Bomb for Brown

[Guest David Guyatt]

The heading should be, Bomb for Brown, of course (don't know how to change that, though)

*****

Hours before he could pull a clean pair of Y fronts out of his brand new Downing Street sock draw, Gordon Brown received a fond welcome in the shape of a car bomb in Haymarket.

Was it a warning of things to come from Al Queda for the new premier?

Or, was it a hale and hearty welcome placed there by a shaky amateur driving in an mock intoxicated way designed to rapidly raise the alarm (before it went off) -- in other words "they" serving notice that Gordon must toe the line or suffer the consequences of seeing random violence during the two-year period of his "watch"?

Answers on a postcard to P O Box 500, c/o Dear Cousins Dating Agency, Langley, Virginia.

David

Edited June 29, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Guest Gary Loughran]

The heading should be, Bomb for Brown, of course (don't know how to change that, though)

Changed!

[Guest David Guyatt]

The heading should be, Bomb for Brown, of course (don't know how to change that, though)

Changed!

Thank you Gary. You obviously know the abracadabra word that was missing from my tool box...

Best

David

[Guest Gary Loughran]

The heading should be, Bomb for Brown, of course (don't know how to change that, though)

Changed!

Thank you Gary. You obviously know the abracadabra word that was missing from my tool box...

Best

David

I can update to bombs if you want You know, just in case, he wasn't up in time to catch the first one.

[Michael Chapman]

The heading should be, Bomb for Brown, of course (don't know how to change that, though)

*****

Hours before he could pull a clean pair of Y fronts out of his brand new Downing Street sock draw, Gordon Brown received a fond welcome in the shape of a car bomb in Haymarket.

Was it a warning of things to come from Al Queda for the new premier?

Or, was it a hale and hearty welcome placed there by a shaky amateur driving in an mock intoxicated way designed to rapidly raise the alarm (before it went off) -- in other words "they" serving notice that Gordon must toe the line or suffer the consequences of seeing random violence during the two-year period of his "watch"?

Answers on a postcard to P O Box 500, c/o Dear Cousins Dating Agency, Langley, Virginia.

David

You're optimistic. 'Winter of Discontent' anyone?

[Sid Walker]

Of course, it is 'possible' this latest bomb scare is the work of Islamic extremists.

It is also possible there are little green men on Mars.

Any member of the public who says it isn't so speculates with excessive certainty, given the paucity of information available to us.

But I also believe that any sensible person with their eyes open who has been tracking the 'War on Terror' attentively must admit there is a reasonable prospect that the latest, widely publicized 'bomb scare' in London is once again the work of spooks - whether British, American, Israeli or perhaps some other flavour of kindred anti-Islamic extremists.

It was, in my opinion, quite appalling that the British public did not DEMAND an independent inquiry into the 7/7 bomb blasts. Its failure to press home this demand greatly increased the probability of more such nonsense occurring again. On the occasion of 7/7, the authorities asked us to believe that the CCTV system largely failed on the day. Will this improbable story be repeated again? Is there no limit to the absurdities we are expected to swallow without complaint?

I understand skepticism about inquiries that investigate terrorism, assassinations and/or the ludicrously misnamed 'security services'. The Hutton Inquiry was the latest fiasco. Yet arguably, the highly restrictive terms of reference was the greatest problem of all with the Hutton Inquiry - and the Warren Commission before it. Neither inquiry was assumption-free. Both were premised on the guilt of those already accused of the crimes.

If my inference is correct - and incidents such as 7/7 and the recent car bomb discoveries are some form of 'inside job' - then DEMANDING honest public inquiry which genuinely investigate these atrocities is a very useful line of defense open to the public.

It's a very reasonable demand. It puts pressure on the perpetrators.

On the other hands, if the public continues to allow Secret State Agencies to get away with spinning their narratives investigation-free, we hand them a charter to blow us up at will, like disposable pyrotechnic props.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest David Guyatt]

Sid, the thing is about us Brits not demanding an independent inquiry into 7/7, is that not only are we an irresolute citzenry that has been thoroughly potty trained over the centuries, but after God alone knows how many independent inquiries into every subject known to man, we know it is pointless. Everything is always fixed. And seeing as we very largely have a compliant media... who else is to champion our corner for us?

Yours in head banging frustartion

David

[Paul Rigby]

Sid, the thing is about us Brits not demanding an independent inquiry into 7/7, is that not only are we an irresolute citzenry that has been thoroughly potty trained over the centuries, but after God alone knows how many independent inquiries into every subject known to man, we know it is pointless. Everything is always fixed. And seeing as we very largely have a compliant media... who else is to champion our corner for us?

Yours in head banging frustartion

David

David's right, Sid, we have nowhere to go with our protests. Our politicians are terrified, and our media firmly under the spook heel. There are no mainstream outlets for serious questions, reasoned objections etc.

In Britain, and I suspect the same is true in Oz and the United States of Torture, knowledge, even if one can acquire it, is impotence.

[Sid Walker]

Sid, the thing is about us Brits not demanding an independent inquiry into 7/7, is that not only are we an irresolute citzenry that has been thoroughly potty trained over the centuries, but after God alone knows how many independent inquiries into every subject known to man, we know it is pointless. Everything is always fixed. And seeing as we very largely have a compliant media... who else is to champion our corner for us?

Yours in head banging frustartion

David

David's right, Sid, we have nowhere to go with our protests. Our politicians are terrified, and our media firmly under the spook heel. There are no mainstream outlets for serious questions, reasoned objections etc.

In Britain, and I suspect the same is true in Oz and the United States of Torture, knowledge, even if one can acquire it, is impotence.

I appreciate both your comments and the sentiments behind them.

FWIW, here's a brief anecdote from recent Australian history that supports the thesis that resistance is indeed very hard.

Australia's only publicly acknowledged act of 'terrorism' on home soil took place in the late 70s. I refer to the so-called Sydney Hilton bombing.

This mysterious bomb atrocity, which took place at the time of a Regional Heads of Government meeting in 1978, caused the death of three and injuries to several other people.

Members of the Ananda Marga sect were blamed for the outrage. Several served jail terms. But despite various murky twists and turns in the saga, they were exonerated and the mystery about who was really culpable remains to this day.

One of the seriously injured victims, policeman Terry Griffiths, fought a long battle for justice. He believes it was an inside job and claims he was told as much by 'insiders'.

In the early 1990s, a brave and incorruptible independent MP in the NSW Parliament, John Hatton, forced a vote on a call for a public inquiry (there had been no inquiry by that time - well over 10 years after the bomb blast).

This led to a veritable stampede of courage and me-too righteousness in the State Parliament. Hatton's resolution passed with bipartisan support.

However, the Commonwealth Government declined to support an inquiry (as it happens, Labor was in power at the time, God help us). So it never happened. Today, nearly 30 years on, no inquiry.

So... was it all a waste of time? Was Hatton's work in vain? Should Terry Griffiths have just given up?

I don't think so. The campaign, I believe, put Australian spookery on the defensive. It gave them pause for thought before they did it again.

Now, take the Warren Commission - an inquiry that was clearly a corruption of due process, from the terms of reference onwards. Would it have made no difference if it had simply never happened?

I don't think so. The Warren Commission's report provided a basis for critics to mount an attack. It did, at least, provide explanations for the assassinations - however inadequate. Critiques of the Warren Commission helped launch a public movement to discover the truth. Historians can now pick the Report apart. The same is true of the 9-11 Commissions in more recent times.

In the case of the Hilton bombings and 7/7, however, the respective Governments and spookdoms got away scot free. They didn't even have to provide a detailed account of the events. Blair was able to rely on such deep public cynicism about inquiries that even many of those inclined to support an inquiry didn't bother to make the demand.

This frees up the time of these State-sponsored criminals and empowers them to go again... and again... and again. If they don't even face a serious investigation, they have nothing to fear. In such circumstances, their best strategy is to increase the frequency of attacks so no-one can keep track in all the confusion.

That. I fear, may be what's happening.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Paul Rigby]

In such circumstances, their best strategy is to increase the frequency of attacks so no-one can keep track in all the confusion.

That, I fear, may be what's happening.

Agreed. The second series of attacks in London - the ones following 7/7 - represented a blatant attempt to distract from, and retrospectively fudge, a considerable number of anomalies in the original.

Paul

[Sid Walker]

In such circumstances, their best strategy is to increase the frequency of attacks so no-one can keep track in all the confusion.

That, I fear, may be what's happening.

Agreed. The second series of attacks in London - the ones following 7/7 - represented a blatant attempt to distract from, and retrospectively fudge, a considerable number of anomalies in the original.

Paul

Broadly speaking, this has been the strategy of the perpetrators of the global 'WoT' ever since it was publicly launched back in September 2001.

A hypnotic cavalcade of terror. No sooner does one rabbit disappear into obscurity than another pops out of the hat. Watch me eyes, not my hands... ignore at all costs the man behind the curtain!

[Guest David Guyatt]

Extracted from BBC News website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6257606.stm)

“One of the suspects taken to the city's Royal Alexandra Hospital to be treated for severe burns was in possession of "a suspect device" which had been found on his person, Chief Constable Rae said.”

So “suspect” that the part of the hospitable where he was taken was completely evacuated for several hours.

I watched the perennially looped footage from SkyNews and BBC News 24 showing this suspect outside the airport, pressed to the ground, face down, hand cuffed behind him, a policemen resting a gentle restraining hand to his upper torso and another down by his feet – presumably doing the same.

The suspect was dressed wholly in skin apart from a pair shorts – either underwear or baggies of some kind. The area from his knees down was obscured so he could have been wearing socks - you know what we men are like when we get naked...

So the question I have is what suspect device? His exploding Willy Wonker perhaps? I don’t know what else it could’ve been. Besides, isn’t it standard practise for the nice officers dibble to pat him down and confiscate his sweets before standing him in the corner?

Thoughts anyone?

David

PS, maybe they evacuated the hospital because they wanted privacy to wash and water board him

[Paul Rigby]

Thoughts anyone?

An exploding butt plug, perhaps?

By the way, did either of the two look, well, Caucasian to you?

[Sid Walker]

Thoughts anyone?

An exploding butt plug, perhaps?

By the way, did either of the two look, well, Caucasian to you?

If there's much more erosion of civil liberties, fair judicial process and honesty in media reportage, our spooks may be able to use entirely virtual patsies. Just actors... who disappear deep inside the memory hole when their 15 minutes of fame is over.

It would be a humane reform. No need to bother with bodgy trials, long, expensive incarcerations and outraged families campaigning for justice.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest David Guyatt]

Thoughts anyone?

An exploding butt plug, perhaps?

By the way, did either of the two look, well, Caucasian to you?

Funny you should mention that Paul, as I have just been working on this.

The Guardian reports “police and Whitehall sources said that the failed attempt to inflict mass murder in the capital was the work of al-Qaida or those inspired by its ideology”.

But television footage – and less clear still photo’s of one of the arrested men – the one in question was fully clothed clearly show Caucasian characteristics (which clearly wasn’t lost on the Sky News (or was a Beeb News 24?) anchor who raised this point with her on-the-spot reporter. If this is the case it would be a significant departure from previous suspicious suspects who all had clearly suspicious faces with notable Asian characteristics.

Watch out al-queda, you may have rivals trying to out do you…

David