The Leftists and some dhimmicrat moonbats accused Dubya of blowing up the twin towers by himself, I guess there will be those who will accuse MI5 of being the ones who caused 7/7....

that's right blame the government not the Muslim terrorists...

..I do believe there is an airborne stupid virus flying about....

....there are so many things the intelligence and security agencies are doing right, but just cannot tell anyone, that one day you will see major developments against the Islamic terrorists...the terrorists know this and they are getting desparate and a little panicky...

MI5 has accomplished much since 7/7 and I applaud their efforts....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 1, 2007 1:16 PM

This is what happens with budget cuts, things get forgotten and overlooked. The MI5 people have done a great job with stopping the plots they have, I think instead of laying blame on the organisation instead lay it on the department that oversees it in this case the Home office which if you follow British Politics and internal affairs has been in complete disarray for several years. With hindsight things could have been done, this can be said in many aspects of life to September 11th, I mean my puppy was run over yesterday, in hindsight I should have locked the gate but it was an oversight because I didn’t have the time to go back and check. Instead of time and the broader context of MI5 it is money and resources. They are the new army of the British people and need to be supported monetarily as well as personally.

Posted by: angle at May 1, 2007 1:17 PM

Nobody's blaming MI5 for 7/7.

They are being blamed for lying when, after the attacks, they claimed that the perpetrators were unknown to the intelligence agency.

They listen to our phone calls, screen our e-mails and Lord knows what else. But after this, how can we trust them at all?

That. Really. Is. A. Big. Deal.

Posted by: Vagn Henning at May 1, 2007 1:29 PM

MI5 was as hamstrung with their Intelligence as was ours. When free speech rights are so liberal that you can call for the downfall of your own Country. The how can you expect to act upon any information no matter how violent the intentions of the suspects?

When the Media openly declare these people not guilty beyond any level of proof that says otherwise. If it wasn't for the events of 7/7 there would never have been a conviction. It took an actual act of violence to convince some people there even was a problem.

Have the managed to connect the dots to Bush being behind it yet?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 1, 2007 1:36 PM

People, anyone who cares to please comment on the Muslim writer's column in the Forum at the LSU Reveille (lsureveille.com)

Thanks.

Posted by: darcy at May 1, 2007 1:43 PM

Oh great, is there going to be a 7/7 Truth movement now? There probably already is since the political climate in the UK is more left-leaning than in the US.

Posted by: wrathofasma at May 1, 2007 1:45 PM

What I don't understand is, if the US is behind 9/11, or so it has been said, how do you explain the passengers who made phone calls to family and 911 during the hijacking? What about the black box tapes from flight 93? And of course let's not forget Osama himself praising the hijackers for the attack, and then there's that little piece of video tape of the islamic group who's imam denounced the terrorists on television, then was secretly recorded praising them as the "magnificent 19" during friday prayers.

I for one have never bought into that whole conspiracy crap theory. It sure makes you realize tho how many people actually hate this country so much that they believe that garbage over the truth.

Posted by: gaelen at May 1, 2007 1:53 PM

Vagn Henning:
Nobody's blaming MI5 for 7/7.

They are being blamed for lying when, after the attacks, they claimed that the perpetrators were unknown to the intelligence agency.

You got that right.

They listen to our phone calls, screen our e-mails and Lord knows what else. But after this, how can we trust them at all?

You got that wrong.
Trust is not the issue.
Competency is the issue.
I expect MI5 to employ people competent enough to spot 7/7 in its infancy and not miss obvious clues. And they failed at this. And it is not hindsight wisdom saying this; really the clues were such that MI5 should have spotted this.
It is another intelligence failure.
Heads should roll (and they have - I am sure that Manningham-Buller is retiring early because she knows that resignation calls would follow here otherwise).

The powers that MI5 has are the necessary price UK citizens pay to ensure security.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 1, 2007 2:02 PM

This is what happens when you treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem that requires probable cause before you can search a computer or get an indictment or even make an arrest - otherwise it's considered harassment.

Vagn Henning said

"They listen to our phone calls, screen our e-mails and Lord knows what else. But after this, how can we trust them at all?"

But what do you want them to do when someone says good-bye to a person traveling to Pakistan? Is use of the word "operations" supposed to trigger someone's arrest? Did it mean he couldn't be allowed to leave the country?

Isn't it possible to know someone's name and not be aware that they were involved in plot X?

Does British law place any restrictions on its citizens traveling to Pakistan or Afghanistan or anywhere else there is a possibility of terrorist training or attack planning? Is that what we want?

Our conundrum is that most jihadists appear law-abiding up to the moment they set off the bomb. The same people who speak of "missed opportunities" might also disapprove of "government snooping" into the affairs of law-abiding people if they were the targets. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

People who want the government to stop all terrorist plots before they hatch have to realize that that requires intrusive inspections of what were heretofore private communications and personal records. It means making no bones about going into the mosque.

And since even government officials are human, they won't catch everyone.

Posted by: PMK at May 1, 2007 2:02 PM

One of my aspirations in life is to join MI5 and actually play a part in stemming this sort of practise and make Britain british again. In the context of its pride of industry, economy and people. We are not being protected under this government from a gradual erosion of out own identities.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"

—Benjamin Franklin

This quote comes from a great man yes however it is defunct, it belongs to an era where nuclear weapons didnt exist and where global Jihad couldnt be fought against us. People who complain about civil liberties being eroded for security, would you feel the same were you children blown to peices in terrorism. I think not.

Posted by: angle at May 1, 2007 2:15 PM

The tapes just didn't speak of jihad in the ones I have listened to and watched spoke of blowing up an entire shopping mall. They were operational tapes.

The Pakistani contact also spoke in length of the bomb making materials these thugs had. The most amusing was the 600 kilos of fertilizer MI 5 replaced and watching the terrorist going in and inspecting his goodies like a duck hen checking her eggs.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 1, 2007 3:27 PM

"They [MI5] are being blamed for lying.." from post above. Has this individual considered who tells lies over and over and over again, eh? Has this person ever bothered to consider what it must be like for MI5 to follow and monitor *thousands* of potential suspects, and determine who is or is not a liar? Does this person realize that part of the "game" of the Islamists is to phone in false threats? (this is so as to make the intelligence agencies look stupid). Do you grasp what's going on? It's like having false fire alarms being called in on a daily basis. To then turn around and blame MI5 is utterly disgusting -- or to falsely accuse them of having "lied" -- for the Nth time -- to accuse someone of "lying" -- you must know that the alleged "liar" was INTENTIONALLY deceitful -- a person can be mistaken, OK? A person can MAKE A MISTAKE --- THAT DOES NOT MEAN "The Person Lied!!!" Again, to call someone a liar, you have to demonstrate that the person (or persons) KNEW the truth (that is, that MI5 knew exactly that suicide bombers X and Y would detonate -- but, then, MI5 did nothing to stop it, and then lied to the public about their knowledge that the bombers were going to detonate and murder Brits...Do you understand how incredibly malicious such an allegation is?? Particularly, when another, far simpler explanation exists -- and that is that MI5 did not take the threat of the Muslim murderers seriously enough...they were mistaken -- NOT "liars"-- there's an important, vital difference here.)

Posted by: J.S. at May 1, 2007 3:35 PM

Another thing -- I recall (don't remember the exact date) when the MI5 conducted a raid -- but, oh guess what? It was based on a false tip. anyone remember that one? Then, of course, the professional whiners came out in droves condemning the security forces and clamouring for "heads to roll"...Really, it's a no-win situation.

Posted by: J.S. at May 1, 2007 3:44 PM

Be wary of Politicians who wish to treat someone else's total War as a Law Enforcement issue. Especially when those who hated the limited application of Intelligence gathering decide it wasn't such a bad Idea after all. Where measures are needed to expand them even further than they were in the first place.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 1, 2007 4:12 PM

Off topic - but EVERYONE MUST GO TO THIS POST: http://polyphonia.livejournal.com/325191.html - AND LAUGH YOURSELVES SILLY!

Posted by: Paolo at May 1, 2007 4:21 PM

UK Infidel Lover, PMK,

I agree that the intelligence services are absolutely necessary, and I definitely prefer someone listening in on my phone conversations to being blown to bits on the bus.

But how can we (the people of any democratic country) be shure that the intelligence agency plays fair and only do what they're supposed to?

We can't! All we can do is employ people that we trust and then keep our fingers crossed (hoping that things don't go the Pakistan way).

The problem with this debacle, then, is that MI5 have proven that they are not trustworthy...

Posted by: Vagn Henning at May 1, 2007 4:57 PM

With all due respect, how has MI5 "proven" that "they are not trustworthy" ?? (I believe that was also the assessment made by Islamist apologists after a bungled raid.) Is there any evidence that "innocents" have been wrongfully indicted or maliciously "persecuted" -- say, just for "being Muslim" -- as is the constant allegation/whine from organizations such as CAIR?

Posted by: J.S. at May 1, 2007 5:21 PM

"The problem with this debacle, then, is that MI5 have proven that they are not trustworthy..."

Vagn Henning,

I guess it's all in how you look at it. I went back and reread the article and it's still not clear that MI5 cannot be trusted or even that they lied. The standard you want them to meet may be beyond their reach.

"Missed opportunities" is an easy game to play. Human memory is fallible. People conflate events and end up with a story that looks like a lie. Two people experience the exact same event but remember it differently. It all comes down to trust. Do you want MI5 looking out for you, or not? If the answer is "yes" then you have to trust them.

Being wrong and being a liar are not the same.

Posted by: PMK at May 1, 2007 5:41 PM

Vagn Henning:
The problem with this debacle, then, is that MI5 have proven that they are not trustworthy...

How have they proven that they are not trustworthy?

I see incompetence.
I dont see mendacity or corruptness.

Where is your case?

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 1, 2007 6:20 PM

"Nobody's blaming MI5 for 7/7."

yet how soon will we see the emergence of the 7/7 truthers , islamist sponsored english demopaths who will demonstrate and spin to attack their own government and accuse them of deliberately allowing these attacks to happen for public support for the war on terror or Iraq.
wait for the usual rent a crowd mob to pounce on this revelation very soon.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at May 1, 2007 6:23 PM

The Brits now realize their leaders are just as stupid as the U.S.'s who let Moussaoui "forbid" the FBI (through a judge) from looking into his captured computer's files, because they wasnt enough "probable cause".

And, because of this, 9/11 went on as planned by Moussaoui's 19 terrorist scum henchmen.

Better to overstep a criminal's rights in such terrorism cases -and be wrong (ooh, a lawsuit, how scary!) -than understep and lose lives.

Whether almost 3,000. Or nearly 200. Or 50 plus.

America. Spain. England.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 1, 2007 6:40 PM

Either they actually lied about the perpetrators being unknown to them, or they don't know how to search their archives. I don't *want* to believe the former, but I simply *can't* believe the latter.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Now, they sift through tons of material and have to make tough decisions every day about which leads to follow, so I won't for asecond blame them for not preventing the disaster. Like the rest of us, they are human. What is painfully obvious today probably wasn't so clear back then.

J.S., you see enemies everywhere...

Obviously a couple of wrongful arrests are preferable to not stopping a terrorist attack. I don't remember saying anything to the contrary?

Posted by: Vagn Henning at May 1, 2007 6:43 PM

This is one of the pitfalls of treating the Jihad that we are up against as law enforcement. MI5 was probably trying to gather enough evidence to secure a cast iron conviction, and one of the problems of trying to gather enough evidence is that you don't know when the terrorists will strike and how much time you've got, therefore leaving open the risk of eventually striking too late. People are so attached to the notion of fair trials and civil liberties for terrorist suspects that they're running the risk of being caught up in an atrocity - the sort that happened on 7th July 2005. Our laws throughout the West six years after 911 are exactly the same as what they were on 910. They haven't been modified one iota to take into account of the new and fearful world of the post-911 atrocity. And judges are so unaware of the mindset of those who attempted to carry out the most heinous acts of mass murder. And only yesterday, five wannabe mass murderers were sentenced to an average of 20 years apiece, but what is forgotten is the fact that they're so immersed in Jihad that they'll be a danger to life and limb for as long as they breathe. And I noticed a headline in today's Metro which described them as 'outcasts'. How naive of that troublesome rag, which we get free on buses and trains five days a week.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at May 1, 2007 7:29 PM

The impression I get is that they were overwhelmed with dangerous Islamic nuts and had to prioritise: they underestimated the threat from the 7/7 guys - being competent does not mean being 100% perfect. The victims' relatives who are calling for an enquiry should realise that we need a detailed public examination of how MI5 gathers and acts on info about potential terrorists, like a hole in the head.

Posted by: wallyUK at May 1, 2007 8:23 PM

iranina president, the man from tehran, says he wants to destroy Israel and the US, West in general..and if you do not take him at his word, its your fault. the same with the Brit gov't, they heard about jihad against them, and they chose to ignor it. you ignore it at your own peril.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 1, 2007 8:26 PM

At one time in America and Britan, the Police, FBI, CIA,MI5,and other goverment people were respected. Now any group with a cause whom states they've been discriminated against will scream bias. One day the proverbial poop will hit the fan.

Posted by: AMartinez at May 1, 2007 8:38 PM

“They [MI5] listen to our phone calls, screen our e-mails and Lord knows what else. But after this, how can we trust them at all?”

OK, let’s disband MI5 and stop all surveillance – and then where would we be?

Posted by: JFGR at May 1, 2007 8:48 PM

“People are so attached to the notion of fair trials and civil liberties for terrorist suspects that they're running the risk of being caught up in an atrocity - the sort that happened on 7th July 2005”

And then they blame the authorities for not protecting them.

Posted by: JFGR at May 1, 2007 8:52 PM

"Either they actually lied about the perpetrators being unknown to them, or they don't know how to search their archives. I don't *want* to believe the former, but I simply *can't* believe the latter."

Ok. I still do not understand the "either/or" statement here. I cannot grasp why you keep saying "they lied." From what I've read, MI5 followed (for a brief time) 2 of those who eventually did 7/7. but, MI5 made a mistake, someone decided that the threat wasn't sufficiently serious to warrant the on-going surveillance. So, they stopped the surveillance. Big mistake, since these 2 went on to commit 7/7. But only realized in hind-sight. (so, I don't see "the lie.")

Conversely, I've noticed that the British public (or at least certain members of said public) go ballistic if it works out the other way -- that is, a raid is conducted, and it turns out that the people are not terrorists at all.

Frankly, I rather expect mistakes will be made. The costs (Type I versus Type II errors) differ. Being overly vigilant will lead to following out false leads (what, I believe you complained about in an earlier post -- all that surveillance the Brits are exposed to). But, being less than vigilant can lead to a "miss" (as what occurred with the 2 who were at first under surveillance, then dropped). So, what kind of error are you more willing to put up with? The false alarms or the misses?

Next, I think that a 100 percent accuracy rate is far too high (of course, everyone should strive to attain 100 percent accuracy, but the reality will fall short.) And, if or when it falls short, I do not believe that this immediately indicates "incompetency." (If someone repeatedly made the same mistake over and over and failed to learn any lessons, then, "yes," perhaps a charge of incompetency could be leveled.) But at the current time, I think it's an unwarranted allegation (I also don't think the methods and sources MI5 uses can be investigated...unless, of course, one is indifferent to preserving the security of the British public.)

Posted by: J.S. at May 1, 2007 11:23 PM

I would like to know how much this trial and surveillance over a year of would be Bombers has cost the British Taxpayer. Was told by someone who said they had seen it on Prime T.V that cost was staggering 130 million dollars equivalent of
pounds?? Maybe one of the Brits posting here will
know...

Posted by: Morgane at May 2, 2007 5:52 AM

Something to bear in mind from the news videos I saw yesterday (thanks to a posting on LGF) is that the MI5 folks had 50 simultaneous investigations going on all at the same time. They heard the conversation. And for some reason misjudged its import as they elected to continue the other investigations rather than drop one or more of them to follow the new lead.

Word is that they spent $50 million on the investigations. (And all the results are not in year on those other investigations. And some results that may be in are not being talked about for fear of corrupting cases or damaging other investigations.)

Posted by: jdow at May 2, 2007 6:19 AM

"Does British law place any restrictions on its citizens traveling to Pakistan or Afghanistan or anywhere else there is a possibility of terrorist training or attack planning? Is that what we want?"
Posted by: PMK

Ummmmm... let me think about that....duh YES!
Did Britain allow germans to travel back and forth during WW2? How many attacks is it going to take before you realise you're at war with an enemy that is only growing stronger and training more and more 'soldiers' to strike when the time is right. The Saudi money and Pakistani ISI, combined with their Madrassas and training camps are creating an army of trained Jihadists just waiting for a signal.

MI5 is overwhelmed and had to prioritise its surveillance because of the sheer numbers of potential terrorists that now live in Britain. Do the maths!

Anyone wanting to travel to any country from which Jihadists operate openly should be forced to get MI5's ok first, so at least they can be on the front foot when it comes to monitoring them after their return.

Posted by: veil416 at May 2, 2007 6:26 AM

veil,

I want it to. I don't see how you can allow back into the country people who spent any time at a terrorist training camp. They don't need to bring weapons home with them. They learn how to make them and how to carry out attacks. I can't speak for Britain, but if a country is on the list of state sponsors of terror why would we even let anyone who goes there back into the country, and why would a single person from that country (IRAN) be allowed in?

There should be a list of countries which you can reach only with a one-way ticket.

I would put Saudi Arabia at the top of the list but won't all the religious freedom advocates go bonkers? Going to the hajj gets you out of the country permanently.

Posted by: PMK at May 2, 2007 4:35 PM

PMK, sorry, I didn't realise you were asking a rhetorical question - looks like we want pretty much the same thing.

Posted by: veil416 at May 3, 2007 9:59 AM