LONDON, Dec. 16, 2007
U.K. Official: Don’t Exaggerate Terror
Ex-Intelligence Official Says Playing Up Al Qaeda Risks Inaction Against Other Threats
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Sept. 11 And Since
Reflecting on the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the day that changed America.
Richard Mottram, who retired last month from his post as an adviser on intelligence and security, said focusing too tightly on the terrorist movement risked underplaying other important threats such as climate change or a possible flu pandemic, a British newspaper reported.
"What we shouldn't do is play into al Qaeda's hands by exaggerating the extent and nature of the threat they present globally," Mottram was quoted by The Observer newspaper as saying.
"This focus is not smart when it comes to dealing with people who are trying to make us think that they are the greatest threat," he told the paper.
Among the significant problems Mottram identified deserving of equally serious attention: global warming; flu pandemics; the emergence of rogue states; globalization and its impact on power balances; global poverty and its impact on population movement; energy security; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and organized crime.
The former official's message is in contrast to the assessment of Jonathan Evans, head of domestic spy agency MI5, who used a rare public speech last month to warn of a growing terrorist threat.
He said about 2,000 people in Britain are suspected of being involved in terrorism planning and claimed there is evidence extremists are grooming children and teenagers for attacks against Britain.
"Al Qaeda has a clear determination to mount terrorist attacks against the United Kingdom," Evans said in the speech.
Mottram, who as permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office advised Brown and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, said ministers need to understand the scope of all potential threats.
"We need to have a better understanding of the context in which we operate and the breadth of challenges we face," the newspaper quoted him as saying.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I quake, literally quake in my boots every time I even think that a Muslimist might be in my neighborhood. What if they looked at me sideways? What if they walked by my house? What if they spoke to me?
I''m sorry, I can''t go on. I need to get a tissue now and dab my eyes.
Afghan Mission Is Reviewed as Concerns Rise
By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
Deeply worried about the prospect of failure, the Bush administration and NATO have begun three top-to-bottom reviews.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush is now worried he has failed in Afghanistan. He only wanted to show that Clinton''s missiles fired into Afghanistan from afar had no effect, and he was going to do it right!
If he read history, he may have found out the Soviets with their ICBM''s, nuclear subs, supersonic planes and large armies ended up the same way.
And, if he read history, he also may have found out that the "US Army of One" with its missiles fired from afar into Afghanistan, Iraq, Viet Nam or Korea is absolutely incapable of fighting anyone except Grenada or some similar small isolated island.
Good man!
In Russia the Non Governmental Organizations such as religious groups are being suppressed in Russia. Industries such as petrolium are being nationalized ( re-communized ) other manufacturers in Russia are being taken over by the government for "safety violations". Oh, and then we have deliberate Russian overflights in Alaska and Canada.
I think we better wake-up, hmmmmm.
Both Bush and bin Laden share a political interest in maintaining a climate of fear. Not surprisingly, both Bush and bin Laden families share financial assets with the Carlyle Group, with heavy investments in the US arms industries. In effect, every American bomb, bullet, tank, truck and aircraft pays not only Bush, but bin Laden a royalty.
But the killer is this-- Bush actually flew bin Laden''s entire family out of the country at 911. Even the FBI raised its eyebrows at that one.
Ever so conveniently, Bush has dropped the ball at each of his purported efforts to nail OBL since he took office, and somehow has botched not one, not two, but three set-piece engagements. (See Thomas Ricks, "Fiasco")
Whether Bush is merely incompetent or a traitor-- or both-- Bush is the ally bin Laden needs most.
Pathetic.
We are no safer from an attack than we were before 9/11. Yet as shown recently by the Southern California wildfires, we can''t even adequately defend ourselves against homemade disasters never mind terrorist attacks.
The only things "safer" from terrorist attacks are the cows in North Dakota, who were provided with night vision goggles by Homeland Security at obscene prices thanks to the gullible taxpayers.
No better time to say this than now ...
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
Posted by hypnotoad72
Yeah, that''s important. Although perhaps the tendency is to overplay it (?) Because of the language barrier, I guess we''re reliant on the media and the Department of Defense to tell us what other countries are thinking. Like they were making it sound like maybe Iran was a threat that couldn''t be stopped short of invasion. But then when it came out that Iran put their nuke program in a holding pattern after Shrub invaded Iraq because they were freaked out at the idea of him doing the same to them that totally changed everything.
Like the world seems to have gotten the message that 9/11 style attacks (assuming they''ve even got the logistics to accomplish such an attack) make us feel like guys like Bush are the solution = attack us and we unleash the psychotics.
Iran''s got that oil, but they don''t even have the capacity to refine it themselves - maybe we can offer to help them build a refinery there in exchange for a more solid pledge to can their nuke program or something like that . . .
I think we''ve got lots of other options for ''fighting'' terror smarter and more effectively than we have been with Bush in charge . . .
This reminds me of an interview I saw some time back with an al Qaeda member where he stated something to the effect of "all we have to do is tie a $.50 bandana around something and the U.S. will spend tens of thousainds of dollars patrolling the area with RPV''s and troops thinking it is a signal of some kind".
Posted by jh6379 at 04:55 PM : Dec 16, 2007
He''s played into the N. Korean''s and Iranian''s hands as well.
He tossed the Clinton deal with N. Korea and chose to call them names instead for 5 years. That got him squat.
To finally get a deal with them he had to give them the Clinton deal plus gravy on top for having been an idiot calling them names.
On Iran, he handed Iran what it could have never achieved were Saddam "The Gatekeeper" still in power - entree into Iraq to expand their sphere of influence. They''re still laughing up their sleeves at that one, no doubt....
But our corporate-owned government NEEDS the "War on Terror" hype in order to scare and convince Americans to part with their $686 BILLION next year. How else can they start their wars of conquest and occupation to expand the empire and steal natural resources like Middleast Oil?
As Eisenhower said many times, every dollar spent on the military represents a failure. It is inherently WASTED money - it contributes nothing to actually help our society or world.
- Posted by alphaa10 at 02:23 PM : Dec 16, 2007
Snopes.com labels this "Flights of Fancy."
It"s false -- a very well circulated "Urban Legend."
Source:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
To paraphrase Aristotle, I hate Bush, but I love Truth more.
That''s interesting you''ve found information to suggest the flights were rumor.
Here are a couple of articles that suggest that these flights for bin Laden''s family did occur.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/politics/27exodus.html?position=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1197850063-dHolfxGehnUOQLiZHR/kbA
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/aviation/binladin.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5D7143DF933A0575AC0A9679C8B63
Al Queda didn''t do that by themselves.
Many have said all along the terror factor was a Bush, Blair fabrication to terrorize Americans, not because it was real.
Posted by formrusmcsgt
"As Eisenhower said many times, every dollar spent on the military represents a failure. It is inherently WASTED money - it contributes nothing to actually help our society or world."
Posted by mh4cbs1
There was an article a while ago about how Iranians were tired of Ahmadinejad''s buffoonery because all they really care about is putting food on the table and having a roof over there head with a reliable stream of income. That totally blows how Bush blew our bargaining position just like with Korea, but if it''s true about ppl in Iran being tired of their leaders just like many of us are, maybe that common ground will be enough to start is on a mutually-beneficial path. It''s kind of an exciting time to think that we now have the power to possibly vote in somebody who''ll be able to generate growth and cooperate with ppl we don''t have a lot of trust for, especially if/since Iraq is going to be controlled by Iran.
PS Sorry for ruining the flow of the conversation!
I too, remember all the articles about him taking the Bin Laden family out. I think Snopes is wrong on this one...
Get the troops the hell out of Basra; wait a few hours and declare terror is exagerated; don''t answer the phone when Jr. calls to complain.
From now on the man will be ignored completely.
Re: "What we shouldn''t do is play into al Qaeda''s hands by exaggerating the extent and nature of the threat they present globally,"
Indeed. It sure does seem important to the Bush regime to conflate this threat as well.
Why do you suppose that is?
Both Bush and bin Laden share a political interest in maintaining a climate of fear. Not surprisingly, both Bush and bin Laden families share financial assets with the Carlyle Group, with heavy investments in the US arms industries. In effect, every American bomb, bullet, tank, truck and aircraft pays not only Bush, but bin Laden a royalty.
But the killer is this-- Bush actually flew bin Laden''''s entire family out of the country at 911. Even the FBI raised its eyebrows at that one.
Ever so conveniently, Bush has dropped the ball at each of his purported efforts to nail OBL since he took office, and somehow has botched not one, not two, but three set-piece engagements. (See Thomas Ricks, "Fiasco")
Whether Bush is merely incompetent or a traitor-- or both-- Bush is the ally bin Laden needs most.
Posted by alphaa10 at 02:23 PM : Dec 16, 2007
+
Well said, alphaa10. I think endless wars costing the US about a trillion as revenge for a couple of NY buildings alone qualifies these perpetrators as traitors.
That is a very dangerous assumption. The deaths of 4,000 US soldiers and upwards of half a million innocent Iraqis is often overlooked in the debate of "Left vs. Right", when the death and destruction should be the central point of the debate.
Hitler''s machinations are rarely discussed in history, the focus is rightly on the real effect, how many people died horribly because of him. the same regard should be applied to Bush. We can speak all day about the facts of "no WMDs" and "no Al Qaeda before Bush", but these are moot and relatively unimportant points.
I posit that how he did it was evil enough, but pales in comparison to what he did, and continues to do.
Based on what we already know, it is very likely that Al Qaeda still does the bidding of the CIA, as it did during the Russian Afghan war. If Al Qaeda launches successful terror attacks in the UK, (in order to keep up the "fear factor" used by the US and Britain as excuse to continue their illegal aggression against Iraq,) then when it is determined that the links to the CIA still exist, how should Britain respond to an attack on their country by an arm of the CIA?...
Takers?
Indeed. It sure does seem important to the Bush regime to conflate this threat as well.
Why do you suppose that is?
Posted by FeelFree1
It has always been my impression that since at least Ronald Reagan the neocons main aim has been to divert money away from programs designed to help citizens in other ways than sending them to war.
Based on what we already know, it is very likely that Al Qaeda still does the bidding of the CIA, as it did during the Russian Afghan war. If Al Qaeda launches successful terror attacks in the UK, (in order to keep up the "fear factor" used by the US and Britain as excuse to continue their illegal aggression against Iraq,) then when it is determined that the links to the CIA still exist, how should Britain respond to an attack on their country by an arm of the CIA?...
Takers?
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the UK were just as much into helping the Taliban as the US was. During the Soviet ''invasion'' (6 months after US/UK backed Islamic revolution against democratic socialism) UK special forces helped train many Taliban, many commanders were brought over to Scotland to work on tactics in the barren highlands.
- this ain''t conspiracy, it was talked about by officials as a good anti-communist thing several months before 911.
Posted by ezol
This is not new to me, my question is who do the Brits blame (and respond to) if their (and our) own creation successfully carries out a "terrorist" attack?
but rather how the bush administration used their actions to hoodwink us into his war in iraq -
all efforts must be placed into cleaning up this mess he has made, then to punish those who have broken the trust of the American people -
-
by bizzzz-2009
December 17, 2007 4:25 PM PST
- In five years since 9 11, I have NOT seen ONE organized demonstration by Muslim Americans condemning radical Islam or even terrorists, NOT ONE. Surely Muslims know how to demonstrate. You see them gather by the thousands and thousands for the return of Bhutto in Pakistan. You see them gather by the thousands in Gaza to protest Israeli oppression, and you see them gather by the thousands at parades for Hezzbollah in Tehran.But in a free society like the US, where demonstrations are both lawful and encouraged, NOT ONE Muslim demonstration condemning terrorists. Instead organizations like CAIR STATE THEY DENOUNCE TERRORIST ACTS AND RADICAL ISLAM BY DONATING MONEY TO THIS OR THAT ORGANIZATION.THE SAD THING IS, THEIR MONEY SILENCES US. THE DAY AMERICANS STOP TAKING MONEY FROM MUSLIMS, THE DAY WE AMERICANS TELL MUSLIMS " YOUR MONEY ISN''T GOOD HERE, WE WANT ACTION" WILL BE THE DAY I START BELIEVING THAT NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE JIHADISTS WANTING TO TURN AMERICA INTO A ISLAMIC STATE.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 45 CommentsWHAT%u2019S CONVENIENT ABOUT CAIR AND OTHER MUSLIMS GROUPS GIVING MONEY AND NOT ADVOCATING AN MORE PUBLIC, ORGANIZED DENOUNCEMENT OF ISLAMIC TERROR IS THAT YOU CAN GIVE MONEY WITH LOW OR NO PROFILE WHATSOEVER. IT%u2019S PERFECT SITUATION FOR A GROUP THAT WANTS TO APPEASE THEIR DETRACTORS AND NOT ACTIVELY OR VISIBLY TAKE A POSITION THAT MAY BE CONSTRUED BY THE RADICALS AS ANTI ISLAM. SO THEY GIVE US MONEY, WINK AT THE RADICALS, AND LAUGH AT OUR INSATIABLE GREED.