Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Oct 29, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Not so secret now! And are they now hunting the "enemy propgandists" hiding under the bed?
Now You may call me a 'Red Under the Bed' again - but why do I find this kind of reporting so suspicious???
Could it be because the authors name hasn't been given (what would be more destroying to this government than to expose the person who wrote the email), or perhaps because of the supposed recipients - security chiefs and ministers??? Apart from the very broad distribution, what ministers???. Wouldn't it be just as advantageous to be able, when a minister denies the relationship of the wars to UK terrorists going at it, to point to the email and say "how can You deny the relationship when YOU received this message from the man" Finally, why do they not give the name of the 'Downing Street spokesman' - it would add authenticity where at the moment there is non.
All in all another supposed leak which more than likely originated in a Torygraph reporters fevered imagination
Well, Labour seem to be taking it seriously...
From 'the Scotsman'
..Downing Street declined to comment on the leaked documents last night. However, a spokesman said: "We recognise that people have used Iraq as an excuse for terrorist activity, but clearly plenty of terrorist activity against the UK and its citizens has pre-dated that."
You will note there is no denial of the veracity of these papers.
Can someone just remind me of an Islamic terror attack on the UK that pre-dates Iraq please? I have a hangover and I'm not thinking clearly this morning.
A foiled attack against Birmingham in 2000
Supposedly the government of the day has foiled plots which date back to around 1996/1997, I'm trying to find the link to it.
Of course, I could just be talking arrse!
The attack on Bali killed UK citizens. An attack on Australian citizens and UK holidaymakers is enough of an attack "on the UK" for me. Not, however, an attack "in the UK".
Did the report make it clear which we are now more at risk from?
Terror police target 70 'plots'
Daily Telegraph Link
Haven't found anything earlier than that yet, perhaps I was talking out of my bottom!
(edited to add) On a similar vein:
Training camps for terrorists in UK parks
Guardian Online Link
Sorry folks but as far as I am concerned this story falls in to the "No Sh1t, Sherlocks" catagory.
Anyone really surprised out there?
Secret cabinet memo - Tony they are not buying the crap we spun to get I.D cards accepted so maybe we should try the terrorism angle again?
I'd love to know more about this. Al-Qa'eda were going to strike Birmingham in 2000? Why exactly? in 2000 we weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq, and we weren't yet quite part of the 'Great Satan's' coterie.
How would this have been useful to Al-Qa'eda's grand strategy?
Well between CIRA (proven and attempted) and Al-Qa'eda (Eh?) Birmingham was certainly due a shafting from some religous extremists.
Still, it's a lovely place to live
Is that like the supposed "foiled" attack on Manchester United a few years later? In other words a tinfoil-hat non-event?
What cannot be denied is that there may have been an Islamic terrorist threat to the UK prior to 2001. However, this threat has been greatly inflamed by the participation of the UK in the Iraq invasion, as recognised by the Joint Intelligence Committee prior to Telic. The Dear Leader disagreed with this analysis.
The role of the UK in the airstrikes against Iraq in late 1998 ("Desert Fox" I recall) will also have increased the terrorist threat.
It is correct to point out that foreign policy should not be determined by terrorists. However, fundamentally flawed foreign policy that increases the terrorism threat should not be pursued blindly using the same excuse to suppress dissent!
Which of Al Qs stated aims are You referring to PTP??
Are YOu referring to the Driving the Great Satan out of Saudi???
Are You referring to the rather understated aim of having a Sharia ruled world????
Or do You refer to the latest reason Al Q gives for having a go.
Now, I'm not silly enough (unlike Tony) to claim that the wars in the Middle East are not aggrevating A; Qs war on th West, but likewise I am not silly enough (unlike certain august sections of the press) to suggest that the War on Terror is the first or only reason for our country being a target.
Its like GWI, European influence in the wider Magrib (i.e. Algeria etc), Aden/Yemen, Suez, the mandates post WWI and all 'nation building' associated has slipped by Tony Bliar and Dubya. Its like all these hard feelings just appeared out of thin air and had nothing to do with previous foreign policies over the last 100 years....maybe they think if they ignore it nobody will pick up on it. Perhaps true for somebody who's about to settle down with their family for a Sunday Roast, maybe not so true for people in situ.
I assume, it is because this article doesn't fit your construct of how the current government acts and wishes to be seen to be acting. QED, there must be something wrong with the article, not your construct!
Under this government, anonymous but official briefings have become the main source of 'original' information imparted by HMG to the eager media hacks. If these 'official' spokesman are not prepared to go 'on the record', why should the unofficial leaks have to put their heads above the paraphet?
Have a listen to this Radio 4 programme on listen again: Corridors of Power Interesting part is where Nick Robinson and an American hack discuss the differences between US on the record live briefings and UK calls in the middle of the night by un-named spokesmen!
Separate names with a comma.