As Big as Terrorism 155


The BBC are breathlessly reporting this morning, as their lead news story, that antibiotics resistance is now so huge a threat, it is on a par with terrorism.

Let us consider that for one moment:

UK deaths last year from antibiotic resistance: 5,000
Uk deaths last year fron terrorisn: nil

Or:

UK deaths last decade from antibiotic resistance: 33,000
UK deaths last decade from all terrorism: 71

This insistence of the media in ramping the “terrorist threat”, even in completely unrelated stories, is farcical. Today they also have Abu Qatada to follow up as second news story and put terrifying images of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Abu Qatada – oh sorry, there aren’t any – err terrifying images of his obviously terrorist beard on our screens.

Sky News has been running the Qatada story for three days solid, every time introducing Qatada as “the man once called Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe”. Yet no serious claim has ever been made, anywhere, that Qatada ever met Osama Bun Laden. No evidence has ever been produced that he was in communication with him, and the intelligence services have nothing that indicates that either. I could call Teresa May a hysterical evil populist Muslim-hater, but my doing so would not make it true. However I look forward to hearing “Teresa May once called a …” next time she is mentioned on Sky.

Qatada has lived in this country now for nearly 20 years and there is no evidence he has ever committed any crime in all that time here, no evidence despite his being under intense surveillance. There is no credible, untainted evidence of his having done so in Jordan either. I am perfectly prepared to believe he is somebody who holds unpleasant views. He may well be very unpleasant. Terrorist mastermind he is not.

The actual terrorist threat is at such a low level – much less than so many of us lived through in the 70’s and 80’s – that it needs incarnation to work as a demon of the mind. If Abu Qatada does get deported, the media will have to find someone else with a scarey beard to terrify children into going to bed – sorry, us into giving up our liberties and cash to our “protectors”.

Muslims – more dangerous than E. coli. Give me a break.


155 thoughts on “As Big as Terrorism

1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Fred

    As what the truth is about 9/11 I think we can be certain it isn’t the official story, there are far too many things just don’t add up. If they are covering up complicity or incompetence it’s hard to say except that the official version did make the media surprisingly early and has remained surprisingly unchanged.

    It’s quite possible Robin Cook died of natural causes, these things do happen. However a lot of other people have died untimely deaths since 9/11, this is just the latest.

    http://www.santabarbaraview.com/was-santa-barbara-resident-phillip-marshall-killed-by-cia-black-ops-unit65636/

    Each one is easily written off as coincidence but not all of them. It’s as easy to write things off to conspiracy as to coincidence, I’m fairly confident there is a mix of both in the 9/11 story.

  • Herbie

    That’s a good point, Fred. Often, and we see it here in disputes on the blog, people get very bogged down in the details, when the big picture and stats provide a much clearer understanding of what’s going on.

    I think this is why trolls often like to argue minor details with no reference to context at all.

  • Cryptonym

    The thing in this case that is clearly odd only in retrospect is that nothing new seems to have been found out or learned, the whole official story served up with stunning prescience at the time has not changed one whit over the succeeding months and years. How amazing is it that they’d figured it all out in a couple of hours and stick to it still with no revision of the ‘plot’ in the light of what subsequent investigation, enquiry and evidence might have revealed. How could such initial knee-jerk wildly speculative blundering in the dark, such breathless baloney trotted out by a uncritical media, fed from equally clueless official sources, making it up ‘on the hoof’ as they went along, have turned out it seems to have been so perfectly clairvoyant. Such coincidences don’t happen in the untidy real world.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Antibiotic resistance is an important and complex subject and has been for 20+ years. Unfortunately, as Craig rightly suggests, every excuse is used for sensationalism – HORSEMEAT in burgers, some random quine leaving a poly bag UNATTENDED in a corner of a street, the Swine Cold PANDEMIC, a PAEDOPHILE somewhere in the world, a man with a BEARD, muttering in a corner…

    Partly, this is to do with the increasingly and overwhelmingly melodramatic, tabloid nature of normative media discourse. Partly, of course, it is utilised and directed by elites at instilling a constant sense of fear, as an agent of political and social paralysis, a distraction from the systemic economic crime on which they base their power and at justifying the next foreign “intervention” (for which euphemism, read, ‘war of aggression and enrichment’).

    Abu Qatada, as far as I am aware – and one must be wary of all information on this – was more potentially radicalising than the more florid ex-bouncers and other such pantomimic caricatures we have come to know and love-to-hate. He allegedly was/ is deeply learned in his religion and purportedly was a much more subtle and disingenuous recruiting sergeant for Islamic extremism than the yobbo mullahs. A high quality bastard, one might say.

    I accept that it is difficult to know quite how to deal with such people. Mind you, there have been quite a few such recruiting sergeants on both sides in relation to the Northern Ireland conflict, for example.

    Another relevant point is, in the media many other people conveniently get lumped-in with these guys, people who may well have had only peripheral, or no, links with anything remotedly concerning. These figures – Qatada, Captain Hook and so on – become useful levers with which to exert societal control. I question their provenance. It seems to me that among the Muslims of the UK today, there are agents provocateurs, agents of influence, embedded police spies a la Mark Kennedy et al galore so that (referencing the DDR – not that I am saying the UK is like the DDR) it has become difficult to walk into a metaphorical cafe in the Muslim communities and know that the person one is greeting is not, or is not being instrumentalised by, one or other of these. One suspects the spies may be tripping over one another, reporting on one another and so on. Apart from bankers’ bonuses, it may be the only growth industry in Britain today.

    “Where do you see yourself in five years, my boy?”
    “Spying on you, sir.”

    Along with indefinite imprisonment without trial, kidnapping, deportation to the USA when our master (who art in Heaven) calls, we crossed this particular Rubicon some time ago.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Herbie re infiltration :

    I made it clear in another post of mine that infiltration for the purposes of entrapment is a filthy practice; I would say exactly the same about infiltration for the purposes of incitement (which I suppose is a sort of entrapment).

    Hope that clarifies.

  • Herbie

    Following on from Fred’s post, I think it’s worth anyone interested in the transition to neoconism, getting hold of Phillip Marshall’s book, “The Big Bamboozle”.

    http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bamboozle-11-War-Terror/dp/1468094580

    It’s on public license now, and is freely and lawfully available on all good torrent sites too!

    http://www.santabarbaraview.com/was-santa-barbara-resident-phillip-marshall-killed-by-cia-black-ops-unit65636/

    Habbakuk

    Yes. I do remember that you’d modified your support for infiltration.

    I ask you though. What good reason would the police and other state agencies have for infiltrating groups of citizens exercising their democratic rights, other than for the mischievous intent described above?

  • Africom Pope

    “I don’t believe in a conspiracy because I simply don’t believe our agency’s are smart enough to pull it off without being found out”

    The bigger the lie the more it is believed. How can anyone rationally explain this?

    WTC7 total collapse at 5:20pm local time.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

    A Psychic BBC news reporter at 4:54 PM.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

    It is simply impossible for the above news report to be an ‘accident’ as claimed by the BBC. Never in the history of steel framed buildings has a single one collapsed due to fire, let alone in a totally symmetrical collapse – which is the signature of a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions take much planing and days, if not weeks, to set-up. The BBC *knew* that the WTC7 building was going to collapse (i.e. be demolished) and made an error by reporting the fact before it even happened? If you do not believe that then it is only because the lie is so huge your brain is rejecting it.

    And who said they haven’t been found out? Are you expecting to read a headline in your morning newspaper, or a news report on the BBC, Or G.W. Bush to mention his foreknowledge in his memoirs? G.W. Bush has publicly admitted that he watched the first plane hit the building and said he thought it was pilot error – this was a huge slip up which has been consistently ignored by the media. He watched the first plane hit before the second one had arrived – think about it.

    If you do not understand the significance of WTC7, and what agencies were housed in the building, http://www.ae911truth.org/ is a good starting point.

  • nevermind

    Hi Suhayl, good to have you round for tea again. what are the chances that this high quality bastard, as you say, was playing two violins at the same time, or would that be an oud?

    Is his desperate struggle with the justice system a sham, one wonders, a construct kept alive for baiting others? Its either that, or our lawyers are absolutely incompetent in circumnavigating the laws they created in Europe.

    My best wishes to you and your nearest, your florid, electrifying, but dead on target posts are thoroughly missed, no doubt, not just down to working your guts off.

    Your heart and mind is part of this blog, you had us in histrionics galore and, pardon me mentioning it, your tea is not just sublime, but an Al-ikseer.

    Stoke the fire and put that kettle on….;)

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Africom @ 11:37

    The WTC demolition has been looked at from every perspective. How many people can keep a secret? It’s a rhetorical question, but you can answer, at will.

    http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

    Scroll down to 9/11 mythbusting. Joe Cannon is an honest broker.

  • Boomtownchav

    @Nevermind. Thank you for the recommendation. I will read it with an open mind
    Best wishes

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Nevermind @ 11:39

    We need more like Suhayl. Dead-on balls accurate, with prosaic ease.

  • Fred

    “The WTC demolition has been looked at from every perspective. How many people can keep a secret? It’s a rhetorical question, but you can answer, at will.”

    12,000 people worked at Bletchley Park in WWII, they kept the secret, they still don’t talk about it. 100,000 worked on the Manhattan Project in one way or another.

    The answer is as many as you want if they believe their two children their dog and themselves are going to be found in a pool of blood otherwise.

    Your site doesn’t address the real issues. No steel framed building in the world ever collapsed in that way before or since. What are the odds of one collapsing on 9/11? Then two? Then three? What are the odds against three hijacked planes being able to fly around North America for hours without being intercepted? What are the chances of someone who had never flown anything larger than a Cessna performing a maneuver a skilled pilot would find almost impossible?

    They keep finding ways that all the events might just be possible but when you add them all up they just don’t add up.

    Like I’ve said, we don’t know what happened but there is no doubt the official story is bullshit. Parts of it might be true, no way all of it is true.

  • Chris2

    “.. To say that you asked no one to protect your freedoms, in my opinion, is like a rich kid sitting in a beautiful convertible saying “I never asked for it”. Still enjoying the benefits but…..”

    One might say the same about the Red Army which really did protect your freedoms and defeat your enemy. You might be unable to see the difference between them and the Nazis but your predecessors in the British Army, who actually fought soldiers in armies, most certainly could.

    You are quite right about the vile nature of the Argentine juntas who engaged in the Malvinas adventure, but ii is disingenuous to pretend that their disgusting policies, which they justified as being ‘anti-terrorist’, did not enjoy the full support of the Thatcher government, as did those of the brute Pinochet, another fierce enemy of “terrorism”. Or as we might say opposition to bad government.

  • glenn_uk

    @Habbabkuk:

    Concerning the reply of 12/3/13, 08:49.

    Thank you for the reply, which happened to be among my first readings of the day, as a welcome headline in the morning newspaper greets a weary campaigner 🙂

    Understood – you don’t like the style of some posters. I certainly don’t like the style of some posters either, but why spend so much energy on one of them? There are positions pushed, and styles worth noting in various posters. It’s never occurred to me to fascinate on any of them, unless their viewpoint was particularly and consistently obnoxious. Whereupon, I have to admit, I’ve dropped all pretence at objectivity, and behaved liked (say) some “handy” bloke in his 30’s, who came from a particularly rough comprehensive.

    I’m afraid to say that the subject that appears your chosen target, and the way you go about it, does rather look like bullying at first sight. One does not have to be flagrantly abused in order to have been bullied – particularly if it is done over a sustained period. It lets your character down, it actually would serve you well to drop it.

    May I offer some free advice, which is probably worth the price paid for it. You may well become a worthwhile influence on this blog, and have a lot of fun with some intellectual jousting the whole time, so could you consider laying off the person in question here? At least for a bit. Your contributions stand on their own now, undermining one of the “chief posters” is rather unnecessary.

    As it happens, when you delve off into personal thoughts, such as your belief that children/older people deserving respect for different reasons (abbreviating greatly!) – that’s when you get the most interesting. It would be great to hear more of that – even if there’s a minority of one or two other people posting here that share this view with me!

    *

  • Kempe

    “No steel framed building in the world ever collapsed in that way before or since.” Not true, simply not true but just because it never happened before doesn’t rule it ever happening at all.

    “What are the odds against three hijacked planes being able to fly around North America for hours without being intercepted?” As the American air defence system was set up to deal with threats coming from outside the country probably quite good.

    “What are the chances of someone who had never flown anything larger than a Cessna performing a maneuver a skilled pilot would find almost impossible?” None of the hijacked airliners performed any impossible or even difficult manoeuvres.

  • Kempe

    Oh and the Germans, Japanese and Russians all knew about the Manhatten Project. Several failed attempts were made to get German agents inside Los Alamos; the Russians had more success, five were caught but it’s widely accepted that there more.

    The people working at Bletchley Park knew they were working towards the greater good and they did start to break their vows of silence eventually. If 9/11 was the big conspiracy the troofers claim somebody would’ve had an attack of conscience by now.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Glenn : you make some fair points and it would be discourteous of me not to acknowledge that. I’ll say no more (for the moment). Have a good day!

  • Mary - for Truth and Justice

    Connect the dots.

    Syria: UK’s Cameron ‘may veto EU arms embargo’

    David Cameron said the UK was “still an independent country”

    David Cameron has said the UK would consider vetoing any extension to the European Union’s arms embargo on Syria.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21763345
    ~~~~~

    Prince Charles visits camp for Syrian refugees in Jordan

    This is the Royal couple’s second day in Jordan

    Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall are visiting a refugee camp in Jordan which is home to people fleeing the conflict in neighbouring Syria.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21766971

  • Fred

    “Not true, simply not true but just because it never happened before doesn’t rule it ever happening at all.”

    It does however make it a lot more unlikely.

    “As the American air defence system was set up to deal with threats coming from outside the country probably quite good.”

    Every country had procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners. Airliners had been being hijacked for decades.

    “None of the hijacked airliners performed any impossible or even difficult manoeuvres.”

    There are a lot of pilots don’t agree with you.

  • Africom Pope

    ‘“No steel framed building in the world ever collapsed in that way before or since.” Not true, simply not true but just because it never happened before doesn’t rule it ever happening at all.’

    It is true. It’s a verifiable fact. Why don’t you at least familiarise yourself with the known facts as made available at ae911truth.org before making strident assertions.

    ‘just because it never happened before…’ You repeatedly say it’s not true and then acknowledge that it never happened before. You obviously know nothing about what you feel qualified to deny. I am embarrassed for you.

  • Africom Pope

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
    A demolition expert being shown the WTC7 collapse for the first time.

    What the deniers here fail to address is that the BBC and others clearly had foreknowledge the building was coming down. There is no skating around that fact. Not only did the building go down symmetrically at free fall speed (i.e. all the buildings main support columns were removed at the same instant), people knew before hand that it was going to do so. It was deliberately demolished. It is undeniable.

  • Fred

    “The people working at Bletchley Park knew they were working towards the greater good and they did start to break their vows of silence eventually. If 9/11 was the big conspiracy the troofers claim somebody would’ve had an attack of conscience by now.”

    Like Sibel Edmonds you mean.

  • Africom Pope

    “just because it never happened before doesn’t rule it ever happening at all”

    That is enshrined in the quantum theory as ‘probability’. Quantum theory supports the hypothesis that at any point in time you may turn into a frog – the probability of that happening is so low that it would take an almost infinite amount of time (many times the age of the universe) before it actually happened.

    The probability of WTC7, a steel framed building, collapsing in a systematic way due to small unsymmetrical fires is also very very small. Small enough in fact to say that it was more likely another cause, especially a known cause such as controlled demolition. Occam’s razor is sufficient – why attribute something to a highly improbable cause when there is a perfectly probable one? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks it is likely to be a duck.

  • Boomtownchav

    @chris2. Without question the Red Army played, in my opinion, the greatest and most costly part in defeating the Nazis, but Stalin didn’t commit to the Allied cause through a belief in a war against aggression. It was entire due to Barbarossa and his desire to survive

    His behaviour in Eastern Poland drew no public outcry in either Britain or the USA, “as he only moved in to help the local population” I’m sure that the soon to be permanent inhabitants of the Katyn forest were delighted.

    His march into Finland only drew condemnation from Snow, the British minister in Helsinki, whereas the British Chiefs of Staff only acknowledged that the fact we hadn’t declared war on Russian was adding force to Nazi propaganda about the sincerity of the British and French as the Russian behaviour in interfering with the liberty of small States was the same as the Nazis. The “right moment” was deemed to be when the ore deposits of Sweden were threatened

    My respect for the Russian people is of the highest degree. Stalin, in my opinion, was a monster on the level of Hitler.

    Given that less than 75 years ago our government sold out entire countries, all of a sudden I’m questioning September 11…….. Never really considered that angle…….?

    Your points on Thatcher, the government in Argentina and Pinochet are well made, fair play

  • nevermind

    Thanks for reminding readers here of the facts, Boomtownchav, Stalin and Hitler were of the same wood when it comes to genocide and displacing people en masse.

    There are many other fa(c)ts still to be chewed over.

  • Kempe

    Yeah, verifiable facts on ae911truth, that would be a real first.

    Prior to 9/11 plans for dealing with hijackers involved getting the plane landed and safe, negotiating around the hijackers’ demands and, as a definite last resort, having special forces storm the plane. Nobody really thought it would ever be necessary to order a hijacked airliner to be shot down.

    WTC 7 suffered more than a few “small fires”. One corner, always the weak point on any building, was seriously damaged by falling debris from one of the other towers and suffered a straightforward progressive collapse. So it fell downwards, what other direction is it going to fall?

    http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

    So the BBC were in on the conspiracy as well were they? It gets more ridiculous by the hour.

  • Boomtownchav

    @Kempe. There are a couple of reasonable voices on this thread, I find Nevermind the most objective, and although a non believer in the September 11 conspiracy, I will read his suggested publication with an open mind.
    However your comment is in my opinion is correct in every detail

  • Fred

    “Prior to 9/11 plans for dealing with hijackers involved getting the plane landed and safe, negotiating around the hijackers’ demands and, as a definite last resort, having special forces storm the plane. Nobody really thought it would ever be necessary to order a hijacked airliner to be shot down.”

    I think it’s safe to say that the standard procedure in any hijacking, or indeed mere loss of radio contact, would be to send up a fighter intercept and indeed that did happen on 9/11, the reasons they were unsuccessful are listed in the 9/11 report and are a comedy of errors.

    But you miss the point, the reasons given after the event should not affect the odds before the event, what were the odds that those errors would occur?

    “WTC 7 suffered more than a few “small fires”. One corner, always the weak point on any building, was seriously damaged by falling debris from one of the other towers and suffered a straightforward progressive collapse. So it fell downwards, what other direction is it going to fall?”

    It was hit by debris from a falling tower, what were the odds against that? Of all the ways that tower could have fallen it landed smack on Building 7 leaving the buildings either side almost untouched. But, as I have said, strange things happen but then what would the chances be of that causing a total collapse at free fall speed several hours later? If you had asked a structural engineer prior to 9/11 I think they would have said pretty remote. In fact, I think they would have said the collapse of the tower which hit it in the manner it collapsed would have been pretty remote, buildings of that type had gone through worse.

  • Kempe

    “..a comedy of errors ” Indeed; but not a conspiracy.

    I believe the Twin Towers contained something approaching half a million tons of material so I’d have thought the chances of something getting struck as it fell would be quite high. However we don’t have to specualte as we know that’s what happened and indeed there is photographic evidence. Anyway, glad to see that we have advanced from “a few small fires” to accepting that the building was heavily damaged.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.