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.

What is the Khan connection to the London bombings? Well, intelligence officials at the time said that the plans discovered on Khan’s computer included attacks on London’s transport system as well as Heathrow Airport.

Furthermore, according to Americablog, ” ABC reports that names in Khan’s computer matched a suspected cell of British citizens of Pakistani decent, many of who lived near the town of Luton, England - Luton is the same town where, not coincidentally, last week’s London bombing terrorists began their day. According to ABC, authorities thought they had stopped the subway plot with the arrest of more than a dozen people last year associated with Khan. Obviously, they hadn’t.

SO there’s some possible evidence for asking the question.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.