No, it turns out that I wasn't the only one at all. Far from it, in fact. Psst! Keep this quiet, will you? We've been whispering about it all day.
One of the others who was thinking along the same lines was Anthony Wade:
Cui bono? Stupidity Versus Logic in the Latest "Terror" Attack
July 7, 2005Psst! Keep this quiet, too, will you?
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
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.
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 ... we are to believe that an organization smart enough to pull off 9/11, 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 here except to point out that it is horribly naive 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.
Another such person was William Bowles:
al-Qu'eda or al-a'diversion?
Of course it's too early to say with any certainty who set off the four bombs that caused death and chaos in London today but predictably Tony Blair says "they were obviously designed to coincide with the G8 summit". Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.There's more. There's a lot more. But this is a good place to stop. For now.
My immediate reaction is to be suspicious not about the timing of the bombs, this is the most obvious aspect, but who exactly is behind them.
It's been almost four years since 9/11 without a single bombing in the UK (the police say they've foiled attempts but have given out no details) but with dire warnings being handed out at regular intervals -- "not if but when" etc.
And with hundreds arrested under anti-terror laws but not a single conviction of anyone actually proved as being a member of al-Qu'eda or even being caught red-handed with a bomb, it's safe to assume that it's unlikely that al-Qu'eda actually exists as an effective organisation, let alone operates an "international terror network".
And given Osama bin Laden's proven connection to the CIA as a paid "asset" for at least ten years prior to 9/11 coupled to the fact even after years of chasing him up hill and down dale without so much as a sighting, it's pretty obvious that the US have no intention of actually catching the bugger.
Instead, we get handed a new bogeyman in the form of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who predictably proves to be as elusive as the fabled Osama. Is it just me, or do I see a pattern here?
After all, consider the implications of catching a man (if he actually exists) who is in all likelihood (still) an "asset" of the CIA? What tales would such a man have to tell about his paymasters (if he lived long enough to tell his tale that is)?
Of course it can't be proved that the people who set these bombs are the paid agents of the British or US state, anymore than the state can prove that al-Zarqawi exists, but the inability of the most sophisticated intelligence/security agencies on the planet to catch them; their chosen targets -- never agents of the state, always civilians; and in Iraq, almost always Iraqi civilians -- points to the work of agent provocateurs in the classic mould.
As I've pointed out many times before, the Websites that are the convenient mouthpiece for the various "Islamist" organisations, are extremely easy to trace, yet mysteriously, even when they have registered offices in the heart of London, the police never inquire. It's all just to easy, just too pat and when the prepared handouts from the state propagandists are accepted without question by the corporate/state media, we have a ready-made recipe for repression.
Today's blasts have been claimed by yet another, previously unknown "Islamist" organisation. The bottom line is that as long the state defines the terrain of struggle -- the war on terror -- the losers will be us, punters on the way to work and the poor of the planet who dare defy the imperium.
There will be those of course who will brand me a conspiracist, it's surely outrageous to claim that our government would conspire to murder its own citizens but consider that it conspired with the US government to invade and occupy Iraq, murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and all done on the basis of lies and of a set of fabricated documents and the statements of people who were paid to incriminate the government of Iraq (one of whom, Ahmed Chalabi is under indictment for precisely this), so what's a few dozen or even a few hundred innocent people here in the UK, in Spain, as well as the thousands who have been murdered in Iraq by "al-Qu'eda"? When set in this context, there is surely nothing far-fetched about the British state conspiring to bomb the tube here in the heart of London, there's an awful lot at stake, not the least the future of the capitalist state. Think about it�
Wednesday night I was looking for something to blog about. Thursday morning four bombs exploded in London. Isn't that just a bit too convenient??9