England...

[baldue]

I wish the best for the people
in London today, the world is
a dangerous place and we are
reminded once again that is a
fact.

[sebastianHaff]

The following was found on infowars.com. I feel that it raises some questions that we must have the guts to ask. Please read with an open mind and make your own conclusions.

Cui bono? Stupidity Versus Logic in the Latest “Terror” Attack

Anthony Wade | July 8 2005

Wow, al Qaeda must be the stupidest terrorists, no wait, stupidest people period, on this entire planet. Their purported goal is to shake the will of the western powers that have invaded Iraq, and to drive them out, no? Then can someone please explain to me the logic of the London bombings?

No seriously, it is time to apply logic to these events. Please do not hand me the nonsense about these people being “killers” who do not apply logic. You do not become the number one terrorist organization without having some logic, no? We are expected to swallow that these people were smart enough to circumvent our billion dollar intelligence and air defense systems with box cutters, but they cannot play coherent cause-effect scenarios out in their mind prior to carrying out terrorist activities? I doubt that very much.

Just this week, it was reported that England had drafted plans to pull out their troops, gone, see you later, victory for al Qaeda, right? So we are to believe then that the orchestrated response to these plans was to blow up a double decker bus, in England. Now, can you guess what the most likely response to such an event would be:

1) Pull the troops out faster
2) Galvanize public support, thus keeping the troops in Iraq

Those of you that selected number one, I will assume you work for the Bush administration. Those of you that selected number two, good job. Now that we have established the enormous stupidity in the England bombings, the next logical front to examine is here in the United States.

Let’s examine the political climate here in this country just prior to this “attack”. Support for the Iraq War was at an all time low. People were unmoved by the President’s speech, dropping his overall approval rating to 43%. The drums of impeachment were growing louder with each passing day, with the revelations that the Downing Street Memos do indeed prove that George Bush committed felonies in lying to Congress and starting war without Congressional approval. Also on our political front was the Valerie Plame story and how it appears there is a good chance that Karl Rove committed treason in outing a covert CIA operative, who just happened to be assigned to uncovering WMD. Considering the closeness of Rove to Bush, if these allegations proved to be true, then how much of a stretch is it to assume Bush had complete foreknowledge of the revenge against Joe Wilson by outing his wife.

Now the corporate media has tried very hard to ignore these stories. We have had coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, and most recently the missing girl in Aruba for months now as Bush’s world unraveled daily. No offense to the Holloway family but the story about Natalie’s events should not be a lead story on any news show, with the possibility of impeachment, treason, and the Iraq War events happening daily. But there was our media, firmly in the pocket of George Bush, pimping the pain of the Holloway family as the most important news story. This aside though, the real stories were finally starting to poke through. Mainstream media received so many complaints about their ignoring potentially Bush-damaging stories, that they finally had to cover them.

Now, from al Qaeda’s perspective one would logically conclude this is a good thing. We were told by the Bushies that a vote for John Kerry was a vote for al Qaeda because they were so afraid of the great warrior, Bush. Considering the plummeting poll numbers for Bush and calls from the grass roots in this country for his political head, one should conclude that al Qaeda would be happy that the news had finally turned its attention to the possibility of getting rid of Bush. Please do not hand me the nonsense about how they do not look at these events. We are led to believe that al Qaeda runs their own website so they can leak stories that help Bush and claim credit for their own terrorist activities so it is obvious they are on the cutting edge of technology and Internet news.

So I ask again, given that the events in the US are in the favor of al Qaeda, and that public opinion for the war had been steadily eroding, I must ask the obvious question. Why in the world would they now carry out another terrorist mission? Are we honestly to believe they did not think about what the ramifications were? If the war was going poorly for them and the world was united against them, then I could understand an attack to break our will, but when things are going well, why in the world would they carry out this attack? It has now been reported that:

“BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said a previously unknown group calling itself the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe had claimed to be behind the attacks in a statement posted on an Islamist website.

The group's statement said the attacks were revenge for the "massacres" Britain was committing in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the country was now "burning with fear and panic", he added.”

Uh-huh. So, al Qaeda carried out the attacks for the massacres committed by the British troops, which are miniscule in comparison to the US. They further carried out the attacks in complete obliviousness to the news of the imminent British troop pullout. They further carried out these attacks despite the fact that Bush’s poll numbers were in the toilet and heading lower, leading to a possibility of impeachment. They further carried out these attacks even though the media had finally begun to cover the stories that could be potentially damaging to the entire war machine that they are fighting against. Wow, they are some stupid terrorists.

The level of stupidity is equal to when Osama bin Laden released his latest hit video, four days before the Presidential election. Surely he must have realized that would have only aided Bush, yet there he was providing America with a little fear before the election, a move that only could have helped Bush. Today, here is his little outfit, al Qaeda, once again coming to the aide of his alleged arch-nemesis Bush.

Cui bono is a Latin phrase which simply means, “Who benefits?” and it is the question we need to be asking ourselves. What does al Qaeda gain from this attack? The only logical answer can be, NOTHING. It will instill fear in the populace which could lead to a galvanizing of public support for the war they are fighting. It may lead to England changing their plans about pulling out their troops. It will give the US corporate media an excuse to not cover the stories that had been corroding the support for Bush. Instead of the potential impeachment, treason by Karl Rove, and the Downing Street Memos, the corporate media will be hammering the story about the terror attacks in England and how they show the need for this continuous war. I am sorry but when asking cui bono, it is clear that al Qaeda does not benefit from this attack, as it undermines everything they are working toward.

The war machine however, they benefit greatly. Their two main proponents, Bush and Blair get to play on people’s fears and reinvigorate support for their war. This event is only a few hours old, but here are their initial responses:

"They are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do. They "should not and they must not succeed," – Tony Blair.

Really Tony? But your government had already decided to pull the troops out of England, so why would they need to carry out this attack and risk England changing their minds? No Tony, there is clearly no logic behind this attack and they clearly are not trying to frighten a people who have already agreed to pull out their troops, and who only represent less than 5% of the troops to begin with.
Here is what our fearless leader, Bush, had to say today:
“"The war on terror goes on."

Ah yes, every now and again, people who lie for a living slip up and reveal the truth. This statement reveals exactly the purpose of the attacks, and answers the question, cui bono. Faced with plummeting poll numbers and declining public support Bush tried last week to calm the storm by going to the American people with more fantasies connecting 911 to Iraq. The American people did not buy it this time though and his numbers got worse. Then the “Karl Rove is a treasonous traitor” stories started popping up and Bush was faced with the prospect of his war not continuing and his staunchest ally, England announced their plans for pulling troops out just as George was saying what a mistake it would be to make such plans. The morale in the al Qaeda camp must have been at an all time high. Their efforts in the war were finally paying off. Bush was losing his public support and his own country was beginning to speak about removing him from office. His top aide was under investigation for possible treason. England had started to make plans to pull out their troops.

So it is at this time, we are to believe that an organization smart enough to pull off 911, decided to throw away all the progress mentioned above, to frighten a people whose government only has 5% of the current troops in the war on terror, and had just decided to pull those troops out? The word stupidity would not cover this decision. It is unfathomable in its illogic.

I understand this raises things we do not want to consider. Well, consider this. In the early 1960’s your government considered operations that would sacrifice innocent, civilian American lives in order to start a war with Cuba. I will not rehash Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/) here except to point out that it is horribly naïve to assume people in power, would not seek to abuse that power for their own ends. If this was true in 1962, it is even truer in 2005.

We see the images of terror on the television and we remember our fear, just like we were supposed to. Our President will use this attack to rebuild all he has lost in support and we cannot allow that to happen. This attack does not change the fact that George Bush started his war 6 months prior to obtaining Congressional approval. It does not change the fact that he knowingly lied to Congress to go to war, fitting his intelligence around his policy. It does not change the fact that Karl Rove apparently may have committed treason against the United States. Don’t let him use this tragic event to sway us from pursuing the truth. Don’t let him.
Cui bono America, Cui bono

[gwffantrav]

I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Turning something like that political. I could name reasons why a case should be made for war, but that's old hat.

And all of the things the media has done to damage Bush's credibility, now they're suddenly in his pocket!?!?

I've never criticized anyone on this board, but call up Art Bell and George Noory on Coast to Coast AM with the conspiracy theories!!

[sebastianHaff]

I am not ashamed. I have friends in England and have spent time in London. I feel deeply for the losses. I would hate to see the reasons for such loss to go unexplored. The easy thing to do is keep silent or tow the party lines.

I'm sorry that exploring difficult questions brings about such hatred. I have no hate in me for the president or any other. Our nation is divided enough as it is. The real enemy is ignorance.

[Werner Mueck]

You could have easily started you're own thread instead of screwing up Dennis', which was intended to be a simple "I hope everyon'es ok" post.

[Mike M]

wernermueck said:

You could have easily started you're own thread instead of screwing up Dennis', which was intended to be a simple "I hope everyon'es ok" post.

Agreed. I'd also recommend talking politics on an entirely different board. Beyond that, I'd also recommend editing this post before posting it on another board, as the factual inaccuracies and slippery slope logic would probably get you bbq'd someplace where people wish to debate this topic.

[Mark 138]

It's funny how we, as Americans, are so conditioned to balk when someone points to a possiblity that isn't quite as comfortable as we would like. I thought this was the land of the free, home of the brave. Well, at least until someone offers a different view or points to a possibility not endorsed by the powers that be. What happened to healthy scepticism and questioning authority? Unamerican, huh?

"I hope everyone's ok" is a nice sentiment, and Dennis is a great guy. But if we really want to put an end to these types of things I think it's time to start quetioning what's really going on and why. I'll say with complete certatinty that what you are told isn't always what's happening. I read that piece as well as you did, without any preconcieved notions. I have to admit that it makes absolutely no sense for Al-Queda to attack a country that is about to pull troops and get out of the "war on terror" business. It's clear to me that someone else did this. Who? I don't know. But the "endorsed" strory just doesn't fly.

Factual inaccuracies, right? I suppose it depends on what version of the facts you decide fit your worldview. See how it gets more confusing if you really open up your thinking? That's why so many people choose not to do so. I just prefer to take it all in and see what happens. I know the US media isn't impartial or objective, so they're no good. A lot of extremeists will make something like this try to fit their agenda. The truth usually lies somewhere at a point elsewhere, not necessarily in the middle.

[Mike M]

I really don't want to get too much into this, as I don't think a COTG board is really an appropriate place to discuss this. However, I'll address some of Mark's points since they are very valid.

For the record, I'm a very opinionated person, and quite often dispute the "truth" as reported by the nightly news. I don't have any problem pointed out inaccuracies in reporting or even if they just plain disagree in how to interprete something. On the other hand, I will always confront someone when I believe that they are misrepresenting facts. If anyone wants to get into greater details on what I view as misrepresented/inaccurate in Sebatian's post, I'd be happy to discuss via PM.

As for these bombings, I'm not entirely convinced that al Qaeda was responsible either. Then again, I could easily envision a scenerio where a cell or splinter group associated with al Qaeda (a notably de-centralized organization) could logically justify committing these acts. Quite often revolutionaries and/or terrorists commit acts that they can later use for PR purposes. If the UK was certain to move out, it is plausible that someone (incorrectly) would think that committing this act would allow them to take full or partial credit for the withdrawl. In six months, many people won't remember that the UK was planning its withdrawl. In that event, this group could tell people that they committed these bombings and as a result the UK pulled out of Iraq (an incorrect statement, but effective in a recruiting campaign regardless).

It also could have been a message that no place is safe, even the country hosting the G8 meetings. No amount of heighted security that was in place prevented this attack.

Are either of those two scenerios correct? I have no idea. Are they possible/plausible? I believe so.

In the end, I agree with you, Mark. In the end, the truth is usually different (sometimes more different than other times) than it's told on the news. I'd rather take in the facts from as many sources as possible and make my own interpretations than have someone tell me what the truth "really is".

I don't have any problem with Sebastian or that he believes what he posted. I just think that it was inappropriate to post his message here, and I also noted that there were some inaccuracies in it. Like I said, I'd be happy to talk about this more via PM, but I think I've beaten this horse as dead as I should in this thread.

[Werner Mueck]

It doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on these days, as soon as you throw out a different viewpoint (which I didn't by the way), people start pointing fingers and screaming "unamerican". Problem is, everyone thinks that their opinion is the one truth, based entirely in fact and everyone else is misguided and need to be enlightened. I'm not saying Haff should have PM'd his post or even waited after the London incident died down. I just think he could have posted in a different thread, not even a different board. What he did seems sneaky, insensative , and tactless to me, and if you don't like my opinion, and you think I should keep it to myself, then maybe you're as "unamerican" as I am.

[Mark 138]

Werner,

I understood Mike's sentiment completley, but I'm sort of hazy on why you're defensive. I replied that "The King", in cutting and pasting an article from another web site, brought forth another side of this thing that people don't seem comfortable with. I simply stated that, in the narrow-minded fashion that the current powers in the U.S. endorse, his contribution was slammed and dismissed because it brought to light things that weren't part of the "storyline". I don't see it as "sneaky, insensitve, or tactless". It was just a guy adding some light to the situation and I value the divergent view.

Now I believe we are all clear on where we stand and we can move on.

Thanks.

[Werner Mueck]

It bothered me that a debate was started in this thread. It didn't bother me enough to post until Haff started using words like"Ignorance" and "hatred" when GWFFanTrav posted his opinion. Then I post and both me and Trav get PM's from Haff criticising us for saying something instead of PMing him our opinions directly, like his opinion is important enough to lay out in front of everybody but ours aren't. Then you post MarkT, I guess I'm just tired of hearing the word "unamerican" because it's being used way too much these days. I'm defensive as you put it, because Mike's post started with my post quoted, It's not like I'm not a part of the discussion. Narrow-mindedness had nothing to do with my post, I thought Haff's post was in bad taste and the more he posts and PM's, the less likely my opinion will change about it. I agree with you though about moving on.

[sebastianHaff]

I sent perfectly polite PMs to both. "Werner Mueck" replied in a very rude way and told me not to PM him again. He doesn't want to hear my "crap." The "crap" was simply that I had let him know that he was right and that I SHOULD have started a new thread. I apologized for that but he rudely declined my sentiment.

Isn't it strange how some people just refuse to NOT look at others as the enemy and feel the need to demonize them. If that makes you feel better then go ahead. I don't have ill will toward you. I've seen many times how people handle unsettling thoughts and information. It's nothing new.

[Werner Mueck]

Haff's PM in it's entirety:

--- "I am sorry that you feel that I "screwed up" Dennis' thread. You could have easily sent me a PM, like this one, instead of farther screwing up the thread if you really felt the need to inform me of your opinion.

All in the name of peace, huh?" ---

Sarcasm doesn't really count in apologies. Everyone else can take this PM however they want, I'm through with the subject and I didn't really want to get private messages about it.

[Mark 138]

Werner,

As an objective observer I don't note any sarcasm there at all. I think you're just a little wound up about it. Relax and move on. Trust me, it's easier on you to try not to get wound up about words on a screen.

[dennish]

This simple post has caused a problem in this group, I'm not going to apologize for this post. But I must thank friends like Werner and Mark T. for making their opinions clear, and for all who else make them. I think we are all frustrated with whats going on in our world, and I know that we must all follow our own path and thats what we're doing by leaving negative or positive comments and I hope that we can let all of this pass and move onto greater things in life.

[sebastianHaff]

Dennis, God bless you.

Werner, no sarcasm was intended in the parts of the PM you quoted or elsewhere. Something obviously sparked a nerve with you maybe you need to explore that for yourself. I do stand by the fact that a PM to me would have been well received and spared this entirely. I'd post the one you sent me but I deleted it directly after reading it. Besides, it would not be appropriate for public consumption.

It's unfortunately obvious why there is a place for a gimmick like Muhammad Hasan in the WWE and why he is received as a heel. I think that an interesting discussion on the issue is in the WWE forum.