7/7 Reports: You will lose your privacy but next attacks can't be prevented
Official report reveals multiple "failures", raises many questions, calls for heavier police presence in public but Government still will not allow a public inquiry and tells us they can't prevent next attack.

Steve Watson / Infowars | May 12 2006

Downing Street has again ruled out a public inquiry into the July 7 bombings, despite fresh calls from survivors and relatives of victims, reports the Evening Standard here in London.

The ruling came as two official reports into the attacks concluded that the chances of preventing the July 7 atrocities could have increased if extra resources had been in place sooner.

The reports, carried out by The cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) and the Home Office also between them confirmed that two of the bombers had been under MI5 surveillance before the bombings. It was further revealed that a third bomber, Germaine Lindsay, was also known to MI5 who had reports, pictures and even his telephone number in its files.

The ISC report claims that MI5 missed a catalogue of clues that could have prevented the bombings. However, the London Times reported last December that MI5 and MI6 had specifically warned Tony Blair before the July 7 suicide bombings that Al-Qaeda was planning a “high priority” attack specifically aimed at the London underground system.

You can't have it both ways, either they "warned of a high priority attack" or they "missed a catalogue of clues", which is it?

The source of this information was a leaked four-page report by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), signed off by the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, the government eavesdropping centre. This indicates that good people within British Intelligence are desperately trying to get the word out that the official line is hokum.

The ISC report has concluded that more police are needed on the streets of major UK cities and also warned that there would be an "inevitable" rise in intrusive activity by security services in the face of the terror threat.

The report recommended a more transparent threat level and alert system, and called for improvements to the way the Security Service MI5 and Special Branches tackle "home-grown" terrorism. The members said they were "concerned that more was not done sooner" about the terror threat from UK citizens.

No longer is "Al Qaeda" the main threat, now apparently all UK citizens could be terrorists.

The official line on whether the bombers were acting alone or not is however still unclear. This latest report states that they "probably" received expert bombmaking assistance from an unknown individual, and they also had a series of highly suspicious contacts with an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan for several months before the bombings.

Previous to this the government had stated in April of this year that the bombers HAD definitely acted alone and that there was no Al Qaeda involvement.

However, previous to that, in January of this year, a leaked MI5 report stated that they had "no insight " into whether the bombers acted alone, if there was a wider network connection, and if 7/7 was linked to 21/7.

Yet before that, in August 2005, an inquiry involving MI5, MI6, the listening centre at GCHQ, and the police
concluded DEFINITIVELY that there was no "mastermind" of the operation and it was not linked to the follow up failed operation on 21/7.

And initially, in the weeks after 7/7 it was reported that there WAS an Al Qaeda Mastermind behind both operations, and that he had been caught in Zambia. This turned out to be Haroon Rashid Aswat. As soon as terror experts began to reveal that this man was an asset of MI6, the official line changed and has never been clear since.

How can they go from knowing there was a mastermind, to definitively knowing there wasn't one, that the operations were not linked and the bombers acted alone to then having "no insight" on any of this stuff and then back again?

Furthermore the initial story that the bombs were high powered explosives carefully created by a bomb making mastermind (who was also apparently captured, and has since disappeared), were then altered 180 degrees to the story that the bombs were put together from cheap homemade material. Now, the latest reports seem to have taken this full circle by stating that the bombers "received expert bombmaking assistance".

It has also still not been made clear whether the bombs were on timers or were detonated by the bombers. Both these scenarios have been reported as fact.

It is painfully clear that the authorities have changed the official line again and again according to information that is leaked out in the public domain. Still they will not allow a public inquiry. This is because someone knows that if a truly independent inquiry were held the whole sorry scam would be blown wide open.

All these whitewash reports do is clear the government and the intelligence services of any blame. They have no basis in reality as is confirmed by the fact that they directly contradict previous reports without bringing any new evidence to light.

Speaking to the London Guardian, one 7/7 survivor, Rachel North, made clear her dissatisfaction, saying: "These meetings that led to these reports took place behind closed doors ... They were internal investigations and I am not surprised that the politicians and security services have examined their work in secret and subsequently found themselves not to blame."

The latest ISC report also concluded that although some attacks have been prevented since 7/7, the next attack cannot be stopped.

So we have government reports stating that our privacy will be heavily impacted and a greater police presence is needed, but that they cannot prevent the next terror attacks.

No longer are we being told that we must give up liberty for security, we are just simply being told to give up liberty regardless of security.

It is not good enough to say that our liberties need to be restricted because of 7/7 but that we cannot have a public inquiry, and in any case that this will not prevent further attacks. It is also not good enough for the government to investigate itself and conclude that it needs more power and control over the population.

They admit that they completely failed to protect the population yet the spin is that it was because of a lack of resources. So it was due to "a lack of resources" that 4 bombers got on to tube trains, and this requires thousands more armed police everywhere and new laws that simply do away with civil liberties altogether.

The reason behind the decision not to allow a public inquiry according to Tony Blair's official spokesman is that the call for public scrutiny has to be balanced with "the need not to distract from the ongoing work of the security services and agencies".

Funny that because leaked reports by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) have admitted that MI5 "have run out of leads" on the bombings. So they have exhausted their investigation yet we cannot now have a public inquiry because the investigation is ongoing. Again, you cannot have it both ways, which is it?

We were told IMMEDIATELY in the days after the attacks that there was to be no inquiry, despite calls from the opposition party, because it would hinder the investigation.

We were told by Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer that "now is not the time" for an inquiry, but for a decision on what legal steps were needed against terror. Since when do you debate and pass laws into public in response to an event of terrorism before you even know what has happened, who has carried it out or the reasoning behind it?

We were told by ministers "For goodness sake, let's focus on what's important here and that is for the police and the security services to follow up every single lead they've got," . Well evidently they've done that now so can we have an inquiry please?

We were then told AGAIN in December that there was still to be no public enquiry because it would divert attention and resources away from pressing security and community issues, and take too long. There will also never be a criminal trial because the bombers died in the attacks.

More demands from MPs earlier this year told hold an inquiry were also dismissed out of hand. It seems that the government is above the law and only they will tell us what happened, why it happened and what needs to be done about it.


The fallout of 7/7 is all around us in the UK now. This is the face of New Labour's "New Britain". Increased numbers of armed police everywhere with the right to now stop and search anyone they choose to under vamped up anti-terror laws. We now live in a Pro-active, police state, where you are a pre-criminal, that is a criminal until proven otherwise.

And this is what our police now look like in "New Britain". They wear black ski masks, combat trousers and army boots, just like SAS agents.

The Huge black machine guns armed police carry are totally impractical and should an incident occur where they would have to use them, the high output of rounds and spray of bullets they would fire would inevitably cause unnecessary casualties in a bustling city like London.

They are purely designed to look effective and put the fear of life into the population, as are the ski-masks and the combat garb. The more immune people become to them, the more frightening and controlling they will become.

This pattern will continue long as we keep letting the government take away our rights whilst fully admitting that they are failing us and thus must have more control over everything we do. In a free society the government is supposed to serve the population, not the other way round. This is precisely why there needs to be a public inquiry into 7/7 now, before more attacks are carried out and this course of action in the aftermath becomes the norm.

What questions need to be raised in a 7/7 public inquiry? Check the London Bombings Archive for evidence of government prior knowledge, cover ups and complicity and post your comments here.


INFOWARS.net          Copyright 2001-2006 Alex Jones          All rights reserved.