Reply #15: It's possible that and the main article could both be true,

[lockdown]

that Aswat is an asset of some intelligence agency or agencies, but that the bombers were still independent "homegrowns". What does seem clear is that a lot of "official" sources were pushing all kinds of angles in the aftermath, and there were a lot of contradictions. Some were pushing the homegrown/amateur angle, some were pushing the international network angles. To me it seemed like different groups of influence and their voices in the media had different ideas on how the attacks could be best exploited, wherever the truth lies. Some are maybe too invested in the international top-down organised al-Qaeda myths they've built, some wanted to stress homegrown dangers to support repressive domestic legislation.

All the attention around Aswat could maybe have been caused by sources wanting to talk up or go after Pakistani and international al-Qaeda links that weren't really there, without realising just how complicated a person of interest he actually was? There did seem to be a hell of a lot of backtracking after the report(s) he'd been arrested in Pakistan, and I noted here my surprise that the popular British press didn't pick up on him and his apparent links with Abu Hamza, who is a front page hated Islamic extremist bogeyman in the UK (not that I noticed anyway). They'd probably claim it's because Hamza is awaiting trial, but I can't believe that would stop them splashing on a story linking Abu the hook man to the bombings. More than meets the eye, definitely.