Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Another Terror Suspect Spills Another Can Of Beans -- And Again They Land On Pakistan!

Just a few days ago we were talking about Omar Khyam, the suspected terrorist now on trial in Britain who stopped testifying after his family was threatened by representatives of the Pakistani intelligence service ISI.

The next witness in the same trial has taken the stand, and if the news reports from Britain are even halfway accurate, his family members may be due for a visit as well.

Anthony Garcia, formerly known as Rahman Benouis, testified that he bought 600 kg of ammonium nitrate fertilizer at the request of Khyam, and that he understood the fertilizer was
"to be shipped out to Pakistan."
The accounts of his testimony which are currently available do not say whether Garcia thought the fertilizer was intended for use on crops or to be made into bombs. British authorities have charged Garcia, Khyam, and five others of conspiring to carry out a major bombing. Nightclubs and shopping centers have been mentioned as possible targets.

Garcia also testified that he wanted to go to Pakistan for military training, but he denied being a follower of Osama bin Laden or the Taliban. He also denied being pleased by the attacks of 9/11, because, in his words:
[I]nnocent people were targetted. They did not do anything.
So why would he be involved with people who were supposedly preparing to build a bomb? It's a long story but some of the details are extremely interesting.
Garcia told the court he became radicalised after he was shown a video of alleged rapes and sexual abuses of children by Indian forces in Kashmir at the Islamic Society at his college in Romford, east London in 1999.

Garcia then told how he and his elder brother would fund raise around their Barkingside home, collecting funds from students, shopkeepers, businessmen and Mosques, which became an "almost religious objective" and helped him turn his back on "girls, drinking and staying out late."

He added 99 per cent of the community would support their cause as people in "occupied Kashmir" had the right to defend themselves and he was desperate to get out to Pakistan to receive military training.

He told the court people who had receive training were seen as "kind of like heroes" when they returned back to the UK and it was "common" for people to travel to Pakistan to get training.

He said: "If there was a little war going on in Kashmir, they would say we need people and they would only accept those that had done training."

Mr Ryder asked: "In your opinion was it viewed as an extremist thing to do?"

Garcia replied: "No, not at all."

But he told the court people were more "respected" if the[y] had done the training than if they just learnt the Qu'ran.
OK? Have you got all that?

Good. Now let's review what we've learned:

Although Pakistan is an ally of the USA in the War Against Terror, it's the place where people go to get the "military training" which will give them an added measure of "respect" in their community.

It's enough to make your head spin, isn't it? Something just doesn't seem right.

Here's something else that doesn't seem right: According to the Times Online account of his testimony, Garcia
said 9/11 was no different from the Madrid bombings or the July 7 London transport bombings.
Aside from the obvious fact that the three events mentioned were very different...

In all three cases the "official story" and the available evidence clearly contradict one another.

And all three attacks happened at very convenient times, if by "convenient" we mean "politically opportune" for the governments involved.

Could this be what Garcia was referring to? If I had to guess, I would say "no". But the irony is not lost. Not by a long shot.

As the British press reports all say,
The trial continues.