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...