PDA

View Full Version : Oh dear: MI5 analysts admit link between Iraq war and bombings



stackpole
28th July 2005, 22:14
So all that bollocks from Tony Blair was, er, bollocks. And given the dates on this, he knew it was bollocks all along. He just can not stop lying, can he.

MI5 analysts admit link between Iraq war and bombings

IRAQ has become “a dominant issue” for Islamic extremists in Britain, MI5 has admitted.

In a fresh analysis of the threat facing Britain from international terrorist groups, the acknowledgement underlines the view of the security and intelligence services that Iraq has provided an extra motivating force for terrorists.

Contributing to the agency’s official website after the July 7 bombings, under the heading “Threat to the UK from international terrorism”, a team of MI5 analysts concludes: “Though they have a range of aspirations and ‘causes’, Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.”

After the suicide bombings in London, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said there was no connection between them and the war in Iraq. (so did Tony Blair) This conflicted with a leaked assessment by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, based at MI5 and run by a Ministry of Defence official, which claimed, three weeks before July 7 that Iraq was continuing to act “as a focus of a range of terrorist related activities in Britain”.

AtW
28th July 2005, 22:17
Tony Blair chosen his words carefully -- he said that war in Iraq or Afganistan can't justify suicide bombings, and he is rightin this respect, however he workarounded question is war in IRaq made it more likely to have suicide bombings in the UK, and the answer to this is certainly yes: something anti-war voices were warning about, AQ and Bin LAden are no doubt pleased beyond their expectations.

vista
28th July 2005, 22:54
Blair and co make me laugh, they welcome the sh 1t of humanity into this country, bomb the F v ck out of their backward, ignorant countries then act all surprised when the sc um kick off with bombs - what a f v ckin laugh.

You either wipe the mother f v ckers out "genocide is the only way to be completely safe" or leave well alone. What you don't do is fund a bunch of hostiles with social security defended by the fifth column led by your wife then p1 ss them off by invading their country - its not that difficult really is it even a 'so bent they're crooked' politicians should be able to figure that out and these idiots are meant to be our leaders.

Role on the turkey shoot - the police's shoot to kill policy is providing an emense amount of fun.

Not So Wise
29th July 2005, 03:36
Tony Blair chosen his words carefully -- he said that war in Iraq or Afganistan can't justify suicide bombings,
If you read back to the news reports on first few days you will see he was saying same thing as Straw, then 2 reports came out, one from his own intelegence people stated what we all knew already,it was linked, he then changed it "can't justify suicide bombings"

DimPrawn
29th July 2005, 06:47
they welcome the sh 1t of humanity into this country.

Hey that's no way to talk about AtW.

Lucifer Box
29th July 2005, 07:22
TB's excuse was that the bombers were using Iraq as an excuse. So that's alright then.

threaded
29th July 2005, 07:55
AtW: I do wish you would wake up. Britain and American being at war in Iraq means that France and German have less chance of being bombed.

There was that Dutch guy killed and numerous others have received death threats, yet are the Netherlands in this Iraq?

Saying UKUSA is at more risk is absolute nonsense. Every sane person is at risk from these loonies.

benn0
29th July 2005, 08:11
[QUOTE
Saying UKUSA is at more risk is absolute nonsense. Every sane person is at risk from these loonies.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but that wouldn't give all the tories on this board an excuse for blair bashing would it?

wendigo100
29th July 2005, 08:11
TB's excuse was that the bombers were using Iraq as an excuse. So that's alright then.
Blair did not appreciate what a good job Saddam Hussein was doing keeping all those insurgents and Al Quaeda in line.

I believe that Blair's support for getting rid of the bogeyman was an exercise in self-agrandisement that backfired massively.

wendigo100
29th July 2005, 08:18
Saying UKUSA is at more risk is absolute nonsense.
I beg to differ. Everyone is at more risk than they were, and therefore that includes the UK.

DodgyAgent
29th July 2005, 08:52
Wwendigo I beg to differ. The US/UK is less at risk than it would be had Iraq not been invaded. Iraq has far more chance of becoming an Islamic state now than it ever did under saddam Hussein. Fundamentalists are simply using Iraq as an excuse, and they would have attacked the West (and already had done so before 2003 anyway) anyway. One of Bin Ladens criticisms of the West was that they/we are too weak to confront terrorism. This has been proved wrong.

EC4N
29th July 2005, 09:43
I think they should put it to the test. Boycott the American Open Gulf Tournament. Withdraw all the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and then see what happens. If civil war breaks out, let the UN sort it out. That's what it's there for. For starters Britain will be making much better use of the Billions it saves. And no that doesn't mean the terrorists have won. You are only carrying out the democratic will of the people of this country.

ALM
29th July 2005, 10:00
Wwendigo I beg to differ. The US/UK is less at risk than it would be had Iraq not been invaded. Iraq has far more chance of becoming an Islamic state now than it ever did under saddam Hussein. Fundamentalists are simply using Iraq as an excuse, and they would have attacked the West (and already had done so before 2003 anyway) anyway. One of Bin Ladens criticisms of the West was that they/we are too weak to confront terrorism. This has been proved wrong.Complete nonesense DA. The fundamentalists, rightfully or wrongfully, see the West as invading imperialists bent on oppressing the Arabs. This is the reason for the attacks that occured in NY, Baghdad and now in London. If you read the transcripts from OBL's Al-Jazeera videos he clearly sites the continued presence of 'infidel armies' in their holy land Saudi Arabia, oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis and the recent wars in Afghanistan/Iraq as the justification for attacks against the US and those who support them.

Your idea that 'they would have attacked anyway' is naive if not ridiculous. These lunaticas are not attacking us for the sake of it. Indeed, OBL himself fought with the CIA in the war againt the USSR in Afghanistan. Our foolish participation in the Iraq war has directly resulted in the recent suicide bombings in London and MI5 itself acknowledges this fact.

threaded
29th July 2005, 10:05
ALM, erm, no. The suicide bombers would have done it anyway. Except that might well have done it in France and Germany as well. Which they will do soon.

It is not a case of a reason as abstract as politics, it is simply that making suicide bombs is actually a lot easier now than it was in the past.

threaded in "I know your future" mode.

DodgyAgent
29th July 2005, 10:08
Complete nonesense DA. The fundamentalists, rightfully or wrongfully, see the West as invading imperialists bent on oppressing the Arabs. This is the reason for the attacks that occured in NY, Baghdad and now in London. If you read the transcripts from OBL's Al-Jazeera videos he clearly sites the continued presence of 'infidel armies' in their holy land Saudi Arabia, oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis and the recent wars in Afghanistan/Iraq as the justification for attacks against the US and those who support them.

Your idea that 'they would have attacked anyway' is naive if not ridiculous. These lunaticas are not attacking us for the sake of it. Indeed, OBL himself fought with the CIA in the war againt the USSR in Afghanistan. Our foolish participation in the Iraq war has directly resulted in the recent suicide bombings in London and MI5 itself acknowledges this fact.

So Ok then ALM, let us accept that it is the Wests fault for its invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and its support of Israel. So what? how far back do we need to unravel our past? You tell us where the West went wrong and what it should have done to avoid the creation of these suicide bombers. Am I naive in thinking that these people are sad losers who are driven by people who want to see western women covered up?

BobTheCrate
29th July 2005, 10:23
Complete nonesense DA. The fundamentalists, rightfully or wrongfully, see the West as invading imperialists bent on oppressing the Arabs.

Are you absolutely positive that is the reason ALM ?

Or could it be these Islamic fundamentalist maniacs are using any fabrication or excuse they can, when they can, to disguise their ultimate desire to wipe out the infidel disbeliever no matter what ?

wendigo100
29th July 2005, 10:36
Wwendigo I beg to differ. The US/UK is less at risk than it would be had Iraq not been invaded. Iraq has far more chance of becoming an Islamic state now than it ever did under saddam Hussein.
I don't understand how you joined those two statements up. Are you saying that Islamic states are less likely to support terrorism?

Fundamentalists are simply using Iraq as an excuse, and they would have attacked the West (and already had done so before 2003 anyway) anyway.
I don't argue with that but what does it mean? Isn't it true that any act of aggression, by anyone in the world, is simply using something or other as an excuse?

As I understand it, Saddam Hussein was well known for his opposition to Al Quaeda. Like him or loath him, he was an ally against them.

So what have we gained by getting rid of him, and at the same time providing a further excuse?

ALM
29th July 2005, 10:42
So Ok then ALM, let us accept that it is the Wests fault for its invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and its support of Israel. So what? how far back do we need to unravel our past? You tell us where the West went wrong and what it should have done to avoid the creation of these suicide bombers. Am I naive in thinking that these people are sad losers who are driven by people who want to see western women covered up?Well my point is that our involvment in the recent Iraq war was outright counter productive in terms of our security. The yanks foreign policy in the middle east and the almost outrageous way in which it is biased towards the Israelis has given rise to a deep hatred which fuels extremism. The problem is that by taking part in the Iraq war, we in the UK are now placed in the same box as the Yanks. The extremsits opinions on the role of women may differ to ours but I doubt it is in any way responsible for the recent attacks.

So what now? Your right we can't change the past. What we can do is help setup a balanced governments in Iraq and Afghanistan that are percieved by the people of those nations as serving their interests and not those of the invading forces. After decades of turning a blind eye we should finally apply real pressure on the Israelis to end the cycle of killing in Palestine by handing back land and retreating behind their borders.

All of the above will help starve the extremists of the sympathy they enjoy in some quarters of the middle east. I sincerly hope that we choose this option not the one where we are led into further misadventures in Iran or Syria.

The Lone Gunman
29th July 2005, 11:01
Just bored and wanting the top six posts to be mine.

BobTheCrate
29th July 2005, 12:25
...The yanks foreign policy in the middle east and the almost outrageous way in which it is biased towards the Israelis has given rise to a deep hatred which fuels extremism.

OK the U.S position has overall favoured Israel whether that be right or wrong. But to say in the most outrageous way I don't accept as reasonable. There have been many examples where the U.S has publically criticised Israeli policy.

And what of Bosnia and the commenced genocide of Muslims there which would have succeeded had it not of been for the U.S ? Where was the volume condemnation of Yugoslavia by the Islamic fundamentalist clerics ? Where was their resistance to that genocide ?

Are you really that convinced these fundamentalists are genuine when they tell you it's all about their perception of the west's oppression of the Arab world ?

Still you're not prepared to accept the possibilty/probability of the Islamic fundamentalist ultimate desire to destroy the infidel disbelievers, under whatever excuse/guise takes their fancy at the time of any given attrocity.

ALM
29th July 2005, 13:01
OK the U.S position has overall favoured Israel whether that be right or wrong. But to say in the most outrageous way I don't accept as reasonable. There have been many examples where the U.S has publically criticised Israeli policy.No offence but I think you really need to look beneath the surface and get you your facts straight. There may well be some examples where, to use your words, 'the U.S has publicly criticised Israeli policy'. To be honest this amounts to didley squat in real terms. For example, it may be news to you that the US has vetoed virtually every single UN resolution aimed at reigning in Israeli oppression. See the following for a taster:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
In doing so they have effectively prevented the rest of the world acting against this injustice. In addition to maintaining this policy of vetoing, they have armed the Israelis with the very F-16 jets, apache helicopters and massive arsenals of other military hardware used during the periodic incursions into Palestinian refugee camps. Therefore, I think that any reasonable person would have to concede that US policy IS outrageously biased towards the Israelis and this is without a doubt a contributing factor to Islamic fundamentalism. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to ignoring reality and burying your head in the sand.

BobTheCrate
29th July 2005, 13:18
No offence taken ALM.

I was aware of the US vetos used, and I was aware the US provides Israel with much of her armoury.

If the US did not provide Israel with the means to defend herself, Egypt and Syria would have driven the Israelis into the sea decades ago.

The world is full of injustice but it is not constructive to lay it all at the feet of the US. I agree though the US could have done more to temper some of the Israeli policies over the years.

The original PLO, and latterly other terrorist groups such as Hamas make distinct impressions on the west when they attack Israeli civilian targets.

But you don't hear them say, "this is for Iraq, this was for the US troops in Saudi".

The terrorism comitted by the Islamic fundamentalists IMO is born out of the old goat himself, Ayatollah. His brand of Islamic extremism came well after the Israel Palestine issue and rarely made any significant reference to it. At its inception, much more concerned with destroying the secular infidels of Muslim Iraq than it was Israel.

I repeat. You seem to make no allowance for the distinct possibility that the Islamic fundamentalists are making excuses for their ultimate desire to destroy the unbelieving infidels.

They couldn't give a rat's arse for Palestinians. Any more than they could for Muslim Bosnians, African Sudanese or African Ethiopians. Anyone who doesn't share and embrace their ideology.

ALM
29th July 2005, 13:57
The world is full of injustice but it is not constructive to lay it all at the feet of the US. I agree though the US could have done more to temper some of the Israeli policies over the years. I agree with you. However, if our aim is to safeguard our peace and prosperity in the UK perhaps it would be prudent for us to distance ourselves from US foreign policy in the Middle East. Whether or not we agree or disagree with the policy itself there seems to be little doubt it has created resentment in the minds of the Arabs.


I repeat. You seem to make no allowance for the distinct possibility that the Islamic fundamentalists are making excuses for their ultimate desire to destroy the unbelieving infidelsI do not believe that this is the motivation behind the bombings in London or the daily attacks against US troops Iraq. I think the truth is something far less sinister. Muslims in the Middle East have little or no history of attacking us on our home soil. Why should they all of a sudden adopt of a policy of 'destroying the infidels' for the heck of it? I believe this is a driect response to our involvement in the war in Iraq and MI5 intelligence confirms this.
They couldn't give a rat's arse for Palestinians. Any more than they could for Muslim Bosnians, African Sudanese or African Ethiopians.Believe it or not thousands of foreign fighters DID travel to Bosnia to fight their 'jihad' against the Serbs. Have a read of this:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1574796.stm

Not So Wise
29th July 2005, 14:55
If the US did not provide Israel with the means to defend herself, Egypt and Syria would have driven the Israelis into the sea decades ago.

Nothing against the Israelis but this probably would be a good thing for the world as a whole, people have been predicting the middle east as the source for the next world war since the last one for good reasons and main reason is Israel.



The world is full of injustice but it is not constructive to lay it all at the feet of the US. I agree though the US could have done more to temper some of the Israeli policies over the years.
I blame the whole of the west, if it had been a arab country doing all the things Isreal has done over the years they (countrys individually) would have cut or seriously limited diplomatic ties, it would have been sactioned to hell and back by now, maybe even invaded...err mean liberated, once or twice.

Problem is the west views the Israelis as westerners and the arabs as "ragheads" so it natually sides with the Israelis and does not give a damn about the arab's unless there is potencial for oil prices being affected.


The original PLO, and latterly other terrorist groups such as Hamas make distinct impressions on the west when they attack Israeli civilian targets.
While until recently the west just turned a blind eye when the Israeli troops did the same thing, as if there really is a difference between a suicide bomber targeting innocent men,women and children or if official military troops do it

Actually thinking about it is worse when military troops do it, at least bombers can be ruled out as a "few raving lunitics", whats a whole countrys excuse when they allow their military to get away with the same thing?

DodgyAgent
29th July 2005, 15:24
No offence but I think you really need to look beneath the surface and get you your facts straight. There may well be some examples where, to use your words, 'the U.S has publicly criticised Israeli policy'. To be honest this amounts to didley squat in real terms. For example, it may be news to you that the US has vetoed virtually every single UN resolution aimed at reigning in Israeli oppression. See the following for a taster:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
In doing so they have effectively prevented the rest of the world acting against this injustice. In addition to maintaining this policy of vetoing, they have armed the Israelis with the very F-16 jets, apache helicopters and massive arsenals of other military hardware used during the periodic incursions into Palestinian refugee camps. Therefore, I think that any reasonable person would have to concede that US policy IS outrageously biased towards the Israelis and this is without a doubt a contributing factor to Islamic fundamentalism. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to ignoring reality and burying your head in the sand.

ALM, I am surprised that you apply the same rules to Palestine as to those that you apply to Israel. You dont seem to be able (or willing) to understand that on the one hand the US is dealing with a govt that is entirely elected and answerable-and therefore responsible - to its electorate, and on the other hand with a country that has no popular representative.
Palestine is run by a mixture of different groups none of which holds any representation whatsoever. Therefore if the US was to treat Palestinians as equal to Israelis (whatever that means) they would not be able to agree anything to which the Palestinians could guarantee.

The fact that Muslims have not physically invaded another country is irrelevant. What you seem to dismiss so lightly is that these terrorists have no popular mandate, their actions bear little relation to the teachings of Islam (which are fundamentally the same as Christianity). You fail to understand that they have no agenda of their own other than the total destruction of Western style democracies wherever they may be.

You can do whatever you like.. from putting Saddam back into power to apologising for the crusades, but what these people want is for us to put towels over our women (not a bad idea having looked at a few on the station this morning), spend 20 hours a day praying, and throwing away the things that we enjoy doing on a day to day basis (including "discussing topics" on this board.

These people are driven by the desire to control others. They are driven by the hideous thought that women may want to adopt the freedoms of their western counterparts (sex is the prime driver of human behaviour- I would go so far as to say that these terrorists are entirely driven by their own sexual inadequacy... AtW will be next :rollin: - )

They see the West not as a threat in terms of being an invading force, but as a threat that will dismantle the religious doctrines that are used to suppress Arab (not muslim) women.

The dishonest application of moral equivalence between Israel and Palestine is really a liberal guilt thing, nothing more. We should be proud of what has happened in Israel, a country that has come through a siege of aggression from all of its neighbours to become a cohesive, wealthy (which is why our cowardly self loathing liberals hate them so much) nation, whilst at the same time maintaining its strong religious culture, that gives it the National pride and strength to stand up to its bullying neighbours.

The reason why the US supports Israel is because it wants all other countries to adopt its democratic model. If Israel is destroyed and power shifts to unelected religious extremists then (as has been proved) arab countries will be capable of spreading mayhem without invading other countries.

The Lone Gunman
29th July 2005, 15:36
their actions bear little relation to the teachings of Islam. You say this and go on with the following which a half decent precis of Islam!


You fail to understand that they have no agenda of their own other than the total destruction of Western style democracies wherever they may be.

What these people want is for us to put towels over our women (not a bad idea having looked at a few on the station this morning), spend 20 hours a day praying, and throwing away the things that we enjoy doing on a day to day basis (including "discussing topics" on this board.

These people are driven by the desire to control others. They are driven by the hideous thought that women may want to adopt the freedoms of their western counterparts (sex is the prime driver of human behaviour- I would go so far as to say that these terrorists are entirely driven by their own sexual inadequacy... AtW will be next :rollin: - )

They see the West not as a threat in terms of being an invading force, but as a threat that will dismantle the religious doctrines that are used to suppress Arab (not muslim) women.

ALM
29th July 2005, 15:47
DA,
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Our opinion are obviously at the opposite ends of the spectrum. It's Friday afternoon and probably a little late to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict this week anyway. :)

Not So Wise
29th July 2005, 16:08
*long massive bigoted speel about how everyone in Islam wants to impose their way on everyone else*


The reason why the US supports Israel is because it wants all other countries to adopt its democratic model.
Don't you see irony there? You accuse them of what you say "we" (the west) want to do ourselves (and it's true west and especially the US want to do that)

West wants to force it's values on them, they want to force theirs on us, but because our values are ours we are goodguys, theirs are not ours so they are the badguys.

DodgyAgent
29th July 2005, 16:38
Don't you see irony there? You accuse them of what you say "we" (the west) want to do ourselves (and it's true west and especially the US want to do that)

West wants to force it's values on them, they want to force theirs on us, but because our values are ours we are goodguys, theirs are not ours so they are the badguys.

I agree with you not so wise. I am indeed advocating the spread of western style democracy. I do however regard democracy as a force for good (until the socialists hijack it) because it exists through popular consent. Democracy is also a positive force. Dictatorships on the other hand can no longer be confined to within National borders (except in Africa.. for now), and they without doubt offer a negative threat to the outside world (sponsoring of terrorism.. the provision of training facilities etc etc.).

However I also understand that to impose democracies upon countries is likely to have a negative effect. This democratic imperialism -to call it that- can only work if it becomes popular with sufficient numbers of people from sovereign states.

We are no longer in a position to cover our heads and ignore what is happening elsewhere. By doing nothing we are a threat to non democratic countries. How do you think the people of North Korea would feel if they were able to turn on the TV and see what happens in the rest of the world? How do you think Iranian mullahs feel when their TV screens are full of semi naked totty cavorting around an Egyptian holiday resort? the answer is that our very existence is undermining their power. This is why they are so keen to support groups who wish to undermine "western decadence".

Most businesses work well when both workers and managers cooperate and work towards the same goals. This can only be achieved if those goals help all parties to achieve their ambitions rather than a few. The same rules apply to people and their rulers, and relationships between different countries.

The Armageddon that is talked about in Revelations is not that far away, and yes it will be a conflict between the West and the East. The difference is that the West cannot use force to impose its will because its own people will not sanction it.. we are even having difficulty approving the removal of an evil bastard like Saddam by force.. It is the outcome of democracy vs terrorism that will determine the future.

SupremeSpod
30th July 2005, 08:54
I agree with you not so wise. I am indeed advocating the spread of western style democracy. I do however regard democracy as a force for good (until the socialists hijack it) because it exists through popular consent. Democracy is also a positive force. Dictatorships on the other hand can no longer be confined to within National borders (except in Africa.. for now), and they without doubt offer a negative threat to the outside world (sponsoring of terrorism.. the provision of training facilities etc etc.).

However I also understand that to impose democracies upon countries is likely to have a negative effect. This democratic imperialism -to call it that- can only work if it becomes popular with sufficient numbers of people from sovereign states.

We are no longer in a position to cover our heads and ignore what is happening elsewhere. By doing nothing we are a threat to non democratic countries. How do you think the people of North Korea would feel if they were able to turn on the TV and see what happens in the rest of the world? How do you think Iranian mullahs feel when their TV screens are full of semi naked totty cavorting around an Egyptian holiday resort? the answer is that our very existence is undermining their power. This is why they are so keen to support groups who wish to undermine "western decadence".

Most businesses work well when both workers and managers cooperate and work towards the same goals. This can only be achieved if those goals help all parties to achieve their ambitions rather than a few. The same rules apply to people and their rulers, and relationships between different countries.

The Armageddon that is talked about in Revelations is not that far away, and yes it will be a conflict between the West and the East. The difference is that the West cannot use force to impose its will because its own people will not sanction it.. we are even having difficulty approving the removal of an evil bastard like Saddam by force.. It is the outcome of democracy vs terrorism that will determine the future.

There is no such thing as democracy.

xoggoth
30th July 2005, 09:32
Damn! I agree with that DA. Please edit and put something I can disagree with. I will be most miffed if I can only dislike you for ten minutes. It would quite spoil my weekend.

PS Not quite sure about the armaggedon from relevations bit tho. Sounds more CL's territory that. Will there be angels with flaming swords as at Mons? What about that King Arthur? He's supposed to come back when England is in peril. Lazy sod. With the army so stretched you would think that at least he could have helped out a bit in the Gulf war!

threaded
30th July 2005, 17:05
...The difference is that the West cannot use force to impose its will because its own people will not sanction it... DA: I'm not so sure about that. Civilisation is only a thin veneer. People in large groups are very stupid and herd like, just look at the government you've got, and remember what happened in Germany in the 1930s.