Britain suspects 30 terror plots and 200 groups

[Neil D]

By Matthew Schofield

McClatchy/Tribune newspapers

Published November 11, 2006

BERLIN -- British anti-terrorist police are tracking more than 200 groups and more than 1,600 suspects who are thought to be planning attacks in Britain and abroad, the head of Britain's domestic intelligence agency said in a speech released Friday in London.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director general of MI5, said networks inspired by the goals of international terrorism and either directed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Pakistan or locally controlled, are plotting about 30 mass-casualty suicide attacks in Britain.

"Today we see the use of homemade improvised explosive devices; tomorrow's threat may include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology," she said.

"We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy," she said. "What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten? No, nearer 30--that we know of. These plots often have links back to Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and through those links Al Qaeda gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here on an extensive and growing scale. And it is not just the U.K., of course. Other countries also face a new terrorist threat, from Spain to France to Canada and Germany."

Manningham-Buller rarely makes public comments, so her words are taken seriously in Britain and elsewhere. She spoke Thursday at Queen Mary college in London.

Terrorism analysts said her speech was rare and significant, and probably was prompted by the Democratic victories in Congress this week.

Robert Ayers, a security expert at Britain's prestigious Chatham House research center, said there appears to be hope in England that Al Qaeda will decrease the intensity of its attacks because President Bush has been weakened and British Prime Minister Tony Blair--the other main backer of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq--is on his way out.

"This much detail, this strongly worded; she's telling us the problem is here now, it's not going away and it doesn't matter who's in charge, Al Qaeda is not going to be sweetness and light," Ayers said. What British's MI5 says

I saw something similar on NPR [rather I heard it on NPR]. Found it interesting....Whatcha think, all you non-yanks? Is she correct in her assessment?

[Dr. Shane]

Unlike Vietnam, when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorists will follow us. The danger doesn't stay there. The fear is that if we leave to early and the terrorists will spin it as a victory and it will embolden them. Remember the terrorists believe the reason the USSR colaspe was because of their lose in Afghanistan. Victories embolden them and help their recruitment efforts as much as us just being in Iraq does. No easy answers in this one.

[Neil D]

Quote:

when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan,

Hey Shane, stay on topic...This article is not about the US...It is about Alqada and BRITIAN....You gotta opinion [and I am sure that you have], please frame it within the borders of the britsh empire and thier doings...If you got something to say about Alqada and the US, you are invited to start your own thread.

Sorry to be so strict and terse, but I don't like it when the thread is highjacked ....

[Dr. Shane]

OK, sorry. If the Brittis leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow them. They can't leave it behind. In fact, a lot of the terrorists are already living and operating in the UK.

[Neil D]

In fact, a lot of the terrorists are already living and operating in the UK.

This is true...but contrast that to this hopefull statement-

Robert Ayers, a security expert at Britain's prestigious Chatham House research center, said there appears to be hope in England that Al Qaeda will decrease the intensity of its attacks because President Bush has been weakened and British Prime Minister Tony Blair--the other main backer of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq--is on his way out.

[Taylor]

I think the war does fuel their anger...but I think that most militants hate anything that is different than they are, so no I don't see much hope of change.

[Dr. Shane]

...and remember, we were not at war when they attacked us on 9/11. They use anything they can to recruit. The war has helped their recruitment but even after we leave, they will continue to recruit and plot against us. Unless we drop a nuclear bomb on Israel and kill every last jew in the middle east. That is what these terrorists want.

[Neil D]

...and remember, we were not at war when they attacked us on 9/11. They use anything they can to recruit. The war has helped their recruitment but even after we leave, they will continue to recruit and plot against us. Unless we drop a nuclear bomb on Israel and kill every last jew in the middle east. That is what these terrorists want.

You are totally and simply wrong, Shane. The goal of these jihadist/terrorist is not just the killing of all jews. It is much more complex than that....and you know it.

What you are seeing, is a culture war. A war among Islam between the old ways or modernising Islam. Consider the following article-

Fanatics around the world dream of the Caliph's return

By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor

Last Updated: 12:58am BST 01/08/2005

Page 1 of 5

Global conflict

It was, according to The Daily Telegraph, "one of the most astonishing acts of suicidal recklessness in the history of a modern or ancient times". On March 3, 1924, Turkish nationalists abolished the Caliphate, the position of supreme leadership handed down from the time of the Prophet Muhammad's first successors in the 7th century.

As Abdel-Mejid II, the last Caliph, went into exile - and later died in Paris - this newspaper predicted "the inevitable stirring up of the Moslem world". Today the Muslim world - and a good part of the non-Muslim world - is undeniably "stirred up".

From the London Underground to the streets of Baghdad and the hotels of Sharm el-Sheikh, the Muslim fanatics who blow themselves up in the name of Islam believe their "jihad" will ultimately defeat the infidel West and restore a Caliph to rule the billion-strong Islamic nation, or umma, according to Islamic law, or sharia.

For Osama bin Laden and his followers the end of the Caliphate was the moment of historic rupture, when foreigners broke up the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War and colonised Muslim lands. Even after independence, the regimes they left behind were godless and foreigners meddled in Muslim affairs, not least by supporting Israel.

In his first video released after the September 11 attacks, bin Laden declared: "What the United States tastes today is insignificant compared to what we have tasted for tens of years.

"Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years. Its sons are being killed, its blood is being shed, its holy places are being attacked, and it is not being ruled according to what God has decreed."

The long crisis of the Islamic world, from Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798 to George W Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003, provokes two broad responses among Muslims. One is to "modernise" by adopting western models, often in order to stand up to the West more effectively. The other is to return to a golden age by restoring the tenets of Islam.

As a religion that grew with Muslim conquest, Islam does not distinguish between the spiritual and the temporal. Islamists claim that after centuries of Islamic jurisprudence, "Islam has all the answers". But they have yet to resolve the question of how the Islamic state can be achieved: by preaching, political action or holy war? And if jihad is waged, what should be its targets and methods?

You can find this here.

[Dr. Shane]

The fact remains that the US was not fighting in any Muslim nation at the time Islamic fundamentalists attacked on 9/11 or the various attacks before that. The fact also remains that the fundamentalist Muslims target the US and the UK because of our support of Israel.

[phkrause]

I agree with you 100% Shane.

pkrause

[Neil D]

The fact remains that the US was not fighting in any Muslim nation at the time Islamic fundamentalists attacked on 9/11 or the various attacks before that. The fact also remains that the fundamentalist Muslims target the US and the UK because of our support of Israel.

It may be a fact, but it is a side issue. The main goal is thus-

Predicting that attacks on America would undermine its friendship with Arab leaders, Zawahiri calculated that the US would have to decide whether to withdraw from the Middle East or invade, in which case "the battle will turn into clear-cut jihad against infidels".

Zawahiri said jihadis should not lose sight of the ultimate goal - the creation of an Islamic state in the heart of the Muslim world, notably in Egypt, as a base from which to "lead the Islamic world in a jihad against the West" and recreate the Caliphate.

Without securing an Islamic state, "our actions will mean nothing more than mere and repeated disturbances".

You guys really need to read the articles....You might just see somehting that makes sense.

[Dr. Shane]

How is Zawahiri doing these days?

[Bravus]

Bottom line; yes, the terrorists will keep on coming. I think that's inevitable, given the way these guys are trained and led[1]. I don't think there's anything that will quickly and simply solve that. Even if Israel disappeared, they'd still have grievances and still want to 'save' the world for Islam.

So the question then becomes 'what do we do?' For my money, doing what Britain is doing - excellent intelligence work to infiltrate and stop the terrorist cells, high quality law enforcement work - is the only thing that will work. It won't work 100%, there will still be terrorist attacks that get through. But it will stop a lot more than any invasion or war.

[1] I was gonna say 'terrorism is the new reality of this century', but of course between the IRA and Basque separatists and Tamil Tigers and... terrorism is the reality of every century. Our folly, as much as anything, has been in believing there was a magic bullet.

[Dr. Shane]

Most liberal groups, and some conservatives, in the US, believe that Great Britain violates civil rights. Most would not like survellance cameras on every corner.

[Neil D]

Most liberal groups, and some conservatives, in the US, believe that Great Britain violates civil rights. Most would not like survellance cameras on every corner.

Hmmmmmm.....I have not heard that...

Care to share what liberal groups believe that GB violates civil rights....? Does anyone know if there is survellance cameras on every corner in GB? I've never heard of this....

[lazarus]

Here's an interesting contrast:

Under the new Military comissions act I could be picked up in the US as a green card holder and held indefinitely, in secret, "waterboarded" and not charged. I believe no writ of Habeas Corpus can be filed. In the UK the maximum time any individual can be held can be held without charge is 28 days!

What a contrast! American has truely lost is moral compass and has't learned the lessons of history.

No there are not cameras on every corner. There is much more of this type of survellance but its all legal unlike what much of what the Bush Admin has done.

[Dr. Shane]

I keep hearing about this "moral compass". That must be some Democrat talking points because in my study of history I don't ever see a time when America had a moral compass. Was that during the Salem witch trials? The enslavement of Africans? The deportation of the Chineese that built the railroad? The slaughter of American Indians? The detention of Japanese and German Americans during WW2?

I guess I need some help... which of these was the moral compass that American has lost?

[lazarus]

If you want to assert that the US has no moral compass thats OK

Most liberal groups, and some conservatives, in the US, believe that Great Britain violates civil rights. Most would not like survellance cameras on every corner.

My substantive point was about the notion that most liberal groups have a problem with UK Survellance. Thats a wild assertion....a couple of examples would be enough. But my guess would be that there is more consternation about the activies of the US in recent years by a number of groups across the political spectrum.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't agree with some of the provisions in the Military Provisions Act, specifically indifinate confinement and waterboarding however I was glad to see something get passed. Those two provisions may be challenged in court and found unconstitutional so I haven't given up on the process yet.

However a great difference is that the Military Provisions Act doesn't apply to American citizens. The UK's surveylance program does include their citizens. Like it or not, US residents do not have the same rights as US citizens. However they don't have to stay in the US either since they do have citizenship in another country.

[lazarus]

I don't agree with some of the provisions in the Military Provisions Act, specifically indifinate confinement and waterboarding however I was glad to see something get passed. Those two provisions may be challenged in court and found unconstitutional so I haven't given up on the process yet.

However a great difference is that the Military Provisions Act doesn't apply to American citizens. The UK's surveylance program does include their citizens. Like it or not, US residents do not have the same rights as US citizens. However they don't have to stay in the US either since they do have citizenship in another country.

Perhaps we are talking about two different things here The Military COMISSIONS act IS primary about non-citizens. Its was really a response to the Hamdan decision. In essence it legalises what the Bush Admin has already been doing. Part of the controversy is that this act CAN apply to American citizen. An American citizen has already been held for 3 years and then charged with a lesser charge than originally presented. Read some of the commentary you'll see the dangers.

When you say the UK surveyllace program what do u mean. Do you mean cameras, MI5 operations or what? I'm not sure you understand how the UK deals with terrorism.

Of course the rights of citizens are not the same as Non-citizens but there is an expectation that there be some basic human rights like access to an attourney, habeas corpus, the right to see the evidence against you etc. I'm surpirsed that your response would be well.....you can always leave.

Its interesting to note that if Americans were detained without trial, tortured, convicted without seeing evidence there would be an outcry, sanctions...maybe a special ops attempt to free them.

Its smells like hypocrisy!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Part of the controversy is that this act CAN apply to American citizen.

This is not correct according to Human Rights Watch Military Commissions

Quote:

3. Who can be tried by a military commission?

Any non-U.S. citizen – even a green card holder who has lived in the United States for decades – who is determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant” can be tried by a military commission.

Quote:

I'm surpirsed that your response would be well.....you can always leave.

US residents can leave. I, on the other hand, don't have another country to go to. If I wanted to move to another country I would have to go through the entire process of immirgrating and naturalizing to that country. A US resident only has to jump on a jet and go back to their native home - in most cases. It isn't that simple for US citizens.

My wife is a US resident (although she is eligable of citizenship). She is free to return to El Salvador, however there is a greater chance she would be killed by a street gang in El Salvador (like her brother was) than she be arrested here under the Military Commissions Act.

[lazarus]

Padilla, a US citizen was declared an enemy combatant! The person who made that declaration was George Bush. You could be declared an enemy combatant and subject to the same treatment as a Non US citizen. The rights you have as a US citizen in this regard are no greater than a green card holder.

This would not be tolerated in UK. The Bush admin is recreating the conditions that the pilgrims fled.

[Dr. Shane]

A US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant, of course. However they would not be subject to a military trial. They would recieve a civilian trial, like Jose Padilla.

[lazarus]

sorry but you seem to turn the facts of a suitaion to fit some pre-determined conclusion that you have! The fact that Padilla was declared an enemy conbatant meant that he would have a military trial....because he was an enemy combatant. He was not give an civilian trial...thats the the whole point!

Shane you could be declared an enemy combatant and dealt with under the Military Commissions act. The act is deasigned to deal with enemy combatants!!!!!!!! not ordinary criminals!!!!!!

[Dr. Shane]

The Military Commisions Act does not apply to US citizens:

Quote:

Section 948c of title 10 U.S.C., as added by the Act, states, "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - with "alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States".