London Terror Attack: Politics - Page 3

DELETE

This is has nothing to do with this. History is forcing the primitive aspects of Islam to either modernize or be ground up and thrown away.

The American south tried this, the Nazis tried this, Communist International tried this, and now the fundamentalist tendencies of Islam are trying it. The results will be the same.

I'd like to second that motion -- where is he?

Some interesting related comments from our beloved FOX news collected by media matters:

And we can see what hume is concerned about

I think this policing is happening. But it is likely only part of the solution. At some point you go in and blow the damn place up. And...sometimes...they slip by and pull off something like what we saw yesterday.

Well, there is a pattern of nations rising and falling, ideas waxing and waning throughout history. Couple that pattern with something I heard Penn Gillette quip: "if you take history in 100-year chunks things are continually getting better," and you find a maturing processes that I believe is God-directed. I'm sure you don't believe the God-directed part, but there is something that is happening that can't be fully explained by purely random processes.

The world has, even in the last 100 years become civilized to the point of a near universal condemnation of terror for any reason; the best tools hard-core Islam has to offer are more than ever working against it. Worldwide, we "all know" what is right in ways that would not have crossed borders 100 years ago. We have a solidarity in that knowledge -- and that consensus is growing every day.

Islam's bad guys will feel this process visit them, too --- the multimillionare [until recently?] heading Al Qeada is feeling this right now. They are losing.

Anyway, I'm breaking my workday posting rule.

Some observations:

7/7/2005 9:30:00 PM GMT


....

There are a few things about these attacks that are disturbing, and largely ignored by the mainstream: I shall mention two:

First, Israeli Finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a warning of the terrorist attacks via Scotland Yard, before they happened, causing him to alter his itinerary..but apparently nobody else received this warning. Why was nobody else warned, and why is nobody interested in questioning this peculiarity?

Secondly, the media yet again have assigned reponsibility for the attacks, based on an unverified and unreliable claim on an "al qaeda" website, the URL of which remains unknown and unpublished (and therefore most probably non-existent). It is fashionable these days to automatically assign blame to "Islamic" groups, presumably because the Bush Administration, with the unquestioning aid of the mainstream media, has architected and framed the "War in terror" to equate all terrorists in the eyes of the western public as Muslim or Arab.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/...n_explosions_1

and this one from an Israeli news site:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/597650.html

and this from yet another Israeli news site:


To add (edit): This little snippet from WRH, which is a valid point re. the Netanyahu aspect:

This story is now being spun by claiming that Netanyahu actually got his phone call just after the first blast, but two facts contradict this spin. The first is that for an hour after the first blast, it was thought to be and reported as a power surge related incident involving a blown transformer. Second, the first explosion was close enough to Netanyahu's hotel to reportedly shut down the phone service, so nobody could have called Netanyahu after the first explosion.

Someone's lying to us, yet again. And we're swallowing it, yet again, like good whores do.

...

What do we have here:

An obviously fake "al qaeda" "admission", full of Koranic errors and misspellings etc, from a website, the URL of which has NOT remains unknown and remains unpublished. This is the same "form" as so many other "al qaeda" admissions of responsibility...ie "al qaeda" websites that are unknown, anonymous, and MOST DEFINITELY FAKE OR MYTHICAL

Scotland Yard pre-warned Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the attacks, and he changed his schedule as a result of the warning. Since the bombs were on moving targets, i.e. vehicles, whose location was moving at speeds of up to 40mph, from where did Scotland Yard receive the intelligence about how the part of London where Netanyahu was at at the time could have coincided with the location of one of the bombs, in order for him to alter his schedule? Also, why was this forewarning, published on various mainstream website, subsequently erased from those sites? Since Scotland Yard knew in advance, why did only Benjamin Netanyahu, an senior international political figure get warned, whereas ordinary Londoners were kept in the dark.

How damned convenient this is for Tony Blair and George Bush and the so-called "war on terror". This one's a slam-dunk: exactly what was required to popularly rejuvenate their War on Islam aka "war on terror". Al Qaeda claimed "responsibility". The media jumped onto the "al qaeda" bandwagon, instantly, predictably. What is the verification?"Answer: Zero, non-existent. It doesn't requre any verification, or proof, because in the eyes of an easily-led public, all terrorism worth going to war against is automatically assigned to Muslim groups. Real or imaginary ones. Mostly imaginary by the looks of things so far.

Apart from the obvious immediate horrific effects of indiscriminate bombings on the lives of those affected, the politics and maneuvering behind this incident stink. Was this a conspiracy....damn right it was...more than one person was involved. Whoever it was at Scotland Yard who leaked the warning to Netanyahu is probably getting a severe grilling, or has gotten fired already. Netanyahu probably reported his timely warning back to the Israeli media in all innocence...

Another thought, as regards motivation:

Be extremely skeptical as to who explains these events with such promptness and certainty, the how, and why. This looks just like yet another "false flag event" orchestrated by, possibly, US or UK special ops, either jointly or in liaison. It would be an extremely easy operation for the powers-that-be to pay politically "middle-eastern men" a few $/£million to manufacture suitcase bombs and leave them on buses and trains with timing devices. It is also so easy for MI6 etc to manufacture an intelligence trail that points to Islamist groups, or whatever. If you're an expert in such things...such a cover would be childs play.

Lets see what will happen in the future as a result of this, and other attacks in the future: Lets see what happens to Blair's popularity and the sudden rise of faith the public has in his alliance with Bush as regard the 'war on terror", and related matters. Also, there is a move to promote national identity cards in the UK, or even mandatory interactive personal ID chips. Blair and company are extremely in favor of going this direction, and the English people are a potentially good subject. Sounds paranoid or far-fetched? No way; companies like Applied Digital and others have the technology ready to go. Those tens of thousands of security cameras installed all over London in public places failed to prevent the attacks....so something far more intrusive or drastic will be readily acceptable by a suffering populace.

Who gains by an attack like this? Answer: big government, the $mega-billion security industry, the military, ie those promoting the 'war on terror' and those making money from the industries that support it, every time. Who are the losers? Ordinary people. Privacy rights. Civil rights. Out-of-favor religious groups. To justify the new post 9-11 model, terrorist attacks must happen with some regularity, or the public will lose faith. Thus we will see how motivation works.

Old news but it bears repeating:

The war in Iraq is not the defacto embodiment of the global "War on Terror". The invasion of Iraq was something the Bush administration elected to do, for reasons that the evidence suggest had little to do with combating terrorism.

Argue that as you will, but what you cannot argue is that for another country to curtail their involvement in that conflict is to "capitulate to the terrorists", as if being against same were predicated on blind loyalty to Washington and whatever foreign adventures it cares to toss into the WOT mix.

If Bush elects to invade Iran, and England decides to sit that one out, does that mean that the "terrorists win"? In fact, from now on, do the "terrorists win" every time a sovereign nation doesn't throw its armies anywhere Bush says they should? Isn't that a patently self serving and grotesque definition of being "against terrorists"?

It's the same argument that's been made domestically in the US: that you either support the particulars of the Bush administration's policies or you are "pro-terrorist" (or at least "terrorist coddling").

It's a crude and foolish line of thought, and in the US, at least, it's been used to moot pointed, detailed and thoughtful criticism of exactly how this president is going about this "war".

I would hope that none of us actually believe that the choices are limited to "Support the President" or "Give the terrorists tea and crumpets".

Well, the MO is textbook Al Qaeda, as is the message afterwards. I would certainly hope and assume that the UK is following up on this assumption of islamo-fascists being behind this. I don't think the book is closed yet on that. I have good faith in Scotland Yard, the MI groups and the UK government to do a thorough and thoughtful job in this investigation. The Brits are a lot more mature with regard to how to handle these sorts of things, and have done investigations like this plenty of times before.

Oh, and "architected" is not a word! :P

WRT: Iraq and any pullouts. Remember, it's these terrorists who are framing the argument that way, and really, who are they to say what goes?

Does anyone know the URL of the purported message? It would be interesting to look up the DNS information.

From this source:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,...a14339,00.html


And from here:
http://www.joyjunction.org/bulletin/...&threadid=1114

Here is what I found:




Here is some more:

And some more:

Still some more:




And more:



Notice the Amsterdam connection.

That actually doesn't mean anything. RIPE deals with internet infrastructure. You are doing the whois through them. good research, though. thanks. if you want to cut down the length of your posts you could post links to whois.sc (easy format: http://www.whois.sc/QAL3AH.NET)

Yeah the Amsterdam connection is probably tenuous. Any way here is something more:

http://forum.ev1servers.net/showpost...9&postcount=17

Interesting, the Freepers are watching these sites. Here is a homepage for JonathanRGalt:


http://www.freerepublic.com/~johnathanrgalt/
http://www.geocities.com/johnathanrgalt/

This is getting weirder:

http://www.radioramadan.com/azzam.htm

from your last IP address, QAL3AH.NET - 212.67.202.241
Record Typet_\tIP Address

So, in addition to the other outrageous comments about the bombings from fox commentators, here's another one from fox correspondent simon marks:

http://www.wtvq.com/servlet/Satellit...Q_BasicArticle

Here is yet more conformation that both Scotland Yard and the Israeli Embassy in London (and presumably certain elements of the UK intelligence agencies) knew about the attacks beforehand. I hope this isn't construed as "anti-semitic", just because it happened to be an Israeli official who was warned prior to the bombings, and changed his schedule as a direct result.
Israel of course, having been continuously at war with Arabs and Muslims since its inception are the prime beneficiary of any ratcheting uop of the war on terror.

As a result of these attacks, lets see if the Brits get suckered into what both Blair and co. want so badly...namely the introduction of a big-brotheresque/nuovo-fascism....with an accelerated erosion of civil rights and liberties, national I.D. cards (and eventually, personal-chip implants), far greater government spending on military, security and 'anti-terror' measures, and eventually a cashless society, etc etc. It would be supremely depressing if what looks suspiciously like another 'false-flag operation' was to eliminatd all the civil gains that have taken almost a century of blood and guts to achieve, including defeating the Nazis in WW2. Ordinary people in the UK were subject to 25 years of terrorism from the Provisional IRA and its offshoots, and the Brits didnt allow that to take away their open society. Ironically, the IRA's terrorist activities was traditionally funded by sources in the United States, for example Noraid, which even more ironically has their head office in Manhattan.

Actually, in this case, the notion that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" can be allowed in the so-called "war on terror" because the perps in that case are of a Christian denomination, ie not Islamic. By the way, I do realize that the IRA was NOT the only source of terrorism in that struggle.... "Protestant" organizations supported by the British Government, and the British military in Northern Ireland carried out equally heinous attacks on Irish Catholics as well... but that is another story..and is kinda slightly off topic.

Third.

I think seg is in Barcelona right now, if I'm not mistaken - or he could be in Wales (his profile says Cymru, which means Wales).

I hope he's alright.

I've thought he's welsh, lives in barcelona and is getting his phd from university of edinburgh (scotland).

But, yeah, where is he?

Fox is pathetic. Those comments are an embarrassment to America. I would be very offended if I were a Muslim and a British citizen. Why are they working so hard to desensitize the American people? Why do "we" (don't count me in that group though!) allow them?

I remember one comment one of those Fox idiots made when the battle for the occupation/liberation of Iraq started: "the Shi'ite has hit the fan". I mean, WTF?

I would simply suggest that the devil you know beats the devil you don't. And it's not the "same basic group." As Richard Clark points out in _Against All Enemies_, we took out the 2001 "leadership" of AQ. That's great. Who's running it now? Do they use the same tactics (coordinated attacks on symbolic targets)? Do we know who they are? Whether they have the same beef as the 2001 leadership?

The devil you know beats the devil you don't.

Or the explosion was reported as a 'power surge' because it had been decided, rightly or wrongly, that in the event of a terrorist attack on the Underground it would be better for the safety of London's citizens if people weren't panicked.

These bombs were planted by terrorists. Yes they were. Just like in Madrid, where the bombers killed themselves after a fight with the police when they were tracked down.

Stop wasting your time with this nonsense. Start thinking instead about these people and their grievances and the possibility (oh my lord) that recent British foreign policy might have stirred a bunch of psychotic religious freaks into action.

What a waste of time this conspiracy nonsense is. The house is on fire and you're watching the fucking X Files.

Yes yes yes.

How many more Governments does the CIA have to reengineer/f-ck-with before the world has enough? Just look at the state of South America and that should have been reason enough not to allow these assholes into Iraq. I partially blame the US and UK government for these bombings, their interfering with sovereign nations and expecting gratitude is naive and dangerous. My heart goes out for the souls that were lost in London the other day; its a horrible, horrible tragedy. But where are the flowers on the embassy for the 100,000+ civilian lives that have been lost in Iraq. People are so apathetic towards the other side, "hey as long as it is happening in someone elses backyard". These terrorist are doing the only thing normal people without a zillion dollar military budget can do to fight back. These people dont hate freedom or democracy, they're being f_cked with, that's what they can't deal with, kind of reminds me of everyone I know.

Thanks Hassan.

Stop it with the fucking copouts already. This 'conditional' sorrow is complete bullshit. "I feel sorry for your loss, but..."

Yes, the bombers probably felt they or someone they related to, were being fucked with or getting the raw end of the deal. No, blowing up a bus is absolutely not the "the only thing normal people without a zillion dollar military budget can do to fight back" It's not even near to being the only option, nor is it close to being 'normal'.

I don't condone the actions of these bombers any more then the next person. I just cant imagine any other tactic working through; starving themselves in protest or participating in peaceful marches will not wake the people up to our governments dirty games. Only the eye for an eye strategy truly gets peoples attention. What I said was not a copout, farthest from the thing. I want people to come to grips with why this is happening and stop being in dream world. This will continue until we leave these counties alone, and if we cant then well have to live with the consequences. I mean what is 50 vs. 100,000 in the schemes of things, "a lot in my book".

By the way when the US was fighting the British with these tactics it was considered pretty "normal", so what's with the change of heart? Oh, because it's happening to us now.

Amen and, amen.

hmmmmm....not quite sure why you seized so strongly on the evolution debate, like I noted earlier, we aren't going to agree on this, causally.

groverat, if this was a matter of education, Las Vegas wouldn't exist. Man is not a political creature, man is a religious creature. People do not learn from experience, they learn from belief.

not perfect, but getting better

illegal war? I don't think any country would act differently, regardless of ideology. The attacks of 9/11, designed to decapitate our government, and the threat of dirty bombs, bio terror, etc are very real. You should logically expect a response, no matter how scattered or incoherent.

I didn't mention the 'war on terror', I made mention of the growing collective consciousness of the barbaric nature of terror in general.

???


I've been looking at a few things in the lateish 19th century -- treatment of the Russian serfs, Grant's wilderness campaign, etc. These are things that we won't see again. Today, Grant would have been tried as a war criminal, and not "because of education" but because of a moral sense that certain behavior under any curcumstances is wrong. This belief has no empirical data -- it came from a moral sense that is continuing to grow, albeit with significant wow and flutter along the way.

Yes the bombs were were planted by terrorists. Yes, many people were killed. I am as horrified as everyone else is, and a pox on anyone who wants to suggest otherwise. This thread has brought all every dimwit out of the coalshed who instantly yells "wacko" and "conspiracy theory" every time a point is brought up that conflicts with what "we" want to believe. By the way, it was a conspiracy, unless we think that one person alone did it. And btw, the word "theory" is redundant, since we know with 100% certainty that more than one person was involved. That is a FACT. (Unless one person managed to distribute four bomb packages onto 3 different trains and a bus, simultaneously.

WE DO NOT KNOW WHO DID IT YET, DAMMIT. WE ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS BASED SOLELY ON WHAT, OR WHO WE CONVENIENTLY WANT TO BELEIVE, DID IT, OR WHO WE ARE MOST COMFORTABLE BELIEVING, DID IT.

If Scotland Yard knew in advance, (it looks as if someone in the agency did know since they called the Israeli Embassy before the bombs went off), then there should be an inquiry as to just how the hell that is the case. If this information is bogus, then we need PROOF of that. If "al qaeda" did it we need PROOF of that. If another party did it, then we need PROOF of that.

I am not saying that it wasn't the work of Muslim extremists either. But I seem to have committed the cardinal sin of suggesting that other possibilities exists, other than Muslim extremist.

We need verifiable evidence. evidence, evidence. Nothing less will do. It seems as if there are a bunch of people here who prefer a faith-based answer, rather than a science and evidence based conclusion. What's with this BS where we start assigning blame based on what we want to believe?

Get with it and WAKE UP!!! Sheesh already. You lot would be terrible cops. Or very good corrupt ones.

But Sammi. You seem more interested in obscure theories than reasonable answers. A good investigator starts out with the most logical explainations, not obsure conspiracies with a political agenda.

The answers are there. Radical muslims exists. They have no problem recruiting young, alienated muslim followers.