Anyone got any reliable info on the london "bombs"
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
Adam Porter
- Posts: 22
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Contact:
-
fishertrop
- Posts: 859
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Sheffield
Yes I know!
As I write this - the high for dec delivery (wti) was 63.99 (which I think is a record anyway !!), the low 59.76 and current is back up to 62.60.
What a yo-yo!
Wouldn't it be mad if we saw $63 on the front-month and $64 on the futures on a day like today
Seems both the stock markets and the oil indexes have bounced back up nearly all the way in short order.
As I write this - the high for dec delivery (wti) was 63.99 (which I think is a record anyway !!), the low 59.76 and current is back up to 62.60.
What a yo-yo!
Wouldn't it be mad if we saw $63 on the front-month and $64 on the futures on a day like today
Seems both the stock markets and the oil indexes have bounced back up nearly all the way in short order.
Knew this was coming:
Muslims urged to stay indoors
Muslims urged to stay indoors
Press Association
Thursday July 7, 2005
Fears that Muslims may be become the victims of reprisals following today's London bombings have prompted a warning for them to stay indoors.
Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, appealed for calm and condemned the bombings.
That's what they'd like to think. The scope for minority parties for power is only in influencing the big boys.hatchelt wrote:didn't the BNP say recently that they planned to be in power within the next ten years?
Should the BNP start picking up significant gains then the main parties would trump them by adopting the policies. Ditto for greens.
I doubt we'll ever see Nick Griffin in #10, however I'll worry about his influence on whoever's in #10 (& the opposition).
(This is why I keep going on about SIMPOL!)
From the Greens pov getting a main party to adopt our policies would be a major win. Most of the GP today probably don't really want to be politicians, just want to create politicians who can do a competent job and don't seek power for it's own sake.GD wrote: Should the BNP start picking up significant gains then the main parties would trump them by adopting the policies. Ditto for greens.
I can't speak for BNP but suspect that they in common with the other parties actually want power for its own sake, and to be used for unspecified ends.
Greens are quite the reverse and start from the end - creating a sustainable society - and seek ways of getting there through political and other action.
If you are in here and uk based, you can probably make a valuable contribution to the GP - it is a better starting point than any of the others.
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
I thought it was a bit convenient for you-know-who to have Tony out of the room at the G8 when the topic for today's discussion was "Global Warming".
No doubt that there will be little news coverage of what's been debated at the G8 today.
Also no doubt that ID cards are going to be much more widely supported.
No doubt that there will be little news coverage of what's been debated at the G8 today.
Also no doubt that ID cards are going to be much more widely supported.
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
Timing of bombs a tad too convenient???
Firstly, I want & need to express my utter horror at the carnage wreaked on so many innocents in London, and send my love and condolences to all those whose lives have been darkened by yesterday's bombs.
Secondly, I'd like some input from others on this board. You see, I've spent hours working through some perculiarities in the timing of this attack that have left me wondering about whether its all too much of a coincidence.
Some of the factors to consider:
- it happened, very conveniently, the day after we were awarded the 2012 Olympics. If the bombs had exploded only 24 hours earlier (also would have co-incided with the opening day of the G8) it's at least fairly likely that London, as was the case with the New York bid, would have lost the games due to security fears. Who benefits? Would committed Al Qaeda types not have chosen the day before, increasing the impact of the attack even more?
- Blair has, in recent weeks, been in a better position in terms of public opinion than he has been since the invasion of Iraq. He has become positively associated with the MPH campaign, having even been pictured with St Bob's smiling head resting on his shoulder on the front page of the Guardian a few days ago. He's also seen as one of the key factors behind the surprise success of the Olympic bid. This ensures that, unlike pretty much any other time in the past couple of years, he'll probably get more of a 9/11 reaction from the public than that given to the Spanish government after Madrid. In the circumstances, it's less likely that the mass public reaction will be to seek to blame Blair for 'blowback' while he has his 'world saviour' hat on, than when he was wearing his 'international war criminal' head gear just a few short weeks ago.
- the timimg was perfect for George W! His popularity at home in recent weeks has been nosediving. His chief political strategist, Karl Rove, is under investigation for leaking the ID of Valerie Plame. The deception revealed by Downing Street Memos was beginning to seep into public awareness. Now, however, he gets to miss being villified the world over as the Stupid Toxic Texan, as this has taken his woeful and un-bloody-believably stupid approach to climate change ('bring it on!') right off of the news media's agenda. Instead he gets to be almost on the scene, with the chance to reprise his favourite John Wayne-esque character, threatening to chase them there evil terrorists to the ends of the earth (or at least to all the ends that happen to have oil...)
- it makes it a lot easier for Blair to push through his Africa aid & debt relief agenda through the G8 meeting - several countries, including France, were extremely reluctant to endorse his plans - something that may well have been exacerbated when Paris' Olympic bid failed. In light of yesterady's attack, he's more or less assured a great deal less opposition. (As many peakies will already be aware, those poor African countries have lots of lovely resources that our caring corporations can't wait to liberate - the strings attached to the proposed debt, aid and trade deals are kindly designed to help them in this endeavour...)
- it further helps the state's longstanding efforts to discredit those in the anti-corporate, anti-globalisation movement. Several of the news stories I've heard/read, as well as comments on bulletin boards, blame their so-called determination to cause 'mindless violence' in Scotland for forcing the Met to send so many police out of London, thereby reducing usual security levels, & enabling the 'terrorists' to implement their deadly scheme. It could very conceivably lead to the further criminalisation of protest and dissent, arguing that the police have more important work to do protecting us from attack. Such restrictions on protest would obviously be invaluable on the post-peak downslope...
Well, those (other than the obvious ones, such as how much easier Blair should find it to introduce his ID/carbon entitlement card scheme after this...) are the areas of concern I have so far considered. A little over a year ago, I would have dismissed them as the ravings of a lunatic. Understanding about the imminence and implications of peak oil, however, I can genuinely believe that some very scary souls might see such an attack as a price worth paying to drive the public agenda the way they need it to go...what do you think?
kali
Secondly, I'd like some input from others on this board. You see, I've spent hours working through some perculiarities in the timing of this attack that have left me wondering about whether its all too much of a coincidence.
Some of the factors to consider:
- it happened, very conveniently, the day after we were awarded the 2012 Olympics. If the bombs had exploded only 24 hours earlier (also would have co-incided with the opening day of the G8) it's at least fairly likely that London, as was the case with the New York bid, would have lost the games due to security fears. Who benefits? Would committed Al Qaeda types not have chosen the day before, increasing the impact of the attack even more?
- Blair has, in recent weeks, been in a better position in terms of public opinion than he has been since the invasion of Iraq. He has become positively associated with the MPH campaign, having even been pictured with St Bob's smiling head resting on his shoulder on the front page of the Guardian a few days ago. He's also seen as one of the key factors behind the surprise success of the Olympic bid. This ensures that, unlike pretty much any other time in the past couple of years, he'll probably get more of a 9/11 reaction from the public than that given to the Spanish government after Madrid. In the circumstances, it's less likely that the mass public reaction will be to seek to blame Blair for 'blowback' while he has his 'world saviour' hat on, than when he was wearing his 'international war criminal' head gear just a few short weeks ago.
- the timimg was perfect for George W! His popularity at home in recent weeks has been nosediving. His chief political strategist, Karl Rove, is under investigation for leaking the ID of Valerie Plame. The deception revealed by Downing Street Memos was beginning to seep into public awareness. Now, however, he gets to miss being villified the world over as the Stupid Toxic Texan, as this has taken his woeful and un-bloody-believably stupid approach to climate change ('bring it on!') right off of the news media's agenda. Instead he gets to be almost on the scene, with the chance to reprise his favourite John Wayne-esque character, threatening to chase them there evil terrorists to the ends of the earth (or at least to all the ends that happen to have oil...)
- it makes it a lot easier for Blair to push through his Africa aid & debt relief agenda through the G8 meeting - several countries, including France, were extremely reluctant to endorse his plans - something that may well have been exacerbated when Paris' Olympic bid failed. In light of yesterady's attack, he's more or less assured a great deal less opposition. (As many peakies will already be aware, those poor African countries have lots of lovely resources that our caring corporations can't wait to liberate - the strings attached to the proposed debt, aid and trade deals are kindly designed to help them in this endeavour...)
- it further helps the state's longstanding efforts to discredit those in the anti-corporate, anti-globalisation movement. Several of the news stories I've heard/read, as well as comments on bulletin boards, blame their so-called determination to cause 'mindless violence' in Scotland for forcing the Met to send so many police out of London, thereby reducing usual security levels, & enabling the 'terrorists' to implement their deadly scheme. It could very conceivably lead to the further criminalisation of protest and dissent, arguing that the police have more important work to do protecting us from attack. Such restrictions on protest would obviously be invaluable on the post-peak downslope...
Well, those (other than the obvious ones, such as how much easier Blair should find it to introduce his ID/carbon entitlement card scheme after this...) are the areas of concern I have so far considered. A little over a year ago, I would have dismissed them as the ravings of a lunatic. Understanding about the imminence and implications of peak oil, however, I can genuinely believe that some very scary souls might see such an attack as a price worth paying to drive the public agenda the way they need it to go...what do you think?
kali
If the economy has problems and we head towards a TEC with civilization falling all around us then these terrorists have won. I?m sure they would see it as an act of god. Could it even be used by them as a spring board to installing a world wide theocracy?greenbean wrote:If things continue as they are going, they might well be. Would that benefit terrorism, do you think?
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/
Hmm, you make some very thought provoking points there Kali. I am certainly not cynical enough to think it was a deliberate act by our own "scary souls", but I AM cynical enough to think that our government will get whatever political mileage they can get out of it (that's politics): http://redpepper.blogs.com/g8/2005/07/g ... .html#morekali wrote: Well, those (other than the obvious ones, such as how much easier Blair should find it to introduce his ID/carbon entitlement card scheme after this...) are the areas of concern I have so far considered. A little over a year ago, I would have dismissed them as the ravings of a lunatic. Understanding about the imminence and implications of peak oil, however, I can genuinely believe that some very scary souls might see such an attack as a price worth paying to drive the public agenda the way they need it to go...what do you think?
kali
I would like to add my sympathy and support to those affected by these terrible acts of violence - our hearts go out to you all.
Last edited by theeggman on 08 Jul 2005, 09:56, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Timing of bombs a tad too convenient???
Kali identified 5 'peculiarities' in the timing of the London attack:
Muslim extremist goals are broadly speaking clear, focused, and limited (at least as represented by ObinL)
-'the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state;
- the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands;
- the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera
- the conservation of the Muslim world's energy resources and their sale at higher prices.
Possible intended consequences of an attack during the G8 period would be twofold:
1. To remind the G8 that the Muslim 'problem' is still a real live issue and should be treated along with Africa and CC
2. To get the British people to see the consequences of their government's actions in Iraq through collateral damage in the UK
Unfortunately, for the reasons Kali gave above, which are probably not obvious beforehand from the point of view of an extremist cell focused on the aims I suggest, the action is unlikely to have the desired effect - getting the British people to pressure Blair to withdraw - and is more likely to be counterproductive to them.
I think I go more easily with this cock-up (from the extremist pov) theory than the conspiracy (of scary souls) offered by Kali - but remain open to evidence either way.
Very thought provoking - I wanted to try and reason against this, but finding it difficult.Here goes though:kali wrote: - it happened, very conveniently, the day after we were awarded the 2012 Olympics.
- Blair has, in recent weeks, been in a better position in terms of public opinion than he has been since the invasion of Iraq.
- the timimg was perfect for George W! His popularity at home in recent weeks has been nosediving.
- it makes it a lot easier for Blair to push through his Africa aid & debt relief agenda through the G8 meeting
- it further helps the state's longstanding efforts to discredit those in the anti-corporate, anti-globalisation movement.
kali
Muslim extremist goals are broadly speaking clear, focused, and limited (at least as represented by ObinL)
-'the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state;
- the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands;
- the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera
- the conservation of the Muslim world's energy resources and their sale at higher prices.
Possible intended consequences of an attack during the G8 period would be twofold:
1. To remind the G8 that the Muslim 'problem' is still a real live issue and should be treated along with Africa and CC
2. To get the British people to see the consequences of their government's actions in Iraq through collateral damage in the UK
Unfortunately, for the reasons Kali gave above, which are probably not obvious beforehand from the point of view of an extremist cell focused on the aims I suggest, the action is unlikely to have the desired effect - getting the British people to pressure Blair to withdraw - and is more likely to be counterproductive to them.
I think I go more easily with this cock-up (from the extremist pov) theory than the conspiracy (of scary souls) offered by Kali - but remain open to evidence either way.
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.