PamRotella.com

Shades of Willie Brown and 9-11: London attacked by "terrorists"
[Posted 8 July 2005]

Early yesterday morning, while covering the bomb blasts in London, WBAI announced that an AP story had just come over the wire. AP was reporting that Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had been warned of an attack in advance, that Netanyahu had a speaking engagement and was informed an attack would occur near the exact location of his speech. That warning allowed Netanyahu to stay in his hotel room, and an explosion did indeed take place in the area of his planned engagement -- quite an accurate and specific warning.

Obviously, if true, there's the huge question of why the rest of London wasn't notified, or at least transit temporarily suspended to avoid casualties. And how did Scotland Yard learn of the exact attack locations in advance? Later in the day, denials of the warning started flying, then the story just seemed to disappear from major news services. Fortunately, some in the alternative press saw the initial reports, and are already posting it to their sites, like Alex Jones:
Explosions In London - Who Stands To Gain? Israel Warned, Cover-up In Progress

It's most likely that the British government did warn Netanyahu, just as Condi Rice warned Willie Brown not to fly on 9-11. In fact, the entire bombing operation seemed too similar to 9-11, an attack already viewed by the majority of New Yorkers as a government operation, its purpose drumming up popular support for unjustified oil wars. As with 9-11, "al-Qaeda" was blamed, a CIA front group allegedly headed by Osama bin Laden, an admitted CIA asset from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

In the case of London's bombings, the U.S. government, the British government, or both may have been responsible. The underlying reasons could have been one or many -- Britain's support for Bush's oil wars is lagging, especially bad for Bush if he really intends to extend the Iraq war into Iran and Syria. Bush's popularity ratings in America have again sagged below 50%. And people in the U.S. are already critical of past attacks -- any further incidents on American soil would have been heavily scrutinized and exposed.

But by far, the most likely and main purpose would have been to derail momentum gained by the G-8 summit. Bush just doesn't like spending money on responsible things. He wants oil wars, with corporate profits directed back to his family and the big donors that give money to his family. Global warming? Doesn't exist, according to Bush. Poverty in Africa? He did promise Tony Blair to raise funding for that, but only after he felt pressured by Blair, who he owes some favors to for Blair's role in foisting Bush's unpopular oil wars on his unwilling nation. Perhaps Tony will forget about that promise if everyone is distracted with another "terrorist" attack.



With Live-8 concerts around the world and vast media attention focused on G-8 and its admirable goals, refusing to cooperate with G-8 would have been almost impossible for Bush without some sort of massive diversion. And it seemed as if Bush was expecting that diversion to happen -- either that, or he was stoned out of his mind again. Just this morning, I saw footage of him sitting around a table with world leaders at the G-8 summit. While everyone else seemed to be attentive and engaged, Bush was turned slightly away from the table, apparently staring at a wall with his usual drugged-up clueless look. It was as though he had no intention of taking part, and instead was waiting to be rescued from the drudgery.

And the rescue did come, as the bombings knocked G-8 off of newspapers' front pages and out of first place in television broadcasts. Without delay, both Blair and Bush used the attacks for grandstanding the cause of their illegal wars. Blair called the acts "barbaric," saying "we will not be intimidated," while Bush rambled his usual lackluster lines about "terra-ists," saying "we" would find the bombers and bring them to justice. Without any evidence other than claims on an obscure web site, the news media performed on cue, screaming "al-Qaeda" by the end of the day. Fox news hosts confirmed the most likely motive for the attacks, barking "...and they do know now that terrorism should be number one option... that works toward our advantage... It takes global warming off the front burner, it takes African aid off the front burner, it sticks terrorism and the fight and the war on terror right up front all over again." (as re-broadcast on Democracy Now!, 8 July 2005). There you have it -- the neocon agenda plain and simple. This language almost seems written for the occasion by Washington neocons, with their oil wars not to be upstaged by G-8's global responsibility.

If the British violence indeed originated from "terrorists," the UK will always be at risk of further attack simply by continuing to involve itself with US oil wars. But it's more likely that the attacks were coordinated by a greedy government cabal, and future attacks could happen any time the Bush administration decides to "adjust" public opinion. Those in the British government willing to cooperate with these neocons have much easier access to locations for their planned Pearl Harbor-like events, designed to bring unwilling people into their war plans. This is how the neocons operate -- it has been a part of their ideology for decades,* and they intend to use the "Pearl Harbor" strategy as long as it yields them returns.

After the Madrid attacks in Spain, Spanish citizens saw through the lies and forced their old leadership out, then withdrew from the war. Notice how they haven't had any "terrorist" problems since. No doubt the same strategy is the only way to lessen the likelihood of another attack in Britain.


UPDATE: It turns out that "Crazy Rudy" Giuliani just happened to be in London near the site of the first bombing yesterday. Quite a "coincidence" for the man who was mayor during the 9-11-01 attacks. Could this indicate he was involved in BOTH? Perhaps he's part of the "team." His quick statement on the matter seemed a little too prepared:
Giuliani praises 'resolute' London:
"Giuliani, who guided New York through the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, was staying at a hotel near Liverpool Street Station, close to where the first explosion occurred. 'The people of London acted in a very brave, very resolute, very determined way,' Giuliani told CNN. 'The emergency services were right on top of it and they looked like they'd been very well trained. They looked as if they had prepared for the strong possibility that there would be these kind of bombings.'

"Giuliani was in England to address a local government conference on Wednesday, the New York Times reported. He said he felt 'great empathy and sadness' for the people of London, comparing their reaction to the conduct of an earlier generation during the Battle of Britain in 1940, which had inspired him following the 2001 attacks.

" 'They essentially thwarted what I believe the terrorists were trying to achieve which was to create chaos,' said Giuliani. 'Instead they dealt with it how I imagine their parents, grandparents and great grandparents dealt with the Battle of Britain. They've let the terrorists know that ultimately they can't prevail over free people. We cannot let them affect our way of life and both the emergency services and the people of London gave a very strong example of that today.'"

Notice how he's praising Londoners for standing up to "terrorists," using language designed to whip up emotions and incite militarism. He even brings up the battle of Britain, an attack that occurred over 60 years ago during a well-defined war, to help the British identify with the military role. Obviously, the question remains -- why was Rudy sprinkling war talk in with his offering of "sympathy?" Rather than acknowledging the horror people had just suffered, it seemed Rudy was more interested in fomenting hatred and war.




* "...We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject -- how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years." - Stanley Hilton
"The answer is to expose them as the terrorists, to show how PNAC [Project for the New American Century] said we need helpful Pearl Harbor events, to show how Northwoods called for the exact 9/11-style attacks, to show their own plans." - Alex Jones
From Government Insider Says Bush Authorized 911 Attacks


Back to Pam's rants

Back to the top

© 2005 by Pam Rotella

Back to Pam's vegan vegetarian FUN page

Pam's vegan vegetarian cookbook, with vegan vegetarian recipes