now i know muslim extremists might not be the sanest people on this earth, but i don't believe they're completely stupid either. the timing of these bombs seem to me to work much better FOR the bush administration than against them. once again, they reinforce the need for the unwinnable and never-en ding 'war on terror'at a time when a significant part of the british population displayed their profound disagreement with these policies.
a bomb the following day would have allowed all the anti-bush publicity to thrive around the world's media and then be followed by a bomb to show the result of their policies.
so who really did it? i'm not generally madly into conspiracy theories, but this bomb just didn't add up for me - anyone else got any thoughts on this.
i found the following piece (sorry about the weird formatting) at 'centre for globalisation research' which ties in with my thoughts, and there's more info on this at:
Turkish Top Military Brass meets Wolfowitz one day before Istanbul Attacks
(Global Research Canada, 21 November 2003) The two Istanbul attacks respectively on the HSBC in the
financial district and on the British Consulate were, according to media reports "timed to coincide with
President George Bush's state visi t to London."
The explosions were described by the Turkish press "as similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001".
The Istanbul Stock Exchange (IMKB) plummeted by 7.37 percent immediately after the bombings. The stock
exchan ge was closed down at 11 am. On World markets, the gold index moved toward the $400 an ounce
The lira "slipped in thin trading". Banks ceased quotes on the Turkish interbank foreign exchange market. The
Lira was defended by the Turkish Central Bank, which "provided the necessary liquidity.” The Central Bank
statement was said to have "stopped a crisis in the foreign exchange market". Yet at the same time, the
Central Bank decision was also conducive to a decline in Central Bank forex reserves and a massive capital
These movements on the equity and currency markets raise the important question: Was there insider
trading and speculative trade based on foreknowledge of th e attacks?
It is also worth mentioning that the attacks took place one day following the completion of the annual
Turkish-US Joint Defense Group meeting (17-19 November 2003).
The Turkish delegation to this meeting was led by Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen Ilker Basbug, who met
his US counterpart US Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen Peter Pace.
The mandate of the Joint Defense Group was to discuss issues pertaining inter alia to the war on terrorism.
Basbug met up in at least two separate meetings with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz at the
Pentagon and at a luncheon hosted by Deputy Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace. (Asia Africa
Intelligence News Wire, 20 Novemb er 2003). Dr. Wolfowitz is one of the main architects of the "war on
General Basbug later met up with Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Deputy National Security
Advisor Stephen Hadley.
On the da y of the attacks, Paul Wolfowitz held a press conference together with General Busbag.
Lieutenant General Basbug left Washington on the 20th, after participating in the press conference.
Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw who traveled to Istanbul on Thursday the 20th "said that it was not
possible to say anything definite at the moment but the attacks bore the hallmarks of the al Qaida network."
The British Consul General Roger Short, was killed by the bomb as he was en tering the consulate building.
Press reports confirmed that he had cancelled an appointment at the last minute and "if he had gone to his
appointment, he would have been alive"
( http://www.hurriyetim.com.tr/haber/0,,sid~381@nvid~338359,00.asp )
A wave of arrests was initiated in the immediate wake of the attacks and prior to the conduct of a full-fledged
investigation. The Turkish authorities stated that they would not publish the number of persons arrested and
the "people should trust in the Turkish police"
They attacks have created conditions for a more active role of Turkey in the Iraqi war theater. They create
conditions for Turkey's participation in the war on terrorism, while weakening its l inks to the EU.
More generally the attacks serve to strengthen the Anglo-American military axis and the legitimacy of Bush's
"War on terrorism." In the words of one commentator on National Public Radio (21 November 2003):
I f we had gone after al-Qaeda, would they still be able to do things like bomb the British
Consulate in Turkey, in Istanbul? So it reminds Americans and Englanders that this is still a
problem. This terrorist group is still work ing. And who's next?
The Istanbul bombings also serve to uphold the shaky legitimacy of Prime Minister Tony Blair in the face of
mounting political opposition to Britain's' participation in the US led war.
Michel Chossudo vsky, 11/21/03
© Copyright CRG .2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.ee