MI5 "knew of bomber's plan for holy war" (re 7/7)

[ViolentPanda]

But don't forget that we have seen many operations against suspected terrorists, some resulting in charges and some not, which no doubt resulted from ongoing surveillance and other operations. So there is another side to the coin.

Pity that the "other side of the coin" has been tainted by farcical knob-polish like the "ricin" (more like fucking "rice crispies" ) case then, isn't it?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Oh well, that's fine then. Only 52 dead and only 700 injured, so no problem at all. It could have been worse.

I am sorry but that does not make me a happy rabbit.

You can't stop them all. Expecting that to happen is really, really stupid.

If there was a mistake made evaluating thier risk (Which upon thinking about it there obviously was) then that lesson should be learnt and remembered to try and make sure it's not repeated. What more can you do?

 

[tollbar]

I cant get the link to work so cant quote directly, but part of the original story says that the surviellance of the two suicide bombers was dropped because it was believed that they were principally involved in fraud.

Not having access to the original story I dont know if Leppard asked the question, that given that terrorist funding and money laundering are supposed to be a priority why were they not still being investigated in relation to that ?.

 

[Badger Kitten]

What more can you do?

Erm...

Not lie about Iraq for starters.

Acept responsibility for your illegal war significantly increasing terror threats
and apologise in public, because those deaths could have been prevented

And then resign.

Or, have an independent enqury. accept responsibility, apologise and then resign.


Either is fine with me.

The fact is that two of the men who bombed the trains were bugged driving round and round for months - but because the Govt. could not accept the painful reality that IRAQ HAD INCREASED THE LEVEL OF PISSED-OFF-NESS to way beyond critical, and the 'Covenant of Security' with UK Muslims had been broken, (according to influential extremists, because Iraq and Afghanistan were seen as aggressive anti- Muslim acts - and so British extremists now saw a 'legit' reason to get on my fucking train and blow it up -)

Yet the Government could not admit that there might be danger from homegrown extremists because it was too politically uncomfortable for them to think it so they downgraded the threat and they stopped watching the UK boys because they thought they'd go fight jihadi martydom struggles abroad, not at home

A catastrophic error, causing terrible suffering, and all because a leader is too wilfully pompous and deluded to admit his dreadful initial mistake in following US hawks into Iraq.

These facts are obvious to me, and Tony Blair is fucking deluded if he cannot see it himself. He may not want to see the connection between Iraq and 7/7 but that does not mean it is not there. He shouod take some responsibility for his actions, not try and wriggel out of it. I have nothing but contempt for him and his lawyerly evasions. His damn lies, in fact.

 

[detective-boy]

... given that terrorist funding and money laundering are supposed to be a priority why were they not still being investigated in relation to that ?.

There are many degrees of involvement in fraud. I suspect they were nowhere near any organisational level, way, way down the list of priorities.

 

[detective-boy]

So on the one hand we have "Why was nothing done about these people?", even though there was only a little evidence available.

And on the other hand we have "Why were these people arrested when there was little or no evidence?".

How neatly the thread illustrates the difficulty of investigation.

And how easy it is with hindsight.

 

[jæd]

The fact is that two of the men who bombed the trains were bugged driving round and round for months - but because the Govt. could not accept the painful reality that IRAQ HAD INCREASED THE LEVEL OF PISSED-OFF-NESS to way beyond critical, and the 'Covenant of Security' with UK Muslims had been broken, (according to influential extremists, because Iraq and Afghanistan were seen as aggressive anti- Muslim acts - and so British extremists now saw a 'legit' reason to get on my fucking train and blow it up -) [/SIZE]

We are back to the point that you can't watch everyone. What would your reaction be if the amount of resources going to mI5 had been increased...? Would you be comfatable with a highly proactive secret service...? And what if they had still dropped to bombers surveilence...?

These facts are obvious to me, and Tony Blair is fucking deluded if he cannot see it himself. He may not want to see the connection between Iraq and 7/7 but that does not mean it is not there. He shouod take some responsibility for his actions, not try and wriggel out of it. I have nothing but contempt for him and his lawyerly evasions. His damn lies, in fact.

Its quite interesting reading this and comparing it reactions to the "Oaten stands down 'over rent boy' thread. On that thread some people are saying its quite ok for politicians to lie....

I'm quite sure that Tony Blair realises that there is a link. He's the Prime Minister and he is a politician so I highly doubt you will get him admitting this.

 

[bugsy7]

So on the one hand we have "Why was nothing done about these people?", even though there was only a little evidence available.

And on the other hand we have "Why were these people arrested when there was little or no evidence?".

How neatly the thread illustrates the difficulty of investigation.

And how easy it is with hindsight.

C'mon, screw the bob, d-b! I can understand your desire to protect the incompetent cunts, but why don't they use the same methods (and the same laws!) they used to nip (ostensible) IRA attacks in the bud? Albeit under much closer scrutiny than they had then.

MsG

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Erm...

Not lie about ...

These facts are obvious to me, and Tony Blair is fucking deluded if he cannot see it himself. He may not want to see the connection between Iraq and 7/7 but that does not mean it is not there. He shouod take some responsibility for his actions, not try and wriggel out of it. I have nothing but contempt for him and his lawyerly evasions. His damn lies, in fact.

Ok, so what more can the security services do exactly? If you want to rant by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to waste time answering your points if you ignore mine.

 

[tollbar]

There are many degrees of involvement in fraud. I suspect they were nowhere near any organisational level, way, way down the list of priorities.

And, in fraud terms they probably were if you accept the figures that have been produced that show that the bombings only cost a few hundred quid.

The real story here, I suspect, is that pointed up by other posters, namely that the state machine is geared up to deal with big long term conspiricies like the RA, with sophisticated planning and back up and relying on a big financial machine behind them, but cant cope well with tiny self financing cells that dont have to worry about what happens afterwards cos they wont be there to worry about it.

Its worse in the states of course, where they still think they are fighting a varient of the cold war.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

And, in fraud terms they probably were if you accept the figures that have been produced that show that the bombings only cost a few hundred quid.

The real story here, I suspect, is that pointed up by other posters, namely that the state machine is geared up to deal with big long term conspiricies like the RA, with sophisticated planning and back up and relying on a big financial machine behind them, but cant cope well with tiny self financing cells that dont have to worry about what happens afterwards cos they wont be there to worry about it.

Its worse in the states of course, where they still think they are fighting a varient of the cold war.

Well there isn't much you can do against that sort of thing is there? Without massive oversight, automated computer monitoring, universal databases and tracking it's night on impossible to stop it. Even then it's nigh on impossible to stop it all, just cut down on the numbers a bit.

 

[tollbar]

What you do first and foremost, as Badger Kitten has pointed out, is to stop creating the conditions that produce people who are prepared to carry out such acts. Before the invasion of Iraq there is no credible evidence that people from a british background were planning suicide attacks within these islands. Otherwise there will be no escape from another 7/7 sooner or later.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What you do first and foremost, as Badger Kitten has pointed out, is to stop creating the conditions that produce people who are prepared to carry out such acts. Before the invasion of Iraq there is no credible evidence that people from a british background were planning suicide attacks within these islands. Otherwise there will be no escape from another 7/7 sooner or later.

The link between the Iraq war and the 7th july attacks is bloody obvious it's painful. But it's not exactly MI5's or even the SIS's job to worry about policy.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well there isn't much you can do against that sort of thing is there? Without massive oversight, automated computer monitoring, universal databases and tracking it's night on impossible to stop it. Even then it's nigh on impossible to stop it all, just cut down on the numbers a bit.

The Israelis routinely fire missiles through people's living room windows, demolish the houses of everybody who knew the bomber and do all kinds of other appalling shit, but they haven't made much of a dent in it. i don't see any value in increasing the rate of erosion of our civil liberties. I think we need to face facts. Once you create the conditions that breed suicide bombings, some of them will get through whether the security services behave like they're being run by Himmler or Dixon of Dock Green.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The Israelis routinely fire missiles through people's living room windows, demolish the houses of everybody who knew the bomber and do all kinds of other appalling shit, but they haven't made much of a dent in it. i don't see any value in increasing the rate of erosion of our civil liberties. I think we need to face facts. Once you create the conditions that breed suicide bombings, some of them will get through whether the security services behave like Himmler or Dixon of Dock Green.

Ah, but if the public doesn't realise what the goverment can do / is doing then it can get away with a massive amount of passive observation...

Anyone seen which way the topic went?

Yes the only way to stop terrorism is to stop the causes, which is impractical for the most part.

 

[TeeJay]

What you do first and foremost, as Badger Kitten has pointed out, is to stop creating the conditions that produce people who are prepared to carry out such acts. Before the invasion of Iraq there is no credible evidence that people from a british background were planning suicide attacks within these islands. Otherwise there will be no escape from another 7/7 sooner or later.

People from a whole range of countries not involved in Iraq have been murdered by Islamist terrorists over the last decade. I slamist terroriats will probably keep killing people until eit6her they have got everything they or until their support dries up because some other political movement offers solutions to the underlying problems that sympathisers are most angry about. Simply not being involved with Iraq would not make British people safe.

 

[free spirit]

Simply not being involved with Iraq would not make British people safe.

yeah, but it would have made us safer...

 

[laptop]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only way of preventing suicide bomb attacks is to stop them hating you so much.

Aye.

Meanwhile, I haven't read the ST story yet but my reading of Monday's Times folo is that it's a straight-up MI5 funding request.

Edired to add: now I have, and there's nothing to contradict the idea that the motivation of whichever spooks talked to Leppard was a funding request. Nor, for that matter, that it's a bizarre kind of public reassurance and/or self-congratulation - "well, actually, we did have tabs on them... if only..."

If it develops toward the self-congratulation line I'll be suspecting internecine warfare within the security services - nay, hoping for it, because that's how things get opened up. (Even if there's an inquiry, spooks will reveal to it only what serves their personal or sectional interests... if it's held in say 2045 then those personal interests will include dying with a less-grimy conscience and it'll reveal more than one now ever would.)

He clearly put a lot more work into it than Evans did into the Monday follow-up though.

Not looking good for whoever lied to Charles Clarke though - too much to hope that he'll be sent off for lying to Parliament and us:

Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said at the time of the bombings that they had “simply come out of the blue”. Security officials said the suicide bombers were “clean skins” — men not previously known to the intelligence services.