I name the 4 powers who are behind the al-Qaeda conspiracy
 

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1704834,00.html:3961d]Link to article...[/url:3961d]

[quote:3961d]

AT TIMES of national emergency, the habit of the news media to drop a story or a lead in mid-air when it seems to be going nowhere unsettles the public. The media betray a sort of sheepish wish to “move on” from an erroneous report, hoping that their audience will not notice. Rather than acknowledge this, they publish a new report, leaving us to compare it with what had previously been said — and draw our own conclusions. Or they start barking up a different tree, the inference being that the last tree may have been the wrong tree.

The habit is more disliked by listeners and readers than I think editors appreciate. Perhaps the first item on each day’s news agenda should be “matters arising from yesterday’s news”. News editors would then do us the courtesy of explaining where some of those stories went.

Immediately after July 7 it was prominently reported that the explosions “bore all the hallmarks” of the use of a type of high-grade military explosive whose presence would indicate a sophisticated international dimension to the bombings. We were alerted to a likely al-Qaeda link.

Then the news went silent. Then it was announced that tests showed the explosive to be of a home-made (or home-makeable) kind that al-Qaeda were known to know about from the internet. Then that story, too, seemed to fizzle out.

I have seen no explanation of how the initial assessment of the type of explosive could have been the reverse of the truth, and no acknowledgement of error from those who made it. Nor has the al-Qaeda/internet angle been followed up. The most recent assessments (Kevin Toolis in The Times yesterday) have suggested that there was nothing special or “hallmarked” about the explosive at all.

Immediately after the first bombing, a report was splashed that two people had been arrested trying to leave Heathrow. The later report that they had been released without charge appeared as little more than a footnote.

A few days after that, much was made of the arrest in Egypt of a British Muslim whom the less-scrupulous news reports called a “chemist” (he is a biochemist). There was talk of British agents attending (or joining) his interrogation in Cairo. A statement from the Egyptian authorities denying that they had linked him to the bombing or that he was on their list of al-Qaeda suspects, did receive momentary attention — and then the story seemed to die. I do not know what has happened to it, or him.

Then there were some big headlines about an alleged “al-Qaeda operative” who had “slipped” into Britain, and slipped out — just before the bombings. But it transpired that he was low on our counter-terrorist services’ lists of security threats — and that story, too, has disappeared.

Then there was an arrest in Pakistan of an alleged “al-Qaeda mastermind”, about which reports have become increasingly confused, dropping from their early position as leading news items. I do not know where we are now on these reports. If I understood them correctly, what helped to trace this mastermind were records of calls made to him by all, or some, of the four July 7 bombers from their mobile phones.

If anyone has asked (or answered) a question that surely occurred to millions of us, then I have yet to hear of it: why did the bombers not take the elementary precaution of phoning the mastermind from a telephone box? Just how master was this mind? Is it not a curious way of operating a terrorist network, if the terrorists are to call their mastermind on their mobile phones, then take the phones with them on their bombing spree?

This is only a small sample of the deadends (or possible deadends) in the July 7 and July 21 stories. You will have noticed many others. You will notice, too, that every one tends in the same direction. Each report, when first we read it, accentuated the impression that we face a formidable, capable, extensive and well-organised terrorist movement, with important links abroad, and that is almost certainly being masterminded from abroad.

And indeed we may. Nothing — I repeat, nothing — I write here is meant to exclude that possibility. Some of the scares that grip our headlines and imaginations do later turn out to have been every bit the threat we thought they were. I have not the least idea what may be the size, shape and competence of al-Qaeda and would not dream of suggesting (and do not believe) that they are uninvolved.

Nor do I mean to downplay the horrors that have hit London: death and destruction are death and destruction, whoever causes them.

Nor do I want to imply doubt about the scale of the horrors that may lie ahead. Home-grown or foreign-born, at whatever level of competence, and whether a concerted campaign or demented craze, this kind of thing is deadly and difficult to combat.

My purpose is more limited. To alert you to the enormous, insidious and mostly unconscious pressure that exists to talk up, rather than talk down, the efficacy of al-Qaeda. When all the pressures are to talk up a lethal characterisation of the forces at work, we need to be supercool in the way we look at these reports.


You have read much about the threat of one particular conspiracy. Here is another. There is an unwitting conspiracy between four separate powers to represent the worldwide al-Qaeda network as fiendishly clever, powerfully effective and deeply involved in the London bombings.

First, the news media. Al-Qaeda is a “narrative” and a gripping one. Everybody loves a mystery story. Everybody loves a thriller. Everybody needs a plot. All journalists have an in-built tendency to make links between things and find unifying forces at work. A series of random and unrelated facts makes for a shapeless account. Report without implicit explanation is baffling and finally boring. No British journalist I know would invent or consciously distort a report in order to exaggerate the involvement of al-Qaeda; but most of us are drawn to explanations that, well, explain.

Secondly, the Government. I would not be so rude or stupid as to suggest that ministers take any sort of satisfaction from terrorist atrocities. But leadership is made easier if there is a visible, tangible threat; and easier still if it can be represented as completely alien. Us v Them is the narrative a politician is most at home with. The BBC’s The Power of Nightmares made an important point: fear silences opposition, and governments walk tallest when an external threat can be identified and they can lead us against it. “Evil” is a more convenient opponent than stupidity, inadequacy and human dysfunction. We hold our leaders’ hands a little more tightly in the dark.

Thirdly, the security services. The police, British Intelligence, and our counter-terrorism apparatus, are all flattered in their work by headlines that suggest that the enemy is formidable, incredibly sophisticated and hard to catch. Any failure on the part of our security services to detect in advance or prevent a terrorist outrage, or to catch the terrorists afterwards, is easily explained if the terrorist movement is widely agreed to be fiendishly clever and well organised. It is not flattering to a counter-terrorism chief to suggest that his quarry is a muppet. The tale of a police mastermind calls for a criminal mastermind, too.

Finally, of course, the terrorist himself. A reputation for fearsomeness and sophistication is nothing but a boon not only to his self-esteem, but also to his efforts to recruit others to his cause. Never think that speeches about the wickedness and cruelty of al-Qaeda do other than burnish the legend.

From a certain point of view, the journalist, the politician, the police chief and the terrorist can be seen as locked in a macabre waltz of the mind, no less distorting for being unconscious. We should not to join that dance.[/quote:3961d]

You know, even though the media does such a shitty job, I don't think most people realize it or care.

All the media has to do is run one story: "Bomber suspects may be linked to al qaeda" and most people are fine with that and move on from there.

I'm sure most people believe al qaeda attacked london. I'm sure most people believe al qaeda attacked the US. Is there evidence of this? I don't believe so...other than what governments tell us, but their not willing to prove it. They don't have to because it gets swept under the rug.

didn't osama take responsibility for 9/11?

that's resemblant of the website about how you can fold up the 20 dollar bill and see the WTC smoking and burning.

don't you think the CIA would be able to tell if it was the same person or not?

Yes, i'm sure the CIA knows its not the same person, but they did try to pass it off as the same person so they had justification for invading Afghanistan.

Translation is shoddy, it doesn't look like him at all.

Too many people have faith in the government. It is the responsibility of the people to scrutinize and be critical of the government. This is what keeps the government working for the people. When people chose to ignore, or just go along with whatever the government says, it's no longer a democracy.

All I can say is you have to decide for yourself. If you think your government is all truthful and everything's great, fine. I don't see it that way.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

I think it's just as stupid to automatically think that people are lying as it is to assume they aren't


and if we're using forefather quotes, here's a good one for current days:

"Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-John Adams

I didn't say their automatically lying. I said look at what is before you and decide on those facts.

well I think most people who are skeptical of the government such as yourself tend to approach an issue with doubt and stubborness and form their opinions that the government is a lying, stealing evil institution and then back yourself up when you find conspiracy sites with something they call proof of your beleifs.

This may not be true in your case, but I've talked with many people who hear anything from the government and cry foulplay immediately before the issue is fully described...

If you want an example of this to the extreme, visit http://www.ghaib.deviantart.com and look through the comments on his artwork and in his journals.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to scrutinise your own government.

the USA will kill whoever they believe did the attacks...and then afetr they are dead they will report that they are mistaken and go and kill some other group...and the cycle will keep continuing.

with canada and england by our side reloading our guns for us. such nice chaps eh?

We just like seeing people die, you know...lose their life while we can keep having ours...such a great feeling.

right on

yeah, because we love to just kill people for the hell of it. eek:

No, there is always a reason behind our actions

/me anticipates Pryo's response to be simply "oil"

which is why our oil prices have been going up ever since the war started correct?

oil wouldn't even be a problem if those californian bitches would allow drilling off the coast or if they drilled more in Alaska

you know it doesn't make sense, Californians have decided themselves not to allow drilling off the coast, yet Alaskans have an overwhelming majority of people who support drilling in Alaska and they still aren't allowed by all the environmental agencies to do it. Do the states get to decide or what?

oil prices have been going up because of instability in the region where most of the worlds oil reserves are and the fact that india and china are asking for more and more oil. once things calm down in iraq, the us will have access to cheaper oil. then the next step is to make iran a parking lost so the US can access the caspian sea.

and yeah, i agree with you. people who want to preserve wildlife and the natural habitats of species are all bitches. i mean, it's our responsibility to wipe out as many species as possible and pollute and shit on this piece of shit rock we call earth. theres no need to be responsible in our decisions. we'll let someone else handle it. FUCK EVERYONE!!!

oh yeah BTW, the alaska drilling bill was signed a number of months ago.

The current drilling stations in Alaska have become havens for wildlife. In fact, Caribou live have come to live very close to many of the facilities and their numbers have actually increased since the facilities were completed. So the whole wildlife stuff doesn't really add up to what all the environmental groups tell everybody, but nobody cares to look so everybody starts to think that it would kill everything in Alaska.

and yes, they have signed a bill but we could still do more in alaska.

oOo: oOo:

How about some sources?

how about investing in alternative energy technology so that it doesnt shoot up another 10 degrees in the summertime. We shouldnt be looking for more oils spots but should be investing in the future.

[quote:fed49]In the 1970s people were concerned about the effect of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, expanding oil development, and increased disturbance from use of aircraft and snowmobiles on caribou. Although there was some displacement of caribou calving in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska. Pipelines and most other developments are built to allow for caribou movements, and caribou have shown us that they can adapt to the presence of people and machines. As human activities expand in Alaska, the great challenge for caribou management is for man to consider the needs of our caribou herds and ensure that they remain a visible, healthy part of our landscape. -Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game[/quote:fed49]

there are more if you google "alaska caribou oil" and filter through the biased articles from environmental agencies

I'm pretty sure there are more species living in Alaska then just Caribou.

find me something that proves that animals can't live like the caribou are in the same areas as oil facilities. find something credible that would prove more important than becoming less dependent on middle eastern oil.

you were the one who said they could. therefore, back it up.

[quote:fe29e]find something credible that would prove more important than becoming less dependent on middle eastern oil.[/quote:fe29e]
I didn't say anything about proving its important to become less dependent on oil.

Your refining capacity is to low. THats why. You just don't drop it in your car...

+ excellent article Buttocks (as always).

I didn't say anything about proving its important to become less dependent on oil.[/quote:8ef19]

well you seem to think that if wildlife is being indangered that it isn't worth lowering dependency on foreign oil (and ultimately making the middle east less of a global focus point) even though there isn't any substantial evidence of oil drilling having a negative effect on wildlife in alaska


one of the main things that bothers me about this whole issue is that CA gets to decide what they want to do but other states are held to different standards. it should be up to the states what they want to do.

Ohhh...you mean reduce dependance on foreign oil by finding your own in Alaska.

For some reason I thought you meant developing new technologies and green friendly energies. My mistake.

So your saying, it's either the middle east, or alaska?

How about neither.

How about I get philosophical and say (in best Calg Sagan impression) "we're visitors on this planet we call earth, it is not our to do what we wish, rather it is everyones. Every living creature. It is up to us to decide how we want to enter the new milennium, on the verge of destruction, or in the wake of freedom and prosperity."

Was that any good?

And I ahve no idea about individual state laws. Sorry, i'm just a guy from Canada.

well I agree, it would be great to find a solution in new technologies, and the president has pushed for developing hydrogen car technology. I definately think that is the best option for the future. The problem is, I am not sure how close those goals are to being realized. It may take decades and decades for all of those new technologies to be developed and put into effect in a practical way. I'm saying that until then, we should decrease our dependence for foreign oil because that would make the middle east much less powerful and less of a focal point in the world which would be a good thing for everybody.

OK, I understand what your saying now.

However, I think this image speaks for itself:

[img]http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/colombia/images/map04.gif[/img]

As for hydrogen, this is being played as the savior. Hydrogen is merely a form of storing energy, not creating it. Pure hydrogen does not exist in a natural state, it has to be manufactured, and thus it requires energy to produce it. It actually requires more energy to produce it than you get out of it, which makes it inefficient and definitely not a solution.

i see. What about that stuff they found in abundance on the moon that doesn't really exist on earth that much? I read something about it recently and I thought they said it could be used as an energy source.

Still, even if those percentages are right, (not saying they aren't), they estimate that in Alaska and off CA coast, there are something like 100 million barrels of oil.

huh? Transporting things from the moon to earth to use as fuel? eek:

Yeah...that doesn't really seem all that efficient. How much does a shuttle mission cost?

There very well may be a lot of oil off CA and in Alaska, but if demand keeps rising, your going to need a lot of it. How long will 100 million barrels last?

The US uses 17 million barrels per day, and world consumption was at 77.1 million barrels per day in 96.

http://www.offshore-environment.com/facts.html

I don't know about the moon stuff or how efficient it would be, it was just some article I skimmed. Either way, we still need oil, and anyway of getting it instead of the middle east seems to be an idea worthwhile of investigating until we find something else to use as dependable energy

Also, did anyone read that article about the wind power turbines killing thousands of birds in the past year including hundreds of protected birds of prey? I thought that was a little ironic considering the point of the turbines is to collect energy in a environment friendly way.

you talking about antimatter?

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefro ... index.html

yeah, that's it happy:

hah, cant use antimatter yet man. everything on earth is made up of matter. if antimatter and matter come into contact, they anhiliate eachother. promising thing is that antimatter is nearly 100% efficient where as oil and gas is around less than 10% efficient. if they come up with a way to make a safe way to properly use antimatter, that would be a sight to see.

1 cubic cm worth of anti-matter has the smae amount of energy as 11 shuttle launches.