Why won't they stop them all? Because they didn't take the threat seriously, and still don't. Because they lack, and have rejected, a conceptual apparatus that would allow them to see that jihadists who are a "French problem" are also a British problem -- in other words, they refuse to face the sources, meaning, and implications of the jihad ideology, despite its being the patent and self-avowed motivation of the terrorists themselves. Because they persist in assuming without any evidence, as does Tony Blair, that the vast majority of Muslims in Britain are on their side, and that those who are not involved in any overt terrorist activity must eschew such activity and believe it to be evil.
From The Telegraph, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
'We will not stop them all." Eliza Manningham-Buller's frank admission that further attacks by Islamic extremists are unavoidable is alarming and depressing.[...]
Whose fault is it that "more resources" were not in place sooner? Even after its recent expansion, MI5 still has only 2,500 officers working for it.
By contrast, the Government has allocated 3,500 civil servants to try to sort out the problems with implementing Gordon Brown's system of tax credits.
[...]
Of course, it is true that MI5 received from the Treasury all the increases that it asked for. The question is: why did it not ask for more?...
MI5 did not take the threat from Islamic radicals as seriously as it should have done, even after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
One officer who works on MI5's Islamic desk spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity.
He explained that "during the 1990s, MI5 reduced its 'international terrorist' desk significantly.
The then director general refused to apply the term "terrorists" to Islamic radicals whom other governments had told us were involved in terrorism.
So, for instance, the Algerian radicals involved in bombing the Paris Metro, who settled in London, were not regarded as terrorists by MI5. They were seen as a French problem, not a problem for the UK.
It drove our counterparts in France to distraction - as it did the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians, all of whom were among the governments which alerted us to the fact that there were Islamic extremists involved in terrorism living in London, and who were using Britain as a base for plotting terrorist operations.
They warned us that by not co-operating with them, we were storing up terrible problems for ourselves.
"That is exactly what happened. MI5's policy during those years was astonishingly short-sighted.
"We let Islamic terrorists raise funds in the UK, and fund their terrorism abroad from the UK. We let them broadcast their terrorism-inciting poison from the UK. It has to be seen as part of the background which led to 7/7."
[...]
MI5's failure to recognise the threat posed by Islamic terrorism at the end of the 1990s is the best explanation of its inability to prevent the bombings on July 7, 2005. More than any other factor, it explains the organisation's lack of experienced officers to track terrorists in the period leading up to 7/7.
And even after September 11, 2001 - what another MI5 officer has termed "the ultimate wake-up call" - MI5 still appears to have been slow to realise how great a threat the Islamic extremists in Britain were. Abu Qatada, who arrived in Britain seeking asylum in 1993 and was allowed to stay, was called "the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda in Europe" by a Spanish judge.
He would later be termed "a very dangerous individual" by a British one. Qatada was left alone by MI5 in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
It would later transpire that at least three of the 9/11 hijackers had been influenced by him: 18 videotapes of his sermons were found in the apartment they frequented in Germany.
Yet one MI5 officer told this newspaper in October 2001 that Abu Qatada was a "joke figure" - a description he also applied to Abu Hamza, the preacher who turned the Finsbury Park Mosque in London into a centre for Islamic radicalism. Hamza has now been incarcerated.
[...]
"The problem in the UK and in Europe is fundamental," says Andrew McCarthy, an American federal prosecutor.
"[The problem] is that you haven't recognised that you are at war. You continue to treat Islamic terrorism as if it were a problem of law enforcement. It is not. You are not dealing with criminals.
"You're dealing with an enemy who is at war with you, and who wants to destroy your society. So long as you treat them as if they are ordinary criminals who should be put through the courts, you will not be able to deal with them effectively. The process of the criminal law will hamstring the security agencies in their efforts to frustrate terrorism."
That is an extreme judgment, and one not yet generally shared within MI5. But everyone in the organisation accepts Dame Eliza's judgment that it will not succeed in preventing every attack.
The question that should concern everyone, however, is this: what can be done to increase MI5's success rate?
That question is not addressed by the ISC report, nor by simply accepting that MI5 can never provide 100 per cent security against terrorism.
Until the Government takes it seriously, we're going to suffer more terrorist outrages, more deaths and more injuries from terrorist bombs - of the preventable variety.
McCarthy is right. It is astonishing that so long after 9/11 his observations are not accepted as axiomatic.
It is impossiable to stop all the scum getting through but if the Muslims continue to carry out attacks in western countries espically if the attackers are home grown traitors things will pretty quickly get hot for the muslim communities because anger will build and build with each attack and it will get to a point where they will let off one bomb to many and things will explode people will just say enough.
Yes your statement is very true, im beggining to believe thats exactly what the security services and governments are looking for.
The age old tried and tested divide and rule policies, with the oncoming collapse of peak oil, this island nation will be overcrowded and unable to feed, self sufficiently. Leading to civil unrest and war between the opposing factions of Muhammeds followers and the free Brits. The population problem is then solved, just like the police go in after a fight loses steam, the army will go in to mop up after the civil war loses steam.
The population is then brought to a managable level and martial law is enforced to rule, yet another reason im now looking to the BNP as the saving solution as they are the only party that recognises a need to get our population down now by stopping the immigration and asylum madness, and turning the tide of the expansionist Islamic nation. These very acts are all we need to avoid a catastrophe that the powers that be are bringing on us.
This mentality is not restricted to Muslims alone. You may know that Britain has a serious problem with animal-rights terrorists, who have for decades been allowed to make a mockery of the law and terrify ordinary people. Recently, a few particularly noxious individuals have been rounded up and jailed - though not, in my view, long enough (the three leading individuals got twelve years, which means that they'll be out in less than six, and their female accomplice got four, which is a slap on the wrist). Now, I know these people. I met them in college and found out a number of things about them later. I know, for instance, that they are all largely supporters of terrorism, and that the difference between what they call "overground" and "underground" is nothing more than a matter of convenience or even of personal temperament. I know that in the "movement", approval of terrorism is pretty well universal. And no later than this morning, Robert, I heard Tony Blair bragging that he would take firmer measures to tackle "the tiny minority of extremists" that defame the animalist cause. Yes, he actually used those terms. So the police and security services will tackle animalists, as they tackle Muslims, with the convinction that most of those they meet will be law-abiding, peaceful, and reliable sources; the results you can imagine.
"...You're dealing with an enemy who is at war with you, and who wants to destroy your society. So long as you treat them as if they are ordinary criminals who should be put through the courts, you will not be able to deal with them effectively. The process of the criminal law will hamstring the security agencies in their efforts to frustrate terrorism..."
"...That is an extreme judgment, and one not yet generally shared within MI5..."
Such nonsense comes from the usual appeasers like Jackass 'Chamberlain' Straw and many, many more like him, who deliberately mislead and deceive the public instead of facing the music.
So this is "an extreme judgement"? Jihad watchers would beg to differ...
People tend to get the governmental policies they deserve. The media refuse to believe there is any war except for US imperialist militarism. That is the only story. The miracle is not that the NSA is actually trying to catch terrorists BEFORE they strike, but that public opinion supports the policy. That gives me hope. Stories like the one above don't. People will die because of this; they already have.
politicians cant be that smart, if they would just run on closed borders, and no illegals, especially in the US, they would win hands down! there is a need to control illegals, wheter hy bogus refugee claims, if they used this as a platform, they would win in a land slide. next if they charge businses with hiring illegals, and jail sentences, you would see a lot of illegals made unconrtable and leave.In Canada they could start with the attendees of mosques.
Remember, people, British Intellegence according to Iam Fleming is pure fiction.
From the article: "That is an extreme judgment, and one not yet generally shared within MI5."
In other words, it is a judgment shared only by a "tiny minority of extremists" at MI5.
sarcasm/off
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - the red flags have started waving vigorously in the 1980s. Where was ALL the intelligence agencies? I believe the US has something like 15 of them. Everyone of them have totally failed. There is a major problem here!!! And to make matters worse - governments of the West can’t see it which is another serious problem!!! They seem to generate more problems than they solve.
If this is indeed war, as Andrew McCarthy points out in the article (and Britain is the battlefield), is there any precedence for the security services to simply start "offing" these people? Even if they are deported, who is to say that they wouldn't be able to make their way through porous borders back into Europe, across the Mexican border into the US, or back into some other jihadi battleground, which are taking place all over the world? What happened to the concept of assassination? You know - like with silencers? It's a war, albeit a different kind of war where the enemy has infiltrated our societies, doesn't wear a uniform etc. Why can't we adapt our rules of warfare to accomodate this sort of situation?
MI5 apparently knows the identity of some 1200 individuals whom it knows to represent an actual security risk. The number has tripled in a few short years. We can assume it will triple again in another few years and that it won't be long before the number of Muslims that the west has to worry about will far outstrip the numbers in the security services, the numbers in the police departments and so on. I wish the west would set up clandestine services that specialize in what we normally consider to be assassination but which in this case could quite legitimately be viewed as simple counter-warfare. I'm not unaware of the kinds of problems this could unleash - I'm just putting it out there for consideration.
It's a war. The enemy isn't in uniform. The enemy is mobile all around the planet and can move from one battlefield to the next, even if deported. It's a "century war", to cite the name given to it by the Time Traveler story posted on a previous thread. We're simply gonna have to adapt and come up with new acceptable tactics for fighting it.
next if they charge businses with hiring illegals, and jail sentences, you would see a lot of illegals made unconrtable and leave.In Canada they could start with the attendees of mosques.
-Lulu
Another thing that would have them scatter like cockaroaches under light is to take them off the welfare roles. I believe they are doing this in Denmark now where over 40% of government welfare goes to immigrants.
I have long felt that Britain didn't care about the welfare of Israelis. However, I was startled to learn some ten years ago that the UK was harboring terrorist leaders who were operating against the European brethren of Britain from London. I am referring to the bombings on the Paris subway directed from Britain without the UK authorities seeming to care. Now it seems that they are rather cavalier about the welfare and safety of their own truly British population.
Where was ALL the intelligence agencies?
Haning out in colleges, universities, institutes, think tanks, and what not.
Intellectual fraud. Into your life it will creep.
Even here in America years after 9/11, as evident by the phone pattern tracking uproar unfolding, if we know of someone linked Al Queda, plotting to kill innocent civilians, we are content just to monitor their phone calling patterns rather than rounding them up. KNOWN TERRORIST!
---Nossy
The jihadists know they have nothing to fear with the legions of well-fed and well-paid parasitical "human rights" lawyers who ensure their stay in the UK (subsidised at taxpayers expense) is guaranteed.
The jihadists know they have nothing to fear with the legions of well-fed and well-paid parasitical "human rights" lawyers who ensure their stay in the UK (subsidised at taxpayers expense) is guaranteed.
londongirl
Never a truer word spoken. It's the "I'm all right jack" attitude taken by these lawyers that helps create even more problems.