Dear Suvrat,

I really must take issue with a number of your points, welcome as they are in the eternal absence of discussion on these issues.

First, I'm not sure what your point is with regard to the cui bono (who benefits) argument.  An obvious conclusion one can draw from your (mostly correct)  assertion that the belligerent acts of one side always benefit the other is that there is an incentive for one side to thus stage such an attack, which gives them not only the benefit of that response, but also allows them to control the amount and type of damage done.

Second, to suggest that in every case where a government has lied it has been obvious is very difficult for you to assert with certainty isn't it?  You seem to be saying that governments never get away with big lies.  How would you know, really?  Every lie presumably is known (or believed) by a certain number of people to be a lie, while another number believes it to be the truth.   There are still people who believe Saddam had a role in the 9-11 attacks.  You say the government never gets away with big lies--didn't they in this case?  Who has paid any sort of penalty for the lie?  Or the lie that Iraq had WMDs?  Were these lies actually true when most people believed them based on the evidence they chose to examine?

Which brings us to the subject of the questions surrounding the collapse of the 3 WTC towers.  I'm rather astonished that  you cite snopes.com as  some kind of evidence  that  the questions I  passed on had been debunked.  I've seen the snopes bit on the Pentagon and didn't think it did much to advance the theory that a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon--just that some of the allegations made by some people could be demonstrated to be false, as would be expected given the number of theories that abound, given that the government refuses to release any video from the myriad surveillance cameras on assumes must be on 24/7 at the military HQ of the world's most powerful nation.  But aside from the Pentagon "debunking" (which I've noticed is the one most often brought up by skeptics of government complicity), what good debunkings have you found online?  Is it your contention that all of the many questions raised by skeptics have been answered satisfactorily?  The demolition of WTC 7 just hours after the twin towers were hit for instance--this is fine with you?

As for the mess with the Israelis having foreknowledge of the London attacks, I agree there are no solid conclusions that can be drawn.  What we do know, though, is that an AP reporter claims that an Israeli official told her that.  And the story has been changing quite a bit--will the writer of the AP story come forward to discuss this I wonder?  Or will she claim the need to protect her source as a reason for never speaking of it again?  Was this deliberately put out to encourage anti-semitic conspiracy theorists to say a lot of ugly things to draw people away from ALL conspiracy theorists?  Just an interesting question.

In any case we'll have to agree to disagree on these issues I suppose.

Best,

gretavo



Suvrat Raju wrote:

Hello Gretavo&HIPJ,

I would like to make a few comments on this article to start a discussion.
Other people should feel free to jump in.

So, I disagree with the idea of a 'false-flag operation' that is presented
in the article.

Before try and rebut it, I would like to summarize the piece to see if
I understand the argument. Briefly, the argument is that:

a)The British and American governments benefit from this attack because
they can take attention away from domestic issues and because they can use
this to expand the war on terror.

b)The British and American governments have a long record of lying and so
should not be trusted.

c)specific details including the fact that the purported claim of
responsibility has errors .. and that the israeli embassy was informed of
the attacks before they happened.

---------------------------------------
I agree with points (a) and (b) but do not believe that they lead to the
conclusion that the attacks were stage managed.

in response to point (a), in a war(of any kind) the actions of each side
are *always* beneficial to the belligerents of the other side.
Take India and Pakistan. Every time there is an attack in India, it
benefits the hawks who promptly adopt a more aggressive posture towards
Pakistan. That doesnt mean that the Indian government stage-manages every
attack.

Similarly, one could argue that the war against Iraq has strengthened
Islamic fundamentalism. Yet the war was an act committed by the worst
enemies of the Islamists(the imperial fundamentalists in Washington).

In Israel and Palestine, every time the Israeli army kills innocent
Palestinians, that benefits hardline groups in Palestine. Yet, its not
true that the hardline groups facilitate any of these attacks.

So, my first point is that argument of 'who benefits from this act', is
not valid. In many confrontations, aggressive acts from one side often
benefit the hawks of the other side.
---------------------------------------------------

Second, the question of 'lying'. It is true, of course, that the Britsh
and American governments are notorious liars. Yet, they are BAD liars.
Before the war, all discerning people with access to information easily
available in the mainstream media could tell that the Bush administration
was lying. So, if we look at their lies carefully, it is easy to tell they
are lying.

To stage-manage the London attacks and keep even many discerning activists
from suspecting this, requires a level of competence that the governments
simply do not have.

In fact, this argument could be bolstered by history. History is full of
examples where the state dissembled and deceived. Yet each time, it
required only a little perception and access to information to discern
this.
On the other hand, I cannot think of any example where any government in
the world was able to carry off a large conspiracy like this and prevent
worldwide suspicion.

------------------------------------

Third, there is the issue of specific details. I looked at the report on
the Israeli embassy and while a single 'reliable'(but unnamed source) in
the Israeli embassy is named, the report does not seem to be based on very
solid evidence. There is a lot of chatter in diplomatic and intelligence
circles but especially in an issue as serious as this, we require a higher
standard of evidence than a single unnamed source in the Israeli foreign
ministry.

To digress a bit, I also spent some time looking into the specific details
of the questions about the WTC attacks. I found that many of them were
answerable from information available on the web. See for example,
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
I also believe a book has been written by two French journalists,
Guillaume Dasquié and Jean Guisnel called the Horrifying Lie that deals
with many of these claims. This would be worthwhile to look into.

comradely,

Suvrat

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, gretavo wrote:

 

 *What's Behind the London Attacks?*

The bombing of the London Underground was a false-flag operation
designed to keep the West mired in war. Don't believe otherwise.
By Matt Hutaff
<http://www.thesimon.com/cgi-bin/admin/exec/search.cgi?search=1&cat=all&fields=art_field1&keyword=Matt%20Hutaff&template=search/author_results.html>  Jul
7, 2005

Only one word sprang to mind when I heard about the bombings that
claimed the lives of dozens of Londoners today
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4661059.stm> - convenient.

Is there anything convenient in death, or in thousands of lives
destroyed from catastrophe? No - and words cannot express the sorrow I
feel for the men and women changed by today's events. But governments
with skeletons in their closets have a great deal to gain from a
national tragedy bolstered by "terrorism."

As I sit in my office today, I hear the whispers of co-workers now
utterly convinced our war on terror must continue. Despite American and
British involvement in the Middle East birthing wave after wave of rebel
forces, the Bush doctrine is now justified in the minds of millions.
Petty grievances such as the Downing Street Minutes
<http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0876_why_us_press_visit_downing_street.html>,
the President's flagging support and Karl Rove's treasonous outing of
CIA agent Valerie Plame
<http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0886_is_karl_rove_new_benedict_arnold.html>
are unimportant. A shadowy conglomeration is out to kill us.

Sound familiar? It should - the same emotional ploy was used to great
effect on Americans in the wake of September 11th. Question nothing,
particularly your cries for vengeance or that nagging feeling in the
back of your head. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Unlike four years ago, however, I refuse to accept that the attack on
London was anything less than a false-flag operation designed to enrage
Western "civilization" against the Middle East. Why? Because there is no
reason for "terrorist" groups to attack England. As recently as this
week, the Ministry of Defense announced that plans were being drafted
<http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a1384df4-ecbc-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html>
that would pull British armed forces from the quagmires in Iraq and
Afghanistan. With the British effectively admitting they're throwing in
the towel, the only motivation to stay could come from an attack that
compels the forces to stay and fight "global terrorism."

Think about it. The attack /only/ benefits empires desperate to maintain
a foothold in the Middle East without further eroding public opinion.
Will Parliament shrug their shoulders and push their soldiers into
longer tours of duty because of this? Obviously it's too early to tell,
but if that happens, insurgents and rebels will have lost more than they
could have ever possibly gained in destroying part of the Underground.

Brian Kilmeade of Fox News agrees, claiming the sabotage
<http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070005> "works to ... [the] Western
world's advantage, for people to experience something like this
together." It doesn't just make "terrorism" an American problem. It
makes it a worldwide problem. The Number One problem.

No longer do we need to concern ourselves with two world leaders (who
have spawned more worldwide terrorism than any fanatical religious
organization) going unquestioned in their lies that started a war. We
can cast off our sluggish economies, lack of freedoms and pitiful
descent into draconian law. Terror is on the rise
<http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.184568024&par=0>.

I feel like I'm sitting in my apartment watching the World Trade Center
collapse all over again.

Everything is the same, right down to the previously unheard of Islamic
group <http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/security_britain_claim_dc> (The Secret
Organization of al-Qaida in Europe? Are you kidding me?) taking credit -
even though the translation falls apart under scrutiny
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8496293/> and the Q'uran is improperly
cited. Considering the only Al Qaeda cell to /ever be uncovered/ was a
front for the Mossad
<http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html>, you'd think the
perpetrators could at least come up with a clever new booga-booga name
to grab headlines. Their arrogance is startling.

As is the ever-present Israeli connection
<http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0869_oops_racist.html>,
a staple among false flag operations. Before today's attack, the Israeli
Embassy in London was notified
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/070705israelwarned.htm>
an attack was forthcoming. As a result, former Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu remained in his hotel room rather than head towards a
nearby hotel where he was to address an economic summit.

The embassy denies it had any prior knowledge, of course, but the story
has changed dramatically in the process
<http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2005/070705standstogain.htm>.
If, as they say, Netanyahu was not warned
<http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=754442005>, how did he know to
stay in his room? How did he know the danger was so severe that he dare
not venture out of the hotel?

Oops! The story's changed again - here Netanyahu says that British
police had warned the Israelis
<http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ca84a44d-41c2-4b9f-b9a5-9b6f0bdce990>
(but not the rest of the city?) of a pending attack. Scotland Yard
denies this; Israel's reply was to say Netanyahu received his warning
after the first blast. How? It was initially reported as a power surge
for hours
<http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=148597468&p=y48598y74>.
What is being hidden here? And why isn't there an investigation into
these obvious discrepancies?

It's enough to make your head spin and your eyes cross with rage.

Regardless, I am making an appeal to Britons who are understandably
wracked with grief at the moment - don't buy into the hatred the way we
Americans did. Don't ignore the obvious evidence that this whole affair
was orchestrated by your own government. Most importantly, don't let the
deaths of the few, however tragic, plunge your nation into another fit
of war and civic clampdowns.

Toying with your emotions is expected. Don't fall prey to ignorance
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050707/wl_uk_afp/britainattacksreax_050707193043>.
See the attack on your home for what it really is - a distraction that
will keep your money, resources and troops mired in ceaseless battle
<http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200507071128.asp> for an
ideology that betrays your democratic and civilized tenets.

Honor your dead with tears, not a cry for war or praise for a disgraced
leader.

/Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society./