[disclosure: I do NOT think that the London bombings were carried out by American or British operatives]
This reality-based stuff has me annoyed. So, I am going to write a little bit about spycraft. There are different kinds of missions that an intelligence agency can undertake. If they want to look at your psychiatric files, they do what is called a ‘clandestine operation’. They break into your shrink’s office, make copies of the files, and put them back. No one is the wiser.
But other operations cannot be concealed. The assassination of Fidel Castro, for example, would be noticed. When crafting a plan to assassinate a foreign leader there are two main objectives. The first is that the target is killed. The second is that someone else gets blamed for carrying out the assassination. Missions such as these are called ‘covert operations’.
You can read about the CIA’s history of plotting assassinations in the Church Commission.
Now, does the CIA have any history of using bombs on innocent civilians? Let’s ask Bob Woodward.
Let’s review what that bomb did in human terms:
The bomb went off outside a block of flats and close to a mosque as worshippers were gathering for Friday night prayers in a densely populated Shia Muslim suburb.
It is the worst attack in the Lebanese capital since November 1983 when 61 people were killed in a suicide car bomb attack in the southern port of Tyre.
The bomb blew a huge crater in the street and destroyed two seven-storey blocks of flats, a mosque and a cinema. Many of the dead were passers-by.
The blast brought gunmen running on to the streets firing guns into the air to clear the roads for ambulances.
Radio stations broadcast appeals for blood donors as fire fighters and civil defence workers tried to remove bodies from under the rubble.
Fleets of ambulances jammed the entrance to west Beirut’s main hospital. It was soon packed with wounded and dead.
The bomb went off near the home of a leading fundamentalist Shia Muslim cleric, Sheikh Muhammad Husain Fadlallah and it is thought he may have been the target – although he was not hurt in the attack.
Sheikh Fadlallah later accused Israel and its “internal allies” of being behind the explosion and he gave a warning to “all those who are playing with fire” that their hands will be “burned by the flames”.
BBC
You will hear people deny that the CIA carried out this attack to this day. That is to be expected. It was a covert operation.
After the Church Commission exposed the CIA’s plots to kill foreign leaders, we made it illegal to assassinate foreign leaders. It was never considered legal to set off car bombs in front of mosques, and we have presumably stopped using such tactics. The important thing to remember is that no operation along these lines would be carried out without plausible deniability.
Ideally, someone else would be blamed, false leads would have been placed in advance. Hotel bills, credit card transactions, traces of explosives in someone’s apartment. That is how a covert activity is designed. And an illegal covert operation will take extreme care in this regard.
The result is obvious. Anyone who had the audacity to blame the CIA for the Beirut bombing would be shown evidence that the Syrians or the Iranians were behind it. And then they would be called a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic, with no credibility.
I have never seen any evidence that the CIA has ever carried out a terrorist attack against American or British citizens. I know the Brits tolerated attacks on their citizens that could have been averted, in order to maintain a high level mole in the IRA. I know that a plan was discussed to carry out attacks on Floridians, blame it on Castro, and use it as a pretext to invade Cuba. But that plan was never implemented, obviously.
Anyone who is familiar with the history of espionage will NOT describe speculation on whether the Anglo intelligence services were behind the bombing as a ‘bullshit theory’ or ‘non-reality based’.
This is especially true because the Anglo services had all the appropriate motives to carry out the bombing. Support for the war is cratering, and if it continues to crater politicians will start getting nervous about their careers and asking us to pull out. The strategic thinking that went into starting this war did not envision that we would pull out and have Iran take over strategic dominance of Iraq.
Whoever set off the bombs just gave new oxygen to the war effort. If the goal is to win the war, this act would be a smart one.
Now, having said all this, I still think the most likely explanation is the one being bandied about. The bombings were probably carried out by a small cell of Muslim terrorists. Their motive was to punish Tony Blair for being a part of the coalition in Iraq. They may have hoped the Brits would leave the coalition, further weakening our position in Iraq, and hastening our departure.
If so, they did NOT make a smart move.
What I have just written is reality. We don’t know what happened. We would like to believe that the people in the Bush/Blair administrations are moral people that would not kill their own citizens. I believe they would refuse to sign off on any proposal of this type.
But, if history teaches us anything, it should teach us NOT to blindly accept the explanations of our governments. The Tonkin incident was bunk, the Kuwaiti orphan baby story was bunk, the WMD story was bunk.
Finally, in conclusion, I want to say that most people are not this cynical. They don’t know about a lot of things that have been done in the past, and they don’t want to believe them. They don’t want to believe that the CIA would set off a car bomb during Friday prayers in Beirut, and kill scores of people. If you suggest something of this kind might have happened, then people will make fun of you. They’ll call you a nut. And if a community is seen engaging in this kind of speculation, they will be marginalized, ridiculed, and important people will stop paying attention to what you have to say.
It’s an unfortunate reality that speculation of this type is bad for an online community that has a goal of helping to shape policy. But it would be a perfectly sane, reasonable topic for discussion on a board that has no other purpose but free speech.
So, enough with telling people that they are unreasonable, or not living in a reality-based world. Speculation on this topic, when the stakes are so high in the middle east, is not unreasonable. It just won’t win you any votes.
Very well said, thank you. Another example of intelligent, rational commentary over here.
I am not going to touch this with a 10 foot pole! After the investigation we will know what we are dealing with. I think of all places, that Brition will not be allowed to state nontruthisms at all, since the DSM. It will as accurate as possible. however; saying that, I do not place anything beyond our governments! I do not say that lightly. I have seen what spooks can do and working for the company is a strange bedfellow indeed to have memories of.
I will wait for the official speak to come out then will comment.
.

David Kelly disclosure Iraq WMD claim
Judge Lord Hutton criticized the BBC for an “unfounded” report it broadcast last year accusing the government of “sexing up” a prewar dossier about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction with information it knew was wrong.
Tony? A smooth talker. Grrrr.
It took me more than a year to realize he was delivering eloquent speeches, but not on promises of foreign policy.
USA WELCOME: Make Yourself Known @BooMan Tribune and add some cheers!
this is great, OUI…thanks..I have been wondering about this very thing.
Rational speculation is essential. Thank you, Boo, for this. I just sent this link to everyone I know.
What is it that makes you believe that the US had no role in the bombings. Why not just be agnostic about it?
means “not-knowing” or “lacking wisdom or knowledge”.
In this sense, I am agnostic.
However, if I had to bet money, I’d bet that this attack was carried out by muslim terrorists.
The fact that we don’t yet have any leads indicates to me that this operation was not done to maintain war support. I think we would have provided patsies, most likely a flat where several radical muslims live and traces of the explosives.
Or we would be blaming some state-sponsor that we want to intimidate.
I also have a hard time believing that they would pull the trigger on such an operation. I have no problem believing that a few muslim terrorists would pull the trigger.
Thanks for that. I really am agnostic because I don’t know enough. But your thoughts, especially that if there was some US complicity we would have left traces to someone as a cover, are helpful in leading me away from the “conspiracies.” See, thats what happens when you actually talk about it.
the problem though, I hope.
If you analyze my logic, you’ll see it’s circular.
If we had leads indicating that Muslim terrorists did this that would be evidence that Muslim terrorist did not do this.
That is how covert ops are designed. We can’t know the truth because there is no logical path to the truth.
And the fact that you recognize this and are willing to front page it makes you both smarter and more fair than the average blogger.
You can’t possibly be intelligent and honest if you’re not willing to admit that the world is comprised of countless shades of gray, and that there are rarely any easy answers. I, for one, find it refreshing to see that generally reflected from the top down in this place.
Perfect! I have to say this because that is how I think LOL! Sorry for the enthusiasm, but I like being in the presence of open minds!
Thank you. Perhaps it’s been discussed at length somewhere, but this is the first time in recent memory that I’ve seen someone say ‘Why not be agnostic about it?’
In light of the current… er conspiracy kerfuffle, that thought can’t be expressed often enough, if for no other reason than trying to maintain community cohesion.
I don’t know who did this either, but I would like to note that one day, at the least, after the bombing, Al Zaqarwi was mentioned in relation to the bombing and slo-mo video of him turning his head was shown repeatedly on CNN. (I don’t usually watch CNN, but I did for this to hear Amanpour.)
He is, conveniently, Iraqi-identified.
This occurred when support for the Iraqi occupation is at an all time low…and everyone knows all the issues..the DSM, Plame, falling poll numbers, British move from Iraq to Afghan…
The bombs in “ethnic” neighborhood…
And yet, even so, an equal case can be made for the opposite argument.
I think people have been expecting something for so long, this moment sort of equals the squeal of the teapot when the water hits the boiling point. Whoever did it, all rhetoric is heated up, and rational decisions are harder to implement.
one thing I have persoanlly learned is to verify..not once but more than three times in order to rule out any possibility of off chance something else might be possible. and always follow through….always!
My pithy take on the “reality-based” view is that, quite simply, it’s meant to weed out anyone who might be embarrassing.
The overwhelming need is to be perceived as an insider, which disallows contrarian views.
…
Your points about most people not knowing the truth behind a lot of these vents are very important. Unless such people encounter differing views through television, primarily, they’ll never find out.
Yeah, that’s what I got from it too — personally, I’ll stay with the “embarassing” folks. Much more interesting coversation! 😉
Here’s the thing for me — I voted for Kerry, but held my nose tight as I did it. Do I want BushCo out of office? Yes. Do I think that replacing them with a bunch of Democrats of the kind we’ve got available right now is going make a shits worth of difference? No. Unless we can clone Conyers, Slaughter and maybe one or two others, the Democrats, to me, are just, new song, same dance…that’s why it isn’t worth it to me to hold my tounge and allow myself to be ‘assimilated” into something that I can’t believe in, “for the greater good”….but that’s just me.
I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
the sinners are much more fun…
–Billy Joel
Oh, and about that assimilation thing? It’s totally not just you.
That’s good to know IndyLib, good to know!
I think you’ve nailed it.
That’s pretty much my take on what’s been happening over at kos lately: if you’re perceived as an embarrassment by expressing views or linking to sites that fall outside of a limited range of whatever is considered “politically correct” then you will be silenced. I’m not saying this to bag on dailykos, as that blogging community is really merely a microcosm of the state of political discourse in America. All the same it’s pretty damned tiring.
What I find foreign is that someone’s ideas reflect on me positively or negatively. That to me is very telling. Do I somehow benefit if I make a stupid comment in an otherwise smart thread? No, there’s no spillover in either direction.
That’s probably my favorite thing about the South. In the midwest, we tend to hide our eccentric relatives. In the South, they get the best seat at the dinner table. That’s healthy and freeing, a family is as sick as its secrets.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” That goes for embarrassment as well.
Unlike Northerners, Southerners are proud of their crazy people. We don’t keep them cooped up in the attic, we sit them right up front in the parlor for everyone to see. It’s never a question of ‘Are there crazy people in your family?’ but instead, ‘Which side of the family are your crazy relatives on?’
–Julia Sugarbaker, Designing Women
It’s also worth noting that Ms. Sugarbaker was immediately asked which side of the family her crazy relatives were on, and she replied, “Both sides.”
My personal take on all of this is what I like to call the “X-Files” sort of belief. Personally, I don’t think that most non- dictatorial goverments can find their ass with both hands, as a whole — this is why I don’t believe that Bush or even BushCo in any way coordinated 9/11. Let it happen, sure, I can go there, but even that stretches it for me.
That said, I have NO TROUBLE believing that there are organizations (term used loosley, I’m not talking Illuminati here) that span countires, governments and multinational corporations, maybe ‘structures’ or ‘systems’ would be a better term, that work to their own benefit regardless. I think they most likely have access to a lot of government resources, monetary resources and physical capital. Do I think that they meet in Star Chambers? Not likely. But there are those who have the ability to take in the global picture (mostly because they are filthy rich) and move pieces around on the global stage to their benefit. Do I have proof? Nah, but I have no trouble beliving it and no trouble contemplating it and talking about it…
But that’s only on Tuesdays and every other Saturday … other days, I just work to make my little part of the universe better…
I’m all stocked up, charged, fueled, and outfitted now. Did you read in the open thread that I was only teasing you yesterday. Nodding off last night and it had occurred to me that you may have not known that I was just joshin you.
Of course I knew that, ya silly! But thanks for making sure — you’re da best!!
Let’s talk hurricaine in the next opent hread and/or cafe, ok??
Is there an evening one yet? When do they usually get posted?
Thanks! What an amazing viewpoint you have chosen to view everything from. Very thoughtful and credible and plenty of room for the truth whatever that may be whenever we may know it.
that’s really the same thing.
There’s discussion Elsewhere about issues of civility and free speech.
Many of us who lived through the 60’s had to cope with narcs attending our parties, and various types of operatives active in our organizations and at public events. That time showed us a continuous spectrum of dirty tricks from party narcs to media plants to riot instigators, on up to the level of assassinations and coups.
I have the feeling that the blogosphere presumes that we only meet the opposition within our communities in the form of idiots or flamers. The reality is probably as complex at our level as it is in any of the higher pay grades.
;o)
I remember excluding the press from meetings during those years. Also accidentally dated a narc once.
Maybe September will bring some more activism from college students, whose age-group is more affected by bushco than any other. Draft? Retirement?
Get on out there, you young stuff!
in the greatest equations ever factored out that have lead to the country and life that I have enjoyed. I am the love child of the person who accidentally dated a narc. I have no teeth cut in this the hand is quicker than the eye America!
When we allow what we want to believe to take the place of the facts, we never get to the truth.
As valuable as speculation is, we need to remain cognizant that if we want to know the truth, the facts should shape the theory, not the theory shape the facts.
I agree with you, sbj, that the theory should not CREATE the facts, but not shape them?? How??
I always think about what I call the facts-theory-reality condumdrum when I watch my kids learn (as opposed to writing my dissertaion…ahem). My almost two year old, for example, what are ‘facts’ to him? Only that which he can test out by repeating experiments:
If I stick my finger in that candle flame, it’ll be hot. If I blow on it, I can blow it out, etc. etc. But in terms of his shaping of the facts, does he “know” the same about a cigarette lighter if he has never seen one?
Rats. I have to think about this some more, I know what I mean, but it isn’t coming out right — yeesh, I’m rusty on this writing thing….that’s what happens when your entire dissertation has gone into a 6 month stall, I suppose.
Sorry for babbling. I’ll just come back when I have more than two brain cells to rub together…
Theory fulfills the indispensible function of leading us to facts, but it doesn’t shape the facts themselves.
Theorizing points us toward perceiving the relationship distinct facts may have with each other, and out of this we can shape a more devloped idea of what we’re theorizing about, But again, the facts themselves are not shaped by the theory. The theory reveals the shape of the relationship the facts have with each other, it doesn’t determine the content of the facts themselves.
bushco is taking full advantage. While most were focused on London, Jeb finally gave up on Schiavo, $5 billion more to Halliburton in May just reported, the Rove scandal … what else?
We must be able question, discuss, reflect, then question, discuss, and reflect again if we are to learn the truth about “reality.” Bushco has said they would create it, and they have. It’s about torture, blood, and oil. Each was planned for carefully by this administration.
Considering that their corporate motives are money and power, I wouldn’t put anything past them — especially, as you point out, Booman — with a little knowledge of the past.
Sorry for the rambling.
How ironic that last nights episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullsh*t was about conspiracy theories. If you want to see some outlandish people and the claims they make, you should watch it.
One of the first balks on any “conspiracy” theory is “how would you keep that quiet?” Covert and overt operations are on a need to know basis, they operate in cells if you will. Each cell carries out is specific task, never even knowing the big picture.
And they make no bones about working with the most ruthless, murderous lots if that will help meet the objective. Money buys anything you care to imagine. Power and money buy anything you care to imagine and plenty of plausible deniability to boot.
Or they may have hoped the Brits and others would get their backs up, further destroy civil liberties, and escalate the Iraq war, thus inspiring further anger, despair, and destruction. In which case they did make a smart move (tho looking at the longer range, that adjective doesn’t apply).
Bush, the terrorists, and maybe Blair all move toward the same outcome: more war, more power, less liberty. As Chomsky keeps trying to explain, converging interests acting on their own will produce convergent results. No need for conspiracy.
this theory a lot, but I have never bought in to it.
I don’t think that al-Qaeda or their offshoots are interested in unending war. They are prepared for a long struggle, but in the end they want the U.S. out of the Middle East, and they want to overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
There is no telling whether they would be satisfied with that, or whether they would then go after Israel too. Their plans are grandiose enough to be hard to distinguish from ‘unending war’, but I don’t think war is what motivates them.
At this point I don’t see much upside for them in moving the American and British populations to support more effort in Iraq. They have Bush/Blair on the ropes, and this undermines their effort to push us out.
This can be used to support the theory that we had motivation to do the bombing, and they did not.
But when we look at how they interpreted the Madrid bombings, it is consistent with an effort to replicate it.
So, once again, their is no logical path that will take us to the truth.
I have never encountered anybody before who has ever brought up Egypt being in the al-Qaeda equation. I have been concerned about our affiliation with Egypt and what I have witnessed taking place on a military basis. Do you have any sites or info about al-Qaeda directly requesting that the U.S. get out of Egypt?
the group known as al-Qaeda is really made up of three groups of people.
But for simplicity, they can be looked at as two groups.
There is the group that bin-Laden formed in Afghanistan, and is made up predominately of southern Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, etc. Most of these people have been influenced by the Wahhabi version of Islam that is the official religion of Saudi Arabia.
They linked up with Pakistanis, Afghans, and Indians and we helped that process along with tons of cash and training.
The other group is an radical outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, and is Egyptian based. Their leader is Zawahiri, and their group is called Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ).
These two groups merged in 1998. And al-Qaeda as we know it was born.
Zawahiri’s group murdered Sadat and wants to murder Mubarak.
Bin Laden’s group wants to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family.
Atta was Egyptian, while the rest of the hijackers were southern Arabs.
Hope that helps.
……and didn’t Zawahiri daughter marry binLaden son? This makes the marriage a comsumate bond between them a bigee too.
[disclosure: I do NOT think that the London bombings were carried out by American or British operatives]
Actually BooMan, that’s not entirely true, since al-Qaeda IS in part American and British operatives. We just don’t happen to like their current operations. There are so many players with their own interest in the thing that’s known as al-Qaeda (Brits, Yanks, Pakis, Saudis..) and all have different interests in the region. Pick up any rock and you’ll find another rock.
It seems to me that covert ops are sort of a backup plan for when we can’t find a group willing to do our dirty work in exchange for us turning a blind eye or providing clandestine funding to that group.
Our government is constantly using disinformation (e.g. the frontpaged Miller diary by GMT), selectively ignoring terrorist groups that are useful (e.g. Saudi Arabia and domestic hate groups), providing military and financial support to groups and regimes that use terrorist tactics, and using torture and “civilian reprisal” military tactics.
Yes, it’s a tricky time for the administration if they are going to get the “we need everybody pray really hard, and nobody can ask any hard questions, then we’ll win” Jedi Mind Trick argument to stick. This London attack gives the administration a wave of fear to exploit in this manner.
Rhetorically, the distinction seems clear between sending people to blow something up and encouraging people who already want to blow something up to do so, and maybe slipping them some cash. It really isn’t, when you consider the grey area between operatives and assets in intelligence work.
…and remembering we do have a man called Goss as the head of the CIA and Negroponti (sp) as the DHS. Their history is enough for me to be sick!
I would never think for a minute that the Bush/Blair regimes would not kill thousands of their own citizens if they thought it would benefit their crusade in Iraq. Whether you believe it or not at least here people are not banned like on Kos’s site which is becoming “Little Blue Footballs”.
Yup. I also think them capable.
That being said I think Boo and the others have the right idea. There’s no proof.. so there’s not much sense in stoking the flames of anger when there’s no way of knowing .. and acom’s razor would say the most likely cause is terrorists
I don’t say i blame you for thinking as you do. MY knee jerk reaction was the same as yours. But… the absense of proof is not proof …
I agree- they are capable, able and I hate to say this willing…to keep the facade going.
Your diary, BooMan is a perfect example of why I love this site. Thanks.
That said, I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion that such speculation won’t win votes. You could be totally right. But I am thinking about how all the wild Clinton speculation eventually lessened his authority and helped propel his enemies into the White House by making Democrats in general look untrustworthy and immoral. Rumors, conspiracy theories, etc., if they’re “sexy” enough, and if the media pushes them, and if they tap into a kernel of suspicion that’s already alive in people. . .well, maybe they can win votes. That’s a lot of “if’s,” I know. And I’m not making a judgment here on whether or not they should, I’m just saying, maybe there are circumstances when they do.
don’t think bushco and blair are behind it, but i wonder if they had some warnings. i saw extra security at the Hoboken NJ PATH station wed pm rush hour [around 5pm], including a k-9 unit, about 9 hours before the bombings occurred. it might have been something about the olympic announcements, i don’t know. if they had warnings why not raise the alert? as tinfoil as i’ll get is to speculate if they had warnings, they didn’t want to give an alert then be unable to prevent the bombing
Anyone who completely trusts the CIA has forgotten MKULTRA and the “conspiracy theory” of extraordinary renditions, along with who knows what else that they’ve perpetrated.
I don’t believe that the US or UK governments were involved in the London bombings and, until more specific evidence is presented, I won’t believe Al Quaeda was either. Look what happened after the Oklahoma City bombings – “it was the Arabs!”. Right. That was wrong.
People who don’t understand why others are suspicious of whatever group of people though – whether Al Quaeda, the IRA or a government need to step back and admit that there is no evidence yet, so speculation is bound to arise – just as it has. We want to know what happened. That’s human nature. We speculate. We guess. We want to identify who is making us scared. That’s human nature. We want to be able to speak freely about it. That’s human nature. If others agree or disagree, they speak up. That’s human nature. But, let us not fear those who have differing opinions. We must seek to understand. That ought to be human nature.
I agree with Booman that the British and/or U.S. governments were most likely not behind the London bombings. But here are a few more items from their history:
1947 – Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.
1950 – I n an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
1951 – Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.
1953 – Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.
1955 – The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army’s biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl.
1970 – United States intensifies its development of “ethnic weapons” (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.
All of the above means to me that there is nothing so immoral the U.S. or British governments wouldn’t do if they thought it would advance their interests and was worth the outside chance they’d get caught.
LOOK AT ALL THESE POSTS.
Intelligent, thoughtful, well-written. Speculative, suspicious, yes. But rationally so. This is good stuff.
Here, here.
This is a rational, well-reasoned take that does not deny some horrible things we know about history. I tried to say much the same thing at you-know-where on a thread that was “disappeared” and got nothing but guff from a front-pager. Quite possibly because I wasn’t as eloquent as you, Booman.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience .. it’s depressing. I’m always glad to see your posts here, you traitor, you.
“cleaned house” has done multiple nastinesses with the country’s leadership’s permission. After the house cleaning I am not sure that the new CIA leadership could find its butt with both hands. This lack of confidence in the new CIA tends to make me think that they would screw up all over themselves rather than have a clean covert action. But Bush and Co have gotten away with a lot of shit even though a lot of it has dripped out anyway.
that doubt that the bombings were carried out by American/British operatives.
But let me posit one theory, that might possibly be an echo of 9/11: Suppose that British Intelligence had received some sort of advance warning, even something general, but were instructed to sit on it to push the War on Terror agenda in Britain and the US?
Just a thought…
This is the Boo I remember from 2004 😉
I liked the round-up of events, but you failed to mention a couple. First being the Lavon Affair, the second being Victor Ostrovsky.
I’m not sure why you think this was Muslim terroristS. I’m getting the feeling this is more of a “Unabomber” type disgruntled British guy.. one who isn’t Muslim at all.
I’m about tired of hearing how “sophisticated” this whole attack was.. from the reports I’ve seen, it doesn’t look sophisticated at all. And even possibly committed by a single individual.
Pax
This thread is so thought provoking and intelligent. I DON’T want to believe that our government could possibly be responsible for doing this but I have reached a point where I trust very little that they try to sell us on. What is real or the “truth” and what is not or a “Lie” is difficult to seperate at best anymore.
The discussion here even though it includes speculation, is about as close to reality based it can be. Why you may ask? This discussion allows for ALL theories to be discussed and is being so done with deep thought and intelligent discorse. God, I love this site. Thanks Booman for continuing to be the open minded human that you are.