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!

http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_05_on/last_big_mac.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/27/MNG0AEECHN1.DTL

Incidentally, an interesting blog: http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/

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

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.”

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?

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.

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.

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…

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

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?

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

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!

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

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.