Anyone got any reliable info on the london "bombs"
Moderator: Peak Moderation
I already spend too much time surfing... 
-
Winged Energy of Delight
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: South London
This is all assuming that the terrorists were even that concerned about the Olympic outcome. The timing of the attack has probably got a lot more to do with it coinciding with the final day of the G8 summit. Plus the fact that terrorists these days seem keen for 'catchy' and intriguing numerological mnemonics. It's hard to forget '911' - it's hard also to overlook that these London attacks occurred on 7/7/2005. If you add 2+0+0+5, you get 7 again. So the attacks really were the '777' attacks.
I'm not one to totally dismiss all conspiracy theories, since some sometimes seem to inhabit a kernel of likelihood. However, I more likely to agree with the forum member who stressed that politicians are more likely to seize on these attacks for thir own political agenda rather than having been the ones to perpetrate them or 'let them happen'.
One good thing has come out of this, however. The media has stopped solely distributing images of the tiny minority of protestors up in Scotland who lapsed into needless violence now. Such media bias only looks shabby compared to such violence propagated in London yesterday. However, everyone should be aware that in ths case too, these terrorists are also a tiny, tiny minority of the world and of the muslim faith. It should also not be forgotten that practically all terrorists wont have been created because of anything 'inherently bad' within themselves, they have not been created in isolation, but borne from situations worldwide that most of us cannot conceive of, but that western governments have often failed miserably in handling - or even deliberately worsened. This is not to excuse them because they have also failed in the necessary distinction that murder of innocents (and in my view, even murder of the guilty) is never excusable and also that the ordinary people should not be blamed for the actions of their government. These are all things people must consider beforejumping onto the bandwagon of the BNP, a party that seems to have its contemptible members lurking around this website, and signing the awareness of peak oil petition.
This is no time for hurtling abuse at immigrants or asylum seekers or muslims or arabs or any of those undeserving scapegoats. And this is certainly not an excuse to usher in ID cards. If we further curtail our civil liberties, that battle to raise awareness of the imminent decline of cheap oil is going to be just that bit harder. There is no rationality in fear.
But I have that cosy feeling I'm probably ranting to a warm audience here
I'm not one to totally dismiss all conspiracy theories, since some sometimes seem to inhabit a kernel of likelihood. However, I more likely to agree with the forum member who stressed that politicians are more likely to seize on these attacks for thir own political agenda rather than having been the ones to perpetrate them or 'let them happen'.
One good thing has come out of this, however. The media has stopped solely distributing images of the tiny minority of protestors up in Scotland who lapsed into needless violence now. Such media bias only looks shabby compared to such violence propagated in London yesterday. However, everyone should be aware that in ths case too, these terrorists are also a tiny, tiny minority of the world and of the muslim faith. It should also not be forgotten that practically all terrorists wont have been created because of anything 'inherently bad' within themselves, they have not been created in isolation, but borne from situations worldwide that most of us cannot conceive of, but that western governments have often failed miserably in handling - or even deliberately worsened. This is not to excuse them because they have also failed in the necessary distinction that murder of innocents (and in my view, even murder of the guilty) is never excusable and also that the ordinary people should not be blamed for the actions of their government. These are all things people must consider beforejumping onto the bandwagon of the BNP, a party that seems to have its contemptible members lurking around this website, and signing the awareness of peak oil petition.
This is no time for hurtling abuse at immigrants or asylum seekers or muslims or arabs or any of those undeserving scapegoats. And this is certainly not an excuse to usher in ID cards. If we further curtail our civil liberties, that battle to raise awareness of the imminent decline of cheap oil is going to be just that bit harder. There is no rationality in fear.
But I have that cosy feeling I'm probably ranting to a warm audience here
I appreciate all of your responses (thanks for not ridiculing me, when I raised such a hardcore issue in my first powerswitch post!), and thought I might need to clarify the point I was making: I'm not saying "It was an inside job" - at this stage I'm still pretty confused about what to make of it all, more in the stage of feeling an emotional reaction to events that have unfolded, rather than coldly assessing it all sufficiently to arrive at conclusions.
But as I watched and read reports yesterday, random bits and pieces - informed by my very keen interest in peak oil - just seemed to jump out & slap me round the face. At various points I felt, literally, sick to the stomach at what I was contemplating when I tried provisionally joining the various dots. My previous post was my attempt to clear enough of the torrent of questions raging round my head so I could relax and get some sleep.
A couple more face slaps from tonight, though:
- on Newsnight, an intelligence analyst was being interviewed. She was asked to suggest possible explanations for the fact that the bombs were so small compared to previous attacks such a Madrid. She commented that it was indeed very strange, and a departure from the usual MO. She concluded that whoever had co-ordinated/carried out the attacks had obviously intended to cause more fear and disruption than actual carnage...
- the lack of real, substantive progress on the key G8 issues became glaringly apparent today. Given the massive expectations that had been generated that such progress would be achieved, Tony Blair may have been facing a potentially terminal political nightmare trying to justify events without distancing himself from Bush. Yet given the precarious situation our nation is in, with North Sea Oil declining at an alarming 17%, it's easy to see that he would feel nervous pissing off his only friend with enough big guns to secure access to more... The fortuitous timing of this attack, however, has taken the spotlight off the failures in Scotland, allowing the disappointing news to emerge with more of a whimper than a bang. Attention is, very understandably, elsewhere. Who benefits?
- Also on Newsnight tonight, a reporter discussed the problems the UK intelligence agencies have had recruiting Muslims to assist them in infiltrating terrorist networks. It was discussed how yesterday's tragic events may make more moderate Muslims more willing to co-operate with the agencies, as they would identify with victims of the attack. This, in turn, would enable 'us' to execute the war on terror/the last big grab for oil before it declines forever and ever... more successfully.
To go back to my first message, I think the key question I couldn't get my head round was why a group of jihadists would choose, out of all the various opportunities available to them, to launch their attack at the precise time when it would be so singularly useful for the whole Blair/Bush project.
I understand the attitude of wanting to accept the official explanation - part of me almost does. And yet.....it just doesn't
feel right.
So, we need to think about what we do know. And what we know is that we're going to go past peak, if we have not already, within a relatively short timescale. We know that, without a sufficiently generous time frame, adapting to post-peak life is likely to be incredibly chaotic and almost certainly grim for most of us. We know that, whatever they may not say in public, Blair, Bush et al have a plan to ensure our nations remain topdogs (well, a poodle is a dog...) in the dog-eat-dog world of energy descent (BTW, I'm not for a moment suggesting that their plan is sane or achievable, just that they most certainly have one!) We know that our society is in no way even remotely prepared for peak oil, or even vaguely interested in learning about it (as evidenced by the many among us who've told people, and had them ignore or reject what we have to say). Should Mr Blair etc have inside info on timing of 'impact' etc, and find it sooner than they had anticipated (in much the same way as North Sea Oil has depleted much more rapidly than anticipated) is it really too much to imagine that he, or probably more accurately, some Blair-friendly shadowy types, could undertake an action such as yesterday's to focus the national mind a little? My question is, in such circumstances, could they justify somehow staging such a relatively small-scale atrocity (talking in terms of bomb size etc, not impact on those affected) if, in return, they could gain the social control tools that they need at their disposal if they are to attempt to manage the descent according to their plan?
Well, that's all for tonight, folks. Got to try and sleep, even though I've got all this stuff rushing round my head.
kali
But as I watched and read reports yesterday, random bits and pieces - informed by my very keen interest in peak oil - just seemed to jump out & slap me round the face. At various points I felt, literally, sick to the stomach at what I was contemplating when I tried provisionally joining the various dots. My previous post was my attempt to clear enough of the torrent of questions raging round my head so I could relax and get some sleep.
A couple more face slaps from tonight, though:
- on Newsnight, an intelligence analyst was being interviewed. She was asked to suggest possible explanations for the fact that the bombs were so small compared to previous attacks such a Madrid. She commented that it was indeed very strange, and a departure from the usual MO. She concluded that whoever had co-ordinated/carried out the attacks had obviously intended to cause more fear and disruption than actual carnage...
- the lack of real, substantive progress on the key G8 issues became glaringly apparent today. Given the massive expectations that had been generated that such progress would be achieved, Tony Blair may have been facing a potentially terminal political nightmare trying to justify events without distancing himself from Bush. Yet given the precarious situation our nation is in, with North Sea Oil declining at an alarming 17%, it's easy to see that he would feel nervous pissing off his only friend with enough big guns to secure access to more... The fortuitous timing of this attack, however, has taken the spotlight off the failures in Scotland, allowing the disappointing news to emerge with more of a whimper than a bang. Attention is, very understandably, elsewhere. Who benefits?
- Also on Newsnight tonight, a reporter discussed the problems the UK intelligence agencies have had recruiting Muslims to assist them in infiltrating terrorist networks. It was discussed how yesterday's tragic events may make more moderate Muslims more willing to co-operate with the agencies, as they would identify with victims of the attack. This, in turn, would enable 'us' to execute the war on terror/the last big grab for oil before it declines forever and ever... more successfully.
To go back to my first message, I think the key question I couldn't get my head round was why a group of jihadists would choose, out of all the various opportunities available to them, to launch their attack at the precise time when it would be so singularly useful for the whole Blair/Bush project.
I understand the attitude of wanting to accept the official explanation - part of me almost does. And yet.....it just doesn't
feel right.
So, we need to think about what we do know. And what we know is that we're going to go past peak, if we have not already, within a relatively short timescale. We know that, without a sufficiently generous time frame, adapting to post-peak life is likely to be incredibly chaotic and almost certainly grim for most of us. We know that, whatever they may not say in public, Blair, Bush et al have a plan to ensure our nations remain topdogs (well, a poodle is a dog...) in the dog-eat-dog world of energy descent (BTW, I'm not for a moment suggesting that their plan is sane or achievable, just that they most certainly have one!) We know that our society is in no way even remotely prepared for peak oil, or even vaguely interested in learning about it (as evidenced by the many among us who've told people, and had them ignore or reject what we have to say). Should Mr Blair etc have inside info on timing of 'impact' etc, and find it sooner than they had anticipated (in much the same way as North Sea Oil has depleted much more rapidly than anticipated) is it really too much to imagine that he, or probably more accurately, some Blair-friendly shadowy types, could undertake an action such as yesterday's to focus the national mind a little? My question is, in such circumstances, could they justify somehow staging such a relatively small-scale atrocity (talking in terms of bomb size etc, not impact on those affected) if, in return, they could gain the social control tools that they need at their disposal if they are to attempt to manage the descent according to their plan?
Well, that's all for tonight, folks. Got to try and sleep, even though I've got all this stuff rushing round my head.
kali
-
Guest
Kali,
I'd like to congratulate you on having the guts to raise your concerns and may I say your observations and concerns are very clearly put and make sense. You, of course, will be condemned for speaking in such terms but the debate is necessary and many of the reactions show how important it is that we discuss all sides properly.
I, and I'm sure that many people reading this, am convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, as horrible as it is to think that it could have been so. The evidence for this is, however, overwhelming and only a fool would ignore it, (anyone wanting such proof then let me know). As for the bombings on Thursday, well I'd like to think that British politicians and the secret services wouldn't sink to such lows but hey, anything is possible, especially in such troubling times. Your observations on the timing of the event and the way the media has pounced on the story to the exclusion of the major events of this week do make your conclusion seem highly credible.
Whether this is the work of Al-Qaeda or something more sinister, the rhetoric displayed by the media frenzy has certainly achieved the desired effect and in my mind the mission by the bombers is a success. Compare this with the political reactions to the IRA bombings in the last 30 years and we can see how much Thursdays event has been turned into a propaganda machine. The IRA bombings never provoked such overt dispays of nationalism and talk of democracy by politicians so why does Tony Blair do it with this event? Of course, the answer is obvious - it certainly seemed to me that Blairs speeches at G8 had been pre-planned in anticipitaion of such an attack and the issue of ID cards has already raised its head.
I guess we will all be interested to see how events pan out in the next few weeks. In the meantime, thankyou Kali for your efforts.
I wonder whether MI5 read any of this?
I'd like to congratulate you on having the guts to raise your concerns and may I say your observations and concerns are very clearly put and make sense. You, of course, will be condemned for speaking in such terms but the debate is necessary and many of the reactions show how important it is that we discuss all sides properly.
I, and I'm sure that many people reading this, am convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, as horrible as it is to think that it could have been so. The evidence for this is, however, overwhelming and only a fool would ignore it, (anyone wanting such proof then let me know). As for the bombings on Thursday, well I'd like to think that British politicians and the secret services wouldn't sink to such lows but hey, anything is possible, especially in such troubling times. Your observations on the timing of the event and the way the media has pounced on the story to the exclusion of the major events of this week do make your conclusion seem highly credible.
Whether this is the work of Al-Qaeda or something more sinister, the rhetoric displayed by the media frenzy has certainly achieved the desired effect and in my mind the mission by the bombers is a success. Compare this with the political reactions to the IRA bombings in the last 30 years and we can see how much Thursdays event has been turned into a propaganda machine. The IRA bombings never provoked such overt dispays of nationalism and talk of democracy by politicians so why does Tony Blair do it with this event? Of course, the answer is obvious - it certainly seemed to me that Blairs speeches at G8 had been pre-planned in anticipitaion of such an attack and the issue of ID cards has already raised its head.
I guess we will all be interested to see how events pan out in the next few weeks. In the meantime, thankyou Kali for your efforts.
I wonder whether MI5 read any of this?
-
SherryMayo
- Posts: 235
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
MrKinnies said:
"Whether this is the work of Al-Qaeda or something more sinister, the rhetoric displayed by the media frenzy has certainly achieved the desired effect and in my mind the mission by the bombers is a success. Compare this with the political reactions to the IRA bombings in the last 30 years and we can see how much Thursdays event has been turned into a propaganda machine. The IRA bombings never provoked such overt dispays of nationalism and talk of democracy by politicians"
I almost burst out laughing when I read this - how memories of Thatcher ranting about the IRA must have faded! It provided rich fodder for Steve Bell at the time (see "IF..." cartoons of yore). The current frenzy is nothing new. (OK so I'm an old fart).
Re: the various conspiracy theories - why would MI5 etc bother to get embroiled in a plot to simulate terrorist acts when there are quite a few angry young islamists who will do the job for them with little or no encouragement. That's not to say of course TPTB won't milk it for political advantage - eg ID cards and the rest.
Edit: After posting I found quite an interesting article re: media propagandising followng the London bombings on prwatch:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3833
NB Prwatch is an excellent site in general for exposing media bullshit, PR disguised as news, and thinktanks/spokespersons/experts with hidden agendas and loyalties. I thoroughly recommend it.
"Whether this is the work of Al-Qaeda or something more sinister, the rhetoric displayed by the media frenzy has certainly achieved the desired effect and in my mind the mission by the bombers is a success. Compare this with the political reactions to the IRA bombings in the last 30 years and we can see how much Thursdays event has been turned into a propaganda machine. The IRA bombings never provoked such overt dispays of nationalism and talk of democracy by politicians"
I almost burst out laughing when I read this - how memories of Thatcher ranting about the IRA must have faded! It provided rich fodder for Steve Bell at the time (see "IF..." cartoons of yore). The current frenzy is nothing new. (OK so I'm an old fart).
Re: the various conspiracy theories - why would MI5 etc bother to get embroiled in a plot to simulate terrorist acts when there are quite a few angry young islamists who will do the job for them with little or no encouragement. That's not to say of course TPTB won't milk it for political advantage - eg ID cards and the rest.
Edit: After posting I found quite an interesting article re: media propagandising followng the London bombings on prwatch:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3833
NB Prwatch is an excellent site in general for exposing media bullshit, PR disguised as news, and thinktanks/spokespersons/experts with hidden agendas and loyalties. I thoroughly recommend it.
-
SherryMayo
- Posts: 235
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Hi Mr McKinnies
I always though Thatchers use of the Falklands War for improving her own political position was probably the most outrageous propagandising I've ever seen from a British PM (I'm thinking in particular of a party political broadcast prior to the subsequent election where she's doing the Chruchill "V" to rousing patriotic music - I nearly barfed!).
I know what you mean about Blair seeming weirdly wet he's kind of a Hawk in Doves clothing. I think he's a symptom of our times though - spin and PR over substance and real debate.
Re the MI5 thing (or whoever) I probably picked that up off peakoil.com on a simlar thread (where the conspiracies range free) apologies for tarring people here! I must say I generally prefer powerswitch for having less of the tin-foil hat feel.
I always though Thatchers use of the Falklands War for improving her own political position was probably the most outrageous propagandising I've ever seen from a British PM (I'm thinking in particular of a party political broadcast prior to the subsequent election where she's doing the Chruchill "V" to rousing patriotic music - I nearly barfed!).
I know what you mean about Blair seeming weirdly wet he's kind of a Hawk in Doves clothing. I think he's a symptom of our times though - spin and PR over substance and real debate.
Re the MI5 thing (or whoever) I probably picked that up off peakoil.com on a simlar thread (where the conspiracies range free) apologies for tarring people here! I must say I generally prefer powerswitch for having less of the tin-foil hat feel.
-
biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
Don't forget that is Alex "Abiotic oil" Jones.
Did that interview really go out on Radio 5? Is it archived anywhere (other than a conspiracy theorists website?)
Also, I have to wonder that, whenever the attacks happened, would we be saying "the timing is so convenient for Blair, Bush, etc"?
--------
BTW, I think there probably wasn't anywhere safer for the G8 leaders to be other than Gleneagles.
Did that interview really go out on Radio 5? Is it archived anywhere (other than a conspiracy theorists website?)
Also, I have to wonder that, whenever the attacks happened, would we be saying "the timing is so convenient for Blair, Bush, etc"?
--------
BTW, I think there probably wasn't anywhere safer for the G8 leaders to be other than Gleneagles.
I?ll just throw in my thoughts for what they are worth. Firstly, the human mind is very good at making patterns where there are non and when things get complex it becomes easier to see patterns and connections where no such pattern really exist. All these ideas of conspiracies have, to my mind, a probability of being nothing more than see seeing patterns where there are non. I think that that could well be the case when people are not looking at alternative explanations that also fit the facts. Secondly, coincides do happen and with complex system they happen often. Finally, we really don?t know much about what is really going on behind the scenes so we see patterns and connections in incomplete information.
Personally, I think the simplest explanation is the attacks were carried out by a group which perceives itself to be under threat and the politicians would just capitalise on that and use it to their advantage, which is normal for a politician to do.
Personally, I think the simplest explanation is the attacks were carried out by a group which perceives itself to be under threat and the politicians would just capitalise on that and use it to their advantage, which is normal for a politician to do.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
some more interesting comments, unfortunately no time to write a proper reply at present. However, I do have a link to the BBC report referenced above - this should take you to it (i'm technologically inept, so might not work...)
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/london/lon ... .games.wmv
kali
EDIT - it's ITV news, not BBC
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/london/lon ... .games.wmv
kali
EDIT - it's ITV news, not BBC
Thanks for the link Kali, that clears that up a bit. (Just can't take Alex Jones at face value without knowing the source - it would be good to see the BBC original).
So the next question is, who commisioned the exercise? and when, etc?
How often do these exercise take place? (i.e. what are the odds of this coincidence? - Is it really a near impossibility?)
So the next question is, who commisioned the exercise? and when, etc?
How often do these exercise take place? (i.e. what are the odds of this coincidence? - Is it really a near impossibility?)
I am still rather sceptical about this conspiracy theory.....
1. I don't think the Olympics result was anything to do with the planning of the event - surely it would have been the G8 meeting. If so, the Olympics result which was expected to be Paris was pure coincidence.
2. I agree with the person who said that whenever the attacks happened we could say it was convenient for Blair and Bush.
3. I also agree that as intelligent beings we are good at "seeing" patterns that might not really exist in reality.
4. I would find it extremely hard to believe that any area of the UK Government including secret unknown establishments would mount such an attack on the British people. Of course, one can never rule this out entirely, but highly unlikely.
5. The G8 meeting would be a definate target from the terrorists perspective. It is pure supposition to say because you think it is useful to the leaders that it must have been planned by somebody to do with them.....
6. If Blair had not returned to London I can just imagine the outcry there may have been, 'Worst atrocity in London since the Second World War and the Prime Minister prefers to stay at G8 meeting to act on Foreigh Policy' or headlines / criticism to that effect.
But I must also admit it troubles me to find that the ITV News link shows what it shows re the PR Company and the discussed emergency scenario. That is one hell of a coincidence - same timing, same locations - in fact it is so coincidental it makes one think that nobody in their right mind would let that happen if it was being planned - unless somebody was trying to get a message out? Ahhhhhh, my brain hurts.
1. I don't think the Olympics result was anything to do with the planning of the event - surely it would have been the G8 meeting. If so, the Olympics result which was expected to be Paris was pure coincidence.
2. I agree with the person who said that whenever the attacks happened we could say it was convenient for Blair and Bush.
3. I also agree that as intelligent beings we are good at "seeing" patterns that might not really exist in reality.
4. I would find it extremely hard to believe that any area of the UK Government including secret unknown establishments would mount such an attack on the British people. Of course, one can never rule this out entirely, but highly unlikely.
5. The G8 meeting would be a definate target from the terrorists perspective. It is pure supposition to say because you think it is useful to the leaders that it must have been planned by somebody to do with them.....
6. If Blair had not returned to London I can just imagine the outcry there may have been, 'Worst atrocity in London since the Second World War and the Prime Minister prefers to stay at G8 meeting to act on Foreigh Policy' or headlines / criticism to that effect.
But I must also admit it troubles me to find that the ITV News link shows what it shows re the PR Company and the discussed emergency scenario. That is one hell of a coincidence - same timing, same locations - in fact it is so coincidental it makes one think that nobody in their right mind would let that happen if it was being planned - unless somebody was trying to get a message out? Ahhhhhh, my brain hurts.
Real money is gold and silver
Well it looks like we may be soon getting some answers. The
bus bomber died in the explosion and has been identified. Putting
2 and 2 together I guess his family reported him missing and
as a Muslim he went to the top of the queue for DNA testing. At least
one person of Pakistani origin is missing (not clear if it is the
same person) and unconfirmed reports of arrests across the
country. (the wife of the Pakistani being one). Several houses
raided by police.
We will soon find if this was a home grown cell or an
overseas sleeper cell, perhaps a mixture. Some people may have
fled the country, time will tell.
Expect plenty of political spin, and very few facts. What I want to know
is what the bomber's motivations were. If they catch some alive,
will they be allowed to talk?
bus bomber died in the explosion and has been identified. Putting
2 and 2 together I guess his family reported him missing and
as a Muslim he went to the top of the queue for DNA testing. At least
one person of Pakistani origin is missing (not clear if it is the
same person) and unconfirmed reports of arrests across the
country. (the wife of the Pakistani being one). Several houses
raided by police.
We will soon find if this was a home grown cell or an
overseas sleeper cell, perhaps a mixture. Some people may have
fled the country, time will tell.
Expect plenty of political spin, and very few facts. What I want to know
is what the bomber's motivations were. If they catch some alive,
will they be allowed to talk?
I disagree - some times are more convenient than othersGD wrote:Also, I have to wonder that, whenever the attacks happened, would we be saying "the timing is so convenient for Blair, Bush, etc"?
Indeed I always cast a critical eye over Alex Jones; a lot of what he writes is complete rubbish. However this article is very good:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/060705loosechange.wmv
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm