, but it was not allowed to speak publicly or hold meetings in student union buildings. With Bakri no longer an active member, the group promoted itself as a "non-violent" organization, even though it remained virulently anti-semitic and opposed to democracy.

Bakri took his most violent and extremist members from Hizb ut-Tahrir and officially founded British Al-Muhajiroun in February 1996. Bakri took on the role of "Emir" or "spiritual leader", while his deputy was Anjem Choudary, a former lawyer.

The Institute for Counter-Terrorism last month reported on a recent conversation (in Arabic) between Bakri and the newspaper Asharq Alawsat. Here he said that Al Muhajiroun targeted more than 48 different universities in Britain, including Cambridge, Oxford, Durham, the LSE, Imperial College, Westminster University, and King's College. This figure is twice the amount claimed by Professor Anthony Glees in his 2005 study "When Students Turn To Terror".

The London School of Economics, according to a 2002 report, was certainly a locus for Islamist terror recruitment. In a report by UK intelligence, it was claimed that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who had became a student at the LSE in 1992, went to Bosnia in 1993 and the following year became involved in Kashmiri terrorist groups, including Jaish-e-Mohammed. He was arrested in 1994 after a police shoot-out following the kidnapping of three British backpackers. He escaped from jail in 1999, and was captured by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002. Omar Sheikh was captured for his involvement in the kidnapping and beheading of US journalist Daniel Pearl, and given a death sentence on July 15, 2002.

Bizarrely, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan states in his recent book "In The Line Of Fire" that Omar Sheikh had been originally recruited by Britain's international intelligence agency, MI6. Omar Sheikh admits to meeting Osama bin Laden twice, but claims his allegiance is more to Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Omar Sheikh is said to have financed the 9/11 terrorist, Mohammed Atta.

The 2002 intelligence report claims that another student from the LSE recruited for Jaish-e-Mohammed, and a third man who was arrested for involvement in the 2001 attack upon the Indian parliament (killing seven) actually lectured to Muslim students at the LSE in 1999.

An official at the LSE claimed: "There was some activity in the mid-1990s. Together with the students' union we checked that only bona fide students were actually linked to the Islamic society." In 2000, members of Al-Muhajiroun were physically expelled from a freshers' fair at the LSE after trying to recruit students.

Al-Muhajiroun declared that there was a "covenant of security" between British Muslims and the UK, which meant that while Muslims were allowed to operate there would be no terrorist attacks on British soil. In 2005, the Sunday Times stated that more than a dozen Al-Muhajiroun members had gone on to become suicide bombers abroad. These included Asif Hanif, who had been one of two Britains involved in the April 2003 attack upon Mike's Bar on the Tel Aviv sea front, which killed three and wounded sixty.

In October 2004, Omar Bakri Mohammed announced that Al-Muhajiroun would be disbanding. In February 2005, he declared that the "covenant of security" had ended. Four months later, 52 people died when four Muslims, two of whom had been university-educated, decided to enact "jihad" in London.

Though Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded, it nonetheless continued under other names, with exactly the same membership. It became the Saviour Sect and Al Ghurabaa. These groups were still led by the "Emir", Omar Bakri Mohammed. The Saviour Sect soon changed its name to become the Saved Sect.

Changing of names is a tactic also employed by Hizb ut-Tahrir in its recruitment drives, where its activists hide behind groups with innocuous titles - East London Youth Forum, the Debate Society, the Muslim Women's Cultural Forum, the Islamic Society, the One Nation Society, the Millennium Society, the Pakistan Society and the 1924 Committee.

After the July 7, 2005 bombings Tony Blair announced in August that he intended to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. When Blair made this announcement, the Islamist group which professed "non-violence" threatened to create riots. To this day Hizb ut-Tahrir has still not been banned in Britain.

The UK home secretary, John Reid, banned the former Al-Muhajiroun groups in July 2006. This ban has done nothing to stop Omar Bakri's followers, as in November 2005 the same core membership of Al-Muhajiroun had founded Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, under the leadership of Anjem Choudary.

When Bakri fled to Lebanon in August 2005, he was banned from returning. For two decades he had controlled young Muslims, urging them to claim welfare benefits, to refuse to work and to never vote. But he continued to use the internet to inspire his followers.

In July 2005, it was reported by the National Union of Students that Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir members were still trying to recruit members from Scottish universities, using "front" names to avoid detection. Imran Waheed, the head spokesperson of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain, said: "We are an intellectual and political movement and we work in Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh. Universities should be a forum for debate and we are trying to overturn the NUS ban which we believe is completely unjustified."

In October 2005, it was revealed that Hizb ut-Tahrir, under another name, was recruiting at University College London, London University's School of Oriental Studies, Luton University and others. Capitalizing on the leftist students' love of the term "Islamophobia" to stifle rational debate about Islamism, Hizb ut-Tahrir were operating under the title "Stop Islamophobia".

Anjem Choudary followed his "Emir" to Lebanon, but was deported in November 2005. Unable to speak or recruit at British universities, Choudary was within a week addressing students at the historic Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. Choudary said that because Ireland supported the US (with its planes refueling at Shannon Airport), it was a potential target for terrorism.

On November 1, 2005 Ann Cryer, a Labour politician, MP for Keighley, claimed that one university in West Yorkshire was being targeted by members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, who were threatening students. She did not mention the name of the university, for fear it would affect enrollment, but it is believed to be the University of Bradford. She said: "When I went to the university a few weeks ago I was told that Hizb ut-Tahrir has taken over the Islamic society and was preparing to take over the students union."

On August 10, 2006, it was revealed that a massive plot, involving about twenty British Muslims, had been halted. This plot had involved a plan to smuggle liquid explosives onto several US-bound airlines. These were to be reassembled into bombs on board flights, in the manner first outlined by Ramzi Yousef in 1995, in his notorious "Operation Bojinka".

One of the suspects in this plot was 22-year old Waheed Zaman from Walthamstow, north-east London, who was head of the Islamic Society at London Metropolitan University. Zaman was later charged under Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, as he had "conspired with other persons to murder other persons". In relation to this conspiracy he was charged under Section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. - "preparing to smuggle parts of improvised explosive devices on to aircraft and assemble and detonate them on board."

Zaman was a member of the extremist group Tablighi Jamaat. The Sunday Telegraph visited the two portable cabins which served as London Metropolitan University's Islamic Society, based on the campus at Hornsey Road, north London. Here, they found literature and audio cassettes from Omar Bakri Mohammed and Al-Muhajiroun. A newsletter found in the Islamic Society called freedom of speech "undeniably one of the most central deviated forms of moral decline that non-believers have developed."

The problem of radical Islam on British university campuses is entrenched, and any attempts to address the problem are met with whines of "Islamophobia" from Muslims and leftists. Professor Anthony Glees received hostility from Muslims and others for his 2005 report. The vice-chancellor of his university, Steven Schwartz, wrote him a letter stating: "I have been receiving some surprising letters from other v-cs (vice-chancellors) complaining about your report. Some complain about your research methods. Others seem to resent being lumped in with universities that might be inadvertent homes to people bent on terrorism. One v-c seems to think that I should (or could) shut you up."

Glees runs the Brunel Center for Intelligence and Security Studies at Brunel University. As he himself admitted in his 2005 report, Brunel was not immune from the specter of jihadist recruitment. One individual who became targeted for recruitment at Brunel was Jawad Syed.

In his first year, Syed knew no-one but was befriended by Muslim students. Gradually, they encouraged him to isolate himself from other students, including Muslims. He said: "They were very much anti-western with anti-western sentiments. And I clearly saw and experienced that they would use any means to achieve their aims, including violence.... Once they've established that basis of hatred they have you. And then you start working closely with them, under their political agenda, in achieving their greater aim."

Jawad Syed is the protege of an imam who tries to "deprogram" young Muslims who have been indoctrinated by radical Islamists. This man, Sheikh Musa Adami, has been chaplain of London Metropolitan University since 2002. Adami's group is called the Luqman Institute of Education and Development. Despite his concerns about Islamic extremism, Adami failed to recognize the extremist literature which proliferated in Waheed Zaman's Islamic Society, at his own university.

In November 2006, Adami's charity reported that Islamist activists were operating at Brunel University, Bedfordshire University, Sheffield Hallam University and Manchester Metropolitan University. The Luqman institute was deprogramming up to ten students from Brunel University.

The Sunday Times reported that at Sheffield Hallam University in 2006, the Islamic Society hosted a lecture by Sheikh Khalid Yasin. This US preacher is a convert from Christianity, who has said: "There's no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend." Yasin interprets literally the injunction in the Koran (Sura 4:34) that men should be able to beat their wives.

The Muslim chaplain at London's Goldsmith's College is Shakeel Begg, who is also the imam at Lewisham & Kent Mosque in Ladywell, south London. In late 2006, he gave a lecture to Muslim students at Kingston University. Here, he encouraged his audience to fight jihad. He said: "You want to make jihad? Very good... Take some money and go to Palestine and fight, fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists."

In October 2006, a lecture was held at Staffordshire University, entitled "The true word of God - the Koran or the Bible." The lecture was given by a former member of Al-Muhajiroun.

Access to universities is still fairly easy for those who are not registered students. On November 7, 2006, Dhiren Barot (pictured) was sentenced to a minimum of forty years' jail for his plots to commit terrorist atrocities in New York, Washington, Newark and Britain. Among his plans, the convert from Hinduism, had included a plan to create a "dirty bomb" or "radiological dispersion device. His plans involved the radioactive substance Americium-241 and, as revealed by the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau, they were not idle fantasies. They contained clear details (which have been blacked out for security purposes) based on scientific information. To gather data for his plans, Barot had used a forged pass to enter Brunel University.

Imperial College is a prestigious university in west London, with a good reputation for nuclear research. In November 2005, it introduced a ban on Muslim face-veils, as a security procedure. However, despite its vigilance, this university is not without risk. On December 27, 2006, it was revealed that investigators from Scotland Yard's Counterterrorism Command made an extensive inspection of the university's security. They focused particularly on the nuclear research facilities.

The university has its own nuclear reactor, and with inspectors from the Environment Agency and the Health Protection, Scotland Yard officers checked the nuclear facilities, and took stock of radioactive isotopes. They also did extensive inspection at Harefield Hospital, which has combined its research facilities with Imperial College.

The reason for the inspection has resulted from intelligence which suggests that Islamic extremists have targeted Imperial College.

Though the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir seem to involve mentally "preparing" students for the arrival of jihadist recruiters, in 2005, Mustafa Arif, president of Imperial College's student union, which is not affiliated to the National Union of Students, said of the group: "The culture here would never have been to bar them. They were very small and died out about five years ago. They are nothing compared with some hotheads you read about. As a Muslim I find Hizb a nonsense. Physically they are harmless..."

With such attitudes abounding, it is perhaps no wonder that Imperial College has now been highlighted as a security risk.

Britain's politicians and security services have not always been as vigilant as they should be in rooting out Islamist extremism from either communities or educational establishments. The leftists at Britain's universities have not helped in the attempts to protect against terrorism.

In November 2006, when the Department of Education and Skills urged university lecturers were urged to inform police Special Branch of any Muslim students who appeared to be extremist, Muslims, student unions and universities condemned the suggestion.

Preachers such as Omar Bakri Mohammed are still influencing British Muslims to engage in jihad. From his base in Lebanon, Bakri uses the internet to preach on an almost nightly basis. He recently said about terrorist attacks upon Dublin's Shannon Airport: "Hit the target and hit it very hard, that issue should be understood."

Bakri explained his position clearly in 2004, when he said: ""We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."

The British authorities failed to act against radical preachers such as Bakri when they began their campaigns of indoctrination. Such negligence has ultimately led to homegrown suicide bombings and a climate of fear and tension.

Universities are for education. Because of Britain's complacent climate of multicultural tolerance, universities are now rife with individuals who do not seek to share common values of liberty and democracy. It is ironic that in Britain's establishments of education, there are so many politically naive activists who still need, more than anyone else, to be educated about the dangers of Muslim extremism.

Adrian Morgan is a British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society.

The Scotsman : Deadlock over extradition treaty

Deadlock over extradition treaty

JAMES KIRKUP | POLITICAL EDITOR | November 19, 2006

A LAST-minute death-penalty row has held up the completion of an extradition treaty which could see a key suspect in the foiled plot to bomb transatlantic airliners returned to Britain.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, had been expected to agree the deal with Pakistan on a visit to Lahore yesterday.

But, dashing British security officials' hopes of a breakthrough, he now is expected to leave the country this morning without having signed the deal.

The Prime Minister yesterday said Britain's relations with Pakistan are strengthening and are now at their "highest point". But the two countries do not have an extradition treaty, something that has hampered terrorist investigations and ordinary criminal cases alike.

It took police more than two years to secure the convictions of the men who killed Kriss Donald, the Glasgow schoolboy, because three of his murderers fled to Pakistan after the attack.

Aftab Sherpao, the Pakistani interior minister, said last week that the treaty has been agreed and simply needs to be signed by the two governments. British officials had also been optimistic.

Mr Blair yesterday held a press conference with Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, where the Prime Minister gave thanks for the "increasingly close co-operation" of the Pakistani authorities in assisting with bringing criminal cases in the UK. But he made no mention of the extradition talks, and the treaty was not included in a statement the leaders issued, promising to tackle Islamic extremism.

It is believed that the two governments are still unable to agree about the death penalty: Pakistan routinely executes criminals, but Britain refuses to extradite suspects if they could face that penalty.

Should the deadlock be broken, a treaty could see Rashid Rauf deported to Britain, where police and intelligence officials urgently want to question him about the plot said to have been foiled in August.

Despite Mr Blair's praise for the Pakistani authorities for their help in August, British officials are since said to have become frustrated about the lack of access they have had to Rauf, who is originally from Birmingham.

Rauf was arrested in August in Pakistan, but his exact whereabouts and legal status have been shrouded in secrecy ever since - Pakistani authorities admitted only on 30 October he was in custody.

The veil of secrecy covering Rauf has fuelled suspicions he may have been subjected to controversial interrogation techniques and even torture in secret detention facilities in Pakistan.

In August, Britain requested Rauf's extradition, in connection with a 2002 murder case not connected to terrorism, but the Pakistanis have so far made no move to hand him over.

BBC : Pakistan's role in fight against terror

Pakistan's role in fight against terror

By Paul Reynolds | World affairs correspondent, BBC News website | November 19, 2006

The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's visit to Pakistan indicates how important Pakistan is, not just to the war against the Taleban in Afghanistan, but also to the UK's own efforts to stop British citizens of Pakistani origin from turning to terrorism.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
Pakistan has provided intelligence to the UK in the fight against terror

Mr Blair's provision of more aid to encourage the Pakistani President General Musharraf's plan to reform the Islamic religious schools (madrassas) shows how concerned the UK government is that young British Muslims might fall under the influence of extremists in them.

Pakistan is both a help to the British authorities in the fight against terrorism, and a source of the terrorist threat itself.

It is a help because it has provided intelligence and it has made arrests.

In August, for example, the Pakistanis arrested a suspect named Rashid Rauf as part of the investigation into the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners.

Pakistan is said to have played a key role in the investigation, which has led to a number of people being charged.

After the London bombings of 7 July 2005, Pakistan tracked the movements of two of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, both of whom visited Pakistan in late 2004 and early 2005.

They are thought to have developed al-Qaeda contacts during this visit.

British links

President Musharraf has emerged as a key ally in countering terrorism, not just for the UK but also for the US.

Indeed, so important was he in helping to overthrow the Taleban, which was protecting al-Qaeda, that Pakistan escaped American punishment even though its leading nuclear scientist, A Q Khan, was found to have provided nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

Pakistan, however, is also a source of the threat because of the links between it and young British Muslims whose families originally came from there.

Three of the four London bombers - Khan, Tanweer and Hasib Hussain - were second generation Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan.

Pakistan is a source of inspiration to potential terrorists because of its proximity to Afghanistan and the history of Kashmir.

During the war against the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, jihadists like Osama bin Laden were encouraged by the CIA, which co-opted Pakistan's intelligence service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to be one of the main channels of arms and aid to the mujahideen.

This spawned a whole generation of fighters, some of whom turned on the West after the fall of the Soviet Union and founded al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda remains a source of inspiration to some young Muslims around the world.

Kashmir connection

There is also some suspicion that the ISI, or elements of it, remains ambivalent about helping the West too much. And India certainly accuses the ISI of organising the terrorist attacks that are inflicted on India from time to time.


Kashmir is a source of burning anger to many Pakistanis and their descendants in Britain and elsewhere

UK and Pakistan forge terror pact
These are usually connected with the second aspect of the threat from Pakistan - Kashmir.

In an article in New Republic magazine in August this year, entitled "Kashmir on the Thames", a leading al-Qaeda watcher Peter Bergen wrote: "Though conventional wisdom holds that anger toward US foreign policy is most responsible for creating new terrorists, among British Pakistanis, Kashmir is probably just as important."

A majority of British citizens of Pakistani origin came originally from the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir.

Invasion launched

Kashmir is a source of burning anger to many Pakistanis and their descendants in Britain and elsewhere. This is because the state of Kashmir, as it existed during the British rule in India, became divided when the British left in 1948.

What happened was that the state's ruler, Maharaja Harri Singh, a Hindu, could not make his mind up whether he would join India or Pakistan. All states had the right to choose.

The majority of the population was Muslim and they became restive at the indecision, eventually launching an invasion towards the capital Srinagar from tribal areas in the west of the state.

Harri Singh called on the Indians to help but the Governor-General Lord Louis Mountbatten insisted that, before India sent troops, Kashmir had to join India. It did so. Or half of it did.

In the subsequent fighting, it became divided between India and Pakistan and continue to be so, remaining also the main source of tension and conflict between India and Pakistan.

It is also a reason why young British Muslims become inspired to join their fighting brethren from Kashmir.

From that, it is but a short journey to identifying Kashmir's problems with those of Muslims in general and thence to attacking the West, or Britain in particular.

Irish Examiner : Blair, Musharraf re-commit to fight against terrorism

Blair, Musharraf re-commit to fight against terrorism

November 19, 2006

The UK and Pakistan have renewed their commitment to fight terrorism during talks between country's two leaders in Lahore

Tony Blair and President Pervez Musharraf have reached a deal on strengthening ties to tackle what Mr Blair called “the global struggle against Islamic extremism”.

The two leaders say restoring order in Afghanistan is a priority.

President Musharraf also answered accusations that his country hasn't done enough in the past and said his country was committed to fighting the threat of terrorism.

Mr Blair backed this sentiment, describing the weekend's talks as "immensely constructive", and saluted President Musharraf’s "courage and his leadership in taking Pakistan on this journey of change and modernisation".

Among the new proposals is the promise by the UK to double the aid to Pakistan to deal with the reform of the country’s religious schools, which some believe promote extremism.

Aljazeera : Blair set to boost Pakistan funding

Blair set to boost Pakistan funding

November 19, 2006

The British prime minister is to hold talks with Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, and is expected to offer the government further funds.

He is expected to announce funding of $447 million, being made available over the next three years for security, and is more than double London's initial pledge.

Sunday's trip is the third by Blair to Pakistan since the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

The bulk of the cash will go towards Musharraf's efforts to push "enlightened moderation", particularly in education. Musharraf has been targetting religious schools, saying that they are radicalising youngsters.

The British government has also been on a drive to curb what it sees as an apparent rise in radicalism among young men in its 1.6-million Muslim population, particularly after last year's attacks on London's public transport system that killed 56.

Three of the four bombers were Britons of Pakistani origin, while two of them visited Pakistan in the year before the attacks, allegedly for training and instruction from al-Qaeda.

British intelligence and police have in recent months expressed concerns about Pakistan's role in influencing British Muslims travelling there.

A number of people, including one British Pakistani, were detained in Pakistan in August this year as part of an alleged plot to blow up transatlantic passenger jets from Britain with liquid explosives.

Blair will also meet religious scholars, visit a mosque, and hold talks with Shaukat Aziz, the Pakistani prime minister.

The talks with Musharraf will touch on the situation in Afghanistan, where about 4,500 British soldiers are engaged in fighting the Taliban in the south of the country as part of a UN-sanctioned, Nato-led mission.

The leaders' last meeting in London in September was overshadowed by a document written for a British military think-tank that claimed that elements of the Pakistani intelligence were indirectly supporting groups such as al-Qaeda.

Pakistan's commitment

There have since been fears among senior Nato figures and Afghan officials about Pakistan's commitment to tackling fighters opposed to the Afghan government who hide out along the countries' rugged border.

Musharraf has defended his actions, pointing to the number of arrests of suspected al-Qaeda figures on the West's behalf, as well as targeting centres allegedly used by militants.

Britain - home to 800,000 people of Pakistani origin - has said it is "satisfied" with the level of co-operation from Pakistan and is keen to build upon the partnership as well as support Musharraf's reform agenda.

Blair's visit comes as his office sought to play down comments he made during an interview with Sir David Frost on Al Jazeera's English television channel on Friday in which he agreed that the war in Iraq had been "disastrous".

As Blair flew to Islamabad, Gordon Brown, his finance minister and likely successor, met British troops in the southern Iraqi city of Basra and pledged nearly $190m over the next three years for reconstruction.

Guardian : Blair in Pakistan anti-terror talks

Blair in Pakistan anti-terror talks

Press Association | November 19, 2006

Tony Blair will talks with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf aimed at bolstering co-operation in the international "war on terror".

The two leaders will announce a new joint working group from the Home Office and the Pakistani Interior Ministry on counter terrorism and counter narcotics.

At the same time, Mr Blair - who flew into the capital Islamabad - will pledge a doubling of British development aid to Pakistan from £236 million to £480 million over the next three years.

In addition, there is a counter-terrorism package worth around £8 million in technical assistance and support for preventative investigations, crisis management and tracking down terrorist finance.

The development money will be used to support General Musharraf's educational reforms designed to counter the influence of the radical madrassas which have been a hotbed of Islamic militancy.

Downing Street acknowledged that some cash would go to religious schools, but insisted that it would not be used to support those involved in extremism.

"It is not just designed to counter radicalism but also to train people in the skills which allow the Pakistan economy to develop," the Prime Minister's official spokesman told reporters travelling with Mr Blair.

Pakistan's strategic location and extensive family ties with Britain has made it a key player in the fight against Islamic terrorism, both in Britain and more widely.

MI5 director general Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller recently highlighted to role of al Qaida operatives in Pakistan in providing training and guidance to young British Muslims involved in terror plots in the UK.

At the same time Pakistan has faced criticism for failing to prevent militants crossing the border into neighbouring Afghanistan to join the fighting against the Nato force - including 6,000 British troops - stationed there.

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.

WP : West fighting terrorism properly now, Blair says

West fighting terrorism properly now, Blair says

By Sophie Walker | Reuters | November 19, 2006

LAHORE, Pakistan (Reuters) - Western allies in Iraq and Afghanistan are now giving more weight to reconstruction and wider political issues alongside military force to fight their war on terrorism "properly," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Sunday.

Blair met Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in Lahore to discuss how to beat the Afghan Taliban, pool counter-terrorist intelligence and quell militancy in Pakistani religious schools.

He announced a doubling of British aid, some of it to boost Pakistan's moderate Muslim schools to counter Islamic extremism.

"We begin to win when we start fighting properly, and I think we are now fighting properly," Blair told a news conference. "But we've got to do more."

Asked to clarify Blair's remarks, his spokesman added later: "This is all about learning as we go in the war against terrorism. First, the world recognizes the global threat of this extremist ideology, second it takes security measures to address that and thirdly it has to recognize issues like Palestine."

British government officials have been lining up in recent days to warn about the threat of plots by Muslim militants to launch terror attacks in Britain, while British forces in Afghanistan have faced some of the fiercest fighting from a resurgent Taliban since it was overthrown in 2001.

On Friday, Blair briefly appeared on Friday to accept an Al Jazeera interviewer's contention that the Western intervention in Iraq had been disastrous -- although he went on to point the figure at outside forces fomenting sectarian violence, and his office said he had not meant to endorse the questioner's view.

Both Blair and Musharraf were adamant that progress was being made, both in the fight against terrorism and against the Taliban in particular. But both said military might needed to be backed by political solutions and reconstruction work.

Musharraf has faced longstanding criticism over accusations that the Taliban receive support in his country, as well as shelter on the Pakistani side of the lawless frontier.

"Taliban problem is an Afghan problem. It is in the southeast region of Afghanistan, being supported by elements from this side," Musharraf told the news conference with Blair.

"We need to put our house in order, here on our side, and make sure that this support is cut off, but the main battle is in Afghanistan," he said.

Britain has about 5,000 troops in Afghanistan, part of a 31,000-strong NATO-led force battling the Taliban.

Musharraf said Afghanistan needed reconstruction help on the scale of Marshall Plan for Europe after World War Two.

"A GENERATION TO DEFEAT"

The two leaders also discussed the need for the Middle East peace process to resume.

Blair last week told a group advising U.S. President George W. Bush that progress towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would help reduce the bloodshed in Iraq.

He told journalists in Lahore: "Global extremism is based on an ideology that exploits grievance, so what we've got to do is -- at the same time that we are taking on that ideology -- we've got to take away the opportunity to exploit a grievance."

"This took a generation to grow and it will take a generation to defeat," he said.

British government sources say they are concerned about the flow of people and ideas between Britain and Pakistan, where some madrasas, or religious schools, double as training camps for Islamic militants. Nearly three-quarters of a million British Muslims have roots in Pakistan.

The two countries' interior ministries are to set up a joint working group to pool intelligence work and for Britain to provide technical help and training in forensics, crisis management and tracking terrorist funds.

The Independent : Blair in £480m terrorism deal with Pakistan

Blair in £480m terrorism deal with Pakistan

"Pakistan is not a banana republic. We have a disciplined army" - Pervez Musharraf

By Colin Brown | Islamabad | November 19, 2006

Tony Blair flew into Pakistan last night on a mission to seek more co-operation from Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, on the war in terrorism in Britain.

Mr Blair announced a doubling in aid from £236m to £480m over the next three years to the Pakistan Government to support "moderate" schools in Pakistan. It is part of a strategy of undermining the hardline madrassas which are alleged to have brainwashed students in extremist forms of Islam and to have provided radical converts for al-Qa'ida operations in Britain.

The Prime Minister is also seeking improvements in intelligence-sharing between MI6 and Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency, the ISI, in spite of suspicions - denied by President Musharraf - that they have sympathies with the Taliban. British sources said it was intelligence from Pakistan that led to arrests and the summer alert over an alleged plot to blow up about 10 airliners bound for the United States from British airports.

One million people in Britain are of Pakistani origin. Two of the suicide bombers who blew themselves up in London on 7 July last year had visited Pakistan shortly beforehand, and a British national, Rashid Rauf, is still held in Pakistan over the alleged airliner plot.

High on Mr Blair's agenda for talks with President Musharraf today will be the need to stop the flow of men and weapons across the leaky border with Afghanistan, where the resurgent Taliban are attacking British forces. There have been 36 British casualties this year, many in the lawless Helmand province, where British forces were deployed to protect reconstruction schemes but have become bogged down in a vicious war with the Taliban.

Senior British officials admitted the accuracy of the assessment by Tom Koenigs, the German diplomat heading the UN mission in Afghanistan, that Nato forces could not win without the backing of Afghan troops. "We have tactically defeated the Taliban, as one Nato general said, but we recognise that there are difficulties. It has to be a combination of military action and reconstruction," said one official with Mr Blair's party.

British commanders have complained of shortages of helicopters and armoured vehicles to protect against roadside bombs and suicide bombers. Mr Blair, determined that Afghanistan does not become a second Iraq, is urgently seeking reinforcements, and Britain will be calling for more support at a Nato conference in Riga. Although 37 nations are contributing to the Afghan force, many have rules of engagement which prevent their deployment in southern Afghanistan and Nato is still awaiting troops for a rapid reaction force there.

In his talks with President Musharraf, Mr Blair is almost certain to raise the question of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'ida leader believed to be hiding on the border, but officials made plain he would not be criticising the Pakistani leader in public. When they last met, at Chequers on 28 September, Mr Blair had to apologise privately for a leaked defence report - later dismissed as "research notes" - which said there was still considerable support for the Taliban in the ISI.

"Pakistan is not a banana republic," President Musharraf reportedly told the German magazine Focus last week. "We have an extremely loyal and disciplined army. The secret service is made up mainly of military men."

Mr Blair has little alternative but to accept the assurances of his key ally in the region.

IHT : British, Pakistani leaders say terrorism can be defeated only by backing moderate policies

British, Pakistani leaders say terrorism can be defeated only by backing moderate policies

The Associated Press | November 18, 2006

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: British Prime Minister Tony Blair said military force alone can't defeat terrorism, acknowledging Sunday that solving the Mideast crisis was key to curbing violent extremism. Pakistan's pro-U.S. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf admitted local militants were aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Sunday's meeting between the two leaders, crucial players in the U.S.-led war on terror, led to the signing of security, aid and education packages aimed at promoting a moderate brand of Islam and preventing Pakistan becoming a haven for extremists bent on attacking Western interests.

Blair's visit comes amid increased Taliban violence in Afghanistan, where 36 British soldiers have died this year.

In Pakistan, pro-Taliban and al-Qaida militants have been waging bloody attacks on Pakistani soldiers in semiautonomous tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.

Britain and its allies are supplementing the U.S.-led military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq with increased help for reconstruction projects, and a new impetus to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Blair said.

"We begin to win when we start fighting properly, and I think we are now fighting properly — but we have got to do more," Blair told reporters in the eastern Pakistan city of Lahore, in an apparent acknowledgment that a previous military-only strategy would not win moderate Muslims' support.

"What we have to realize is that where there are people standing up for a different way forward, we have to back them," Blair said.

His comments followed an interview Friday with Al-Jazeera's English-language channel, in which he appeared to agree with broadcaster David Frost's claim that operations in Iraq had "been pretty much of a disaster."

His office said Blair had made a "straightforward slip of the tongue," and had only "half-listened" to Frost's question.

Securing Israeli-Palestinian peace would have a positive impact across the region, Blair said.

"This global extremism is an ideology that exploits grievances. So what we have to do is at the same time as we are taking on the ideology, we have to take away those elements of grievance," he said at the Punjab Governor's Residence in Lahore.

"This took a generation to grow, and it will take a generation to defeat," he said.

The threat from homegrown extremists — such as the four young Muslims who killed 52 commuters and themselves in bomb attacks on London's transport network in July 2005 — was a problem Britain shared with many nations.

"In the end, the security measures are in place, but they only take you so far. We have got to win hearts and minds," Blair told Pakistan's Geo TV.

Three of the four bombers had family ties to Pakistan and visited this country. Officials have warned of hundreds moving between Britain and Pakistan to train, plan and raise funds for terror plots.

Musharraf said tackling broader concerns over Mideast peace were key to fighting extremism.

"This knot of terrorism will be untied through first resolving the Palestinian dispute," said Musharraf, who switched his country's support from the Taliban to the U.S. war on terror following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Musharraf's government is trying to sever the broad-based support the Taliban receives in Pakistan's northwestern tribal areas, but the president acknowledged the had not achieved "100 percent success."

"The Taliban problem is an Afghan problem ... being supported by elements from this side," he said. "We need to put our house in order on our side."

Blair and Musharraf formally signed a pledge to double a 480 million pounds (US$910 million; €710 million) three-year aid package to fund moderate Islamic schools and other projects.

Some 20 million pounds (US$38 million, €30 million) would be released immediately, Blair said, for poverty alleviation work in Pakistan, a majority Muslim state of 160 million people where al-Qaida and Taliban militants have long found sanctuaries of support.

Blair later met Pakistan's prime minister and Muslim leaders at Islamabad's towering Faisal Mosque.

Musharraf said greater reconstruction aid was badly needed in southeastern Afghanistan to prevent the country falling into the Taliban's hands.

"I have indicated to the prime minister that I believe there is a requirement for a massive inflow of development funds there — some kind of Marshall Plan for billions of dollars to be put in," he said.

Blair's office said US$10.5 billion (€8.2 billion) in Afghan aid was pledged at a January London donor's conference, but the problem was getting the infrastructure in place to spend the money.

Britain will also provide two MI-17 helicopters by next April for anti-narcotics forces patrolling the Afghan-Pakistan border to help curb Afghanistan's massive opium trade, Blair said.

The Daily Record : Blair Loses The Rag

BLAIR LOSES THE RAG

November 7, 2006

TONY Blair lost his cool yesterday when he was put on the spot over Saddam Hussein's fate.

The Prime Minister said it was "right" the former dictator - who on Sunday was sentenced to hang - should face "Iraqi justice".

But the UK Government officially oppose the use of the death penalty around the world.

When pushed, he finally said: "We are against the death penalty, whether it's Saddam or anybody else."

He added: "That is just enough, thank you very much", and insisted there were "other and bigger issues to talk about".

CBC : British army chief says Iraq pullout needed soon

British army chief says Iraq pullout needed soon

CBC News | October 12, 2006

The head of the British army has called Prime Minister Tony Blair's Iraq policies "naive" and said the country's troops must get out of the war soon, according to a published interview.

Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, said the British military presence is exacerbating the security problems in Iraq, according to an interview with the Daily Mail published on their website Thursday.

"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in," said Gannett. "Whatever consent we may have had in the first place may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he added.

The public criticism from a serving military official is certain to cause a stir.

Several British media outlets are reporting that Defence Secretary Des Browne has summoned Dannatt for a meeting on Friday.

Dannatt, who just took over the post in August, said he was concerned about the implications in Britain. He said a "moral and spiritual vacuum in this country" has been exploited by Muslim extremists.

Dannatt, 55, has been deployed in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kosovo and Germany.

He was commissioned at Sandhurst military academy, where Prince William is an officer cadet and Prince Harry recently graduated.

According to the paper, Dannatt said he understands why William and Harry are eager to serve abroad but has not yet decided whether they will be allowed to fight in Afghanistan.

NYT : General’s Remarks on Iraq Cause Stir in Britain

General’s Remarks on Iraq Cause Stir in Britain

By ALAN COWELL | October 13, 2006

ST ANDREWS, Scotland, Oct. 14 – The British government sought today to defuse an embarrassing public debate over remarks by its top military commander that Britain should withdraw its troops from Iraq ‘’sometime soon.”

The comments were interpreted by some government critics as a challenge to the authority of Prime Minister Tony Blair since they seemed to be a direct contradiction of his insistence that a retreat from Iraq would be ”a craven act of surrender.”

The officer, General Sir Richard Dannatt, modified some of his remarks in a series of radio and television interviews to expand on his comments in The Daily Mail tabloid. But he did not completely retract his assessment that the presence of British forces in Iraq ‘’exacerbated” the violence there.

‘’I have withdrawn none of the comments that I have made,” he said in a radio interview. ‘’I have given a little more explanation about what I meant by ’sometime soon’; that’s not backtracking.”

The dispute overshadowed Mr. Blair’s efforts at this Scottish golf resort to wrest a political settlement in Northern Ireland from the province’s fractious parties. Mr Blair and his Irish counterpart, Bertie Ahern, are co-hosting a major gathering of Northern Ireland leaders including Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, and Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party.

At a briefing here, Mr Blair’s spokesman said the general’s remarks following his Daily Mail interview showed there was ‘’not a cigarette paper between” the solider and Mr Blair.

‘’He said we are going to see this through. He said: I’m on record saying we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans. He also said that he remains committed to the vision of a unitary state in Iraq with a democratically elected government and security forces that underpin that government,” the spokesman said, referring to the general.

The spokesman, who is not identified in public under civil service customs, declined to say whether the British authorities had been in touch with the White House over the general’s comments, which coincided with other news likely to strengthen opponents of the war.

An inquest in Oxford, England, found today that Terry Lloyd, a British television war correspondent killed in Iraq in March, 2003, had been ‘’unlawfully killed” by United States forces who opened fire on a vehicle carrying the wounded reporter away from a battlefield.

The coroner in Oxford, Andrew Walker, said the American troops should not have fired on the vehicle. Mr Lloyd was working as a ‘’unilateral” journalist, meaning he was not embedded with the allied forces moving against Saddam Hussein. The inquest saw graphic video footage of the fighting.

Britain’s National Union of Journalists called Mr Lloyd’s death a ‘’war crime” and Mr Walker, the coroner, said he would write to the attorney general urging him to prosecute the killers. In the fighting, Mr Lloyd’s Lebanese translator, Hussein Osman, also died and French cameraman, Fred Nerac, is still missing, presumed dead.

General Dannatt’s comments drew widespread approval among anti-war legislators and campaigners and on unofficial websites used by military bloggers, including soldiers in the field. Britain has some 7,000 troops based primarily around Basra in the south of the country.

In the newspaper interview, General Dannatt said British soldiers should leave Iraq ‘’sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.”

General Dannatt told the BBC this morning in a radio interview: ‘’It was never my intention to have this hoo-ha.”

‘’My intention is particularly to speak up for what is right for the Army. That is my job. That is my constituency,” he said, apparently alluding to the suggestion by some soldiers that the army is overstretched with major combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the same radio show, Col. Tim Collins, who fought in Iraq in 2003 said the general’s comments had offered a ‘’refreshing and very honest insight into what the Army generally feels.”

‘’There comes a time when the realization on the ground is that the people of Iraq do resent foreign intervention and there comes a time when we have got to look forward to when we can hand it over to the Iraqis for them to sort out,” Colonel Collins said.

In an interview with Sky News, General Dannatt insisted:‘’We are not on the run; we are not hauling our colors down. We are going to see this thing through but we have got to get on with it; we can’t be there for years and years in the sorts of numbers we are.”

‘’We all recognize that. There is nothing new in what I am saying there and that’s what I mean by ’sometime soon’: when the mission is substantially done,” he said. ‘’That is what our aim is. But it is to leave sometime soon when the mission is done.”

Tenerife News : Great Britain, a Crusade in Reverse

Great Britain, a Crusade in Reverse

October 4, 2006

It is more than likely that old Enoch Powell was right. The apparently mad MP, ex-brigadier and egg-head looked and sounded like an Old Testament prophet but in his middle-age he foresaw ‘rivers of blood’ running in Britain as a result of unlimited immigration – especially from Pakistan – in the Sixties and Seventies of the last century. He was boycotted by all liberals and ‘free-thinkers’ as a racist xenophobe, and spent his last years writing impassioned letters to the Times that caused much merriment, especially among senior members of both Conservative and Labour administrations. They guffawed, ‘old Enoch is at it again!’

Seventy-two hours before Thursday 10 August, a message was intercepted from the headquarters of a radical Islamist terror group in Pakistan. The message was simple; it ordered an immediate attack on Britain and the United States, on a scale that would have made even the Twin Towers horror look mild. Terrorist cells operating within Britain for years had organised groups of young men fired with their religion to blow themselves up in around ten airliners heading for centres in the US. But the plan (that plan anyway) was foiled because of the vigilance of the British police and MI5 working together for once.

One of the first in Britain to be arrested was Rashid Rauf. Once he began to sing it was not long before a massive round-up was in action. It seems that Al-Qaeda is heavily involved. Pakistan herself (in the form of a spokesman) rapidly blurted that Rashid Rauf was one of the key persons involved in the plot to blow up these civilian flights virtually at once, as they neared their destinations in the States. Quickly, his 22-year old brother Tayib, resident in Birmingham, was arrested too.

MI5 has been on a twenty-four hour alert since the Underground attack known as ‘7-J’. Everything they had learnt came to a head on Wednesday, 9 August, when their discoveries led them to believe a massive attack was about to ignite. Blair had already spoken to George Bush on the Sunday before, mentioning the imminent danger. Then he went off to the Barbados on holiday. By then many young persons had got their airline tickets and their deadly hand luggage ready. Groups of four and five were each told to board the chosen aircraft with the bombs in their hands, plus the necessary tools to activate them – the flash of a digital camera, for instance, or an apparently harmless device for listening to music; the usual devil’s work. The usual joke at the expense of the security arrangements at British airports – where you cannot move without being watched by policemen armed to the teeth and a slavering Alsatian.

One of the arrested would-be terrorists is one Don Stewart-Whyte (21). His father used to be a Tory MP, but died when Don was fourteen. This middle-class British boy was born in England, to parents of Pakistani origin. The ‘well-mannered, good-looking young man’ is studying fine arts. He was educated at the Challoner School (private). Just over a year ago, in secret, Don converted to Islam, and the neighbours began to notice changes in him. Once open and frank, he became taciturn and uncommunicative. He insisted on being addressed as Abdul Waheed. Don’s mother, a teacher at primary school, member of the Methodist Church, was on holiday when the police took away her son.

Oliver Savant (26) is just one more of those promptly arrested. He prefers to be called Ibrahim. His wife Atika is pregnant. Ibrahim works for a small recording company, supports Arsenal F.C. and the English national soccer team. Everything about him, except his newly adopted religion, seems normal, like our third subject, Valentine Sarwar, now known as Amjad, who describes himself on his own website as ‘normal’. Another is a student of bio-chemistry called Waheed Zaman (22), described by his girl friend as ‘a fish and chips lover’ and Liverpool supporter. His activities as a leader of Islamic societies at the Metropolitan University of London had already attracted the attention of the police, who ‘had him on the list’. He is now under arrest.

All these, and many other young British men, have one thing in common. They have all become converts to Islam, and have spent much time in local mosques and libraries. Their average age is 24 – one of the arrested is 17, and another 35. They are all described in the press as university-educated; some attend classical music classes, and all of them have regularly sent Christmas cards to their families. One of the police officers said, “suddenly they left off their studies, grew beards and started wearing a chilaba. In every case their parents have been desperately worried, but helpless. All their friends dress the same and have the same attitude.”

Meanwhile, the Islamic organisations in the UK have added their voice to the general clamour. Thirty-eight organisations, three MPs and a few members of the House of Lords delivered a letter to Tony Blair that says: “As British Muslims, we believe that the actual British foreign policy places ordinary British citizens in danger, both here (in Britain) and abroad. The Iraq debacle, and the failure to stop warlike attacks on civilians in the Middle East (the Lebanon, for example) will not only multiply the number of deaths among innocent people, but become an ideal weapon for those extremists who now attack our country”. Thus the signers reprove Mr Blair’s labour government for unintentionally aggravating potential terrorists, “as in the case of the aborted plan to explode transatlantic aircraft in mid-flight”. Mr Blair will not need to be reminded that there are more than two million citizens in the UK, especially in electoral hotspots, of Muslim persuasion. Politics, especially electoral politics, as the man once said, are never very far away in modern times. Blair also has to ponder the example of Spain, where one Party’s foreign policy and ‘special relationship’ with the United States, brought it crashing down against all expectation in a General Election, immediately after a perfectly-timed Al-Qaeda bomb attack on civilian workers. Al-Qaeda announced on is puppet TV programmes then, that they had shown they were more than capable of ‘regime change’ themselves. They proved it in Spain. Now the scene changes to Britain, which may now be considered ‘in the front line’, as many newspapers called it, or indeed, another Crusade, this time in reverse. by Jeremy Taylor. (Photo: Police and dogs at one of London’s major airports/efe)

Tenerife News : Great Britain, a Crusade in Reverse

Great Britain, a Crusade in Reverse

by Jeremy Taylor | October 3, 2006

It is more than likely that old Enoch Powell was right. The apparently mad MP, ex-brigadier and egg-head looked and sounded like an Old Testament prophet but in his middle-age he foresaw ‘rivers of blood’ running in Britain as a result of unlimited immigration – especially from Pakistan – in the Sixties and Seventies of the last century. He was boycotted by all liberals and ‘free-thinkers’ as a racist xenophobe, and spent his last years writing impassioned letters to the Times that caused much merriment, especially among senior members of both Conservative and Labour administrations. They guffawed, ‘old Enoch is at it again!’

Seventy-two hours before Thursday 10 August, a message was intercepted from the headquarters of a radical Islamist terror group in Pakistan. The message was simple; it ordered an immediate attack on Britain and the United States, on a scale that would have made even the Twin Towers horror look mild. Terrorist cells operating within Britain for years had organised groups of young men fired with their religion to blow themselves up in around ten airliners heading for centres in the US. But the plan (that plan anyway) was foiled because of the vigilance of the British police and MI5 working together for once.

One of the first in Britain to be arrested was Rashid Rauf. Once he began to sing it was not long before a massive round-up was in action. It seems that Al-Qaeda is heavily involved. Pakistan herself (in the form of a spokesman) rapidly blurted that Rashid Rauf was one of the key persons involved in the plot to blow up these civilian flights virtually at once, as they neared their destinations in the States. Quickly, his 22-year old brother Tayib, resident in Birmingham, was arrested too.

MI5 has been on a twenty-four hour alert since the Underground attack known as ‘7-J’. Everything they had learnt came to a head on Wednesday, 9 August, when their discoveries led them to believe a massive attack was about to ignite. Blair had already spoken to George Bush on the Sunday before, mentioning the imminent danger. Then he went off to the Barbados on holiday. By then many young persons had got their airline tickets and their deadly hand luggage ready. Groups of four and five were each told to board the chosen aircraft with the bombs in their hands, plus the necessary tools to activate them – the flash of a digital camera, for instance, or an apparently harmless device for listening to music; the usual devil’s work. The usual joke at the expense of the security arrangements at British airports – where you cannot move without being watched by policemen armed to the teeth and a slavering Alsatian.

One of the arrested would-be terrorists is one Don Stewart-Whyte (21). His father used to be a Tory MP, but died when Don was fourteen. This middle-class British boy was born in England, to parents of Pakistani origin. The ‘well-mannered, good-looking young man’ is studying fine arts. He was educated at the Challoner School (private). Just over a year ago, in secret, Don converted to Islam, and the neighbours began to notice changes in him. Once open and frank, he became taciturn and uncommunicative. He insisted on being addressed as Abdul Waheed. Don’s mother, a teacher at primary school, member of the Methodist Church, was on holiday when the police took away her son.

Oliver Savant (26) is just one more of those promptly arrested. He prefers to be called Ibrahim. His wife Atika is pregnant. Ibrahim works for a small recording company, supports Arsenal F.C. and the English national soccer team. Everything about him, except his newly adopted religion, seems normal, like our third subject, Valentine Sarwar, now known as Amjad, who describes himself on his own website as ‘normal’. Another is a student of bio-chemistry called Waheed Zaman (22), described by his girl friend as ‘a fish and chips lover’ and Liverpool supporter. His activities as a leader of Islamic societies at the Metropolitan University of London had already attracted the attention of the police, who ‘had him on the list’. He is now under arrest.

All these, and many other young British men, have one thing in common. They have all become converts to Islam, and have spent much time in local mosques and libraries. Their average age is 24 – one of the arrested is 17, and another 35. They are all described in the press as university-educated; some attend classical music classes, and all of them have regularly sent Christmas cards to their families. One of the police officers said, “suddenly they left off their studies, grew beards and started wearing a chilaba. In every case their parents have been desperately worried, but helpless. All their friends dress the same and have the same attitude.”

Meanwhile, the Islamic organisations in the UK have added their voice to the general clamour. Thirty-eight organisations, three MPs and a few members of the House of Lords delivered a letter to Tony Blair that says: “As British Muslims, we believe that the actual British foreign policy places ordinary British citizens in danger, both here (in Britain) and abroad. The Iraq debacle, and the failure to stop warlike attacks on civilians in the Middle East (the Lebanon, for example) will not only multiply the number of deaths among innocent people, but become an ideal weapon for those extremists who now attack our country”. Thus the signers reprove Mr Blair’s labour government for unintentionally aggravating potential terrorists, “as in the case of the aborted plan to explode transatlantic aircraft in mid-flight”. Mr Blair will not need to be reminded that there are more than two million citizens in the UK, especially in electoral hotspots, of Muslim persuasion. Politics, especially electoral politics, as the man once said, are never very far away in modern times. Blair also has to ponder the example of Spain, where one Party’s foreign policy and ‘special relationship’ with the United States, brought it crashing down against all expectation in a General Election, immediately after a perfectly-timed Al-Qaeda bomb attack on civilian workers. Al-Qaeda announced on is puppet TV programmes then, that they had shown they were more than capable of ‘regime change’ themselves. They proved it in Spain. Now the scene changes to Britain, which may now be considered ‘in the front line’, as many newspapers called it, or indeed, another Crusade, this time in reverse.


(Photo: Police and dogs at one of London’s major airports/efe)

Crikey: Was the Heathrow terror "plot" a political concoction?

Was the Heathrow terror "plot" a political concoction?

by Antony Loewenstein | October 3, 2006

Two months ago, the British government told the world it had thwarted plans to blow up US-bound aeroplanes departing from Heathrow Airport. "Put simply, this was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale," said Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson from the Metropolitan Police at the time.

British authorities alleged that liquid explosives were to be used, and the devices were to be assembled on the planes after departure. A number of suspects were arrested with connections to Pakistan and some Western governments used the potential catastrophe to justify their ongoing "war on terror".

The only major Australian commentator to question the plot was Phillip Adams, who suggested it was difficult not to express scepticism because it was too convenient a distraction from the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A senior journalist at one of Australia’s leading newspapers told me last week that 9/11 had given far too many reporters and editors excuses not to ask questions in the "war on terror" because of "national security". These media players have become comfortably subservient to state power.

Such questions are being asked by one of Britain’s finest young thinkers, Nafeez Mosaddeq, a lecturer at the University of Sussex and author of many books that outline the role played by Western governments in supporting Islamic terror.

His latest expose – ignored by virtually all the world’s press – interviews major security sources in the UK, all of whom question the veracity of the Blair government’s claims over the Heathrow plot. Explosives experts doubt whether the suspects could have assembled their devices on the plane and detonate their deadly cargo.

A bomb defuser in Northern Ireland, Lt Col Wylde, became a senior officer in British Army Intelligence in 1977 and he tells Mosaddeq that the alleged conspiracy did not "involve manufacturing the explosives in the loo," as this simply "could not have worked".

Perhaps the most disturbing of the allegations is that British authorities are deliberately not arresting Islamic extremists in their country due, in part, to the security services' desire to recruit some of them as intelligence sources. Political expediency is being used to justify heightened security measures while known terrorists with connections to al-Qaeda are being left on the street to preach and indoctrinate.

Mosaddeq concludes on his site that the security services are being manipulated by their political masters, but what about the media?

"The media has been subject to a government D-Notice”, he writes, "one of those 'advisory' instructions suggesting politely to editors that they avoid any information that might, purportedly, prejudice the trial of the alleged terrorists detained in August. This has fatally skewered all reporting on the terror plot in favour of the government’s line, a prejudicial situation that seems of little concern to the authorities."

The Observer : White House in crisis over 'Iraq lies' claims

White House in crisis over 'Iraq lies' claims

Watergate journalist's new book exposes how Bush has kept the US public in the dark about the true costs of the 'war on terror'

Paul Harris in New York | October 1, 2006

President George Bush was braced for one of the toughest fights of his political life yesterday as a fierce row broke out over whether he has been misleading the American public over the worsening violence in Iraq. The crisis also rippled across the Atlantic with claims that the administration hid crucial Iraq intelligence from its British allies.

Sparking the crisis was a series of leaks from a hard-hitting new book by the political journalist Bob Woodward, one of the two Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate scandal that engulfed the Nixon administration three decades ago.

The author's first television interview on the Iraq book is due to be shown this evening on the CBS show 60 Minutes, and is expected to ignite a huge row over the conduct of the war. The book lifts the lid on an administration in crisis, claiming that Bush and his top officials have deliberately covered up the seriousness of the violence in the war-torn country.

Woodward has so far been sympathetic to the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq.

In the TV interview Woodward accuses Bush of keeping the real situation in Iraq secret from the American public and playing down the true level of violence. 'There's public [information] and there's private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,' he says.

His book - State of Denial - is also understood to say Tony Blair was angry at discovering that Washington was keeping key intelligence on Iraq from Britain - even classifying reports based partly on contributions from British operatives as off-limits. In some cases, British personnel flying US planes in Iraq were denied access to pilots' manuals, the book reportedly alleges. Downing Street denied to comment last night.

Woodward's book says that insurgent attacks in Iraq are now running at a rate of about four an hour and that officials believe the situation will get worse next year. That allegation is particularly damaging to the administration, which has staked its reputation in mid-term Congressional elections on its ability to win the war. It also flies in the face of regular Republican claims that the situation in Iraq is improving.

Woodward's book also provides a gripping insider's account of a White House deeply divided over Iraq. It shows that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been at odds with Bush over the war and that former White House chief of staff Andy Card had backed the replacement of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - but was overruled.

It portrays Bush as determined to stick it out even if his only supporters are whittled down to his wife and the White House dog. 'I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me,' Woodward quotes Bush as having told top Republicans at a White House meeting.

The book could not have come at a worse time for the Republican party. America is gearing up for vital elections and both parties are fighting on the issue of national security. That is usually a Republican strength, but Woodward's book will undermine the idea that the ruling party is best at prosecuting the war.

Bush spokesman Tony Snow has denied one key allegation - that Rumsfeld no longer takes calls from Rice. 'That is ridiculous,' Snow said. The White House has also insisted that the war in Iraq remains a vital part of the wider war on terror. In his weekly radio address, Bush said that fighting Islamic militants was part of winning the struggle against terrorists.

He also slammed Democrats and others who used a leaked intelligence report last week - which warned that invading Iraq had made America more prone to terrorist attack - to score political points against Bush's Iraq policy. 'Some in Washington have selectively quoted from this document to make the case that, by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we are making our people less secure here at home. This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda.'

But it is now far from clear that such arguments are resonating with the American public.

The Democrats, who once shied away from any debate on national security, have started to make it the central plank of their mid-term campaign. The party pulled no punches yesterday in responding to Bush's radio speech by choosing the Democratic Congressional candidate Tammy Duckworth to give its official response. Duckworth is a helicopter pilot who lost both legs in Iraq and now is a candidate for a seat in Illinois.

She vigorously attacked Republican attempts to paint her party as 'cutting and running' from the war. 'I believe the brave men and women who are serving in Iraq today, their families and the American people, deserve more than the same empty slogans and political name-calling,' Duckworth said.

The Observer : Why we are still getting it so wrong in the 'war on terror'

Why we are still getting it so wrong in the 'war on terror'

The ill-conceived and badly executed campaign in Iraq is directly responsible for spawning a new generation of terrorists

by Henry Porter | Sunday October 1, 2006

When Alexander the Great swept through Asia Minor in 337BC, he came to the impregnable mountain fortress of Termessos, not far from the modern-day Turkish city of Antalya. Termessos possessed a network of huge underground reservoirs and storerooms and, realising he would not bring the city to submission in a short time, Alexander ordered that the olive groves which provided Termessos with much of its income be levelled. It was an unusually spiteful act that was remembered for centuries afterwards.

I was reminded of the story when reading Patrick Cockburn's The Occupation, a vivid account of war and resistance in Iraq which is published by Verso this week. Cockburn describes a visit to Dhuluaya, a fruit-growing region 50 miles north of Baghdad, where, early on in the occupation, the American military cut down ancient date palms and orange and lemon trees as part of a collective punishment for farmers who had failed to inform them about guerrilla attacks. This vandalism will be remembered for generations because it was senseless and to the Iraqi mind powerfully symbolises the malice of the occupiers.

'At times,' Cockburn says of the period just after the invasion, 'it seemed as if the American military was determined to provoke an uprising.' Well, now they've got it, a ferocious war that in the last three months alone has cost 10,000 lives, most of them Iraqi. There seems no end to it and as Cockburn writes in his conclusion, instead of asserting America's position as the sole superpower, the occupation has amply demonstrated the limits of US power.

The precise opposite of the desired effect was also achieved in the idiotically named 'War on Terror'. By the admission of intelligence services on both sides of the Atlantic, Iraq has galvanised terrorism. Sections of a US National Intelligence estimate that were declassified last week say the war has become the 'cause celebre for jihadist' and that 'jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests'. This is not the view of a few CIA desk officers, but the shared verdict of 16 branches of US intelligence.

At the end of bad week in publicity terms, the White House has to deal with Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial, which reveals that Bush ignored the mounting insurrection in Iraq and that the White House was riven with disputes over the war between the Cheney/Rumsfeld faction and the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and Andrew Card, a former chief of staff. Rumsfeld is depicted as arrogant and contemptuous of other members of the administration as well as being totally disengaged from the details of occupying and reconstructing Iraq, which was then the Pentagon's responsibility.

There is an alarming sense of drift in the policy-making on both sides of the Atlantic, an unreality and, to use Woodward's word, denial. A leaked document, believed to have been written by a British MI6 officer attached to the Ministry of Defence, pulls no punches: 'The war on Iraq,' it says, 'has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act.'

Any number of commentators and some politicians, for instance, Al Gore, Senator Robert Byrd in the US and Ken Clarke and Robin Cook in Britain, predicted precisely this outcome in the run-up to the war. Bush and Blair never heeded the advice.

Only a tenth of the US document was published, but it is enough to undermine the campaign by the administration over the last few weeks to portray Iraq as an essential part of the war on terror and of making Americans safe at home. It's a lie of monumental proportions which exceeds even Downing Street's manipulation of the September 2002 WMD dossier.

Iraq has done the opposite of making America safe and with five weeks to go to the mid-term congressional elections, the Democrats now have an opportunity to make that case. Bill Clinton has urged his party to go on the offensive about the war and on Bush's woeful negligence over the threat posed by bin Laden. He went on Fox TV last Sunday and made the case about bin Laden in a pugnacious interview with Chris Wallace, pointing out that it was his successor, not he, who had downgraded the al-Qaeda threat and demoted the counterterror expert who so feared bin Laden.

Confirmation of the Bush administration's lassitude comes in Woodward's book. In July of 2001, two months before the September attacks, he reveals that the head of the CIA, George Tenet, and his counterterrorism chief, J Cofer Black, met Condoleezza Rice, then National Security Adviser, to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence about an attack. Both men felt that she had not taken the warnings seriously.

Five years on, it is still terribly important to fight for the accurate record of what happened. For instance, last week Jack Straw appeared on Question Time and stated that Tony Blair did not know until 'late' of America's plans to attack Iraq. That is not true. It has been established that on 22 September 2001, 11 days after the al-Qaeda attacks, Blair attended a dinner with Bush, Colin Powell and Christopher Meyer during which the attack on Iraq was raised not just as matter of idle speculation. Is that late? No, Blair was on board from a very early stage.

Given the state of Iraq, the diaspora of terror cells, the scandals of torture and extra- judicial punishment in Guantanomo and Britain, it is remarkable that Blair is still Prime Minister, that no member of the war cabinet has apologised for this calamitous record and that the Labour party has not signalled its remorse in the slightest way. Last week's conference was devoted to a series of setpieces in which those responsible for the greatest foreign policy disaster since the Second World War were allowed to posture in front of a largely compliant audience.

I had the advantage of reading and not seeing Blair's speech, which meant that I wasn't exposed to his demonic charm and did not fall into the swoon that afflicted so many colleagues. I urge you to find the speech on the Labour party website and read exactly what he said and, while you're about it, look up John Reid's speech, too. Both their statements on liberty are enough to give you an idea of the profound threat they represent to British democracy, to the traditions of open and accountable government, to the previous requirement that politicians accept responsibility for failed policies.

Blair's speech dealt with terrorism in the following sentences. 'This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy. It's an attack on our way of life.' He might have said that on 12 September 2001 and he would have been right, but five years later, it is his and Bush's response to the threat - the invasion of Iraq - that has provided stimulus to the growth of terrorism and made the clash of civilisations a frightening possibility. Nowhere in his speech did he acknowledge this. How could he without interfering with the delicate business of moulding his legacy?

Apparently, he wasn't heckled and no one in the hall fell off their chair laughing when he said he would dedicate the rest of his time in office to advancing peace between Israel and Palestinians. That agenda was his reason for wiring British foreign policy into the White House. But he got nowhere with Israel at a time when Bush needed him, which leads one to suppose that he doesn't have a hope in hell now that he has served Bush's purpose.

The only satisfaction to take out of this terrible episode is that the true account of what happened before the invasion of Iraq and why is being assembled despite Bush and Blair's efforts to distort the record. What we do now is an altogether harder task. It will need a new generation of leaders to attempt to right the wrongs and set the West on a new course. But they will always have the memories of senseless destruction to contend with.

henry.porter@observer.co.uk

Times Online : Playing a cunning game of survival in the war zone

Playing a cunning game of survival in the war zone

PROFILE Pervez Musharraf

October 01, 2006

Pervez Musharraf was, by his own admission, a naughty child. His discovery that an unfiltered cigarette made an efficient time fuse led him and some friends to construct firecracker bombs that exploded deafeningly in rubbish bins and mail boxes outside the houses of school staff. “There was utter confusion,” he recalled with satisfaction.

Old habits die hard, it seems. Last week the president of Pakistan fired up a string of incendiary revelations that embarrassed the White House, upset Downing Street and goaded President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan into a hissy fit. For good measure, he appeared on an American chat show and traded jokes about President George W Bush.

Musharraf was promoting his memoirs, a task usually left to retirement, but like most dictators, the 63-year-old army chief of staff shows little enthusiasm for leaving the stage. And just as his schoolboy prank went unpunished, he can count himself fireproof as one of the main beneficiaries of 9/11. Once a pariah whose links with terrorists accounted for President Bill Clinton’s refusal to be photographed shaking his hand, he is now feted by western leaders as a key figure in the global war against terror.

His first thunderflash last week was a stunner. Musharraf claimed the US had threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” if it did not co-operate with America after the September 11 attacks.

A shaken Bush said he was “taken aback” by the claim and Richard Armitage, the former US deputy secretary of state accused of making the threat, insisted he had merely said “you are either with us or against us”.

Musharraf’s next firecracker was the disclosure that the US had secretly paid millions of dollars in bounties to Pakistan for the capture of wanted Al-Qaeda figures. In the gratifying furore over the illegality of such payments, Musharraf quietly mentioned that the money went to individuals, not to his government.

Then there was the entertaining spectacle of Musharraf and Karzai going into deep sulks when they joined Bush in the White House Rose Garden. Each blames the other for the Taliban’s revival. Karzai has accused Musharraf of giving the Taliban a haven. Musharraf called Karzai “an ostrich” with his head in the sand.

Musharraf was just getting started. His book seemed to exonerate Omar Sheikh, a Briton facing execution for the murder of the American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan. The general also put British intelligence on the spot by claiming that details of terror suspects had been kept back from Pakistan as it was “a backward country”.

Angered by a leaked British document calling for the dismantling of Pakistan’s intelligence service because of its links with terrorists, Musharraf retorted that the Ministry of Defence was a better candidate for abolition. That may not have gone down well with Tony Blair, whom he met in Downing Street last week.

In an interview on Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday, he accused Britain of amnesia over Al-Qaeda, who were in effect the mujaheddin assembled by the West to overthrow the Russians in Afghanistan. Pakistan, he claimed, was abandoned to face the consequences.

“We fought for you for 10 years,” he said. “Then we were left high and dry.”

So what accounts for this outpouring of bile? Musharraf is that rare creature, a comparatively liberal dictator who has gone some way to reversing the injustices and corruption that existed under his predecessors. Committed to the “irreversible process of the empowerment of women”, he created 60 reserved seats for women in the national assembly in 2002. However, his efforts to reform Islamic laws that discriminate against women have been dismissed by many as sops to the West.

He has calmed relations with India since the two countries’ nuclear stand-off over Kashmir, although he pardoned Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, the “father of Pakistan’s bomb” who gave nuclear weapons technology to rogue states, including Iran and Libya. On the debit side, Amnesty International has accused Pakistan of widespread human rights violations in support of America’s war on terror.

He presents a genial, moustachioed figure to visitors at Army House in Rawalpindi, the cosy old British stucco residence that he and his wife, Sehba, alternate with the soulless, monolithic presidential palace in Islamabad.

“He comes from the liberal, whisky-drinking faction of the Pakistan army, rather than the fundamentalist side,” said one. “I was a bit surprised to see his wife watching a video and eating popcorn.”

The general’s talk is of squash, tennis and how he launched his bloodless coup from mid-air in 1999. He was returning on a flight from Sri Lanka when the pilot told him he had been sacked as head of the armed forces by Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister, and was forbidden to land at Karachi even though the plane had only seven minutes of fuel remaining.

Believing it was a plot to kill him, Musharraf called out the army and Sharif was deposed. “I don’t know how he thought of such a beautiful way of giving me power,” he mused later.

His recent revelations are evidently designed to rebut critics in Pakistan who accuse him of being in the pocket of the US and those in the West who think he is too close to the militants.

The ploy appears to have backfired in Pakistan, where the intelligence community is worried that his candour has damaged relations with allies. Separately, former top military figures and politicians have called for him to stand down. “They are asking whether dictatorship has really benefited Pakistan,” said a local commentator. “They look at India and see a global economic powerhouse with a foreign policy. Pakistan only has an India policy.”

Fuelling the claim that Musharraf is America’s poodle are his family’s ties to the US: his brother, a doctor, lives near Chicago and his son runs a high-tech company in Boston. The mullahs look askance at his fondness for alcohol and dogs, which Muslims regard as unclean. He is a secular leader who preaches “enlightened moderation”, yet relies on hardline Islamic parties for support.

He is even criticised for speaking too warmly of India and for visiting the bungalow in Delhi where he was born in 1943. He was the second of three sons born to his father Syed, a Foreign Office accountant who rose to become a director, and Zarin, a teacher who had graduated from Delhi and Lucknow universities at a time when few Muslim women received even a basic education.

Four years later the family joined other Muslims on a terrifying train ride to the newly created Pakistan. At every stop they saw bodies lying along the tracks, the victims of communal violence.

After two years in Karachi the family decamped to Turkey, where the young Musharraf developed a significant admiration for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who had moulded the country into a secular state. He was 13 when he returned to Karachi and enrolled at St Patrick’s, a Catholic missionary school where he learnt to use his fists.

“Without thinking, I punched the bully hard,” he recounts in his memoirs. “A fight ensued, and I really thrashed him. I became known as a tough guy whom you don’t mess with.”

In this immodest vein, he writes that he became a top gymnast, athlete and body-builder when he went to another Christian school, the Forman College in Lahore, run by American missionaries.

At the age of 18, he entered the Pakistan military academy. “Winning a spot was a cinch for an athletic, intelligent boy.” And naturally he began a swift rise to the top of the armed forces, bypassing rivals from the traditional Punjabi officer elite.

The world spotlight first fell on Musharraf in 1999 as the general who conceived and directed a huge intrusion into Kargil in Kashmir, sparking the first major Indo-Pakistan conflict for 28 years. He was depicted in BBC footage as a leathery, hard-bitten commando, a cigarette drooping from his lips.

According to a Clinton aide, Pakistan’s new nuclear weapons were deployed in forward positions, with Musharraf’s finger on the button. The incursion became a humiliating fiasco when Pakistan was forced to withdraw. Three months later, Musharraf pulled off his coup.

His pledge to democratise the country did not extend to submitting himself to the electorate. After making several attempts to legitimise his position, he won support from the electoral college of Pakistan in 2004 and was “deemed to be elected” to the office of president until October 2007.

He has promised to abandon his uniform by the end of this year but nobody is holding their breath. “Destiny and fate have always smiled on me,” he declares. It’s a belief shared by most dictators, until the music stops.