The London bombs also belong to the new Prime Minister 4


An excellent article here by Jon Pilger

Just as the London bombs in the summer of 2005 were Blair’s bombs, the inevitable consequence of his government’s lawless attack on Iraq, so the potential bombs in the summer of 2007 are Brown’s bombs.

Gordon Brown, Blair’s successor as prime minister, has been an unerring supporter of the unprovoked bloodbath whose victims now equal those of the Rwandan genocide, according to the American scientist who led the 2006 Johns Hopkins School of Public Health survey of civilian dead in Iraq. While Tony Blair sought to discredit this study, British government scientists secretly praised it as “tried and tested” and an “underestimation of mortality”. The “underestimation” was 655,000 men, women and children. That is now approaching a million. It is the crime of the century.

In his first day’s address outside 10 Downing Street and subsequently to Parliament, Brown paid not even lip service to those who would be alive today had his government ‘ and it was his government as much as Blair’s ‘ not joined Bush in a slaughter justified with demonstrable lies. He said nothing, not a word.

See full article http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17973.htm


4 thoughts on “The London bombs also belong to the new Prime Minister

  • ScottSA

    I pulled in here to see how you were going to spin the attacks. I recall your previous line was that the attacks were all fabricated so that Blair could steal your freedom or some silly thing, and I thought it would take quite the conceptual leap to deny this attack. Faced with an inability to deny the rather obvious, I find you here blaming the government itself for the attacks. Do you ever wake up at night with a sneaking suspicion that you're developing insanity? Would you, in 1940, blame the British government for Hitler's attack through the Ardennes, using the argument that Hitler had been goaded into it by Britain's response to Poland? What an ass you are. I trust you'll soon fade into the irrelevance so richly deserved by a Dhimmified useful fool.

  • writeon

    I just wonder; is there any evidence that the 'Islamist' terrorists are attacking us because they hate and wish to destroy our way of life? This view is widespread in the West, especially among politicians, but is it true?

    Do we really understand what motivates the enemy? If we don't understand them and why they are fighting us, doesn't this make defeating them far harder? Or is it irrelevant, because we have decided to destroy them anyway and one reason is as good as another?

    Even Bin Laden has given reasons why his group is fighting us, and they are nothing to do with hating our way of life. Why would he lie about this? He asked rhetorically, why don't we attack Sweden? Because Sweden isn't attacking us!

    I think this argument, that they are attacking us because they want to destroy and hate our way of life; is a Big Lie! It's a diversionary tactic to stop us talking about the occupation of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I actually believe the evidence points in the opposite direction. We, the West, are attacking them, the Muslims, and we want to destroy their way of life! Look at Iraq. We have destroyed Iraq, smashed its economic system, broken its infrastructure, demolished its social structure and killed hundreds of thousand of them; and somehow we manage to ignore this colloasl use of violence and twist things so that its really us that are under attack and are threatened!

  • Alien

    The new government is talking the same "they hate us because what we are" not because of what we do.

    From the BBC news today:

    "The battle to deal with radicalisation in the fight against terrorism could take up to 15 years to achieve, says the UK's new security minister."

    "Sir Alan described those threatening Britain as "racist, they're bigoted, they seek power, they're avaricious in money terms and they talk of the caliphate."

    I have two questions I don't think the politicians would like answer, or even listen to:

    First, why is it only the UK (and Spain before the Spanish troops were pulled off Iraq) is being attacked?

    Second, why did this happen only after 2003?

    I'm sure the government knew what would the invasion of Iraq bring on the country, only flights to the UK (and USA) had extra security measures before boarding.

  • writeon

    I think this new guy Sir Alan West is nuts! In a strange way we appear to create a kind of distorted mirror which somehow reflects a true image of ourselves and what we are; and then we twist this image around and use it to describe the enemy.

    I think it's us who are basically rascist, biggoted and avericious. It's us who want to control the world on our termes and under our values.

    But surely the hypocracy at the heart of the 'war on terror' is a fatal flaw in our ability to fight the enemy?

    If we don't really know the enemy or ourselves, if our vision is delusional, how will we win, how will we ever know that we've won?

Comments are closed.