CIA 'warned leader was threat two years before 7/7 attacks'

Author Ronald Suskin, in a new book entitled 'The One Per Cent Doctrine', has made claims to the effect that American individuals shared information with their British counterparts relating to Mohammad Sidique Khan, the 'leader' of the 7/7 London bombers.



It is alledged that Khan was placed on a no-fly list by American authorities prior to the bombings in London, suggesting that they were sufficiently worried so as to restrict his entry to the US.

The obvious question is, if Khan had been identified, how was he able to carry out the attacks? Are our resources spread so thinly on the ground that even if we do identify suspects, they remain essentially free to carry out their dastardly plans?

It would seem that these recent 'revelations' are set to stoke the ongoing debate regarding British involvement and responses to the War On Terror.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by UM_Gazz]

I have a problem with these stories of "abc already knew of xyz 2 years ago". The problem is this. If there were 5 reports of individuals behaving oddly 5 years ago then you would have every reason to question why nothing was done. If however there 50,000 reports then you can't track all those especially since 49.999 maybe innocent and thus a complete waste of time. It is only with hindsight that the report of "abc" comes to light.

So what I want to know is this. Was the information about Khan one of how many at that time ? 5, 50, 5000 ?

Hindsight is 20:20 vision something the public forgets when it reads press reports.

How many reports were there about the CIA recieving information from pritty much every non-US intelligence agency in the Northern Hemisphere that something was up in September 2001, some even having rather detailed information about the targets and planes to be the weapons for the attacks.

Its not uncommon for intelligence agency's to act asif they know nothing to make sure an event will happen. Both 911 and 77 served their purpouses in the US and UK.
These events, if not trough direct involvement, at least with preknowledge, were allowed to happen because they fit perfectly in the agenda.

It's pretty easy to make a "revelation" like this sound very damning after the event when the writer knows all the correct buttons to press in order to get a reaction - particularly when the Government's political oponents are just dying to exploit any perceived weaknesses.

In order to really understand the importance of this and to assess whether or not it really was a significant intelligence failure, (always assuming that the information is remotely accurate), it has to be put into context against the amount of other information being received, what else may have been known about this individual and the credibility attached to the information sources amongst other things.

We should not forget that Suskin's primary purpose is to sell a book, nor should we forget that Cat Stevens was on a "no fly" list as well - in its own right this is not a significant issue.

Originally posted by timeless test
nor should we forget that Cat Stevens was on a "no fly" list as well - in its own right this is not a significant issue.

Exactly the point I was going to make