Four small bombs exploded today in the London subways.  Apparantly only "only" one person was killed.

Four small bombs exploded today in the London subways.  Apparantly only "only" one person was killed.


Er there was only one person injured, no fatalities this time.

Er there was only one person injured, no fatalities this time.


Sorry, must have mis-read the report.  Glad to hear it.

further eloboration for conspiracy buffs .. again I know nothing .. just like to keep abreast of the disourse around these events that mushrooms up alongside the official version.....

>by Larry Chin
>
>July 18, 2005
>Online Journal
>
>As was the case following 9/11 and all post-9/11 "terror" events, an
>official new propaganda legend is being constructed to justify whatever
>Anglo-American-Israeli aggression that is sure to follow.
>
>Meanwhile, the list of unanswered questions, irregularities, and
>inconsistencies continues to grow, along with dramatically zigzagging
>cover stories and anti-Muslim agitation. Another large-scale government
>and media deception is well underway.
>
>Two recent observations by the astute (but anonymous) Xymphora at
>"Birth of the London Bomb Official Story" (July 13) and "Yet more on
>the London Bombings" (July 15) provide analysis on the mounting
>anomalies. William Bowles and Edward Teague ask, "Were the London
>Bombings a set up?" "The 7/7 London Papers" is another site that
>provides a timeline exposing problems with the official version.
>Independent researchers like these, not the mainstream media, are the
>only ones undertaking this important investigation.
>
>It is already known that the UK authorities received advance warning of
>a terrorist attack-from Israel. So did Benjamin Netanyahu. Stratfor
>confirms evidence of foreknowledge in this report: "Israel warned UK
>about possible attacks" (July 7). The analysis of Bowles/Teague casts
>doubt on many aspects of the emerging legend of the four
>bombers-today's version of 9/11's "19 hijackers."
>
>London is already playing out in a way all too similar to the byzantine
>9/11 terror propaganda construct described by Chaim Kupferberg. As
>Bowles and Teague wrote, "without the four men to tell their side of
>the story, it's all too easy to make the facts fits the theory as it
>serves the larger ideological objective of the state to present them as
>'fanatics.'"
>
>Other parallels with 9/11 (and Bali, Madrid, etc.) are too obvious to
>ignore. Researcher and activist Jeff Strahl notes:
>
>"The media obediently follow the cues provided by the US and British
>governments, and read the handed-down script regarding the London
>bombings, even as crucial details are being changed daily; not even a
>pause in the face of mounting inconsistencies. And this includes the
>"progressive" media, be it The Nation or Pacifica Radio, eager to prove
>they are, of course, not supportive of 'terrorists.' Read or listen all
>you want, you will find virtually no reference to many questions being
>raised about the official accounts. This is quite similar to how the
>9/11 events have been treated. If people don't seriously press the
>media, the latest propaganda will become 'fact,' as has happened with
>9/11, whose crucial details remain unexamined, whose official story
>remains accepted across the political spectrum.
>
>"Why and how did former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu get a
>warning to stay away from a place where he was to speak, located above
>one of the blast sites? How does 'suicide bombers' square with earlier
>police claims of timing devices? Why did the 'suspects' leave a car
>full of explosives in a parking lot in Luton, 30 miles from London?
>(Did they expect someone to find the car and put the explosives to good
>use?) What about the anti-terrorism exercises scheduled for the same
>hour in which the bombings took place? How did former head of the
>Mossad, Efraim Halevi, writing in the Jerusalem Post on July 7, the day
>of the attacks, know that the bombs went off simultaneously, (when the
>London police did not say so for days)? And how could he claim they
>were 'nearly perfect'? Why did the 'suspects' take credit cards along
>on a suicide mission?
>
>"Authorities now say the explosives used were not military grade after
>all, but home brews. Seems like they had a tough time explaining how
>the supposed culprits could get military grade stuff. The Boston Herald
>reported yesterday that one of the supposed culprits carried not only
>his own ID, but also documents of one of the others. How did such
>documents survive the blasts, which should have torn their bodies into
>small pieces? This is the same as the magic 9/11 passport that appeared
>in the rubble.
>
>"The supposed mastermind has been arrested in Egypt today, but he
>denies any connection. Not content with a car full of explosives, he
>left behind a house full of explosives, for someone to find and put to
>good use. Shades of 9/11 again, i.e., the car left at an airport
>parking lot with a Koran and a flight manual for a 767 in Arabic."
>
>The London event also fits the post-9/11 pattern in other ways. There
>continues to be no mention of the fact that 1) "Islamic terror,"
>including Al-Qaeda, is a creation of Anglo-American military
>intelligence; 2) these groups remain key instruments of Anglo-American
>policy-directly and indirectly guided, and controlled, by CIA, MI6
>and affiliated intelligence agencies, such as Pakistan's ISI.
>
>According to new reports, some of London's four bombers were trained in
>Pakistan-but there has been nothing in the media reports about the
>nature of this training. Pakistan, and its ISI, remains one of biggest
>elephants in a stinking post-9/11 living room.
>
>As Bush and Blair bluster for the cameras, as the only beneficiaries of
>the horror, backlash against Muslims has reignited. Time Magazine's
>coverage (July 18) was typical. Across a number of articles on London,
>Time immediately attributed responsibility to "jihadists," "jihadism,"
>"bin Ladenism," "lumpen jihadists" and Al-Qaeda "terrorists," quoting
>conspiracy theories from officials and "security experts" desperate to
>tie the bombings to "Al-Qaeda fanatics." All before any factual
>evidence was available to support these conclusions.
>
>Somewhat more revealing, but not in the way intended, is where Michael
>Elliot's Time headline article offered this:
>
>"According to a confidential report produced the day after the bombing
>by a private London security firm, Aegis Defense Services, Ltd., which
>was seen and read by Pentagon officials, the team was probably four to
>six strong . . . The Aegis report says it is possible that the
>explosives were 'constructed by an experienced bomb maker, possibly
>coming to the U.K. for that very purpose.'"
>
>Aegis and its chief Tim Spicer are intimately involved with the
>Pentagon's Iraq operations. Spicer is also implicated for murders in
>Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Aegis is also tied to the sponsoring of
>an aborted coup in the West African nation of Equatorial Guinea, which
>resulted in the arrest of Sir Mark Thatcher, son of former British
>Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
>
>How did Aegis conclude that the foreign origin for the bomb maker, when
>no such evidence was available? What role does this British security
>firm serve in helping drive Washington-London "war on terrorism"
>planning, and what was this confidential report "seen and read by
>Pentagon officials"?
>
>Britain and "Terrorism"
>
>British terrorism goes back to the days of the old British Empire, and
>since the 1970s, includes the creation and running of "Islamic terror"
>groups all over the world, right alongside US and US-backed
>intelligence counterparts playing the same game. These connections
>persist to this day.
>
>It is a matter of documented fact, exposed by Michel Chossudovsky (War
>and Globalisation) and others, that mujahadeen mercenaries and "Islamic
>jihad" from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited and trained
>by Britain's MI6 and British SAS Special Forces, to fight in the ranks
>of the KLA, supporting NATO's war effort.
>
>In Crossing The Rubicon, Mike Ruppert noted:
>
>"Great Britain-one of the major players supporting the KLA in
>Kosovo-also maintained secret relationships with bin Laden and al
>Qaeda that served its interests. In 1996, Britain's exterior
>intelligence, MI6, actually funded and worked with al Qaeda in a plot
>to assassinate and overthrow Libya's Muammar Qaddafy. Details of the
>relationship emerged after a British domestic intelligence (MI5)
>officer, David Shayler, went public with documents detailing the
>relationship between Britain and bin Laden.
>
>"In November 2002-in the wake of 9/11-as Shayler's trial brought
>the case to public attention, the British government invoked measures
>of the State Security Act to hide embarrassing information. The
>government's efforts went so far as to the issuance of a "D" notice by
>Prime Minister Tony Blair requiring that previously published news
>stories on the case be withdrawn and removed from public websites . . .
>
>
>"Britain's dealings with Osama bin Laden have extended to allowing him
>to visit their country while he was a wanted man. As noted in 1998,
>'the French Internet publication Indigo reported that bin Laden had
>been a London guest of British Intelligence as recently as 1996, and
>his treasurer recently defected to the Saudis as different factions
>shifted alliances for new campaigns in the Middle East.'"
>
>The Real Enemy
>
>Nothing has changed since 9/11. As long as Bush-Blair-Sharon dictate
>the course of events, nothing will.
>
>Where no connection to "Al-Qaeda" or "Islamic fanaticism" actually
>exists, in a way that justifies endless "war on terrorism," it will be
>created. Factual truth in this post-9/11 milieu is, to borrow the
>corrupt Alberto Gonzales' words, a "quaint notion," in a time of open
>government criminality and rampant deception.
>
>There is debate about the possibility that London had elements of
>"real" terrorism, "blowback" or "payback" (see "The Global Battlefield:
>We Are Standing On It"), or perhaps that it was some combination of
>"made to happen" and "allowed to happen."
>
>Five continuous years of a "war on terrorism" past the point of no
>return, have left the line between fabricated (intelligence
>agency-orchestrated) terrorism and "real" terrorism (a response to the
>provocations and policies) irrevocably blurred. In any case, this
>discussion is academic.
>
>The "root cause" of modern terrorism is the criminal geostrategy of
>Washington, London and Tel Aviv. The New World Order welcomes chaos and
>disorder-regardless of the particulars of any particular event. That
>fact is all that matters, as this war continues to devastate humankind.
>
>SOURCE: (with live links):
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20050
>718&articleId=701
>

Sorry, must have mis-read the report.  Glad to hear it.


Cheers DC - yeah the news reports were inaccurate among all the confusion I think, just heard this morning that there were no injuries at all now.   

Just heard on the radio this morning that a suspected suicide bomber has been shot dead in Stockwell tube station in London, again everything has ground to a halt and stations have been evacuated.

Cheers DC - yeah the news reports were inaccurate among all the confusion I think, just heard this morning that there were no injuries at all now.   

Just heard on the radio this morning that a suspected suicide bomber has been shot dead in Stockwell tube station in London, again everything has ground to a halt and stations have been evacuated.


here's a link to the story of the shooting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

though how the commuters knew they were plain clothes policemen when they saw them is puzzling me.  Surely the point of being in plain clothes is that you blend in?