There is a terrible pattern emerging in Western nations. Fear of Islamic terror and Muslim backlash has crippled our ability to fight our mortal enemies.
New information reveals massive intel failures, the likes of which were exposed in the Boston marathon bombing. There were plenty of warnings from foreign countries about the Tsarnaev jihadis, as well as red flags concerning their extremist mosque in Boston. But the FBI did nothing. No surveillance, no mosque monitoring. Nothing. And in this case of the jihad beheaders in London, the M15 too did nothing. But they banned Spencer and me, in that they were most aggressive. But they were derelict in their real duty of protecting and defending the people of Britian. It would seem pretty elemental that banning those who speak against jihad is not going to stop jihad. I mean, really. The problem is jihad, the problem isn't speaking against jihad. Five and half years after the London bus bombings and this is where these quislings are?
"Could MI5 have prevented murder of Lee Rigby?" By The Telegraph, December 19, 2013 (thanks to Inexion)
There were no controls on Michael Adebolajo's movements or activities when he returned from Kenya in 2010 where he had been caught trying to join the al-Shabaab terror groupPhoto: PA
MI5 was still in contact with Islamist fanatic Michael Adebolajo just months before he murdered soldier Lee Rigby, it has been claimed.The Telegraph can also disclose there were no controls on his movements or activities when he was returned from Kenya in 2010 where he had been caught trying to join the al-Shabaab terror group.Adebolajo said members of the Security Service were contacting him “earlier this year” in the hope of turning him into an informant, according to sources close to his defence team.The revelations pile pressure on the spy agency over exactly what it knew of Adebolajo and how much contact it had with him prior to the outrage.It also raises questions about whether the security services could have done more to spot the growing threat that Adebolajo and Adebowale posed.
However the truth may never been known because a report by the parliamentary body examining MI5 dealings with him is expected to be redacted when it is published next year.The men have been found guilty of murdering Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich in May this year after running him over with a car and hacking him to death.Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, said: “There are questions to be answered.“I am very concerned about this whole issue of people who go from out country whether to be involved in political or, in some cases, terrorist activities and what seems to be some kind of obligation on the British authorities to bring them back to our country against their wishes.“In this case it may be that the reason the security service wanted him back was because they wanted to elicit information from him that would be helpful to them“If that was the case, they should be open and transparent to us. There are a number of questions.”Adebolajo had been known to MI5 for at least eight years when he butchered Fusilier Rigby in the street.It is understood he had featured in a number of previous investigations over the years but none had involved attack planning and he was deemed a low risk.He was a regular member of a small group of hardcore fanatics closely linked to the extremist preacher Anjem Choudary - the former leader of banned radical group al–Muhajiroun.Adebolajo regularly attended meetings and demonstrations held by his group and successor organisations.In 2006 he was arrested outside the Old Bailey during violent scenes as Islamic fanatics protested over the trial of a man accused of soliciting murder during a previous demonstration against Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.In early 2008 he spent more than 50 days in custody on remand for assault.His activities became more serious in 2010 when the Kenya authorities seized him, along with a group of other youths, trying to cross the border in to Somalia.It is believed he wanted to join the Somali terror group al-Shabaab.He appeared in court but was not charged and returned home.Michael Adebolajo (2nd R) in a court in the Kenyan coastal town of Mombasa in 2010 (AFP)
The circumstances of his return remain unclear but Kenyan officials have claimed the British authorities treated the case “very lightly” and did not take his threat seriously enough.His Kenyan lawyer at the time, Wycliffe Makasembo, has claimed his was freed on the recommendation of the British High Commission and avoided a formal deportation.It raises the question as to why Adebolajo was not under greater surveillance or even prosecuted in this country.Adebolajo told the Old Bailey there was “more to the story” but did not elaborate.Under the Terrorism Act 2006, it is an offence to travel or intend to travel overseas to commit acts of terrorism or take part in terror training.A number of Britons have already been convicted of similar offences including the white Muslim convert Richard Dart and his co-defendants, earlier this year.They admitted planning travelling to Pakistan to try and obtain terror training and had discussed attacking the military-supporting town of Wootton Bassett.Equally, Adebolajo could have had his movements restricted through the imposition of a control order/Tpim but one was never applied for.In 2011, terror suspect Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed was placed under a control order after being held in Somaliland on suspicion of having fought with al–Shabaab in Somalia and of recruiting other British men to join them.It is understood, that Adebolajo was instead approached by MI5 following his return from Kenya either to see what intelligence they could glean from him or to see if he would spy on other militants.Relatives have claimed they were also approached, including his brother Jeremiah who said he was contacted by MI6.Following his arrest after the murder of Mr Rigby, Adebolajo told police to ask MI5 for his home address because “they had visited me there earlier this year”.But despite that he continued with his extremist preaching and was seen shouting anti–Western rhetoric in Woolwich as recently as a week before the murder.At the request of David Cameron, the Prime Minister, the Intelligence and Security Committee is examining MI5’s dealings with the pair.But it will not report until next year and more sensitive parts of the findings are likely to be kept out of the public domain.In his first public speech earlier this year, Andrew Parker, appeared to pre-empt any criticism over whether the Woolwich attack could have been foreseen.Speaking in general terms, he said: “There is the difference between knowing of someone and knowing everything about them.“Knowing of an individual does not equate to knowing everything about them. Being on our radar does not necessarily mean being under our microscope.“The reality of intelligence work in practice is that we only focus the most intense intrusive attention on a small number of cases at any one time.”