London Terror Attack: Politics - Page 6

Perhaps I should have posted in BOLD earlier this morning.

I'll post my comments again, just to make it clear:




I don't just prefer that it gets back on track, this time. I require it.

Thank you.

Back on topic, lets hope:

Comprehensive set of material on the bombings here:
http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/capta...ondonbomb.html

Bombers have access to military explosives.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...LIGENCE-DC.XML

The identities and allegiances of the perpetrators remain UNKNOWN, which today, is synonymous to it being carried out by muslims. The only terrorists in the world have Allah as their God. All drugs are white powder. All cats are gray in the dark. Keep up the faith.

Then you tease...



No it isn't.

However, if it matches the M.O. of previous attack(s), then it makes sense to look very closely at the possibility that the perpetrators also match.

There is also the small matter of a claim of responsibility to exlain away.

Well, according to the neocon architects of the so-called "war on terror", and their weasels and parasites in the US mainstream media, its "all al qaeda, all the time". I do watch Fox, MSNBC and CNN as well

As I mentioned in a previous posting, as far as this administration is concerned, Latin American terrorists are trained and protected, domestic neonazi/Aryan/hardline-rightwing/racist etc ones are regarded as merely criminals or an inconvenience, Israeli terrorists are funded by the US taxpayer, and Irish ones are ignored. Perhaps the distinction is that the disfavored groups are all "Muslim", and the favored groups are "Judeo-Christian". Our God is better than your God, yawn yawn.


Recall the anthrax attacks shortly after 9-11? The media were all over this to the point of the coverage being "all anthrax, all the time". As soon as the anthrax was traced to the US biological weapons establishment at Ft. Detrick MD, the entire story evaporated from the US press in almost an instant. The Fort Detrick branch of al Qaeda, I presume was responsible?

Even if the London attacks were by a non-Muslim group, the UK powers-that-be will very likely close ranks, stay on message, and assign them to some non-existent or previously unheard of group..ie to employ the universal cop out. Maybe, because the UK has (proportionately and numerically) such a large Muslim community, and the UK hasn't been so severly blinded by the neocon mentality as the US public, then there may be a chance of a genuine investigation....unlike what happened post 9-11, where the "investigation" was shunned for 411 days after the attacks by the Bush adminstration, which did their damnedest to avoid any investigation, and when it finally "happened", it turned out to be the most pathetic, disgustingly disgraceful sham imaginable. ( Yes, I have read the 9-11 "Investigation" report, twice, from cover to cover...567 pages of unfvckingbelievably infantile fiction)

I never categorically stated that the London attacks were not carried out by a Muslim group. It is possible that they were. Unfortunately these days, it is customary to assign blame before investigation, via criminally irresponsible reportage, with the likely purpose of publicly demonizing a certain ethno-racial section of the world community, which has been pre-designated, most specifically by the blatantly pro-Israel Neo-Con element in this administration (as the replacement enemy for the old Soviet Union perhaps).

You leave me speechless. On the morning of the bombings your first post , which was deleted, said that you wouldn't be surprised if US/UK special ops did this because it benefited what BushBlair inc stand for. Now more of the same nonsense.Let me re-phrase that. No more of the same nonsense.Please. This is where you tell me to wake up and then you put some roll eyes because you know all this stuff to be true and I am just a patsy who lives in the city that my government decided to bomb because of the Olympics and the digital TV switchover etc.

You might be right.


I didn't claim you did.


Well, in all fairness, I'm not sure this is unique to "these days".

I deleted that first entry because I posted a politically oriented entry to (what I learned shortly after) was reserved for NON-political content, according to the moderator.


Nonsense? Stop digging a hole, please, before you embarrass yourself further. "False flag" events (governments undertaking or planning an action that is directed against their nations own people or assets in order to generate outrage, demonize out of favor groups or nations, or raise public support for war) are very real, and have been used for as long as history exists. The list is endless. Read some history!


All I ask is that the investigation be taken seriously, for many blindingly obvious reasons. This did [b[NOT[/b]happen post 9-11. Also, the indications that certain parties were warned beforehand should never be ignored, despite the fact that those certain parties are the ones who benefit the most from the so called "war on terror". I hope the British cops do their work unhindered by any official directive to slant the inquiry. In other words, all I am asking, or hoping for, is that whoever is responsible is caught and tried and found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, that they spend the rest of their miserable fvcking lives behind bars with no chance whatsoever of being let out until after they have died in their cells. Lets have no duplicity, no favoritism, no protection, no BS...ie the opposite approach of what the Bush administration use. In "other other" words, lets have justice done, for a change, and my hope lies with the British people and authorities to teach everyone an exemplary lesson how to cope with this. I hope that is not asking too much, or being unrealistic. The dead deserve no less.



And yes, I am still rolling my eyes

dbl post

Erm, while I tend to agree with Sammi on most things *in essence* (no angels, question everything - in a "wouldn't put it past them" sense), sometimes the timing, tone, 'tude and quantity of Sammi's posts leave something to be desired.

:humble:

The days after of the OK City bombing there was ample discussion of Muslim terrorists. The late Mike Royko of The Chicago Tribune wrote a scathing column on Muslim Terrorists which he later was forced to take back. That said, I would put quite a bit on the London bombings being Islamic in origin.

Edited by johnq - 12/3/12 at 6:52pm

I posted earlier about this, and I said this the morning of the bombings: the AQ "MO"--at least that with which we are familiar--is to perform multiple attacks on high-profile, symbolic targets: the Cole, the WTC, Embassies.

What about the bombing in Bali? I don't know anything about the nightclub's strategic or symbolic value. Or the train in Madrid?

If this *is* AQ, and I am unwilling simply to assume that it is, are we witnessing a rather significant shift in its MO? Targeting infrastructure rather than symbolism? Or is it rather that "AQ," for a short time demonstrated an MO at all?

***

I'm curious about what the Brits think the immediate political repercussions will be. Red Ken was certainly under immense pressure to modernize the bus and tube system even before this, and the successful 2012 bid piles that on, especially for the East End. It is completely impractical to try to secure the tube in the same way that we secure our airlines, but there's talk of that deep penetrating x-ray thingamajig that they're using at Heathrow being put into place. I mean, this was bound to happen sooner or later, just as it's bound to happen on other urban mass transit systems.

My sense is that the Londoners won't blame Livingstone any more than they'd blame the bus drivers. Livingstone's talking points this week seem to have been fairly good (they won't change out way of life; we'll defeat them by going on; etc.) The next election should be 2008, right? Is there a limit to how long Ken can be mayor?

What about Blair? The liberal (labour? lib dem? I didn't check their collars) types I've bumped into have simply said something along the lines of "well, this was certainly in the cards considering Blair's recent behavior, wasn't it?" Blair has expended some serious "political capital" (to use Bush's phrase) over this ID card plan (the BBC calls it a "scheme," which to my American ears it just hysterical), but the 2012 bid earned some back, but then the G8 wasn't exactly a rave success (and Blair largely seen as Bush's lapdog), and then the bombings? I don't know much about Parliamentary tactics or about the current small-scale status of Labour. But if there is political fallout from this for Blair, which way will it swing? Lib Dem or Conservative?

Increased security at other (preferrable) targets demands change? Could be that simple.

That is a bizarre belief.
Why on Earth would Britain let this happen? What would the gains be?
I think some of you are reading too many conspiracy books.
I don't trust Bush but I dont think he would allow a terrorist attack to happen for foreign policy purposes. I know he would lie to us, but letting Americans die I do not believe for an instant. I dont believe that Blair would, either.

The London bombings seem almost exactly like the Madrid bombings. I'm not sure if I'd say there was a change in MO. The 9/11 attacks were against symbols, but they were symbols with lots of people in them. They didn't ram a plane into the Statue of Liberty or the Washington Monument. I suppose they could have found more symbolic but still populated targets in London - the Houses of Parliament maybe? But that probably would have been too hard. It has to be do-able, kill a lot of people, and have a big impact. I think that's really their only MO.

I personally have no problem whatsoever assuming this was Islamic terrorism and not a false flag operation. <- roll eyes at sammi not midwinter

Such as?

That first post was my mistake, in that the material was placed in an inappropriate thread. I removed it, without request, within minutes of posting it, when I noticed that the moderator had specified non-political material only. That same material, and more, appeared in the political thread that Groverat started the following day.

I didn't say "Britain" did anything.

But in general, the "we need another Pearl Harbor to increase funding and increase volunteer rates" concept is far from fantasy. I specifically said I wasn't saying this applied to the UK events one way or the other. If something of that nature comes to light, I'll go 'hmm'. But I certainly won't pull it out of my ass an call it fact. Don't pretend I did.

You've lumped about a dozen different things I said under one "bizarre belief".

Just saying that people often object more from the style of the post than from the content. The content of much of what you say is true or plausible, but it's often hammered down people's throats such that they can't easily digest it without being defensive or instantly put off.

Onus is partially on them for not being entirely close-minded but there might be better ways to phrase things on your part...if the goal is to get people to see your point of view and even come around to sharing your views.

Don't ask for specifics, I'm talking general feel, please.

The "they let it happen to support for further an agenda" thought has been raised many times before. Not entirely without reason of course, but not always being correct either.

1. Sinking of the Lusitania
2. Pearl Harbor
3. Gulf of Tonkin
4. 9/11 attacks

We now know that #3 was definitely sham. The other three are questionable in terms of "just being allowed to happen" to further certain political or militaristic or power agendas.

During the American Rebellion, there was very early in the War, the "Battle of Long Island" that ended with the defeat and very risky retreat by Washington's forces. One of the most critical things that needed to be guarded before the main engagement, were several passes between the British and American forces. All were guarded, except for one, which was left completely open. And guess which one the British chose to use in getting on the American's flank. Washington, had observed the terrian, everyone knew it needed to be guarded, but it wasn't. And to this day there is no reasonable explanation, other than a screwup of massive proportions to explain this.

Also, while it was to Hitler's advantage to burn the Reichstag, it is still a matter of some debate as to whether he actually ordered it.

Sometimes things 'just happen' and sometimes they are planned to some extent, but if you read any history at all, one thing that you don't find much of are conspiracies of any size or duration. Any study of history will tell you that as many battles that have been won due to cunning, have been lost due to weather, or other circumstances beyond anyone's control. Conspiracies give humans a great deal of comfort in that it is comforting to think that we have everything under control, when that is hardly ever the case.

And the idea that the conspirators are really that clever. Which is also hardly ever the case.

Here's a few more false flag ops that spring to mind:
Operation Northwoods 1961/1962
The burning of the Reichstag 1933
The inner city crack epidemic mid 1980s
The Lavon Affair 1954
The attack on the USS Liberty 1967
The Piazza Fontana bombing, Milan 1969
The explosion on the USS Maine 1898, Havana
Fake Palestinian "al Qaeda" 2002
even the infamous The Gunpowder Plot 1605

Then to add to those are the "unholy alliances" between major powers and terrorists for example the British MI-5 agency teaming up with Al Qaeda against Libya, 1996, and in 1993, the FBI, also teaming up with al Qaeda, in the truck bombing of the World Trade Center...two particularly heinous examples.

Sometimes Al Qaeda doesn't exist and was a phantom creation for western propaganda, and sometimes they not only exist but and is in league with MI5 and the FBI.

If it wasn't so sad, you would laugh.

Agreeing with groverat isn't exactly a medal of honor

I laughed anyway.
The sad thing is she actually believes what she is saying.

Actually, I had been waiting for someone to bring this one up again. Explain again, the evidence that this was a flase flag op. And please, don't just bring in quotes from Palestinian security forces or the people they got 'confessions' from. Also, please disregard any bogus references to cell phone calls and money trails 'originating' from Jerusalem and Israel...that part is always funny when used as an arguement. Note, that it was not originally claim they were traced to the Israeli government, because they were not, but simply originating in Israel. Gee, guess only jews have cell phones in Israel.

Let's...

OK.

People are standing up and saying "We've got a real problem with you and if you don't do x, we will kill your civilians." Presumably these people aren't all paid by some shadowy quasi-governmental cabbal. There are thousands of pages of invective on the internet. Presumably this isn't all written by agents of the aforementioned quasi-governmental cabbal. We have bombers been caught and proudly confessing. We have the Madrid bombers blowing themselves up after they were tracked down. And we have on-going military action practically tailor-made to provoke violent retaliation, used routinely, repeatedly and publicly as a pretext, to legitimise a threat, and as a call to arms. I might add we have Guantanamo Bay and photographs of prisoners with glowsticks up their butts.

We have, so to speak, a situation.

Who said that it was? sheesh!

OK...I agree with you: al Qaeda is largely a manufactured term to cover a number of Islamic extremist groups, existent and imaginary. Up until 9-11 most middle easterners, upon hearing the words "al qaeda" would stare at you, blankly. Perhaps "agents based in the middle-east" would have been more to the point than specifying "al qaeda". This is referring to the case of the botched assassination attempt against Libya's Col. Muammar Qaddafi, where several people were killed including two German agents. In this case, the middle easterners involved were without doubt employed by British government. The actual name of the group involved was the Libyan IFG (Islamic Fighting Group)...silly name but true. I suppose that that bunch would generally fit within the manufactured "al Qaeda" umbrella. Similarly, the KLA, which also fits under the umbrella of "al Qaeda" because of their connections with the likes of Ayman Zawahiri et al, was heavily involved with heavy duty narcotics trading, under NATO supervision, in the 1990s.

then this (!) from Steve 666:

I tend to put more credence in material that takes a shy at the powers-that-be, yes, I admit that. But there is a reason for that, ie the pretty well-proven notion that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". If you can demonstrate an opposite principle, namely that those in positions of power tend towards honesty, accuracy and balance, which is more your position, then I will sit up and take notice.

What is far sadder than my championing of material that falls outside of the mainstream comfort zone, is naiveté and the unquestioning belief in what you are told by all government and corporate sources, and the general assumption of the honesty, fairness and reliability of those sources.

When people fail to ask pertinant questions of their government, either through laziness or fear, or misplaced loyalty, that is when can start to say goodbye to representative democracy and hello to something far more sinister, perhaps the "F" word.

Once again, thank you Hassan

Then if they are agents of the FBI, they aren't in bed with the FBI, they are the FBI. And if they are MI5 agents, then they aren't in bed with MI5, the are MI5. So, perhaps, next time, post what you actually, think /*shudders at the thought*/ and instead of saying that the US or Britain teamed up with a terrorist group, like Al Qaeda, to blow something up, say that the US or Britain blew it up. It is a little more honest.


Who claimed they were honest, accurate or balanced? That doesn't make them mass murderers.

What is sad, is that you accuse others of automatically assigning guilt to one group or another out of racial bigotry, yet you will assign blame to the jewish/neocon unholy alliance without batting an eye or waiting for a breath.

Considering the topic, one would think you'd be able to come up with enough arguments in this particular conversation without making strange comments that have no relation to anything anyone said.

Believe me, I don't trust the Government, Bush and his honchos in particular.
I think Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the Neocon scum are lying sacks of dirt.
However, I cannot bring myself to believe that they are so unpatriotic and so inhuman that they would let Americans die in order to blame Muslim extremists. I don't think for a second that they would go that far.
And I don't believe Israeli's would do that either, and I am no fan of Ariel Sharon.

What I find particularly disturbing in your conspiracy theories is that Israel seems to be involved in everything! That makes me believe your sources are rabid anti-Israeli and therefore not to be believed or trusted.

It's not that they tend toward honesty, it's just that they don't tend towards sophisticated double-crosses with strategically questionable results that can be better accounted for by simpler facts.

In this case, it's not at all clear what the US/UK would gain by falsifying a terrorist act in London. It probably just makes people think "great, another result of Tony's support for Bush." We also know that many muslims are pissed at the US/UK and have committed these types of acts in the past.

It's just a question of what is the simplest explanation that makes the most sense. You don't have to believe the government is honest to think that Islamic radical terrorists would do this. That's a false dichotomy.

I'm sorry, I was picking on groverat, he of the divine power of censorship.
My bad.

I don't get what motive they could have to do it. If anything, it seems like it hurts them and demonstrates the failure of their policies.

Well, hell must have frozen over. We actually agree

And what is sad is when someone so much as mentions the possibility of a false flag situation, or state involvement in terrorism, there is a universal condemnation, cries of "conspiracy whacko" and all the knees go jerking as if under the control of some remote puppetmaster. The story of that warning that Netanyahu received from the Israeli Embassy has not been refuted. If this story is B.S., then why haven't the rebuttals been published? The news organizations de-linked and buried that story soon after the bombings. Why? Is Scotland Yard looking into this one? Whoever gives a warning of an impending terrorist attack that actually occurs, usually tends to know something about that attack, and should be considered suspicious by law enforcement. Right?