Of course, you need evidence to claim “al-Qaeda” is behind the sloppy and wholly amateurish work in London today, but that has not stopped the corporate media or the fear-monger hacks with an agenda—i.e., slaughtering Muslims and divvying up the Middle East—from leading to conclusions and thus subjecting the public to non-stop propaganda.
“British police Friday thwarted a car-bomb attack that would have brought carnage to the streets of London just days before the second anniversary of the July 7, 2005, bombings that claimed 52 lives,” writes Nile Gardiner for the neocon house organ, the National Review Online. “The car was packed with nails, gas canisters and petrol containers, and left outside a nightclub near Piccadilly Circus. This latest attempt to kill and maim hundreds of civilians is most likely the work of al Qaeda or one of its numerous British-based affiliates. It was timed to coincide with the departure of Tony Blair, and the entrance of new Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It also coincided with Blair’s appointment as the Quartet’s new Middle East envoy in the face of strong opposition in the Arab world.”
Gardiner has no evidence “al-Qaeda,” the database, is involved in this absurdly incompetent plot, and even Scotland Yard has said it is far too early to determine who is behind the “foiled attack,” but now that the corporate media is hysterically braying “al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda,” it makes little difference who is responsible. Gardiner believes, or wants us to believe, the plot was “timed to coincide with … the entrance of new Prime Minister Gordon Brown,” and in fact Gardiner may be correct, although not for the reason he states. Brown was selected to lord over the British people because he is a darling of the Bank of England, a former chancellor of the Exchequer, a medieval English institution for the collection of royal revenues, that is to say the fleecing of subjects. As well, Brown was selected because he is regarded as a “control freak” and “totally uncollegiate,” according to Charles Clarke, the former home secretary. In short, he unflinchingly runs roughshod over his victims, the sort of psychological makeup considered a prerequisite for a principate, especially one taking orders from bankers and the globalist coterie.
It stands to reason Tony Blair’s “appointment as the Quartet’s new Middle East envoy” faces “strong opposition in the Arab world,” as Blair is a war criminal. He was informed by the Foreign Office that an attack on Iraq was illegal under international law and he met with Bush in Crawford April 2002 and vowed his support for the invasion, that is to say he promised to donate the lives of Brits in the effort to slaughter Iraqis, an effort that has paid off handsomely (more than 750,000 killed to date), that is if you’re a psychopath, as Blair obviously is. Arabs who know anything about Blair realize he is a pathological liar, as he said up until the eve of the invasion attacking Iraq was not inevitable when in fact he secretly agreed with the neocons to attack Iraq all along.
In addition to sending out the message Gordon Brown is the “war on terrorism” prime minister, the fake would-be attack, likely staged by MI5, serves as yet another object lesson for British commoners, who, according to the New York Times, “shrugged stoically at the July 7 bombings two years ago” and “seemed less than troubled here today after police announced that they had defused an explosive mixture of gasoline, nails and gas canisters in a car abandoned outside the Tiger Tiger on a thoroughfare called Haymarket.” Staged terrorism and repeatedly foiled plots carried out by terrorists apparently unable to tie their shoes in the morning without assistance is “something you get used to, living in London,” according to a lawyer quoted by the Times. “And given the stance our government made on the war in Iraq and elsewhere, I think we are just getting used to being a target. It’s something we have to live with.”
No doubt, as well, Brits will need get “used to” the fact their country is “sinking into a police state,” as George Churchill-Coleman, who headed Scotland Yard’s anti-IRA squad, told the Guardian two years ago. “We live in a democracy and we should police on those standards…. I have serious worries and concerns about these ideas on both ethical and practical terms. You cannot lock people up just because someone says they are terrorists. Internment didn’t work in Northern Ireland, it won’t work now. You need evidence.”
Of course, you need evidence to claim “al-Qaeda” is behind the sloppy and wholly amateurish work in London today, but that has not stopped the corporate media or the fear-monger hacks with an agenda—i.e., slaughtering Muslims and divvying up the Middle East—from leading to conclusions and thus subjecting the public to non-stop propaganda.
Gardiner has no evidence “al-Qaeda,” the database, is involved in this absurdly incompetent plot, and even Scotland Yard has said it is far too early to determine who is behind the “foiled attack,” but now that the corporate media is hysterically braying “al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda,” it makes little difference who is responsible. Gardiner believes, or wants us to believe, the plot was “timed to coincide with … the entrance of new Prime Minister Gordon Brown,” and in fact Gardiner may be correct, although not for the reason he states. Brown was selected to lord over the British people because he is a darling of the Bank of England, a former chancellor of the Exchequer, a medieval English institution for the collection of royal revenues, that is to say the fleecing of subjects. As well, Brown was selected because he is regarded as a “control freak” and “totally uncollegiate,” according to Charles Clarke, the former home secretary. In short, he unflinchingly runs roughshod over his victims, the sort of psychological makeup considered a prerequisite for a principate, especially one taking orders from bankers and the globalist coterie.
It stands to reason Tony Blair’s “appointment as the Quartet’s new Middle East envoy” faces “strong opposition in the Arab world,” as Blair is a war criminal. He was informed by the Foreign Office that an attack on Iraq was illegal under international law and he met with Bush in Crawford April 2002 and vowed his support for the invasion, that is to say he promised to donate the lives of Brits in the effort to slaughter Iraqis, an effort that has paid off handsomely (more than 750,000 killed to date), that is if you’re a psychopath, as Blair obviously is. Arabs who know anything about Blair realize he is a pathological liar, as he said up until the eve of the invasion attacking Iraq was not inevitable when in fact he secretly agreed with the neocons to attack Iraq all along.
In addition to sending out the message Gordon Brown is the “war on terrorism” prime minister, the fake would-be attack, likely staged by MI5, serves as yet another object lesson for British commoners, who, according to the New York Times, “shrugged stoically at the July 7 bombings two years ago” and “seemed less than troubled here today after police announced that they had defused an explosive mixture of gasoline, nails and gas canisters in a car abandoned outside the Tiger Tiger on a thoroughfare called Haymarket.” Staged terrorism and repeatedly foiled plots carried out by terrorists apparently unable to tie their shoes in the morning without assistance is “something you get used to, living in London,” according to a lawyer quoted by the Times. “And given the stance our government made on the war in Iraq and elsewhere, I think we are just getting used to being a target. It’s something we have to live with.”
No doubt, as well, Brits will need get “used to” the fact their country is “sinking into a police state,” as George Churchill-Coleman, who headed Scotland Yard’s anti-IRA squad, told the Guardian two years ago. “We live in a democracy and we should police on those standards…. I have serious worries and concerns about these ideas on both ethical and practical terms. You cannot lock people up just because someone says they are terrorists. Internment didn’t work in Northern Ireland, it won’t work now. You need evidence.”
Of course, you need evidence to claim “al-Qaeda” is behind the sloppy and wholly amateurish work in London today, but that has not stopped the corporate media or the fear-monger hacks with an agenda—i.e., slaughtering Muslims and divvying up the Middle East—from leading to conclusions and thus subjecting the public to non-stop propaganda.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
You can't possibly know
30.06.2007 07:03
Billy No Mates
"suspected al-Qaida inspired terrorist cell"
30.06.2007 07:52
That too is presumably "uninformed speculation" , as Radio 4 also says police are examining CCTV for clues as to the identity o the alleged bombers.
No-one can possibly know except for the actual bombers (if there were any) - so the way that the so-called liberal media is exploiting the incident to blame al-Qaida and Iran indicates that the propaganda potential is being exploited to instil a culture of fear.
If they want a culture of fear, why wouldn't they set up the incident in the first place?
Billy Goats Gruff
Billy No Mates
30.06.2007 12:45
When you get to their level of genius all you have to do is cherry pick what you like the sound of and then pad it out with some stuff you like the sound of but made it up yourself.
Bet Seymour Hersh is glad he's retiring soon. All those wasted years chasing silly "facts".
Old fool!
Sheeple
But what if these news accounts are correct?
30.06.2007 13:46
John Gibson
And Glasgow?
30.06.2007 15:32
John Gibson
Biggotry
30.06.2007 20:12
Unfortunately the media is a savage and fickle beast, in my line of work you get used to unwarranted, indefensible attacks by the media on whomever they decide they can round on at any given time. It is more than unfortunate that on these occasions their actions do far more harm than normal.
Jiles
Are we being softened up for an attack on Iran?
30.06.2007 20:29
The raising of the terror alert to `critical` in Britain and the mere mentioning of the terror alert staying the same in the US suggest the authorities are trying to frighten their populations to soften them up for something. The attack on Iran has been mooted since 2005 and has probably only really been held up due to the internal opposition in the US administration. Last summer saw a savage attack on the Lebanon. – an attack on Iran with nuclear weapons would be horrific.
Here is a piece by Kurt Nimmo, which was posted on Indymedia on Tuesday June 28th. -
Paul.
Paul O'Hanlon
e-mail:
o_hanlon@hotmail.com
Slaughtering Muslims or killing humans?
30.06.2007 22:16
Derek Nimmo
Jiles
30.06.2007 22:52
The little narrative that has come from the police has been expressing the idea that we are dealing with home-grown amateurs. Which will make it harder for the government to spin like they did with 21/7. Even their language like "a POTENTIALLY viable device" is heading off any attempts to turn this into something else- like they did with the useless bags of chapati flour and hair bleach.
The police language is still ridiculously obtuse in its official jargon: petrol in a can can't be anything other than a viable device, unless someone invents petrol that won't burn. The media however just ran with a competition to put a headcount on it, irrespective of the tone of explosives experts nigh on sniggering up their sleeves at the crudeness and limited capabilities of the approach. Anyone who surfed some rather dubious right-wing websites would be able to improve on it- assuming the police haven't suppressed anything about the "bombs" construction.
One expert said that the device would be more of a loud bang than anything like the 7/7 devices. However, this didn't stop the media carefully editting another forensic explosives expert demonstrating what butane bottle looks like when it goes off.
They failed to translate the jargon not layman's terms that most of the energy of the cannister would actually be burned very quickly in a pillar of fire, with the only likely danger being to people in the immediate vicinity.
The rubbish coming from the media and their rent-a-pundits is a lot less circumspect in its analysis. The media are as usual in the absence of any real story making it up as they go along and pandering to hysteria. One of the professional "look at me!" crowd, an academic from Brunel Uni, actually said that because they had found two "bombs" it was concrete proof of it being al qadea- didn't even entertain the idea that perhaps the two cars were intended to be the one device... or that there is such a thing as copycats. Then Peter Power was a cross between Syd Barret after his illness and Vera Lynn during the blitz.
It's far too early to accuse Downing Street of hijacking this and going for the whitewash they did with 7/7. It's highly likely they will, but to go shouting it now looks silly.
Shame idiots like Nimmo won't wait for things to unfold before playing their well-worn gramophone record. But I guess changing all the nouns in the same piece they always write doesn't take much effort or time. Rather ironically he is just adding more dross to already incredible media circus.
I'm just wondering what Alex Salmond will have to say about it all, now that Scotland has finally become a terrorist target.
I'd like to hope he'll push for a independent inquiry that will as far as possible investigate the background extending it to 7/7- which was connected indisputably to Al Qaeda people brought to the UK by the British Government to recruit for the Balkans.
It would get as far as that Jeep in Glasgow Airport, but it would be worth seeing Westminster, Whitehall and Millbank squirm.
Sheeple