41 Comments »

1. we must get tough with terrorists, it is no good putting them in prision when caught a death penaltly is an absolute must. we must also deal with any kind of criminal behaviour from our own people too, age should not be a limit….. at the end of the day if you commit the crime you do the time!!!!iF UNDER 16 THEN PARENTS MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THESE CHILDREN. We are so fed up with yobbish behaviour yet if we fight back we will be prosecuted, what kind of law is that???? I was assulted at work and it took the police a whole month before they could take a statement from me…..nothing has been done surprise, surprise!!! Its no wonder so many brits are leaving their own country to live abroad. At the end of the day i have already made the decision that should my family ever be in danger then i would shoot to kill as i know the police have no powers to
   be able to help me or my family should we ever be in danger.

   Comment by sheila — 7 Jul 2005 on 9:39 pm | Link

2. We are totally unable to see the connection between terrorism and parents being responsible for their children’s actions.

   As Bliar sometimes behaves like an under-16 (ie takes instructions from Daddy Warbucks) perhaps you are suggesting that Mr & Mrs Blair Snr should be indicted for his war crimes.

   Comment by jk5 — 8 Jul 2005 on 5:44 am | Link

3. JK5 deeply deplores the attacks on London on Thursday 7 July 2005. We do, however, place the blame for those attacks wholly upon the Bush/Bliar war criminal alliance. We ask thinking people to consider: "What would be your reaction if a foreign power had invaded your country and murdered 100,000 of you compatriots?"

   How far can we expect other people to accept our (Bush & Blair’s) provocation and our direct assault before they simply become so angry they do something like this?

   We are FURIOUS with Blair (and his sycophantic, ignorant supporters) for bringing our children and grandchildren into such danger.

   It is well beyond time that we (the fathers and mothers of the UK) stood up to protect our families and our country and get rid of this evil support for America’s illegal wars.

   Make NO MISTAKE; Afghanistan and Iraq are purely about OIL resources and OIL pipelines, solely to support the American profligate lifestyle. Both countries have been DEVASTATED and (in the case of Afghanistan) LEVELED with the carpet bombing murder of tens of thousnads of civilians.

   Many people died in London yesterday because of America’s greed and Blair’s subjugation of the UK interest to that of his real master (whoever than might be – Bush, the Carlyle Group, Bankers or just plain old money). WHAT has he been paid? How much is OUR blood worth to him. His perfidious TV speech about "our resolve" being greater than theirs is trully frightening. Just how much of OUR blood (not HIS family’s blood) is he prepared to "spend".

   These acts of treason have, again, brought great tragedy to our land. Do not be blinded by what the real villains WANT you to see.

   Comment by jk5 — 8 Jul 2005 on 6:05 am | Link

4. Amen to every word.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 8 Jul 2005 on 11:36 am | Link

5. Mr Blair – In light of yesterdays attrocities, I am absolutely disgusted to read on the BBC website that hotels were charging more than double the normal charge to people stranded in London after the public transport system was bought to a grinding halt by a series of bombs. How can these people justify profiteering from this ? People were killed and scores injured. If anything free accomodation should have been provided for these poor people, some of whom had probably survived the blasts themselves. These people are dispicable, I urge you to name and shame the hotels who decided to cash in and profit from a terrorist attack in our city, get back the money they have unscrupulously taken and give it to a charity / trust so that the families of people killed and seriously injured can benefit. I hope one of the hoteliers may read this and sleep in the knowledge that people died and suffered horrific injuries, but as long as they have made a quick buck ……..
   A very well done to our emergency services too, I can’t believe how quickly and professionally they have dealt with this attack.

   Comment by Katherine Johnson — 8 Jul 2005 on 2:16 pm | Link

6. JK5 – Such jumble and confusion.

   1. No one, beyond the perpetrators, yet knows who committed this barbaric, pointless act against ordinary people. Thus, there is no link whatsoever with Iraq or Afghanistan.

   2. The death toll in Iraq is unknown.

   3. Afghanistan was not levelled.

   4. Oil probably played a part in the decision making process in the pointless and misguided Iraq war but there were other considerations. In Afghanistan the main reason for the attack was Bin Liner and 9/11. It seemed to me at the time that, for a variety of reasons, the USA would have left the vile Taliban alone if they had chucked Bin Liner and his gang out.

   5.It is both childish and absurd to suggest that Blair – whatever else one might think of him – is on the take. He’s messianic, that’s what I find scary about him, but he’s not a crook.

   6. If the murderers were acting for, and in support of Bin Liner’s insane project to re-create some sort of utopian Caliphate, stretching from Spain to Iran and incorporating all Arab states, mirroring an imagined glorious past, then nothing anyone does will have much effect on who they kill. They began mass killing long before either of these two wars and any excuse will do.

   7. If someone killed 100,000 people living here it would most certainly not lead me to support, approve or condone the random murder of a load of ordinary people and the maiming and crippling of many more going about their business. I would hunt them down, give them the best defence team they wanted at our expense, hold a fair trial and act on the jury’s verdict with a life-long jail sentence if they were found guilty.

   Comment by Mr Pooter — 8 Jul 2005 on 5:26 pm | Link

7. "In Afghanistan the main reason for the attack was Bin Liner and 9/11". Not necessarily; that’s what they’d have us believe was the reason. Consider for a moment a slightly different point of view and all of a sudden everything makes a lot more sense. Afghanistan also produces most of the world’s heroin – and the US economy is propped up on a decent slice (to the tune of a few trillion dollars) of the revenue from that. The Taleban were more sucessful than anyone else at slowing down Afghanistan heroin production; and notice how, since the conflict there has faded from the news, opium production is now at all time highs (no pun intended). And for all their fervour in "the war on drugs", how come the US allowed us, the UK, to be in charge of the destruction of the Afghan opium trade? How come they didn’t just level all the poppy fields in the same way they did large parts of the rest of the country? The answer is simple. Because they don’t want them destroyed; that’s why we are in charge of this non-destruction – because the Yanks know we will get wrapped up in the usual human-rights bullshit which delays action and stops amything getting destroyed. In the same way they don’t want the ‘insurgency’ to end in Iraq – and if you believe them just because they come out and say "we want the ‘insurgency’ to end" you’ll probably also believe that Tony Bliar isn’t even a LITTLE bit on the make…

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 8 Jul 2005 on 6:58 pm | Link

8. PapaL, the idea that Bush went to war to release more drugs onto the market is risible.

   The Yanks have probably passed the Afghanistan buck to Blair because they see the aggro on the horizon.

   The Yanks are desperate to get Iraq settled, get the oil flowing again and get out. They are being humiliated, they look weak, their dead are rising, retreat/defeat is on the cards, they have little spare infantry capacity, the drip of death and failure is sapping the rightwings war mongering ambitions, isolationism is becoming attractive again and they can’t zap Iran if they can’t get out of Iraq. I don’t buy your analysis all.

   The Blairs might be freeloaders but suggesting they are in the pay of some secret group or other is pathetic, inane, childish, insulting rubbish. He has enough faults to criticise without making them up.

   Comment by Mr Pooter — 8 Jul 2005 on 9:44 pm | Link

9. I teach in a predominantly Muslim community school. All I heard today was "Oh, no, Miss, they’re going to blame us again, aren’t they?". To see such worldy-wise knowledge in the eyes of 11-year-olds… you want my job??? Some parents even kept their children at home in case of retaliatory action from others.
   We are all sickened by the unnecessary carnage caused by a small number of extremists. However, as I see every day in the playground, if you are being bullied by someone stronger than you, and find that no-one listens to your plight, you create as much havoc as possible until "they", i.e. the authority you are brought up to respect, are forced to hear your voice.
   If the Blair/Bush coalition would get off its arrogant, outmoded and blinkered high horse and behave with some respect for the Middle Eastern philosophy and way of life (and no, I don’t mean fundamentalist Islamic beliefs),then we might have some chance of forging a society of disparate elements which concentrates on celebrating its differences, rather than falling prey to the extremist fringe.

   Comment by Auntyq — 9 Jul 2005 on 12:39 am | Link

10. Mr Pooter – Such naivet\xE9 and acceptance of "official" lies. ("jumble and confusion" indeed? – perhaps our statement simply went over your head.). Our response:

    "1. No one, beyond the perpetrators, yet knows who committed this barbaric, pointless act …"
    That IS the POINT! The Blair/Bush regimes have been quick to make the link. Only a "previously unknown" Al-Qaida branch has claimed any responsibility. "Barbaric" – yes, as for "pointless" that is true only from "our" perspective. Auntyq makes the very valid point that those who are bullied (the whole of Islam right now by the Global Bully – see <a href="http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#GlobalBully">http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#GlobalBully</a&gt; ) will eventually say they have HAD ENOUGH and will react violently – often in a seemingly pointless way.
    "…against ordinary people…"
    Again they were only "ordinary people" from "our/your" perspective – perhaps like the Bush regime sees Iraqis and Afghanistanis as "non-people" – ( <a href="http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#NewRulers">http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#NewRulers</a&gt; ) which is why YOU don’t know how many have been killed (see below)!
    " Thus, there is no link whatsoever with Iraq or Afghanistan."
    – Thus? THUS? as if you had made some logical connection between your stumblings. There remains the question of a link between the egregious acts "we" have perpetrated upon those countries and the seething anger they (perhaps quite justifiably) have for those acts.

    2. "The death toll in Iraq is unknown."
    YOU do not know the death toll. How could you if you only read the "mainstream" press/TV? If you would only take the time to read the eye witness accounts of reporters/commentators who have actually BEEN/ARE there perhaps you would be enlightened. The death toll in Iraq is reported by reputable NON-US NON-mainstream eye witnesses as in the region of 100,000 SINCE the US invasion.

    "3. Afghanistan was not levelled."
    Afghanistan WAS levelled. Again eye witness accounts of reporters/commentators who have actually BEEN/ARE there report the wholesale carpet bombing (by US warplanes) of whole villages & towns – the wholesale murder of men, women & children often waving white flags of surrender! Were these "ordinary people" or "non-people"?

    "4. Oil probably played a part in the decision making process in the pointless and misguided Iraq war but there were other considerations. In Afghanistan the main reason for the attack was Bin Liner and 9/11. It seemed to me at the time that, for a variety of reasons, the USA would have left the vile Taliban alone if they had chucked Bin Liner and his gang out."
    "Oil PROBABLY played a part…"?? Get REAL! Read the HISTORY! Do you REALLY believe the US would have left the vile (yes they are vile) Taliban alone? The documented facts leading up to the invasion say different.

    "5. It is both childish and absurd to suggest that Blair – whatever else one might think of him – is on the take. He’s messianic, that’s what I find scary about him, but he’s not a crook."
    It is both childish and absurd to suggest that Blair is in any way messianic. He IS a crook – READ "The Rise of Political Lying" – <a href="http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#PoliticalLying">http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#PoliticalLying</a&gt; . Blair is the person who deliberately lied to this country to take us into TWO illegal, immoral wars! He has abused his position by defrauding the UK electorate. His lies have disenfranchised the electorate as they were unable to make a choice based on facts and truth. He IS a crook! He has STOLEN power and holds office under false pretences.

    "6. If the murderers were acting for, and in support of Bin Liner’s insane project to re-create some sort of utopian Caliphate, stretching from Spain to Iran and incorporating all Arab states, mirroring an imagined glorious past, then nothing anyone does will have much effect on who they kill. They began mass killing long before either of these two wars and any excuse will do."
    Bin Liner (we at least like THAT term) – was the CREATION of the US Government (CIA) – That is undisputed FACT! The REASON they created BL was to service their oil driven invasion of the Middle East. Only when BL refused to cooperate did they invade Afghanistan. There is now incontrovertible evidence to prove that the Afghanistan invasion was planned and agreed WELL in advance of 11 Sep 2001. [You also need to become aware of the FACTS surrounding that infamous day if you are to be qualified to make utterances on matters related – read <a href="http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#WaronFreedom">http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#WaronFreedom</a&gt;
    and <a href="http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#Pretext4War]">http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#Pretext4War]</a&gt;
    We agree that the "mass killing [began] long before either of these two wars" BUT it was the USA (supported by the UK and Australia) who BEGAN the mass killing! You may not be aware that the USA has engaged over 200 (yes that was right TWO HUNDRED) invasions/aggressions/wars etc SINCE WW2.

    7." If someone killed 100,000 people living here it would most certainly not lead me to support, approve or condone the random murder of a load of ordinary people and the maiming and crippling of many more going about their business. I would hunt them down, give them the best defence team they wanted at our expense, hold a fair trial and act on the jury’s verdict with a life-long jail sentence if they were found guilty."

    SO: let’s do just that!
    Hunt them down! Bush, Blair should be hunted down and arrested because they HAVE murdered tens of thousands of innocent, civilian Iraqis and Afghanistanis.

    By all means give them the best defence team they want[ed] at our expense and hold a fair trial in a NEUTRAL COURT.

    AND a life-long sentence!

    Comment by jk5 — 9 Jul 2005 on 4:01 am | Link

11. Mr. Pooter;

    Your unwillingness to think the worst of your fellow man does you credit but it also limits your imagination. Your trouble is you don’t seem to think on a grand enough scale. You’re very quick to dismiss as ridiculous anything which your imagination can’t cope with – and that seems to include most things not in the official version.

    I didn’t say Bush went to war to release more drugs onto the market (although if that was the case I wouldn’t find it in the least surprising); I said consider a possible alternative to the official line you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed into believing. If all other credible reasons for something have been discredited and only the incredible remains, then what would you believe? That the incredible is less likely than the impossible? We have been told too many outright lies by our leaders over recent years to be able to believe anything they say, and their continued attempts to hide the truth about Iraq (and Afghanistan) raise more questions than they silence. It should be obvious to all but the blindest that most things the US does are for reasons other than those they give in public; why then should any other interpretation be so risible?

    If nothing else, if you discount everything you have heard or read so far on the "War on Terra", there are enough unanswered questions to raise a few eyebrows. Our governments are not backward in lying when it suits them; that makes it all the more significant when questions remain unanswered even after being pressured. Why will not the US allow a bodycount in Iraq? Why wasn’t the Oxford coroner allowed to reopen the David Kelly case, even though there was sufficient doubt to raise questions? Why were the vast majority of questions from 9/11 victims families unasked, never mind unanswered by the 9/11 Commission, this after a public undertaking to specifically address these questions? Why were so many known lies used as justification for the invasion? Etc etc. The truth is that governments right now don’t care whether or not we know they are lying through their teeth; they know that we as voters are only important once every 4 or 5 years to give legitimacy to their renewed mandate, whether legally or illegally come by. And the fault lies partly with us, the electorate, for allowing successive governments too much power; that’s why President Bliar is into his third term. If there was any real justice in the world he’d have been in a cell for war crimes committed during his first term. But that’s not for here…

    In truth I’m sure Afghanistan solved a few problems in the short term for Bush. Not least among these was maintaining the flow of heroin into the USA (there is too much good evidence of US government and CIA involvement in drug trafficking around the world and over the years to be surprised by anything they stoop to). The US government also has close ties to at least two Mexican banks which were under investigation for laundering drug money and then bought up by American companies. And if you believe that no US President would be so perfidious as to encourage his own population to take even more drugs while maintaining such a publicly puritannical stance about everything else under the sun, remember this is the same bloke who to this day continues to lie about Al Qaeda links to Iraq as being part of the justification for invasion. And as jk5 says there is sufficient evidence that military action in Afghanistan was planned well in advance of 9/11. There is even fairly good evidence that the US warned senior Taleban figures about what was coming. This gives the lie to any claim that the capture of Bin Laden & the destruction of Al Qaeda post-9/11 was the sole reason – which then surely makes any further Bin Laden/Al Qaeda connections suspect. The fact that Bush has sought so often to link the illegal invasion of Iraq to 9/11 and by extension to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden is surely an obvious enough sign of his unwillingness to tell the real truth on the subject, and if that wasn’t the case the heavy-handed incompetence of US tactics in Iraq is surely enough in itself to have even the most trusting eyebrows raising. I’ve even heard Americans questioning US military tactics in Iraq – and Americans are usually loathe to criticise their own within earshot of anyone else at the best of times.

    And what of the invasion of Afghanistan itself? I’m sure we all remember the way the whole world rallied behind the Stars and Stripes; what most people won’t remember is the lack of opposition to such a knee-jerk response. Who, after all, was going to oppose an outraged US? But what right did the US actually have to invade Afghanistan? In actual fact, about as much as they did to invade Iraq. There was no proof that Al Qaeda had carried out 9/11 and even less was there proof the people responsible were in Afghanistan. Afghanistan may have been guilty of the crimes the US accused it of, but that in itself we now know is meaningless; the Taleban were no more to blame for 9/11 than the people of Afghanistan. And what of the 9/11 hijackers themselves? Most of them were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia; by George Bush’s logic that should have made them the first two targets for invasion.

    With those things in mind, I find your willingness to believe the US is desperate to get Iraq settled ASAP stunningly naive. What leads you to believe that? Just because George W. says so in public? Should that in itself not be enough to make you believe the complete opposite?!

    Sure, Iraq was about oil – but not just about the revenue it generates. A large part of the value of Iraqi oil is the power it gives the US by witholding it from others. At the same time Iraq makes a very handy military base (more so than Saudi Arabia – witness recent downsizing of US military presence there) for projecting military force into the whole of the central Asian area around the Stans where there are massive oil & natural gas deposits. US companies are opening the first pipelines out of the region right now. And as hard as it may be for you to believe that Peak Oil is upon us, of one thing you may be sure; the US government is certainly not discounting it – you can see that just by looking at how US military forces are positioned around the globe right now. What do you think the "War on Terra" is really all about?

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 10 Jul 2005 on 12:41 pm | Link

12. JK5 is an apologist for mass murderers and you, PapaL, are pulling my leg. I can’t believe anyone could swallow all that conspiracy cobblers undigested and keep a straight face.

    It won’t be before some loonies start claiming Tony Blair planted the London bombs to force through ID cards or antagonise the Greens and victimise the Muslims and the Liberals in one hit. Planted them himself, probably. That’s why there’s confusion over the times, see they switched the clocks around so he could whip down from G8 and back before anyone noticed. It’s so obvious when you work it out, PapaL. Or perhaps the CIA did it on an overnight trip down from Gleneagles on specific orders from Bush to keep the UK in the ‘war on terror’? The rioting anarchists were really MI5 plants, see, a cunning diversion for the CIA heroin dealers who slipped out with Tony.. They were in the UK see, that proves it!

    I await the pathetic ‘analysis’ of photographs we saw after the Madrid murders ‘proving’ the bombs were on the tracks and not in the trains at all. Or the farcical ‘proofs’ the CIA/ Jews/ capitalist/ Uncle Tom Cobbley personally flew the planes into the twin towers. By the way, did you know Tom actually has a pilots licence? For real, I read it on the web!

    Pity Bin Liner came out and admitted he was behind it, such a spoil sport.

    Mixing a few facts in with a load of codswallop is fun – when you’re 16 and bored with onanism. Trouble is, wankers like that end up believing they can find a meaning for their sad lives by ending someone elses.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 10 Jul 2005 on 3:07 pm | Link

13. Mock away, that won’t make you any more right. I don’t see anything that jk5 has written that’s at all apologist, especially not for the mass murderers sitting at the top of our and the US governments. And your reply is typically ignorant; laugh at what you can’t understand. Well that’s ok, there’s a place in the grand scheme of things for people like you too. You see, governments count on the ignorant and unimaginative; that’s how they know they can get away with the things they do.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 10 Jul 2005 on 3:53 pm | Link

14. "JK5 deeply deplores the attacks on London on Thursday 7 July 2005. We do, however, place the blame for those attacks wholly upon the Bush/Bliar war criminal alliance. We ask thinking people to consider: "What would be your reaction if a foreign power had invaded your country and murdered 100,000 of you compatriots?""

    Thus speaks an apologist. He deplores the attack but quite understands how reasonable it is to kill random innocents on the way to work. He even supplies the murderers with an excuse and justification even tho he hasn’t a clue who they are nor why they did it. He just wants to jump on the bandwaggon and use the murderous barbarity to push some childish perspective of his own, and you PapaL, say Amen.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 10 Jul 2005 on 6:04 pm | Link

15. I do agree up to a point with jk5 on the point you raised – that if people are pissed off enough to want to take action of this kind, there must be a very strong reason behind it. However I don’t believe that makes me an apologist. I’ve never said I condone such attacks and I don’t believe jk5 is either; there is a world of difference between understanding someone has a grievance and actively condoning the action they take to express that grievance. If that makes me an apologist then so be it; I’m an apologist. Whilst I don’t believe I’m an apologist for Palestinian suicide bombers I can see that they have genuine grievances and no other way to get their voices heard. It is a tactic with many benefits and few drawbacks, and is often successful in achieving its aims. That’s why they do it. But is it really so much more abhorrent a tactic than unloading hundreds of tons of high exlosives from high altitude to explode (or not) all over peasant villages? Or to leave radioactive residue lying around a country for children to play with later? Or to supply lethal chemicals to lunatics and then turn your back when he uses them against his own? We set a pretty poor example of moral standards internationally right now; we can hardly get on our high horse when others resort to streetfighting.

    But a sheep I am not; I don’t believe all I’m told (very little, actually) and I seek independent verification for everything of importance. 5 years of pretty intense research has led me to believe there is no other explanation for the actions of the USA from 2000 onwards (in actual fact it goes back further than that but I won’t get into that) but the looming phenomena of Peak Oil; as much as you dislike the theory there is no getting away from it. When even George Bush starts to get briefings on Peak Oil (there are any amount of articles from reputable sources about oil at http://www.fromthewilderness.com, as good a place to start as any) and banks start to talk about it, then you can bet the situation is a hell of a lot worse than we are currently led to believe. Add to that US failure so far to corner South American oil supplies. Factor in increasing Chinese and Indian demand (and their difficulty in getting enough, partly because of threats of US sanctions); factor in a recently signed "non-agression pact" between Russia and China (historic enough in itself) and you have an interesting scenario for the next few years as far as oil supply and demand are concerned. Watch oil prices closely. Unless, of course, you think that’s all a load of old pony!

    Still, the fact remains that Tony Bliar was explicitly warned that the potential for events such as Thursdays would increase if we got involved with Iraq. And yet that risk still did not stop him joining the US in invading. He was so determined we were going to war, he agreed it all with Bush the summer before in Texas. At least, so it is believed – and why not? Before he went he was apparently of the mind that sanctions were working; afterwards he was absolutely convinced we HAD to go to war. Even if that meant lying to the country, and the rest of the world, about our reasons for doing so. Even though he must have known that his own reputation would be left in tatters should the plan fail. Even the risk of his own capital city being bombed didn’t stop him.

    Why? We all know the governments reasoning for invading Iraq has long been shaky at best, almost totally discredited at worst. Bliar couldn’t even sell used cars at the moment, he’s seen as so dishonest. That’s a big big risk to take for a man apparently so obsessed with his place in the history books. Just makes me wonder what exactly went on that summer in Texas; what did George Brush ask or tell TB that he had to risk his reputation and his capital city for? And please don’t make me laugh and say the intelligence was wrong, because we surely all know by now that there was nothing wrong with the intelligence, only the use made of it.

    So if my reasoning is so suspect, perhaps you’d care to suggest a more believable scenario (one that couldn’t be argued against in 5 minutes) – and preferably one that didn’t come direct from the mouth of the government…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 10 Jul 2005 on 8:04 pm | Link

16. Yes – too many questions concerning these London bombings! Too many to be shoved "under the carpet" again!

    We (JK5) have spent some considerable time researching many aspects of the WTC bombings in 2001; 4 of the 5 of us, some hours each week for nearly 2 years, gathering, discussing, playing devil’s (Bush’s) advocate, exploring alternative hypotheses etc.

    We come to the inescapable conclusion that very senior figures (most likely Bush himself) in the US administration
    a) were fully warned prior to the event
    b) absolutely knew what would happen, where and, most importantly, WHEN in great detail.
    c) facilitated the very obvious stand down of NORAD and other defence entities.
    d) benefited in terms of neo-con agenda.
    e) profited financially and personally from the event and subsequent military actions, and
    f) blatantly blocked all and any serious investigation of the events before, during and after.

    Is it not possible that a similar scenario may exist in respect of the London Bombings?

    Comment by jk5 — 11 Jul 2005 on 2:53 am | Link

17. Mocking the facts is the scurillous tactic of those who seek to influence the ignorant. It works because most ARE ignorant and too bone idle to bother to read the research done by reputable scholars. Mockers are eager to encourage the weak and ignorant to remain content to blindly believe anything governments tell them.

    Using the word "conspiracy" works too. It is one of those non-words which has been deliberatelyt vilified to hide scandal, lies and fraud. Well, let us say that the remarkable efforts of people like Edwar G Griffin (http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#JekyllIsland) PROVE at least one great conspiracy. The work of Briton Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (http://www.jk5.net/books.asp#WarOnFreedom) places, in a thoroughly professional and dispassionate way the enormous body of evidence surrounding the 2001 WTC attacks.

    Today, in a world where the information IS available, conspiracy denialists simply show themselves up to be either supporters of a conspiracy agenda or simply ignorant.

    Comment by jk5 — 11 Jul 2005 on 3:21 am | Link

18. Having given some thought to the accusation of being "apologists for mass murder" we reiterate that we have made it very clear that our children (3 of us with children and 2 of us with grandchildren) LIVE IN LONDON, viz:

    "We are FURIOUS with Blair (and his sycophantic, ignorant supporters) for bringing our children and grandchildren into such danger."

    The accusation that we might somehow "apologise" for the obscene crime against our families is what is "risible" here! We IN NO WAY condone or apologise for anyone who had ANY PART in this horrible crime.

    The MOST criminal acts leading to this awful crime were those committed by Blair and Bush – NOT the by the thugs who were goaded into the physical part of the crime! We want to see them ALL brought to justice and to be punished appropriately for their heinous crimes.

    Comment by jk5 — 11 Jul 2005 on 8:27 am | Link

19. JK5 is absolutely right in what he says, the link between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family cannot be denied, and the relationship between Bush and his boy Blair creates a constant and serious threat to the UK.

    Comment by Peter Fordham — 11 Jul 2005 on 8:36 am | Link

20. Modern day conspiracy theorists have all the answers, speak in CAPITALS and KNOW they add up to a BIG TOP SECRET PLOT which ONLY THEY, (and their fellow travellers who make 2+2=12 stuff up), are alert to. They, alone, have gleaned through hours of reading self-selected facts from sites mirroring their own weird prejudices and half-baked beliefs, THE TRUTH!

    If you argue against the new religionists you’re either ignorant or part of the conspiracy. This is the mind-set of all fanatical believers the world over. There is no room for debate if you’re not one of the thinking /chosen /annointed /believing /all seeing /chosen/ people. A new master race of self-appointed prophets promising a superior belief system for a super-species which, naturally, ostracises, villifies and despises all those they disagree with.

    It’s a dangerous road, self-righteous certainty mixed with belief and drizzled with the odd fact. Look where it takes you if you are a filthy rich, bored, spoilt egotist searching for a purpose – you too can find any excuse to blow people up. Better still, get other sad and lost suckers to do it for you in the name of God – after suitably re-interpreting the faith to agree with you, naturally.

    The ‘truth’, in so far as anyone can ever know it, is usually far more mundane but having dropped off God at the last stop, there remains, in some Western minds, a search for ‘Meaning’ and purpose in everything. Some people still can’t handle life without some massive guiding force steering their lives, be it fighting for ‘Good’ or fighting against ‘Evil’. If only real life were like an American cowboy movie perhaps even GW could avoid mockery. Perhaps not.

    Finally, JK5 could try harder with a few facts – wannabe Saladin, Bin Liner started blowing people up in the early 90’s, pre Blair/GW. He wants to force the whole Muslim faith into a single Caliphate ruled by the minority, extreme Wahabbi branch of the religion (with him as its temporal father, no doubt). He’s not representative of the mainstreams of Muslim faith at all: indeed, I find it hard to believe he is a Muslim. He certainly won’t be happy until the Shias bend to his distorted Sunni will. The totally misguided and reprehensible Iraq war merely adds to his recruits and provides further excuse, it’s not the cause.

    Bin Liner and his insane dream is the root cause of those bombs, make no mistake about that. He might have made something positive out of it all if he had perhaps taken a leaf out of Ghandi’s book. No one forced him to kill as many people as possible the world over, it’s his choice and says all one needs to know about what he stands for and what he thinks of life.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 11 Jul 2005 on 12:36 pm | Link

21. Exactly as you say, none of us knows the whole truth about most of these things. Therefore the most any of us can offer is opinion and conjecture. You know no better than I what is going on; your opinion is not necessarily closer to the mark than mine, and your ideas are not necessarily any clearer or better thought out. But yours is the only opinion or viewpoint that matters, according to you?!

    You set out as if you know him personally what it is Bin Liner wants or hopes for. How? Pure conjecture. Which may be as wide of the mark as anything any of us so-called "conspiracy theorists" have said. You spend half a page taking the piss out of other peoples views and their supposed lack of facts, only to do the same thing yourself, more than once, on the same page.

    You picked jk5 up earlier for assuming it was Al Qaeda responsible for last Thursday. As far as I know no-one apart from some little-known affiliate group has said anything – so how come you profess to know that Bin Liner is behind the bombs? I for one believe you couldn’t be more wrong – I don’t think Bin Liner had any personal involvement with the London bombings any more than he had any personal involvement with 9/11. Oh, I forgot! He "claimed responsibility" for 9/11… Sure he did – after initially denying it. So why should anyone believe he had anything to do with it, apart from the fact that the US government and Lapdog Bliar has tried (unsucessfully in some of our cases) to shove him down our throats? The worlds most wanted man, a man with more blood on his hands than anyone knows; and yet when he says "I did it" we all rush to believe him??!! How do we know the man said anything at all? How do we know that every one of his "communiques" didn’t come directly from CIA HQ in Langley? Because we were told by our government. Well THERE’S a horse to back in the Honesty Stakes…

    Take the whole Andrew Gilligan/David Kelly/Hutton thing. When the government came out and said Gilligan was talking bollocks, how many of us accepted that and straight away started to give Andrew Gilligan a hard time; typical reporter, making it up, what a tosser, etc etc? Some of us however smelled a rat in the shape of Alistair Campbell – and steadfastly refused to listen to Bliars lies. And sure enough – they were lies. Gilligan was later almost totally vindicated (although of course not by "Lord" Hutton). And yet through that whole time we had the government pleading with the "conspiracy theorists" to let things lie, there was nothing to find, please stop this as it’s upsetting us and people might even start to believe you soon, etc etc etc. The government KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq – that is no conspiracy theory. But they lied to get us in there. That also is no conspiracy theory. If it’s the Peak Oil connection that flumoxes you, I suggest you do a little more reading yourself (but not enough so that you start to form too may ideas of your own…) You’ll be surprised how many people that matter ARE now talking about Peak Oil when only a year ago it was pretty much a totally taboo subject. And I can guarantee that you’ll be hearing a damn sight more about it soon – because it’s going to happen all too soon for ANYONE’S liking.

    PS. Caps just for emphasis…!!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 11 Jul 2005 on 5:42 pm | Link

22. Of course I meant that Bin Liner’s Al Qaeda was most probably behind the bombs, as Blair said in Parliament today, not that he flew over here and planted them himself.

    Talking of Langley and what Bin has actually said, you might benefit and even enjoy ‘Through our enemies eyes’, and ‘ Imperial Hubris’ by Anonymous (Michael Scheuer).

    Regarding your off piste Peak Oil remarks, Deffeyes book on Hubbert, which reinvigorated the end of worlders, is so low brow it’s almost pubic. The End of Oil is more accessible to the casual reader – Paul Roberts is a journo – and quite balanced. Professor Peter Odell’s ‘Why Carbon Fuels will dominate the 21st century global energy economy’ takes a far more positive stance. Peak Oilers never read him because he totally refutes all they say, I mean, he’s only been the world’s leading oil academic since 1970 so why bother? But I humbly suggest it’s best to read him before deciding he’s wrong. I think he’s too optimistic, but what do I know?

    Gilligan cocked up. His loose tongue at 6.07 am jerked me awake – ‘Fuck me,’ I told the wife, ‘The Beeb can prove the PM’s faked-up the war.’ What bollocks that turned out to be. His conflicting palm top entries are worrying. His contact with the HofC Cttee was extraordinary. He was on the right tack but he was wrong about Campbell faking it. Hutton was right – pity he didn’t stretch his brief. Scarlett and Co were too keen to please their master. The absurd discovery of a new source with the 45 minute claim – immediatley dropped as unreliable once the rubbish had been used – was down to them. Campbell made the most of it – that was his job. MI6, on the other hand, went too far and have done us all terrible damage. At least, that’s the way I read it.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 11 Jul 2005 on 7:23 pm | Link

23. JK5 – Some more unbearable facts for you:-
    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050711/325/fn4gp.html

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 11 Jul 2005 on 8:18 pm | Link

24. Estimates, not facts….!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 11 Jul 2005 on 8:23 pm | Link

25. And even the omnipotent Tony Bliar was guessing. Although having said that, he did stress that our involvement in Iraq had nothing to do with the bombings. And he’d know. So maybe you’re right after all…!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 11 Jul 2005 on 8:24 pm | Link

26. Pooter:
    "JK5 – Some more unbearable facts for you:-
    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050711/325/fn4gp.html&quot;

    Not unbearable but yes terrible news.

    "Some 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the U.S.-led invasion,…"

    Are you saying 39,000 dead Iraqis is OK with you?

    Comment by jk5 — 12 Jul 2005 on 9:03 am | Link

27. JK5 – "Are you saying 39,000 dead Iraqis is OK with you?"

    Don’t be stupid. Read what I have said, don’t try and distort my position like you do everything else to fit into some conspiracy warp-world of your own imagining.

    "Is it not possible that a similar scenario may exist in respect of the London Bombings?" JK5

    I only half joked that some nutter would soon invent a London conspiracy and you proceed to oblige. I’ll put a second post below for you to work on.

    PapaL

    You boast of your extensive research, I would have thought, with your interests you would be familiar with the books I mentioned. I hope you read them rather than look for precis on the net. I would like to hear you analyse their merits and failings. I sincerely hope you take time to read them. True, there are many more and I don’t want to exchange bibliographies in some sort of big dick competition but I think, on the 2 subjects, that this selection is well worth a look. The Al Qaeda stuff / Anonymous’s 2 books /are BOTH of interest in understanding the USA’s views and good analysis on the issues. Best read in order of writing. I have no time at all for Peak Oilers who have closed their minds to the other side – so if you haven’t read Odell, and the more journo style Roberts, panic on!

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 12 Jul 2005 on 10:20 am | Link

28. JK5 and PapaL \x96 I have just found this amazing web site and now see, upon further reflection, how wrong I was. I have cut and pasted the facts for you:-

    \x93THE ABRAHAM CONSPIRACY: LONDON BOMBS PLANTED BY CIA

    1. A large CIA team were in Gleneagles with Bush at the time of the blasts.
    2. The bombers waited until London had won the Olympic games instead of blowing it up to coincide with Bush arriving in Scotland. (Suspicious or what?)
    3. Bush needed a way to conceal his total lack of interest in G8\x92s attempt at decreasing the colossal waste and pollution of his countrymen \x96 5% of the world\x92s population consumes 25% of its resources.
    4. Bush wanted to help Blair tie the public back into the \x91Wuronterra\x92.
    5. It will help Blair get his ID card legislation through.
    6. Blair is to be sucked into Afghanistan to help the Yanks slip out before that too becomes a total mess. Something was needed to stiffen Blair\x92s and the British public\x92s resolve.
    7. Timing it with G8 forced the French to stand there and take part in the anti-Bin Liner parade so they get targeted too.
    8. The timing confusion of the blasts allowed the CIA to slip back to Gleneagles unnoticed.
    9. The Anarchist demonstrators at Gleneagles were a diversion to entertain and distract the gullible the media.
    10. If you zoom into a close-up of the stars and stripes flag they set fire to by the fence at Gleneagles you can clearly see it say \x91Property of the US Government\x92, on it.
    11. The web site proving point 9. has vanished!
    12. The government has refused to agree to the Tory demand for a public enquiry because it fears exposure.
    13. The explosives were military, proving they must be American in origin.
    14. Osama Bin Liner was trained by the CIA and – GET THIS – he still works for them. It\x92s that time old false flag defection trick being played again. The master plan is for him to create the excuse for America to kill all Muslims and take over the world\x92s oil.
    15. If you go back enough millions of years you\x92ll find Bin Liner is actually genetically related to Bush, Blair and get this: Abraham and archinoos.
    16. Blair uses Saudi petrol in his car. The Bin Laden family is Saudi. THERFORE Blair has financial links with Bin Liner!\x94

    I now realise the gestalt creature JK5 was right, it\x92s all a Judao/Christian/Muslim plot to MAKE us BELIEVE!

    Personally, I found the archinoos reference hard to swallow but take it from me, there are a load of brain-free urchins out there.

    <a href="http://www.greektravel.com/stories/urchsoup.html">http://www.greektravel.com/stories/urchsoup.html</a&gt;

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 12 Jul 2005 on 10:30 am | Link

29. To Mr Pooter

    I really think you should get out more. You are the silliest writer on this web page, making fun of really worrying things that PapaLazzzaru and jk5 have said. I think what happened on the tube was dreadful but so was 911. The stuff Ive red about 911 show for certain it was not a 757 that hit the pentagon and the third building looks certain that it fell down with a controled explosion. I think you wopuld believe in faries if Mr Blair told you to.

    Comment by England — 12 Jul 2005 on 11:37 am | Link

30. Now that we’ve heard a range of thoughts, some serious and some frankly mental – can I reiterate my suggestion that it’s time the Bush/Blair coalition started thinking outside the box, i.e. giving more credence to Middle Eastern history, thinking and philosophies? A little more MEASURED discussion and a little less KNEEJERK reaction, perhaps(sorry about the caps)? I notice today that GBrown would like to freeze "terrorist assets" through the IMF – which will probably get some of our misspent capital back from past years of sending aid to help our erstwhile friends buy those guns which are now trained on us – but what of the long-term approach towards terrorism? I’m not in any way condoning a softhearted approach towards violent behaviour, especially that which results in the slaughter of innocents – but I AM (excuse caps again) suggesting that our leaders are focussing too tightly on the rather vague theme of "terrorists" and thus evading the pressing need to address those issues which led to terrorism becoming so rife in the world. Oil, for example! I agree with a lot of what has been said about this finite resource and who owns how much of it – this is fundamental to the background of the current political tensions. My plea to the powers is: PLEASE (yes, i know) do what you were elected to do – the management aspect of government is easy to carry out; but political LEADERSHIP (last use of caps!), which should be based on seasoned, controlled thinking, seems sadly lacking in any sort of intelligence or even integrity these days…

    Comment by auntyq — 12 Jul 2005 on 9:52 pm | Link

31. Why are you "excusing the CAPS". Its the only way to emphasised anything on this forum so you do not need to cow-tow to someone who mocks the use of caps as an excuse to deride relevant articles.

    Comment by jk5 — 13 Jul 2005 on 1:26 am | Link

32. Comments so far seem to range from total belief in whatever the government says to total scepticism.

    Like JK5, I have read (Ahmed’s book "War on Freedom") which was a real eye-opener.

    The astonishing history from declassified American documents showing how they have provoked conflict with other countries and at the same time deliberately made sure many americans would die is apauling. This includes Pearl Harbour and the Cuba crisis. Seems the yanks had no problem killing their own so they could secure "interests" all over the world.

    I was once so childish in my belief that governments tell the truth and actually care for the people. Not any more – I would not believe a thing the Bush or Blair ever said. I think it is all to possible the attack on london was done to help some agenda.

    Comment by Emily Zilko — 13 Jul 2005 on 2:20 am | Link

33. Mocking the infantillists beliefs, auntyq, does not mean that one swallows the rest of the world whole. It probably does mean one ought to get out more.

    It might help if we stopped talking about ‘Muslims’ and ‘Islamic fundamentalism’. We didn’t call the Irish terrorists on either side ‘Christians’ nor even ‘Catholics’; it was IRA, PIRA, RIRA,CIRA, UDA, UDF or whatever.

    Islam is split in two and is as diverse as Christianity in its range of interpretations and divisions. The Muwahhidun sect wants to unite the whole religion and some of them resort to terrorism. ‘Salafi jihadists’, ‘Al Qaeda terrorists’ or ‘Bin Laden inspired fanatics’ might better describe these fringe people. We should not drive the majority of Muslims into their arms by misassociation and crude simplicity.

    Apologists and conspiracy theorists who claim that Blair/Bush are really behind the bombs and 9/11 play into the extremists hands by undermining our own system and giving credence to the extremists claims.

    Believing Blair is in the pay of some group etc etc is absurd and insulting. Believing Blair was totally misguided and wrong to join the Americans in the Iraq war is something else.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 13 Jul 2005 on 11:14 am | Link

34. "Believing Blair was totally misguided and wrong to join the Americans in the Iraq war is something else."

    If, by that, you mean ‘not absurd and not insulting’ and you can accept that a line of debate which challenges your view is not necessarily infantile, absurd or insulting it may be possible that we can engage in debate.

    We do take issue with your emotive outburst:
    "Apologists and conspiracy theorists who claim that Blair/Bush are really behind the bombs and 9/11 play into the extremists hands by undermining our own system and giving credence to the extremists claims."

    on many different counts; becuase the evidence we have collected DOES point to, at the very least, a strong suspicion of complicity (on the part of Bush in particular while the evidence on Blair is less overwhelming) in several terrorist outrages.

    We do not accept that debating this evidence constitutes an apology for terrorism in any way or gives credence to extremists. On the contrary, we put it to you (and all other conspiracy denialists) that attempts to stifle debate (whether through mocking or, worse, the sort of legislation the US has already enacted – ie. so-called Patriot Act) is what actually plays into the hands of the terrorists – whomever they may ultimately prove to be.

    Comment by jk5 — 13 Jul 2005 on 12:00 pm | Link

35. "Apologists and conspiracy theorists who claim that Blair/Bush are really behind the bombs and 9/11 play into the extremists hands by undermining our own system and giving credence to the extremists claims".

    If you go to the BBC News "Your Say" page and troll through a lot of the postings after 7/7, you’ll suddenly start to see a lot more people saying, not just a grudging "well, ok then" to ID cards but now "Give us ID cards NOW!" I don’t know about you but to me that looks like a direct reaction to Thursdays bombings. (And if the government were to suddenly start to listen to the electorate we’d have ID cards in our skyrockets by next Wednesday). That’s not the doing of apologists and conspiracy theorists, perverting peoples minds from the true message as preached by The Gov. Because guess what? The bad guys won! They got through. Our government failed to protect us, in fact actively contributed in increasing the risk. And what’s their first reaction? Legislation. "Cracking down". More knee-jerk anti-terrorism "measures". All designed, regardless of why, to give the government more power; to "protect us". Do I have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that these attacks have played right into the hands of any government who should seek to curtail civil liberties? Because to me it looks as though that’s exactly what they seek to do.

    But I do completely fail to see how I, as a fully signed-up Conspiracy Theorist, in any way play into the hands of extremists; we know Tony Bliar is as compulsive a liar as has ever graced the corridors of power; how am I playing into the hands of terrorists by shouting loudly that our "Prime" Minister is a liar? We have no reason to think anything but the very worst of this evil man; why should we not voice our displeasure at his double-dealing?!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 13 Jul 2005 on 8:00 pm | Link

36. ‘kin ell, this ones gone on a bit. Mr Pooter, claims of extensive research, and name dropping of experts is always practised by both sides, and never changes anyones mind because people only tend to read the things they want to, and which support their own conclusions. It’s a bit like god being on both sides in the world wars.

    Hutton and Butler never changed anyones mind, just polarised the opinion.

    Obviously there is no link between the London bombings – which have been claimed to be "very similar" to the Madrid bombings – and Iraq. There obviously is no link between the Madrid bombings and Iraq either.

    It is just one of those funny (ha ha) coincidences which crop up – I mean really, what are the odds, two out of the main three involved countries being bombed in the aftermath. Must be about 50%? right? Obviously it is an attack on democracy, Sweden, France (the list goes on) had better watch out, their sure to be next right?

    Of course no-one is angry about Iraq, it is fine to slaughter a countries civilians to ensure a good supply of their natural resources – sorry, it is fine to slaughter a countries civilians to prevent a humanitarian disaster, presumably as fine as it was for the policy of the time to create the monster behind the humanitarian disaster. And it is terribly naive to think that American foreign policy would have anything to do with natural resources, just go ask the South Americans. And that is just bananas.

    Comment by Lodjer — 13 Jul 2005 on 11:10 pm | Link

37. Mr Pooter (and others with similar views)

    We do not AGREE with you point of view, but we totally RESPECT your right to that point of view and admire the way in which you have put your arguments. That is why we would like to invite you to join our forum

    http://p2.forumforfree.com/jk5.html

    where debate is, at present, too dominated by Libertarian/Anarchist views for a successful and meaningful forum.

    Comment by jk5 — 14 Jul 2005 on 6:53 am | Link

38. LODJER – A lot to read, best to read it properly or not at all.

    PapaL said: – "….I seek independent verification for everything of importance. 5 years of pretty intense research has led me to believe there is no other explanation for…."

    I merely directed him to a few other possible explanations.

    How can one know if one agrees with something until after one’s read it, Lodjer?

    As to misdirected the sarcasm, I made it clear my impression is that Bin Liner’s campaign for Prophethood and leadership of the utopian Caliphate began many years earlier, 1992/3? Well before the Iraq war.

    Like any manipulator he will jump on each and every bandwagon to bolster support, gain recruits and encourage his perceived enemy to alienate the people, in what he perceives as his constituency, and drive them into his camp. Morons assaulting Muslims on the streets or attacking mosques serve as his recruiting sergeants. Those who claim the pointless war on Iraq is a war against, or is intended to target Muslims, play the same game. It’s a staggering cock-up that attacking Sadman Hussein, mass killer of Shiites, is now seen as a war against Muslims. How did Bush/Blair/Bin do that?

    Oil lay behind the Afghan war ? One crucial problem: Russia controlled/s the cork in the energy bottle via its northern henchmen. Their interest is probably to block a pipeline from the \x91stans which would lose them strategic control to the Yank/Pak/Saudi alliance. The latter were probably hoping the Taliban might sort this out for them by capturing the north. But taking Bin Liner’s shilling after 9/11 was intolerable and they had to go. Maybe I imagined all that?

    Also on natural resources: it’s a bit ironic to have to point out to you that Bin Liner is also oil obsessed. He wants to secure Saudi oil for Muslims – by Muslims, he means the crazed loony fringe branch he represents which will crush all non- Salafi-jihadists [Shia included] – in order, no doubt, to fund the extension of his Caliphate: ie. over run all Arab nations and re-conquer Spain.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 14 Jul 2005 on 12:42 pm | Link

39. Contrary to Mr Blair’s statement above – we are indeed losing what we hold dear in this country as a result of his response to the supposed terrorist threat. Our basic liberties and freedoms are under serious pressure from Blair. On the one hand, referring to protestors outside Downing St he says "thank God they can" – on the other his government is doing it’s best to stamp out freedom of protest.

    Londoners (myself included) have been risking bombs and terrorist for decades. Why do we suddenly need to lose our civil liberties now? If can’t speak, can’t protest and can’t associate freely will my limbs magically stay on when the bomb goes off. I doubt it. I’d rather be a free cripple than safely captive in Blair’s Globalist Fascist state.

    Blair and Bush thought nothing of financing terrorism when young Russian soldiers were dying in Afghanistan. The US has not paused for reflection before installing murdering right wing dictators in South American countries, causing the deaths of thousands. Thatcher was wholehearted in her support of the murdering fascist Pinochet. These things are a matter of public record – is it so ‘loony’ therefore to wonder whether they would stoop to bombing their own public?

    Comment by Frank Kelly — 6 Jul 2006 on 12:01 pm | Link

40. Contrary to Mr Blair’s statement above – we are indeed losing what we hold dear in this country as a result of his response to the supposed terrorist threat. Our basic liberties and freedoms are under serious pressure from Blair. On the one hand, referring to protestors outside Downing St he says "thank God they can" – on the other his government is doing it’s best to stamp out freedom of protest.

    Londoners (myself included) have been risking bombs and terrorist for decades. Why do we suddenly need to lose our civil liberties now? If can’t speak, can’t protest and can’t associate freely will my limbs magically stay on when the bomb goes off. I doubt it. I’d rather be a free cripple than safely captive in Blair’s Globalist Fascist state.

    Blair and Bush thought nothing of financing terrorism when young Russian soldiers were dying in Afghanistan. The US has not paused for reflection before installing murdering right wing dictators in South American countries, causing the deaths of thousands. Thatcher was wholehearted in her support of the murdering fascist Pinochet. These things are a matter of public record – is it so ‘loony’ therefore to wonder whether they would stoop to bombing their own public?

    Comment by Frank Kelly — 6 Jul 2006 on 12:05 pm | Link

41. Hear hear, Frank Kelly.

    The greatest threat to the British way of life isn’t terrorism, it’s our politicians’ reaction to it.

    Terrorists can’t destroy our way of life, they can only blow shit up. Politicians, however…

    Comment by Owen Blacker — 7 Jul 2006 on 9:42 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.