Conspiracy Theory Update - Was London an inside job?

[Spencer For Hire]

Just on this point...

Why Al-Qaeda are probably not behind the London attacks
To begin with, Al-Qaida statements come first to Arabic press not from BBC and Reuters. This statement first appear in mainstream press and was subsequently picked up by Arab press, which breaks rank with ever other statement Al-Qaida has ever issued officially. This fact alone should make the validity of this statement suspect. Secondly, the Arabic grammar used in the so-called claim of responsibility is incorrect. Al-Qaida statements have a consistency in the Arabic language that is written in their Mother tongue. Maybe most importantly, is the incomplete and incorrect ayahs from the Quran used in this alleged statement. While grammar could for arguments sake be overlook, incomplete and incorrect versus from the Quran is something the brothers of Tawheed or Holy Warriors who live and die by the word of Allah know intimately. In the ayahs quoted, they simply would not make these mistakes.
Sourced: Jihad Unspun (suspected false propoganda website

One common misconception is that Al Qaida is a singular terrorist organisation like the IRA or ETA with an established command structure. If anything Al Qaida is more of a movement encouraging the establishment of separate, individual terror cells, but all with the same common goal. It's this lack of structure which makes Al Qaida so difficult for the intelligence and security services to penetrate.

Taking this into account, it seems highly unlikely that every Al Qaida statement will be delivered in the same way. Clearly there's nothing to say that the internet statement is genuine or not - after all anyone could post something to that effect. But if it is a hoax, it seems a huge leap of logic to assume therefore that an Al Qaida linked (or indeed sympathetic) group is not responsible... and an even bigger leap of logic to use this as evidence for some kind of hushed-up government inside job.

I agree with you Johnny that you shouldn't believe everything that you're told... but that doesn't mean you should disbelieve everything too. I remember wondering last Thursday morning how long it'd take for the conspiracy theorists to start. Predictably, as always in these kind of events now, people have decided what they want to believe, and have then gone scurrying around for any minor coincidences which might vaguely back up their ideas.

Aside from anything, I really don't see how it would benefit the government to have carried out an act like this. First off, it has brought them criticism that this is retaliation for the Iraq War, which isn't what they want. Also, Charles Clarke has already admitted that had ID cards been in use last Thursday they wouldn't have prevented an attack, so to carry out something like this in order to build support for ID cards would just be nonsense... besides, chances are the government is going to get the law through anyway.

Sorry, but this is just a case of putting 2 and 2 together to make 5. The evidence that this attack has been carried out by Al Qaida, a linked, or sympathetic organisation is far more compelling than a number of minor coincidences which are somehow supposed to prove that 'dark forces' are at work.

[babyben]

^^ That's what I mean, but said in an educated way by Spencer For Hire

[Dr Lobster*]

when charles clarke said they were british i was alarmed; but when i heard the names, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Mir Hussain, and Mohammed Sadique Khan it became obvious that these were the usual braindead/washed islamic fuckwits.

at least though, from a surveillance point of view, potential terroists are still fairly easy to spot.

[johnnyboy]

One common misconception is that Al Qaida is a singular terrorist organisation like the IRA or ETA with an established command structure. If anything Al Qaida is more of a movement encouraging the establishment of separate, individual terror cells, but all with the same common goal. It's this lack of structure which makes Al Qaida so difficult for the intelligence and security services to penetrate.

Taking this into account, it seems highly unlikely that every Al Qaida statement will be delivered in the same way. Clearly there's nothing to say that the internet statement is genuine or not - after all anyone could post something to that effect. But if it is a hoax, it seems a huge leap of logic to assume therefore that an Al Qaida linked (or indeed sympathetic) group is not responsible... and an even bigger leap of logic to use this as evidence for some kind of hushed-up government inside job.

This is exactly the problem I and many others are beginning to have with the whole Al-Qeada thing.

How can something be said to be part of "x" when the rest of "x" is not connected to it? You then have to concede that "x" and "y" are two totally separate things with no formal or informal connection to each other.

So, if something bears "the hallmarks of Al-Qeada" but the group that did it have no financial or communication ties to what "Al-Qaeda" is, how can it be said to have the hallmarks as it was carried out by a totally separate organisation? It is either part of the "worldwide network" or it isn't.

The government and media of the world are really adding 2 and 2 together and coming up with whatever suits their agenda.

For example, there were many paramilitary groups in Ireland and Northern Ireland, linked to the Loyalists and Republicans. They had totally different command structures, their own weapons, their own methods of financing, and so on. They were not connected in any meaningful way.

Their only connection was that the Loyalists all wanted to remain part of Britain and the Republicans wanted to join the Irish Republic.

Using the flawed and convenient logic of the current "War On Terror", the disparate and separate Loyalist groups were actually a British version of "Al Qeada" and the Republicans were the Irish "Al-Qeada" because they had a certain cause in common.

"Al-Qeada" does not exist as the media or government portray it (and that keeps changing). So, if these 4 guys are the villains of the piece (again no evidence to support that), they must be considered as lone nutcases inspired (but not connected) to a belief system.

I don't believe everything I hear and I don't disbelief everything I hear. I try to get as many sources of information and viewpoints as possible and then come to a decision (albeit subjective) about what I believe to be the most likely.

[Spencer For Hire]

So, if these 4 guys are the villains of the piece (again no evidence to support that), they must be considered as lone nutcases inspired (but not connected) to a belief system.

I think that's quite a likely explanation, but how do you know there's no evidence? Do you normally have access to all police and intelligence service information? No evidence has been made public, and probably for the very good reason that they don't want to expose their sources.

I don't believe everything I hear and I don't disbelief everything I hear. I try to get as many sources of information and viewpoints as possible and then come to a decision (albeit subjective) about what I believe to be the most likely.

And I think that's very sensible... although the trouble with most conspiracy theorists is that they don't take a balanced view, and would much rather believe in far-fetched stories of subversion at the highest levels simply because they sound more exciting than the slightly duller truth staring them in the face.

[johnnyboy]

I think that's quite a likely explanation, but how do you know there's no evidence? Do you normally have access to all police and intelligence service information? No evidence has been made public, and probably for the very good reason that they don't want to expose their sources.

That's a very reasonable point.

However, the scramble to blame Muslims and Al-Qaeda without providing any reasonably convincing evidence to go on will lead the sceptical to conclude that they have no evidence yet and are trying to either provide the public with some relief that they are in charge of the situation, or that there is a political motivation behind it.

The wonder of the Internet is that people are asking questions like they've never asked before. Some of these questions may be deeply troubling, but we need people to be asking them, imo.

And I think that's very sensible... although the trouble with most conspiracy theorists is that they don't take a balanced view, and would much rather believe in far-fetched stories of subversion at the highest levels simply because they sound more exciting than the slightly duller truth staring them in the face.

Agreed, the most rampant conspiracy theorists are very skewed because all the events of the world have to fit into whatever theory they're peddling.

However, how far-fetched is the idea of high-level subversion now? It has been conclusively proven to most minds that the US, UK and Australian governments lied their public into a war that cost over one hundred thousand lives. This was a conspiracy theory just two-and-a-half to three years ago, yet the constant pressing of campaigners and independent journalists have revealed that the ruling elite often have a radically different agenda to ours.

I'm not suggesting that I necessarily believe this next statement, but is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that if they are quite happy to sacrifice over one hundred thousand people to further their geopolitical/business/energy/religious needs, that they would shudder at the thought of 50 people?

[Dr Lobster*]

However, the scramble to blame Muslims and Al-Qaeda without providing any reasonably convincing evidence to go on will lead the sceptical to conclude that they have no evidence yet and are trying to either provide the public with some relief that they are in charge of the situation, or that there is a political motivation behind it.

that doesn't make sense; it does the government no good to create a divide or animosity with muslim community.

[johnnyboy]

However, the scramble to blame Muslims and Al-Qaeda without providing any reasonably convincing evidence to go on will lead the sceptical to conclude that they have no evidence yet and are trying to either provide the public with some relief that they are in charge of the situation, or that there is a political motivation behind it.

that doesn't make sense; it does the government no good to create a divide or animosity with muslim community.

You're an intelligent fella, Dr L, and I'm surprised that you can't see that this is a classic case of "divide and rule".

The strategy of "divide and rule" has been used throughout history. Hitler used it against the Jews, the Communists, the Gypsies, etc. So, why would he do that?

"Divide and rule" plays to the very basic instincts of human emotion - ie the sense of belonging, whether to a family, a group of friends, a region, etc. Using "divide and rule" creates the impression that your group is in threat, in mortal danger of an enemy that can't be reasoned with. The "Reds under the Bed" during McCarthyism in America in the 50s.

"Divide and rule" uses the most extreme and ugly form of stereotyping imaginable to create its end. In this case, Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, have been under constant attack, verbally and physically, since 9/11 - they are constantly portrayed as a backwards religion whose holy book spews hatred, repression and violence (all major religions do that, but somehow the Islamic faith is far worse), its followers as a distinct group looking to "Islamicise" the UK and the rest of the world (Islam is hardly the only religion that looks for new believers), and so on and so forth.

Muslims are just one of the latest in a long line of "mortal threats" to our existence - along with asylum seekers. In the 80s, it was Loony Lefties trying to undermine us, the 70s brought us trade unionists.

It is completely in the Government's interest to stir racial hatred - not too much, but enough. The non-Muslim peoples view the Muslims as the threat - a people out of the modern world trying to force us down their backward path. It is a form of subtle psychological justification for foreign policy.

With the Government actively involved in Iraq, one of Israel's biggest sponsors, and sabre-rattling in Iran and Syria, all countries with large Muslim populations (including Israel & the occupied territories), how could it not be in the Government's interest to demonise the Islamic religion and its followers?

[cdd]

JB, it's rare that one reads something that makes such good sense as what you've posted above. Certainly an interesting strategy deserving of consideration.

[johnnyboy]

JB, it's rare that one reads something that makes such good sense as what you've posted above. Certainly an interesting strategy deserving of consideration.

Cheers, Chris.

What worries me is that I have never seen this device used so constantly and maliciously in all the time I have been alive.

If someone as smart as Dr L can be duped to using such words about people of a different religion (when all you need to do is look around the world to see that Christianity and Judaism are the religions putting the world to war at the moment for a multitude of different reasons), human beings just like you and me, you know the strategy is working brilliantly.

History is casting a looming shadow over this time.

[marksi]

I must say, Ken Livingston's views on terrorists has changed somewhat in the last few years. It doesn't seem all that long since he was inviting Sinn Féin to dinner at County Hall while it's leadership were encouraging the IRA to blow the fuck out of whoever and whatever it could.