Assuming Scotland Yard picked up a warning or a threat of an attack somewhere near where the summit was to occur, it would, of course, notify Benji. They probably would have done this even before they could make a threat assessment. They probably would not put out a general warning to the public and try to evacuate public transportation without first making a threat assessment. They wouldn’t want to create a generalized panic in the citizenry and needlessly shut down all public transportation.
Then…BOOOM…BOOOM…BOOOM.
Ooops. Now authorities are in the position where they had information regarding an attack sometime before it occured and did not warn the public. Yet, they had warned a foreign leader. That will have to be very embarrassing and difficult to explain to the public.
It would be much better for PR if Scotland Yard had no prior notice and/or gave no prior warning to Benji. Unfortunately, before the extent of what had happened became evident, news of the prior warning to Benji got out. Now everyone’s got to backtrack and create timelines. Stories get screwed up.
Last I heard, there was no new Khalifah formed, but I bet a few defence contracts got signed through....and guess what, this formless shadowy al keeda thingie group is still at large.
I can't get over how articulate people who seemingly are on the upper side on the intelligence curve get sucked into pondering on questions like "who stands to gain?" in circumstances like this.
In the sick twisted minds of the terrorists, they think they stand to gain, of course. Who stood to gain by chopping off Dan Pearl's head? Who stands to gain by destorying water pipelines servicing Iraqi citizens in Baghdad? Who stands to gain by blowing up Iraqi women and children in Iraqi marketplaces? Who stands to gain by killing Shia clerics and bombing Shia mosques? Who stands to gain by destroying the WTC? Who stands to gain by slaughtering Spaniards and Londoners in their public transportation systems?
All of these things show how brave and powerful the terrorists are (in their minds). All of these things are believed to aid in the recruitment of misquided brainwashed youngsters who want to serve in the army of Allah. All of these things cause turmoil and instability which is the only environment that will enable these folks to promote their agenda. If these idiots weren't demonstrating their "relevance" by killing people, they would be irrelevant.
London: Britain’s Defence Ministry has drafted plans for a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan.
The Financial Times reported that it would be the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war.
The first stage is likely to take place late this year with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces, the paper said yesterday.
I guess this answers my original question as to who stands to gain?
I think he was pointing to the usual suspects, although it was pretty stupid and irresponsible of a PM to say that. Or Bushy told him to say so. Puppets come very useful sometimes.
Well just suppose he knew these attcks were going to take place and just suppose he had colluded with Bush to blame these attacks on al-CIAda already, then just suppose this would keep anti-Muslims sentiment high enough to not only stop troops being pulled out of Iraq but to get endorsment to double them up...just suppose.
One wouldn't need to resort to measures like that to increase "anti-muslims sentiment". Muslims do a good enough job themselves everytime they open their mouths. The hatred they spew is not only irritating, but the pitch of the pitched whining is so high it could shatter the finest crystal.
Well as I see it we are being led to believe that a 'group' carried out an attack on their 'enemy' knowing it will not benefit them and indeed be detrimental to them. The British almost pulled troops out of Iraq, this was common knowledge. It just doesn't make sense for these attacks to be carried out in London.
Or am I missing something?
The attacks in London, killing innocents at this time could only benefit the cause of the US and UK in Iraq by strengthening the resolve of the populace to continue their unjust (no WMD, oil looting, perpetual war) campaign?
So if the public disagrees with the war in Iraq or maybe Iran next, is more of this in store?
It's a scarey thought, a lot more scarey than if we did have fanatics running about with bombs.
But then again it's just a thought, but then again prove me wrong.
The onus is on you to prove it right when accusing Britain of killing its own people.
"How do they benefit" whining and conspiracy theory dreaming is not proof. It's a half ass way of denying any culpability for a cause, people, religion or ego you are trying to protect.
Let's see what comes of the investigation, cameras, future actions, etc. There's no way your proposed grand conspiracy could be swept under the rug.
The onus is on you denial merchants to prove after full and open investigations that those people you accuse are guilty. How can people believe anything you people say after you lied over WMD in Iraq, blew an Iranian passenger airliner out of the sky, and make half ass excuses for killing so many thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Actually nobody knows who is behind these bombs so far the UK Leader Tony B-Liar has accused islam straight away and gained as much political mileage from it as possible regarding war on terror, So untill the evidence is presented people are still speculating.
In the west People used to say black people are thieves labelling them wholesale without evidence, but in reality when hard evidence is provided majority of the thieves are non blacks.
My point being untill evidence is provided you cannot blame anyone.
I can.