The Year of The Exploding Underpants

by craig on December 30, 2009 6:57 pm in Afghanistan

The extraordinarily incompetent Nigerian underpant bomber somehow seems a fit conclusion to the year. The debate on my last post has garnered 235 comments already. What comes over most strongly is the absolute desperate, psychological need of the right for the “War on Terror” to be real.

Given the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, of course there is huge resentment towards the West in much of the Islamic world, and a small fringe willing to carry that resentment into violence. That is an unavoidable consequence of the hundreds of thousands of deaths for which US, UK and Israel have been responsible.

But for the right, it is not enough that they have created a threat which is real; it must be not only real, but enormous. John Reid famously described the Islamic terrorist threat as being as great as the Second World War, whereas Tony Blair described it as an “existential threat”. Both are massive, incredible exaggerations.

The armaments, oil, and security industries, and the politicians they fund, of course make massive profits from the government policies, including wars, enacted in response to a massive exaggeration of the threat. But many on the right have a psychological rather than merely material need for an enemy, for an embodiment of evil, and for the idea of being involved in a gripping life or death battle.

This is difficult to sustain, as the actual battles involve merely our use of absolutely overwhelming power to devastate weak nations. Hence the disproportionately weak reactions must be hyped to sustain the narrative. The sad truth that a pathetic Nigerian wannabe terrorist singed his own gonads must be buried beneath a raft of stories that the explosive was powerful enough to blow a hole in an aeroplane.

The right are desperate to hear that the plane would have been destroyed, hundreds killed, and probably could have ploughed into a big building and killed thousands. In their fantasy world they are fighting off these disasters. In the real world, a Nigerian man singed his own gonads. That is not to excuse him. He planned to do harm and may be a very horrible person indeed. But he just singed his own gonads. It is also worth noting that, if he had destroyed the plane, he would have killed only one third of the innocent civilians who died on just day one of “Shock and Awe” in Iraq.

There is no existential threat to the Western world from Islam. Sorry.

45 Comments

  1. dreoilin

    30 Dec, 2009 - 8:19 pm

    “he would have killed only one third of the innocent civilians who died on just day one of “Shock and Awe” in Iraq”

    –Craig

    I was just asking myself today how the killing of all those on board that plane would have compared to the destruction of Fallujah, where an estimated 1,200 noncombatants were killed. And how coverage in our MSM would have differed from the scant coverage of the destruction of Fallujah.

  2. Arsalan Goldberg

    30 Dec, 2009 - 8:54 pm

    How they compare is the race and religion of those killed.

    Some lives are worth more than others. White lives are worth more than Black, Brown and Yellow.

    But as Craig mentioned, this was a case of a young man setting his willy on fire.

    The Zionist claim that these people who set Willis on fire have state sponsors, if that was the case why wouldn’t the governments that sponsor them give them some anti-Aircraft guns or missiles to do some real damage instead of some yfronts that set willies on fire?

    And why this obsession with planes, if they wanted numbers, why wouldn’t they just pick up a gun or a knife and start killing people?

    I’m sure that will kill a lot more then a man setting his own willy on fire?

  3. Jaded.

    30 Dec, 2009 - 9:22 pm

    Pretty much all we have had since 9/11 and 7/7 are plots and scares. There are several reasons for this:

    1. Logistically, it isn’t easy to carry out these false flag attacks. There are probably only a small number of individuals working for black operations. It must all take months to plan and execute.

    2. It’s bad for the economy when these attacks happen.

    3. The mass media is hugely controlled so they can spin out those two attacks to justify just about anything for decades.

    4. If we got attacked every month the incumbent government would get booted out of office. Furthermore, more and more people would start taking a serious interest in the issue and the house of cards would topple.

    As the awakening grows though, I wouldn’t put it past them to do some more killings to justify a complete lockdown. They really are monstrous people.

    So, let me get this straight in my head. Al Qaeda are a CIA media fiction perpetuated through the mass media with support from Mossad, MI5 and MI6. Who would have thought it? OH GOSH! ;-)

  4. KingofWelshNoir

    30 Dec, 2009 - 9:25 pm

    So true. Listening to the news reports you could detect a palpable sense of relief in their voices once they were able to assert there was enough explosive to make a hole in the plane. Up until that point it was all just too embarrassing. You are right: they didn’t just want that potential hole in the plane, they needed it. But for how much longer will Joe Public buy it?

  5. Jaded.

    30 Dec, 2009 - 9:25 pm

    And what’s all this left wing/right wing bullshit? This is all about power, corruption and evil.

  6. ed hall

    30 Dec, 2009 - 9:41 pm

    “He planned to do harm and may be a very horrible person indeed. But he just singed his own gonads.”

    That is quite possibly the stupidest comment I have ever read for someone who presumably prides himself on his insightfulness.

    He tried to blow up the plane but didn’t succeed so what the fuck is everyone getting worked up about.

    Laughable. No wonder you got the sack.

  7. lwtc247

    30 Dec, 2009 - 9:43 pm

    Correction Craig.

    “Both are massive, incredible LIES.”

  8. Jaded.

    30 Dec, 2009 - 9:46 pm

    Just ignore the MUPPET Craig. Everyone with two functioning brain cells knows you meant he wasn’t part of a deadly terrorist organisation. *Swoon* :-0

  9. lwtc247

    30 Dec, 2009 - 9:50 pm

    @ dreoilin

    “noncombatants” do you mean civilians perchance?

  10. peacewisher

    30 Dec, 2009 - 10:11 pm

    Only 1200? With all that white phosphorus?

  11. dreoilin

    30 Dec, 2009 - 10:14 pm

    Yes.

  12. Courtenay Barnett

    30 Dec, 2009 - 10:14 pm

    Q. Why didn’t the Nigerian bomber blow up everything at once?

    A. It was just the first leg of his mission!

  13. dreoilin

    30 Dec, 2009 - 10:17 pm

    Badoom – tish

  14. dreoilin

    30 Dec, 2009 - 11:22 pm

    Reason for exploding underpants job?

    “Parts of the Patriot Act are due to expire this New Years Eve”

    http://tinyurl.com/yj7r2f3

    plus, US plans to expand attacks on Yemen.

  15. MJ

    30 Dec, 2009 - 11:24 pm

    Q. Why didn’t the Nigerian bomber blow up everything at once?

    A. Because his detonator was pants.

  16. MJ

    30 Dec, 2009 - 11:28 pm

    Q. Why didn’t the Nigerian bomber blow up everything at once?

    A. Because that was not among his briefs.

  17. MJ

    30 Dec, 2009 - 11:31 pm

    “Parts of the Patriot Act are due to expire this New Years Eve”

    Excellent point dreoilin.

  18. David Allen

    31 Dec, 2009 - 12:19 am

    Craig,

    You’re quite right to criticise the many Western politicians who hugely exaggerate the threat. But it is equally wrong to ignore the threat altogether, and to side with the 911 denialists.

    If you treat all this as just a big laugh, a suitable subject for underpants jokes, what do you think that ordinary people will make of you?

    They will see that 250 innocent people might easily have died, and that you don’t much seem to care. You won’t get popular support or understanding that way!

  19. Jaded.

    31 Dec, 2009 - 12:57 am

    David Allen:

    ’911 denialists.’

    LMFAO. Now that’s ‘seriously’ funny! 9/11 and 7/7 is only a big joke to the sickos that did it. That’s the black operations units of the CIA, Mossad, MI5 and MI6 and their cronies. From our parliament Tony Blair certainly knew and maybe one or two more. Then there’s Bush and his inner circle. This is all ordered by the shadowy behind the scenes psycho twats that wield economic power and are members of sad, sheeplike secret societies epitomised by the Rockefellers.

    Watch this from 14.25 to 15.40.

    http://freedocumentaries.net/media/73/Brian_Springer_%E2%80%93_Spin/

    All of it is good but ‘Call him when you’re elected’ sort of sums it up!

  20. peacewisher

    31 Dec, 2009 - 3:34 am

    @David Allen

    This would be a good point, but… this Nigerian man was clearly known to the intelligence services from more than one source. It looks like THEY risked the lives of those 250 people on board by just letting him get onto the plane. No wonder Obama was going ballistic on the media yesterday.

  21. Jaded.

    31 Dec, 2009 - 4:13 am

    No lives were risked. It was a controlled set up and they ‘helped’ him get on to the plane.

  22. Barbara Suzuki

    31 Dec, 2009 - 5:42 am

    Lives certainly were at risk. We know from eye-witness accounts that there was some fear and shouting before the fire was extinguished. Imagine a confined full cabin-load of pax in various stages of panic ‘fight or flight’ responses as the a/c approaches the runway. Only luck prevented more injuries or death.

  23. Jaded.

    31 Dec, 2009 - 6:05 am

    Run that by me again. How exactly were lives at risk? Fear and shouting? People tilting the plane by moving around? I saw some of the passengers interviewed afterwards and they didn’t look traumatised to me. He lit his pants, harmless pants, and then a security service agent jumped on him as planned. Now we get new wars and restrictions on the public. End of story. Grow up and use your brain Barbara. It’s not hard to figure out.

  24. Barbara

    31 Dec, 2009 - 6:59 am

    No need to be rude. I am polite to you.

    The dangers of pax panic cannot be breezily dismissed.

    Fear, shouting, and jumping out of seat in the confined space of a cabin in an a/c coming in to land is a potentially very dangerous situation. Why would you want to deny that? Have you ever been in an a/c of pax in a panic? I have, and it resulted in several injuries.

    The situation was volatile, and could have lead to disaster. Luck prevailed, but nobody could have foreseen that.

  25. dreoilin

    31 Dec, 2009 - 7:42 am

    Barbara,

    What’s “an a/c of pax?” You’ll have to forgive me, I was never part of a flight crew/staff.

    Meanwhile, I gather that these new full body scanners destined for use at Schiphol are microwaves. There will be health worries raised. They can cook your skin. So I’m reading, anyway.

  26. Craig

    31 Dec, 2009 - 8:50 am

    Dave,

    Now Hitler really was an existential threat, but there were plenty of jokes about him flying around in WW2. But you wouldn’t have accused those making the jokes of making light of the casualties of the blitz.

    Think, Dave. You are reinforcing the view that the only politically acceptable stance is both po-faced and terrified.

    I have not said he was not a threat. He was. But an underpants bomb that does nothing but damage the wearer’s genitals is undeniably comic.

  27. Barbara

    31 Dec, 2009 - 8:54 am

    a/c – air craft

    pax – passengers

    I was aircrew with an Arab airline based in the Gulf for seven years. In my time there was panic during an attempted hi-jacking by a mentally disturbed man, and during a pax attempting suicide with an aircraft knife (!) in throes of passing a kidney stone, as well as on occasions of extreme turbulence.

    Each time the pax were in danger from each other and from being unrestrained by seat belts during the a/c’s descent.

    I don’t believe in any floating existential threat from Islam, but I believe in attention seekers, I believe in evil-doers, and I believe in nutters (including religious extremists).

    To dismiss the ‘exploding underpants’ incident in such a cavalier fashion as a “risk-free” manufactured scare to cow the populace is *imo rather naive. Anything could have happened.

    *in my opinion

  28. anticant

    31 Dec, 2009 - 9:18 am

    “I don’t believe in any floating existential threat from Islam, but I believe in attention seekers, I believe in evil-doers, and I believe in nutters (including religious extremists).”

    I entirely agree. The root of our problems since well before 9/11 is a carefully fostered atmosphere of paranoid fear which makes it easier for those ostensibly concerned about our ‘security’ to keep us docile.

    A book written during the Cold War, but still very relevant, is Dorothy Rowe’s “Living With The Bomb”, in which she examines the questions ‘can we live without an enemy?’ and ‘must we always fear the Stranger?’

  29. Jaded.

    31 Dec, 2009 - 9:39 am

    Barbara, this is all planned well in advance by nasty control freaks that want to hold sway over as much of the planet as they can. I do get a bit passionate, but i’m not going to apologise for it. This is serious stuff. I would watch this if I were you if you haven’t seen it. Listen to what he says and think about it, i’m not suggesting you just swallow it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ

  30. dreoilin

    31 Dec, 2009 - 9:44 am

    “Anything could have happened.”

    I agree. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t manufactured, either.

  31. writerman

    31 Dec, 2009 - 10:00 am

    Fear is a strange and very powerful emotion. Those who offer to protect us, rarely do so without exacting a price. Often that price is higher than the cost of what we fear. Hitler was probably the ultimate warrior/protector figure.

  32. Barbara

    31 Dec, 2009 - 11:30 am

    anticant, jaded, dreoilin and writerman,

    Sorry, but what comes across to me is that You are the ones who seem consumed by panic and paranoia.

    Posting anonymously for a start, and musing about fear and ‘they what are taking over our world’ conspiracy.

    Keyboard doom-sayers – gotta luv’em.

    Happy New Year.

  33. dreoilin

    31 Dec, 2009 - 11:39 am

    Barbara,

    If you only knew. I couldn’t be less “consumed by panic and paranoia”.

    I have far too much else on my mind.

    Happy New Year to you. :)

  34. Jaded.

    31 Dec, 2009 - 12:18 pm

    Sleep well Babs… ;-)

  35. MJ

    31 Dec, 2009 - 12:33 pm

    “Often that price is higher than the cost of what we fear”

    Indeed. Benjamin Franklin’s remark could have been aimed at these strange times:

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and ultimately will have neither”.

  36. ingo

    31 Dec, 2009 - 12:59 pm

    A danger he was, that is undeniably true, but most to himself.

    I feel as if we are not yet in full knowledge of all that happened.

    If the CIA knew before hand, David, for weeks going by various sources as pointed out, then they are as guilty as the bomber himself.

    If they knew of a Nigerian bomb plot for such a long time, what would it take to switch the syringe, slightly altering the initiator chems and handing it back to him? or switch it somehow? in that, making sure that the patriot act is safe from obliteration, a massive media support from ever more restrictive practises, ensuring that

    nobody but his gonads were hurt?

    Just do not trust the terror mongers, if they can torture people at will, such deceit is not far off their routine.

  37. peacewisher

    31 Dec, 2009 - 4:20 pm

    Think I’m on the same page as Barbara on this one.

    The point I was making was that even if it was planned – then it was a potentially dangerous strategy simply because the events took place on a plane, probably 35000 feet in the air.

    If it was a set up with a Parsy/Stooge/whatever… 250 lives were still potentially placed at risk. To give Obama some credit, perhaps that is why he went ballistic.

  38. Anonymous

    31 Dec, 2009 - 10:36 pm

    Obama is just Bush with black skin and a knack for good oratory. Yes, he really reprimanded the guilty parties by going ballistic at Yemen!

  39. alan campbell

    31 Dec, 2009 - 11:39 pm

    nutters.

  40. Jaded.

    1 Jan, 2010 - 12:26 am

    All those ‘nutters’ running around invading countries with no justification…

  41. Horace

    1 Jan, 2010 - 8:27 pm

    Interesting article at http://www.sott.net or via What Really Happened under Crotchbomber. Our old friends the Israelis are deeply involved apparently. Typically, Brown’s knees are jerking – he must be seen to be saving his people. You can be stopped at Customs in the EU for failing to pay child support but they cannot identify a terrorist?

  42. David Allen

    1 Jan, 2010 - 11:17 pm

    Craig,

    “Now Hitler really was an existential threat, but there were plenty of jokes about him flying around in WW2. But you wouldn’t have accused those making the jokes of making light of the casualties of the blitz.”

    Bad analogy. Everybody knew Hitler was a threat (we were at war!). The jokes about Hitler were partly for fun, but they were also intended to ridicule the guy and give the Brits a boost of confidence that they could beat him. Nobody can be sure what Mutallab was all about (yes he might be false flag, he might be an isolated nutter, or he might be effectively Al Qaida, we just don’t know). In those circumstances, why crack jokes? Doesn’t it make it look as if you are trying to deny the threat?

    “I have not said he was not a threat. He was. But an underpants bomb that does nothing but damage the wearer’s genitals is undeniably comic.”

    Hmm. An undertaker who slips on a banana skin during a funeral is also undeniably comic. But if you dared to make a joke of it, you would inevitably cause offence. I think there are better subjects for humour than other people’s funerals, or other people’s close brushes with disaster in the air.

  43. dreoilin

    2 Jan, 2010 - 12:12 pm

    “or other people’s close brushes with disaster in the air”–David Allen

    I’m not convinced that it was a close brush with disaster. But even if it was, if we didn’t smile or even laugh sometimes at all this carry-on, we’d go barmy.

    Taking

    “Brown calls summit after bomb attack”

    http://bit.ly/6S3uX9

    too seriously when there was no “bomb attack”, would do all of our heads in.

  44. Ianf

    2 Jan, 2010 - 6:39 pm

    Craig> “Given [...] the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, OF COURSE there is huge resentment towards the West in much of the Islamic world [...]” (emphasis mine)

    Oh, really? My ongoing impression of the “Western-Islamic conflict” (for want of a better description; as observed in a range of Western newspapers and magazines) is that Islamic bien-pensants and fundamentalists alike couldn’t care less for what happens to their Palestinian/ Gazan nominal-brethren. They may dislike Israel on principle as “foreign Western state in eternal Arab lands”, and occupier of their alleged third most holy city (or some such, much of this anecdotal), but the open-minded among them know that Israel’s presence there hasn’t been without its merits. Also for the Israeli Palestinians, who, second-class citizens though they might be, do not seem to be longing much for any greater degree of dependence on their own Fatah and/or Hamas-electees.

    Perhaps you’d therefore care not to bake in your personal “Israel=villian” antipathies with the bigger world-spanning conflict. Or at least SPELL OUT FIRST how would you go about solving the West Bank and/or Gaza real-life problem to Muslims’ contention…. so we all could have a laff.

  45. Tony Rogers

    4 Jan, 2010 - 9:31 am

    “But many on the right have a psychological rather than merely material need for an enemy” – Craig Murray

    By the “right”, I take it you’re referring to the New Labour government, who’ve been addicted to war from the beginning – supported by a cretinous political class who pretended to believe their lies?

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos