Britain's spy chief warns of terrorist plots

LONDON (Reuters) - Muslim extremists are plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain and the threats could involve chemical and nuclear devices, a British spy chief said.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of domestic spy agency MI5, said young British Muslims were being groomed to become suicide bombers and her agents were tracking some 1,600 suspects, most of whom were British-born and linked to al Qaeda in Pakistan.

"We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and damage our economy. What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten? No, nearer 30 ... that we know of," Manningham-Buller said in a speech to a specially invited audience in London on Thursday evening.

"These plots often have links back to al Qaeda in Pakistan and through those links al Qaeda gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here," she added.

The warnings were not intended to alarm but to paint a frank picture of the al Qaeda threat, she said, adding that it was sustained and growing.

"And it is not just the UK, of course," she warned. "Other countries also face a new terrorist threat: from Spain to France to Canada and Germany."

Britain suffered its worst peacetime attack in July last year when four British Islamists blew themselves up on London's transport network, killing 52 commuters and wounding hundreds.

"This is a threat that has grown up over a generation. I think (Manningham-Butler)'s absolutely right in saying it will last a generation," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters.

Blair said it could only be combated by tough terrorism laws and fighting "poisonous propaganda" influencing young people.

The government has said law and order will be a major part of the next parliamentary session and tougher security measures are expected to be outlined in a speech next Wednesday.

Anti-terrorist police have warned the terrorist threat has increased since last year's attacks and say they have thwarted at least five major plots since then.

In August, police said they foiled a plot to blow up transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives.

Earlier this week, British Muslim convert Dhiren Barot was jailed for 40 years for planning to blow up the New York Stock Exchange and carry out attacks in Britain using a "dirty bomb" and gas-filled limousines.

Manningham-Buller, who rarely speaks in public, provided the most detailed account of how serious the threat was.

"My officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totaling over 1,600 identified individuals who are actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here and overseas," she said.

Manningham-Buller said the number of cases being pursued by security services had risen by 80 percent since January.

"Today we see the use of home-made improvised explosive devices. Tomorrow's threat may, and I suggest will, include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology," she said.

While Blair has rejected the argument that British foreign policy is to blame for the terrorist threat, Manningham-Buller said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to play a part.

"The extremists are motivated by a sense of grievance and injustice driven by their interpretation of the history between the West and the Muslim world," she said.

Youths were being actively targeted and radicalized, she said. "Chillingly, we see the results here. Young teenagers groomed to be suicide bombers."

"As for Britain - they let this thing get out of hand. It may be too late."

I certainly hope it is not too late.

Western governments (ours included), seem to be creating a scenario for anarchism. They have thrown open the doors of immigration to allow peoples known to be hostile toward native populations, grant them extra leverage to outrage native populations, and hold firmly to the lie it enriches our culture.

If one major, or multiple synchronized smaller terrorists attacks occur, the Brits may have to have to do what their government is unwilling, or unable to do. At that point the government would be in direct opposition with their native population. The government would be in the precarious position of both pursuing the terrorists within the nation while protecting the part of their population known to be hostile toward the native population.

The same scenario is playing out here in the US. I've absolutely no doubt terrorist plans within our nation are already in the works, and they were not just hatched after the election. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in our intelligence services to keep the attacks from materializing. Unlike Britain and most European nation, if anarchy knocks at our door, our citizens are armed to the teeth, and all our military and combined police forces wouldn't be capable of quelling the uprising.

"How better to serve the Koran's Allah than to plant subversives throughout this republic by which to do in America while elsewhere other Muslim murderers global are doing in Israel and so forth, the latter being "29 sensitive sites?""

I've got questions desperately in need of answers.

Why is our government increasing the portion of Muslim immigrants from the Middle East from 15% to 73% so far this decade? Projections by the Center for Immigrant Studies are for 2.5 million Muslim immigrants from the Middle East by 2010. What in hell is going on? How is this good for our nation?

I am not a fan of conspiracy theorists, but I seem to be shifting that direction. I wonder if Arab oil producing states have dictated immigrant quotas to oil consuming nations to keep the oil flowing. If that is the case, the price of oil is too high and cannot be measured in dollars. I am just finding it very difficult to accept our nation, and other western oil consuming nations are unaware of the suicidal immigration path we are on.

I want to say none of this is happening, but I cannot. Something very threatening is happening. Our government, Democrats and Republicans alike, cannot be so blind as to not know what they are doing. WHAT IS IT? Who is dictating this policy and why?

WINSTON CHURCHILL: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” -Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

THE UN PLAN FOR GLOBAL MIGRATION

(snipped)

The dream of a New World Order was born long before socialist visionaries (including Franklin Roosevelt and the leaders of the Federal Council of Churches) enthroned Communist Alger Hiss as the first head of the United Nations.[3] [See The Revolutionary Roots of the UN] Hiss was the primary author of The UN Charter, which summarized its vision in noble terms that few could criticize.

"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS," it began, "DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained... and for these ends to practice tolerance and... to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all.... Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco... do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."[4]

It took the Second World War to make the new system acceptable to the people. In the wake of that useful crisis, the masses willingly embraced the UN promise of "economic and social advancement of all" under the guiding hand of the new "international machinery."

In the decades that followed, most people seemed to dismiss UN treaties and declarations as "soft laws" and policies with little effect on national sovereignty. They didn't know the many ways UN declarations would permeate national laws and policies. The mainstream media didn't tell us. So when the "The Global Commission on International Migration was launched by the United Nations Secretary-General and a number of governments on December 9, 2003," few saw the red lights.[5]

But America is awakening. An immigrant-friendly nation, it has welcomed grateful immigrants from around the world into its system. Now, it faces a new kind of migration -- one that intentionally clashes with everything we have valued and shared. Thomas Sowell summarizes some of its more obvious problems:

"Under affirmative action, combined with amnesty, [illegals] would have preferences in jobs and other benefits. Those who set up their own businesses would be entitled to preferences in getting government contracts. Their children would be able to get into college ahead of the children of American citizens with better academic qualifications. ... [I]f an illegal alien gets stopped for going through a red light... in many communities the cop is forbidden to arrest him.... Under a provision recently passed by the Senate, illegal aliens who forged Social Security cards not only get a pass, they get to collect Social Security benefits."[6]

This legalized lawlessness fuels the "crisis" needed to persuade the masses to accept mass surveillance, universal data collection, and other intrusive strategies for worldwide control. And it gets worse:

"Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each."[7]

"The immigration reform bill now under congressional consideration would grant amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants.... Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today."[8]

"When Sept. 11 hijackers Hani Hanjour and Khalid Almihdhar needed help getting fraudulent government-issued photo IDs before embarking on their suicide mission, they hopped into a van and headed to the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store in Falls Church, Va. That's where scores of illegal alien day laborers ply bogus identity documents to other illegal aliens from around the world."[9]

A web of secrecy and a flood of misleading propaganda hides the truth from taxpayers who cover the costs. For example, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America undermines both security and prosperity for ordinary people. Wondering why elected leaders ignore their pleas, many face rising lawlessness, litter, lost jobs, and fear of violence.[10]

The reasons are actually simple. International regulations have already bound the nations around the world to regional as well as global laws and policies. To understand their aims, let's look at the United Nation's Report of the Global Commission on International Migration [GCIM]. Chapter 6 warns us that "international migration is a complex phenomenon," and most nations (states) recognize the importance of international migration and seek to address it in a way that enables them to respect their international obligations."[1] Might the word "respect" actually imply "obedience" to international guidelines?

AN ILLUSION OF NATI0NAL SOVEREIGNTY

The subtle language in many UN documents hides the assault on national sovereignty. While sounding affirmative, it undermines any "sovereign" action that might oppose UN policies. The UN Declaration on Human Rights illustrates this manipulative language well. Its Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression...."

But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, its promise of "human rights" does not apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Nor does it apply to Christians who cling to God's "offensive" truths -- or refuse to follow UNESCO's Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion of a Culture of Peace.[11]

The migration issue shifts national sovereignty onto the same slippery ground. In the numbered items below, notice the GCIM's promising assurance -- followed by a clear denial of traditional sovereignty:

read more:

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2006jun13.html

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.