London Bomb – Cui Bono? 8


Whoever was behind the apparent car bomb in London, it almost certainly wasn’t the police explosives experts who made it safe, and we should acknowledge the heroism it takes to do that job.

Peter Clarke, the Met’s anti-terrorism point man, gave a press conference claiming he was not going to speculate, but then doing everything he could to indicate it was an Islamic plot. He referred to other recent cases, including the Barot case, in which night clubs were mentioned as targets, and the use of gas canisters in cars discussed. The one bit of modus operandi pointing another way – the fact it wasn’t a suicide bomber – he was at pains to explain away by speculating that the driver had lost his nerve.

Of course the last time a nail bomb was actually exploded among clubbers in Central London, it was by a homophobic fascist. So it is right to keep an open mind. But whoever did this, the only people who can possibly benefit are the vast and ever-burgeoning security industry of all kinds, and those who want discord between the Islamic World and the West. Unfortunately, the extremists on all sides are strengthened by this incident.

Brown had already made plain he supports further anti-civil liberties legislation. This produces just the kind of febrile atmosphere in which that can be done. The television news is already pushing 90 day detention without charge again.

I am adding this para in response to blogs attempting to say that I am claiming the bomb was planted by the State. I have not changed the above, and plainly it does not say that. In fact, I think that is one of the least likely explanations – in terms of the British State, at least. I have no idea who planted it. I am saying we should not leap to the conclusion it was Islamic fundamentalists. It could be, or it could be other extremists, or interests, who benefit from the War on Terror. The Cui Bono test throws up a number of possibilities.


8 thoughts on “London Bomb – Cui Bono?

  • Bridget Dunne

    Yesterday the jury retired in the 21/7 'no bombs bombers' trial and today TV commentators are drawing parallels with 'suicide-bombers running away from the scene'.

    Coincidence?

  • The Antagonist

    It seems whenever there is deliberation on a 'terror' trial of one sort or another, some entirely unrelated 'terror' incident always occurs, not at all designed to influence the jury.

    Also noteworthy of the 21/7 'bombers' with no 'bombs' is this little snippet tucked away at the end of a BBC story:

    "A further charge of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life, previously faced by each man, has now being [sic] left off the indictment."

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/24bvtt

    Which, whatever way you look at it, would seem to be a bit of a hitch to the rest of the prosecution case which is reliant on the accused being guilty of conspiring to cause explosions, a charge now dropped.

    Hans Michels is worth reading in further detail.

  • Chuck Unsworth

    Peter Clarke 'not speculate'? High Altitude Pork. It's part of his stock in trade.

    The description of 'gas cylinders, petrol, and nails' could be the inside of any tradesman's van or many of the old cars (I hesitate to say 'bangers') used by jobbing builders as their transport to and from their work.

    What does Clarke know of the man (person?) driving this vehicle? What does he know of his state of mind? How can he offer a 'loss of nerve' as an explanation for this behaviour?

    Then there are other factors. The driver apparently crashes the car very early one morning and then runs away. How many drunk drivers have done this after suffering from a 'loss of nerve'? And there were reports that the vehicle was actually parked, rather than just abandoned at the point of collision. Smoke is apparently seen inside the vehicle – how many vehicle fires are there every day?

    There's much more information needed before people should start to speculate and it would be more sensible of Clarke to shut up until he has real facts. But then again, it probably suits his book to keep the public fears stoked up.

    And you can bet that Downing Street will be secretly delighted with this latest 'terrorist incident'. We won't be waiting too long before further attempts are made to restrict our liberties – a day or so at the most.

    Is this yet another attack from a terrorist group which somehow is 'off the radar' of the security services? What a coincidence and how remarkably convenient. They'll be queuing up outside the Treasury to demand more cash even now.

  • MilkMonitor

    Chuck Unsworth: "The description of 'gas cylinders, petrol, and nails' could be the inside of any tradesman's van or many of the old cars (I hesitate to say 'bangers') used by jobbing builders as their transport to and from their work."

    My thoughts exactly: especially given the imprecision in Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke's statement:

    "In the car they found significant quantities of petrol, together with a number of gas cylinders – and I cannot at this stage tell you exactly how much petrol because we have not yet had a chance to measure it precisely, but what I can tell you is that it was in several large containers. There were also a large number of nails in the vehicle. The explosives officers disabled a potential means of detonation of the gas and fuel in the vehicle."

    Note the distraction of "significant quantities of petrol" that isn't "exactly" known because it hasn't been measured "precisely". Wouldn't one normally say something like 'several gallons' or 'about 50 gallons' or whatever?

    "a large number of nails in the vehicle" is not the same thing as a nail bomb.

    "a potential means of detonation" could be anything electrical or sparking.

    The Sun has more details:

    "Massive bomb found in London"

    "The smoke is believed to have been vapour released from at least 60 litres of volatile petrol held inside the car along with nails and gas canisters."

    "It was believed that the bomber planned to detonate the explosives using a mobile telephone.

    A quick thinking police officer reportedly seized the telephone from the car and fled the scene to avert catastrophe."
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007300000,0…

  • Chuck Unsworth

    Milk Monitor: "A quick thinking police officer reportedly seized the telephone from the car and fled the scene to avert catastrophe".

    Where does one start with this?

    'Quick thinking police officer' – is this a contradiction in terms, some sort of oxymoron?

    And he 'seized the telephone from the car and fled the scene'. My last experience of such an action was in Holborn a couple of years ago, when some hooligan 'liberated' my mobile phone from my car. The cops did not attend, of course. Probably too busy 'fleeing', themselves. However I was delighted to receive a Crime Number and a multitude of letters from them expressing their profound sympathy at my loss and offering advice on how to avoid this sort of thing happening again. Naturally I wrote to them thanking them for their expressions of concern and apologising for taking up so much of their time and resource.

    Why was it necessary for this officer to 'flee' anyway? Perhaps he had something to hide, eh? Mind you if he was innocent then he'd have nothing to fear (as we have repeatedly been assured by ACPO, The Home Office etc etc). But I really would like some further information on the actual nature of the potential 'catastrophe'. Is this, for example, missing his substantial cholesterol du jour in the Station Canteen?

    Of course, this is The Sun. One of our most intellectually challenging and stimulating journals, it's quite clear that they would not have printed this report without thoroughly checking their story. But caution is the motto of the day and one notes the careful insertion (Careful Insertion being another speciality of The Sun) of the word 'reportedly'.

    As for 'belief', well Sun journalists (I use that term in its broadest sense) are, without doubt, devout believers.

  • MilkMonitor

    Aye, where does one start with it?

    I must admit to being amused at the image of the phone-grabbing fleeing policeman, though I know this is a serious matter. It had struck me, though, that Peter Clarke had said "…a potential means of detonation…" rather than calling it a cell phone. I mean, what game is that?

    I thought The Sun's "Massive bomb…" was particularly fetching. It raised my eyebrow.

    We should note The Sun, though. After all, this is the news straight from the horse's mouth. This is the information that goes out to the most readers. This forms opinions.

    The Sun readers, though, may not be so daft as Rupert would like.

    Andrew Gilligan says: "What I learned during Hutton was that it doesn't actually matter much what the papers say about you. In the streets, the taxi drivers, Sun readers to a man, were still refusing to take my money."
    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/comment/0,,2…

    I'm wondering why no one has reported whether the police have checked the Mercedes' registration details.

Comments are closed.