Downing Street Says » London Bombs / Terror

Asked if there was a list of who was attending tomorrow’s meeting of Muslim leaders, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that we had not got a final list available yet. The leaders of the main opposition parties would join the Prime Minister where they would collectively listen to what the Muslim leaders had to say then try and reach a consensus about how we carried it forward. We would carry it forward not just in terms of expressions of solidarity but also aim to in a practical way as well.

Asked if the Prime Minister had suggested in Cabinet last week that it was naive to suggest there was no link between Islam and terrorism and how that compared to the Brian Paddick statement saying they could not be used in the same sentence, the PMOS said that he could not recall the Prime Minister precisely using those words, but in terms of where we believed the Muslim community was, they had spoken for themselves. The Prime Minister had spoken about the fact there were extremists who had a perverse view of Islam who tried to use that perverse view to justify events such as the London bombing. In his view the Muslim community could and should take a lead in confronting, as he had said on Saturday, that perverse view of Islam. The key was how you harnessed the energies of moderate Muslim opinion, not just in this country but overseas as well. He was not aware of Brian Paddick’s words and he would not get into a theological debate on them. The important point was that there was a recognition in the Muslim community that it needed to take the lead. We had heard Muslim MPs say that condemnation by itself was not enough. The Muslim community had to confront extremists who operated within the Muslim community. Part of tomorrow’s meeting was about how the debate could be taken on within the Muslim community in a very practical way. The Muslim community had taken a lead in doing that and we commended that. The whole point about tomorrow’s meeting was that by having the opposition parties there as well there could be a broad consensus about how we took that process forward.

Asked if the Prime Minister rejected this morning’s report suggesting that there could be a link made between the war in Iraq and recruitment of terrorists, the PMOS said that he thought it was better if we actually posed ourselves the same questions that reality posed to us. Was there terrorism from Al Qaida and its associates before Iraq? Answer: Yes. There had been attacks in 26 countries over the past 12 years. Was there terrorism before Afghanistan emanating from Al Qaida and its associates? Answer: Yes. Did the attack on 9/11 come directly from people who were implicated in Afghanistan? Answer: Yes. So the question therefore that you had to ask was what was this report suggesting we should have done. Was it suggesting that we simply put our heads down and hoped that we would not be attacked? The fact that 26 countries had endured various kinds of terrorism in the past 12 years, some western countries and some not, suggested that strategy was not going to work. The hard question that the report had not addressed was what actually should you do about terrorism. Asked if it was possible to accept that the course of action taken increased the threat from terrorism, the PMOS said that given that we did not work inside the mindset of Al Qaida and its associates it was, to be frank, pointless to get into a guessing game as to whether we would or would not have been a target. What was more important was to recognise that attacks were being carried out on western interests before and since Iraq. In Iraq it was Muslims who were being killed and when you looked at all 26 countries people of all religions had been killed. No doubt President Karzai would have strong views on this tomorrow. Was the report suggesting it was a mistake to create a situation where 8.25 million Afghans were able to exercise their democratic right? Was it suggesting it was a mistake to create a situation where 8.5 million Iraqi’s were able to exercise their democratic right? Those were the hard question that unfortunately the report did not seem to address.

Asked how long ago President Karzai’s visit had been arranged, the PMOS said it had been arranged quite some time ago. We kept in regular contact with President Karzai, we had a very strong relationship and tomorrow’s event would underline the depth of that relationship. We were strong supporters of what President Karzai and his Government were doing in Afghanistan.

Asked in relation to the focus on practical measures the Prime Minister had spoken about whether No10 agreed with the suggestion for an anti-terror Muslim hotline, the PMOS said that the important thing was that we worked with the Muslim community and tomorrow was a chance to listen to them and their ideas. Then we could reach for a consensus. People would come up with different ideas, it was not just a talking shop and people should not see it as such. It was more than that because while words were important actions were even more so. Asked whether the Prime Minister agreed with the suggestion by Iqbal Sacranie that the Muslim community should not do the police’s work, the PMOS said that he had also said that the Muslim community should cooperate fully with the police and we fully supported that.

Asked if there was a response to the Pakistani Ambassador to the UN’s comments in the FT suggesting that the UK was a breeding ground for terrorism, the PMOS said that he was not aware of the quote, but what was important was that the Pakistani Government and President Musharraf had pledged full support to work with us fighting terrorism.

Asked if consideration was being given to legislation on registration and teaching qualifications for Imans, the PMOS said that he had no doubt that ideas were being put forward and people had a right to do so, but we would not be providing a check list of them. The purpose of this week was that we tried to reach a consensus about where we went and it would be wrong for him to pre-empt those meetings in any way. Asked if there had been any indication from the police or security services on whether legislation needed speeded up, the PMOS said, as he had last week, that part of the reason of this week was to get a consensus on the pace and the content. Stage one of that was meeting the opposition today to discuss the ideas that Charles Clarke had written to them about at the end of last week. Stage two would be the meeting on Thursday with the police and security services. Then stage three was the Prime Minister’s meeting with the leader of the opposition and Charles Kennedy next Monday. Asked if we expected some sort of clarity by this time next week, the PMOS said people should let the meetings take place and then we would see where we had got to, but the important thing was that we did listen to the police and security services in terms of pace and content. We would also like to move with a consensus with the other parties given the problems we had had in the past and also the message that it would send out about a united country.

Asked about the Chatham House Report describing UK foreign policy as a "pillion passenger" of the US the PMOS said that there was always a danger in a phrase. What did it actually mean? Did we believe that we had to counter terrorism? Yes, so did the United States. Do we believe that it was better to have democracy in Afghanistan? Yes, so did the United States. Do we believe it was right to try to put in the effort that the United States was currently putting in to try to resolve the Israeli/Palestine problem? Yes. Let us get down to the practicalities and get beyond such phrases. What that meant was that you worked with allies. Just as in Afghanistan we worked with more allies than just the United States. Also there was a Brussels summit recently about getting practical aid to Iraq. Many countries were represented at that. Today there was a donor conference in Aman. Again many were working on that. We should look beyond phrases at the reality, which was you identified your goals, which you believed were right and then you helped, whether in security or political terms, or both.

In response to the suggestion that people understood why the Prime Minister did not want to accept any linkage between Iraq, Afghanistan and the London bombs but did he accept that for many Muslims Muslim countries were under the thumb of the West and that fuels the perception, the PMOS said that what he accepted was that that was how Al Qaida would want to portray our role. The reality was the opposite of that. Iraq had been under the thumb of Saddam Hussein who had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Afghanistan had been under the thumb of the Taliban. That had been the reality and in both cases you now had a democracy. To suggest that we were putting countries under the thumb of the West was not recognising the reality. Asked if the Prime Minister would then acknowledge that there had been a PR failure, the PMOS said that there was recognition, as the Prime Minister had said on Saturday, that what we were up against was a perverse ideology and we had to mount a strong argument against that. It had to be a reasoned argument. We would do that, not just on the streets of Leeds, or nationally but internationally too.

Asked about reports that Kadawi had been invited to a Manchester conference, the PMOS said he could not comment on individual cases. Asked if anything had happened on the tightening of exclusions and deportations yet, the PMOS said that work was progressing and no doubt the Home Secretary would want to update the House on that work on Wednesday.

4 Comments »

"We were strong supporters of what President Karzai and his Government were doing in Afghanistan."

…Like, allowing the Taliban to take over large parts of the country outside the capital? You must be very proud…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 19 Jul 2005 on 11:02 am | Link
"Asked if there was a response to the Pakistani Ambassador to the UN’s comments in the FT suggesting that the UK was a breeding ground for terrorism, the PMOS said that he was not aware of the quote, but what was important was that the Pakistani Government and President Musharraf had pledged full support to work with us fighting terrorism."

Hmmm; pot, kettle, black?! Pakistan was, is and always will be the very epicentre of international terrorism. So their support is no doubt most welcome…….!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 19 Jul 2005 on 11:07 am | Link
"…the PMOS said that what he accepted was that that was how Al Qaida would want to portray our role"

Oh how very bloody convenient! It’s not our foreign policy over the years (over hundreds of years, actually), because we’ve never done anything wrong. It’s just these blackguards sullying our otherwise spotless reputation…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 19 Jul 2005 on 11:11 am | Link
"The reality was the opposite of that. Iraq had been under the thumb of Saddam Hussein who had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Afghanistan had been under the thumb of the Taliban. That had been the reality and in both cases you now had a democracy."

Democracy in Iraq?!?! LMFAO!!! And Afganistan? I’m on the floor!!!

And aside from those blatant untruths, is the PMOS now saying that regime change was justified?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 19 Jul 2005 on 11:13 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, July 18, 2005

London Bombs / Terror

4 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries