24 June 2008

Afghanistan: Taliban take 50 Million from the Heroin trade

Foreword: I wonder what that 50 Million was spent on, Im sure it wasnt tractors and for reconstruction purposes for their Country, and I am certain 50 Million is way way under estimate.

Maybe that 50 Million was spent on buying AK47's and rocket propelled grenades to soot our soldiers with, and for the TNT for their suicide bombers, for the War they are in with coalition troops.

90% of the Heroin on the streets of Britain comes from Afghanistan.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to join the dots up when I have presented all of the evidence to the Pakistani Moslem controlled Heroin trade in Luton & Dunstable where I am from.

The Golden Sword of Jihad

Further reading:
Luton Moslem part of a £4 million Heroin drugs bust

Further reading:
Heroin & Another Khan from Luton

Daily Mail

The Taliban took more than 100 million US dollars (£50 million) from the opium trade in Afghanistan last year, the head of the United Nations' anti-narcotics agency has told the BBC.

The money was raised from a 10% religious tax or tithe on farmers in the areas they control, according to Antonio Maria de Costa, global head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

'We estimate the farm gate value (of the opium crop) is 1 billion dollars (£500 million) in 2007,' Mr de Costa told BBC Radio 4 File On 4.

He said that, in addition to the tax, there were two other major sources of revenue.

"One is protection to laboratories and the other is that the insurgents offer protection to cargo moving opium across the border," he said.

The final figures for this year's harvest have yet to be released but yield and proceeds are likely to be down slightly due to drought, infestation and a poppy ban enforced in the north and east of Afghanistan, the programme said.

"The money would be somewhat lower but not enormously," Mr de Costa said.

But he said the last few years have seen abundant poppy harvests, with Afghan farmers cultivating more than global demand.

"Last year Afghanistan produced about 8,000 tonnes of opium. The world in the past few years has consumed about 4,000 tonnes in opium.

"This leaves a surplus. It is stored somewhere and not with the farmers," he added.

It is not known whether these stockpiles are held by traffickers, corrupt Afghan officials and politicians, or the Taliban themselves, but they represent hundreds of millions of dollars, the programme heard.

Continue reading:
Talibans 50 Million from Heroin


Joanne said...

The coalition soldiers should be torching those crops first so the Taliban will not have the funds to re-finance their efforts. I'm sure the Afghans could plant something edible.

Anonymous said...

NEONAZI: How dare you accuse the
'jew' of smuggling drugs into into the country. I suppose next you'll be accusing the Luton Pakistani drug dealers as being 'jews' too. And, of course, you mustn't forget to insinuate that the Afghan
opium poppy growers are 'jews' too. And that winked at customs officer too.

I wonder if there is enough racism and incitement to 'jew'-hatred in your disgusting ravings, for me to sue YOU.

What's for sure, you are a disgrace to the great fair-minded, tolerant British nation. It's wicked morons like you who stir up hostility towards the good majority of the British people, from the ranks of the people you attack so viciously, so racially, so mendaciously.

On the other hand, it struck me that you may actually be working for Lionheart's enemies and his superb, non-racist blog.

Whatever, it is you who are the dregs of humanity with obviously no interest in being 'saved' or
'born again'. So be prepared to face your Maker's sentence upon you, on the other side when your time's up.

Anonymous Lady

Anonymous said...

neocons, you are a raving loony.
Either a frustrated Right Wing Hitlerist ( he will not rise again, son,) or like another has said, you are in fact a clever jihadist throwing the readers attention to the mock theories of the whole world! being in the hands of evil Zionists. Durrgh!
Come on, mate, whatever influence they have does not extend to Afghanistan, Turkey and the other transit countries such as Pakistan.

The question should be, why are British and allied men and women being killed in Afghanistan, to stop the export of the opium crop, when the only busts of UK heroin seem to be accidental rather than planned?
I'm sure the authorities know just who is involved, and could crack down any time they wanted, but due to the governments policies of abasing themselves to a mythical notion of "Social Cohesion," ie; appeasement of criminal gangsters and would be bombers, we must see the rising number of UK personnel killed becoming a daily statistic.
Not only do you have the death and degradation of UK and European heroin addicts and the massive crime wave that supports, we also have to endure the knowledge that brave soldiers and airmen are blown up through a lack of resolve to kick down some doors at home and arrest the guilty pushers and importers.
Why cut off the production only,when production would stop when there was no importers to buy it?

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that "neoconsarecommies," a regular troll here, is in fact the same as "boredluton" who no longer visits here after being rumbled by a reader.
It wouldn't be surprise to find that these guys are paid by the police or Home Office to troll the internet and spread there incitement on anti-jihad sites.

Lionheart said...

I have a sneaking suspicion that NeoconsAreCommies is one and the same person as ducky, they have the same sense of humour that cannot be hiden.

He uses the two disguises when posting different slants.

Raging anti-semite comments will always be removed because i am a friend of the Jewish people.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I listened to the detail of this on a Radio 4 programme yesterday.
We are trying to deliver much needed support for the Afghans who do not want to be dependant on Taliban for protection racket to allow opium to be traded.
Maybe we should buy the crop for use in Pharmaceuticals, and burn what's left.

Anonymous said...

I found this article to be very informative.
Lionheart, I am going to post it here though it is long.
Please excuse me.
My rationale is that more visitors will read it here than will bother to visit the source, especially your recent Muslim visitors who have been commenting lately and even some of the Liberal? Socialist visitors who come here and read two or three words before shooting off their lip calling you "racist" etc. before departing.
Anyone who reads this article and tries to understand it without bias, will come to a very rich understanding of why Islam is at war with us, the "West," and can do nowt else but attack us in every way open to them.
Until we realise this is fact and why it is so, we are never going to be prepared to resist and preserve our unique civilisations and the creations of those who have gone before us.
Here goes then, with apologies, L.H.

" "The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations

Professor Moshe Sharon- Wednesday 24th Dec 2003

The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations - between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.

There is no fundamental Islam.
"Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.

Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.
But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.

In Judaism, it leads to national salvation - not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.

But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam
Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.

Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.

The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?

Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

Nevertheless, the laws a very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses
The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

Islamic Law
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.

However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.
These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.
This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.

The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.

With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins.
The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn't believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.

A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."

Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years.
Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].

In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.

Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics."

Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing - we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.

What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war - inside the U.S.

End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah - peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.

Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.

I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.

Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.

The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.

Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation." "

Anonymous said...

This was sent to me this am. thought I would pass it on. this in Gen is what I was trying to explain on the blog on 6-18-08 The lunacy in the asylum that is modern britain. when hellzbellz misunderstood what I was trying to say.this words it better. I feel this explains my point I was trying to make. this plays in to all that goes on. now and then!

By Philip Shenon & Neil A. Lewis
The New York Times
August 12, 2006

The disclosure that British officials conducted months of surveillance before arresting 24 terrorism suspects this week highlighted what many terrorism specialists said was a central difference between American and British law enforcement agencies.

The British, they say, are more willing to wait and watch.

Although details of the British investigation remain secret, Bush administration officials say Britain's domestic intelligence agency, MI5, was for at least several months aware of a plot to set off explosions on airliners flying to the United States from Britain, as well as the identity of the people who would carry it out.

British officials suggested that the arrests were held off to gather as much information as possible about the plot and the reach of the network behind it. Although it is not clear how close the plotters were to acting, or how capable they were of carrying out the attacks, intelligence and law enforcement officials have described the planning as well advanced.

The Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have suggested in the past that they would never allow a terrorist plot discovered here to advance to its final stages, for fear that it could not be stopped in time.

In June, the F.B.I. arrested seven people in Florida on charges of plotting attacks on American landmarks, including the Sears Tower in Chicago, with investigators openly acknowledging that the suspects, described as Al Qaeda sympathizers, had only the most preliminary discussions about an attack.

“Our philosophy is that we try to identify plots in the earliest stages possible because we don't know what we don't know about a terrorism plot,” Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said at the time. “Once we have sufficient information to move forward with a prosecution, that's what we do.”

The differences in counterterrorism strategy reflect an important distinction between the legal systems of the United States and Britain and their definitions of civil liberties, with MI5 and British police agencies given far greater authority in general than their American counterparts to conduct domestic surveillance and detain terrorism suspects.

Britain's newly revised terrorism laws permit the detention of suspects for 28 days without charge. Prime Minister Tony Blair's government had been pressing for 90 days, but Parliament blocked the proposal. In the United States, suspects must be brought before a judge as soon as possible, which courts have interpreted to mean within 48 hours. Law enforcement officials have detained some terrorism suspects designated material witnesses for far longer. (The United States has also taken into custody overseas several hundred people suspected of terrorist activity and detained them at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as enemy combatants.)

At the same time, Britain has far stricter contempt-of-court laws intended to prevent the prejudicing of trials. Anything that is said or reported about the suspects rounded up this week could, the police contend, prejudice their trial and prevent their prosecution.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former terrorism prosecutor at the Justice Department, said he believed that British authorities were willing to allow terrorist plots to progress further because, if an attack appeared imminent, they could immediately round up the suspects, even without formal criminal charges.

“They have this fail-safe,” he said. “They can arrest people without charging them with a crime, which would make a big difference in how long you'd be willing to let things run.” He said F.B.I. agents, who are required to bring criminal charges if they wanted to arrest a suspect, had a justifiable fear that they might be unable to short-circuit an attack at the last minute.

There is a difference, too, in how information is shared, with American law enforcement officials typically communicating much more fully with the news media and other agencies than their British counterparts do.

In one case in particular, last year after the London bombings when New York police officers traveled there to pitch in, the different working style created tension. British police and intelligence officials complained to the F.B.I., C.I.A. and State Department after the New York officers, used to speaking more openly, gave interviews to the press in London and sent information on to their headquarters in New York, where officials then held a news conference with some details about the investigation, according to one senior American official involved in the relationship with British agencies.

While American officials say they do not believe there were any serious compromises of the investigation, the British were extremely upset. “They don't want us to share so widely,” the senior American official said.

A senior federal law enforcement official said MI5 also had a distinct advantage over the F.B.I. in that it had a greater store of foreign-language speakers, giving British authorities greater ability to infiltrate conspiracy groups. The F.B.I. still has only a handful of Muslim agents and others who speak Arabic, Urdu or other languages common in the Islamic world.

Justice Department officials and others involved in developing American counterterrorism strategies, however, say it is wrong to suggest that the F.B.I. always moves hurriedly to arrest terrorism suspects, rather than conduct surveillance that may lead to evidence about other conspirators and plots.

On Saturday, as news reports surfaced describing significant disagreements between British and American officials over the the timing of the arrests in the bombing plot, Frances Fragos Townsend, the president's homeland security adviser, said in a statement: “There was unprecedented cooperation and coordination between the U.S., U.K. and Pakistan officials throughout the case and we worked together to protect our citizens from harm while ensuring that we gathered as much information as possible to bring the plotters to justice. There was no disagreement between U.S. and U.K. officials.”

John O. Brennan, a former official of the Central Intelligence Agency who set up the government's National Counterterrorism Center two years ago, said in an interview that he had been involved in a number of recent cases — most of them still classified — in which the F.B.I. had placed suspected terrorists under surveillance rather than rounding them up.

He said the bureau's willingness to wait reflected a new sophistication as supervisors adapted to the rhythm of terrorism investigations. “Especially given the history of 9/11, of course the bureau wants to move quickly and make sure there is no risk of attack,” he said. “But over the past two years, I think the bureau has become much more adept at allowing these operations to run and monitor them.”

But others are less certain that the bureau has overcome its traditional desire to make quick arrests.

Daniel Benjamin, a counterterrorism specialist in the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said the apparent success of the British surveillance operation — and the failure of the F.B.I. to identify and disrupt any similar terrorist cell in the United States since Sept. 11 — argued for creation of an American counterpart to MI5. “The F.B.I. has still not risen to the domestic intelligence task,” he said.

But MI5, others note, may have benefited from the longer experience of dealing with domestic terrorism in connection with the Irish Republican Army. And it has its own critics who question its strategy by noting that it had some of the suspects in last summer's bombings in the London subway and on a bus under surveillance before the attacks.

British security officials have publicly acknowledged that two of the London bombers — Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer — had been observed in connection with a different terrorist plot that was subject to heavy surveillance. But when they dropped out of sight — well before the London bombings — intelligence agencies did not pursue them because the other conspiracy seemed a much greater priority.

John Timoney, the Miami police chief who also has run the Philadelphia Police Department and served in the No. 2 post in the New York Police Department, has worked extensively over the years in Britain on policing matters. He said comparing the two country's approaches was difficult.

“First and foremost, the policing systems are completely different,” said Chief Timoney, noting that in Britain the Metropolitan Police is the dominant national law enforcement agency and is served by MI5.

In the United States, on the other hand, there is intense competition between various federal agencies and between some federal agencies and some state and local forces, he said.

But neither approach is guaranteed to succeed. In June, about 250 police officers stormed an East London row house looking for chemical weapons and arrested two brothers, Abul Koyair and Mohammed Abdul Kahar. Mr. Kahar was shot and wounded during the operation. But the two men were later released without charge after the authorities failed to find any evidence linking them to terrorist activities.

David N. Kelley, a former United States attorney in Manhattan who has overseen a range of international terrorism cases, including prosecuting the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, said, “The real challenge in law enforcement when you have a plot like that is when do you pull the trigger.”

He also said that the longer investigators waited to take down a case, the risks that they might lose track of suspects increased, even if the plotters were under 24-hour surveillance.

“People think when you have someone under surveillance, it's a fail-safe, but losing someone is a real fear in these things,” he said. “It's not like television. It's a real juggling act. You've got to keep a lot of balls in the air and not let any of them drop.”

Anonymous said...

the arrests were held off to gather as much information as possible about the plot and the reach of the network behind it.

Anonymous said...

Found a link there European Muslim have started to take up residence in the suburbs of Peshawar, an area where militancy is growing.


I've done a quick google on this and can't find anything else that isn't linked to this article.

I think considering that the infiltration that the Taleban have in this region of Pakistan and how little control the Pakistan central government that these Europeans would not be welcome unless they were trusted.



Anonymous said...

anon, the prize of getting Islamist hands on Pakistan nuclear weapons is what they want.
Pakistan has many secular and democratic elements in it's society. Less women wear veil there than in Britain!
Pres. Musharaf, though complained about, is representative of highly educated officer class who can be trusted with such powerful arsenal. Tthere is trouble to come in Pakistan as their democracy will be used to fur the aims of jihadic Islamists, turning Pak. away from current democratic freedom towards Radical Shariaisation. This can only prelude a future war with India across the Himalayas.
Nuclear fall-out patterns and death tolls are already worked out, and such a war is considered "do-able."
God help them all.

Anonymous said...

Miles I understood what you initially wrote. And I don't agree with the NY Times article at all. And let me clarify my point. First of all the NY Times is the MOST Lineral News Paper in America. Secondly, the NY Times had been known to fabricate articles. Thridly, the NY Times has mis-queted and taken peoples comments way out of context.

As for one who's been in Law Enforcement for almost 19 years on a federal level. We don't necessarily make arrest to quick. We simply make the arrest when it prudent to do so. I had had several cases which lasted for years. Just comes down to how the criminal element is advancing. And we never speak to the media during a pending investigation. Unless there's a known suspect and we need the publics assistance in identifying the prepetrator. Or there are other elements to using the media too. But, its far and between in using the media. The NY Times stated the FBI hasn't thawt any terrorist activities since 9/11. Well, I can assure you that if we didn't do our jobs there would have been at least 27 hits of terrorist activity from muslims on American soil. The thing is we elect what we tell the media and what we release. In American we have the Information of Freedom Act. Which would enable the media and the public to being aware of what transpired. But, when "we" have an action classified. Then the media wouldn't know shit.

The sources from the NY Times is very un-reliable at the least. This news organization is no longer taken seriously, due to they're unable to be unbiased in their reporting. In the old days we might slip a thing or two to a media source. And if would be printed as an anonymous person from the FBI said. And in return they would offer valuable services to us. But, the landscaping of that partnership is no longer welcomed. Since the media abused the relationship. As for the local cops from the NYPD of any other large local police dept. I cannot speak in what happened in the UK or what their protocols are with the media. I know when we work with them. They know to not release ANY info to the media even as anonymous. Or else we no longer work with them and pull jurisdictional rights on them and close them out. I'm a firm believer that when you want information go directly to source opposed to going to 3rd party. And of course going directly to the source will not always yield results. But there's a good reason for that. As in loose lips sink ships is the old saying.

Ducky's here said...

Pakistan, nah. They can pay Chechens to lift some Russian weapons grade stuff.

Anonymous said...

so your heroin addicted pals in dunstable are funding terrorism with their daily fix?

maybe arresting these parasites under terror laws is the only way to get them off the streets, lol.

Joanne said...

That's great boredluton. Supply young people heroin and then take them out of the picture with those stupid laws put in place to shut up the British people. It is interesting you refer to addicts as parasites and the laws as terror laws. So this is what you think of the British people - parasites - and that the laws which should be in place to arrest actual terrorists should be used to put away the British people. So are you sitting back, watching, and laughing, boredluton? We'll see who has the last laugh.

Anonymous said...

Actually legalize it or rather de-criminalize the illegal substantace. Then you start to disrupt the demand for the illegal substantance and then you will see the supply dewindle down.

Anonymous said...

Ok Hellzbellz I understand what you are saying and can respect that. maybe I heard the wrong info.I am glad we understand each other.