U.K. Official: Don’t Exaggerate Terror

Ex-Intelligence Official Says Playing Up Al Qaeda Risks Inaction Against Other Threats

(CBS/AP)  Britain is in danger of exaggerating the threat from al Qaeda, the former top adviser on terrorism to Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quoted Sunday as saying.

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.

[bizzzz-2009]

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.
WHAT%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.

[neoconrcrazy]

the real issue is not a motley group of terrorists who got lucky in NYC -

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 -

[brianbwb-2009]

- 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?

[ezol-2009]

Here is a little fun speculation;

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.

[closethippy1]

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?
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.

[brianbwb-2009]

Here is a little fun speculation;

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?

[brianbwb-2009]

"It is not about what Bush does, it more about HOW he does it." Posted by klifton2

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.

[Con Mohrat]

Bin Laden desperately wants the useful idiot, George Bush, to hold power as long as possible. How else would you explain how much al Qaeda has spread throughout the world since 2001?

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.

[rowdytexan2]

They don''t have their oil contracts yet, nor their pipeline across the middle east.

[feelfree1]

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?