After dozens of internal investigations, public statements and now two high-profile inquiries the conclusion hasn’t changed much: The July 7th terror attack in London could not have been prevented. 

For years now this has been a difficult theory to accept for victims and victims’ families. 

“It’s a matter of public safety and we can’t in all conscience walk away” says Rachel North who was injured on an underground train near Kings Cross station. 

Since late 2005,  North and dozens of other victims and their families have lobbied for a full judicial inquiry because they say they believe security authorities have not owned up to their mistakes.

“That’s not to blame people that’s to say I think now in 2009 if we don’t apply the thinking that we should have learned after 7/7, we’ll have another one” says North.

But according to the authors of the latest inquiry, the uncomfortable truth not just for victims and families but for the wider public, is that there is no guarantee another attack won’t happen, no matter what is done to improve the security architecture.

It is sobering to hear the government and others stress that the threat of attack is still severe.

Still, pulling apart the anatomy of this attack and the ensuing investigation is a useful exercise for any country. One of the key mistakes was British intelligence seemingly believing ‘it can’t happen here’.

Chris Driver Williams, a military explosives expert who was called in within minutes of the attack, says he was one of the first to suggest it was inspired by Al Qaeda and says when he voiced that during an emergency cabinet meeting, the notion was literally laughed off.

“I came out with a very early assessment that it was an Al Qaeda attack and was met with actually from one very senior intelligence figure at the time who couldn’t understand how I could come up with that assessment” says Driver-Williams.

Authorities not just in Britain, but around the world, have learned from that experience and are taking home grown terror very seriously. In particular, the security structure, how intelligence is gathered and analyzed, has been changed in Britain to ensure a more comprehensive approach to potential threats.

Driver-Williams believes that’s important because far from the ‘spectacular’ attack of 9/11, we are more likely to see future attacks model 7/7 and more recently, the Mumbai attacks in late 2008.

The investigations and inquiries post 7/7, as imperfect as they may seem to victims, have been valuable in dissecting the possible foundations for a home grown terror attack. And as that threat evolves, the British experience may prove more and more relevant in other countries.

What do the photos of alleged abuse of detainees actually show and who took them?

There are apparently more than two thousand photos that allegedly show prisoner and detainee abuse. These photos come from two different sources: Personal snapshots taken by military personnel whose conduct contravened military laws and secondly, photos that were taken as part of military criminal investigations that sought to document allegations of abuse, including autopsy photos of prisoners who died in custody. The photos deal exclusively with alleged incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama reverses course on release of photos

Who is the ACLU and why do they want the photos released?

The ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union and they have lobbied for years both in court and in political circles to have these photos released. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act request in October 2003 for all photographs pertaining to U.S. military detentions to be released. That request was denied and in 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit. In September 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered the photographs released. The Bush administration challenged the ruling, but the court denied that petition in March.

The Obama administration then told a federal judge that it would release a "substantial number" of photos in response to the court ruling in the American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act lawsuit but then reversed itself.  The ACLU has always maintained that only through full transparency and disclosure can the United States come to terms with the alleged atrocities and ensure that they are not repeated.

Why did U.S. President Barack Obama decide initially to publish the photos and why did he subsequently change his mind?

President Obama originally indicated last month that instead of continuing to legally fight the ACLU, it would abide by the most current legal ruling that the photos could be released. Now, he has reversed himself and indicated that the U.S. government would continue to fight the ACLU in court to keep the photos out of the public domain.  According to White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs, “The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos."  That discomfort apparently arose after military commanders warned it was not in the national security interest to release the photos. President Obama explained his action by saying “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

What has been the political reaction to the decision to block the photos?

The Obama administration is now fielding both criticism and praise for its reversal. Some Republicans applauded the move saying they were gratified Obama was listening to military commanders as the Bush administration had. “I agree with the President that the release of these photos would serve no purpose other than to put our troops in greater danger,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. But human rights advocates now accuse Obama of contributing to a cover-up of alleged abuses committed under the Bush Administration.

Is there any evidence that the photos affect the safety of U.S. troops and "inflame anti-American opinion?"

In the past, the Abu-Ghraib photos that documented detainee abuse at the hands of American soldiers have been used on jihadist websites to backup claims that American troops mistreat Muslims. These photos can serve as radicalizing elements and extremist preachers have in the past used these incidents of alleged and proven abuse to motivate attacks against American soldiers and targets. There has been much talk in recent years about ‘blowback’, the concept that there will be retribution all over the world against Americans for their actions if both Afghanistan and Iraq. But the ACLU argues that as repugnant as the photos are, the only redeeming act that would infer a measure of justice would be to release them.

London, England—Slick and accessible, one of the latest offerings from Somalia’s Al Qaeda backed Al-Shabab looks more like a reality TV show than a recruitment tool for terrorists.

And then there’s the English—American English.

“Away from your family, away from our friends, away from ice, candy bars, all those things is because we’re waiting to meet the enemy.” says a man reported to be Abu Mansoor al-Amriki. Al Qaeda propaganda refers to him as ‘the American” and it is one of the first times he has ever shown his face. He is now apparently in Somalia training and counselling Somalis from North America and Europe.

And then there’s the jihad call to arms with a hip-hop vibe.

“Mortar by mortar, shell by shell, only going to stop when I send them to hell” raps the unidentified voice-over of the video.

“We’re seeing perhaps their most sophisticated attempt so far to really reach an audience of potential recruits in America and that’s one of the things that made that video very significant” says Ben Venzke of the IntelCenter, a Washington-based research group that tracks Al Qaeda’s development and messages.

“They’re casting it in a way that’s going to speak to the youth of today,” says Venzke who adds, “Most of the time what we’re seeing in their videos directly parallels what the groups are doing operationally, what they are targeting, where they’re recruiting.”

Sheik Ahmed Matan says he knows that firsthand. The respected member of Britain’s Somali community says he knows of hundreds of young Somali men who have returned to Somalia for terrorist training.

“A lot of young people from here, from America, from Canada, from everywhere from Europe they went there, ” he says adding these men are capable of being sent back home to conduct terrorist operations, even suicide bombings.

“It can be, they can train anytime and send them here, anytime,” says Sheik Matan.

Somalis from North American and Europe are beginning to come to terms with the problem of recruitment. The U.S. and British governments say Somalia is an emerging terror hot spot, which can pose a threat beyond its borders.

Sheik Matan says he often challenges ‘recruiters’ at mosques and elsewhere in Britain demanding they stop brainwashing younger Somalis about Islam. He says the government should play a greater role in monitoring what is said and done at these mosques but doing so has proved highly controversial in Britain and throughout Europe.

But there is evidence that Al Qaeda is successfully preying on some of those with Western backgrounds. One of them was a business student from London who suddenly left for Somalia and only surfaced about 18 months ago on this martyrdom video just before blowing himself up in Southern Somalia killing at least twenty people.

In an off-the-record briefing with CNN, U.S. Defence officials told CNN months ago that one of their worst nightmares would be Al Qaeda operating freely in Somalia. Now that nightmare continues, with Somalis in North America and Europe admitting Al Qaeda’s reach is spreading to their communities.