For the last ten years we have suffered media hysteria at the very mention of a bomb plot. The live news networks have been devoted for whole days and weeks, and the front pages monopolised, by a whole series of alleged bomb plots, even though in the large majority of cases there turned out not to be any actual bomb, just bragging emails or loose macho talk. So-called bomb plots in the US had as much power as alleged UK plots to dominate UK news.
Yet when a very real terrorist with a very real and large actual bomb tries but fails to kill very many in a large crowd, it gets a cursory mention on TV news and the only report in the UK press I can find is the Daily Mail
Who can doubt the level of hysteria that would have been whipped up if this were a Muslim and not a Nazi?
The difference is between internal and external.
There is no external threat identified as Nazi.
The internal threat has always existed and is manageable: People are always making bombs. Didn't you make bombs as a kid? We made a pipe bomb which exploded with a very satisfactory bang in the middle of the school tennis court. Some people just get carried away with it and turn pathalogical.
At present the external threat may be low. However, as the US is seen increasingly as an aggressive expansionist empire, how will people react? The only option for most countries, if they wish to retaliate against US aggression, is to attack covertly, i.e., by terrorism. Iran has already announced that that is how they will respond to a US/Israeli attack on them.
Is it not the case, therefore, that Anglo/American hype about terrorism represents a pre-emptive strategy to prepare for real terrorism in the future?
I don't think characterising Nazism as internal and Islam is external makes any sense, to be honest. Come to think of it, white Americans are all external if you want to go down that route
Sorry, but I don't quite follow your argument.
Mine was that, although neoNazis are known to exist within the US, they are an internal and rather minor threat. Moreover, the US does not face any external threat which it identifies as Nazi. Therefore, a Nazi bomb plot is not useful as a justification for the apparatus of anti-terrorism defense that is being created, which is directed against potential or actual external threats, most of which comprise Islamic states or groups or states with a largely Muslim population.
So, you're saying they don't give a shit about an actual terrorist bomb because they're defending themselves against the possibility of terrorist bombs ?
It is probably going too far to say they "don't give a shit" about an actual terrorist bomb. But you have to keep things in perspective. Millions of Americans are killed or assaulted by their own police every year. So if one nut manages to kill a few people for reasons best known to himself, you can't get too excited about it. It's just one of the hazards of American life.
However, if Iran or other countries see unconventional methods, i.e., terrorism, as the best bet in any attack, or more likely counterattack, on the US, then the US Government naturally has to prepare. That means massive intervention into the lives of ordinary people going about their lawful business in peacetime. So, howdo you get people to cooperate? By hyping the Muslim terror threat, which although hyped, is nonertheless real.
"Millions of Americans are killed or assaulted by their own police every year. "
What are you talking about? Any evidence for this?
Americans Are Oppressed, Too
By Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/110203_oppressed.htm
Police in the US now rival criminals, and exceed terrorists, as the greatest threat to the American public. Rogelio Serrato is the latest case to be in the news of an innocent person murdered by the police. Serrato was the wrong man, but the Monterey County, California, SWAT team killed the 31-year old father of four and left the family home a charred ruin.
The fact that SWAT teams often go to the wrong door shows the carelessness with which excessive force is used. In one instance the police even confused the town’s mayor with a drug dealer, broke into his home, shot dead the family’s pet dogs, and held the mayor and his wife and children at gun point. But most cases of police brutality never make the news.
Most who suffer abuse from the police don’t bother to complain. They know that to make an enemy of the police brings a lifetime of troubles. Those who do file complaints find that police departments tend to be self-protective and that the naive and gullible public tends to side with the police.
However, you can find plenty of examples of police brutality on YouTube, more than you can watch in a lifetime. I have just searched google for "YouTube police brutality" and the result is: "497,000 results." There’s everything from police shooting a guy in a wheelchair to body slamming a befuddled 89-year old great grandmother to tasering kids and mothers with small children. The fat goon cops love to beat up on women, kids, and old people.
The 497,000 google results may contain duplicates as more than one person might have posted a video of the same event, and the incidents occurred over more than one year. …
That Google search is a bit silly.
In an country of over 300 million people – you can find all sorts of examples of people behaving badly.
The assertion “But most cases of police brutality never make the news. Most who suffer abuse from the police don’t bother to complain.” is unfounded.
And I'd hardly rely on Paul Craig Roberts as a source.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/privileged_class.htm
It's quite telling that you would cite vdare as a source – it's a clearinghouse for the racist right wing in America.
"it's a clearinghouse for the racist right wing in America."
Oh, you're really into name calling aren't you.
You may not accept Paul Craig Roberts' rough and ready statistics on police violence in America but are you saying that incidents of unwarranted police violence in America are rare?
And you may not respect Paul Craig Roberts but he is a former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, WS Journal editor, and Professor of economics. His views seem at least as worthy of consideration as yours.
Yes, I'm name-calling. When I come across a racist right-wing website, I don't mind calling it a racist right-wing website.
I encourage you to read some of his other work in order to gauge his credibility.
Yes, earlier in his life he racked up some credentials. Now he's a racist conspiracy nut.
He's the type of right-winger who believes that the country has been stolen. By both a secret New World Order cabal, and by people of color.
"Yes, I'm name-calling. When I come across a racist right-wing website, I don't mind calling it a racist right-wing website. "
So you settle any argument by calling your opponent a far-right-wing racist? That's rather a sad acknowledgment of the emptiness of your position.
Your ignorance about Paul Craig Roberts seems near total. Or are you just a far right Zionist Neocon attempting to destroy the credibility of one of your critics?
Here's was Wikipedia reports of Roberts "views":
Criticism of Bush
Roberts opposed the Iraq War … On May 18, 2005, in response to the publication of the "Downing Street memo," Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war.
Roberts was also a critic of a potential Bush administration attack on Iran. In an August 15, 2005 article, he states "Bush…dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia."
… He has said that supporters of George W. Bush "are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters."..
In an article for Counterpunch magazine titled "Pirates of the Mediterranean", Roberts wrote that for 60 years, Israel has replicated "the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers." Roberts repeated charges that Gaza is "the world largest concentration camp" populated by people who were "driven out of Palestine so that Israel could steal their land." He called the U.S. State Department a "puppet" of the Israelis and the U.S. itself a "puppet state" of the Israelis. He concludes the article by claiming that "there’s no money for California, or for Americans’health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it."[11] …
Of the 9/11 Commission Report he wrote in 2006, "One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations."
Concerning the media he has said: "Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda."
There's a lot more in his Wikipedia entry at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts
Yes, Mr. Roberts does express criticism of the neocons. I grant to you all of what you point out above (including, of course, that he's a 911 truther, which should tell you something right there), but that won't deter me from pointing out that he's a "they took our country"-type conservative who is able to get published in Counterpunch because he used to work for Reagan and he thereafter opposed the Bush administration. He's also a racist. Vdare is clearly a racist website. Right-wing as well, if you care to peruse that site. He's simply a paleocon on steroids, much like Pat Buchanan would be if he lost his mind a bit.
That some members of the left (particularly the British left) so easily get into bed with this creep is another indication of just how dumb many of you are.
I love this note on Wikipedia: "In an interview on August 27, 2008, on a broadcast of The Alex Jones Show, Roberts stated that he believed that influential neoconservatives affiliated with the Bush administration were leading the United States into a nuclear confrontation with Russia over the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia."
In other words, on the radio show of Alex Jones (a far-right conspiracy theorist, who is very scared of Mexicans and chemtrails), your hero created another nutty conspiracy theory.
You ask if I'm a "far right Zionist Neocon". What do you mean by Zionist?
Are you a racist who hates Mexicans and other people of color? Also, why do you hate Jews so much?
"he's a 911 truther, which should tell you something right there"
Yugo, there's evidently no end to your nonsense, so I'll have to pass most of it by. But your statement that Paul Craig Roberts being a 911 Truther "should tell you something right there" is bizarre in the extreme. Are we supposed, in your view, to oppose those who demand the truth about 9/11 — a reasonable demand it would seen since there has been no judicial inquiry or forensic investigation of the crime?
If you want to engage in a discussion with sensible people, I suggest you deal with the issues instead of endlessly engaging in ad hominem attacks and silly name calling? Or are you one of the tens of thousands of agents of cognitive infiltration that we can reasonably suppose Cass Sunstein and Israel's Government has let loose on the Internet?
I think I'm dealing quite well with the issues. You cite a right-wing nut like PCR for the statement that Americans are under threat all the time by its police forces, and I point out to you that PCR invents other conspiracies and has seemingly lost his mind.
That you bring up the crazy 911 conspiracy is a further indication that your brain has been hijacked by the far right in America. They are you the people who produce the content, and you are the British leftist who consumes it.
The federal, state and local investigation in NYC, at the Pentagon and at Shanksville was immense. Clearly the largest criminal investigation in history.
Besides, I believe that Craig Murray thinks that you 911 conspiracy theorists are nutters – what do you think of that?
Internal threats are usually considered *more* difficult to deal with than external ones. This particular threat recently delivered a bomb which nearly killed hundreds of people. What is "rather minor" about that?
Your statement is odd to follow. You seem to say what is "minor" about "internal" threats, is that they are "not useful as a justification for the apparatus…" Did you mean to say that?
"This particular threat recently delivered a bomb which nearly killed hundreds of people. What is "rather minor" about that? "
Well, the bomb didn't go off did it, so a less minor incident is conceivable, right?
And even if the bomb had gone off it would have been a minor incident compared with an all out attack by all available unconventional means, i.e., terrorism, as promised by Tehran should Israel or the US launch a military assault on Iran.
So, given the reality of a Muslim terrorist threat and America's experience of 9/11, attention to incidents of Muslim terrorism are surely useful to the US Government in justifying Homeland Security and all the rest of the anti-terror apparatus.
Conversely, Americans are hardly likely to believe in the possibility of a major Nazi terrorist threat, with hijacked planes knocking over multiple buildings, punching holesthrough the Pentagon, while the America's trillion-dollar air defenses are disabled.
So the case of one more disaffected American nut killing a few people, or trying to, is not much of a story and it serves no obvious purpose to hype it.
In the USA, certainly, they simply refuse to accept that there is a more clear and present danger from right-wing extremists than from the laregly law-abiding muslim community. But as ever in American life and politics, facts are rarely allowed to interfere with insitutionlised bigotry. In the UK perhaps it’s almost as much of a shame that we fall in line so readily with the pax-Amnericana view of the world.
The scare and fear propaganda has everything to do with the raison d’être of the military-industrial complex. It must sell the arms it produces – and the production and over-production requires a political component part of a populace that believes it is sensible to build bombs, such as the over-production of nuclear ones, that can never be used ( unless – of course one is seeking the annihilation of humankind).
The propaganda/spin has to categorise all terrorism as coming from a "external" source, i.e. foreign, Muslim terrorists, or Muslims inside the US homeland, who are committed to a "foreign" and extreme ideology; because, by definition, a real American cannot be a terrrorist, as there is no "reason", and cannot be a reason for any American to committ such mindless acts of violence.
This is why "foreign" acts of violence aimed at Americans are always classified as terrorism, whilst the same acts committed by Americans are not classified automatically as terrorism, unless they are committed by Muslims. Chistians are apparently incapable of acts of terrorism. Christians terrorists are almost always labelled "mad" or mentally disturbed individuals, like the recent right-wing shooter in Texas, who though clearly politically motivated to kill a US politician, was not called a terrorist.
Are you talking about Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter? I don't know who is not labeling him a terrorist – I would certainly call him a terrorist. And obviously his actions were well-covered in the media. We're still going to hear a hell of a lot of him.
And he wasn't a "right-wing" shooter. He was a product of mental illness and scattered thinking inspired by the movie Zeitgeist. He's an example of what can happen to a person when his brain is taken over by conspiracy theories.
"He's an example of what can happen to a person when his brain is taken over by conspiracy theories. "
I guess that's what's wrong with all historians, their brains have been "taken over by conspiracy theories".
Or is it just that history is very largely a record of conspiracies? In which case, those who consider the label "conspiracy theorist" tantamount to the total destruction of an opponent are the one's whose brains have been taken over — perhaps by a foreign entity.
If one examines many of the terrorist trials that have taken place in the United States over the last few years, a pattern emerges. The terrorist cells contain "nutters" who have massive problems, ex-cons, petty criminals, ex-drug addicts, not very bright, strapped for cash. Along comes their "saviour", and individual who is highly motivated, charismatic, has access to unlimited supplies of cash, is deparate to strike back at the Infidels, knows how to make bombs, can get hold of explosives… and crucially is a paid FBI informant. This pattern repeats over and over again. Does it have any wider significance? Does it even matter as long as the terrorists are caught and punished? Is it a modern version of a witch-trial?
We then have the King hearings that are taking place in Washington, examining the roots of Muslim extremism. The result is given in advance. Muslim's are becoming radicalised because they are Muslims, and their culture and Islam is the root cause; therefore, they and Islam have to change, evolve, and become more modern. Islam must be assimilated into western modernity.
That US/western foreign policy and unconditional support for Israel, might have something to do with the rise of Muslim radicalization, that terrorism is "blowback" for decades of western aggression and interferrence in the Middle East, is an unacceptable answer, because we are innocent babes in the wood, being attacked for no reason at all by raving madmen.
Can speccy
I dont understand your argument of external and internal. The persons who committed the attack on 7/7 in London were very internal to the UK and 9/11 I believe were all resident in the US. That seems very internal to me. The Northern Ireland IRA threat was very Internal to the UK and very real far far more real than the bogeyman of the percieved threat from any Al Quaeda attack. The threat from the idiot who exploded a bomb in the Admiral Duncan Pub in Soho was a neo nazi nutter but very dangerous. The people and the mentally are exactly the same sad indoctronated nutters who feel they have to make a horrific point.
"I dont understand your argument of external and internal."
The difference between an internal and an external threat is clear, surely. Iran, for example, which has threatened an all out non-conventional response to a US/Israeli attack on its own territory, is external, the IRA are internal.
"The persons who committed the attack on 7/7 in London were very internal to the UK"
I believe that the UK may have different reasons for hyping a Muslim terrorist threat than the US. Britain, unlike America, has a huge proportion of immigrants who are Muslim and who, if dominated by radical clerics, constitute an internal threat to the social fabric of the country. I have always assumed that 7/7 was about knocking Britain's Muslims into line. But I could be wrong. So hyping the Muslim threat may have different objectives in different countries.
"and 9/11 I believe were all resident in the US."
Not sure what you mean by this, but the official story is that the 9/11 terrorists were all Muslims form Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the Gulf States and were directed by Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan, and so were definitely a case of an external threat turned real.
Dont fall into the trap of thinking that Al Quaeda has a fancy HQ with computers and staff cars coordinating some big war against the West.
They are exactly the same as the Neo Nazi nutters they are an Ideal a club where no one knows who else is in the club they are a few nutters who put websites independently from grubby internet cafes all over the world and swap ideas.
If they were efficient and organise they would have suceeded many more times and would have real bombs not home made rubbish and would kill far more real people like the IRA . The security services army and police are terrified of budget cuts even more than terrorists thats why every time the threat drops budgets get cut and the threat goes up.
Well, turning the argument on its head, it doesn't serve any geostrategic interest to report much on white supremacist terrorism, does it, though I've noticed that such activity on the ground seems to rise when a Democrat is in the White House. Reporting extensively on it would also tend to take away from the attempt to build-up the Islamist terrorist threat as 'Enemy Number One', since, if there are actually 52 different varieties of terrorist out there (in here), then what's so special about the Islamist brand? It suits the Jihadis as well, actually. Makes 'em feel that bit more special, you know. It's a branding thing, yeah, just like Gucci or Jimmy Choo. Well, Representative Peter King allegedly is an IRA supporter – so that terrorist supporter is very much 'in here'. But what brand of high-heels does he wear?
If one examines many of the terrorist trials that have taken place in the United States over the last few years, a pattern emerges. The terrorist cells contain "nutters" who have massive problems, ex-cons, petty criminals, ex-drug addicts, not very bright, strapped for cash. Along comes their "saviour", and individual who is highly motivated, charismatic, has access to unlimited supplies of cash, is deparate to strike back at the Infidels, knows how to make bombs, can get hold of explosives… and crucially is a paid FBI informant. This pattern repeats over and over again. Does it have any wider significance? Does it even matter as long as the terrorists are caught and punished? Is it a modern version of a witch-trial?
One also has to wonder whether there are political, economic, social, military, cultural, factors "built into" the system in the United States, that require and need threats and enemies in order to "function properly"? It's as if the state/corporate/military system needs to find enemies in order to legitimise and justify their vast budgets and central, defining role in wider society. One could call this the "Witch Hunt Syndrome", which has clear parallels to the situation in the United States. In no real enemy exists, there is a "natural" momentum that leans towards finding one.
I made nitro-glycerine as a 14yrs O-Level student, it was easy after having read in a school chemistry book to keep the mixing temperature low. You could buy conc. nitric and sulphuric acid at the chemist in those days.
As a small boy I remember we had an 'Asian' community in London and nobody used the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' or 'Islamic terrorists' at all. As a 'milk-man's' little helper I remember delivering at least a dozen bottles of milk to each of their houses which was the only thing of any significance, either 'Asians' drank a lot of tea or many families lived in one house.
With that 'preamble' said, my question is – why is there still confusion over the London Underground bombs?
FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES
Immediately after the events of 7th July 2005 all the news reports that mentioned the kind of explosive used stated that high grade explosives, as typically used by military forces, were responsible. While much of this may be dismissed as media speculation, the police authoritatively confirmed this on the record:
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick: "All we are saying is that it is high explosives. That would tend to suggest that it is not home-made explosive. Whether it is military explosive, whether it is commercial explosive, whether it is plastic
explosive we do not want to say at this stage."
Courtesy http://julyseventh.co.uk
Yet according to the Intelligence and Security Committee signed by Tony Blair MP, the explosives were home-made highly volatile unstable organic compounds (chapati flour?) extremely dangerous to carry around.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_05_…
So much for the 'media hysteria at the very mention of a bomb plot' – the so called 'experts' cannot even analyse a crime scene and determine the type of bomb used despite modern forensic techniques – that, or the whole thing is a pack of lies.
I think the experts are very capable of identifying the type of explosives used and got it right first time, in the days immediately after the attack. It was only later as the embarrassing provenance of the explosives – NATO – became evident that the story was re-written to pretend they were homemade. At least, that was the thesis of Nafeez Ahmed in his book The London Bombings. And ater all, how likely is it that an explosives expert examining the scene wouldn't know the difference between C4 and Chapati-Glycerine?
Also, I find it absolutely extraordinary that no postmortems were carried out. Surely if carried out, they could've pinpointed where the bombs came from and what they consisted of.
This extract from the Inquest I find quite telling.
Dr. Awani Choudhary, one of the first doctors on the scene from the BMA at Tavistock Square, states:
‘I have not seen the post-mortem report, but I thought that she (Gladys Wundowa) was bleeding from somewhere … So if the post-mortem says that she was not bleeding from anywhere, just had a spinal injury, I will be surprised…
Q. Since you ask about the post-mortem, can I simply inform you that, as with all the other casualties of the day, no internal post-mortem was conducted into Gladys Wundowa, so unfortunately, much as we would like the answers to the questions that you’ve asked, they don’t –
A. I… I’m absolutely sure that she had had internal injury as well as a spinal injury, and I’m absolutely surprised that a post-mortem has not been done through and through.
Q. Well, Mr Choudhary, that isn’t a matter to concern you.
A. Sorry.
Q. … we don’t need to concern ourselves about that matter. (Jan 20 am, 63:22- 65:6)
I wonder why we don't need to concern ourselves with this matter.
Sadly Nafeez Ahmed's book was heavily censored – what Nafeez has been allowed to tell us in his blog and confirmed by former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus, is that the London bombers were in fact connected to the extremist terrorist network called al-Muhajiroun and that network had disturbing links with British security services in the Balkans during the late 1990s, as well as with repressive Western client-regimes abroad such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, among others.
Our links with militant Islamists during this period was motivated by the desire to use them to access strategic oil supplies in Central Asia and elsewhere, according to whistleblowers like former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds – whose testimony before the 9/11 Commission and U.S. Congress is so embarrassing for the U.S.-led ‘War on Terror’ it has been retroactively classified. Now 9/11 has been revealed as a planned attack with government complicity we can assume from the many flaws in the official government conspiracy of the London bombings, for instance they failed to get the trains times right such that Home Secretary John Reid had to announce the error in Parliament, that our own security services had fore-knowledge and that means they knew every single move including the dubious Tanweer video aired on al-Jazeera.
Best to remember the many lies and distortions that have existed since the Israeli named 'war on terror' that have been widely disseminated and swallowed whole by an increasingly pathetic and subservient media, that remains unable to learn from the pattern of deceit long established in examples like the non-existent “Ricin Plot” as Craig Murray told us ages ago – “there was no ricin; and there was no plot”. Such insight remains extremely potent.
"Now 9/11 has been revealed as a planned attack with government complicity"
What are you talking about? Sibel Edmonds' incredibly expanding story does not remotely prove the U.S. government was complicit in 911.
So are you saying that the Pentagon approved an attack … on the Pentagon?
"Now 9/11 has been revealed as a planned attack with government complicity"
What are you talking about?
Not planned? You saying it just happened at random?
Well of course it was planned. By 19 Arab Muslim at the behest of bin Laden.
"Well of course it was planned. By 19 Arab Muslim at the behest of bin Laden. "
Why "of course"?
Did I miss it? Was there a judicial inquiry, or even a forensic investigation?
Yes. It was massive.
Additionally, the Zacarias Moussaoui trial was fairly instructive. The evidence is online, if you care to look.
But I know, I know. You're going to immediately consult some far right American website that will cite anomalies and other conspiracy theorist material regarding such trial.
I think it's fairly clear that radicalized Muslim terrorists were responsible for 7/7.
Yes, initial reports in the media and on the part of the police are sometimes wrong. After 911, the BBC incorrectly reported that some of the hijackers were still alive.
It looks like you're merely anomaly-hunting here – which is what any conspiracy theorist does.
I am afraid that it was ever thus. Even in our own Parliament we now admit serious terrorists who waged real war against the state , murdered MPs , and nearly murdered a Prime Minister. Almost all of the current campaign is about raising fear in the population ; Orwell was right on this
More follows but the current opium of the people , at least here in KL , is the cricket…………….
I think there are a few reasons why some terrorist plots are much hyped while others largely ignored.
1 – As others have pointed out there are obvious geo-strategic/military industrial complex reasons to hype Islamic terrorism. It's much harder to convince the public that wars are needed to prevent terrorism if Joe Bloggs is also a terrorist and the police can arrest him. The GWOT is based on the premise that Islamic terrorism is uniquely terrible and requires massive wars to prevent.
2 – As much as I hate to say it, there is a dark streak in human nature and we like to blame 'others' for as many problems as possible. 'We' are the good guys, even when we cause trouble, it is largely understandable and generally a mistake. 'They' are bad and do not posses the same moral fortitude that we do. I have been to many different countries, with different laws, customs, beliefs and political systems, but one thing they all have in common is a love of scapegoats.
3 – Connected to issue 2 is money. Fox news and organisations of that ilk all make their money obviously pushing a conservative right wing line. However, even those media organisations not so explicitly right wing see that is makes more financial sense create a narrative where we are the good guys, fighting the evil others (Muslims in this case). The average person is more likely to pay for/watch information that says how great they are as opposed to listing all their faults.
These 3 factors all conspire to create the media narrative that ignores western terrorism while greatly exaggerating any crimes committed by Muslims.
"Who can doubt the level of hysteria that would have been whipped up if this were a Muslim and not a Nazi?"
I couldn't resist and googled 'Muslim Nazi'. This was my favourite page 1 result:
Our Marxist/Muslim NAZI Dictator, Obama Sent US Diplomats 2 Meet With Muslim Brotherhood?!
We're through the looking glass here, people.
OF COURSE THEY NEED AN EXTERNAL ENEMY – HOW ELSE DOES ONE KEEP THE DEFENCE BUDGET GROWING?
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil
"The defence budget of America alone, at $693 billion, accounts for more than 60% of the total. But when defence spending is compared to the overall size of each country's economy, Saudi Arabia tops the list. It spends over 10% of GDP on defence, more than double the proportion spent by America. China ranks second in the world's biggest defence budgets (spending some $76 billion) and also boasts the largest armed forces. Only America, India, Russia and North Korea (not shown) have more than 1m military personnel."
Why does the United States spend such colossal sums on it's healtcare system and its military machine? Both are massively, mind-numbingly expensive, inefficient, corrupt, and not fit for purpose.
The explosives you in the 7/7 bombings and subsequently in the 21/7 were definitely home made explosives not military grade. All military and civil grade explosives have specific markers that allow it to be identified. The failed bomb of 21/7 was forensicated and found to contain similar explosives to the 7/7 but due to being possibly from the same batch as the 7/7 it was not stored properly and had gone off. No military or civil grade explosives or detonators were used. Everything was home made as far as I am aware no bombs in the UK or attempts by AQ have ever had access to planned to or used military grade or civil explosives. The original call to the explosions as put out by BTP and TFL was an electrical explosion then it became obvious it was explosives when the bus blew up. This is cock up not conspiracy.
The point, as someone said earlier, is the 'other', either internal or external, I think; which is why the (white) BNP supporters discovered with bomb making equipment here in the UK a couple of years ago were treated with kid sub-judice gloves while anyone Muslim (I appreciate Mark Golding's point that this term has only been popularised in recent years) makes the front page even if, as in the 'Muslim Plot to Kill Pope' case, the story is entirely fabricated. Desmond, who runs the Express, whose journalists were forced to run that headine, also runs the Daily Star, which recently came out in support of the EDL, which is not even a political party, and whose marchers actively target Muslim/Asian businesses in a campaign of intimidation which reaches its apogee up North.
Nasty, confusing times, I was about to say, but a (white, middle-aged) cyclist has just pedalled past my window shouting in hoarse and passionate tones: "Please come and give your support; there are Libyan people dying". Which rather proves the point.
I suggest you try reading "The Turner Diaries" and "Social Justice in Islam" side by side!
However if you order them from Amazon like I did don't be surprised if it causes confusion amongst those how check what we buy!
Do you people remember Richard Jewel and Eric Robert Rudolph? One of Rudolph's crimes, and Jewel's blame for it, was a pretty big issue. So were Rudolph's other crimes. Why? Because things actually went boom.
If this nut's bomb had gone off, it would have been huge news.
There have been plenty of Muslim plots in the U.S. that have generated indictments but not too much media attention because the bombs didn't go off or the plots otherwise did not enjoy fruition. Did anyone here hear of the Fort Dix plot?
I suggest you try reading "The Turner Diaries" and "Social Justice in Islam" side by side!
@Cheeba;
Thanks for linking me, I guess.
I am not very nice to the current disaster person occupying the W.H.
I know the Muslims are a problem in EU and the East, but the Commies are a MUCH bigger issue in USA.
In fact, the 'liberals' are the reason that Muzlims BECAME an issue in BOTH party's.
People should focus on the problem with these Marxist/violent slimes in charge more than the Muzlims.
I call Obama a Nazi b/c he acts like a combo of Hitler/Stalin, and Mao.
Musharraf 'not told of UK's disapproval of torture' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12716033