The terrible events of July 7th 2005 were the first suicide attack on Britain and caused widespread disruption to transport services to and from the capital. I was due to attend a conference in London starting on July 8th but the sleeper from Scotland to London was cancelled on the day of the bombings and I didn’t eventually travel until the evening of Sunday 10th July.
I arrived in London on Monday morning 11th July by the overnight train from Edinburgh, which terminates at Euston, about half a mile from King's Cross.
I walked past King's Cross railway station where 21 people were killed on Thursday, 7th July. Life seemed to go on much as normal but there were more police around than usual and a helicopter flew overhead. I felt a mixture of sadness and anger; sadness at the fifty or so wasted lives and anger that the policies of Blair and Bush in attacking Iraq had brought this on. On walking past King's Cross station you see photos of those who are still missing. It's very poignant and reminded me of my visits to Ground Zero and the Ameriyah air raid shelter in Baghdad. It is always the innocent who suffer. Terrorists simply cannot get anywhere near the likes of Bush, Blair, Berlusconi or Bin Laden.
The Blair government and the media tells us that we can take it and that we are `defiant` - that's so easy for `them` to say when they don't have to `take it`.
I felt privileged to be able to walk around London in what felt like comparative safety and was able to stay in a comfortable hotel, ironically the Tavistock Hotel in Tavistock Square where the number 30 London bus was blown up.
As I write this the death toll has reached 55 and the news headline is of a bomb near Baghdad which has killed some 58 people though of course their deaths will receive much less coverage and analysis than the London victims.
We should spare a thought for all those who were bereaved by both the London and Iraq attacks and remember the continuing ordeal of the Iraqi people who are roasting in the boiling heat of the summer with little water or electricity in an illegal and brutal occupation. Their ordeal has lasted for well over a decade; read this description of the incineration of over 300 innocents in the Ameriyah shelter in Baghdad in 1991:
Remembering the bombing of the Ameriyah civilian shelter in Iraq
February 12, 1991: F117As streak across the Iraqi skies at 5:20 a.m. Laser-guided bombs* lock on. Fire one. Fire two. Bomb one hits the Ameriyah shelter, smashing through ten feet of concrete and steel. Precisely, it explodes milliseconds after penetrating the shelter. The shelter is wide open with 325 women and children and elderly people screaming. Seconds pass in front of people’s eyes when bomb two arrives on time. White light, white heat. Bomb two is an incendiary bomb, designed to cremate the target. 317 bodies burn for seven hours, as the workers attempt to open the doors that are welded shut. Out of desperation, the doors are blown open with dynamite. There are 7 survivors.
Was this not an act of `terrorism`? The 13-year sanctions regime, which was likened to a medieval siege claimed over a million, lives and led to the resignation of UN food coordinators Denis Halliday and his successor Hans Von Sponeck who left their jobs in disgust at what they saw as a policy of genocide. They both conducted campaigns against the sanctions and went on gruelling speaking tours around the world but the mainstream media almost totally ignored them. Surely the vicious sanctions regime was a `weapon of mass destruction`?
I listened to the `ANY ANSWERS` programme on Radio 4 on Saturday 16th July 2005.
One of the panellists, Colleen Graffy, an American right wing Republican lawyer, used the term `brainwashing` when referring to the way British Muslims were made to support the September 11th attacks. She quoted a survey saying that 13% of British Muslims supported the attacks through `Brainwashing` but remember 87% of British Muslims opposed the attacks. Compare this with the brainwashing of the British and American people by the government and media in the run up to war. We were incessantly told of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass destruction, which didn’t exist.
All the newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations used the phrase `weapons of mass destruction` over and over and over again – is this not `brainwashing`? Even supposedly impartial BBC news bulletins would say things like “Hans Blix and his UNMOVIC team are searching for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” They should really have qualified the phrase WMD with `supposed` or `suspected` - the way it was put implied that yes, the weapons actually exist - it’s just that they haven’t been found yet. With all the coverage of Iraq there was virtually no mention of the terrible effects of the sanctions, which according to UNICEF killed over a million people and also no coverage of the issue of Depleted Uranium.
I was in the USA in 2002 during the run up to the war. The American media coverage was little more than a joke – it was brainwashing if ever there was. The TV news programmes on NBC and Fox had a small stars and stripes in the bottom left hand corner of the screen. The CNN channel had a bar about three quarters of the way down the screen with a couple of stars and a stripe flickering – they were trying, subliminally, to appeal to people’s patriotism.
The format of the programmes was typically having a military man on one side with a retired military man on the other. The presenter would say things like “How can we get people on our side?” and addressing the audience he would say,
“You’re not sure we should invade Iraq? Maybe you will be after you hear the palaver coming out of Baghdad.” It was blatant cheerleading for the coming war with no attempt at objectivity.
The British tabloids were of course rabidly pro war with Murdoch’s `Sun` (or `Scum` to its detractors) leading the way with headlines like `He’s got ‘em, now let’s get him`. The British media as a whole largely supported the war with only the `Daily Mirror` and small circulation `Independent` offering mild opposition.
Brainwashing is not exclusive to British Muslims.
Here is what right wing nutter Frank Gaffney had to say about the London bombings – he blames it on `Islamofascism`, which is a new phrase to me.
War Footing
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
National Review Online, 7 July 2005
The wave of bomb attacks that shattered the morning rush hour in London today should also destroy the complacency with which many Americans had come to view the war being waged against us by terror-wielding foes. The death and destruction in the subway system known as the "Tube" below ground and on a bus above is a vivid reminder of a central reality of our time: While we have been spared such horrors here for nearly four years, anyone who thinks we can safely divert our attention from this threat is kidding himself, and putting the rest of us at grave risk.
At this writing, not much is known about the extent - let alone the detailed nature or specific perpetrators - of the bloodletting in London. What is clear, however, is that the attackers exhibited the sort of calculation and ruthlessness that has come to be associated with the ideology at the heart of the war on terror: ISLAMOFASCISM. Synchronized attacks on public infrastructure and spaces with a view to murdering as many civilians as possible and timed to interrupt or otherwise influence national or international events is a hallmark of those we have been fighting since 9/11 in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the globe.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the president of the the right-wing advocacy organization, Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. Frank Gaffney is a former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense. He is ideologically close to Israeli hardliners such as the Likud party.
My final thoughts
The tragic loss of life in London, New York, Baghdad and elsewhere is very distressing. What is the answer? I agree with Noam Chomsky, George Galloway and others who argue we must `drain the swamp` of hatred and injustice which breeds terrorism. There must be a proper settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian problem and an end to the occupation of Iraq. The bloody prescriptions of the neo-cons and their apologists can only lead to more violence
14 labelled photos are attached including 9 from London, two from Ground Zero in New York and three from Baghdad.
Word count 1,478 words
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 18 comments
Some Comments
17.07.2005 20:57
No, they were not. The explosive devices were on timers, and I doubt very highly that the victims-turned-villains by the LIARS who sold you LIES about Iraq would have sat by while the devices exploded upon them.
"anger that the policies of Blair and Bush in attacking Iraq had brought this on."
I think it would be more accurate to say that the exposure of their LIES, leading to a rapid loss in public confidence and support, brought this on. This False Flag was so obviously designed to strike FEAR into the populace, and numb their minds to the criminal activities of Bush/PNAC/Bliar in pursuing an ILLEGAL war of aggression for profit, and LYING to their fellow politicians, their citizens, and the world about it.
And they have so much Aggression yet to pursue ...
"an American right wing Republican lawyer, used the term `brainwashing` when referring to the way British Muslims were made to support the September 11th attacks."
But they weren't, and he offers no support to his empty allegation. We're seeing who takes part in true brainwashing and the dissemination of hatred ... These Fascists are loyal to the Goebells doctrine of repeating LIES so often, they become the truth.
"She quoted a survey"
WHAT survey? Where?
"All the newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations used the phrase `weapons of mass destruction` over and over and over again – is this not `brainwashing`?"
Indeed, and these are now the same sources which are attempting to spread the Bliar Conspiracy Theory about the London False Flag, while at the same time, attempting to flush the real facts down the Memory Hole.
You would be wise to pay close attention.
"Here is what right wing nutter Frank Gaffney had to say about the London bombings – he blames it on `Islamofascism`, which is a new phrase to me."
If you study these Zionist-linked Neo-Fascists and their Propaganda/Hasbara, you'll quickly see that nobody uses this term but them. It is their buzzword, intended to create hatred towards Muslims, paint them as one, and draw attention away from the fact that the Hard Right is currently pursuing a policy of FASCISM themselves.
What they don;t want you to remember is that it was the CIA who attempted to link Islam and covert military operations, when they needed a Proxy Army to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan for them.
"National Review Online"
This is a source with ZERO credibility. It also reported that WMD's had been found in Iraq. You should not listen to anything they have to say.
"view the war being waged against us by terror-wielding foes."
The only war being waged against the US/UK people is that of the Neo-Fascists who have hijacked their Governments. These are the people who carried out these attacks, in order to dupe their citizens into supporting the indefensible, their war against the Arab World, for their own ideological reasons, and for profit.
"At this writing, not much is known about the extent - let alone the detailed nature or specific perpetrators - of the bloodletting in London."
But it's interesting that you would leap to conclusions and use this to manipulate the public's FEAR, lending support to the argument that this was the intention of the act. Your own tactics betray you, you see.
"What is clear, however, is that"
Israeli FM Benjamin Netanyahu was warned before the attacks happened, the same Israeli company that provided security for the airports allegedly used on 911 was running as "drill" by proxy in the exact locations bombed on 7/7, military explosives on timers were used, and just like on 911, there are no CCTV surveillance videos, despite Briatin being the most highly-surveilled country on the planet.
"the attackers exhibited the sort of calculation and ruthlessness that has come to be associated with the ideology at the heart of the war on terror"
Indeed, the Neo-Fascism of the people running those covert wings of the intelligence services not only capable of such horror, but also of covering it up. But they left too many pieces dangling, allowed too many facts to get out, and even their overboard damage-control now only damns them further.
"Synchronized attacks on public infrastructure and spaces with a view to murdering as many civilians as possible"
If this were the case, the planes on 911 would have hit the towers at a later time, and in London, they would not have waited until Rush Hour had ended. These attacks were strategically designed to minimize casualties, thus limiting the demands for investigation.
"The tragic loss of life in London, New York, Baghdad and elsewhere is very distressing. What is the answer?"
IMPEACH these criminals for their High Crimes, and hold them accountable for their actions, as the laws governing our "civilizations" demand.
FIRE THE LIARS
Hmmm
17.07.2005 23:40
Boab
Begone, Spook
18.07.2005 00:35
So I can assume that you have no comment?
Fire The Liars!!
COINTELPRO
18.07.2005 08:10
I am quite happy to listen to conspiracy theorists if they have solid evidence to back up their views and if they do not rely on two-bit logic and mouth-foaming tosh...
artaud
Counter Conspiracists
18.07.2005 11:23
Conspiracies involving governments undoubtedly exist; Watergate, Irangate, British Security Forces in some Loyalist killings, the French and Greenpeace to name but a few. We know about these because they were discovered through painstaking investigation, because they showed the difficulty of covering-up even something as simple as bugging, highlight inter-agency competition, and numerous other reasons.
In the same way that we cannot discount conspiracies, however, we must also apply the test of evidence. This is all the more important where a particularly severe accusation is being made, such as government involvement in the Twin Towers attacks or the Tube bombings.
I've fairly scrupulously been following the Tube conspiracies. I don't pretend to have an encylopaedic knowledge but I've followed most of the links and references. I've looked over sites such as whatreallyhappened or prisonplanet. I even trawled through tedious Israeli links and endless pro/anti Israel web-sites and all that Stratfor guff.
And this is where my problem comes in. The "evidence" of conspiracy is just not compelling when considered by any objective yardstick. What we have are lots of hypotheses based on very flimsy pieces - a quote from the Israelis regarding advance warnings, talk of CCTV on buses going down, bomb damage patterns on the bus, and so on. It falls far short of the standards which a reasonable person would consider acceptable proof of guilt.
In response the conspiracists suggest various reasons including the lack of clear proof is evidence in itself (an interesting circular argument for just about anything) and media manipulation. But in the absence of compelling evidence, all we have is an unproven hypothesis. And I have yet to see a good explanation as to how (based on their previous track records) the Government agencies concerned have managed to keep it all quiet.
Until those who propound such hypotheses can provide an acceptable level of evidence then they will have no chance of convincing the wider population. All you're doing is leaving yourself open to accusations of clinical paranoia and - if you are by some chance correct - making it easy for those behind the conspiracy to discredit you.
Much as I enjoy taking potshots at the wilder suggestions (I'm stuck in the house with a broken leg and nothing else to do), if you want to be taken seriously then raise your evidencial standards.
Paranoid Pete
Irrefutible Proof
18.07.2005 12:04
Trust me.
Observer
Double standard
18.07.2005 13:06
So those who kill 50 people are victims, yet those who kill 10,000 people are liars. I though the killing of any innocent person was wrong. Or does that only apply to Iraq?
Tim
frankly Tim
18.07.2005 13:57
the posting clearly indicates the *fact* that the bombings took place just *after* the end of rush hour, meaning that the impact and number of killed an injured was much less than if they had been carried out earlier, even by half an hour.
the implication is that, in the corporate media spin being pumped out (ie "these horrific terrorists were trying to cause maximum death and destruction") is pure and simple false.
indeed, that is the case.
nowhere, i repeat, nowhere, in the post is there any implication that the number of those killed is somehow less horrible than when 10,000 are killed. however, since you don't actually define what the hell you are talking about, i will take a wild leap and assume that you are talking about those killed in Iraq? even if you are not, let us be realistic here: the UK and USA are mired in a terrible, extremely deadly, totally unjustified war. while tens of thousands of people are dying the so-called *security* services private sector are raking in obscene profits. these in special note of fact include such entities as Halliburton, Wackenhut, Cycorp, Carlisle, etc--corporations with extremely tight connections with Bush, Cheney, Baker, and the neo-con cabal of fascist war profiteers (Richard Perle, Conrad Black, Douglas Feith). what we are indeed witnessing is a vulture feast, a pack of bloodthirsty freaks gone insane on their own power to destroy human life and reap enornmous profits off of the fear and stench that they create.
if you cannot accept the pure facts staring you in the face, then let us say, with charity in mind, that you are an idiot at best.
to nail this coffin shut, let us ask a simple question: to what extent has *any* case been made to show that the four men killed in the London bombings had motive or means for carrying them out?
ask yourself the key question: how does the son of a chippie shop owner get his hands on 5 pounds of semtex?
do you honestly think, in the UK, that such a thing happens without the hand of some larger darker entity involved? if so, the idiot charge stands!
dalek
You tell them, mate
18.07.2005 15:41
Davros
well davros
18.07.2005 18:20
i don't think any rational being could mistake your post for having either fact or argument in it.
now, by the way, the story from *official* media is morphing again. the latest from the police is :
"We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers," a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph. "It is possible that they did not intend to die."
and the previously stated analysis of having found "high - explosive" has been changed. now we are told the bombs were composed of home-brewed * acetone-peroxide *. however, the latest reports of the investigation of the "chemist" arrested in Egypt indicate that they might have to drop that whole line of inquiry since his computer contained nothing but MP3 files!
okay, Davros, so we bow to your superior obnoxiousness!
nonetheless, we ask: is it better to continue to discuss all the possibilities, or to dump on anyone who questions to twaddle that us propagated by self-claimed * main stream media* ?
the curious should follow this thread:
not that I expect you to have anything to offer except ad-hominen attack.
dalek
Religious fundies
18.07.2005 19:45
I have as much respect for your opinions as I do for people who believe in the literal truth of the burning bush or that one third of humanity is to rise - body and soul - to heaven; or for those who believe women should wear mobile-tents. (It is hard to tell the difference between these flavours of fundies.)
What concerns me is that you claim to apply methods of dispassionate and critical appraisal to current affairs. No, you do not. You are as unhinged as the crackpots who claim The Bible is the truth because it says as much... in The Bible. I laugh at you as much as I laughed at 'Gorillas in the Mist'.
THUS SPAKE TIM ==> So those who kill 50 people are victims, yet those who kill 10,000 people are liars. I though the killing of any innocent person was wrong. Or does that only apply to Iraq?
Yet the "victims" are British citizens of Pakistani descent; a demographic which is thin on the ground in predominately Arab Iraq. I hear a Pistonplanet-style generalization coming on.
Plus, have you noticed how FTL seems to think the liars should simply be removed from their jobs? Rather a mild punishment for killing 100 000 people and engineering bombs in their own country.
Fireproof Alec
Morphing...
18.07.2005 19:55
For example, I recently dicovered that the funny clicking on my bicycle was not the chain running unevenly over the ring, but the fact that the ball-bearings were worn inside the pedal crank. If I recounted that to you, then using the logic that you apply to the London bombings, I suppose that you would say that I had been hiding the true nature of the clicking untilo forced to reveal the true nature, no?
As for claming that "the impact and number of killed an injured was much less than if they had been carried out earlier, even by half an hour." - the fact is that the trains and buses were pretty much packed. I used to take tube and buses through central London to go to school between 8.30 and 9. They weren't empty I can tell you that. You had to stand all the way sometimes... Also, you make the fatal mistake of crediting would-be bombers with perfect tactical planning and foresight. Sun Tzu teaches that overestimating an enemy's intelligence can be as dangerous as underestimating it. Why is it implausible that they might misjudge the time of rush-hour. Who's to say that they didn't miss their train from Luton and had to get a later one? If the British Army / MOD can bugger up logistics and supplies (see reports of equipment shortages in Iraq), then why should terrorist cells fare any better?
As for astonishment that these guys should be able to get hold of semtex, no-one is claiming that they did so personally...
artaud
Dalek Rules Supreme....
18.07.2005 20:15
"The self taught man seldom knows anything accurately, and he does not know a tenth as much as he could have known if he had worked under teachers, and besides, he brags, and is the means of fooling other thoughtless people into going and doing as he himself has done." (Mark Twain)
Davros
A truth told with bad intend beats all the lies you can invent
18.07.2005 21:21
What we *do* know about events such as that have no bearing on the claims the conspiracy-theorists are purporting. Just as the cover-up following the sinking of HMS Hampshire in 1916 did *not* mean there was a game afoot to eliminate an increasingly irrational Lord Kitchener: instead it pointed to the staggeringly inept behaviour of everyone up to, and including, Jellicoe in ignoring warnings from Naval Intelligence that German U-boats were to be in operation in Scapa Flow. Another intelligence failure was that which caused the terrible loss of life off Slapton Sands in 1944. Personally, I prefer the explanation that American authorities neglected to tell their British counterparts of the the training exercise; were mistaken for a German assault-fleet and had the stuffing promptly bombed out of them.
I have no doubt that new facts of the run up to the Tube and Bus bombings will emerge (next person to say '7/7' gets slapped). My opinion of the way in which the security services preformed is always up for review. LIHOP is not impossible (consider Omagh). If, however, I do see evidence which convinces me that this was government-orchestrated from the begining to end, my next belief-change will be to include a man who walked on water and rose again after three days of rigor and putrifaction in the hot desert sun.
Alec
PETE
20.07.2005 21:52
EVERY SINGLE TIME, it appeared for about an hour, then disappeared. It was not hidden, and the site Admin. gave no explanation. It was just gone.
Two days ago, when I attempted to access this very site, I was redirected to "Portal Radio Libre", a non-english site, and was unable to access the site.
Bliar and his cohorts are damning themselves by trying so very hard to hide evidence, and defame those questioning their unproven and more unlikely Theory.
Like 911, it's not my job to Prove a Negative. It is the Government's job to prove its Theory. Especially when it is being used to justify unspeakable Terror.
Phony Tony said that he will not allow a probe of the attacks. Just like Bush/PNAC did with 911. That, alone, should raise suspicions.
The Burden of Proof is Not Upon Me
Of course one burden of proof is on you
21.07.2005 07:39
So have a lot of other crackpots. Their posts have not been deleted. Just as with the slightly confused reports coming out of London immediately following a series of terrorist explosions which killed dozens of people, you are attaching momumental import to relatively insiginificant events.
Within hours of the attacks, your ilk swung into action to peddle your nonsense based on understandably garbled infomation emerging when the priority was the evacuate the wounded. As the explanations for "grave doubts" you claimed were not forthcoming promptly forthcame, you altered you arguments with no less shame than monkeys which openly masturbate at the Zoo. Government agencies and reputable news sources, however, refrained generally from making accusations until evidence had been gathered. For a limited period it was being asked if this were Irish republican bombs.
==> Like 911, it's not my job to Prove a Negative.
Yes, it bloody well is! You use circular arguments, deriving "proof" from your own religious texts, to accuse specific individuals of ordering the London bombs, and then spout this drivel of a disclaimer. I have no less contempt for that stance as I do for that which "proves" the truth of The Bible or Qu'ran or whatever with those self-same books. This is not to say you are a thick as mince in the neck of a bottle. For instance, I know a PhD in differential equations (who has also two MScs) who believes in the literal truth of a man who walked on water. It is people like him who give Christians a bad name, just as it is people like you who give cynics a bad name.
==> Phony Tony said that he will not allow a probe of the attacks. Just like Bush/PNAC did with 911.
What happened on 9 November? I thought we were talking about 11 September.
==> That, alone, should raise suspicions.
Maybe in your demented little mind which would see reds under the bed or Jews behind the orange juice. Would you denounce someone on one piece of circumstantial evidence? I suggest you consider the refusal to hold an enquiry following the sinking of the H.M.S. Hampshire some ninety years ago.
Alec
Drivel Watch
28.07.2005 10:36
>>I think it would be more accurate to say that the exposure of their LIES, leading to a rapid >>loss in public confidence and support, brought this on.
Er.
1. The Labour Party which took us into the ILLEGAL war in Iraq, based on LIES, won an election just a couple of months ago. Granted, they lost a lot of MPs and won on one of the lowest, if not the lowest, share of the vote ever. But, they won. They don't have to worry about public support for years yet.
2. It seems more likely that the bombings will INCREASE public skepticism about British involvement in Iraq and other imperialist wars, since it is widely held that the bombs are politico-religious revenge for such wars.
3. Blair has tended to take the "moral highground" on such matters, defying public opposition and, as he would see it, exercising "leadership" in the "nation's interests".
>>What they don;t want you to remember is that it was the CIA who attempted to link Islam >>and covert military operations, when they needed a Proxy Army to fight the Soviets in >>Afghanistan for them.
Er.
This is ahistorical.
The 'communist' People's Democratic Party took power in a coup in 1978. They quickly came up against Islamic opposition, for obvious reasons. The Americans began funding anti-government forces later that year, but those forces already existed in part. The CIA also did not fund directly, they channelled funds to Pakistan, and it was Pakistan that made the strategic choices about which elements to support most heavily based on their own particular political, tribal and religious loyalties.
>>These attacks were strategically designed to minimize casualties, thus limiting the >>demands for investigation.
This seems bizarre. Around 60 people were killed, which is a lot of people. It's not obviously the case that demands for investigation would be "limited" by such a number.
After all, even if the "rush hour" was over (and this seems unclear), it's not clear that more would have been killed had the bombings taken place at a different time, since there are only so many people you can physically fit into a tube carriage or top desk of a bus. Assuming it wasn't "rush hour", it was still very busy.
>>ask yourself the key question: how does the son of a chippie shop owner get his hands on >>5 pounds of semtex?
Semtex wasn't involved it seems. In fact, it's not now thought that anything other than basic explosives possible made with help from instructions on the web were involved. But I'm very interested in your rather class-based assumptions here. Only Oxbridge graduates could possibly get hold of explosives, right?
Chatterton.
chatterton
Cock-Up Theory
23.08.2005 15:51
I don't doubt that Blair will relish making whatever political capital he can from these awful events but I'm afraid the British establishment are far too incompetent to organise such a grand conspiracy.
soapbox
e-mail:
jmrogersit@yahoo.com
Homepage:
http://soapboxcabaret.blogspot.com