Skip to comments.EXCLUSIVE: UK Spy Identifies Groups and People Behind London Bombings
Posted on 07/08/2005 9:00:29 AM PDT by freeper1995
Glen Jenvey worked for several military attachés covering terrorist groups, including al-Qaida and their members in Britain. His stings led to the capture of Abu Hamza al-Masri, a major terrorist and multiple other terrorists. He has been profiled and interviewed in major media across the globe, including in the US, UK, Russia, India, etc. Neil Doyle wrote a book entitled "Terror Tracker" about Mr. Jenvey.
Glen Jenvey: The group is linked directly to terrorists associated with Abu Hamza, who's in jail due in large part to my efforts for British intelligence. The group is also tied to other clerics in Britain. They have taken a oath to Osama bin Laden, if not in person, then at places like the radical Finsbury Park mosque.
The oath I heard about it from Abu Hamza audio tape I have.
DS: Which individuals do you see as being responsible for today's terror?
GJ: Omar Bakri, the London Jihadist said this in April 2004 that a group calling itself al-Qaida Europe "has a great appeal for young Muslims. I know that they are ready to launch a big operation."
Today, a group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed the attacks in London. That could that be Bakri's "Al Qaida Europe".
Bakri looks like the man who will be arrested soon. He took over Hamza after the arrest. Most of the September 11 hijackers came through the London offices of Bakri and Hamza. Bakri said quite a lot in past. For example, he told Publica in the interview published on Sunday that there were several "freelance" militant groups in Europe, such as al-Qaida London and are prepared to launch attacks similar to those carried out by the al-Qaida network.
(Excerpt) Read more at globalpolitician.com ...
GJ: When I worked with Sri Lankan secret service on the issues related to Tamil Tigers, who have a office in London at 211 Katherine road, Eastham, London, I was told by the UK foreign office that as long as British interests were safe, MI6 would not act.
It is possible that al-Qaida had a agreement not to target the United Kingdom so long as their operatives were not arrested. The Abu Hamza case meant the end of the agreement and Islamists declared war on Britain. It's my personal view that they were left alone to protect British interests.
Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad
They hate the West. Why are they here ?
Doncha just wonder what kind of deal France has made with the terror organizations for "protection"?
Cleric supports targeting children
By Rajeev Syal
An extremist Islamic cleric based in Britain said yesterday that he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.
Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Mohammed said: "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.
"As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be okay."
Mr Mohammed, 44, who lives in Edmonton, north London, but is originally from Syria, also claimed that the Chechen rebels were not responsible for the deaths of more than 350 people - at least half of them children - who are so far known to have died in Beslan.
"The Mujahideen [Chechen rebels] would not have wanted to kill those people, because it is strictly forbidden as a Muslim to deliberately kill women and children. It is the fault of the Russians," he said.
The father of seven came to Britain in 1985 after being deported from Saudi Arabia because of his membership of a banned group. He has since been given leave by the Home Office to remain in Britain for five years but the Government is reviewing his status.
He gave an interview yesterday to promote a "celebratory" conference in London next Saturday to commemorate the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon, was infuriated by Mr Mohammed's comments. "That sounds to me like incitement and I will report him to Scotland Yard," he said. "It is an insult to most moderate Muslims, who are sick of people like this claiming to represent them."
They are here because they want us to die. If they can't effect massive deaths, they will settle for an attack on our economies. And lots of Fear Factor. They're talking to the wrong people.
Muslims were responsible for this? I'm shocked.
To take over.
i've heard this Bakri guy speak a few times on radio. he's nuts... well obviously
>>as long as British interests were safe, MI6 would not act.
It is possible that al-Qaida had a agreement not to target the United Kingdom so long as their
Not only that, but even use AQ, as in a plot to kill Khaddafi.
It's no secret. Why do think it's called Londonistan?
The same way Whitehall allowed anarchists and communists to use London in the 19th Century for geopolitical mischief on the Continent, the same MO was applied, using jihadis against the Soviets and extended to OPS undertaken by the British in recent times.
Watch espionage agencies is worse than law and sausages.
Absolutely. And I don't see anything we can do to stop them. It may not happen in our life times - though it will get far worse - but I think for us or our children the last words we hear will be "Convert or die."
I keep posting this waiting for someone to offer some reasonable suggestion on how we stop them, because I'd really like to hear one, but typically all I get are posts of bravado and a promise to take some Islamofascists along. Once I was called a "defeatist."
I don't think they can be stopped.
>>I keep posting this waiting for someone to offer some reasonable suggestion on how we stop them,
1. Identify the enemy, nationstates, ideologies.
2. Disregard past friendship and current economic financial concerns.
3. After identification, focus on the sources of funding, training and skill enhancements.
4. Act decisively and resolutely, being honest with the citizens about the enemy, the cost of the war.
5. Smash States identified with attacking us on 911.
First, stop calling a tactic an enemy.
"Once I was called a "defeatist.""
Once in a while, a person's label fits them. How's the thumb?
I REALLY hate these people. Destroying them is the only solution. You cannot reason with or negotiate with them.
If the West were really serious about the War On Terror, Islamist Sheikh Omar bin Bakri Muhammad would have had a fatal accident such as falling down a long set of stone steps, breaking his neck, before rolling in front of an oncoming truck a loooooong time ago.
I tend to agree that these steps are all necessary if we're going to be successful, but little if any of it is being done.
ping the kid killer
Too bad your's doesn't - "Frank Discussion." You obviously have nothing to offer, so you post an idiotic insult.
Our enemy is essentially a cult whose soldiers want to die - as long as they can take some of us with them. They are well financed, they are patient - remember, for them this has been going on since the 1980s or before. They have a political arm: CAIR or the British Muslim Associaiton etc. They live among us and use our own political correctness and our laws and freedoms to not only protect themselves but to gain more followers (prison ministries) and the ACLU and the rest of the "useful idiots" are laying out the welcome mat. Our own leaders refer to our enemy as "The Religion of Peace" instead of what they are - the Cult of Death. As a nation, we're not facing the fact that the Muslims have said unequivocally that they want to destroy Western civilization and replace it with Islam.
You can make your snide comments, but our nation is in grave danger. IMO, we're not facing the enemy but making it easier for them to ultimately win. It's not defeatism, it's an analysis of the situation.
Ooh. Hit a nerve, did I?
Let me explain it too you: I don't truly have the answers, I readily admit, but if you have come to the conclusion that we're not going to win, and that the islamofascists ARE going to win, you've already given up. So be it.
Frank enough for you, chum?
Funny, as long as there is an AMERICA, I really don't see them winning. What I think may happen though is that we may need another jolt unfortunately, since many have become quite utterly complacent and fatalistic. We may have to fight a hot war here with our enemy.
But we would win that campaign.
Don't post defeatist drivel unless you like to get back some heat.
"You can make your snide comments, but our nation is in grave danger."
I happen to agree with you.
"IMO, we're not facing the enemy but making it easier for them to ultimately win."
We're fighting a war against the liberals and our general human nature to subjugate those different from us. It's what we face on the domestic front, and we have to win that, too. There is NO choice in that, unless we're all a bunch of worthless pukes. Personally, I see a great value mass of citizens in this country for the most part and refuse to get all maudlin about the sill ba$tards that get in the way.
"It's not defeatism, it's an analysis of the situation."
The answer produced by your analysis indicates our defeat, what do you think that means?
Glad I got under your skin. It was easier than I thought, though it was only to light the fire for you. I truly think you've let some things get you down, instead of worrying about what we MUST do to win.
Sometimes I wonder if the U.S. has made a similar deal. To me, the strongest indication will be that Osama bin Laden is never captured or killed.
Check the following:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439102/posts
Nothing, including you, is under my skin and I'm not maudlin.
Ultimately, the only way we will be able to stop the Islamofascists from succeeding in making sharia the law of the land in the United States - their stated goal - is to expell the Muslims. I don't see any other way around it. But I also don't think that could ever happen here. Even if it became politically acceptable, the ACLU and the courts would stop it.
It's not defeatism, I'm looking for the flaw in my analysis. I'd like to know how I'm wrong and how we're going to defeat Islam, particularly when we're unwilling to face the fact (as a Nation) that our enemy is Islam. Even if CAIR sincerely condemns the terrorist actions, the terrorists and CAIR have the same stated goal. Worldwide domination for their religion.
We can't, and won't, kill them all (though plenty here see that as a reasonable response). We can't, without in some way circumventing the liberties our Constitution provides to us, expell Muslims with the only cause being their beliefs.
We're fighting an enemy like none we've ever faced - even communism isn't the same as this. There needs to be some kind of strategy for an ultimate victory, and no one has that. We're not working toward a goal, and if we're going to win then we should be.
We should use their rules in defending ourselves and our civilization against them. Yes, they have immigrated here to destroy us and our children. Shouldn't we be at least as organized and well prepared?
"I don't think they can be stopped."
An exact quote. From you. If that isn't maudlin and defeatist, I don't know what is.
Now, as for the other things you've said, I generally agree. Shocked?
"...expell the Muslims." It may come to that, it really may. It will take another 9/11 to go that far, but I think that would do it.
"Even if it became politically acceptable, the ACLU and the courts would stop it."
Wartime legislation is often decried, but is usually effective. We have to be careful with such things, though, because such power is hard to dissolve once it is democratically granted. THAT is the part that keeps martial law at bay.
"It's not defeatism, I'm looking for the flaw in my analysis."
Then don't state: "I don't think they can be stopped." It sure SOUNDS like you've given up. If you're looking for help I think you know FR is a good place to start.
"We're fighting an enemy like none we've ever faced - even communism isn't the same as this."
Then we're in agreement on that. However, a winning strategy is not found by glumly admitting defeat.
"There needs to be some kind of strategy for an ultimate victory, and no one has that. We're not working toward a goal, and if we're going to win then we should be."
Based on what you've already said, I think you already know the strategy is already being worked. We just have a fifth column trying to unwork it. During WWII, FDR couldn't have engineered victory (even with Truman's backbone at the very end) with the kind of domestic sniping President Bush has to endure now.
I agree that it takes more than faith to win a war, but you have to have that first.
One of these was Jaish Mohammed (Mohammeds Army), a name previously associated with a group known to be active only in Chechnya and Dagestan, in Russia. It is curious that the claim of responsibility was received by phone by Omar Bakri Mohammed, the leader of Al-Muhajiroun, a London based militant group known for his ties with bin Laden.
Speaking of Al Muhajiroun: the group has a North American chapter. Its spokesman is Kamran Bokhari, from the University of Texas.
17 posted on 08/10/2003 12:35:15 AM PDT by piasa
piasa...do you have any more info on this guy or Kamran Bokhari?
Syrian born radical Islamist Sheikh Omar bin Bakri Muhammad is the founder of the London branch of Hizb Al-Tahrir
And a related thread from yesterday which was pulled from news for some reason. Details on the group in post 5 and 6.
This is really scary reading.
Besides being an advocate of killing innocents for over a Decade, this Jihadist was being paid by UK Taxpayers to plot to kill them.
"In an interview with the Daily Mirror, Sheikh Bakri acknowledged that he lives on social benefits from the British government: "He receives nearly £300 a week in state handouts for himself, his [Lebanese] wife, and their five (as of 1996) children. He told the Mirror, 'Islam allows me to take the benefit the system offers. I'm fully eligible. It is very difficult for me to get a job. Anyway, most of the leadership of the Islamic movement is on [state] benefit.'"
Five Pakistani jihadi organisations are members of bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF) for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People formed in February,1998. These are the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM---previously known as the Harkat-ul-Ansar HUA), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI), the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ).
Jaish e Mohammad has a older chequered history.
"I want to see the black flag of Islam flying over Downing Street," he has said...Al-Muhajiroun has chapters all over the world including the United States. It actively supports the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Bakri has long been suspected of having ties to al-Qaida.
Yeah, I know it is WND, but it is now substantiated.
Well, it's, er, an option I hadn't considered. Problem is, who wants to go first?
Dave, I'm gathering everything related to this atrocity here:
Terror Strike- London!
various FR links & stories | 07-07-05 |
Posted on 07/07/2005 1:21:18 PM EDT by backhoe
Hang 'em High ~ Bump!
I imagine eventually the very things you suggest will become our strategy, but the sooner the better chance we have of achieving victory.
Still, when my wife and I were discussing this the other night and I suggested some of these very same things, she made the point that when we deport them they will simply attack our interests overseas.
Whatever happens, however it shakes out in the end, it's going to be a hell of a fight.
Why does it not surprise me that this chap is on the dole. I think its time we start arresting those that preach terror. Arrest George Galloway, this bum, Ward Churchill the whole lot of them. If you give aid and comfort to the enemy by urging him forward you are the enemy. When are we going to take this battle seriously? Stop giving a forum to those that want to destroy us.
Yes, the Blogs are all over this, Christopher Hitchens says the bombers were likely homegrown, and wretched at Belmont Club comments at length. michelle milkin is good to read too. I pulled some of their comments in last night on this thread:
They will not be stopped without us holding to account much of the Islamic world. That means we cannot stop at Iraq. We must insert commando units into Iran and the Sudan and remove every last vestige of the leadership of their organizations. The US will likely be even more hated by the world community, but to hell with them. I am serious. A passive defense will not suffice. We must broaden the war and keep it in the middle east. Secondly we need revoke the visas of all visitors from hostile nations. Send them packing. Now.
Jaish e Mohammad wasn't what freaked me out...it was Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad's name. There apparently is a faction of his group in the US headed by someone at the University of Texas, per the link in my previous post. I live in Texas...yikes!
These turkeys need a fuel air explosive dropped on every mosque they preach in while their preaching their hatred. Take them out as well as their followers.
note how the obvious, the role of Bosnia in 911, Madrid and possibly London is not mentioned.
Abu Hamza fought in Bosnia and organized El Mujahedeen brigade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.