Quietly but insidiously, Gordon Brown's regime is working diligently to turn Britain into a full-blown police state, the kind which Hitler and Stalin would have been proud of.

Almost unannounced, Britain now has a Minister of Security, ex-Navy Admiral, Sir Alan West.

The creation of such a post is a disturbing sign of how advanced has become the politicization of the intelligence and police services in Britain and their servility to a foreign policy created, not in Britain, but in Washington, D.C. Britain's role as a vassal state has been underscored by the appointment of a political figure whose ultimate purpose is the repression of his own people.

He has already confirmed that by publicly calling for people to snitch on each other and report each other's activities to the police. Foreseeing the time required to further degrade social values along these lines, he recognizes that it might take up to fifteen years to create. To cynically and deliberately set out to create a society of psychosis, fear and terror is to do exactly what Hitler and Stalin did. It is also the act of a traitor who seeks to take away the last freedoms of his own people.

What, I wonder, would all those who, in the defence of freedom and democracy, went willingly to their deaths in WWII think of Sir Alan's ultimate act of treason? Is this the kind of society for which they laid down their lives?

Through this despicable appointment we can see Gordon Brown for what he really is. For all his hollow talk of promoting a 'sense of Britishness' Mr Brown-nose-Bush is nothing more than another traitor.

How long, I wonder, before the docile British public rise up against the likes of these? Its famous tolerance seems now to be entirely misplaced in that it appears to tolerate those who abuse their authority and condones intolerance against the very victims of that abuse.

Britain, like America, has descended into a mass psychosis where lies are believed simply to perpetuate a semblance of normality amongst destruction and chaos; that what is being done is right and proper by a government seeking 'to protect' its people against outside threats.

Meantime, those governments are not only daily committing mass-murder against others in our name; they are committing disguised acts of terror against their own people in order to gain a strangle-hold position of control. And if we remain passive, as we are presently doing, that strangle-hold will finally strangle us all.

Well they are just indiscrimate from US bombs either way. They have come out way because Blair and Brown supported Bushes illegal oil grab. And they have harmed noone. They killed noone, noone was even injured by chance this time. The mainstrem media are widely identifingingly the reason s for this - because Brown came to power ? As a reminder of 7/7 ?

None of the mainstream medai look at the numbers of dead in Iraq and Afghanistan this week, innocents slaughtered by us. The way these non-fatalities have been over-reported only serves to underline the hiddden deaths our terrorist attacks have claimed this week alone. None dead in Glasgow. None dead in London. 325 dead in Iraq alone today directly from US-UK terrorist attacks., 135 in one bomb attack 97 civilian dead in Afghanistan from US airstrikes in one week. Yet no investigation from our media. Look at the relative column inches.

And then they have the audacity to ask 'What could drive these fanatics to mass-murder ?' . 'What could drive a doctor sworn to protect life to murder ?'. What indeed.

We can bury our heads in the sand as long as we want, we won't find oil that way. Burying your head in the sand is an invitation to have it chopped off. If you choose to hear no evil, and see no evil, then it is a sure thing you are doing evil by proxy. Regardless of newspaper spin, the Islamic world has killed none is the UK or theUSin the past year. The UK and the US have killed many tens of thousands of Muslims, for sheer greed. And we are accelerating the slaughter day by day. How outrageous that some people should stand up to us !

How cowardly it is for someone to suicide-bomb themselves once a year when we have the know-how to slaughter a hundred at a time while keeping perfectly safe. What brave people we are when the petrol our warplanes need holds out.

You don't think one day you will pay for every death you ignore ?

Brown today claims the UK invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have not increased the risk of terrorism in the UK. His argument the UK was simply responding to existing terrorist threats to this country. I disagree. There was certainly no Iraqi threat to the UK before the invasion except in Alistair Campbells lies about WMD. Now we have been attacked several times, with the official story blaming the various attacks on British citizens and Iraqi refugees appalled at the Iraqi genocide.

The unofficial story is that MI5 were complicit in these attacks to stoke up 'the war against terror'. The justification for this is based on the fact that MI5 commited similar terrorist atrocities during 'the Troubles' bombing Dublin, colluding with terrorist death squads in Ulster and murdering civilians on Bloody Sunday. To anyone familiar with MI5 and the SAS then it seems plausible of even likely they are complicit in these latest attacks.

You don't have to believe that though to know Brown IS repsonsible for these latest attacks. You only have to believe these attacks are linked to our genocide in Iraq. I believe that. The Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre believes that. The Foreign Affairs Committee believes that. Church of England bishops believe that. The terrorists stated that themselves. Their friends and family believe that.

The Prime Minister denies that to this day. For, if true, it isn't just Blair who is responsible for these domestic attacks, it is him who is to blame. Now he is warning us of 15 more years of domestic attacks, which of course are nothing to do with him. Hundreds of Iraqi and Afghani civilians were killed in UK/US airstrikes the day before the latest attack - on Browns orders, with us paying for the bombs - and yet we wonder as to why they could hate us.



Brown downplays Iraq terror link
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6290882.stm

Gordon Brown has said Britain would be under threat from al-Qaeda terrorists "irrespective" of the war in Iraq.


Doctor Accused in Glasgow Attack Described as Loner Angry About the Iraq War
 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/world/europe/05abdullah.html

But Dr. Abdulla was different when he returned to the mosque about a year ago, Mr. Kwieder said. He had grown angry about the situation in Iraq and worried about his parents, friends and family, who he believed should flee the country.


Iraq invasion fuelled 7/7 anger, says bishop
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq208.xml

Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq contributed to the London bombings of July 7 2005, according to a leading Church of England bishop.


FACTBOX-The 21/7 bomb plotters
 http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL0935783620070711?src=071107_1402_TOPSTORY_july_21_plotters_jailed

In his defence, he said he had deliberately made fake bombs that were not designed to kill, as part of a protest against the war in Iraq.


From Baghdad with hate
 http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1063622007

"He did not see himself as being radical but he developed a vitriolic hatred for the Shias after one of his closest friends was killed at university by a Shia militia.


Intelligence 'warned of Iraq terror link'
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1531729,00.html

A report by the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre - which includes officials from MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the police - explicitly linked US-led involvement in Iraq with terrorist activity in the UK although it concluded that no group currently had the "intent and the capability" to mount an attack, the New York Times said. "Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK," the report - a copy of which was leaked to the paper by a foreign intelligence agency - said. The leak will embarrass the prime minister, Tony Blair, and other ministers who yesterday flatly rejected a thinktank report's conclusion that the Iraq conflict had increased the terror threat to the UK.


Iraq war 'increased terror threat'
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3451239.stm

Britons are more - not less - likely to be the target of terrorist attacks as a result of the war in Iraq, an influential group of MPs claims. The Foreign Affairs Committee says British interests are under threat in the short term because of the conflict.

You appear to be saying that the revulsion and anger at the war crimes perpetrated by the UK Govt amongst others is enough cause for some angry reaction, yet agree that ordo ab chao chaos mongering on the part of the UK state is a distinct possibility on behalf of the UK state agencies especially looking at the history.
Couldn't agree more

Say Iraq had the overwhelming military it was portrayed as having by Blair. And it had invaded the UK and killed 5% of the population through over the following years. And if it had driven those who could flee to become refugees. And you had fled and ended up living in Baghdad, watching endless TV news of your family and friends back home being killed, while life goes on in Iraq as normal. You may feel justified in taking extreme action. That may not be justification but it becomes harder to condemn when you put yourself in their shoes. Of course terror against civilians cannot be justified even as a response to far greater terror, but I wouldn't condemn any attack on the people responsible.

I heard someone argue ( in the face of the facts ) that these attacks can't be anything to do with Iraq or else they would target military installations here. That is a twisted logic - military targets are harder to attack, and besides, the UK targets civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obviously some people here don't like to talk about this. Who is responsible for this terrorism ? The individual terrorsist for sure. But if you empathise with the terrorist even for a moment then you have to look at what actions motivated them, or rather whose else is to blame. By all accounts they were pleasant and well-motivated people before the invasion, certainly not 'extremists'. Brown denies any responsibility but his actions led to the deaths of over a million people. the rest of the establishment are blaming him, why shouldn't we ?

I assume some people here won't comment on an article that these are "Browns Bombs" simply as they feel it is self-evident. I also feel that others stay silent through self-censorship, they really want to believe that these were unprovoked attacks, nasty foriegn bad-guys attacking us innocent good-guys. That is certainly the impression you get from the mainstream press, which has given reams of paper condemning the latest attacks which killed no one, and barely mentioned the hundreds killed by our forces abroad each day before and since. That is either the victimhood of the bully or overt racism, but it isn't journalism.

Even people like me who blame these attacks on Brown 100% are loathed to speculate about our security services direct complicity. Even people like me who know that our government has been proven to commit terrorist atrocities shy away from that so that we aren't smeared as mad/extreme.

I can understand why. It's like the David Kelly death, who was responsible for that ?
1) He was just a depressed guy who would've killed himself one day.
2) He was driven to suicide by the betrayal of his government.
3) He was killed by MI5.

The government line is basically the first argument - they may admit some small errors but claim the result was unforseeable, and so you have Alistair Campbell in his memoirs admiting some small mistakes but then immediately claiming victimhood, saying how depressed Kellys death had made him. This is the comforting scenario for many people, it is understandable for those who are governed to wish and hope that their leaders are just ordinary people ith ordinary emotions who make understandable mistakes. This is the equivalent of believing Brown wasn't at all responsible for these bombs.

People who doubt the official line tend to go to the second, middle argument. David Kelly was hung out to dry for short term political gain in the full knowledge it would destroy him. This is the equivalent of blaming these attacks on Brown indirectly due to his murderous foriegn policy. This allows us toblame the politicians without questioning the facts of the official story.

Then there is the third possibility, that he was murdered by MI5. Even in cases where there is strong evidence people shy away from investigating this as they will be smeared as mad or extreme or both until they have a cast iron case, and is generally only admitted many decades later when those in power responible have died or retired. This is the equivalent of alleging MI5 complicity in these attacks. People want to assume that our government has nothing to gain from allowing or even orchestrating domestic terror, but that isn't the case. Government becomes entrenched and empowered over the citizen and individuals in that government become financially enriched.

It is worth pointing out for those of you brave enough to investigate MI5 complicity a few facts that do seem glaringly suspect. The reports warning of a Glasgow airport attack a fortnight in advance from US security services to US personnel. The reports of a suicide note being found in a jeep where it is perfectly obvious no paper could have survived. And the background of Al-Qaeda being Western funded, trained and equipped Mujahidin.

Danny wrote: "It is worth pointing out for those of you brave enough to investigate MI5 complicity a few facts that do seem glaringly suspect. The reports warning of a Glasgow airport attack a fortnight in advance from US security services to US personnel. The reports of a suicide note being found in a jeep where it is perfectly obvious no paper could have survived."

Are these "facts"? If so, any chance of sourcing them? I've not read owt about a warning or a suicide note in the mainstream coverage (life's not long enough to read the conspiracy press). If you can't source them, then they'll have to remain suppositions.

Cui bono? The Security State, right enough, but that doesn't mean that the spooks ran these operations, and with the would-be bombers nicked then there'd be a clear trail from them to the spooks had the 'security services' been involved.

There's a worrying knee-jerk tendency among many on the Left to assume a conspiracy in every event, and to downplay any acts of amateur terrorism. Sure, the amateurs are nothing in comparison with the State professionals who've killed 00s of 000s in Iraq and millions elsewhere, but they do now and again kill and maim ordinary people. Dismissing these attacks as essentially irrelevant in comparison to the far greater crimes of States comes pretty close, at times, to condoning them, particularly when folk write provocative lines like:

"You don't think one day you will pay for every death you ignore ? "

That could easily be (mis-)interpreted as suggesting that ordinary civilians killed or injured by amateurs deserve their fates. In seeming to condone, or even support, amateur DIY terrorism we hand our media enemies plenty of rope to hang us with. More importantly, we come across to ordinary people, whom the terrorists are trying to kill, as apologists for misanthropic religious fanatics, and further alienates us from our 'natural constitutuency'.

Sure, don't believe everything the State and media say, and always question authority, but equally don't have a knee-jerk contrarian reaction to every such event. Not only will this often be factually wrong, it also reduces our own autonomy when we just naturally say the opposite of the State and media because that results in our agenda being determined by our enemies.

Brown is pro-business.
Business is pro reduced obstacles to "free" (i.e. profitable for multinationals) trade.
Business is a network of values that do not respect people, civil liberties, etc., because these detract from making money.
Brown is not interested in wasting time not facilitating business. His task is to make Britain a corporate player on the world stage, and protest and anything else that threatens those odds is to be crushed. He gives the impression of "listening", but he hasn't heard a thing except for the chink of coinage.

Brown owns the war of terror against Iraq and Afghanistan just as much as Blair ever did.

Lest we, the public, think that Brown had an excuse to "go soft" because he wasn't Blair, his rule is challenged with a ludicrous couple of "attacks" that are the terrorist equivalent of a blank. Now 56 days detention without trial is on the table. Wasn't it the UK that sanctioned South Africa for its policies of detaining "terrorists" without trial? Aren't those "terrorists" the same people that the UK recognises as heads of state in South Africa? Where is the UK's ethical compass? Securely up the rectum of big business - and their military hit men.

These are Brown's bombs, and the system is contrived to maintain the status quo with the minimum of disruption to business. It is no accident, or slip of the tongue, that Bush told the Americans after 911 to "go shopping". Consumers one and all, we must keep fuelling that system, and it is that system that Blair/Brown (Siamese twins) and Bush/Cheney (dummy and ventriloquist) have dedicated resources, lives, and honour to maintain at any cost.

Brown, and his bunch, will prove to be the ghost of Blair, who will probably try to finish Blair's project of normalised Stepfordism amongst the citizens of Britain. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders open the door to hearsay evidence and the criminalisation of annoyance and low level conflicts. This is the narrow end of the wedge, allowing the space through which entire families and future generations can be targeted for more overt and interventionist forms of social control by the state. All in the name of the "common good", naturally. CCTV becomes prevalent - the most photographed and surveilled city in Europe, if not the world, with one of the poorest records of accountability and transparency for data collection. The British Crime Survey records the "fear of crime" as an index of the degree to which increasing levels of social control can be exercised. The state is well aware of research conducted near Coventry in which residents exhibited a higher level of anxiety proportional to the degree of police visibility. The state knows that improved street lighting and social engagement, for local and informal surveillance, are far better forms of controls against social or criminal deviance, and yet the state prefers to invest in ever more technological forms of social control and surveillance.

We must admit these as not being mere coincidences. All councils across England have a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership that does not include your voice nor mine, but we will be beholden to its mandates. Blair set the stage for social controls and implemented these under the guise of crime and fear thereof, and more recently under the guise of terrorism and fear thereof. It's a magic formula ... works every time. Why would we imagine Brown to change tactics? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Anyway, I'm off to the Mad Hater's tea party - the Dormouse has a tantalising tidbit to share ... all about Bush registering Earth First! on the same level of threat as al Quaeda. If so, then well done EF! You should demand your own set of playing cards. Let us not forget to ask though - who, exactly, does EF! threaten? Well, corporations ... of course!! Property. Dammit, there's a sense of familiarity about all of this. Brown. Blair. Bush. Business. Hmmm .... what's the common theme here?

So when a crazed religous loon with a headful of hate steps into a crowded tube and detonates themselves, that's not "real" terrorism then? I don't get it...