London - Islamic Terror or Manufactured Nightmares?
One of the occasional commenters on this blog has several times alluded to - but not explained - a government conspiracy behind the recent bombings/attempted bombings in London. I invited him to submit an article to me by email which I would then post in this blog. He has done that; I am now posting it.
I have read the article once and make the usual disclaimers about the views stated by the writer may not be shared by those of the writer of this blog. It is reprinted here in its entirety with no alterations to the text of any kind. In order to make his url references clickable I have created the keyword ‘Reference’ which will take you to the site the author suggests you might like to view.
=====================================================================
7/7 London …. Islamic Terror or Manufactured Nightmares?
by Christopher Brooks
29th July 2005
Are we really certain the “Muslim conspiracy theory” fits the facts and political realities?
If we believe the popular press reports and statements attributed to those charged with investigating the London Bombing event, the four Muslim men are already proven guilty as suicide bombers. Case closed.
Or is that just the perception intended though in fact when a serious analysis of all the claims, retractions and
suggestion are eliminated the case really has not been presented at all. The options are still wide open.
Could there be other possible explanations that could equally fit or better account for the facts and known character and background of these Muslim men? Their families and friends expressed utter shock and disbelief that these boys could have been responsible for the bombing as alleged. Is it impossible that the men are innocent?
It is not possible that these men and their families and communities are the greatest victims of this crime? Readers, I plead with you to give some rational consideration to this possibility.
There is not the slightest hint of motive intent or ambition towards carrying out such a brutal criminal act in the lives and character of these young men. In fact their prospects were good and two had young families or expectant wives. I say this with the expectation that readers are intelligent enough to discard the habitual mischievous slanting of the mundane and ordinary as suspicious and radical. It would not be the slightest surprise to discover that these men had spoken in anger against the conduct of the UK and the US military in Iraq or even elsewhere. I do so myself. I believe it to be justified. It is hardly evidence of a murderous intent or unstable mind though of course clever phrasing and dishonest journalism can twist anything.
What other explanations might there be? Reference.
As I write this article the “bomb” pictures are released to the media suggesting 16 bombs were found in a car hired to these young men and left in a railway station car park. The variety of exhibits reminds me of a terror bomb exhibition. Is this evidence real or staged? Why would the suicide bombers go off to their death leaving an exhibition for the media in their car? If the young men are mere characters in a drama of another’s design then this exhibit makes a lot more sense. What might be revealed in a court of law about this “evidence”?
The innocent Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes killed in cold blood was maligned by claims that he ran from the “police” foolishly leaping over barriers wearing suspicious attire and “feeling” guilty about a visa problem.
Further information questions this whole apologetic script that now leaves many questions unanswered.
Reference.
The traumatised public have certainly had a familiar seductive scenario painted by a stream of “information” that often was contradicted the following day only to be once again contradicted the next day.
Speculative suggestion relying more on imagination and stereotyping seemed to be the order of the day.
Consider what may have been the judgement of our Egyptian biochemist if he had not been alive to defend his innocence. We were told his flat contained dangerous chemical explosive material. He was headlined as a
“master” bomb maker. Very fortunately he was alive and is now declared unconnected to the crime.
What about his “explosive material”. Could this have possibly been innocent elements in hair spray or tooth paste? Is this the standard of justice the dead men are receiving? Have we been possibly deceived with
ambiguous interpretations to fit the “official” theme.
We now live in an age where confronting the propaganda lies of Governments and demanding that our historical standards of proof and judicial process be upheld has become a revolutionary act. Dr Mohammed Naseem suggests that we may need to question what we are being presented. Reference.
He questions the reality and nature of Al Qaeda. British MP Robin Cook also drew attention to this question recently. Reference. Why do many continue to pretend Al Qaeda is real?
Dr Naseen points out that there are still many unanswered questions in regard to the 911 US events. In Orwellian double speak this is declared despicable behaviour and even Gary Monro joins in the chorus in dutiful obedience. Every one of Dr Mohammed Naseem`s concerns are validated by thousands of web sites and hundreds of published books read and discussed by millions of people around the world. This growing spectre of concern and mistrust in the establishment view of our political realities is not confined to Muslims but is emerging in every part of the world and every walk of life.
Wild rhetorical conspiracy assertions are no substitute for answers to legitimate questions that point towards conspiracy fact. Of course crying “witch, to the stake” is effective in denying a voice to knowledge that is a threat to the ruling class. Some things never change. Tyranny always has it’s version of witchcraft.
It is not as if our Governments and their agencies have a track record that deserves much confidence or trust. The sorry and tragic saga of pre-Iraq war WMD propaganda lies demonising Iraq and Muslims still continues to this day. Reality is now viewed through a 911 Muslim conspiracy theory lens. It is standard practice to discard all evidence that contradicts this perception. Reference.
It cannot be avoided recognising that truth and honesty are often no longer evident in the behaviour and pronouncements of our political and military leaders as they wrestle with the threatening consciousness and perceptions of the public. Unless traumatised by fear, the unpalatable war policies would be rejected and civil liberties would never be surrendered.
Blair’s popularity, along with the broader international war agendas have been rescued by the London Bombings. Convenient is a word that comes to mind.
Why do intelligent commentators enthusiastically join the lynching of those asking valid questions in apologetic defence of politicians who have a blatant track record of lies and deception?
Freedom of speech should protect us against dominant ideas serving powerful agendas gaining a religious status beyond any critical questioning or examination.
Naturally, alternative explanations for the nature of things that threaten to expose ugly realities of power and its methods and strategies must be suppressed and marginalised.
This critical battleground of the mind and intellect is the front line of the “war on terror” and by all appearances
truth and intelligent free society is in retreat.
I hope we can think and rationalise our way to courageous rejection of the tyranny behind the propaganda lies.
If we are not successful I am certain we will all be delivered more frequent and murderous nightmares.
Without really buying into the above, there is a valid concern that the security forces, in a race against time to prevent further attacks, can jump to conclusions and let their assumptions run ahead of the evidence. There is a good answer to those who say that counter-terrorism is war, and we can’t afford to hold to crime-fighting standards of evidence: history
Comment by Andrew McGuinness — July 30, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
I’m afraid this is unexpurgated bollocks. Sorry. There’s always wacko’s with conspiracy theories so c’est la vie.
Comment by David Vance — July 30, 2005 @ 6:36 pm
Interesting, but who did shoot Kennedy then?
Comment by Sam Roony — July 30, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
Nice to see that some people are capable of independent thought.
The above ‘comments’ need no explanation… thinking can be painful.
Everytime political crimes occur, we ought to ask : Who benefits; Who had means and motive; and above all: Where´s the evidence. It´s sad indeed that some (like at least one of the people commenting above) are happy to accept that the muslims (or 60 years ago, the jews) ‘did it’, without even a shred of evidence. Government propaganda is bought hook, line and sinker, just because… erh… just because the govt’men says so goddammit… stop asking questions… it might lead to something.
A big thankyou to Mr. Brooks; I hope this isn´t the last we´ll see from his hand.
Comment by Peter Kofod — July 30, 2005 @ 8:02 pm
But aren’t we then being asked to believe it was the government who did it with similarly scant evidence to support the accusation?
If the four/five suspects admit to attempts to detonate bombs on the tube system then must we assume their confessions to have been tortured from them? That the police and security forces are part of the government’s conspiracy? That the various people found guilty are part of a government/police/ intelligent services conspiracy to achieve… well, what? Something that suits them all?
And we’re expected to believe that all these agencies are willing to commit murder, fraud and perjury in order to achieve this aim of theirs?
I don’t much trust the government but the fact that Blair might gain something from these bombings doesn’t in any way implicate him in the plot to cause them. Unaccustomed as I am to defending him I just don’t buy it and I need evidence - something credible - to make me even consider he or his government could successfully pull so many people into such an evil plot and hope to get away with it.
Mr Brooks has, so far, not provided this. Maybe he could attempt to do so here.
GM
Comment by Administrator — July 31, 2005 @ 1:37 am
A little overlong - one can summarize by saying there is little evidence for it, but “suicide bombers” make damn good headlines for the red tops.
One should add there have been plenty of real bombs around the world recently, so there is definitely a need for a War On Terror. And Bush and Blair seem just the kind of clean cut guys to do it. And you can’t fight a war without an enemy. And I never did like Muslims anyway.
“If you tolerate this, your children will be next”. But don’t worry guys - the pubs will still be open. Cheers!
Comment by DE — July 31, 2005 @ 1:38 am
I’m with David Vance on this one - this post is absolute bollocks. A more interesting question is what prompted you to post this steaming pile of wombats’ faeces? Are you drawing attention to the more bizarre conspiracy theories which lurk in the darker corners of the internet or are you now open to publishing more of this sort of nonsense. Can we look forward to similar posts in the future - Bananas are the instruments of Satan! The owls are not what they seem! etc etc
Comment by David H — July 31, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
David H,
The reason for posting this chap’s ideas are explained in the post itself. I’m disappointed with the lack of evidence provided for the claims but hope he will correct this later.
I would not ordinarily offer ‘guest’ spots on this blog. I’m far too possessive…
GM
Comment by Administrator — July 31, 2005 @ 7:06 pm
Gary,
Would we not all love to state the nature of the political realities of our time in a neat sentence. I confess I cannot.
The thrust of my essay was not to claim there are simple and obvious answers to the London Bombing episodes. On the contrary I am urging that if we are intelligent and mature, with political and historical memory and knowledge, we would instinctivly be very cautious about accepting what we are being told by “authorities” and the media.
Is it not ironic that I am charged with not presenting evience when it is yourself that has
convicted the Muslims without testing the evidence.
Detractors of my article failed to identify which particular statement was deserving of their retorts.
Any reasonable survey of the London Bombing media stories from the outset on 7/7 validate that the media spins wildly, evaluating all information through the “evil Muslim” lens.
I have referenced the innocent biochemist and Brazilian killing. The media and the investigating authorities painted ficticious
scenarios defaming these gents.
Pardon me for believing that this is disgraceful. An interesting and revealing investigation would be to examine exactly who and where the story “contamination” occurs.
If you believe the media can be your judge and jury relying on contradicted “eye witness” testimony and “anonomyous statements” from obscure unamed “authorities” then you have abandoned your justice system and rule of law.
Just how many times were the headlines, now viewed in retrospect, total rubbish.
They lied! It hardly seems to register in a society that is numbed to lies every day.
Who`s agenda is served by this propaganda?
What did happen to the “bomb factory”?
What happened to the military explosives?
What happened to the sophisticated timers?
How do you explain there is no motive?
How do you explain there is no “suicide” statement?
How do you explain these gents lives and character?
Surely, until a transparent judicial examination is conducted we all can only speculate and hypothesize.
Why does Blair discount a Government Enquiry?
Bush strenuously resisted in the US after 911.
Why return tickets? Why would they cause so much grief for their families without any explanation?
Do you conceed no humanity to these people when evaluating their guilt and behaviour?
Bush, Blair and the war agenda was deeply unpopular and serious political trouble was looming in UK and US. Also here in Australia.
If I speculate that there is a motive and demonstrable benefits for the promoters of war
I am ridiculed, yet tenuous assumptions and flagrant lies weaved to fabricate Muslim men as “terrorists” is acceptable behaviour to be consumed by the gullible without the slightest accountability or suspicious consideration.
The blatantly dishonest record of frauds and lies on the road to invading Iraq are surely now evident to all. Many tens of thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed enabled by frauds, fakes, disinformation, atrocity fabrications and propaganda of many designs tranquilizing the morality and critical thinking of the public.
I fear we have reached a point in the conquest of our minds that this behaviour is perfectly acceptable and even deserving of our apologetic defence.
How well Orwell forcast our plight.
Have we lost the moral perspective to judge the depth of the Iraq invasion crime or do we rationalise these lives have less value than our own.
Do we ignore that the WMD propaganda agitating for war was presented by the same people who have been interpreting Iraq affairs for decades.
Most probably all we have been told to believe about this part of the world has been tainted to advance self serving agendas.
What possible lengths could criminals that have already by disgraceful deception of their constituency killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians be prepared to tolerate to retain power and avoid justice for the dead and maimed.
Can we think clearly enough to recognise that our leaders have a murderous history, more than can be said of the Muslim lads.
The suggestion that there could be subversive forces capable of staging the behaviour of the 7/7 suspects to appear like they were “Muslim
terrorists” is hardly a radical proposition and similar false flags are the staple of political deception now and throughout history.
If I have to convince readers of this point I know I will convince you of nothing and will better employ my time elsewhere.
The story continues to be told by the media revealing the scenario surrounding the second bombing incident, more glaring contradictions and suggestion. I guess this time the story will not adjust and change or present any ambiguous or unanswered questions.
I guess this time they will just present the honest untainted truth.
One thing is certain, the “evidence” to sell the 7/7 event will be constructed out of the repeat.
I am hardly suggesting that the Executive might plan and execute such an act.
I am argueing that there are many altirnative
possibilities that deserve critical thought and without constituted protections and process the truth may not emerge.
The crux of my arguement is that there are standards of constituted process that have been incarnated in our laws and judicial process that if honestly practised go far to keep us safe from the strategies and methods of brutal power.
Any retreat from this heritage leaves us defenceless to confront the inevitable corruption that always protects and serves concentrated power.
If my assesment is correct, I strongly believe it is, then we are trapped in a cycle of rising consciousness of true political realities disciplined by controlling “terror” episodes as required to maintain a sufficient level of fear and distraction to progress the Monopoly agenda.
Why are the alarm bells not ringing?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 1, 2005 @ 3:31 am
Gary,
This article by Peter D Scott is just one of many hundreds of opinions that could be brought upon a study of the murky realities of terror.
In referencing this article I do not endorse it`s content but introduce it as academic opinion.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20050729&articleId=759
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 1, 2005 @ 6:37 am
Mr Brooks,
I agree that the government lies of course and I agree that, as the days go by, initial assertions about the London bombing are revealed to be less than accurate - if not downright faulty. An obvious example of this is the shooting of the Brazilian chap. Eye witness testimony had him leaping the barriers, wearing a heavy coat, wires hanging off him… In Saturday’s Daily Mail we now find out that he was wearing a denim jacket and that the witness mistook the police officer who jumped the barriers for the shot Brazilian (who, it seems, entered the station using his travel card).
But this is the point: the false information (or disinformation or lies - take your pick) is eventually uncovered by a relatively free press and journalists’ naked desire to expose something and so make a name for themselves. I believe that their self-interest alone means that news the government – or anyone else – doesn’t want to get out probably, eventually, will.
We know we were taken into the Iraq war through government lies. You only know that the WMD are (probably) non-existent because the same lines of information that suggested they did exist have now revealed they do not. Obviously, it’s a bit late now but the point is that for the government - or any agency - to be able to create any meaningful cover-up that requires the involvement of a large number of people is, in the face of relentless investigative reporting (not to mention leaks, gold diggers and those with grudges who want to cause embarrassment) nigh on impossible.
I think that, over the weeks and months the story will clarify. Journalists particularly will try to outdo each other in scooping new facts – or rubbishing other established ‘truths’ - and a natural distrust of the government will ensure that, though much will be reported, scepticism, criticism and searching questions will be asked. An array of talking heads will ensure that many stones are turned and the number of personnel engaged in the process to uncover what is going on here will, I believe, reveal Islamic suicide bombers, controlled – and left in the lurch - by foreign controllers.
In the meantime you and I and a large part of the planet will continue to speculate…
Comment by Administrator — August 1, 2005 @ 1:52 pm
Brooks believes that since the government lied over Iraq and Afghanistan, its credibility is nil, and we can therefore disbelieve its account of recent bombings and arrests. His assumption is that the case that Blair lied over Iraq, for instance, is proved and not disputed by anyone. I dispute it. ALL the evidence points to reasonable misjudgement rather than fabrication. (If required, I can make a very good case to support this assertion, though in fact, anyone can,if they are not pre-disposed to seeing it all as a conspiracy). But it seems to me that once one doesn’t agree with him that Blair is a cynical, Machiavellian, liar, the rest of his case loses much force. All historical events are puzzling as they occur, because not all the facts are known, and the issues are obscured by rumours, and it is all very frustrating. I’m not trying to make a cheap point by saying that if one were so inclined, one could have made a very good case for the Nazis in the ’30s: the Peace was unjust (as Keynes so eloquently pointed out); Hitler was giving the Germans a sense of pride and purpose; he soaked up unemployment with public works, he wanted to unite all Germans (and what was so wrong with that?), claim back territory that had belonged to Germany not very long before, etc. etc. So I think that this impatience with incomplete truth, and grasping at every rumour and conspiracy in order to make a consistent story is faulty reasoning. True, I don’t know whether that poor, wretched Brazilian was wearing bulky clothes or not, whether he was running or not, whether he was told to stop or not. I tend to believe that cock-ups are far more likely than conspiracies, so provisionally, I go for that. The truth won’t emerge for many months, if ever. But the need for neat, consistent stories doesn’t account for cock-ups, mistakes, misjudgements. It assumes that everyone knows what they are doing all the time. I think Brooks is very wrong, but I fear that in the absence of step by step, clear, logical, sequences, there is no way that he, and people like him, can ever be convinced that he is. In the end, perhaps it is down to a WAY of thinking, and we are all convinced that the way we think is more clear and logical than the next fellow’s. Certainly a dose of Occam’s razor would not do him any harm.
Comment by robert aldridge — August 1, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
The time gap between the “news” and the “truth” being circulated can be significant.
The gap between the shooting a “known terrorist” story, and the facts about the innocent man have been long enough to justify a dodgy shoot-to-kill policy. A similar case with the belief that all Muslims could be suicide bombers run by Bin Laden and the (unconfirmed) news now trickling out from the captured guy in Italy (bombs were duds, no connection to any group).
Sometimes that gap is directly exploited. Its now too late to re-assess whether we have good reason to be in Iraq - we all accept pulling out would be impossible. We may have all agreed on the same course of action irrespective of this - thats not the point is it?
So yes, the truth will always come out eventually, but not always in time. Conclusion? Don’t collude with stories that just look good on paper.
Comment by DE — August 1, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
Gary,
In the following transcript we discover more claims of the murky background to the London “Al Qaeda”.
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E162650694/
My previous Robin Cook reference confirms what is subtle but clear from this information.
The phantom “enemy” Al Qaeda is in fact the masterful instrument of establishment power.
Mostly it has no reality but dupes can be drawn in and manipulated by willing “Muslim” leaders
who can be counted on for appropriate outrageous statements and cooperation to assist with the allusion. These “radical” centres are honey pots for intelligence gathering and also provide the “ready to go” patsies for psyop events.
This phenomena has been documented well in the “neo-Nazi” and “white supremacist” history
revealing that finance and key agitators have direct links to intelligence strategies.
A tiny number of disturbed individuals can be carefully staged in their behaviour to construct
a spectre of fear and threat that in fact is
constructed and engineered to achieve the political goals of Monopoly of humanity.
In all history manufactured fear has been the chief tool of power.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 1, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
Further information on British “al qaeda”.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm
Obviously no particular view can be taken in isolation but any GENUINE political analyst can not ignore what is revealed in this material.
I don`t suggest it be taken at face value.
Robert Aldridge ignores the confessions from across the political spectrum that the “intelligence” was never in support of the
propaganda claims made to justify an invasion of Iraq. In fact what all the documents show now is that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth all along and it was the war supporters that were spreading all the lies. In the final analysis of these lies, it was not a question of what military capacity Iraq did or did not have, but, the claim the solid evidence existed to support the claims made and it has not been produced becauase it never existed. To speculate that perhaps some dark corner of Iraq might uncover anything is not even relevant to the arguement.
“Evidence” of weapons and urgent threats were presented to the public as justification but this “evidence” was all lies. There is no question that the public were lied to by the war agitators. Most of us go to jail if conduct of this nature is proven against us.
This crime is not exclusive to any particular party or group. With very few exeptions, if any, they all played the game to one degree or another.
In Australia we have had several high profile resignations from the “intelligence” sector admitting they were disgusted in the dishonesty of our Government. In Britian the murky Kelly affair and the widly held suspicion, including by his family and friends, that he was murdered point towards unsavory aspects of the whole dirty affair that will eventually be further revealed to the public.
The most critical dimension of my post hardly rates a mention by Gary, Robert and other commentators.
Will you defend the rule of law, or, do you support the overturning of your constitutional protections by the new anti-terror
legislation?
Will you defend the right of a proper transparent judicial investigation and trial that provides the opportunity for all allegations to be examined.
Do you believe in the opportunity for evidence to be cross examined and allegations tested before a jury?
Perhaps you now accept that the “Black Shirt”, “Stasi” or Kremlin style of justice is just fine.
Without such we all know very little.
It is the tenacious love of truth that separates civilised society from the black magic of barbarism.
It is certain that we are not too far from such time that expressing a critical view of Government and the behaviour of “power” will be
a “terrorist” act.
Have you become so divorced from the classical wisdom of your heritage that you see no danger to your free society in the totallitarian behavior of your government.
Have you not read any history?
Have you not studied how tyranny works?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 2, 2005 @ 11:04 pm
Having read the above I also think there are grounds for suspicion as to the four young Muslims from Leeds deciding to blow themselves up, though I think it’s possible they were tricked into carrying the bombs on board. However, I ‘d like to comment on the war in Iraq.
Whether or not Blair believed Saddam had WMDs isn’t the real issue, though it’s been cleverly spun as such. The real lie was the notion that Saddam’s possession of WMDs was central in why we went to war, whereas in fact Blair and Bush had decided to go to war long before the inspectors went in; in fact they were disappointed that Saddam was willing to allow them in as they hoped his reluctance would give them a pretext for invading.
There was a good comment posted to the Guardian recently; “Conspiracy theories live in the space between what politicians say and what they do.”
Comment by Graham Giles — August 6, 2005 @ 7:03 am
Mr Giles,
Indeed. I got that feeling at the time although then I suspected that the WMD risk was so great the allies were wary of losing their momentum on some weapons inspector technicality. I believed that they believed the WMDs were there.
Now I too feel sure they were going to invade regardless. The desire to ’spread democracy’ by any means necessary was all-powerful.
GM
Comment by Administrator — August 10, 2005 @ 7:14 am
I’m also not sure I’d treat Naseem as a reliable source myself. The words “critical thinking” and “absence of” spring to mind.
Incidentally, an interesting blog: http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/
Comment by David — August 15, 2005 @ 7:12 am
This article adds to the 7/7 mystery.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/27/MNG0AEECHN1.DTL
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 29, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
More homework for serious researchers.
http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_05_on/last_big_mac.html
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 29, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
The manufactured terror was further revealed on SBS Dateline as reported in the Australian.
Former Indonesian President stated that the “Government” was responsible for planning the Bali Bombings.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C16898139%255E29277%2C00.html
This means that the Bali Bombing investigation was a complete farce.
The convicted parties were likely orchestrated to take the heat.
Of course this could never happen in London!
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 17, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
An Interesting Development…….
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306alexvideo.htm
Comment by Christopher Brooks — March 26, 2006 @ 9:20 pm