Registered user login:

What did the Saudis know about 7/7?

Martin Bright

Published 01 November 2007

King Abdullah says Britain's security services ignored Saudi warnings, but what exactly did those warnings disclose?

When I saw that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was berating the British government for failing to heed warnings about the 7/7 bombings on London in advance of his state visit to Britain, I had a sense of déjà vu.

In August 2005, just a month after the terrorist attacks had left 56 dead, I was put in contact with an official at the Saudi embassy who said he had some important information concerning the attacks. Like King Abdullah two years later, he told me that the plot could have been dismantled had the British security services reacted to Saudi warnings of an imminent threat.

The information he provided me with was detailed, including the names of senior al-Qaeda members allegedly involved in the plot. The Saudis claimed they had intercepted calls from Kareem al-Majati, a prominent leader of al-Qaeda in the Gulf, and were investigating the possibility that he had been in direct contact with the leader of the British terror cell, Mohammad Sidique Khan.

Majati was originally from Morocco and at the time was thought to have masterminded the May 2003 attacks on Casablanca and helped organise the March 2004 Madrid bombing. He was killed in a shootout with Saudi police in April 2005. The Saudi official said calls from a second al-Qaeda operative, Younes al-Hayari, had also been traced to Britain.

The Saudi ambassador at the time, Prince Turki al-Faisal, even issued a statement: "There was certainly close liaison between the Saudi Arabian intelligence authorities and the British intelligence authorities some months ago, when information was passed to Britain about a heightened terrorist threat to London."

In the maelstrom of speculation around the 7/7 bombings, the story briefly fizzled and then died. Until this week, that is, when King Abdullah, in a piece of spectacular diplomatic discourtesy, decided to return to the subject.

The Saudi state visit has been a miserable experience for the British government and it is to the immense credit of the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, that he put the adoption of his second child before meeting the leader of the most morally repugnant regime on earth. Much has been made - and quite rightly - of the human rights abuses carried out in the name of a cruelly perverted version of Islam. One beneficial outcome of the visit is that it has allowed campaigners to highlight the state-sanctioned torture, beheadings and religious persecution carried out by the Saudi government.

But King Abdullah's crass intervention has also revealed a great- er truth about the relationship between Britain and Saudi Arabia, often described in a lazy piece of diplomatic shorthand as a "partner in the war on terror". If these two governments failed to co-operate in the months running up to 7 July 2005, then what exactly is the point of this relationship? The answer, of course, is that Britain's close ties with Saudi Arabia are predicated not on the battle against al-Qaeda, but on a series of highly lucrative arms deals, the first of which was signed by Margaret Thatcher in 1985. The latest of these, signed in August of last year, sold 72 Eurofighter Typhoons to the Saudis. It is estimated that the deals have brought over £40bn to the UK economy, mainly through the defence contractor BAE Systems and its predecessor British Aerospace.

This is just the latest example of the British government peddling the mendacious propaganda about "shared interests" with Saudi Arabia in the war against terror, despite scant evidence of a working relationship.

Last December, when the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, announced that a Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegations of bribery surrounding the BAE systems arms deals was being dropped, the then prime minister again invoked security issues. "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine," he said. "That strategic interest comes first."

The level of self-delusion contained in Tony Blair's statement was staggering. Now King Abdullah himself has blown a hole in the argument that British-Saudi relations are bolstered by the close links of our countries' security services.

I do not know the truth of the Saudi claims I first reported over two years ago. There is no way of telling. However, it is interesting that the line taken by Whitehall sources quoted in the press has now shifted. In 2005 I was told the British security apparatus "did not recognise" the intelligence referred to by the Saudis. Yet the response now, to Abdullah's comments, is that the information was too vague to act on, which is a quite different matter.

Those who know more than I about the true nature of the Saudi regime have pointed to the gross hypocrisy contained in the comments. As the academic Malise Ruthven, author of Islam in the World, wrote in the Independent on 30 October: "King Abdullah's complaint that British authorities ignored Saudi warnings of an imminent attack on the UK before the atrocities of 7 July 2005 might be more convincing if they came from the ruler of a country less sympathetic to the Islamist agenda." This is why the new report into Islamist hate literature in Britain's mosques is so vital. Published by the centre-right think tank Policy Exchange, The Highjacking of British Islam has discovered books advocating the stoning of adulterers, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of "apostates" who turn away from Islam. Much of the material was traced to agencies of the Saudi government.

This is the reality of Britain's "shared interests" with Saudi Arabia: we give them weapons to bolster their vicious regime and in return we get the literature of intolerance designed to encourage another generation to wage jihad.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

10 comments from readers

taghioff.info
02 November 2007 at 03:14

I worked with Fillipinos teaching them English for a while. If any group gets to see the nasty underbelly of the rich, it is domestic workers.

I was told tales of a British Judge(!) who refused to give his workers the holiday days they were entitiled to under statute (presumably breaking the law like this is grounds for disbarring, shame the worker was too afraid to pursue the issue.)

But many of the Pinos worked for Saudis. The regularity of sexual abuse and rape by male Saudi employers is absolutely staggering.

Apparently the Saudi embassy has to issue its male citizens with advice when they enter England about local etiquette, you know, little things like not hitting women when they talk back ...

All this goes to show that the "War on Terror" is a war on regimes that don't play ball, nothing more, nothing less. The Saudis play ball, we hold our noses.

Business as usual, and an example of how totalitarianism operates in a world ruled by trade. If the rich democratic world brokers access to the resources of the majority by such means, what does it say about the world as a polity?

Do we live in a democratic world where the majority have a say over where we are headed? What happened to left-wing progressive politics in the Middle East? Cohen is correct to say that Saddam is an enemy of the left, he had them all shot in his country. But the CIA provided the funds, the arms and the lists to help him do that, ask Tariq Ali.

Now that's what I call global totalitarianism.

Carl Jones
02 November 2007 at 17:09

Mr Bright, you have your head in the clouds....so the Saudi`s picked up some calls, were they put there by Mossad, or maybe even MI6.lol

"The most morally repugnant regime on earth"......

.....surely not, maybe the fourth most morally repugnant regime after the US, UK and Israel.LOL

So King Abdullah says Britain could do more on the war on terror....he`s right, we could start by investigating who really did 7/7.....why did Tanweer still have £120,000 in his bank? Why has the original Luton arrival time of "7.21.54am", been changed to "7.15am"????? This is nearly 7 minutes which the alledged bombers never had in order to make their "all important" Kings Cross photo call at 8.26am.

Why has the Visor Consultants tube terror drill been ignored by the MSM? It just happened to be on the same tube lines, same stations and at the same time/date that the bombs went off?

I could write forever about the lies and inconsistancies, but whats the point, the MSM constantly fail to ask the most basic questions.....here one....how did the Haymarket bomber escape from Central London at 2am? I mean, the tube was closed, every street in London has CCTV and tracking cameras, all wired into the SIS. Even if he got into another car/taxi....the Dark Forces could follow him, so just how did he escape??lol

Its no good wagging your sorry finger at the Saudi`s, I mean, the US did omit some 19 pages of its terror report, so the Saudi`s couldn`t see it??? I mean, the US had 14,000 troops in Saudi for 13 years, the moment they leave, Saudi suffers a massive wave of terror....were they really that afraid of US troops? More likely, once they were out of the way, the Dark Forces mice will play.lol

Only the British and American publics are blind, the world does not believe the official account of the War on Terror....no wonder Mr Brown wants the term dropped.lol

BTW, there is no such thing as democracy anywhere on this sorry Earth.lol

Lopakhin
03 November 2007 at 23:22

Carl: 'Even if he got into another car/taxi....the Dark Forces could follow him, so just how did he escape??lol'

Erm ... what ever you've been drinking, I think I'll have some of it.

'I mean, the US had 14,000 troops in Saudi for 13 years, the moment they leave, Saudi suffers a massive wave of terror....were they really that afraid of US troops?'

Well, I have heard that US troops are ruthless mass-murderers, so I guess it'd be fair enough if they were. But in fact there were terror attacks while the US troops were there, some of them directed against their bases. If you get a chance to see the new film 'The Kingdom', you'll see an attack which is based on one which did happen. Sorry if that messes up your conspiracy theory at all.

old.don
04 November 2007 at 15:40

Perhaps MI5 were disinclined to believe the Saudis, on account their agenda is virtually that of al quaeda and the taliban. The vagueness of the info would allow them to both protect their extremist friends, and claim they helped Britain.

On past performance they have been quite good at pretending to be a friend of "the west". [ie the USA & its satellites.]

Tommy Judd
04 November 2007 at 16:35

This is a good an illuminating article by Martin Bright, and should be read in conjunction with the Saudi chapter in Ed Husein's book. I think we should walk away from our arms deals with the Saudis - whatever the costs to the balance of payments and jobs - and should lobby for similar action within the EU. It would hurt but not nearly as much as not buying their oil, which is unavoidable. Is everyone here prepared, like I am, to see Saudi go openly islamist? That's the only way to end 50 years of blackmail by the revolting House of Saud.

PS: Carl Jones, you're off your head.

lofichic
04 November 2007 at 20:21

Carl, I somehow think that the social democracies of the UK, Israel and US are relatively morally rich compared to the fascist dictatorship of North Korea, and indeed Saudi Arabia... Nothing like a bit of support for the far right though, if it scores a cheap point against "Bliar" and co. LOL (sic).

Carl Jones
05 November 2007 at 01:15

So many responses....

lopakhim: it was 2am, the alledged bomber was on the street....where did he go? You must be very nieve. The SIS have the ability to track vehicles across London. All CCTV systems, including private cameras on external walls are in the loop...this isn`t just the police, this is the SIS....all vehicles are tracked on all "A" and "M" roads ....who was that BBC journalist who was shot after being car chased for a few miles...why would terrorists bother to chase and then risk all to shooting some BBC wag???? I suspect Mr BBC was getting too close to the truth. Italian spy Nicola Calipari was murdered because he knew that Iraqi warlords were being run by the CIA and these warlords were murdering coalition troops in Iraq....at this point, Mr Burlusconi was told the nasty truth. As a result, relations between Italy and the Bush cabal never recovered. Goldman Sachs the investment bank backed the communists with huge sums of money...Mr Burlusconi lost the election...you really do need to wise up. Mr Sarkozy got elected by overfunding the French left....sooooo many candidates, they were fractured, Sarkozy, another NWO puppet in place. you want a drink, come round, I`m on Claret at the moment.

truthpotion; "you`re off your head"....well, let me tell you Mr Potion, you`ve got to be slightly "off your head" to keep up with the NWO....however, if you were really "disrespecting me" (lol), please illustrate.

lofichic:; today we were informed that some politician resigned because he made a few comments... people and political personalities don`t matter...debate is dead....long live the "message". The countries you mention are not run by "social democracies"....whatever you mean by that term. "Morally rich....I live in South London where kids get shot every other week and knifed by the day...we think a kid was knifed in Clapham Manor Street the other day, the ambulance pulled away without its siren...no news, not a mention by the MSM. Tomorrow I`ll ring the local pen-pushing station to see what they know...sure, we are morally rich, but this is all you know.

Lopakhin
05 November 2007 at 11:01

Carl, if you remember the failed bombing attempts of 21/7 2005, they got pictures of the men via the CCTV on the bus and in the tube almost straight away, but it still took them about a week to corner the guys. You mention the Haymarket bombing attempt, but I would suggest that that demonstrates what the British authorities are like. Remember that one car was parked with gas cylinders and what was intended to be explosive material; but then it was towed away by the traffic police to a Park Lane depot? It was only later that they realised it was a potential bomb. Any country in which that can happen is unlikely to be able to run a very efficient worldwide conspiracy, in my humble opinion.

Carl Jones
05 November 2007 at 15:19

Lopakhin; oh dear, oh dear...your first example is poor. All the CCTV systems which are on London`s streets are wired into the SIS in real time. The Mercedes crashed at 2am....THERE IS NOWHERE TO GO AT 2AM!! He ran away (witness, or CCTV), he went around a corner...he was on CCTV....he got in another car...it was on CCTV...he got into a London cab...it was on CCTV and so on.

They knew the Merc crashed at 2am and the driver ran away....how long does it take the SIS to rewind the VT/hardrive....as soon as the suspect starts moving, he is giving away vital intelligence on his direction.

You are right, the towaway guys are well trained, they check the cars interior, and are looking for unusually unbalanced cars...it is reasonable to believe that both cars were carrying a similar number of gas cylinders and a large volume of petrol...or do we assume the towed away car only had stuff in its boot?

May I just add that these pictures were supplied, I wonder why? Where are the pictures of the 7/7 alledged bombers on the 7.24am train from Luton, where are the pictures of the Aldgate tube bomber? Bruce Liat was very near where this bomb went off and he thinks the bomb was under the floor....he goes on to say that NO ONE WAS STANDING WHERE THE BOMB WENT OFF AND THERE WAS NO BAG THERE!

They`ve even changed the alledged bombers arrival time at Luton...no wonder Blair wouldn`t have a public inquiry.lol

Shafi
07 November 2007 at 21:43

Since we're all talking conspiracies what about what Christophe Chaboud said in Le Monde following 7/7...He was the head of the French Anti-terrorist Co-ord Unit. Of Course he later retracted it! See my blog on www.myspace.com/shifty_shafi

"The Diana Conspiracies"

Shafi

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Martin Bright began his journalistic career writing in very simple English for a magazine aimed at French school children. This experience has informed his style ever since. He worked for the BBC World Service, and The Guardian before joining the Observer as Education Correspondent. He went on to become Home Affairs Editor before becoming the New Statesman's political editor in 2005.

Read More

Vote!

Does Hillary Clinton deserve to be secretary of state?