A message to America - from a Londoner: Whose interest does this attack serve?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Excerpt:

What saddens me even more, is the fact that this feels like it was an inevitable occurence. In recent months British support for Dubya and Blair`s War on Terror was waning. The British Government had recently announced a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. British public support for the war was waning to the point of being non-existant. And now this happens. Then I ask myself, just whose interest does this attack serve?

As I look at the political events in America, the Abu videos are due to be released, Karl Rove is in deep trouble over leaking an undercover CIA operative`s name to the press, the DSM movement was gathering momento, Americans were losing faith in the "War on Terror". There is chatter about impeachment. All this is now driven from the main stream media as the focus is diverted onto the attacks in London. Then I ask myself, just whose interest does this attack serve?

I look back to September 11 2001, Bush`s approval ratings were through the floor, then 3000 Americans were murdered. Of course there couldn`t be another attack on US soil, because that would negate the very reason for Bush`s survival, namely keeping America safe from terrorist attacks. An attack on British soil however, well that achieves everything Dubya needs at this time. Then I ask myself, just whose interest does this attack serve?

The English people are not like the American people. They will not rise to the beating of the jingoistic drum. They will want answers and will demand answers. The British police will deliver those answers. There will be no retribution, there will be justice, and that justice will be served, irrespective of who is behind these attacks. Then I ask myself, just whose interest does this attack serve?

America the time is now. You have got to make a stand or you will lose the support of the British people. Do not be distracted by the events in London, this is our problem and we will take care of it. The evil people who committed this attack will be brought to justice. Do not allow pictures of destruction to sway your resolve. Do not allow the eyes of fear to scare you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. Do not let the demons run amok any longer. For this attack was carried out by demons, the question is, were they demons in robes or demons in suits and ties? Then I ask myself, just whose interest does this attack serve?

Ask yourself the question that millions of people in England will eventually ask when we bury our dead and finish our mourining. This question should have been asked in America after 911, it wasn`t. Now is the time to ask it. Just whose interest does this attack serve?

This is a choice, right now, between fear and love. This is a choice right now between freedom and tyranny. This is a choice right now between liberty or enslavement. Make the right choice.

http://www.djpauledge.com/blog.php

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So, did the attack serve BushCo's interests?

No one wants to believe it.

It disgusts people to even consider it.

And that is how they (BushCo) can get away with it unscathed.

Just like how no one could possibly believe that they would already have plans in effect to attack Iraq before Bush was even in office; to attack a country that was no threat to us, that didn't have any WMD, and that had nothing to do with 9/11. Just like no one would believe that they could rig the American elections - the foundation of our democracy - twice in a row. Just like no one could believe that they could manufacture evidence of WMD, that they would instruct the CIA to gin up evidence rather than give an accurate assessment, that they would suppress scientific data on global warming and abstinence education, that they would manipulate the media with payoffs, threats, and planting their own white-house friendly so-called reporters, and that they would take advantage of tragedy in order to decimate the very rights and freedoms they claim to be fighting for?

Is it unbelievable that Bush would sit in a classroom during an attack on America? Is it unbelievable that the Bush administration would try and put Kissinger in as the head of a 9/11 investigative team? Is it unbelievable that Cheney, former president and current recipient of payoffs from Haliburton, would give blind contracts to his former company again and again and again to 'rebuild' a place that we destroyed? Is it unbelievable that they would have SECRET energy meetings about America's energy policy and withhold that information from the public that pays their salaries?

Of course it's unbelievable! Who writes this sh!t? If it were a fictional novel I'd have chucked it in the trash for not being realistic in the slightest.

Honestly, all of this has been proven - so what could possibly stretch credulity any more? Knowing all of this, what could possibly be so unbelievable and 'conspiratorial' about what is going on here. There is a conspiracy. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but it has been shown again and again and again that these people have no limits to what they will do in order to accomplish their agenda; whatever that is. (According to neo-con pinky-and-the-brain documents, possibly making America the world's first global leader.)

We personally cannot imagine that someone would put power before compassion and human lives - they have proven that they can do it every day. And as Bush has told us, "I sleep just fine."

Had they been forthright with us, had they provided the 9/11 evidence to unbiased civilian agencies, had they not stalled EVERY investigation into the truth - perhaps some of us would not be investing so much in tinfoil rather than duct tape and plastic sheeting. But they did. And are still doing it. Even if I hadn't read a lick of evidence that the mainstream version was not accurate; the secrecy and obstructionism alone raises my hackles to a point where it is obvious that something else is going on.

[Rascal]

Knew it would only take a matter of time for LABS to come up with his conspiracy theories and blame this on Bush.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Knew it would only take a matter of time for LABS to come up with his conspiracy theories and blame this on Bush.

Knew it would only be a matter of time before ratscal would distort the truth by characterizing legitimate questions as to whether or not BushCo's interests are served by the attacks as "conspiracy theories."

It's too early to say with any certainty who did or didn't have a hand in the London bombings, but to claim that it's unreasonable to question the motives of a man who lied about the reasons for starting a war is just plain stupid.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

London: Bush's 'flypaper theory' is blown to pieces

Well, there goes that theory...

Odds are we probably won't be hearing for a while the Bush mantra that the reason we're fighting them over in Iraq is so we don't have to fight them here at home. For the last few months, this ludicrous shibboleth has been the president's go-to line -- his latest rationale for slogging on in Iraq.

Here he was on July 4th: "We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."

And during his primetime speech to the nation on June 28th, there he was again, this time quoting the commander on the ground in Iraq: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

The attacks in London proved how absurd this either/or logic is when fighting this kind of hydra-headed enemy.

Not only was this "flypaper theory" empirically disproved by the London carnage, it directly contradicts the president's other most often used justification for the war -- that we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people. So let me get this straight: we invaded them to liberate them... and to use them as bait to attract terrorists who we could fight on the streets of Baghdad rather than the streets of London and New York?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/london-bushas-aflyp_3815.html

[DBruleU]

Knew it would only be a matter of time before ratscal would distort the truth by characterizing legitimate questions as to whether or not BushCo's interests are served by the attacks as "conspiracy theories."

It's too early to say with any certainty who did or didn't have a hand in the London bombings, but to claim that it's unreasonable to question the motives of a man who lied about the reasons for starting a war is just plain stupid.

Live by the conspiracy, die by the conspiracy. Seriously though, to even question that Bush had anything to do with these bombings is irresponsible and stupid.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Live by the conspiracy, die by the conspiracy.

Nothing about a conspiracy was mentioned.

Rather, a question was asked, i.e., "whose interest does this attack serve?"

Seriously though, to even question that Bush had anything to do with these bombings is irresponsible and stupid.

Asking questions is never "irresponsible" or "stupid" - particularly when the questions pertain to the motives of a war criminal like Bush who lied about the reason for starting a war.

If Bush will lie about something this grave, then it's reasonable to not put much of anything past him.

http://www.bartcop.com/blind-pat.jpg

[DBruleU]

Nothing about a conspiracy was mentioned.

Rather, a question was asked, i.e., "whose interest does this attack serve?"



Asking questions is never "irresponsible" or "stupid" - particularly when the questions pertain to the motives of a war criminal like Bush who lied about the reason for starting a war.

If Bush will lie about something this grave, then it's reasonable to not put much of anything past him.

http://www.bartcop.com/blind-pat.jpg

Lied according to your bible, the Downing Street Memo? Until you have undeniable proof he lied, you cant say he did.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lied according to your bible, the Downing Street Memo? Until you have undeniable proof he lied, you cant say he did.

The Downing Street Memo is undeniable proof.

Whether you are willing to acknowledge this or not is another story...

[DBruleU]

The Downing Street Memo is undeniable proof.

Whether you are willing to acknowledge this or not is another story...

Yeah its so undeniable that people have jumped all over it huh? I mean people like you do post it whenver and wherever, but I rarely ever hear it on the news. And not just Fox news, I mean the mainstream leftist news, I dont even hear about it.

But I cant blame you for dreaming of a one day impeachment hearing, wont happen though.

[Spider]

Yeah its so undeniable that people have jumped all over it huh? I mean people like you do post it whenver and wherever, but I rarely ever hear it on the news. And not just Fox news, I mean the mainstream leftist news, I dont even hear about it.

But I cant blame you for dreaming of a one day impeachment hearing, wont happen though.
Just so I dont get my ass kicked , the Downing street memo is a farce ....... dont want to piss off no christians

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah its so undeniable that people have jumped all over it huh? I mean people like you do post it whenver and wherever, but I rarely ever hear it on the news.

That's because the corporate mainstream media's job is to cover BushCo's flank. This has been evident with every BushCo scandal that has come down the pike. For example, you haven't heard much about the Plame investigation in the MSM, even though the investigation has been ongoing for two years. Contrast this with the MSM's 24/7 coverage of the Clinton wiener hunt.

And not just Fox news, I mean the mainstream leftist news, I dont even hear about it.

rofl

Mainstream + leftist news = oxymoron.

But I cant blame you for dreaming of a one day impeachment hearing, wont happen though.

At the rate republicans are turning their backs on Trifecta Boy, who knows?

Then there's 2006....

[W*GS]

I'm surprised LABF didn't insinuate that Bush was behind the London attacks within 5 seconds of their occurence.

It took him almost 2 whole days to come up with it - LABF, you're slipping.

Where's your evidence that Bush was behind the Bali bombing? The attack on the USS Cole? The embassy attacks? The Khobar towers? OKC?

Certainly someone as clever and evil as Bush has to have left behind a trail of death and destruction going back years, eh?

Of course, with my new position with Halliburton (as a liason to Carlyle in regards to our goal of Dominating the Earth) now LABF will have to "disappear". I can't let him become a persona non grata without thanking him, however, for his endless blather, to which my witty ripostes here on the OM got me noticed by Management, and they hired me sight (and resume) unseen.

Thanks, LABF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush's war on terror is a colossal failure

Terrorists are targeting us because of our policies in Muslim lands, not because we are free

Madrid: 191 dead. Beslan: 330 murdered, half of them children. Riyadh and Jeddah: more than 100 killed. London: about 50 massacred.

Then there's the daily terror of Iraq, where more than 700 people have been killed in the last month alone.

Our leaders respond with revulsion and resolve, as they must, when the tragedy hits closer to home.

They walk the fine line between increasing security and causing panic, between feeling our pain and exploiting it.

Officials who need to be seen to be doing something are, on TV.

Breathless reporters, anchors and "security experts" spout scary scenarios, pontificate about the latest terrorist group about which they know nothing, and recycle such vacuous phrases as the "vertical vs. horizontal command structure" of Al Qaeda and its "metastasizing" cells.



Islam bashers renew their racist demand as to what Muslims are going to do about the horror.

But once we get past all that, and the empty editorials, what are we left with? This:

The war on terror has been a monumental failure. In fact, it has made matters worse.

You could see that in the words of George W. Bush and Tony Blair after the London blasts.

They contrasted the dastardly acts of the terrorists with their own good deeds for Africa and the environment. True but irrelevant. The terrorists are not from Africa and they don't care about gas emissions.

Blair added: "We will not allow violence to change our values and our way of life." And Anne McLellan parrotted: "We will defend our way of life."

This is a Bush-ian formulation: they hate us because we are free. It cleverly obviates any need for self-scrutiny.

It is also patently false.

Terrorists, if they are to be believed, are targeting us because of our policies in Muslim lands. Thursday's communiqué made that clear enough.

Continued:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_ Type1&c=Article&cid=1120859414342