[Carlhole]

False flag over London By John Leonard Online Journal Contributing Writer

July 8, 2005—Yesterday we saw a classic false flag attack in London, organized by western secret services to distract attention from the deepening political troubles of Bush and Blair, and perhaps even to create the pretext for war on Iran. Of course, Bush and his poll ratings have been sinking under scandals and rumblings of impeachment. Blair too has been badly hurt by the Downing Street memo.

For giving the lowdown on the London underground, I was roundly rebuked today, accused of disgracing the dead. Yet I was the one speaking out to avenge their honor, defending their memory from the bloodstain of abuse by the vultures of war. But no, the shocked sheeple flocked to march in ever tighter lockstep for their Vaterland, with each new Reichstag Firemeisterwerk casting a stronger spell. . . .

The G-8 conference was an ideal, high-profile venue to mobilize the sympathy of world leaders behind their flagging amateur B&B show. Today's Guy Fawkeses, home-team self-terrorists in the heart of empire, thumbed their noses at mortal fools while they played their favorite base-eleven numerology game, on this 7/7 date—following on Madrid 3/11 and New York 9/11, with its Flights 11 and 77.

Cui bono. Wall Street closed on an uptick.

So how can I be so sure?

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary ... onard.html

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arsehole', '
')July 8, 2005—Yesterday we saw a classic false flag attack in London, organized by western secret services to distract attention from the deepening political troubles of Bush and Blair, and perhaps even to create the pretext for war on Iran. Of course, Bush and his poll ratings have been sinking under scandals and rumblings of impeachment. Blair too has been badly hurt by the Downing Street memo.

[Specop_007]

Nothing like avoiding the root of the problem. Let me spell it out for you.
I-S-L-A-M.

You can try to hide from the harsh facts all you want, but it doesnt change anything. Do you see Catholics killing women and children? No, me either. Do you see Protestants crashing airplanes into buildings? Nope, I havent seen that one yet. Do you see Hindu's massacring school children? No, no they respect life a bit more then that.

Face the facts for once.

[BiGG]

Carlhole,

I started out thinking you were at least on par with Chief Wiggam from the Simpson’s in the intelligence department, but I can see I was being waaaaaaaay too generous in my assumption.

Ouch its gotta suck to be you!

[TheSupplyGuy]

This is the most ridiculous material I've heard. And where is the proof?

I may have a limited experience with Muslims, but all the ones I've met are kind, caring people who would never commit such acts. Some people are stereotyping a whole group because of a few bad apples. What if I said all Catholics are child molesters because of the cases of the past few years? It would be just as unfair.

[Sunspot]

Funny, I see American Catholics and Protestants dropping bombs on lots of innocent Iraqis and Afghans. Not to mention the liberal dosing of radioactive particles we're giving the place with our depleted uranium weapons. Lots of little dirty bombs. More than half the forces from the 1991 Gulf War are sick and dying because they ingested this stuff. There's your "Gulf War Syndrome"!
To say that we are the good guys in all of this you have to ignore a lot of facts!

[BiGG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sunspot', 'F')unny, I see American Catholics and Protestants dropping bombs on lots of innocent Iraqis and Afghans. Not to mention the liberal dosing of radioactive particles we're giving the place with our depleted uranium weapons. Lots of little dirty bombs. More than half the forces from the 1991 Gulf War are sick and dying because they ingested this stuff. There's your "Gulf War Syndrome"!
To say that we are the good guys in all of this you have to ignore a lot of facts!

[Cool Hand Linc]

Oh, God not that argument again.

Talk about picking which facts to look at and which to ignore.

[SidneyTawl]

Yea right Bigg,

"America's founding fathers were quite sound on foreign policy matters. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had it right two centuries ago when they advised against entangling alliances. Jefferson declared in his 1801 inaugural address, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.""

[Cool Hand Linc]

Cardhole

http://peakoil.com/fortopic9206-0-asc-0.html

[Carlhole]

I just posted it because it was there and it was contrarian. These things are not meant to offend anyone. It's just somebody's contrary opinion - not necessarily mine either, at least not so far.

I don't know who perpetrated them or how the London bombings occurred. It simply crossed my mind that it was convenient for the cause of the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, etc. what with the G-8 Summit, the British public's growing desire to bring troops home and Tony Blair's goals for doing something about Global Warming which is at variance with the American agenda - and so I'm curious about what happens with the investigation, who claims credit, is it believable?, Are there many inconsistencies?, and, above all, how does it change British policy, etc.

The "Secret Organization - Al-Quaeda in Europe" name seems strange to me. But I haven't arrived at any conclusions about the recent bombings. If evidence materializes that more or less proves the handiwork of Islamic militants, then that is what I'll assume to be true.

What DO I think about International Terrorism so far? I think it is very, very likely that worldwide intelligence agencies led by the CIA have been able to co-opt the Al-Quaeda phenomenon and use these multifarious Islamic groups to their own purposes. However, this had advantages and disadvantages. There is alot of history involved going back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the first Gulf War, Bosnia-Herzagovina, Chechnya and other places. It's extremely complicated. I'm reading a pretty good book on the subject right now, written by a Londoner whose style is to heavily document and source everything he commits to paper. It will be interesting to get his take on these bombings. Too soon for that, though.

Frankly, I don't at ALL believe the government's story on 911. Too many inconsistencies and unanswered questions there. Everybody should know by now. I would welcome a first-rate investigation of it. But as for the London Bombings, well, I'm just reading the news like everyone else right now.

If I ever post an article, it's simply there because it's intersting or to generate a response or whatever. If I write my own words, that means it's what I, personally, think.

You know, I'm a reader. I think for myself. And I don't give a rat's ass what anybody thinks about me or the books I read or the articles that I post. I couldn't care less. So if someone curses me or threatens me or something, it's justr kind of ridiculous because all you guys are just words on my computer screen. It's not like I have to get into fight-or-flight mode or anything.

And, me, I generally don't insult people for the hell of it. I usually offer them an arguement but not in threatening or bullying tones. And any views I have are usually shared by quite alot of the population as well. So what the hell...PeakOil.com is a News and Discussion Board and that's how I treat it.

[BiGG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SidneyTawl', 'Y')ea right Bigg,

"America's founding fathers were quite sound on foreign policy matters. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had it right two centuries ago when they advised against entangling alliances. Jefferson declared in his 1801 inaugural address, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.""

[SidneyTawl]

Pirates, and comparing the invasion of another soverieng nation and staying there.

Bigg, you need to read more of the articles you post.

LOL you better stop the cut and past from a quick google.

I have probably forgot much more history than you will ever know.

From

Thomas J and the Barbary Pirates."


Most scholars point to Jefferson's address to Congress as support for Congress' exclusive right to engage in hostilities. This seems only partially true. Jefferson did not want to "act in such a way that might compromise the power to declare war assigned exclusively to Congress by the Constitiution "(22) but at the same time he wanted to advance the goals of his administration, such as reducing the national debt and the budget. Had Congress made this a constitutional issue, Jefferson might have responded that his actions were based on "a question of expediency," rather than on a technical question of constitutionality; the nation had to react quickly to the Bey's declaration of war and Congress was not in session at the time. His actions were for the good of the nation and not to satisfy a personal fervor for power. This would not make his actions constitutional, but it would make them forgivable. Jefferson further hoped that his actions would not be a signal for other Presidents to bypass the Constitution and its provisions for war-making. He believed that the "good sense" of the people would not allow this precedent to be one that would continue.(23) That is he believed that if other presidents abused their power, the people would pressure Congress for an impeachment. This is an argument that would parallel his justification of the Louisiana Purchase.

[BiGG]

SidneyTawl,

Ummm sweetheart? You get to play pretend with others here but you will not be playing pretend with me ……k?

Now read something and learn instead of spending most of your time making absurd claims & watching out for black helicopters & comtrail planes.

[Sunspot]

Ah BiGG, nice to see you're still insulting everyone....
These are the energy wars, plain and simple. Most wars are about the acquisition of natural resources. Or preventing somebody else from getting those natural resources. Everyone needs to read Klare's "Rseource Wars" and Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". This is how the world works, kids. Natural resources. Basic stuff. We'll be finding that out the hard way soon.

[SidneyTawl]

FIrst Biggmmms,

I am not playin wid chu.

got that sweetie,

now go run along and powder like a good little hermorphidite.


and biggie dear, part of that sorta sounded like a threat dear. Bad form ehh, what not you know.

See I already got my bigg "picture". and I spread it around.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', 'S')idneyTawl,

Ummm sweetheart? You get to play pretend with others here but you will not be playing pretend with me ……k?
Now read something and learn instead of spending most of your time making absurd claims & watching out for black helicopters & comtrail planes.

[0mar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'Y')ou can try to hide from the harsh facts all you want, but it doesnt change anything. Do you see Catholics killing women and children? No, me either. Do you see Protestants crashing airplanes into buildings? Nope, I havent seen that one yet. Do you see Hindu's massacring school children? No, no they respect life a bit more then that.

[threadbear]

It was quite clearly a false flag operation. Why would terrorists want to interrupt the delightful spectacle of Blair being tried for the high crimes that the Downing Street memo clearly outlines? Come on, you schmaltzy emotion based goofballs, use your freaking heads.

Terrorism is politically motivated and timed to exact the most damage to the terrorist's opponent. How in hell does this act damage Blair? It helps him personally and politically. Did you listen carefully to his quavery voice in his address to the nation just after it happened? Do you think that was because he felt so bad for those people? Really? Think about it. The guy's a proven blatant liar who has sent many Brits to their death in Iraq with a smile on his face. Watch him on televised parliamentary proceedings, if you can handle the show of teeth. He's uber-creepy.

He was all quivery because he's involved in a criminal conspiracy either directly or indirectly and the guy is SCARED.

[CrudeAwakening]

Blair is a spinmeister of the highest calibre, that's for sure. The man is so patently insincere.

I wonder about the timing too - if this is a response by "Al Qaeda" to British involvement in Iraq, it's pretty belated. Would have made more sense last year.

[Carlhole]

Who here thinks that members of the Bush Team were disheartened and truly saddened at the London bombings?

Whose interests were advanced by them?