Friday 15 July 2005

Yet more on the London bombs

Excellent posting from xymphora

This summary from Prison Planet is about as good a reconstruction as possible on how the deception was pulled (but note my comments on Peter Power below).

The main problem remains that it is completely ludicrous for the alleged terrorists to have behaved the way they did. London is the most notoriously videotaped city in the world, truly like something out of an Orwellian nightmare (and to add insult to injury, British authorities get to gloat over how helpful the cameras were in solving the crime). We are to believe that this was part of a larger operation that intended to make more terrorist attacks. And yet the four alleged terrorists took not the slightest steps to avoid leading police right back to their terrorist base. They allowed themselves, together with the mysterious fifth man (who now no longer exists, begging the question of who was on the video), to be seen in the same car, took the same commuter train into London (the car could easily have dropped disguised men at separate stations), allowed themselves to be videoed together at King's Cross station, and carried identification with them that made the work of the authorities remarkably easy. With just the slightest effort, they could have made it practically impossible to track their traces back to their base. The authorities want us to believe they were part of an operation that intended more attacks, and that they were so proud of themselves that they wanted to be identified by their ID's (as Kurt Nimmo points out, carrying an ID when you sit beside a bomb is a dumb way to ensure that your identity will become known to the authorities). These goals are completely inconsistent.

The ID's themselves are also problematic. The identity documents of at least one terrorist was apparently found at two attack sites, blocks away from each other. Of the three sites that the authorities were able to investigate, they found identities at each one, from terrorists supposedly sitting beside the bombs. No way!

The second problem involves the use of suicide bombers in cases where suicide bombers are unnecessary. The only reason suicide bombers are used as that it is otherwise impossible to get near the target. Suicide bombers are hard to come by, and terrorist organizations won't waste them unless they are completely necessary. They weren't necessary here, so why were they wasted? I note also that the supplied biographies of at least some of the alleged terrorists don't (or here) ring true as the biographies of suicide bombers.

The third problem concerns the change in the Official Story, which I've already been over. It is amusing to hear people talk of 'conspiracy theories', when we can clearly see that all theories are conspiracy theories. Jack Straw was musing about an al Qaeda attack before he could possibly have known enough to make a reasonable guess. The police kept coming up with reports expressed as certainties which they now claim are all wrong. If every theory is a conspiracy theory, including the Official Story, you owe it to yourself to make a reasonable judgment of your own, based on common sense, as to what really happened.

The French reported that the terrorists had all been arrested as part of a scheme to turn them and infiltrate the cell. This was immediately denied by the British (the two Reuters stories are nine minutes apart). Of course, this is the most terrifying claim that can be made against an intelligence or police service, that its own double agents were actually triple agents and fooled the foolers. Timothy McVeigh is probably an example of this. We have also seen hints of it in the investigation of September 11. MI5 has even used the technique with al Qaeda.

I still think Peter Power is just hyping his product, which is just the usual management bullshit where a bunch of middle managers sit around a boardroom table and brainstorm a case study involving bombs placed in London and what effect it would have on business. I see nothing in what he has said to indicate there was any tactical or operational aspect to what he does. What is interesting is that he seems to have business connections to Giuliani, who was in London at the time of the bombings (the connection was through the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness which, by happy coincidence, held its World Conference on Disaster Management in Toronto from June 10 to 13). You have to wonder whether the point of his interview was to plant the seed of the idea that suicide bombers were involved, an idea that was still being rejected by the authorities at the time. The thesis that suicide bombers were involved fits nicely into the 'war on terror' that Giuliani now makes a good living talking about (he also hopes to parlay it into a bid to become President).

The British police have a history of framing people for bombing. At least it resulted in one of the best songs by The Pogues:

"There were six men in Birmingham
In Guildford there's four
That were picked up and tortured
And framed by the law
And the filth got promotion
But they're still doing time
For being Irish in the wrong place
And at the wrong time"

If you read Cryptome regularly, you'll see that British spies are still up to their old tricks.

Pakistan had a double agent in al Qaeda, whose cover was blown by Tom Ridge when he gave out too much information about the guy (as part of the ongoing Republican plan to use terror alerts for partisan political purposes). At the time, Pakistan was reported to be angry about the matter. The supposed 'mastermind' of the London bombs was connected to an al Qaeda official who attended an al Qaeda summit at which the bombing was supposedly planned. Had Ridge not opened his big mouth it is possible that the double agent might have helped lead to the arrest of the bombers. If you buy all this al Qaeda background - and it may just be part of the mythology - Tom Ridge and the Republicans may be responsible for the London bombings.

What is the motive for this attack? Cui bono? Anyone who wishes to support the Zionist lies that all Muslims are terrorists and the only way to fight terrorism is for more state terrorism and war against Muslims (a 'world war' 'until the enemy is eliminated'), anyone who wishes to further curtail civil liberties in the guise of protecting people from terrorism, anyone who wants to sell arms, anyone who wants to justify the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and the Anglo-American treatment of the people of Iraq, and anyone who wants to use the 'war on terror' as a disguise for neocolonial geopolitics in the Middle East and around the world.

Full story...