Why British Haste on Plane Bomb Theory?
By Finian Cunningham
November 06, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "Sputnik"
- British officials have made an unseemly leap to speculate on a
terrorist plot in the Russian airliner crash over Sinai last
weekend.
And Russia has understandably reacted furiously to the speculation,
saying that it is too early to make such an assessment when crash
investigators have not even compiled, let alone evaluated, evidence.
American officials, including President Barack Obama, are also now
echoing the British claims of a bomb on the plane. The question is:
why the haste?
Within days of the Metrojet A321 breaking up in
midair, Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron said it was "more
than likely" that a bomb secreted on to the plane was the cause
of the disaster, which took the lives of all 224 people onboard.
Cameron's Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, added
that British intelligence points to an explosive device being a
"significant possibility". No details were provided for why the
London government was invoking this probability.
From that assessment,
British commercial flights from Egypt's Sharm El Sheik were promptly
cancelled this week. Like Russia, Egypt has also responded
with annoyance at the British rush to speculate.
American officials appear to be following the
British lead on the bomb theory. Initially, James Clapper, the US
national intelligence director, told media that it was unlikely that
a terrorist cause was to blame. Clapper didn't rule it
out completely, and his focus in that unlikely event was on the
outside possibility that an Al Qaeda-linked group could have
possessed a surface-to-air missile capable of hitting a plane
at high altitude.
However, notably,
following the British bomb assessment, the Americans have now taken
up that idea. President Obama told American media on Thursday — five
days after the disaster — that he believes there is a "serious
possibility" that a bomb took down the Russian airliner.
The day before Obama spoke, various US media
outlets were also quoting unnamed officials as proffering the same
speculation about a terrorist bomb plot.
Russia has reacted angrily to the high-level comments
from Britain and the United States. Quite rightly, Moscow has said
that it is inappropriate to speculate at such an early stage in the
crash investigation. A team of investigators are on the ground
in the Sinai Peninsula where the airliner fuselage came down, still
examining the aircraft remains.
Moreover, when Britain, followed by the US,
announced its terror concerns the examination of the flight data
recorders (black boxes) was only just underway. It may take weeks
before forensic analysis reveals if there are any chemical residues
on the plane parts that would indicate if explosive device did
indeed cause the aircraft to blow up. Other possibilities are that
the plane broke up due to a mechanical rupture, or an engine
combusted from its own fuel.
At this stage a calm circumspect, open mind is
warranted. But not, it seems, for the British. Later this week,
Britain's state broadcaster, the BBC, added more details to the bomb
theory. Citing unnamed intelligence officials, it says that the
Russian plane "had a bomb in the [luggage] hold".
According to the BBC:
"Investigators in the UK's security services suspect someone
with access to the aircraft's baggage compartment inserted an
explosive device inside or on top of the luggage just before the
plane took off."
The Metrojet flight appears to have broken up some
23 minutes after take-off just after it reached its cruising
altitude of 30,000 feet.
The BBC reports that 10 months ago British
intelligence officials had warned the Egyptian authorities
to tighten up security at Sharm El Sheikh airport. A follow-up
inspection found that the Egyptians had complied with the security
tightening measures, although the British were, according to the
BBC, still concerned that procedures may become lax again.
Sharm El Sheikh is believed to be a hub
for British intelligence across the Middle East. They obviously know
the airport well.
The question is: why are the
British, and the Americans, making such high-profile claims
about terrorist involvement in the Russian airliner crash? The very
public comments by heads of government have the connotation of an
unseemly interest in politicising the incident.
If Britain had sensitive intelligence on a
terrorist input then why doesn't it share it discreetly with the
Russian government? The British could also have just suspended
commercial flight services with a low-key statement on security
precautions. But the announcement this week to cancel flights was
made in the context of Britain's "terrorist bomb theory" — as if
to authenticate that claim as valid.
In this regard, there is an obscene haste to turn
a tragedy into a political football, as with the downing of the
Malaysian flight over Ukraine in July 2014, when again the British
and the Americans leapt to make premature judgements over the cause
of the crash, and on that occasion to impute Russia or
"Russian-backed rebels" in east Ukraine.
So what is to be gained
by London and Washington attributing the Russian airliner deaths
to terrorism? It is not hard to imagine that both would like to see
Russian President Vladimir Putin incurring a political backlash
from his nation over what is Russia's worst-ever air crash.
The Al Qaeda-affiliate in Sinai claiming to have
taken the plane down has said that the alleged attack was in revenge
for Russia's military intervention in Syria, which has wiped
out hundreds of Islamic State and other so-called jihadists.
Russia's military intervention in Syria has so far
proven to be a political success for Vladimir Putin. Russia has
gained much kudos internationally for its decisive actions
to eradicate vile terror groups and for helping to relieve the
Syrian nation from a four-year war. Moscow has also taken the lead
with respect to organising political talks between the government
of Bashar al-Assad and constitutional opposition parties.
Furthermore, Putin's military foray in Syria has
discommoded Washington and London in their covert attempts at regime
change in that country. The Western-backed covert war relying
on sundry mercenary terror networks — mislabeled as "moderate
rebels" in the Western media — has been brilliantly exposed and is
being thwarted by Russia. Western vexation with Putin's masterstroke
in Syria is palpable.
A month after Putin's
stunning success in Syria, a Russian civilian passenger plane goes
down over Egypt. A ragtag terror group claims responsibility
in killing over 200 Russian civilians in revenge for Putin's
anti-terror operations in Syria.
Britain and America then move at the highest level
of government — how unusual is that?— to back up the terrorist
claims of a "spectacular" blow against Russia. The political
motivation of undermining Putin seems clear — albeit despicably base
given the loss of civilian life.
Cameron and Obama are evidently being fed
intelligence assessments of a bomb being stowed in the airplane's
hold by terrorists.
But here is a big one. The confidence by which
these assessments of terror methodology are being made raises an
even more troubling, darker question: was it really terrorists, or
was it British MI6 agents palming the deed off as terrorists?