[continued from previous message] 
  
 Tony Blair, he added Britain "will not yield" or be intimidated by a 
 threat from "people who are associated with al-Queda. We will not allow 
 anyone to undermine our British way of life." Counterterrorism expert 
 Sajjan Gohel explained in a telephone interview he didn't think it was 
 "a coincidence (this happened) the day after" Brown took office 
 replacing Tony Blair. A familiar aroma from it is emerging. 
  
 Episode number two: 
  
 In case the public missed the June 29 event, it was repeated the 
 following day at Glasgow Airport, Scotland. Here's how the New York 
 Times reported it: "British officials raised the country's terrorism 
 threat alert to its highest level on Saturday (June 30) after two men 
 slammed an S.U.V. into entrance doors at Glasgow Airport and turned the 
 vehicle into a potentially lethal fireball" 38 hours after police 
 "uncovered two cars in London 'rigged to explode' with gasoline, gas 
 canisters and nails." For the Times, the claimed presence of these 
 items in the cars constitutes their being "rigged." 
  
 Here's the BBC version. Notice the important difference: "Blazing car 
 crashes into airport" it headlined and continued saying "A car which 
 was 'on fire' has been driven at the main terminal building at Glasgow 
 Airport. Eyewitnesses have described a Jeep Cherokee being driven at 
 speed (undefined) towards the building 'with flames coming out' from 
 underneath." The report continued saying "The car didn't actually 
 explode. There were a few pops and bangs which presumably was the 
 (burning) petrol." With no corroborating evidence, the report quoted a 
 "maintenance worker" saying he believed the men "deliberately tried to 
 set the car on fire (and) It looked like they had Molotov cocktails 
 with them." 
  
 Little attention was paid to the fact no evidence of them was found, 
 one of the two men in the car was badly burned (a witness claimed by 
 self-dousing with petrol), in obvious pain, required hospitalization, 
 yet both were taken away in handcuffs. They're both now being linked, 
 with no corroborating evidence, to the "rigged to explode" cars found 
 in London. 
  
 What do we make of these incidents? Do they sound like terror attacks 
 warranting closing down parts of London and Glasgow Airport as well as 
 heightening security alerts across the UK and US? Did they provide the 
 government emergencies committee Cobra justifiable reason to raise the 
 nation's threat alert to its highest level where it might be put for an 
 impending major terrorist event, invasion or nuclear attack? Or might 
 there be another reason behind it? And is it possible the Glasgow 
 incident was just an unfortunate accident or the work of a disturbed or 
 angry solo perpetrator or two? Also, might normal items like nails, 
 gasoline and canisters found in unattended parked London cars have had 
 nothing to do with mischief? Some suggested answers below. 
  
 Since 9/11, Britain, under Tony Blair, chose to partner with the Bush 
 administration's "war on terrorism," leaving aside the question of its 
 legitimacy. Waging that type war or any other requires public support, 
 and what better way to get it than by elevating fear levels with an 
 outside threat made to seem real. Enter Al-Queda and "Enemy Number One" 
 Osama bin Laden. Follow them up with unsubstantiated terror threats or 
 episodes labeled terrorism. Then add color-coded alerts and 
 round-the-clock hyperventilating news coverage with scary headlines at 
 strategic moments like winning public support for repressive 
 legislation, diffusing dissent, re-stoking public angst about terror 
 threats so people don't forget them, and giving a new administration 
 cover to continue the same "war on terrorism" hard line agenda as the 
 previous one. 
  
 Isn't the timing of the above British "terror incidents" ironic at 
 least? Don't they raise suspicions by coincidentally occurring on days 
 two and three of the new Gordon Brown administration at a time his 
 predecessor's was hated? Might it also not be important to check the 
 record of past terror scares on both sides of the Atlantic and examine 
 their legitimacy in hindsight? When it's done, threats that headlined 
 for days or longer nearly always turned out to be fakes based on cooked 
 up intelligence or unsubstantiated claims. They continue being used, 
 however, because they work. By the time they're exposed as phony, it's 
 on to the next cooked up plot. Note Exhibit A, B and C below plus an 
 additional Exhibit D: 
  
 Exhibit A: 
  
 There's no need reconstructing the phony disinformation campaign about 
 WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq war. Case closed on that one. 
  
 Exhibit B: 
  
 Around Christmas, 2003, Air France got stand down orders based on 
 claimed evidence Al-Queda and Taliban operatives were on Flight 68. It 
 was later exposed as a lie, but it kept Los Angeles International 
 Airport on "maximum deployment" throughout the holiday period and FBI 
 officials working round the clock. The nation was put on "high risk" 
 Code Orange alert, six heavy-traffic Air France flights were cancelled 
 for nothing, and the public was scammed. The scheme was all based on 
 faked intelligence to heighten fear at a strategic moment when the 
 administration felt it was needed. 
  
 This happens repeatedly, like it did in 
  
 Exhibit C: 
  
 In early June, hyped fake stories made headlines about a plot to blow 
 up JFK Airport's jet fuel tanks and supply lines some outrageous 
 reports claimed would have been "more devastating then 9/11" if it 
 happened. It never did, of course, no crime was committed, but suspects 
 were charged based on conversations between a "source" (identified as 
 an unnamed drugs trafficker) and defendants. It was all faked to 
 heighten fear again, and the "source" was willing to say anything in 
 return for leniency on his pending sentence. 
  
 In his 2005 book, "America's War on Terrorism," Michel Chossudovsky 
 explains the notion of a "Universal Adversary." It's being used to 
 prepare the public for a "real life emergency situation" under which no 
 political or social dissent will be tolerated. Other claimed 
 "terrorist" events may be being used as prologue for a much greater one 
 coming at a future time. If it happens, it will trigger a Code Red 
 Alert in the US and something similar in Britain signaling the highest 
 threat level of severe or imminent terrorist or other attack preparing 
 the public for possible imposition of martial law and suspension of the 
 Constitution. 
  
 Notice how close Britain is to that now in the wake of two claimed 
 terrorist incidents on June 29 and 30. As stated above, the country was 
 placed on highest level terrorism alert, based on two incidents causing 
 only minor damage from one of them and no substantiation either one was 
 related to terrorism. It's likely, hindsight again will prove neither 
 one was, but the damaging effects of heightened fear by them will have 
 done their job. Gordon Brown is now empowered to be as hard line as his 
 predecessor and will likely have broad support for it in the name of 
 national security. Sound suspicious? 
  
 It should surprise no one if one or more similar incidents soon erupt 
 on this side of the Atlantic. The Bush administration needs to 
 reinforce the terror threat at a time popular support for its foreign 
 wars and homeland agenda is waning. What better way to do it than by 
 faking terror threats to heighten fear levels. What easier way is there 
 to win over Congress and get the public to support any homeland 
 measures put in place to "keep us safe." 
  
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)