The Unthinkable (regarding domestic terrorism)

Are present US and UK policies on domestic terror based on calculated neglect?

  • Yes, there's good evidence indicating so.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Yes, it's possible; the evidence raises suspicions.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • No, not likely, there is more good evidence against this proposal.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • No, it's unthinkable; not even remotely possible; at worst, simple stupidity

    Votes: 4 36.4%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
At some point, the unthinkable thought dawns on one, about the 'war on terror' *applied to the domestic situation*, esp. in its GWB [US] and Tony Blair [UK] phase. Maybe it's a sham. Maybe the 'warriors on terror' essentially work in synchrony with terrorists and vice versa. Sort of like the Drug Enforcement people and the Colombian cartels. Consider: Are the break-out events--like 7-07-- of benefit to both sides? This is the question, "Who benefits?". Isn't it Blair?

So as a convenient starting point for this possible sham policy, let's say, 9-11. But of course earlier starting points are plausible including the first WTC bombing.

Reading the story below, as one piece of the puzzle, can one conclude calculated neglect? or merely colossal indifference.



British Gov't Under Fire Over Bomber Probe
By BETH GARDINER, AP ONLINE

LONDON (AP) - Criticism of the British government grew Monday over the revelation that the vaunted domestic intelligence service did not detain one of the London attackers last year after linking him to a suspect in an alleged plot by other Britons of Pakistani descent to explode a truck bomb in the capital.


An evening newspaper with the headline story of the three suspects of Londons suicide bombing, Monday. (AP)

The MI5 found itself under fire as new information emerged Monday about the bombers' connection with Pakistan: Two of the suspects traveled together to the southern city of Karachi last November and returned to London in February. A third bomber went to the same city last July.

The British intelligence service reportedly did not find Mohammad Sidique Khan - who was checked out in connection with the alleged bomb plot last year - to be a threat to national security and failed to put him under surveillance.

The Home Office, which speaks for MI5, declined to comment on the suggestion that agents had dropped a crucial lead, or on reports that a Briton of Pakistani origin suspected of links to al-Qaida had entered the country two to three weeks before the attack and flown out the day before.

If true, ``this would indeed be evidence of an enormous failure,'' said Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst and former counterterrorism intelligence officer.

Despite the criticism, the government has not launched any investigations into why the security services did not pick up the London bombers before July 7, when the attackers blew up three London subways and a double-decker bus, killing 56 people.

``All the political parties are agreed that the right course at the moment is to focus on what further steps need to be taken in relation to the law but also getting to the root of that evil ideology that is driving this terrorism,'' Charles Falconer, the lord chancellor, told the BBC. ``Now is not the time for any form of inquiry.''

Critics acknowledged that intelligence officials face a tricky task in choosing how to allocate their resources for tasks like surveillance.

Nonetheless, ``had the assessment of the available intelligence regarding Khan been different, so might also have been the outcome of July the 7th,'' Shoebridge said.

According to The Independent and other British newspapers, British intelligence reportedly found that Khan, 30, had visited the home of a man linked to an alleged plot to blow up a London target, possibly a Soho nightclub, with a fertilizer bomb.

In that investigation, detectives arrested eight suspects across southern England in March 2004 and seized a half ton of ammonium nitrate, a chemical fertilizer used in many bomb attacks.

The eight suspects were to go to trial this year. But given the July 7 attacks, the trial may be delayed, Scotland Yard told The Associated Press.

John Carnt, a former Scotland Yard detective superintendent with expertise in counterterrorism and covert surveillance, said intelligence agencies are so bombarded with information it can be hard to home in on an individual.

Khan's ``might have been one name amidst many other names, and there may have been nothing else that added weight to it,'' said Carnt, now managing director of Vance International Ltd., a London-based security and intelligence company. ``You've got bits of information coming across your desk. It can be difficult to identify which bit to pay closer attention to.''

Khan traveled to Karachi in November with fellow bomber Shahzad Tanweer, 22, said Shahid Hayyat, deputy director at Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency. Hasib Hussain, the 18-year-old bus bomber, went to the same city in July.

The purpose of their visits was unclear. All three were born in Britain to Pakistani parents, but their ancestral country is also home to al-Qaida and other extremist Muslim groups.

Pakistani intelligence officials have said Tanweer stayed briefly at a religious school and met with a member of an outlawed militant group. Pakistani intelligence agents have questioned students, teachers and administrators at the school in Lahore, and at least two other al-Qaida-linked radical Islamic centers.

NBC News reported Monday that Western intelligence officials told the network that an al-Qaida operative in U.S. custody, Mohammed Junad Babar, told interrogators he took Kahn to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan during a previous visit.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair was set to meet with Muslim leaders, along with political officials, to try to forge a common, united front against Islamic extremism. Conservative party leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy were to attend.

The Sunday Times, quoting unidentified American officials, said U.S. intelligence had warned Britain that the fourth July 7 bomber, Jamaican-born Germaine Lindsay, 19, was on a terror watch list but MI5 failed to monitor him.

However, a U.S. law enforcement official told the AP on Monday he was unaware that Lindsay was on any U.S. lists of known or suspected terrorists. American authorities are reviewing intelligence and interviewing people already in custody to determine any connection to the bombers, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

The best leads in the case so far had come from a combination of old-fashioned detective work and modern technology, with little apparent out-front assistance from the intelligence services, Shoebridge said.

Detectives identified the four suspected bombers within days of the attacks by scouring the bomb sites for physical clues and scrutinizing closed-circuit television footage. Crucial help came from Hussain's distraught mother, who phoned police to report her son missing.

Investigators hope to track down leads that will help them crack the network that aided - and perhaps recruited - the four bombers.

They expect more forensic evidence to come from the bombing sites and the homes they have raided in Leeds, northern England, home base of three of the suspects. Authorities are also questioning a man they have arrested.

``This investigation is in some respects going in reverse,'' Carnt said. ``They actually know who did it, and now they're tracing back to learn who their associates were, who they met with, where they socialized.''

Detectives reportedly found nine bombs in a car left at a train station parking lot in Luton, the hometown of Lindsay. They have also reportedly uncovered extremist literature in the Leeds homes and another residence in Aylesbury, northwest of London, and are examining computers seized from those houses.

Police in Leeds continued their investigation of an Islamic book shop, the Iqra Learning Centre. Tanweer and Hussain both lived in Leeds, as did biochemist Magdy Mahmoud Mustafa el-Nashar, a former Leeds University instructor arrested in Egypt as part of the investigation.

Egypt's leading pro-government newspaper, Al-Ahram, quoted an unidentified security source as saying el-Nashar told investigators he rented a house to Hussain. British police searched el-Nashar's Leeds home after reportedly finding traces of explosives in his bathtub.

El-Nashar reportedly has denied involvement in the London bombings, and Egyptian security officials have said the country is not prepared to hand him over to Britain.

07/18/05 20:46 EDT
 
There was a lot of sinister corporate / Jewish / Pentagon activity woven up in the 9/11 web. I haven't decided about the London bombing yet, though.

Does anyone else find it disturbing that Mossad knew there was something going down that day and shut the Israeli embassy in London without bothering to warn anyone else?

Definitely a lot more to this than meets the eye. MI5 aren't usually so slack.
 
You mean the British intelligence?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
 
MI5 cannot watch everyone. Britain is not run by Big Brother and we cannot spy on all of our citizens. MI5 has probably refused to watch several people whom the Americans might consider dangerous on flimsy evidence. Most of these people have turned out to be harmless and MI5 vindicated in watching more dangerous people.

The terrorists only have to be lucky once though.

The Earl
 
I don't even go with the simple stupidity idea.

The only way that you can stop terrorists every time is to have a police system similar to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Something huge, rather less than careful and with tools at their disposal that are unpleasant at best and unethical at worst.

I'll bet that if you check the day the bombers returned from Pakistan that you'll find they were just one of hundreds that did so. Do all of these people become suspects?

Considering how rarely terrorist acts happen in the West at the current time, I don't think we're doing too badly.
 
look at it this way. given a certain foreign policy agenda *unrelated to terrorism* but related to security, power, resource control, isn't it rather handy to have some domestic 'incidents' to cite as supposed 'reasons we are in [going into]...'

note to RG: it's not just visiting Pakistan but meeting radicals, at radical schools or mosques, etc. does not the British/US ally of Pakistan know who the radicals and preachers of hate are? how about watching *them* and seeing which British, etc. muslim young men turn up on their doorsteps? (ignoring this might be understandable pre 9-11, Lindh, 'shoe bomber' etc.).

note to sheherezade: i believe the Mossad is the only 'western' intelligence agency with agents in at least some radical groups. CIA ,MI5, have not bothered to get off their asses in their offices. one could ask the question, in which cases is it in the Mossad's interests(objectives) to warn the Brits or Americans?
 
Last edited:
If you detain every suspect and hold him indefintely, terror will go down. By simple odds, you will get a few here and there who are or were planning on becoming terrorists. But unless you are willing to invest in a system of Gulags and people being dissappeared, it's impracticeable.

It does not surprise me Mossad may have had good intel something was about to happen. Of all the democracies, they are the only ones I know of who have credible human intelligence operatives placed where they might get word. I don't doubt they also passed the info on. I do doubt however, they would be willing to reveal their sources to Us/UK politicians. Which is probably why they took action and no one else did.

You have to be realistic. If you have a good inside source, would YOU be willing to trust Tony, Georgie, Rummy and the rest to keep their yaps shut about him? I wouldn't.
 
good points colly. btw it's not necessary to *intern every suspect, but some might be watched.

in accord with the gist of this thread, i believe it's well known that the "Patriot Act" was, in pieces, lying around for some time. 9-11 gave it an opening, so the pieces could be cobbled together and 'sold' as response.

likewise there's some evidence Iraq was on the hit list before 9-11.

it's nice that the public, if hit by group X, doesn't particularly care if it's country Y or Z that's hit in retaliation (even if they're unconnected).

anybody hear of congressman Conyer's plan to hit Mecca?
 
Pure said:
good points colly. btw it's not necessary to *intern every suspect, but some might be watched.

in accord with the gist of this thread, i believe it's well known that the "Patriot Act" was, in pieces, lying around for some time. 9-11 gave it an opening, so the pieces could be cobbled together and 'sold' as response.

likewise there's some evidence Iraq was on the hit list before 9-11.

it's nice that the public, if hit by group X, doesn't particularly care if it's country Y or Z that's hit in retaliation (even if they're unconnected).

anybody hear of congressman Conyer's plan to hit Mecca?


The problem is there are so many suspects. Not that I am saying he is, but Kat Stevens was denied entrance to the US because he is suspected of funding Muslim extrimists. The intelligence services have to make daily decisions on whom is dangerous enough to warrant the manpower and expense to watch and who isn't. And when you follow that method, you will, eventually miss one.

In fact, it seems to me that method invites missing them, because the ones who tend to actually go through with their plans are the very ones you wouldn't think were that fantastically stupid and evil. While the ones who you would think are, tend to have an animal sense of self preservation that prevents them from it.
 
"...At some point, the unthinkable thought dawns on one, about the 'war on terror' *applied to the domestic situation*, esp. in its GWB [US] and Tony Blair [UK] phase. Maybe it's a sham. Maybe the 'warriors on terror' essentially work in synchrony with terrorists and vice versa. Sort of like the Drug Enforcement people and the Colombian cartels. Consider: Are the break-out events--like 7-07-- of benefit to both sides? This is the question, "Who benefits?". Isn't it Blair?..."


This is a 'flame' topic that most have ignored and should be left to die out.

However...there are some firemen who start fires so they will have something to do, some garages that send people to break windshields at night so they get the repair works....et al ad nauseum...

To suggest that terrorism is invited for economic or political reasons by the victims is sick and cynical.


amicus
 
The tempting thing about conspiracy theories is that they supply a sense of order. Suddenly, it's not just a senselessly violent act by some unhinged person or people, or a sign that yes, life will never be risk-free and our governments cannot protect us from every possible horrible event. Instead, it becomes something siginificant, important, and rational; it becomes something we can understand in terms of human motives and something that we can fight with a sense of purpose.

It is, in many ways, less scary to believe that big drug companies could cure cancer and choose not to, because believing in human greed is less scary than believing in a disease that turns your body's own cells against you and that in some cases can't be cured by anything we know of.

It's less scary to believe that our governments are composed of a small group of ruthless, unprincipled people we could vote out of office than to believe that for the rest of our lives, we're going to have to accept that any backpacker, airliner, or delivery van could be on its way to blow up a building.

It's less scary to believe that flouride in our water is to blame for any health ailments that don't react immediately to conventional treatment than it is to believe that there are a wide range of diseases and conditions out of reach of modern medical science, and that there are conditions for which doctors can do little or nothing.

All of these things are rather more comforting when viewed as conspiracy theories. At least that way they make sense, and if we wanted to fight them, there would be a simple, obvious way to go about it. However, that doesn't make the theory correct. I'd note, too, that all of them eventually have a form of "follow who benefits" wrapped up in them. That doesn't mean that they are correct. Generally, "follow who benefits" can be helpful, but only if one both assesses all benefits (for example, a drug researcher dying of cancer, as they do, could only be said to be "benefitting" from his paycheck in the most tangential way) and if one assumes that the benefits one is describing are the only things that matter to the people in question. That's not always the case either. Sometimes humans do things for reasons other than personal benefit. Unlikely-sounding, perhaps, but provably true.

Shanglan
 
I don't think that anyone would purposely let things like 9-11 or the London bombing happen. I do think that incompetence, fear and good old fashioned CYA could have played a major role.

Intel is a matter of linking disassociated pieces of information into a tangible picture. In order to get superiors to buy your picture, you have to be willing to stick your neck out. The upper echelon of the intel community is just like any other part of government, it's made up of bureaucrats and politicians. Incompetence comes in the form of people being in a job that they aren't qualified for, but won the appointment through politics as usual. Fear comes from being a career politician/bureaucrat. They know that it's a cutthroat business. One big goof can cost your entire career. How willing are they to stick their neck out on something as shaky as a hypothesis based in the very nature of intel, which is only bits of information. The CYA falls back on to the fear theory. In politics, you can only stick your neck out so far and keep your ability to CYA.

Nothing the Mossad does or learns suprises me. They are the best in the intel business. Perhaps warning everyone else would have compromised a source. Churchill faced the same dilema in WW2. The Brits had broken German code. They knew when a German rocket attack was coming on England. They couldn't warn the population, because to do so would let the Germans know that the Brits had broken their code.
 
i don't think the term 'conspiracy' was mentioned.
the idea was 'letting things happen' or 'turning a blind eye'.

in biology, an analogous term for agents that are in apparent conflict, but are mutually complementary is 'symbiosis': foxes are the enemies of rabbits, yet in fact the rabbits 'need' the foxes (to prevent overpopulation and propagation of less 'fit' rabbits), and vice versa.

They don't 'conspire' as to the population levels, but their actions have the effect of 'helping' the other despite the appearance of a continuing 'battle for survival.'

the DEA need the drug cartels, and conversely; these apparent enemies both need 'the war on drugs'. Both fuel it, 'as if' in coordination; no contacts, nor 'conspiring' together are necessary. the 'busts' of the DEA are 'as if' made to order*-- that's all one can say.

*i.e., they benefit both sides

As far as 'evidence,' there's some evidence re the origins of the Patriot Act, and regarding the plan for 'regime change' in Iraq. iow, there is a domestic and a foreign agenda.

it's pretty clear that the pursuit of the agenda and election of those who pursue it are furthered by occasional incidents of domestic terror, that 'inexplicably' slip by.

nothing need be done. no 'conspiring.' indeed, as a few posters have said, given any loose system of half hearted, ill informed 'intelligence' efforts, it's guaranteed a few will slip by. Again, 'as if' made to order. One might say that while the apparent point of the (anti-terror) policing is suppression, perhaps the true point is deducible from the actual effects. The 'inexplicable slipups.' They are 'as if' intended, in that they (as in the foxes situation) allow some of the apparent enemy to survive, and, happily, fuel the public's desire for police protection.

-----
PS. In accord with Wildcard's remarks, governments, ministries, departments, agencies act in self interest. Their self interest is to deal with certain 'enemies' and see to it that they are perceived as such. Yet these enemies, as well, are needed. It's amazing that someone would call this view 'cynical.' For this same Unamicable One believes that 'self interest' of individuals, pursued almost unchecked, brings the greatest economic, social, and political good.
 
Last edited:
amicus said:
This is a 'flame' topic that most have ignored and should be left to die out.

I like 'flame' topics, because they always spark off interesting debates. And besides, Amicus, are you trying to tell us all that you've never, ever started a thread that some might consider offensive?


amicus said:
To suggest that terrorism is invited for economic or political reasons by the victims is sick and cynical.

Not necessarily. Isn't it a lot more dangerous for people to blindly accept what governments spoonfeed them?
 
Back
Top