Now war is declared, and battle come down…
by Steve ThomasCNN says Birmingham is being evacuated.
“> DEVELOPING STORY
Birmingham, England, police evacuating the city after intelligence suggested some type of threat, the switchboard operator said.”
Can’t find out anything else yet. I just emailed a British friend of mine to find out just what the hell is going on over there. It’s starting to give me that same “Something frightening is happening right now and something utterly horrible is going to happen because of it” chill I had on 9/11/01.
Of course it’s impossible at this point to know whether Thursday’s attack in London was a “real” terrorist attack or whether it was an act of the Bush or Blair governments. Even assuming all of this is originating with Al Qaeda, a number of points and predictions come to mind:
1. This is pretty damn convinient for Blair’s government. Of course it also remains to be seen whether the English will react in the manner of America after the WTC attacks or Spain after the Madrid bombing. Regardless of the reaction of the population, Blair will surely use this as an excuse to increase Britain’s commitment either in Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. We can probably expect a new round of “anti-terrorism” police-state legislation in the US, especially in the wake of whatever the fuck is happening in Birmingham.
3. An expansion of The War this summer (as predicted by Scott Ritter and Seymore Hersch, among others) now seems guaranteed.
4. Everything Is Fucked.
No reason to assume governmental duplicity yet–of course, no reason to rule it out, either. There’s just no evidence that they’re doing anything other than recognizing the good luck that’s fallen on them. I have no doubt Thursday’s attack was executed by al-Qa’ida; the group claiming responsibility does sound exactly like an al-Qa’ida group to me. These attacks are meant to send a message–but the message isn’t addressed to us. That’s where all of our talking heads screw up. Al-Qa’ida’s primary concern right now is uniting the Muslim world. They’re doing that by sending a message to the Muslim world, namely, “Look, they bleed just like we do. They can be beaten. We can win this, if we all stand together now.” So they attack our most important centers to highlight our vulnerability, to show that we are not the immortal gods of death and tyranny we have portrayed ourselves as. So they attack the World Trade Center. And they attack London, while Britain hosts the G8 Summit. It’s all about the G8.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 July 2005 @ 12:31 AM
Put down the X-Files DVDs right now. You’re not allowed to watch any more.
Comment by Anonymous — 10 July 2005 @ 10:48 AM
Or, y’know, a history book….
Governments routinely do horrible things that kill hundreds, if not thousands of people. It becomes increasingly likely as you get politicians who believe they’re acting for some “greater good,” whether it’s preserving the Enigma codes, getting the U.S. into the fight against the Nazis, or paving the way to the neoconservatives’ bright, shining, moral order, ruled by an American Leviathan.
It’s a reasonable suspicion; it’s something our governments have done routinely in the past. The Lusitania was loaded with weapons; the Maine was likely blown up by our own government. We’ve done it before, and we have groups in power who believe in the cause enough to do it. Means, motive, opportunity, even a history of similar offenses are all provided in copious amounts.
The reason to doubt it is ismply Okham’s Razor. Al-Qa’ida has just as much means, motive and opportunity, and the scenario of an al-Qa’ida attack used by our governments is a simpler scenario than an orchestrated conspiracy the likes of Coventry, Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania or the Maine. Given that we have no real evidence yet of government duplicity, unless and until such evidence surfaces, we should assume it was al-Qa’ida.
But to rule out the conspiratorial possibility entirely is to ignore the ugly historical precedent we’ve established over the centuries. Governments are evil, and they do evil things. Even “good” governments, like the United States, can’t help but dirty themselves with a heinous atrocity now and then. Such is the nature of power.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 July 2005 @ 11:36 AM
Of course such things HAVE happened in the past. But the difference between this and Pearl Harbor, is that there is actual evidence that suggests FDR did in fact have foreknowledge of the attack at Pearl Harbor. There is no such evidence for the London bombings. It’s pretty much just a liberal crackpot conspiracy theory made up to stick it to the Man. Now I’ll be willing to retract that statement when you find me the memo signed by Tony Blair outlining his plans to bomb London. But as it stands now, that theory holds about as much weight as saying that the bombings were caused by tiny gremlins under the influence of alien mind control rays.
Comment by Michael Godesky — 10 July 2005 @ 2:53 PM
Well, we don’t have much evidence that it was an al-Qa’ida attack, either (though I’ll bet top dollar it was). The evidence for FDR knowing about Pearl Harbor took 50 years to come out. These things don’t work very quickly. I don’t think it’s terribly likely, but it’s not such a crazy idea. it’s not like this isn’t something we haven’t done before.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 July 2005 @ 3:03 PM
You’re right. I don’t know that it wasn’t the government. But you don’t know that it wasn’t gremlins. And that’s exactly my point. Sure, it COULD have been the U.S. or British governments. It also COULD have been Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Tom Cruise, or space aliens from the planet Xenoplatz VII. There’s just as much reason to believe any one of those possibilities as there is for the possibility that it was the U.S. or the U.K.–that is, none. There’s no shortage of bad people out there (yes even, shockingly enough, outside the West). That doesn’t mean they’re all responsible for the bombings in London.
Here in America, we’re supposed to believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. That means we don’t consider it appropriate to go around accusing people of crimes just in case we find evidence that they’re guilty later on. Sure, we might find evidence that the British government planned the whole thing 50 years from now. But we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now we can only make judgments based on the information that’s available today. And today, Bush and Blair aren’t even suspects.
Now of course, we could go around saying it’s Bush’s fault just because we don’t like him and therefore, anything bad that happens in the world must be his doing. But to me, that IS a crazy idea.
Comment by Michael Godesky — 10 July 2005 @ 4:23 PM
You’re really overstating things here. No, we have no evidence that it was gremlins, or aliens from the planet Xenoplatz VII. But we also know of no reason why they would want London to be bombed, either. Tom Cruise has no motive. Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein have motive, but no means or opportunity. Both al-Qa’ida and the Coalition have all three: means, motive, and opportunity. Right now, we have zero evidence one way or the other. We’re assuming it’s al-Qa’ida (and I think that’s a safe assumption; so far, it all fits their MO, and it makes sense for them to do it), but there’s no evidence for that yet, either. Is it crazy, then, to blame al-Qa’ida for what happened? After all, we don’t have any evidence there, either. All we have is the fact that this fits with their known pattern of behavior, fulfills their stated objectives, and is something they would be capable of doing. Which, now that I think of it, is rather the same evidence we have for our governments: it fits into their known pattern of behavior (Coventry, Pearl Harbor, the Maine, the Lusitania, etc.), fulfills their stated objectives (”Rebuilding America’s Defenses”), and is something they would be capable of doing.
That said, I’m fairly certain that it was al-Qa’ida, and that we’re just going to take the ball and run with it, nothing more than that. But it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that, say, we knew about it beforehand (London or 9/11), and decided to look the other way and let it all fall in our laps. I would be somewhat surprised if they actually, actively planned it, or even coordinated with terrorist groups to see it done, but it’s not the craziest scenario I can think of.
In short, I actually tend to agree that it’s unlikely, but it’s not nearly as crazy as you’re trying to make it sound. It might sound nuts to suggest that a trusted friend has lied to you, but it becomes an increasing suspicion when that trusted friend has been lying to you constantly and consistently the entire time you’ve known him.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 July 2005 @ 4:34 PM
“This body also had a missing hand and a bowl of corn flakes next to it! Which can only mean one thing! That a copycat killer is on the loose! We need your psychic abilities to catch this new guy right away!”
Come on. This isn’t a game of Clue. Really, anyone who can put together a few sticks of dynamite has means and opportunity. As for motive, you’ll recall that the last time something like this happened it ended with that country’s leader being voted out of office and its troops being withdrawn from Iraq. I’m not sure that’s exactly what Bush and Blair are shooting for.
And yeah, there’s not a whole lot of evidence that can be used to solidly point the finger at anyone. On the other hand, we do know that the bombings in London fit al Qaeda’s MO to a tee and that a group claiming to be associated with al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the bombings. So there’s more evidence to suggest that it was al Qaeda than for anybody else.
Yes, the American and British governments have done bad things in the past. But just because somebody is bad doesn’t mean that they’re responsible for EVERY bad thing that ever happens. There are plenty of people out there who aren’t nice and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the London bombings. And that’s all I’m saying. Because all you really have against the U.S. and Britain is that they’re not nice people. The crazy part isn’t that America or Britain could do something like this. The crazy part is, why WOULD you think that they did it?
Besides, Blair doesn’t have the balls that Churchill had.
Comment by Michael Godesky — 10 July 2005 @ 5:39 PM
No, not just that they aren’t nice people–they aren’t nice people, this directly benefits them, and it’s the kind of thing they’ve done in the past. It does fit al-Qa’ida’s MO to a tee–but then, it would be rather like Britain and the U.S.’s MO, too, wouldn’t it? They’re really not so different. Yes, a supposedly al-Qa’ida affiliated group has taken responsibility, but neither the claim nor the group have yet been confirmed. Personally, I think the evidence points very strongly towards al-Qa’ida. But the idea that Bush or Blair might have looked the other way seems very plausible. That they did it themselves even isn’t so unthinkable.
There’s the key. There’s lots of bad people in the world, but only a few of them benefit from something like this. And even fewer have done things like this in the past. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom can get off that short list, even though al-Qa’ida’s a little bit higher up on it than they are. Such is the price you pay for past atrocities. Cry wolf too many times, and people start to doubt.
I agree that there’s more evidence pointing to al-Qa’ida right now than anyone else, but I don’t think the evidence is so overwhelming that we can call the alternative crazy.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 July 2005 @ 11:22 PM
No. No, it wouldn’t.
That’s just bullshit. You want to talk about motive? It’s the G fucking 8! Show me someone who DOESN’T have a motive. And what exactly do you think Blair’s motive was? To accelerate the end of his political career? As for the rest, a handful of completely unrelated events that occurred over the course of 150 years hardly constitutes a “pattern of behavior.” If the only evidence you have against the U.S. and Britain is that they’ve done things in the past that weren’t nice, then that’s a pretty sorry case.
I can give you means, motive, and opportunity for why the U.S. would fake the moon landing in 1969. That doesn’t make it any less insane.
Let’s just face facts. This whole conspiracy theory is just something that was made up by liberal extremists who are so blinded by their hatred of George W. Bush that they can’t even imagine anything bad in the world not being his fault. So they accuse him and his allies of every crime they see, no matter how baseless. There’s no evidence here. It’s just left-wing hysteria. You know it, and I know it. Hell, even Kos knows it. And to sit here and pretend that we don’t know it is just childish and irresponsible.
Comment by Michael Godesky — 11 July 2005 @ 9:55 AM
This bit from the Wikipedia entry was almost funny:
I mean, it’s feckin’ London–these guys celebrate Guy Fawkes Day. How many cities have been subject to more terrorist attacks than London? They couldn’t get the #1 spot for this no matter which way they went–between the Nazis, the IRA, and the other dozen or two groups that have tried to blow the place up since the Romans, that’s a lot of history to beat out.
“In the U.K., a hundred miles is a long way; in the U.S., a hundred years is a long time.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 July 2005 @ 9:57 AM
Calm down, Mike, you’re sounding like a rabid assclown right about now. If I were just going on “the U.S. and the U.K. sometimes do bad things,” I’d have thrown in some of the U.K.’s atrocities in India, or our own concentration camps in the Philippines. What I cited were all examples of when we either actively planned, or at least sat by and watched lots of innocent people die, because we knew that such an atrocity would rile up our citizenry and get them to fall behind us in support of armed action against a group we wanted to go to war with, but couldn’t must popular support for. Sound familiar? How’s that for Blair’s possible motive? London isn’t Spain, and we all know it. The Madrid bombings happened right before the Spanish election–Blair’s already tied up his re-election, and by the time it comes around again it won’t be the London bombings people remember, but the victorious, righteous war of vengeance he led afterwards. Like 9/11, Bush and the 2004 election. Similar timing here. Blair just got out by the skin of his teeth, and he knows he needs something big if he’s going to make it around again.
Now, frankly, I think Blair’s getting shafted here. I don’t think he had anything to do with this. I think he signed on the Iraq War in order to turn Bush around on global warming–and then Bush screwed him over. Now this, because Blair backed up Bush’s little war. I think he’s tortured over it.
But when something like this comes up, after how many times they’ve done this to us, you have to wonder. How many times do our governments have to let terrible things like this happen in order to energize us for war, before something like this happens, the war drums start sounding, and you say, “Hey, wait a minute, I think I saw this before….”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 July 2005 @ 10:05 AM
Mind you, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I agree with your version of events, and I think blaming Bush or Blair is misplaced. All I’m saying is that your disrespect is also misplaced. When somebody’s killed, you naturally look at killers; rape, rapists; arson, arsonists. When something terrible happens and you hear the drums of war beating, why wouldn’t you take a look at the people with a long history of staging terrible things in order to justify their wars? I don’t think they’re responsible, but it’s not like they didn’t work long and hard to earn our suspicion.
I don’t think you’re wrong; I think Steve is. But your disrespect is far more afield than his misinterpretation of the evidence. His analysis is not that terribly far off, but your attack was disrespectful, irrational and unwarranted.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 July 2005 @ 10:24 AM
Kos is an ass. He’s the standard Rational Democrat, setting the limits of dissent and making sure the rest of us don’t get too far out of line.
I never said that the bombing was carried out by the Blair or Bush governments. I said it’s too early to tell. It may be too early to tell for the next month, next year, next decade, or next century. Or irrefutable evidence for one or the other may emerge tomorow.
Has any evidence against Blair emerged already?
Yes: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm
As for 9/11–you’ll note I also did not say the Bush administration was responsible for making it happen or allowing it to happen. I don’t know whether it was or not. However, I have actually considered the considerable evidence that the Bush government (and in particular, Cheney) was responsible. Have you, Mike, or have you simply dismissed it a priori, because it’s Crazy Talk?
By the way, I’ve also considered the evidence that the moon landing was faked. Considered and rejected it.
Comment by Steve — 11 July 2005 @ 12:37 PM
In my hurry to get to lunch (I’m posting from work…) I forgot to say this:
It’s important to keep in mind that this discussion is purely academic. It does not matter one iota who is actually responsible for the WTC attacks, the London attacks, Madrid, the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, etc, etc, etc. In fact a narrow-minded focus on proving the Bush cabal responsible would be extremely counter-productive. If it turns out to be true, then too many people will see getting rid of Bush as *the* victory; if it turns out to be false it still won’t change the nature of civilization, but those who insisted on it will be discredited.
Comment by Steve — 11 July 2005 @ 1:57 PM
Hold on. I’M sounding like a rabid assclown? I’m the only one here calling for a reasonable and responsible conversation. You want to talk about respect? How respectful is it for somebody to try taking advantage of a tragic event to advance his or her own political agenda? It was wrong when the Republicans pulled it after 9/11, and it’s wrong now too. How respectful is it to say something as irresponsible as, “It’s impossible to know whether it was a ‘real’ terrorist attack?” I mean, of course it was fake. Just look at all the fake blood.
If you want this site to deteriorate into another crazed conspiracy theory website, then that’s up to you. But I’m not going to be a part of it.
Comment by Michael Godesky — 11 July 2005 @ 3:12 PM
A “responsible conversation”? What the hell kind of fascist non-sense is this? When did asking a question become “irresponsible”?
I don’t remember anybody saying the attack wasn’t real. Fifty people died, and more than that were hurt badly. This is a terrible thing, and the people responsible for it are monsters. By “‘real’ terrorist attack,” Steve very clearly meant an attack by actual terrorists–as opposed to an attack executed by government orders, made up to look like a terrorist attack.
I think it’s pretty clear that the monsters in question are almost certainly al-Qa’ida. They wanted to make Britain pay for backing us up in Iraq, which we invaded to get back at them for 9/11, which they did to get us out of Saudi Arabia, which we moved into because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, which he did because his U.S. support against Iran was running out, which we provided as a check against the Soviets…. How far back do you want to take this? These things don’t happen in a vacuum.
Yes, it was tragic. Yes, it was horrible. Grabbing the first enemy we catch sight of and clinching onto that rabidly doesn’t help anyone, though. There are plenty of people who want us to do that. They don’t provide any evidence or argument, though; they just throw gruesome pictures in our faces, manipulate our emotions, and shout down anyone who questions them as a crazy moonbat.
The feeding frenzy going on with this is despicable. It’s so feral and unthinking it’s almost gotten me thinking where there’s smoke, there’s fire. I didn’t think it was terribly likely to be something in line with the Lusitania, the Maine, Coventry or Pearl Harbor, but damn … why is everyone so unbelieveably adamant that we not question our great leaders and do as we’re told, and accept the explanations we’re given?
Nor do I see this as part of anybody’s political agenda. Republican manipulation of 9/11 was awful, yes, but I fail to see how anyone but the neoconservatives (again) are manipulating this? So far, Steve’s raised a question, I’ve stated that I don’t think there’s much to it but defended his right to ask it, and you have been baying for his blood for the temerity to question dear leader. I mean, after all, people died, how dare he question when dear leader tells us to kill?
This is all so insane. This isn’t a crazed conspiracy theory website; this website takes the big picture. I rarely write about terrorism here, because it’s a transient thing. People die, but not so much as die in war–and wars have been raging since time immemorial. Frankly, terrorism is a little better than normal warfare, in that it accomplishes its goals with fewer casualties. Such is the nature of civilization. I’m much more interested in that nature, than in its momentary manifestations.
So yes, let all that pathos and rage fill you with images like you linked above. But if you lash out unthinkingly at any target you’re pointed at, you’re a tool. Think for your own damn self, and come to your own conclusions. And afford everyone else the same right to question.
I’ll say again: This is almost certainly an al-Qa’ida attack. But if people think it might be the government, it’s the government’s own damn fault for pulling evil shit like this with such regularity. It isn’t crazy for Steve to ask the question, and he has every right to question. You have every right to iterate the evidence and say why you don’t think that’s the case, and he has every right to offer counter-evidence. Debate, dialogue, give-and-take, all that?
But people who disagree with you are not crazy, nor are they moonbats, nor should they be censored.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 July 2005 @ 3:33 PM
As Captain John Sheridan might say in a situation such as this… I think everybody needs to calm down and have some cool, refreshing orange juice.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 11 July 2005 @ 4:05 PM
OK, so Mike and I had dinner last night, discussed this face-to-face, and decided to draft a definitive statement on the subject.
1.) The idea itself of a government blowing up its own people in order to achieve something it believes in, is not so unthinkable. There is a great deal of precedent for this kind of thing. They’ve done it in the past, and they’ll likely do it in the future. So asking the question is legitimate: they’ve brought the suspicion upon themselves by doing these things with such horrible regularity.
2.) Suspicion is a different thing from accusation; asking a question is different from making a charge. Asking the question if they were involved is OK; accusing them without evidence is not. Legitimately asking the question is fine; but very rarely is the question legitimately asked. More often, it is a snide way of slipping in an unwarranted, unproven accusation. This is not acceptable. Mike believes this was the case here; I do not. I prefer to assume the best, and take the surface reading–a legitimate question–which is perfectly understandable, given the historical precedent.
3.) The facts of this particular case seem, at this time, to very strongly point to an al-Qa’ida attack, making any accusation that this particular case fits the mold of Coventry, Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania or the Maine far-fetched. Yes, the question flitted through my mind for a moment–but as Steve said in relation to the conspiracy theory that the moon landing was staged, it was considered and rejected. It seems like classic al-Qa’ida, and the evidence to the contrary is circumstantial at best. We do not support any accusation being made against the Bush or Blair governments for this case at this time.
4.) The open question, of course, is did we know about it, and allow it? We find much more historical precedent for this, and I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to learn that it took place–just as I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to find out it took place in relation to 9/11. I say I would not be surprised because, while it fits very easily into historical precedent, the stated aims and known history of the parties involved, there is as yet absolutely no evidence to suggest it happened. I leave it open as a possibility, but I cannot say that it happened, and there is absolutely no grounds on which to argue that it did happen. It is entirely possible that it did not happen, and we should assume that it did not happen, unless and until contrary evidence arises. Innocent until proven guilty. I’m just saying the guys have a track record. It’s like saying you wouldn’t be surprised to find one more body in BTK’s basement: unless and until such a body turns up, there is no accusation, no charge, and no reason to assume it’s so. It just wouldn’t be surprising. I wouldn’t be surprised if I had hamburger for dinner today; doesn’t mean I will have hamburger, it just means it’s something that’s happened before, suits me, and will very likely happen again in the future.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 July 2005 @ 9:50 AM
I totally disagree. You *are going* to have hamburger tonight.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 12 July 2005 @ 12:07 PM
NOt to drag this back up, but… http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/3731/D7E7J7A_Vu
SO there’s some possible evidence for asking the question.
Comment by Cory — 15 July 2005 @ 7:25 PM
Meh, coincidental. Doesn’t convince me much.
Much worse–and almost certainly true–is the idea that we could have prevented this, were it not for this administration’s scheme for a small, short-term ratings boost leading up to the election.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 July 2005 @ 7:34 PM