"There is no reason to believe that a young, wealthy Nigerian, would kill himself and others for Afghanistan, whether under Al Qaida mind control or not."

Why not? He had serious injuries from lighting a bomb stuff down his pants.
Seems a good reason to me

Why can't you just accept that your beloved fundamentalist loons enjoy blowing up innocent people? Why the denialism?

The CIA, Mossad and the Masons. Don't want to throw in the Bilderbergers or the Illuminati?

I think this defence is what is popularly called 'clutching at straws'.

I know governments do get up to sneaky things but I think in this case the article is conspiracy theory nonsense along the "9/11 was an inside job" lines.

This kind of bullshit does Indymedia no favours and just makes us all look stupid.

I'm confused.

Thanks to Anon's rational thinking, it's clear to me that Mutallab was under mind control. It must be that Al Qaida travelled through space to the planet Kripton and learned their advanced mind control techniques from them. And, hey presto, a member of a ruling class tries to kill himself for poor people in a country he has nothing to do with. Either that, or Al Qaida's threat to the civilised world depends on them using specially trained operatives who ought to be in a mental asylum. But it can't be that because you'd to be mad to believe that. So, Al Qaida has magical powers.

But, what's really confusing is that members of the White House are becoming the conspiracy loons that loonie tunes would condemn:

 http://rawstory.com/2009/01/countdown-detroit-bomber-intel-failure-conspiracy-cock-up/
COUNTDOWN: DETROIT BOMBER INTEL FAILURE: ‘CONSPIRACY OR COCK UP?’

On Monday evening's edition of MSNBC's Countdown with host Keith Olbermann, guest Richard Wolffe discusses the nation's intelligence gathering associated with the Flight 253 'underpants bomber,' Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and serious questions that have risen about whether or not there was foul play, information intentionally withheld, or a conspiracy involved...

...Wolffe responds by bringing up the White House internal inquiry, "That has got to be an area that the White House is looking into and, you know, motives can be hard to assess because it's not clear that this person was easily identified as a terrorist. Even with the father coming forward saying they had concerns, was that more of a family concern or were there enough fingerprints here about the radicalization of this individual to suggest that it should have been taken to a different level - at the very least a security level beyond more than a nominal sharing of information. That's where this inquiry, this internal inquiry, for the moment, has to go."...

No

I think hes right, the masons are responsible.

When they execute the guy, they will find a small chip inside his brain which has technology 3 generations ahead of current high-tec equipment. This "mind control" device would then receive instructions from a satelite making him blow his trousers up.

Either that or the CIA pysops unit telepathically controlled him

Or was in Darren Brown doing it for TV ratings?


On average there are several suicides bombings every single day. Are you saying the CIA responsible for them all?

Should I insult those who comment or actually address the points they raise?

Let's see, why did a member of the Nigerian ruling class try to commit suicide and murder for poor Afghanis he has neither met or have anything to do with?

And what did Al Qaida do to him to convince him to blow himself up?

And let's not get into conspiracy nonsense, let's come up with an answer:

Al Qaida has super mind control powers they got from the planet Kripton!!!

But oh no, mind control is conspiracy nonsense. Damn, let's just insult people who don't agree with me because coming up with an answer would make my brain hurt.

which is that he may not have been doing it for the Afghans. He might have been doing it because he hates America [not unusual], and because he has read too many Muslim jihad websites - in other words, he did it not for the people of the country but for his co-religionists.

Man I really hate conspiracy theorist wankers, I think they need to be forcibly removed from the political arena.

They make Indymedia look like a joke.

Obama's speech this afternoon was an incongruous performance. On the one hand, he angrily detailed a catastrophic breakdown in US intelligence procedures leading to the near-massacre of hundreds of airline passengers in the skies over Detroit on Christmas Day.

On the other hand, there was no purge of the corrupt, complicit, and incompetent officials who had made this incident possible. No firings were announced. No heads rolled. The rogue network or invisible government of treasonous and subversive moles inside the US government which is behind the Detroit incident, and so many other incidents, remained untouched once again.


WOLFFE ON MSNBC: “COCK-UP OR CONSPIRACY” ?

The expectation that Obama might actually do something to combat the rogue network across US government institutions which inflicts terrorism on the American people and the world had been raised the night before in an interview by Washington journalist Richard Wolffe on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC Countdown program. Wolffe, citing high-level White House officials, had reported that there was an investigation into whether the security lapses leading to the Detroit Christmas incident had been intentional and deliberate, and thus the products of conscious sabotage. Wolffe had stated: “It seems that the president is leaning very much towards thinking this was a systemic failure by individuals who maybe had an alternative agenda….The question there is again, cock up or conspiracy. Was there a reason these agencies were at war with each other that prevented that intelligence from being shared?” ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34694889) The goal, summarized Olbermann, was either a “turf war” or else the desire “to make somebody [Obama] look bad.” In reality, the goals involve a domestic police state and foreign geopolitical adventures.

Wolffe’s report had suggested that at least some firings were in the offing for officials responsible for the failure to stop Umar Farouk Mutallab from boarding his flight from Amsterdam to Detroit , despite the cascade of red flags associated with this particular patsy. But in his speech, Obama did not lay a glove on the invisible government forces which stage false flag terror incidents to manipulate public opinion and politics in the direction of increased totalitarianism at home and aggression abroad. Obama talked about what he would not tolerate, and about accountability in the abstract, but did not provide any concrete retribution to make moles think twice about future actions. Even David Gergen, the former White House official who faithfully represents the oligarchical point of view, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he considered it virtually inconceivable for Obama to make such a speech without firing some failed officials.


THE BAY OF PIGS , 1961 – A DISTANT MIRROR FOR OBAMA

Obama’s situation offers certain parallels to the experience of John F. Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961. Upon entering office, Kennedy had been convinced by Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell of the CIA to support an invasion of Cuba , which the CIA promised would lead immediately to an insurrection throughout the island and thus to the overthrow of Fidel Castro. Instead, the invasion was a catastrophic failure and humiliation for the United States and for Kennedy personally. When Kennedy came into office, he had been inclined to work closely with operatives like Allen Dulles and Bissell, who personified the rogue network in its then-current form. Helped along -- according to some accounts -- by General Douglas MacArthur, Kennedy realized that the geopolitical forces behind and above the presidency which were seeking to use him for their own ends were also more than willing to ruin him politically and to cast him aside as an expendable puppet at the first opportunity. Over time, this led to Kennedy's deep and abiding mistrust of the rogue elements dominating the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, and other elements of the US government -- a mistrust which allowed Kennedy to resist the lunatic proposals for general war advanced by the rogue elements during the Cuban missile crisis. In the short run, Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs experience impelled him to fire Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, and CIA deputy director Charles Cabell within less than a year after the failed invasion. Obama needs to imitate Kennedy’s response, on the fast track.

Today, the breakdown crisis of the Anglo-American world system is far more acute than anything Kennedy had to face. Obama needs to muster something more than mere impotent rage about what is happening to himself. If Obama wants to avoid the disastrous outcomes for himself and the country which are now clearly delineated, he will need to mount an ambitious purge of subversive and treasonous moles inside the federal bureaucracy, along with the incompetents, time servers, and bunglers who are happy to play along with the rogues.


WHO OBAMA SHOULD FIRE

Almost any of the twenty-odd officials who attended Obama’s special meeting in the White House today could be candidates for ouster for reasons of incompetence or worse. One obvious choice would be Michael E. Leiter, the head of the National Counter-Terrorism Center , which has the responsibility of integrating all the information from 16 agencies which was so obviously not integrated in the Mutallab case. Another might be Leiter’s boss Dennis C. Blair, the Director of National Intelligence or intelligence czar created after 9/11. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is widely discredited, and has lost the confidence of the American people through her interviews if nothing else. Napolitano is also the keeper of the no-fly list, on which Mutallab needed to be listed, but was not. Hillary Clinton’s State Department failed to revoke Mutallab’s US entry visa after the Nigerian’s father warned the US Embassy in Nigeria about his son’s visit to Yemen -- an outrageous lapse, or a deliberate sabotage. Leon Panetta’s CIA also had that information, and failed to make sure it was acted on. Gen. James Jones, the head of the National Security Council, is responsible for the overall coordination of the government, which in this case was substandard. FBI Director Robert Muller’s agents are up to their usual tricks of suppressing evidence in regard to the “well-dressed Indian” and the “man in orange” on the Detroit flight reported by an eyewitness, the Detroit attorney Kurt Haskell. (See  http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passeng er_kurt_hask.html) Firing any of these failed or complicit officials would be a good start.

If Obama continues to punt on real accountability, the rogue network will conclude that he is indeed the weakling and pushover which French President Sarkozy and others have suspected him to be. In that case, the handwriting will be on the wall for new world catastrophes.

May i suggest lok, the most skilled practitioners of mind control are to be found in the pulpits of all denominations.

"Let's see, why did a member of the Nigerian ruling class try to commit suicide and murder for poor Afghanis he has neither met or have anything to do with?"

Hmm, I guess a shared religion might be something to do with it? Especially as the US government is full of fundamentalist Christian lunatics who see this as a war against Islam.

And as for why a member of the ruling class, well, Osama bin Laden was too. Rich and upper class people tend to have more self-confidence and arrogance than other people as a result of their upbringing, so it is understandable they are more likely to have the balls to try to pull off something like this.

Come on, governments do enough scummy things without us descending into paranoid conspiracy theories that just don't make logical sense.

@non

‘Hmm, I guess a shared religion might be something to do with it? Especially as the US government is full of fundamentalist Christian lunatics who see this as a war against Islam.

And as for why a member of the ruling class, well, Osama bin Laden was too. Rich and upper class people tend to have more self-confidence and arrogance than other people as a result of their upbringing, so it is understandable they are more likely to have the balls to try to pull off something like this.’

Firstly, people do not suicide bomb themselves for others merely because they share a religion. If so, this would be happening all the time. By “pull off something like this’, you mean kill themselves and murder others. And of course, confidence and arrogance better applies to the US ruling class.

Secondly, you may think that people see no difference, particularly racial difference, between Arab Muslims and black Muslim but if you did you’d be a space cadet.

Thirdly, no non-black Muslim has suicided himself for the suffering of black people or black Muslims, despite sharing a religion. Why not?

Fourthly, no Afghani has got into the West in order to suicide himself for his relatives or fellow Afghans. Why should a young Nigerian?

What was the young Nigerian thinking he would achieve? What strategic objective would Al Qaida achieve? Let me answer, none whatsoever.

Obama was a CIA agent and supposedly had support from Saudi ruling class. Please note, he gets other people to suicide themselves.

How do you explain the testimony of the witnesses?

Are the Yemeni government loony conspiracy theorists? Are Black Agenda Report, and Pan African News Wire loony conspiracy theorists?

The only official explanation is that Al Qaida successfully did mind control on a gullable, young Nigerian. If Al Qaida can do mind control, why can’t the CIA?

At least, your response was more than a neanderthal insult.

If the whole point of this super-racist conspiracy is to make everyone anti African and suspect them of being terrorists, as Insidejob posits... why make it so public that the bloke was radicalised by people in London? That one flaw seems to cock up the whole theory.

(It's like those who think the point of 9/11 was to allow an attack on Iraq - if so, why make it so public and obvious it was committed by Saudis?)