Face up to the truth

There was an excellent opinion piece in The Observer today.
Really a good read.

observer.guardian.co.uk...

Face up to the truth

We all know who was to blame for Thursday's murders... and it wasn't Bush and Blair

Nick Cohen
Sunday July 10, 2005
The Observer

The instinctive response of a significant portion of the rich world's intelligentsia to the murder of innocents on 11 September was anything but robust. A few, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, were delighted. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was 'the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos,' declared the composer whose tin ear failed to catch the screams.

Others saw it as a blow for justice rather than art. They persuaded themselves that al-Qaeda was made up of anti-imperialist insurgents who were avenging the wrongs of the poor. 'The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?' asked Dario Fo. Rosie Boycott seemed to agree. 'The West should take the blame for pushing people in Third World countries to the end of their tether,' she wrote.

In these bleak days, it's worth remembering what was said after September 2001. A backward glance shows that before the war against the Taliban and long before the war against Saddam Hussein, there were many who had determined that 'we had it coming'. They had to convince themselves that Islamism was a Western creation: a comprehensible reaction to the International Monetary Fund or hanging chads in Florida or whatever else was agitating them, rather than an autonomous psychopathic force with reasons of its own. In the years since, this manic masochism has spread like bindweed and strangled leftish and much conservative thought.

All kinds of hypocrisy remained unchallenged. In my world of liberal London, social success at the dinner table belonged to the man who could simultaneously maintain that we've got it coming but that nothing was going to come; that indiscriminate murder would be Tony Blair's fault but there wouldn't be indiscriminate murder because 'the threat' was a phantom menace invented by Blair to scare the cowed electorate into supporting him.

I'd say the 'power of nightmares' side of that oxymoronic argument is too bloodied to be worth discussing this weekend and it's better to stick with the wider delusion.....

It goes on of course...

Looking at a few threads around here it seems a few people really need to read this. People are ready to blame the government(s) at the drop of a hat for anything that happens even with no credible evidence...

I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them.

Does the government provide their own credible evidence that proves otherwise? No.

Your point being then?

[edit on 10-7-2005 by Rit]

Originally posted by Rit
Does the government provide their own credible evidence that proves otherwise? No.

Your point being then?

Hmmm...
So you consider any evidence provided that doesn't point to the government being directly involved not credible.
Interesting...

Why?

Why? Because would they implicate themselves? No.

The London attacks could very easily be fake. And until they can prove it actually happened by the people they actually say that did it.

You should not give them any attention.

I don't expect the government to prove they didn't do it. Proving a negative is pretty tough work. But, there is a body of evidence, circumstantial and physical, that exists. New evidence comes to light every week (since 9/11).

And when I (an educated and intelligent person) take that body of evidence and analyze it, somewhere around 85-90%% of it points to the notion and strong suspicion that our government (and perhaps a few others) at the very least least knew about both 9/11 and the London bombings and didn't do a thing to stop them because the events were beneficial to them. Perhaps radical 'terrorists' did the dirty work, but our leaders didn't do their job to protect the people of their countries.

And when I see stories like this: London Bus Cameras weren't working, it just heightens my suspicions.

Im a little more optimistic.

I like to think 9/11 was fake. As in staged the same way a hollywood movie would be. The planes only struck the portion of the building that would be evacuated because that is where FBI/NSA had its headquarters. Very little falling debris from the actual planes hitting. Might of not of even caused any damage on the ground. Then because the buildings didnt collapse for so long after, gave the regular civilians time to get out of dodge.

Or there were 10,000 Government Agents who worked there and are all sworn to secrecy and were evacuated entirely beforehand. And the Pentagon is obviously all spooks. So it would be easy for them to crash a plane into the Pentagon for fun and not hurt anyone except the actual building.


The London attacks were even easier to stage. They happened belowground. Noone can verify it even happened. All MI-6 could pose as injured and rescue. And the regular civilains just seen people with fake wounds and fake blood getting treatment, or a bunch of smoke and darkness as they evacuate. A deception, like being pickpocketed in the street.

I would not like to think about the government killing its own people to suit their needs to hold grip of power. I like to think it is all fake and "Noone was hurt in the making of these terrorist acts, this was the act of professional actors, do not try at home".



[edit on 10-7-2005 by Rit]

Blair Rejects Calls for Probe into Bombings

Tony Blair will on Monday reject Conservative demands for a government inquiry into last week's London bomb attacks, insisting such a move would distract from the task of catching the perpetrators.
...
Downing Street said the prime minister believed an inquiry now into the outrage which killed at least 49 people would be a "ludicrous diversion."

To say that an investigation into illegal activity detracts from catching the perps? That's suspicious, people! Since when does it detract from justice to find out 'who did it'? I remember when an extensive investigation was what justice was all about. A diversion? I ask you, "Who's trying to create a diversion, here"?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Blair Rejects Calls for Probe into Bombings

Tony Blair will on Monday reject Conservative demands for a government inquiry into last week's London bomb attacks, insisting such a move would distract from the task of catching the perpetrators.
...
Downing Street said the prime minister believed an inquiry now into the outrage which killed at least 49 people would be a "ludicrous diversion."

To say that an investigation into illegal activity detracts from catching the perps? That's suspicious, people! Since when does it detract from justice to find out 'who did it'? I remember when an extensive investigation was what justice was all about. A diversion? I ask you, "Who's trying to create a diversion, here"?

To not call for an investigation into the actual bombings stinks of guilt. Why not call, who are we actually fighting? If you get shot at, a reasonable person would try and figure out where it came from so as to retaliate correctly, instead of firing in all directions.

When I hear stuff like this from Blair, with the doublespeak of 'diversions,' I want to blow my top.

A probe for what exactly? Anything the Police/mI5-6/Interpol/Scotland Yard ISN'T looking into? Who would Mr. Blair use in this seperate probe, but those agencies currently up to their arses in investigations of the bombings now?

A seperate probe would be redundant, and would likely hinder current work.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by Army]

Wouldnt like MI-6 if they ever did do a "investigation" be the one's who would facilitate the coverup and conspirators in the first place? You need a check and balance. And I think there wont ever be one.

But maybe im just too much of a conspiracist theorist and instead of focusing on conspiracies, should be focused on rallying support for the hunt for the real terrorists.

I just think that is the easy way. I would rather assume everyone is guilty until absolutely positively proven otherwise. And I see the London Attacks as very easily staged by Britain.