7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7

[Badger Kitten]

The Observer has got hold of an early draft of the Home Office the 'narrative' due for publication shortly.

The narrative is what we are getting instead of an independent enquiry.

''The first official recognition that the Iraq war motivated the four London suicide bombers has been made by the government in a major report into the 7 July attacks.
Despite attempts by Downing Street to play down suggestions that the conflict has made Britain a target for terrorists, the Home Office inquiry into the deadliest terror attack on British soil has conceded that the bombers were inspired by UK foreign policy, principally the decision to invade Iraq''

more

Meanwhile the Sunday Times leaks a Joint Intelligence committee report making the Iraq/terrorism in the UK link clear, shown to Blair before the attacks in spring last year.

“There is a clear consensus within the UK extremist community that Iraq is a legitimate jihad and should be supported. Iraq has re-energised and refocused a wide range of networks in the UK.”

“We judge that the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term. It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.”

more

This is hot on the heels of M15 admitting officially ( it had already been leaked by the Sunday Times) that they had lead bomber Siddique Khan in their sights for months but judged him not a serious threat and let him go on to kill. And on survivors last week giving evidence of the multiple failings of response and communication on July 7th and after..

There were clear fuck-ups and failings before July 7th, on July 7th and after July 7th. Only an indendent enquiry can help us understand what happened and why it happened and let lessons be learned. It is not about blame or making political capital ( though the Tories have now come out on favour of an indendent enquiry, as did the BBC's Frank Gardner, security correspondent. It is about saving innocent lives and sparing suffering in the future. The narrative is welcome, but it is not enough.

You can sign the petition for an enquiry here. I am going to see Charles Clarke on Friday and ask him for a full independent inquiry.

 

[TAE]

I sometimes wonder if these leaks are made by the government in order to minimise the impact at the final publication.

Before publication:
"It looks like it might say X, but don't get too excited - it might not say X at all."

After publication:
"Oh look, it says X, well we knew that already, no need to get excited about it."

 

[laptop]

I sometimes wonder if these leaks are made by the government in order to minimise the impact at the final publication.

For sure.

Also - most often with forthcoming legislation, that I've noticed -

Before publication:
"It looks like it might say XXX!!!"

After publication:
"Oh look, it doesn't say XXX after all. No need to get excited about nasty Y, which it does say, then..."

 

[Badger Kitten]

I think the pressure for an independent enquiry is getting strong, so they are trying to take the wind out of the sails by saying 'yes, we know it was about Iraq' first. So they can't be accused of denying it. When it is so obvious.

Then again, it might just be in order to give Blair a kicking, since all the Sunday's inc. the Murdoch stable are uniting to do this at the moment.

Or that M15 are trying to defend themselves by pointing out they warned Blair Iraq qould increase the threat of terrorism, something he chose to ignore so not our fault and can we have some more funding.

 

[El Jugador]

It's downright insulting

leading us by the nose with their narrative bollocks

 

[Badger Kitten]

What concerns me is as they have leaked the Iraq-7/7 link - which was a lost cause, everyone knew it, and there was no longer any point hiding it.

Was that to draw fire from the mounting calls for a public or independent enquiry?

The Iraq link is a given: but admitting it does not let the Government off the hook - there are many other reasons why we want a public enquiry.

Such as...

General lack of preparedness on the day
De Menezes
Intelligence monitoring Khan
Number of prospective bomb plots & plotters in UK
How on top of the situation M15 and M16 are
How dependent on US intelligence we are
Pakistan connection
Ambulance response on the day
Aftercare of victims and families
Anomalies in the version of the day ( still no official version)
Why the terror threat was downgraded...

...and that is just off the top of my head.

This is an attempt to draw fire and damp down the story: the London Assembly report, we think, will be damning - the fact that all we have had is internal reviews is not good enough. Ask the police, the emnergency services, the security services to investigate themselves? No surprise that they are not found wanting!

But we are told that more attacks are imminent; we are told that we should also keep taking the trains and buses and walking the streets...

...saying, 'yes, Iraq was a factor/nobody cocked up/we did all we could' is not reassuring. And not good enough.

There were failures before 7/7, failures on the day and failures after. Failures of communication, and of response and we should learn from them.

Throwing me a bone about Iraq is not news and not an answer and will not help to save lives in future: for us to be safer, we must learn and things must change. And by 'change', I do not mean, 'trust the Govt. whilst we sling out your liberties and rip up your democratic rights.'

 

[fela fan]

The Iraq link is a given: but admitting it does not let the Government off the hook - there are many other reasons why we want a public enquiry.

Such as...

General lack of preparedness on the day
De Menezes
Intelligence monitoring Khan
Number of prospective bomb plots & plotters in UK
How on top of the situation M15 and M16 are
How dependent on US intelligence we are
Pakistan connection
Ambulance response on the day
Aftercare of victims and families
Anomalies in the version of the day ( still no official version)
Why the terror threat was downgraded...

Do you think we can put it down to incompetence? Do you think we're as useless and stupid as the americans were four years previously?

 

[editor]

fela fan: your posts trying to divert this thread into another 9/11 conspiraloon-athon were deleted.

I'm not having this interesting thread trashed by you repeating the same old 9/11 shit all over again.

This thread is about the events of 7th July in London and not 9/11 in America.

Unless you have any direct, credible, relevant information linking the two events and this thread, please keep your pearls of wisdom to yourself.

Thank you.

 

[jæd]

The Iraq link is a given: but admitting it does not let the Government off the hook - there are many other reasons why we want a public enquiry.

Such as...

General lack of preparedness on the day
De Menezes
Intelligence monitoring Khan
Number of prospective bomb plots & plotters in UK
How on top of the situation M15 and M16 are
How dependent on US intelligence we are
Pakistan connection
Ambulance response on the day
Aftercare of victims and families
Anomalies in the version of the day ( still no official version)
Why the terror threat was downgraded...

Ever heard of the "the fog of war"...? Also it tends to be a bad idea to send ambulances and people where there might be more bombs... I wonder what you'd be saying if the ambulances and other rescuers rushed in, only to be blown up...? Would you then be calling for the ambulances, etc, to hang back and wait...?

Yep, there were some screwups but these happen. And hopefully we've learnt and next time they won't be made...

 

[fela fan]

fela fan: your posts trying to divert this thread into another 9/11 conspiraloon-athon were deleted.

I'm not having this interesting thread trashed by you repeating the same old 9/11 shit all over again.

I said one thing: that the fuck-ups by the relevant authorities (7/7 and 9/11) were very similar, and maybe coincidental.

Not only did you delete my posts, but also your own.

You seriously dishonour my name over all this 'conspiraloon' nonsense, and expect me to keep quiet???

I was not repeating any fucking shit again. BK talked about certain things in her OP, and any observer of current affairs would notice the parallels between the two events. I simply stated them.

You then equated me to some kind of 'looney'. Well i'm sorry, but that is a total insult. You should be more circumspect over what you say sometimes.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Ever heard of the "the fog of war"...? Also it tends to be a bad idea to send ambulances and people where there might be more bombs... I wonder what you'd be saying if the ambulances and other rescuers rushed in, only to be blown up...? Would you then be calling for the ambulances, etc, to hang back and wait...?

Yep, there were some screwups but these happen. And hopefully we've learnt and next time they won't be made...

Well, people did run into the tunnels to help. Not knowing if there were bombs. Tube staff. Police.

The point is, until we know fully what happened and what decisions were made and why they were made - until all that is out in the open, we don't know if the right decisions were made. It is pointless having a series of seperate internal, closed door reviews from police, ambulances, M15, hospitals, COBRA, etc - they all ( mostly) worked together on the day and it is only by sharing learnings that they will know if they acted in the best , most effective way they could to save lives and spare suffering. That is the whole point.

You, it seems, without knowing anything, have decided that everything went brilliantly and nobody could have done any better and no learnings need to be shared. I disagree. I am not laying blame, I am saying that when something as catastrophic as this happends, learnings need to be shared, and shared publicly as much as possible, unless it seriously compromises the security of the U.K. This is standard practice when a disaster happens, and it is inexcusable that 56 deaths and 700 injuries are explained away with a mere ''narrative'' from a civil servant.

Who can learn from a narrative? It is not WHAT happned, so much as why, and our response to it that is important - saving lives, not back-slapping, arse -overing and blame-apportioning. This is bigger than politics: the public were attacked, the public, we are told, continue to be at risk, and the public's questions and necessary learnings deerve to be answered and shared.

 

[fela fan]

You, it seems, without knowing anything, have decided that everything went brilliantly and nobody could have done any better and no learnings need to be shared. I disagree. I am not laying blame, I am saying that when something as catastrophic as this happends, learnigs need to be shared, and shared publicly as much as possible, unless it seriously compromises the security of the U.K. This is standard practice when a disaster happens, and it is inexcusable that 56 deaths and 700 injuries are explained away with a ''narrative''.

If by chance you mean me, then no, i've decided nothing.

I just appear to be coming from a different angle from your good self. But i also find myself agreeing with almost everything you say.

This is on edit: Rereading what you said, i think you didn't mean me. Sorry!

 

[Badger Kitten]

Ever heard of the "the fog of war"...? Also it tends to be a bad idea to send ambulances and people where there might be more bombs... I wonder what you'd be saying if the ambulances and other rescuers rushed in, only to be blown up...? Would you then be calling for the ambulances, etc, to hang back and wait...?

Yep, there were some screwups but these happen. And hopefully we've learnt and next time they won't be made...

Oh, one more thing. The ambulances were not sent into the tunnels. But people waited at Russell Square, who had been evacuated from carriage one, the carriage with 26 deaths and many terrible injuries, for two hours.

The ambulances, it seems, went to Kings X and Tavistock, not Russell Square. We need to know why. Were they kept back by police? Were there communication cock ups? What? Ambulances got to the other sites. But not to Russell Square, where the most deaths were.

This stuff needs to investigated, publicly, independently. And it is not being investigated publicly and independently. That is not right. Or fair.

 

[Badger Kitten]

If by chance you mean me, then no, i've decided nothing.

I just appear to be coming from a different angle from your good self. But i also find myself agreeing with almost everything you say.

This is on edit: Rereading what you said, i think you didn't mean me. Sorry!

No, I meant jæd

 

[jæd]

You, it seems, without knowing anything, have decided that everything went brilliantly and nobody could have done any better and no learnings need to be shared.

I've never said that... There are always lessons to be learnt from reviewing past events. I just think that if there is a public review you may not get everything you think you want out of it. And so I ask the question: What do *you* want to get of a public review...?

 

[jæd]

The ambulances, it seems, went to Kings X and Tavistock, not Russell Square. We need to know why. Were they kept back by police? Were there communication cock ups? What? Ambulances got to the other sites. But not to Russell Square, where the most deaths were.

This stuff needs to investigated, publicly, independently. And it is not being investigated publicly and independently. That is not right. Or fair.

Why...? If the emergency services are holding an inquiry what use is to the public...? And I think they might want to keep responses hushed up just incase the next attack targets them next time.

 

[Badger Kitten]

I've never said that... There are always lessons to be learnt from reviewing past events. I just think that if there is a public review you may not get everything you think you want out of it. And so I ask the question: What do *you* want to get of a public review...?

Loads of things.

Multiple organisations responded, yet it is clear that communication was chaotic and so was the response, organisations did not work or respond or communicate with themselves or with each other as well as they could have done. Communication and response to the problem had multiple failings before, during and after July 7th. A neutral person investiagting this with the power to force people to reveal what happened, to make recommendations and to share information between parties will help to save lives.

It was only, for example, when 13 survivors testified publicly to multiple problems on the day and after that things happened, the DCMS who are responsioble for aftercare of victims finally got in touch and offered a meeting, the Met police instiaged 5 key actions immediately and the emergency services were forced to address shortcomings that they had not admitted before, such as the fact that radios did not work and they had no communication with ambulance workers once they had left their vehicles.

Why do you think there should NOT be an independent enquiry?

 

[jæd]

Multiple organisations responded, yet it is clear that communication was chaotic and so was the response, organisations did not work or respond or communicate with themselves or with each other as well as they could have done. Communication and response to the problem had multiple failings before, during and after July 7th.

...

Why do you think there should NOT be an independent enquiry?

The emergency services all did a sterling job on 7/7, but I don't see how washing laundry in public is going to reassure the public the Underground and associated services are safe to use...

And there is also the security aspect. Both the implications of revealing the operating procedure as well as the shortcomings (ie communication) highlighted...

 

[Badger Kitten]

Security aspects don't have to be public. Stuff that compromises safety can be done behind closed doors.

Individuals in the emergency services did a sterling job, but the response was not sterling, because they didn't have the right communication systems or equipment.

There's so much to learn, and change/funding/learnings are not effected unless shortcomings are made public: I stress that this is not about blame, but about change for the better, about saving lives. When the next bomb goes off, we can respond better.

I still cannot beleive that they have admitted Iraq was a factor after months denying it.

 

[Lock&Light]

I still cannot beleive that they have admitted Iraq was a factor after months denying it.

I still can't believe that anyone ever doubted that involvement in the Iraqi War highlighted the UK in the eyes of the terrorists. Nevertheless, anyone who suggests that Britain would have been immune to terror attacks if only Blair hadn't gone along with Bush can only have forgotten that Bali sent no soldiers to Iraq.

 

[Blagsta]

Nevertheless, anyone who suggests that Britain would have been immune to terror attacks if only Blair hadn't gone along with Bush can only have forgotten that Bali sent no soldiers to Iraq.

Has anyone suggested that?

 

[TAE]

No one is talking about immunity. What a red herring.

 

[scott_forester]

For sure.

Also - most often with forthcoming legislation, that I've noticed -

Before publication:
"It looks like it might say XXX!!!"

After publication:
"Oh look, it doesn't say XXX after all. No need to get excited about nasty Y, which it does say, then..."

Also to hide inaction, the Dept. of Transport are masters of this.

"What happened to that 10 year intergrated trasnport plan?"

"You know where thinking of adding GPS tracking devices for all cars to introduce road pricing"

So when a shit strom erupts they pretend to back off the plan and the original question is forgotten.

 

[scott_forester]

Why do you think there should NOT be an independent enquiry? /B]

Because they cost shitloads, take years to produce anything by which time the person/people who you want to hold to account have fucked off. But in the meantime they use the existence of the inquiry to avoid any of the issues being investigated by it.

And at the end of the day Government isn’t bound by any of their recommendations.

 

[Lock&Light]

Has anyone suggested that?

Yes, Blagsta. Many have suggested that. No-one of much import, though.

 

[Blagsta]

Yes, Blagsta. Many have suggested that. No-one of much import, though.

Who has suggested it? Quote them.

 

[fela fan]

Who has suggested it? Quote them.

Yes i'd be interested in hearing this too.

Even so I might remind lock of the target in bali: westerners, australians in particular. Australia sent in forces to iraq.

 

[Lock&Light]

Who has suggested it? Quote them.

Anyone who blames Britain's involvement with the Iraqi War for the attacks of July are implicitly also saying that they wouldn't have happened if Britain had stayed out. I disagree with that analysis.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Do you? Why?

''Despite attempts by Downing Street to play down suggestions that the conflict has made Britain a target for terrorists, the Home Office inquiry into the deadliest terror attack on British soil has conceded that the bombers were inspired by UK foreign policy, principally the decision to invade Iraq. ''

''Initial drafts of the government's account into the bombings, which have been revealed to The Observer, state that Iraq was a key 'contributory factor'. The references to Britain's involvement in Iraq are contained in a section examining what inspired the 'radicalisation' of the four British suicide bombers, Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay.

more

 

[fanta]

Anyone who blames Britain's involvement with the Iraqi War for the attacks of July are implicitly also saying that they wouldn't have happened if Britain had stayed out. I disagree with that analysis.

No they aren't. They're saying it was probably much less likely to have happened had Britain not invaded Iraq.