July 07, 2005

They Tried to Warn Us

The Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe:

We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

George Galloway:

We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings. We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

Posted by Dr. Frank at July 7, 2005 04:11 PM | TrackBack

Chief of staff for Hamid Karzai, Tuesday (on the U.S. bombing that reportedly killed 17 innocent folks):

The president is extremely saddened and disturbed. There is no way ... the killing of civilians can be justified.

George W. Bush, Thursday:

The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.

Posted by: Wes at July 7, 2005 06:03 PM

First, experts now consider the claim of responsibility posted on the web, which you've excerpted, to be a hoax.

Second, I'm not sure what the point of this juxtaposition is. That Galloway is a terrorist, or somehow equivalent to Al-Qaeda? If that's what you mean, can you explain how saying, "I told you the Iraq war was a bad idea" is the same as murdering people? If that's not what you mean, can you explain what it is you're trying to say? Incidentally, I notice that you chose not to quote this portion of Galloway's statement:

"We extend our condolences to those who have lost their lives today and our heartfelt sympathy to all those who have been injured by the bombs in London.

No one can condone acts of violence aimed at working people going about their daily lives. They have not been a party to, nor are they responsible for, the decisions of their government. They are entirely innocent and we condemn those who have killed or injured them."

Posted by: Nick at July 7, 2005 07:07 PM

I hadn't heard anything about that statement being a hoax till you mentioned it, Nick.

I juxtaposed the quotes because I sensed a similar "told you so" spirit in each, and because Galloway's idea of the best response to such terrorism dovetails seamlessly with the terrorists' purported demands and aims.

I don't think GG is actually a terrorist, of course, but I don't think his advice is very good. Condemnation plus appeasement seems a bad, or at least an incoherent, combination.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 7, 2005 07:27 PM

Oh, and speaking of warnings, this was an interesting variation on the official story that Scotland Yard (etc.) had no advance intelligence:


Posted by: Wes at July 7, 2005 07:27 PM

On further inspection, the above article has now been updated (version 3) to say nothing about early warnings. Version 2 contained an explicit retraction.



Weird, though.

Posted by: Wes at July 7, 2005 07:35 PM

forgive the strong language but I feel strongly about this:

You cannot be a pussy and back down from these cowardly terrorists, doing so encourages them to carry out even more of these cowardly acts because it will result in them getting their way. The only solution is to hit back and hit harder. Harder than they or anybody else ever suspected. I'm talking flying fortresses raining mushroom clouds upon the hills of Afghanistan, a strategic location in Iraq and a strategic location in Saudi Arabia. These are where Al Qaida come from and they need to know that we're not the pussy's we have been since Vietnam and that we will NOT bow to their demands, we will NOT give an eye-for-an-eye and we will NOT tolerate this any longer. We WILL flex our muscle, we WILL destroy them and we WILL take a life-for-an-eye, not an eye-for-an-eye.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 7, 2005 07:54 PM

Frank, thanks for the elaboration. The key question is whether not invading Iraq would have constituted "appeasement" -- it seems to me that the invasion has done exactly what those of us who opposed it said it would: bog the US down in a quagmire that (a) infuriates millions of people, therefore making more terrorists, and (b) makes the US look like a paper tiger. That's in addition to all the dead people and the money spend. If you object to Galloway's talk/action combo, what about Bush's "Bring it on!" combined with the disasters in Iraq?

Zahpod: you want to nuke 3 countries, all of which have governments with whom we're currently aligned, in order to prove that it's wrong to kill innocent people indiscriminately? As the saying goes, choose your enemies wisely, for they're the one's you'll imitate most.

Posted by: Nick at July 7, 2005 08:30 PM

I seem to recall that Galloway said very explicitly and unambiguously that he regards himself and al Qaeda as natural allies, fighting shoulder to shoulder against the usual left-wing scapegoats and phantasms ("globalism", capitalism, the US, etc. ad nauseam).

"No one can condone acts of violence aimed at working people going about their daily lives."

Just parenthetically, how does Galloway feel about such acts of violence when the victims happen to live in Israel?

And let's be honest: This massacre is a windfall for Galloway and his kind. He's a very happy man right now. Ken Livingstone at least has the minimal, residual decency not to start crowing and strutting in triumph until the bodies are cold (what, you think he *won't* be puffing out his chest Galloway-style in the very near future? Care to put a little money on that?). Not so Galloway; he's made of what critters like him consider "sterner stuff".

Has anybody on the left tried to blame this on the Jews yet? An accusation of direct responsibility, I mean, not just the usual "root cause" noise about all evil in the world being indirectly caused or mystically inspired by Israel. It's been claimed that the British police had a warning of some kind very shortly before the attacks, and passed it along to the Israeli embassy. That ought to be enough for the Tourette's Left to start spinning conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Professor Froward at July 7, 2005 08:34 PM

Zaphod, most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt, so don't forget to bomb there, too. In fact, let's not discriminate -- if you use that funny alphabet, let's make sure you've only got the raw materials to write it on cuneiform tablets. Hell, cuneiform *pebbles*. Sarcasm mode off.

Professor, no, I don't think anyone's blamed it on the Jews -- or the Israeli government, let's not confuse the two -- as of yet. I posted the links above with the article about the supposed prior warning giving to Netanyahu's entourage. I'm not sure it's anything other than poor journalism, though.

Posted by: Wes at July 7, 2005 09:09 PM

I empathize with Zaphod's desire to "do something". Unfortunately, the ability to do dramatic and news-grabbing things in this war resides with the terrorists. The thing to do is to keep doing what we are doing, which is cut off their money and catch them and kill them when we can. Sometimes they will pull off something like this. It is a war and it is going to be a long one and we are going to suffer some defeats.

Galloway can reasonably be juxtaposed with Al Qaeda's pronouncement, since he believes that a policy of preemptive surrender, literally one of appeasement, meaning give them what they ask for so they don't kill us, will be effective. It won't. These people are not "reasonable", politically-motivated terrorists who can be bought off with concessions. They are apocalyptic terrorists whose goals are literallyl limitless and literally insane.

The only option is to kill them all. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not.

Posted by: Lexington Green at July 7, 2005 10:09 PM

Check this out:


Posted by: Lexington Green at July 7, 2005 10:26 PM

Great article Lex. I challenge anybody to read that and then challenge my point above. As long as you can read and comprehend what they say, how they think and what they want to accomplish then you'll understand that they're animals, animals infected with a murderous, uncaring and destructive form of mental rabies for which there is no vaccination for and thus they must be put down!

Posted by: Zaphod at July 7, 2005 10:46 PM

the irony of the men in the article is distracting. "pass the brown sauce?" come on!

even though there is now the "homegrown" threat, i don't think simply bombing everything/every one who may potentially attck us (citizens of the western) is any type of solution. i know you can't reason with extremists, but that doesn't mean you have to overreact. at least i'm not in any position to decide what should be done now, but if the u.s. response to 9-11 can has thaught us anything, any decision should be thoughful and thorough.

Posted by: kendra at July 7, 2005 11:15 PM

Crap. ...And I don't mean this to sound like I don't care for the dead and injured in these awful attacks..., but every time Bush's numbers drop below 50%, as well they should, Al Qaida gives him a little present like this. With the attacks taking place in England, it allows him to praise himself as our wartime president while not having to accept responsibility for allowing an attack to occur on American soil.

These types of bombings are going to become more frequent over the next few years(?)/decades(?). As long as that's happening, voters are going to cede to the right, because they think they'll be better protected, despite the ass-raping that they continue to give us (people who make less than $200,000 a year) on every other issue.

I hate to make this all about red vs. blue, when good, innocent people are dying, but that's just where my thoughts went right away. I know I'm not the only one. Check some conservative boards and you'll see plenty of, "I think we can use this".

What's the answer? Unfortunately, I think it's intelligence over bombing. These cells need to be located and taken out one by one. Bombing would be much easier, but it's not very effective with the way they hide. Don't get me wrong. I have no sympathy for these extremists. I want them all exterminated. We just need to do our best to not kill the innocents as well. That's how we lose.

I'm gonna go take a nap now.

Posted by: Tim at July 8, 2005 12:52 AM

Hey Professor Forward, instead of speculating on what Livingstone will say, why not take a look at his actual statement?

"This was a cowardly attack, which has resulted in injury and loss of life. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been injured, or lost loved ones. I want to thank the emergency services for the way they have responded.

"Following the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11th in America we conducted a series of exercises in London in order to be prepared for just such an attack. One of the exercises undertaken by the government, my office and the emergency and security services was based on the possibility of multiple explosions on the transport system during the Friday rush hour. The plan that came out of that exercise is being executed today, with remarkable efficiency and courage, and I praise those staff who are involved.

"I'd like to thank Londoners for the calm way in which they have responded to this cowardly attack and echo the advice of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - do everything possible to assist the police and take the advice of the police about getting home today.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a terrorist attack. We did hope in the first few minutes after hearing about the events on the Underground that it might simply be a maintenance tragedy. That was not the case. I have been able to stay in touch through the very excellent communications that were established for the eventuality that I might be out of the city at the time of a terrorist attack and they have worked with remarkable effectiveness. I will be in continual contact until I am back in London.

"I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

"That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

"Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

"I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

"In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

"They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."

I think it's a great statement. Link to it at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor_statement_070705.jsp

Posted by: Nick at July 8, 2005 01:00 AM

Tim: I read literally over a dozen conservative blogs today including all the big names and not a single one said "I think we can use this". The only sites where "using this" is being discussed are left-wing: Democratic Underground, Atrios, Kos, etc, etc.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 8, 2005 02:07 AM

As you may have guessed, I suspect there is probably more to these attacks than meets the eye.

Someone bombed positions throughout London in locations and manners meant to produce long term psychological hysteria in the public and not meant to produce maximum casualties.

It was done deliberately during the G8 Summit and, perhaps not coincidentally, less than 24 after London had been announced as the host of the 2012 Olympic Games.

The somebody responsible for the bombings is obviously clever enough to evade security in the single most secure city of one of the most secure countries in the world, during a time of when security was already heightened to its fullest extent due to the G8 Summit.

Whomever this clever somebody is, it appears they want the world to believe that a hitherto utterly unheard of group by the name of "The Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe" is responsible for it all.

Apparently this "secret" organization's modus operandi is to conveniently disclose a) their existance, b) their motives, and c) public admission of full guilt and complicity before the world right when everyone is looking for them.

Forgive me for suspecting foul play, but I think, like 9-11, this was a professional job rendered by a government with a distinct interest in:

A) Causing mass fear of terrorist attacks by civilians in Europe and Britain, which in turn creates a sort of moral and political empathy for those for face such risks in Tel Aviv;

B) Discrediting proponents of peaceful relations with Muslims and Muslim countries, by making calls for dialogue and against war seem weak and trite when people are dying in the streets; and

C) Perpetuating the war on terror, and making it (and security in general) the main issue of the G-8 Summit and forcefully reminding the world that "terror" is still here and it won't go away quickly.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 8, 2005 03:02 AM

"These cells need to be located and taken out one by one. Bombing would be much easier, but it's not very effective with the way they hide. Don't get me wrong. I have no sympathy for these extremists. I want them all exterminated. We just need to do our best to not kill the innocents as well. That's how we lose." This is absolutely right. We need good intelligence and focused attacks. This will take a long time, but it is the only way.

Aryamehr, you are smoking crack. In a society like the United States or Britain any kind of conspiracy like you are suggesting would be leaked. No one, no matter how vicious, would try to get away with it. It wouldn't work. But, anyway, you don't want to look at facts, you want to turn the blame for this sick murder on Bush and Blair. Too bad. The blame lies on the Islamic terrorists who did it, and the many people who support them and cheer them on.

Posted by: Lexington Green at July 8, 2005 04:05 AM

Actually, Lex, I think Arya wants to blame it on AIPAC.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 8, 2005 06:24 AM

Lexington, I didn't realize that you had inside knowledge about who pulled off the attack.

Nor did I realize that "a society like the United States or Britain" was immune from planned attacks by any group other than maniacal Jihadis and "the many people who cheer them on."

Your insider information notwithstanding, I believe it would be sensible of the British government, as I'm sure it is already doing, to investigate any Israeli-sanctioned participation in the sudden blossoming of terrorist attacks in the world. Perhaps the Mossad's Metsada division, which conducts highly sensitive assassination, sabotage, paramilitary, and psychological warfare projects, would be a good place to start.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 8, 2005 06:24 AM

I'm sure this is either pure coincidence or evidence of unadultered anti-Semitism, Frank, but for what it's worth, what do you think of this amazingly coincidental series of news stories concerning suspicious activities of Israeli officials in London with respect to the bombing?

Ex-Israeli PM Netanyahu scheduled for talks at site of London blast
AFP via Yahoo! News -

Israeli ambassador to London says embassy in state of emergency, no one allowed to enter or leave
WIS-TV Columbia -

Israeli Official Denies Pre-Attack Warning
ABC News -

Israeli Embassy strongly denies report it received early warning of attacks
Haaretz Daily -

Britain passed on warning to Israeli Embassy just before blast
Houston Chronicle -

Netanyahu changed plans due to warnirng ahead of London blasts -
Al Jazeera -

Why doesn't all this weird stuff ever happen at the Chinese or Mexican or Greek or Bangladeshi Embassies?

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 8, 2005 06:49 AM

just thought I'd throw this out there for all the conspiracy theorists out there. Do you know who was staying in a hotel 2 blocks away from one of the bomb blasts? Rudolph Guilliani!!!

Posted by: Zaphod at July 8, 2005 03:41 PM

Well, he was the one coordinating the 9/11 attacks, so makes sense. Somebody's gotta run the show, you can't trust Livingstone with a job like that.

Posted by: Wes at July 8, 2005 04:42 PM

I was talking to my brother this morning and he brought up a good point...Well, I suppose a useless, but good point. Is anyone else amused by the redundancy of the name of this group?

Posted by: Amy 80 at July 8, 2005 04:46 PM

Aryamehr, let me explain your headlines to you:

Yahoo News: Truly an utterly meaningless coincidence that only a conspiracy theorist could love. Anyway, why would the speech be scheduled in the first place if Isreal had advanced warning of the attacks or were the perpetrators as you imply?

WIS-TV: This is a sensible move for the Isreali embassy to take considering their unique position in the world.

ABC News and Hareetz daily: These stories were written in response to the fact people like you, as well as many angry young Muslims around the world, like to make up conspiracy theories involving Isreal. This makes it necessary for Isreal to deny them.

Houston Chronicle: I don't know what this headline refers to but it is obviously taken out of context. If the "warning" refered to advanced knowledge of the bombings this story would be have been picked up by more news outlets than just the Houston Chronicle.

Al-Jazeera: They are the Fox News of the Muslim world and are catering to their aforementioned conspiracy theory loving audience.

An ounce of critical thinking goes a long way. The Isreali Palestinean conflict will never be resolved if it is approached from such an irrational basis.

Posted by: Buckeye Bill at July 8, 2005 05:04 PM

With all due respect, immediately dismissing the possibility of Israeli (or other party) involvement in activities from which they benefit most, and for which their intelligence apparatus is best trained, and for which there much past precedent, is not critical thinking.

To the contrary, you have argued that individuals who engage in critical thinking vis a vis Israel are a) conspiracy theorists, b) irrational the c) the moral, political, and intellectual equivilant of "angry young Muslims around the world" (whatever that means).

This rhetorical posture, if anything, is critical of critical thinking.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 8, 2005 06:06 PM

"With all due respect, immediately dismissing the possibility of Israeli (or other party) involvement in activities from which they benefit most, and for which their intelligence apparatus is best trained, and for which there much past precedent, is not critical thinking."

With all due respect, you're majorly fucked in the head. That's WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.

Hitch capsulizes the insane left sentiment succinctly: "the root cause of terrorism is the resistance to it."

Posted by: JB at July 8, 2005 09:04 PM

"The president is extremely saddened and disturbed. There is no way ... the killing of civilians can be justified."

Hey Wes, are you trying to draw some kind of moral equivalence here? Does intent matter? We knowingly targeted innocent civilians or was this a mistake?

You do know that moral equivalence is one of the symptoms of sociopathy, right?

Posted by: JB at July 8, 2005 09:32 PM

Zaph, agree and disagree...no matter how cruel and awful they are I refuse to refer to anyone who is still apart of the human family as an animal in such a disrespectful way. that's part of the problem to my understanding.

personally i think everyone is my neighbor and i like to treat them that way,even when it isn't returned. but that's my sappy idealism.

more happily,my roomate is one of those conspiricy theorists,she told me about RG yesterday. i've always been convinced he's secretedly a mob boss,but that may be because i watch too many movies.

she says "is that what they want,if so we should say take him!" she wonders if its either that or he's involved in some way. i don't know,but he got connections i'm telling you.

Posted by: just me at July 8, 2005 09:36 PM

Al Qaeda is a fiction. Like the fictions in "Foucault's Pendulum", it inspires others to acts of evil. The more you believe, the worse it will get.

Today the European members of G8 agreed to devote 0.7% of their national income to poverty relief. The U.S. has committed 0.17%.

Given the publicity efforts of Live8, if it weren't for the conveniently timed explosions, these numbers would be getting a lot more scrutiny.

Posted by: Wes at July 8, 2005 10:01 PM

re: arya

though it is and has been commonplace, it still amazes me to see the lengths anti-semites will go to place the blame for all of the world's ills on israel and jews.

on second thought, you're probably right -- the only democracy in the middle east is probably way more likely to have pulled this off than any kind of islamic group, despite the fact that the past 30+ terrorist acts having taken place in the world have been carried out by fighters in the name of islam.

btw -- "terrorist" is a misnomer. these are soldiers fighting for a cause. they should be treated as such.

Posted by: lefty at July 8, 2005 10:30 PM

Can I just jump in with a quick point here. I'm Jewish, and I'm an anti-zionist. That means that I don't think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I'm not going to go into all the details on this thread as to why I believe that, but criticizing Israel or Likud, or even saying that the Jewish state as such is not a good thing, for Jews or anyone else, is not intrinsically anti-semitic. At the same time, it's perfectly possible to be a zionist anti-semite -- check out Falwell, Robertson, et al who support the Jewish state in order to bring about the Apocalpyse, after which I and every other Jew will be condemned to eternal punishment under the rule of Satan.

Obviously, there are also lots of anti-zionists anti-semites, too, but you shouldn't just jump from one to the other without arguing it.

JB: on Hitchens. That statement (that the left's insane stance is that "the root cause of terrorism is the resistance to it") is an intellectual dead-end: anyone could say exactly the same thing back to the US ("the insane position of Bush is that the root cause of his hegemonic, imperial warmongering is the resistance to it!"). It's just a fancy way for Hitchens to say, "They started it!" which gets us absolutely nowhere -- look how long everyone in Northern Ireland went on accusing the other side of having started everything, justifying their own violence as a "response to provocation." FWIW, in the case of Israel the cause of the Occupation is not the effort to quell terrorism but the effort to establish Greater Israel -- if all terrorism immediately ceased forever it's not as if the Gush Emunim would leave their settlements and stop hating Palestinians. They're fanatics. And the specific point about the Iraq War, to get back to Galloway's statement that started this whole thing, is that it never had anything to do with "resisting" terrorism in the first place -- or if it was intended to do so, it was based on idiotic judgments about who was actually behind 9-11 and unbelievably stupid predictions of the effects of the invasion.

Posted by: Nick at July 9, 2005 12:21 AM

If criticism of the extremist policies of the Israeli government is "anti-Semitism," then criticism of the Black Panther Movement means you sympathize with the KKK.

If I'm a Nazi, you're in the KKK. Pretty stupid logic, I agree, but that is how stupid your argument is.

Israel apologists know this, but play dumb, because they like to smear any critics of the Israeli government as Jew-hating racists, thereby discrediting the critic or, at the very least, putting the accuser on the defensive by shifting the discussion from whether or not Israel has done something wrong, to whether or not the accuser is a racist Jew-hater.

By the way, this is a seperate topic altogether, but since when is Israel the Middle East's "only" democracy?

A) Israel is a racist apartheid state based on religion and is no more democratic than South Africa under apartheid.

B) Last I checked, Lebanon, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia were all secular democracies, not founded on religion or racism (unlike Israel) and were all located in the Middle East.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 9, 2005 12:38 AM

Alright, basically Aryamehr is a little Hitler fanboy and anything he says should be dismissed before valuable time is wasted entertaining his illogical notions.

Zaphod, I think you should let the hate run free. Don't let people like Just Me make you feel guilty for calling people animals. Just Me seems like a nice girl and all, but someday she will wake up and realize the guy robbing her silverwear doesn't share the notion that "all people are my neighbors." And the guy stuffing a dirty bomb under her bus seat is, biologically speaking, a human being - but he is an evil son of a bitch who wants to kill her. What makes him better than my Irish Setter? Nothing. But my Irish Setter is way cuter and friendlier. Believedat.

Posted by: Melody CHest at July 9, 2005 05:22 PM

finally, arya lets us see the man behind the curtain. israel is an "apartheid" "racist" state. excellent. now maybe you can explain to me the arab members of the knesset function in such a "racist" state, and how you sleep at night ignoring the stated fact(s) that the p.a., hamas and fateh all have originally and repeatedly listed as their primary goals the complete eradication of jews from the land that is now israel. racist, indeed.

yours is the tired, hateful argument of arab apologists all over. rather than face the facts the you've left the palis hanging for 50+ years, rather than absorb them into other arab countries -- say, as israel has done with refugess from countless european (and lets not forget, arab -- given the almost complete expulsion of jews from iraq, iran, egypt and syria during the 20th century)) countries, rather than face the hard facts of tyranny and corruption among ruling factions in egypt, iran, iraq, etc., you choose, in a thinly-veiled attempt at "discourse" suddenly removed by your last post, to blame israel and the j-e-w-s.

nice try.

Posted by: lefty at July 9, 2005 08:20 PM

He's not an anti-semite, he just hates Jews.

Posted by: Melody Chest at July 10, 2005 12:41 AM


You're obviously a completely biased pro-Israel ideologue who can't spell.

And you're paranoid.

Heil Hitler.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 10, 2005 10:11 AM

You can be anti-Israel without being an anti-Semite. Arya is being admirably rational. And if the CIA/Mossad didn't have their finger on the pulse of these latest events, they weren't doing their job.

In these times, conspiracy theories make a lot more sense than coincidence ones. There are very few modern coincidences.

Posted by: Wes at July 10, 2005 02:05 PM

I just checked out what became of this thread, and wow: we go from Galloway's opportunism and demagoguery to positing a Jewish plot to blow up London in thirty easy steps!

Without getting into the tedious, mostly pointless argument about what constitutes antisemitism within the genre of Israel-hating, all I can say is: you guys sound totally crazy to me.

Arya is trying to choose his words carefully, but (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong here, AU) I believe his view is that the 7/7 bombing was planned and executed by the Israeli government, as a psy-op to make Islamist terrorists look bad. Again, unless I'm mistaken, I believe that's his explanation of 9/11 as well. He thinks the kidnappings/beheadings of people like Margaret Hassan, Daniel Pearl, and Nick Berg are best explained as Israeli or coalition psy-ops, too. There appear to be few events in the contemporary world for which he does not blame sinister Israeli skullduggery.

Not "necessarily" anti-Semitism, maybe, but still, by my lights, quite nuts.

Like I said, I'm sure Arya will correct me if I'm mischaracterizing his views on any point, but I don't think I am. It goes a little further than simply speculating that intelligence agencies have their finger on the pulse, Wes.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 10, 2005 03:59 PM

forgive me all if its besides the point now,but i just want to clarify...

when i say i believe "everyone is my neighbor"
i mean that's how i do and should feel about THEM. i am quite aware many people in this world that don't feel that way,don't return the perhaps all too kindly sentiment,and perhaps would use it against me...
...but such is the life of the Latter Day Jedi.

Posted by: just me at July 10, 2005 06:03 PM

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the all-Israeli, all the time, hypothesis, if you're asking. Nor, of course, does anyone have to do anything to make Islamic terrorists look bad. I mean, those beards? Soooo '70s. But I'm enough of an adherent of the psy-op narrative that I'm sure you'd give me an honorary tinfoil hat anyway.

I just can't buy official narratives anymore. Articles like this (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm) give me the heebie-jeebies.

Posted by: Wes at July 10, 2005 06:21 PM


Has it occured to you that you are using Israeli government intelligence and "Jewish" interchangably? (Your first paragraph)

In your second paragraph, you categorize mere allegations against the Israeli government as "Israel-hating," again using terminology relevant to discussions of racism to imply some kind of "hate" or dislike against Jewish people.

Either you don't see the difference or are choosing to conveniently co-mingle the terminology so as to imply some kind of dislike of Judaism on my part, thereby discrediting my criticism of the Israeli government as mere Jew-hating.

Beyond that, all you're doing is providing a generic response to any allegation of wrongdoing by governments / countries you like as "conspiracy theory."

In short, you shift the discussion from "Has X been involved in this specific activity" to the definition of racism and whether or not alleging covert operations by intelligence agencies equals "conspiracy theory" equals false.

All the while you never discuss the evidence or look at the relevant facts.

If the allegation that a foreign intelligence agency would engage in acts of assassination or sabotage is so obviously "nuts," then why don't you address and discredit the evidence instead of engaging in general criticism of anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists?

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 10, 2005 06:35 PM

For the record, and this should go without saying, I don't view "all Israel, all the time" theorism as credible either, and view it as a dangerous factual and theoretical trap in which to fall.

I don't think there are very many serious political scholars and writers who disagree with that.

That said, it is and foolish and naive to immediately dismiss any allegation of sabatage or covert activity as "nuts," which is exactly what Frank would have everyone do.

What I advocate is taking each event case by case and analyzing the evidence, motives, and capabilities of the respective parties objectively.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 10, 2005 06:54 PM

And, to one's surprise, the sober analysis of bits of evidence found on the internet examined on a case by case basis always seems to point to Israeli intelligence as the culprit!

Sorry I don't feel inclined to sort through the "evidence" of how Israel supposedly planned and executed the crashing of passenger jets into the World Trade Center. (You haven't denied that that's your preferred explanation, so I'll take it that it is.) I doubt we would agree in the end, and it would waste a lot of time. I would come away from it thinking you were crazy, or at least addled by a twisted sort of wishful thinking, and you would come away from it thinking I was naive or worse (maybe in on it myself), so we would be back where we started.

But as for that particular plot, leaving morality and scruples out of it, it seems quite a risky thing to do, to try to kill thousands of citizens of your principal patron and virtual sole defender amongst the family of nations. If the plot were discovered (and I mean discovered by people other than Justin Raimondo and Alex Jones, discovered in the sense of it being clear that it actually happened, that Israel attacked the US and murdered 3,000 Americans as a publicity stunt to further its geopolitical ambitions) it would pretty much kill the whole state of Israel project right there. I guess the US government was involved, too, then, and was able to assure the Israelis that they would suffer no repercussions even if the cover-up were to fail. And they (the Israelis and the Americans) cleverly managed to leave a trail of false clues about Islamist involvement, such as the ethnic-religious background of the hijackers and bin Laden's own admissions, and the previous history of Islamist bombings of Western targets and interests. They're very clever people, good at faking stuff like that. And I guess the British government was involved in 7/7, too, then, since that would be pretty risky as well, unless the Israelis had secured the go-ahead from Tony Blair... Anything to drive the Live 8 headlines off the front page. You can see their logic: otherwise, the G8 leaders would have come in for some rather strong criticism from Sting over their chintzy aid package. Fortunately, the Israelis came to the rescue with their swell bomb idea. What a great plan. But then, if the Israelis pulled off 9/11, they could pull off anything... there's no limit to what these people are capable of.

I think if you want to believe badly enough, that sort of scenario will seem more immediately plausible than the one about how bin Ladenite Islamist ideologues desired and undertook to attack targets in the West. Maybe it happened that way. I kind of doubt it, though.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 10, 2005 08:05 PM

My pot dealer thinks there was a conspiracy on 9/11 and 7/7 as well. Amrya U. is not alone in his speculative quest for the truth. I used a similar line of debate as Frank with my pot dealer, and soon pointed out that if his assertions that "Bush, Blair, Sharon and Bin Laden are all on the same team working together" were true, thousands of people would have to be in on it and any of those thousands of people could become the world's most respected and richest snitch by blowing the whistle on the cabal.
He came around and eventually realized there was no logic behind his paranoid fits. Will Amarya U. do the same some day?

I don't really see how you can seperate Jew-hating from your belief that Isreal is behind these bombings. If you honestly believe the biggest gripe about Israel is something other than "there are a bunch of Jews on the holy land" than you are, indeed, nuts. The reason for the opposition is that there is some beef between Arabs and Jews based on religion and culture, not simply politics. This beef outdates politics as we know it.

"Oh, I don't hate Jews. I just think the country run by them is a disguise for a cabal of mass-murdering traitors. And they're wicked cheap."

Posted by: Melody Chest at July 10, 2005 09:40 PM

''''Sorry I don't feel inclined to sort through the "evidence"''''''

The above statement seems to underscore the problem, doesn't it.

You enthusiastically accept as credible and promote mediocre (at best; usually ridiculous or fabricated) circumstantial evidence against countries and parties you dislike, but you refuse to even consider the same, if not better evidence, against countries and parties you like.

The Israeli government could not have possibly "planned and executed the crashing of passenger jets into the World Trade Center," but 9 Arabs with no money, no training, no precedent for this scope of attack, could?

Similarly, you stated that "it seems quite a risky thing to do," to try to kill thousands of citizens of the world's greatest superpower.

I agree. And the same holds true for Arab groups opposed to Israeli policies.

If the plot were discovered, it would pretty kill any notion of sympathy Europe or America or the rest of the civilized world had for their cause, let alone that it would amount to a declaration of war against the most powerful nation of the world, and all of its allies.

If you think Israelis are not so stupid as to try that, what makes you think Arabs would?

That's right, because Arabs are idiots.

You can believe what you want, but it seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to looking at evidence and applying it fairly.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 11, 2005 04:06 AM

The terrorist sympathisers and conspiracy theorists on this page are all agents of the enemy, parties to evil.

'That's just it isn't it?'


Galloway is a terrorist. He is to blame for the bombings. Bet the people who did it voted for him and were inspired by his speeches.

Stop pussyfooting and call it as it is.
You are either with us or against.

Posted by: Bruce at July 11, 2005 06:06 AM

Bruce, you're nuts.

Posted by: Wes at July 11, 2005 02:16 PM

Amrayher University, did you notice that the word EVIDENCE was hugged by a couple of quotation marks. That implies that what you consider and call evidence are the paranoid delusions of a few bored internet nerds with too much time on their hands.

You want to talk about circumstantial evidence? your buddy Wes cites, as exhibit A, that coincidences are rare in the modern world.

The evidence on the other side of the courtroom includes things like bin Laden admitting he masterminded 9/11, the ethnic identity of the hi-jackers, etc.

I see most people have grown bored with arguing with you, but I will keep wasting my time for the sake of rationality.

Please give me five pieces of solid EVIDENCE that indicates Isreal is behind the bombings.

Posted by: Melody Chest at July 11, 2005 03:53 PM

The date that this happened can be written out as 775 similar to 911 and in the Muslim book of the Koran/Quaran this date signifies Al-Mansur's date of death. Al-Mansur made Baghdad a new ‘Abbasid capital. This clearly has Iraq and the Al-Quaida's figerprints on it. Now let's nuke the motherfuckers.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 11, 2005 04:53 PM

Yeah, except Muslims have a totally different calendar, doofus.

The year 775 in the Muslim calendar equates to the Western year 1396, which signifies, well, nothing.

Thanks for playing.

By the way, if someone had attempted to cite such ridiculous numerological "proof" as evidence implicating Israel or Western complicity, they'd be laughed off the floor. But when it comes to applying this sort of ridiculous evidence to accuse Muslims of complicity, it's actually taken seriously.

Meanwhile, a big Israeli business convention, coincidentally at the site of the bombings, coincidentally, at the time of the bombings, coupled with admissions (subsequently denied and retracted, of course) by an Israeli embassy official of foreknowledge of the attacks, is swept under the rug as mere coincidence and fodder for conspiracy theorists.

This goes to show the serious evidentiary double standards that is being applied here.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 11, 2005 07:36 PM

Man, I know I'm going to regret jumping back in here, but:

Arya, the consensus that Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11 is not based on numerological coincidences.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 11, 2005 08:36 PM

Yeah, Arymafucknut or whatever..... numerology played a MAJOR role in the date of the WTC attack. I'm sure you remember that being stated NUMEROUS times and how they explained to all the "unintelligent" non-members of the press that 9-11 or 911 was the number you called in an emergency. Do a Google search on Al-Manur, Islam and 975 and you'll find out that I actually did research on this instead of just spouting random shit like an asshole. Here is a website that contains ANSWERS which you are sorely in need of: http://www.answers.com/topic/al-mansur

Game, set and match.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 11, 2005 10:57 PM

PS. My apologies to Frank.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 11, 2005 10:57 PM

correction to the above, in the heat of the battle I mistakenly wrote to google 975 instead of 775 which was the date of the attack much like 911 was in the US.

Further clarification: the London attack was based on revenge for the ousting of Saddam and the war in Iraq. This is the reason for the choice of 775 as the date of the attack, because that was the year in which Al-Mansur, who made BAGHDAD a holy-capital of the Muslim world, died.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 11, 2005 11:01 PM

''''Arya, the consensus that Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11 is not based on numerological coincidences.'''''

You don't say.

That notwithstanding, the "consensus" theory of 9/11 is vulnerable to critique on far more serious and credible grounds than the 9/11 - 9-1-1 thing.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 12, 2005 12:51 AM

This the sort of thing you have in mind?


Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 12, 2005 01:52 AM

Not that I'm signing my name to every single statement and detail of the article, but, yes.

The reality of the "War on Terror" is probably closer to this perspective than to the illogical and ignorant (and at times, utterly laughable) "consensus" view.

But who is the author? Is he really a former MI6 agent? If that can be verified, then that obviously adds a lot more credibility to it.

Another interesting tidbit: after the publication of this article, another highly curious Blair-Israel-AP redaction moment occurred.

Blair stated that the true and underlying cause of all this terrorism was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an obvious public stab at Israel.

The Israeli government, quite lividly, responded in full force rejecting such an absurd idea and reiterating their line that terrorism is simply the work of people who hate and are jealous of the West's successes.

Within 24 hours, AP recanted the quote publicly.


If you're telling me something is not at play here, you're either the most gullible sap alive, or you're part of the conspiracy too!

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 12, 2005 05:52 PM


It sounds like politics as usual to me. But I am indeed part of the conspiracy, and I and my fellow occultists are even as we speak working up some magick rituals that'll make your head spin...

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 12, 2005 06:24 PM

Careful..... I'd hate to see you blackballed for divulging our secrets brother Frank.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 12, 2005 07:37 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?