DebkaFile’s private intelligence weekly has an interesting report on a split between the US and UK intelligence apparatus regarding recent events:
The two terrorist attacks on London have put a strain on the intelligence relations between the United States and Britain. The differences between America’s tough treatment of terrorist suspects and British lenience are usually explained on the grounds of greater British tolerance for radical asylum-seekers, be they political or religious. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources maintain that
the differences are methodological. The two British secret services charged with combating al Qaeda hold to the view that opening the door to Muslim radicals from all over the world to take up residence in the UK’s big cities is the most efficient method for getting their agents inside terrorist groups like al Qaeda. The American services, for their part, say -
A. Britain cannot show a single successful penetration of al Qaeda in lieu of its generous ingathering of extremists over many years – witness the two bombing attacks of London – any more than have the Americans.
B. The US intelligence community holds that the close interrelation between British undercover agencies and Muslim extremists has been harmful; it has given al Qaeda’s agents easy access to Britain and exposure to a considerable body of intelligence data – not only the workings of the British agencies, but also through them of American methods of operation. At the G8 summit, in Scotland, which was interrupted by the July 7 London bombings, American officials privately rebuked the British for exposing twenty world leaders to unreasonable security risks.
Apologies to Debka for quoting from their subscription only material, but, although I am not sure of its validity, I thought this material was worth promulgating. Debka also reports that (since 7/7) the US is unilaterally freezing assets of London-based Islamic groups close to Bin Laden and Zarkawi. (ht: Rick Scot)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
9 Comments
1. Kyda Sylvester:Based on this very limited information, I would have to come down on the side of the Americans on this one. Again based on this very limited information, it would seem the Brits are playing a very dangerous fool’s game and what works for the spider does not necessarily work for M15/16.
Jul 22, 2005 - 8:43 am 2. AisA:The British, along with many Americans, are living in denial. I recently heard a British official express shock over the 7/7 bombing because, according to him, a recent survey of British Muslims showed that 84% did not support the use of violence against civilians. What about the other 16%, for goodness sake?!?!
With a Muslim population estimated at 1.75 million, that leaves some 280,000 British Muslims that DO support the use of violence against civilians.
A recent Pew survey of six Muslim countries – Morroco, Lebanon, Jordon, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey — showd that 18.6% of those surveyed said suicide bomb attacks against civilians were either “sometimes justified” or “often justified.” That’s over 100 million Muslims in those countries alone.
Jul 22, 2005 - 9:44 am 3. lmg:Under the Bush Doctrine – “You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists” – should Britain be considered a terrorist-supporting nation? They are knowingly harboring terrorists that are targeting the U.S. One wonders what secret gripe they have against us. I can’t believe they do this out of sheer stupidity.
Jul 22, 2005 - 9:50 am 4. KarmiCommunist:…”although I am not sure of its validity“. Interesting, yes, and such rumors were also floating around about ‘disputes’ between British and Israeli intel agencies right after the first London Attack.
i personally don’t see it as a biggie either way, since the US, Britain, and Israel will continue sharing intel, and spreading disinformation in the process.
Jul 22, 2005 - 10:24 am 5. brainy435:Debka also reports that (since 7/7) the US is unilaterally freezing assets of London-based Islamic groups close to Bin Laden and Zarkawi.
Um…..why did we wait until 7/7? You’d think we’d have learned after 9/11.
Jul 22, 2005 - 10:54 am 6. Cynic:brainy435
“Um…..why did we wait until 7/7? You’d think we’d have learned after 9/11.”
Most probably because of the politics of offending those supporters of the groups in Britain giving rise to increased tension between Blair and his LLL wing in the party.
So far we have witnessed little logic and rationale on the part of several of the participants in the GWoT.
As Walid Phares wrote:
” In Washington and London, politicians are uttering the words of ìmurderous ideology.î By historical standards, this is a significant leap. ”
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18874
Jul 22, 2005 - 11:42 am 7. PeterUK:“Most probably because of the politics of offending those supporters of the groups in Britain giving rise to increased tension between Blair and his LLL wing in the party”.
You mean his wife?
What has kept the security services from investigating any of this is the fact that the Labour Party is and always has been a very left wing party,some members of the government were on the MI5 watch list in their early years.
Muslims were off limits as far as intelligence investigations were concerned.
Jul 22, 2005 - 12:47 pm 8. Tom Holsinger:Assuming Debka’s allegation here is true, it is more likely that the British intelligence community was told to devise after-the-fact justifications for a decision previously made by the British government on idiot political correctness grounds.
Jul 22, 2005 - 12:57 pm 9. michael ledeen:It’s hard to believe any of this, my usual reaction to Debka. American officials rebuked the Brits for “exposing” world leaders to risk? Are you kidding me? They didn’t even rebuke Berlusconi a few years ago when the G8 (or 7 at the time?) was held in a virtual bunker in Genoa.
And the notion that there is anything approaching fixed positions on the best way to deal with radical muslims, either in Britain or the U.S., is fanciful. I’ll bet you the farm that there are major elements in each country that believe one or the other of these theories, and that, in the end, it depends on the particular terrorist or group.
Jul 22, 2005 - 5:59 pm