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

[Lock&Light]

You still haven't answered the question.

Wrong thread, mate.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

You have caused me many a ground down tooth over the years.

Fair point, how about honestly addressing the responses to your posts rather than this obstinate merry go-round?

 

[Blagsta]

Wrong thread, mate.

Can you answer my question please.

 

[Lock&Light]

Fair point, how about honestly addressing the responses to your posts rather than this obstinate merry go-round?

I don't respond to people who feel they need to insult me. ("patronising tone and general obtuse manner")

 

[Lock&Light]

Can you answer my question please.

In words of one syllable, No. This is the wrong thread for that question.

 

[Blagsta]

In words of one syllable, No. This is the wrong thread for that question.

Can you answer the question please. Given that the Iraq war led to 7/7, do you still think the Iraq war is justified. Yes/no?

 

[Lock&Light]

Given that the Iraq war led to 7/7

Given that I don't agree with your premis......

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I don't respond to people who feel they need to insult me. ("patronising tone and general obtuse manner")

Another evasion. You got your chronology messed up, my "insult" came as after a few posts you didn't want to address. But anyway, seeing as you have zero interest in digging yourself out of the hole you've placed yourself in I wont hold my breadth for some decent postings from you.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Can you answer the question please. Given that the Iraq war led to 7/7, do you still think the Iraq war is justified. Yes/no?

Not really sure this is worth is B, L+L seems like he’s enjoying all the attention and thread derailment more than anything else.

 

[Blagsta]

Given that I don't agree with your premis......

Hang on,

I still can't believe that anyone ever doubted that involvement in the Iraqi War highlighted the UK in the eyes of the terrorists. .

what do you mean by this then? And are you seriously telling us that you know better than the UK security services?

 

[jæd]

There is also the issue of radicalisation: the ideological position of al Qaeda sympathisers is stoked by real events, and a perception that there is a 'war on Muslims'. I don't personally think there is a war on Muslims ( I think it is about territory, power and resources, not idealogical Crusading) but the US and UK foreign policy do make it look as if there is. And it really doesn't help. We should not have invaded Iraq on such dodgy precepts. There is a chain of events from that decision that encompasses Khan et al deciding to blow themselves up and kill 52, injure 700+ last summer.

Not sure why people are going on about Itaq. The real cause of the terrorist attacks, and Al-Qaedos aim, is non-Muslim influence in the Middle East. All Al-Qaedo wants is America (and Allies) out of the Middle East. Once America stops supporting Isreal it will crumble and will be forced out. Another of Al-Queadas goals. This has been public news for years. And just look at the pre 9/11 attacks on the US Navy and the attacks on Jewish resorts and institutions (ie WTC..)

Did the Iraq war motivate the 7/7 terrorists? Very probably. Is the Iraq war the motivator for post 9/11/01 terrorism. Nope, it just adds to Al-Qeadas claims and is an excuse for futher action...

 

[editor]

I've already removed disruptive posts from this thread and it would be a shame to have to do it again.

Is there any chance of people concentrating on the issues raised by the OP please?

 

[detective-boy]

This means that things are being missed or skipped.

Not necessarily (though it MAY be the case). Just because WE don't know doesn't mean that it IS a fuck up!

 

[Badger Kitten]

Not necessarily (though it MAY be the case). Just because WE don't know doesn't mean that it IS a fuck up!

Well, I gave one example already.

'The radios worked fine on the day' ( London Ambulance Chief to GLA Scrutiny hearing).

BBC then checked and found out that they only worked , in fact, in the vehicles. Staff outside the vehicles treating injured people were not in radio contact. I'm not saying there is a vast cover-up, but don't assume what you may have heard - victims are well looked after, ambulances came straight away - is true. It isn't, in lots of cases. Nobody likes criticising when so many peopel did their absolute best, but to say it went brilliantly and we can't learn anything is false ( I know that is not what you DID say but I've heard people say it - we don't need an inquiry because it all went superbly well).

The main point of the thread, though, was to wonder why, after so long denying the link between Iraq and 7/7 ( despite what the security services said) - why have they suddenly leaked the link now?

 

[jæd]

Well, I gave one example already.

'The radios worked fine on the day' ( London Ambulance Chief to GLA Scrutiny hearing).

BBC then checked and found out that they only worked , in fact, in the vehicles. Staff outside the vehicles treating injured people were not in radio contact...

Is there substantial evidence that everyone using a radio makes for better communications and for more care given. I would thought so, but perhaps it doesn't. I'm not an expert in these things and would rather let actual experts deal with this question than an ill-informed public. What happens if money spent on radios uses cash that could be spent more medicines or other pieces of equipment. I'd raie the question of "are the emergency services adequately equipped", but I don't see that I could answer it.

The main point of the thread, though, was to wonder why, after so long denying the link between Iraq and 7/7 ( despite what the security services said) - why have they suddenly leaked the link now?

A Government dept that gives out false information to make the public feel better/confuse baddies. Say it isn't so...!

 

[Badger Kitten]

Is there substantial evidence that everyone using a radio makes for better communications and for more care given. I would thought so, but perhaps it doesn't. I'm not an expert in these things and would rather let actual experts deal with this question than an ill-informed public. What happens if money spent on radios uses cash that could be spent more medicines or other pieces of equipment. I'd raie the question of "are the emergency services adequately equipped", but I don't see that I could answer it.



A Government dept that gives out false information to make the public feel better/confuse baddies. Say it isn't so...!

Er... a public or indendent enquiry is not about the ''ill-informed public'' answering such questions. Nobody is asking you, or me, or indeed 'the public' to answer it. An independent enquiry is however a mechanism to raise the topic so that it can be acted upon: for example if it turns out that lack of funding meant poor equipment = slower response, then it becomes an issue that the public is aware of and thus a means to embarrass the government into providing better funding. For example.

As to this odd statement...

A Government dept that gives out false information to make the public feel better/confuse baddies. Say it isn't so ...

Can you explain why you think a) the Home Office and M15 are giving out 'false information',
why it makes the 'public feel better' ( ?!)

or indeed the Government 'feel better' since the fact that the unpopular Iraq war was partly justified on the groundsthat it would make us safer from terrorism - and it demonstrably hasn't,

and why you think linking the Iraq war and 7th July will 'confuse baddies'?

Someone seems to be confused but I think it is closer to home.

 

[jæd]

for example if it turns out that lack of funding meant poor equipment = slower response, then it becomes an issue that the public is aware of and thus a means to embarrass the government into providing better funding.

So... Basically a witchhunt. Yep, those are always so useful...

Can you explain why you think a) the Home Office and M15 are giving out 'false information', why it makes the 'public feel better' ( ?!)

Because it makes the government look right and looks like they are concerned about the population. Why have they u-turned...? Because it sits well with the Home Office/M15 plans, whatever those are. But at a guess the next step is "Since the world is so dangerous because of terrorism (because of the Iraq war), we need more cash/intrusive Bill to fight it".

(Oh, and the Iraq war is only "deeply unpopular" on U75. Remember, a majority voted Blair in. And this shows that a majority support him and the war.)

 

[jæd]

Someone seems to be confused but I think it is closer to home.

And someone seems a bit naive about how Governments work & operate...!

 

[Badger Kitten]

So... Basically a witchhunt. Yep, those are always so useful...

No, not a witch hunt. Calm down. Look here

See, look, questions being answered as a result of public testimony, by London Ambulance Service. See, it is working - they have changed. See how good it would be if this could be rolled out for all the parties concerned? No witch hunt. Get back in your box.

London Ambulance site, first item

Response to the London Assembly about lessons learned on 7 July
The London Ambulance Service has responded to a request from the London Assembly’s 7 July Review Committee for detailed information about lessons learned on 7 July.

The letter from Richard Barnes, Chair of the Review Committee and the Service’s response are attached.

As to the point about support for the war...

Oh, and the Iraq war is only "deeply unpopular" on U75. Remember, a majority voted Blair in. And this shows that a majority support him and the war

Oooh, the (pro-war) Torygraph runs with this- today...

Three years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the British public no longer believes that our military presence in Iraq is serving any purpose.


For the first time, a substantial majority wants troops to be withdrawn, either immediately or within 12 months, regardless of conditions on the ground.As Iraq teeters on the edge of civil war, a YouGov survey for The Daily Telegraph today shows opposition to the war at its highest level since the US-led coalition invaded the country in March 2003.

Fifty-seven per cent of respondents believe that George W Bush and Tony Blair were wrong to take military action. Only a third still believes they were right

 

[Donna Ferentes]

(Oh, and the Iraq war is only "deeply unpopular" on U75. Remember, a majority voted Blair in. And this shows that a majority support him and the war.)

Worst argument of the day? Still six hours or so to go....

 

[Badger Kitten]

Worst argument of the day? Still six hours or so to go....

It's the gun/fish/barrel interface...

 

[jæd]

For the first time, a substantial majority wants troops to be withdrawn

Ho-hum...

 

[TAE]

Not sure why people are going on about Itaq. The real cause of the terrorist attacks, and Al-Qaedos aim, is non-Muslim influence in the Middle East. All Al-Qaedo wants is America (and Allies) out of the Middle East.

Do you not think that US/UK invading/occupying Iraq counts as non-Muslim influence in the Middle East?

 

[jæd]

Do you not think that US/UK invading/occupying Iraq counts as non-Muslim influence in the Middle East?

Al-Qaeda has had the goal of ousting the US and their puppet regime from the Middle East since the late 90's... US/UK invading Iraq is very recent.

 

[fela fan]

If terrorist threats can be allowed to influence the foreign policy of a state, then that state has become redundant.

Erm, terrorism occurs as a consequence of a state's foreign policy, not the way round you claim.

State terrorism breeds civilian terrorists. If a state behaves itself according to the UN human rights declaration, then terrorism is non-existent.

Civilian terrorism always punishes innocent civilians as a method of trying to change state policy.

Of course our government's actions in iraq led to 7/7. Will anyone be held accountable? Will this leak lead to any action in that area?

 

[TAE]

Al-Qaeda has had the goal of ousting the US and their puppet regime from the Middle East since the late 90's... US/UK invading Iraq is very recent.

Iraq is yet another thing for them to be angry about.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Yes indeedy and in this particular case seems to have been the main motivating factor for the inexcusable acts of mass murder.

 

[laptop]

'Nother leak, received by the Observer:

[The report] found nothing to support the theory that an al-Qaeda fixer, presumed to be from Pakistan, was instrumental in planning the attacks.

A Whitehall source said: 'The London attacks were a modest, simple affair by four seemingly normal men using the internet.'

Confirmation of the nature of the attacks will raise fresh concerns over the vulnerability of Britain to an attack by small, unsophisticated groups. A fortnight after 7 July, an unconnected group of four tried to duplicate the attack, but their devices failed to detonate.
...
According to the report, the attacks were largely motivated by concerns over foreign policy and the perception that it was deliberately anti-Muslim, although the four men were also driven by the promise of immortality.

 

[laptop]

So... they're blaming the interwebnet

Maybe they've finally caught up with the idea that there is no hierarchical "terror organisation". Al Q is a brand, not a corporation.

More likely they're still baffled and looking for an organisation that is their mirror image. And that bafflement will lead to lots more random arrests...

 

[lostexpectation]

'Nother leak, received by the Observer:

whatever happened to those other four men?