False Flags

As we learn more about the attacks in London, a disturbing, albeit familiar, pattern is emerging.

For nearly an hour after the blasts, the authorities were saying that they were caused by "power surges". As survivors began to stagger out of the tunnels and report what had actually happened, the news quickly filtered out that there had instead been some sort of explosives. Minutes after that the wires and all the Mainstream Media begain issuing missives that an "al-Qaeda style attack" had been perpetrated in the city of London. For the remainder of that day and all of the next, endless talking heads spouted their expertise about the "hallmarks of an Islamic fundamentalist attack", and how this had "al-Qaeda written all over it." Somber journalists began referring to them as the "7/7 attacks", and intoning "We are all Britons today..."

But let me back up to the events preceding these bombings.

The day before, a British paper had run a story based on leaked documents that their government was drawing up plans to withdraw most of its forces in Iraq by the end of the year, regardless of the strenuous objections of Tony Blair. The G8 summit was about to begin, with an agenda heavy on Aid to Africa and overcoming world poverty and famine, and very, very light on the Global War On Terrorism. President Bush's flagging support for his execution of both that war and the war in Iraq was being bandied about aross most of the op-ed columns in the US. To make matters worse, Newsweek had just published a story fingering the president's chief advisor, Karl Rove, as the source of the politically motivated payback leak exposing the identity of an undercover CIA operative who had the misfortune of being married to a diplomat that had publically embarrassed the administration during the run up to the Iraq wr.

If ever there was a time when the US and UK governments needed a diversion/reminder of the "dangers of terrorism", this was it.

A "false flag" operation is one carried out by one party (or nation) in such a way that it casts blame on a different party (or nation). These sorts of ploys have a rich and frequent history. Hitler had the Reichstag set ablaze then blamed the Polish communists, thereby whipping the German populace into a war fervor and granting him emperor-like powers. Israel's Mossad bombed their own embassy in London in 1994. Here in the US Operation Northwoods was a plan put in place by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the mid 60's to blame Cuban saboteurs if John Glenn's Mercury 6 capsule blew up. Another interesting facet of Northwoods was a plan to take a plane that had departed from Miami, secretly land it at Homestead Airforce Base to offload the people, then let it continue on over Guantanimo Bay, where it would be detonated. The official prepared story was that it had been destroyed by the hostile Cuban Air Force. Here is the actual declassified document outlining Northwoods, and it makes for fascinating reading, especially for those of you who find it hard to believe that our own government was capable of pulling off 9/11 to further their own aims. Pay close attention PDF pages 10-14 where the actual ideas are outlined...

But let's get back to London.

2 days after the bombings, the BBC ran a story featuring an interview with a passenger aboard the destroyed bus who was lucky enough to get off a few stops before the explosion. He claimed in no uncertain terms to have seen the bomber. He said that the man was in an agitated state and "he was standing next to me with a bag at his feet and he kept dipping into this bag and fiddling about with something. I was getting quite annoyed with this because it was a crowded bus. Everybody is standing face-to-face and this guy kept dipping into this bag..." While this is certainly interesting, what struck me about the interview is what was not said: there was no physical description of the bag-dipping man. No "he was an Arabic gentleman" or "he looked like he was from the Middle East" or anything. So that most likely means that either A) the witness failed to mention the appearance of this man while being interviewed (highly unlikely if he was Arabic), B) he did mention the description but it was something like "white guy in a suit" and doesn't fit the current theory so it wasn't printed, or C) his appearance whas so wholly unremarkable (white guy in a suit) that the witness didn't mention it at all. Overall it doesn't smack of a rabid jihadist... This could certainly be examined further by reviewing the security tape from the camera that was on the bus, but alas, "The camera on this bus was not functioning on this particular day." Okay, I thought, surely there must be other witnesses, or security cameras at the subway stations...

Well, it turns out there were. And what they revealed has caused as slight, um...., shift in the theories. Today brings word that the investigators are pursuing the idea that "Al-Qaeda hired a group of white mercenary terrorists to execute the bombings..." I don't think that I need to point out that if witnesses and tape have corroborated enough facts to necessitate this theory, then things are most certainly not as they seem. As I write this, Reuters is reporting that those inside the investigation have identified the explosives used as military in origin, which they say is "very worrying".

So that brings us up to date, and I have not made up my mind yet. I'm sure that there will be more revelations one way or another in the days ahead, but one thing is for sure: much like 9/11, the official story that was immediately put out into the news is not borne out by the susequent discoveries.

And as always, don't forget to apply the "Law & Order" question: who benefits from this crime?

More to come...

Know Your Enemy

As I've watched the images from London pour across the Television Landscape today, I am filled with an odd sense of reassurrance.

Our sworn terrorist enemies are indeed destined to lose in this ideological war, and lose badly. Because for all their technical bomb-making prowess, and dastardly planning skills, they quite obviously have absolutely ZERO grasp of overall strategy and tactics, and that shall be their ultimate undoing.

For example, today's attack on the London subway comes only one day after the announcement that Britian was drawing up plans to withdraw from Iraq. This critical removal of support would have shattered any remaining vestige of a "coalition of the willing" in Iraq and would have undoubtedly led to the rather hasty follow-suit of the Americans. But by detonating 4 largely ineffective explosives (when compared to, say, the Twin Towers or the Madrid bombings) in the heart of Britain, they have instead given proponents of the war a powerful weapon to argue for continuance. What a tremendous strategic blunder!

Or look at the G8 summit that started just today! Leaders of several other major countries were all lining up for their chance to give President Bush a truckload of grief about the "overreaching, disastrously managed, and largely fruitless Global War On Terror". But then comes this poorly timed strike on the subways... what can they say now? Nothing, that's what! Take that terrorists, you blew it again!

Or how about the President's sliding domestic poll numbers concerning all things terroristic? By their ineptly chosen attack, the terrorists have provided the American Media a cornucopia of fresh images with which to assail the viewing public, constant reminders of how dangerous the times are and how much "those who hate our freedoms" really just want anybody that they can kill quite, quite dead. These are just the kind of reminders the President could use right about now, so, nice going, Osama!

For that matter, what about the catastrophically conceived 9/11 affair? The Project for the New American Century, which claims as its board members many members of the current administration such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz among others, stated quite publicly in September of 2000 that the proper course of Americas future was to radically beef up the military and then use it to stifle and/or crush any other countries on the globe that did not fit into the concept of a "New American Century" Then, they included the caveat that getting the American people at large behind this idea was quite unlikely, barring "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor..." You terroristic morons, not only did you play right into their hands, but their manifesto had been available in book form and on the internet for a year before you handed it to them! Plus, what did you think was going to happen? Didn't it occur to you that the US would swat Afgahnistan first, and then anybody else it felt like until it was sure it had gotten you all??

See what I mean? These terrorists have absolutely no grasp of strategy when it comes to the big picture. It's like, everything they pull off actually tremendously aids the agendas of their sworn enemies, and brings nothing but reasons for the continuation of pain and suffering upon them! Hahaha, stupid terrorists!

So, since we are obviously facing complete tactical idiots, it is only a matter of time before they make enough bumbling blunders to cause their own destruction or something, and then everybody can come home and go shopping!


-end sarcasm.

The Conscience of Corporations

During a recent rant discussion, I was lamenting the current situation of the members of our government being largely beholden to corporations. My main point was that corporations are not people. They don't feel sorry for individuals, or mercy, or a desire to help, because they can have no conscience. A conscience is only of the human domain. Well, most humans anyway. My secondary point was that corporations exist for a single reason: to make more money. That is it. The advertising can preach about "improving the quiality of your life" or "improving the environment for the good of us all" or some such, but that is merely the means to the end. Even if a company's service or product does improve your quality of life, the improvement is not the reason for the distribution of that service or product. They put it out there so that you will buy it, and people tend to buy (usually, but certainly not always) what actually works for them.

I frequently tend to pontificate (as you might have noticed), but it is a rare occasion when my random spoutings are so quickly backed up by cold, hard facts.

It gives me great joy to present to you Exhibit A:

Excerpts from an interview posted today on Wired.com, titled "Credit Chief Slams Free Reports":

"

Equifax's chief executive says he opposes federal legislation that lets consumers obtain a free copy of their credit report to help them monitor financial accounts for fraudulent activity.

CEO Thomas Chapman called the legislation unconstitutional and un-American because it cuts into profits that Equifax and two rival credit reporting agencies -- Experian and TransUnion -- earn from selling credit reports and monitoring services. Equifax maintains credit data on 220 million Americans. The company earned $1.27 billion in revenue last year.

"Our company felt, and still does ... that it's unconstitutional to cause a public company who has a fiduciary responsibility to return profit to shareholders to give away the product," Chapman said to reporters following a speech at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on Monday. "Most of my shareholder group did not think that giving away our product was the American way."

Chapman was referring to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which since last December has required credit agencies to provide consumers with a free copy of their credit report every 12 months to check for inaccuracies and fraudulent activity. Chapman said that viewing a credit report once a year wouldn't protect consumers against fraud.

"That's like turning on the smoke alarm once a year," he said."

He went on to say that he will always oppose legislation that "shuts down our economy"...

I think that the evidence pretty much stands on its own and doesn't require much more analysis from me. Although I am rather fond of the part where he says that it is "unconstitutional to cause a public company who has a fiduciary responsibility to return profit to shareholders to give away the product", especially when the product in question is your own information that they collected about you. Never mind the fact that this information, if in error, can cause you no end of problems in your daily life.

This is what I'm talking about. When corporations can effectively use the Constitution as a shield for the sole purpose of making more money, then the battle is already lost.