Sunday, December 17, 2006

M15 Chief Quits

...see here. Rumour has it - and now the Mail says it, so I can write about it - that new information into how many times the July 7 bombers came across the radar of the intelligence services before they bombed will be out soon, maybe in the New Year. Up to eight times is the whisper I heard - ( officially it is five at the moment). How, for example, they were filmed and taped driving around in a bugged vehicle for two months in 2004, talking, planning, discussing, plotting ...

I hear that the explanation or excuse given again (if and) when the report comes out will be that the bombers were recorded talking about fund-raising fraud to support jihad, rather then actual jihadi bombings, on British soil or elsewhere. And that was why they were not followed more closely by ''overstretched'' security services at the time. But nonetheless, Khan and Tanweer, two of the bombers were known to security services. Listened in to. Known about. Monitored. And not stopped. Meanwhile, Germaine Lindsey's mobile number was even known to the security services, we're told. He killed 26 people on my train, injured over 300.

M15 had the July 7 bombers in their sights. But didn't stop them. Why?

The July 7 bombers were ''peripheral figures'' to another intelligence operation- then they fell through the gaps and the operational crevices (google it) as more attention was being paid to a different plot.

(*The timing of the busting of that plot is interesting too. Rumour has it the Americans pushed for a pounce a little too soon...but what do I know?)

Well, the trial relating to that matter will end soon, and reporting restrictions will be off...

And we shall see whether, once the first alleged plotters, (the ones that M15 were concentrating on when they didn't book the 7/7 crew), were busted, their associates/brothers in Jihad went onto ''Plan B''. Hmmm. Hmmm again
Perhaps they applied the learnings of the failed operation? - no big vehicle bomb for the July 7 crew, no big-bang spectacular using huge amounts of explosives; instead moving to a new, smarter plan. Smaller, home-made(?) bombs, light enough to be carried in rucksacks by four more young zealots, including at least two young men whose names were known, whose ideaology was known, whose faces, movements, addresses, phone numbers, conversations were known... but who were not stopped by the security services... moving easily through the crowds of commuters, caught on as-yet-unreleased-CCTV - undetected...ready to do their deadly work.

52 dead. Over 800 injured. One summer's morning that I and others can't forget.

Interesting, then that Eliza Manningham Buller resigned a few weeks before the publication of an expected report...

See today's Sunday Times...

''Sources said she had decided to quit in anticipation that she might be asked to resign over blunders concerning last year’s July 7 bombings.''

And, I note, feeling nauseous, note how her leaving was announced on a day where a very great deal of bad news was already being disgracefully buried. See Iain Dale, Blairwatch, Chicken Yoghurt and A Big Stick And A Small Carrot to get an idea of the sense of outrage in blogland over a day where corruption, scandal, and much else besides was covered with reports about dead women: Diana and the murdered, marginalised women of the Ipswich streets.

Psssst....Do you want to look awfully prescient? Sign this, now, before everyone gets on the bandwagon.

Really. You won't regret it.

Wait and see. And please, pass this on. Thank you.
UPDATE: Nosemonkey sniffed it out first, Morning Star , NotSaussure and NetherWorld pick it up and Blairwatch is on it too, (though beset by conspiraloons in the comments, sadly, which is one of the reasons I've stuck comment moderator back on.)

36 Comments:

Blogger Leighton Cooke said...

So M is gone yet the poodle is still squatting Number 10. When's he going to be evicted?

December 17, 2006 5:47 pm  
Anonymous The Morningstar said...

Disturbing news, I wondered at the timing of her announcement of impending retirement, slipping out as it did on Thursday.

I'll post linking to this and the other blog I noticed that mentioned her going.

December 17, 2006 9:14 pm  
Blogger jailhouselawyer said...

Dame Eliza Dolittle-Mainwaring-Bullshit is to resign. I hope the next in line has another name I can take the piss out of!

December 17, 2006 10:22 pm  
Anonymous RK said...

You have little understanding of Islamism or counter terrorism in the UK otherwise you’d not have made such a flippant post. Being on the periphery of a big investigation like Crevice means very little, you cannot charge someone for being mates with a terrorist nor can you expect an organisation with a staff of 3000 to follow up with labour intensive surveillance, phone tapping etc. on everyone who is supportive of jihads overseas.

What is inconsistent in this blog is that you criticise the government for being authoritarian and yet you then expect the Security Service to investigate thoroughly everyone that ever “comes across its radar”. An expectation that would need an order of magnitude increase in resources for MI5 as well as an understanding that the burden of proof required for intrusive privacy destroying surveillance would fall through the floor.

You cannot have it both ways.

Eliza was warning of a terrorist attack because she knew the impossibility of chasing down every potential attacker. Eventually a plot would slip through the net. I’d like to suggest you do a bit of research into the Madrid attacks if you need more proof of this. The cell that carried out the attack was under surveillance before the attacks were launched. The switchover from jihad fundraisers to terrorist bombers took the Spanish completely by surprise. That 7/7 happened is a tragedy but not a surprise and nor is a signal that the Security Service is negligent or failing. The ration of plots foiled against attacks implemented still looks very good. What we do not need now is a blame game public enquiry.

December 18, 2006 10:42 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

RK

If you think I am beiong 'flippant' either in writing this post, or having spent 14 months campaigning and taking quite a lot of flak for asking for public inquiry, you are very much mistaken. The desire for an inquiry, as I have repeatedly said is not about blame.

You are extremely 'on-message' in your comments, I note: are you one of my several Home Office readers?

I object to peace protesters being arrested under anti-terror laws. I object to unneccessary draconian legislation being passed in the name of protecting us from terror, when it does no such thing and is an assault on ancient liberties and freedoms we cherish. I support good, non-politicised, co-operative intelligence as the only way to win against criminal plots by murderous extremists. I decry tactics which alientate the moderate mainstream, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims like me.

I do have a problem with Khan getting through the net, given what was known about him, where he travelled to, who he was in contact with, where he went and what he had learned and how long he had been a supporter of extremist jihad. However, and I am not going to go into detail here about exactly what I know until a certain trial is ended.

Then, you'll see...

December 18, 2006 11:33 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

'The switchover from jihad fundraisers to terrorist bombers took the Spanish completely by surprise.'

So, you'd have thought it would be something the UK could learn from, no?

And any ideas why Eliza MB DID suddenly announce her departure on the busiest news Thursday for months, a few months before the report is due out widely expected to criticise the security services performance in relation to 7/7?

I'm not saying it is possible to stop all plots. I am saying it is possible to miss massive clues in the case of 7/7 and for the security services to be politicised. See Dossier, Dodgy.

December 18, 2006 11:37 am  
Anonymous Dave Ware said...

7/7 was either allowed to happen or planned from the inside, that's why they weren't apprehended. Patsies are always required. And as for the "over-stretched" security services, how come we can afford to free up personnel to waste their time in Russia looking for Polonium 210, when the Russians have already said that they weren't going to co-operate?

Questions, questions, always questions...

December 18, 2006 12:32 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Oh God,. not the conspiracy theories again. I don't think it was a LIHOP or a MIHOP at all. I am sure it was 4 murderous bombers - Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey, Hussein - with a murderous political/religious agenda, and I find talk of 'patsies' quite offensive. Any more conspiracy theory stuff will not be published. Cock up, yes,quite possibly, conspiracy no. Please go elsewhere if you want to discuss that sort of thing

December 18, 2006 1:00 pm  
Anonymous Rohen said...

Oh gosh that bit about Dame whatsherface really did get buried I didnt twig until I read your blog today Rachel.. Having said that I've thought about writing something aswell God knows Ive got enough stories.

Before I found out who had died Rachel and on the morning of the 7th I posted this somewhere else See what you think

"I do think that the timing is important but I do hope that these bombs are not used by anyone to further any kind of statement whether that be by the bombers themselves or by governments seeking to reduce civil liberties further due to these events."

Along with

"You only have to look at what the USA did in the wake of 9/11 vis a vis the Homeland security act and the rushing through of years worth of paper in one week and the consequent destruction of half the civil liberties in the USA to see how these events can be used

The Homeland security act if translated into german is very reminiscent of Nazi germany

And its happening right now in the US

This is the equivalent of 9/11 for the UK

enjoy your civil liberties whilst you can"

December 18, 2006 1:14 pm  
Anonymous RK said...

Flippant may be a bit harsh and I didn’t mean to denigrate you or your campaign even though I don’t support it. What I mean is that you appear not to appreciate (a) how many staff it takes to run a large intrusive operation (b) how despite all the modern methods there can still be gaps in coverage (c) how security awareness amongst criminals/terrorists means that their plans are well concealed (d) how the number of people who “cross the radar” grows exponentially with the coverage and duration of an operation and (e) just how many Muslims in the UK ideologically or actively support overseas Jihad. You take news that MI5 were aware of one of the bombers and turn this around to suggest that they must therefore be aware of their intentions without considering the points above. It is this conclusion that I meant to call flippant. Especially when only last month you suggested that the “threat is exaggerated” therefore implying that extra resources would be disproportionate.

The lesson of Madrid was learned. It was that you will not be able to stop every plot. Stand off coverage of a known group will only tell you so much and if that group are professional and organised then you’ll get no warning. That lesson is why you will so often see stories of arrests and much fewer about trials and charges. To delay in the face of uncertainty is to risk attack but you also limit the chance to collect evidence and intelligence. The timing of arrest is always a balance between these competing desires and in an operation as large and serious as Crevice there is bound to be debate.

P.S. I’m not Home Office. I may sound ‘on-message’ but this is what I truly believe.

December 18, 2006 1:52 pm  
Anonymous Numeral said...

Hmmm. Hmmm again

Rachel, I've read those links. The Scotsman article talks about a "Mohammed Kayoun Khan" whose age was not the same as MSK's. I am not convinced that MSK was picked up at all during Operation Crevice.

December 18, 2006 1:52 pm  
Anonymous RK said...

Flippant may be a bit harsh and I didn’t mean to denigrate you or your campaign even though I don’t support it. What I mean is that you appear not to appreciate (a) how many staff it takes to run a large intrusive operation (b) how despite all the modern methods there can still be gaps in coverage (c) how security awareness amongst criminals/terrorists means that their plans are well concealed (d) how the number of people who “cross the radar” grows exponentially with the coverage and duration of an operation and (e) just how many Muslims in the UK ideologically or actively support overseas Jihad. You take news that MI5 were aware of one of the bombers and turn this around to suggest that they must therefore be aware of their intentions without considering the points above. It is this conclusion that I meant to call flippant. Especially when only last month you suggested that the “threat is exaggerated” therefore implying that extra resources would be disproportionate.

The lesson of Madrid was learned. It was that you will not be able to stop every plot. Stand off coverage of a known group will only tell you so much and if that group are professional and organised then you’ll get no warning. That lesson is why you will so often see stories of arrests and much fewer about trials and charges. To delay in the face of uncertainty is to risk attack but you also limit the chance to collect evidence and intelligence. The timing of arrest is always a balance between these competing desires and in an operation as large and serious as Crevice there is bound to be debate.

P.S. I may sound ‘on-message’ but this is what I truly believe. I’m not Home Office. I woundn't mind telling you my background but I'd rather not advertise it on the web.

December 18, 2006 1:54 pm  
Blogger Mnemosyne said...

Well E M-B's going was certainly successfully buried. I consider myself a fairly thorough newspaper reader and the first I learn of it is on notsaussure's blog (whose link I followed here.)

December 18, 2006 5:41 pm  
Blogger Gridlock said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 18, 2006 6:18 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Sorry - I don't think details like that can be discussed until after the trial, Gridlock...about assets, monitoring and specific names.

December 18, 2006 6:27 pm  
Anonymous Gridlock said...

'Would that be the [name removed] arrest, the one the US pushed to get out there earlier than perhaps was best?

Wasn't he being developed as an assest by MI5 at the time? Or at least closely monitored?'

(NB: I've put Gridlock's post back up but with name removed for legal reasons - RN)

December 18, 2006 6:29 pm  
Blogger Numeral said...

So, rk, we meet again.

What's your reaction to my doubt that MSK, the teaching assistant mentor, was actually picked up by Operation Crevice, rather than some other bloke with a vaguely similar name? The Yank supergrass looks to me to have a provocateur from the word go. But I guess you don't go for that sort of stuff.

There is some sort of story about when most of the alleged perps were last seen alive. But regarding MSK, who last saw him alive?

Was he, as I have read somewhere or other, recruited by M15 at some point?

How little we know.

December 19, 2006 12:14 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you keep saying 52 people died? I would have you thought you of all people would be aware that 56 had died, actually?

-MDB

December 19, 2006 2:31 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

MDB - Because one of the bereaved families contacted me and said they would prefer me to refer to it as 52 died or were murdered, and not to refer to the bomber's suicides, and I respect their wish.

December 19, 2006 8:38 am  
Anonymous RK said...

Hello Numeral,

You make it sound like I’m your nemesis in a bond villain kind of way. I hope that’s not the case.

I cannot comment on the specifics but I would say that you’ve highlighted a perennial problem of this kind of work. It is difficult definitively proving that two individuals are the same when many of them will change their names, dates of birth etc. depending on their environment. Information is often scarce and photographs will not always be available. Provocateurs do exist but I do not believe that there are any in this case. Court cases are seriously undermined by that kind of thing and we would not have got this far had it been so.

December 19, 2006 12:32 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But you of all people stand for the truth, don't you? I mean, I respect the wishes of the person you mention. but the truth is the truth. We can't start bending the truth even if we think we're justified, that leads to ruin! Our duty should be to uphold the truth. And the truth, no matter how much anyone hates it, is that 56 people died that horrible day.

-MDB

December 19, 2006 12:58 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

52 people died, killed by 4 bombers. You will perhaps see why I am more concerned with 52 innocent people than 4 murderers who turned themselves into bombs?

And its all about context: I am quite clearly talking about the victims, not the murderers.

52 deaths, 800 injuries as a result of 4 bombs: when I write about the victims of July 7 I do not include the murderers in the same breath as the victims, and if you note how most peopel refer to it, you will see that is the norm.

It is quite obvious that there 56 fatalities as a result of the bombings , but I am do not think it appropriate to class the murderers in the same bracket as the victims, frankly. In cases of suicide-homicide, that is the norm. See any suicide-bombing discussion/news report, Dunblane, Columbine &c.

I do get the feeling this is a wind up of some sort, and one in extremely poor taste, so apologies for not wanting to continue this line of discussion

December 19, 2006 1:09 pm  
Blogger kobwebby said...

When in doubt…Panic!

Well that’s what government does. That and twist, lie, fabricate and obfuscate pertinent issues.

Or, impose sweeping radical changes to our already draconian legal system.

Or even go around shooting innocent people to show how tough on terror we are, (strange sense of oxymoron encountered).

Or arrest people that object to government policy, under the latest shiny new anti-terror initiatives.

Hmmm, now let me see…arrest pensioner because he is wearing anti Blair t-shirt… or arrest woman for reading out names of dead soldiers at cenotaph!
Or ermm, arrest someone for staring at a building in a menacing manner… hmmmm, that should keep the nasty fanatical jihadists away shouldn’t it!

Or we could wheel out the latest blood-curdling terror alert to tell us how much danger we are in, and how the people at home office are doing such a grand job working day and night protecting the freedoms that government is fervently eradicating…(incoming oxymoron)…

Or… we could just leave our borders open!

Or…. we could just slaughter a million innocent people in some faraway country to liberate them from a murderous despot?!? Oh, and their oil.

Or... we could illegally sell mountains of weapons of mass destruction to the highest bidder on the pretext making billions of pounds prof... er.. national security!
(oxymoron fest here!)

By now, we surely must have lost all moral credibility on the world stage.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1040476,00.html

December 19, 2006 2:18 pm  
Blogger kobwebby said...

When in doubt…Panic!

Well that’s what government does. That and twist, lie, fabricate and obfuscate pertinent issues.

Or, impose sweeping radical changes to our already draconian legal system.

Or even go around shooting innocent people to show how tough on terror we are, (strange sense of oxymoron encountered).

Or arrest people that object to government policy, under the latest shiny new anti-terror initiatives.

Hmmm, now let me see…arrest pensioner because he is wearing anti Blair t-shirt… or arrest woman for reading out names of dead soldiers at cenotaph!
Or ermm, arrest someone for staring at a building in a menacing manner… hmmmm, that should keep the nasty fanatical jihadists away shouldn’t it!

Or we could wheel out the latest blood-curdling terror alert to tell us how much danger we are in, and how the people at home office are doing such a grand job working day and night protecting the freedoms that government is fervently eradicating…(incoming oxymoron)…

Or… we could just leave our borders open!

Or…. we could just slaughter a million innocent people in some faraway country to liberate them from a murderous despot?!? Oh, and their oil.

Or... we could illegally sell mountains of weapons of mass destruction to the highest bidder on the pretext making billions of pounds prof... er.. national security!
(oxymoron fest here!)

By now, we surely must have lost all moral credibility on the world stage.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1040476,00.html

December 19, 2006 2:18 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rachel said...
Oh God,. not the conspiracy theories again.....Please go elsewhere if you want to discuss that sort of thing


Somewhere like the Houses of Parliament perhaps....., where Dr. John Reid used the very term in his explaining away the leaked information in the Sunday Times report of 14th May 2006.

(Conspiracy theorist) Dr John Red said in the House of Commons debate on Monday, 15 May 2006, upon being asked about the prior surveillance of Mohammed Siddique Khan and Sheznad Tanweer....

"that they had been peripheral to another investigation, that the decision had been made because they were peripheral, and that it would be a wrong judgment to use resources and assets to pursue them rather than the main characters in the main conspiracy that was being pursued."

The main conspiracy that was being pursued was, of course, that being monitored/directed/pursued under Operation Crevice.

A conspiracy indeed, particularly with reports such as this flying around (on the day after the original Crevice arrests in March 2004- perhaps before the media got On Message).

December 19, 2006 5:49 pm  
Blogger Numeral said...

Hi rk

My main focus is Khan at the moment. He seems to have fallen off the radar on or before December 2004. Do you know of any sightings of him since then? It was reported that he moved to 69 Lees Holm,
Dewsbury but Kirklees Council records do not show that he was a tenant there.

"... in his 30s; 10 Thornhill Park Avenue in Dewsbury, and 69 Lees Holm, Dewsbury Road, where Hasina Patel lived with her husband, Rashid Facha. ..."
The Guardian

The name of Khan's wife was Hasina Patel, by all reports. Whether she is the same Hasina Patel as mentioned above is doubtful.

It is interesting to do an web search for Rashid Sacha, not Facha. It turns up a link to a Mexican publication.

The Google translated report can be found at z13. Here is the original link. What is interesting is that it describes a journey from Leeds to Luton on GNER who do not service Luton.

I would be very grateful if someone could provide a better translation.

December 19, 2006 9:53 pm  
Anonymous RK said...

Numeral,

That MSK was seen on December 2004 and then not afterwards does not necessarily mean that he went into hiding or anything. All that you can be sure is that he drifted off the edge of whatever operation he’d been sighted on. Although in this case there may have been a behavioural change that was significant.

The lack of a council record shows exactly the point I was making above. Frankly it proves nothing. Either MSK used a false name, took up the identity of a friend already living there (i.e. paid the rent as if he were him) or perhaps was just an unofficial lodger. Perhaps he became of no fixed abode and stayed with various friends over a period of time. The name on the electricity bill or the address his mobile was registered to are all evidence but only circumstantial. As someone preparing to execute a terrorist attack you can expect the level of security undertaken to increase and for him to adopt a more anonymous lifestyle. Therefore I find the lack of a definitive record of his residence completely to be expected. I’d also expect to find conflicting accounts of where he may have stayed. This is speculation on my part but I’d expect to see something like a bank account registered to one address (probably an old address given the greater level of data they require) and a mobile to another (probably a friends address) without any other evidence that he was resident at those addresses.

This may seem like a self defeating thing to say but I’d council against ‘researching’ a topic like this on the internet using press reports and name variations. While there is a lot of information out there, there is also a lot of speculative crap. A high proportion of terrorist reporting in the MSM is bollocks. Spotting the wheat from the chaff without knowing a little beforehand is next to impossible. If you believe everything at face value you’ll quickly find yourself running in circles.

An example of this is contained in the post above where someone gives credence to a risible report claiming that MI5 told an impressionable young man on the cusp of radicalism that a year in Pakistan would be a good thing.

December 21, 2006 10:09 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rk,

"Spotting the wheat from the chaff without knowing a little beforehand is next to impossible. If you believe everything at face value you’ll quickly find yourself running in circles."

Very true indeed. A lot of the 'War on Terror' reporting is devoid of any serious case analysis & purposefully intent on getting people interested in serious research to be quickly running in circles.

The early Times report of April 01, 2004 quoted was not written by 'on-message' Times reporter Sean O’Neill & suggests a number of uncomfortable connections/involvement* of Mi5 to the Operation Crevice lot.

You & I know that this* is an embarrassment to the UK Security Services, & indeed is the subject of Rachel's post.

What are we to do then, take all 'War on Terror' reporting as complete bollocks, including the initial scare stories associated with Operation Crevice (e.g. bombing Bluewater Shopping Centre, Ministry of Sound night club, football matches etc.), or just ignore the incongruities that are apparent & say well, whatever they're (SIS) up to, it's done all for Queen & country?

December 21, 2006 11:48 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rk
"This may seem like a self defeating thing to say but I’d council against ‘researching’ a topic like this on the internet using press reports and name variations."

It's strange then that Rashid Sacha also married a Hasina Patel. And when the media were giving out Hasina's age it was '23', '27' or '23 or 27'. Sacha's Hasina Patel is the 23 year old and Khan's Hasina Patel is the one aged 27. So how come press reports have the right ages and the right couple if they bear no relation to the events?

"The lack of a council record shows exactly the point I was making above. Frankly it proves nothing. Either MSK used a false name, took up the identity of a friend already living there (i.e. paid the rent as if he were him) or perhaps was just an unofficial lodger. Perhaps he became of no fixed abode and stayed with various friends over a period of time"

Since the name Rashid Sacha is known to exist in the Leeds area, it's unlikely that the media pulled it out of nowhere. It was Khan's documents at the crime scenes that connected the alleged bombers with each other and back to Leeds, so was it Sacha's name on the tenancy agreement?

Rashid Sacha, who was born in Darlaston/Walsall also provides the second 7/7 link to the Aisha Azmi case. His father Mufti Yusuf Sacha, was the one who advised Aisha Azmi to wear the veil in the first place. Sheikh Hashim Sacha is also loosely connected with Aisha Azmi.

-Daniel Guzman

December 21, 2006 12:40 pm  
Anonymous Rk said...

First anonymous:

For starters the Times report you link to is clearly bollocks. There may be a grain or two of truth (MI5 may well have approached the man) but the claimed content of this contact is ridiculous and risible.

The high rate of nonsense is not a deliberate obfuscation (if you believe that then you probably buy into wider conspiracy theories) but a predictable outcome of the fact that this is press reporting on the secret world of national security and the press sell more with this kind of story. In this area all but the most offensive reporting of made-up cobblers will be met with official silence in the classic and sensible “neither confirm nor deny” style. Leakers of stories are often not in possession of all the facts and even well-intentioned reporting can end up wildly off beam. So yes if I were you I would ignore almost all “scare” stories that are not taken from court proceedings or do not have a government / police official openly backing them up. The ‘incongruities’ only arise if you accept all the press reporting as fact or, as Rachel did, arrive at what I consider an unreasonable conclusion based on some widely reported information.

Daniel.
I’m not familiar with this particular line of enquiry and I was not commenting on it specifically in my post. I was making a general statement on the difficulty of retrospectively identifying this kind of information, especially if someone is intent on muddying the waters.

December 21, 2006 1:28 pm  
Blogger PbPhil said...

Rachel you said

"M15 had the July 7 bombers in their sights. But didn't stop them. Why?

The July 7 bombers were ''peripheral figures'' to another intelligence operation- then they fell through the gaps and the operational crevices (google it) as more attention was being paid to a different plot."

If true thats quite scary...does it mean they stopped the potential attacks they thought were "central" as opposed to "peripheral" and were luckily too "big" to fall through the cracks? Perhaps if MI5 published their "successes" we'd have a measure of what is actually happening.

Or is our western security service guilty of complacent thought, that "it can never happen here".....well it obviously did and if they had tabs the bombers then they should have stopped them.

December 22, 2006 10:40 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For starters the Times report you link to is clearly bollocks"

rk, How can you be sure of that?

Other reports:
MI5 missed six chances to stop 7/7 bombings

Mohammed Siddique Khan featured in surveillance operation carried out by intelligence services, BBC told

Newsweek Report 13/2/06 - London Intel: Into the 'Crevice'

Spies ‘hid’ bomber tape from MPs - Sunday Times 14/5/06

John Reid, House of Commons 11th May 2006, admitting prior surveilance of Khan & Tanweer

What are your views of the reports that Mohammed Siddique Khan met Mohammed Junaid Babar (the key 'supergrass' prosecution witness in the current 'Operation Crevice' trial) ?

December 23, 2006 1:59 pm  
Anonymous RK said...

Pbphil,

The Security Service was aware that the probability of a terrorist attack in the UK was high. In fact the quote that it was a matter of “when, not if” was often said before 7/7. Try this http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000978.php to see one example from 2004. So to say that the UK was complacent because they believed it could never happen here is clearly wrong. This was precisely because they knew of the difficulty of chasing down every lead.

Anon,

You asked how I can be sure your times report was bollocks. For two reasons. First that no British law enforcement or crown agency can order a British citizen out of the country, nor for that matter can they order any other national out without deportation proceedings. So the first reason it’s bollocks is that even after apparently involving a lawyer they still felt they had to leave the country on MI5’s instructions. Any lawyer worth their salt would have just told MI5 to piss off and advised their client to stay put.

The second reason is that if MI5 were to advise someone to leave the country to stop them falling into the hands of extremists the absolute last place they would ever suggest would be Pakistan. Pakistan in 2000 was a haven for terrorists and extremists. It was a stop on the route to Afghanistan where Al Qaida were firmly based, training hard and assisting the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance. Pakistan was the main recruiting ground for Taliban, Al Qaida and all the Kashmiri groups. So a young man vulnerable to the siren call of extremism would not be asked to spend a year there. For all it’s terrors Crawley is still a better place to be.

I could try and come up with more but I think those two reasons are so compelling that I’m amazed the journalist thought this tripe credible enough to report. For why they get away with this kind of nonsense see my earlier post.

The rest of your post is a collection of the argument that MI5 had sight of some of the 7/7 bombers and therefore should have acted. There is compelling evidence that some of the bombers were “known” but only in a tangential partial way. Believe it or not but being the contact/friend of a terrorist is not enough to warrant a massive investigation into them. My argument has always been that that isn’t enough to say that they must have known what was about happen for reasons I’ve spelt out above.

Your specific question on Baber and Khan. It may well be true but so what? Is everyone Baber has ever met a terrorist? Did Khan tell Baber what he planned to do? Did Baber tell the FBI on arrest? Had the FBI et al known Baber and Khan had met back in 2004 this would not have in itself proven anything.

I'm not saying the law enforcement agencies in this country are perfect and that this attack could not have been stoped. I just think some of the anger is misplaced and the suggestions of complacency and worse are based in ignorance and completely unfair.

Anyway. I'll not be on the net again for a few days. Merry Christmas.

December 23, 2006 7:48 pm  
Blogger Numeral said...

rk
I think you have misread the Times article. Omar Khayam was in Pakistan in 2000. The tickets were for 6 April 2004.

December 28, 2006 1:19 am  
Anonymous RK said...

You're right. The apparently legally enforceable "advice" to leave the country for Pakistan was in 2004 not 2000. My points on why this is cobblers still stand however.

January 02, 2007 11:00 am  
Blogger beachhutman said...

One orphaned article on intel matters may be found at www.msbnews.co.uk and going to the archive and clicking on the A-Z section under "Alice in Wonderland"

February 24, 2007 11:08 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home