The Bombing of London

by

It is certainly distressing. A friend of mine narrowly missed being caught in one of the blasts.

Nevertheless, it is also very strange. Something about it just doesn’t add up. All the time Mesopotamia was being bombed into submission, not so much as a firecracker went off in London. Surely both strategy and psychology would have made an explosive statement of the “You bomb us, we bomb you” kind desirable to Mustapha.

So we can only assume that he couldn’t do it. Now suddenly he can. Once he launched a devastating attack on America. Once. Never before or since. Now he has done it in London. On both occasions, having failed to produce a single serious blast, he suddenly comes up with a perfectly orchestrated military operation involving multiple strikes.

Now can he do this, or can’t he? If he can, why doesn’t he do it much more often? And if he can’t, how does he suddenly emerge from total impotence to masterful strategy and multiple-strike precision, and then sink back into impotence for years?

The more one thinks about it, the less sense it makes.

One thought may shed light on the matter. About three months before the 9/11 attacks, America threatened the Taliban regime, through Pakistani diplomatic channels (having itself severed diplomatic relations) that if Mr. Bin Laden was not surrendered Afghanistan would be bombed.

At the time the threat seemed an empty one. America could not possibly get the support either internationally or from its own people for such an undertaking. But 9/11 changed all that. Rather like Pearl Harbor.

A short time ago, Persia got a new president. He promised a strengthened Islamic govenrnment, and openly defied America by stating that Persia would proceed with its nuclear programme despite the “international law” that only those countries with American permission may have a nuclear programme.

At the time I said: Mustapha has America over a barrel here. They can’t go bombing Persia. Everything has fallen apart in Mesopotamia, and they are trying to get out. An attack on Persia would have no support either internationally or from the American people. Unless, of course, there was another 9/11.

And then, funnily enough….

11 thoughts on “The Bombing of London”

  1. A good point raised by Strakon about the London bomb attacks
    Over at http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/ the Last Ditch:

    All the thousands of surveillance cameras installed by Tony Blair’s monster government and all the thousands of secret agents employed by it couldn’t stop the bombs from working their havoc in London — and how could we expect them to, when the very same government has gone out of its way to involve its hapless subjects with an eternal blood feud in the Middle East?

    (Incidentally, Blair’s Orwellian surveillance state has been documented, and commented on before at Turnabout, http://antitechnocrat.net:8000/node/1121 here.)

  2. As bad as they are, I don’t think they would do it, Novaryana
    Novaryana, I don’t think anyone loathes Bush and his administration more than I but as bad as he is and as bad as his administration is I don’t think they’d do what you are implying. On the other hand, I imagine the only way to disprove your conjecture would be to catch the perpetrators and find out who put them up to it.
    ________________________

    Long live Flanders!

    • Probably not!
      I don’t think I do loathe the Bush Administration – but that is probably because I don’t know much about it. From a couple of weeks in America (all over the Old South) I gained the impression of a country much healthier and with much higher morale than leprous post-Britain.

      My comments came out of genuine bewilderment. The posting was written just the way it looks – I wasn’t working backwards from already-formed conclusions about some conspiracy, but probing forwards from the inherent oddness of the events.

      I did not intend to tie any firm knots in the thesis, just to point out what I had observed, and what I had pondered.

      If there is a connexion between the oddness of the events and their apparent “convenience”, it may well not be anything at all as crude as MI5 or the CIA planting bombs. In fact I regard that as extremely unlikely.

      To be honest I think I was probably wrong about the whole thing.

      But then when 9/11 happened my very first thought was “They will use this as an excuse to attack every government they don’t like”. I then dismissed that as highly improbable.

      I am dismissing my current gropings as improbable too. Though if Persia is attacked, I shall be forced to re-think.

      I suspect it won’t be, in which case, in the words of Tom Lehrer:

      Mudder, Fader, kindly disregard this ledder.

      • Bush is a not the Leader we Need
        Persia needs to be attacked now beginning with border incursions to stop the influx of Islamist fanatics. If Persia gets more belligerent, well we need to escalate to the point they are no longer a threat. The first major argument against this is the pathetic leader Bush is. Think what Teddy Roosevelt or Robert E. Lee or Washington would have done? Bush is a pure politician, no more no less. His oratory, as I know something about what oratory is about, is just pure emoting. Many can give a good performance. Results are the key.

        The second, but actually primary, argument is our men (young and older) are unwilling to sacrifice for this pathetic president and congress; therefore, we fail to meet our relatively pathetic enlistment quotas that the Vietnam and other drafts and wars put to shame despite our now having far more men than we had then. Why? Because they are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to win, and our enemies know it.

        Briefly as possible, here is my solution. Take at least 100 square miles of Iraqi desert to establish a permanent base in the Mideast. Only advanced, traceable, defeatable weapons could be launched against us. Cut off all trade with China and establish a defensible base in Europe. Build a missile defense system even if imperfect, and evacuate cities from nuclear disaster. I’ll stop now.

  3. Bush did it.
    Novawhatever is right. The attacks were carried out by an elite team of U.S. special forces leprechauns riding invisible unicorns. Some muslims tried to stop them but couldn’t.

    Also, seriously, Bush isn’t that bad. He’s just medium bad. Kerry, or pretty much any Democrat, would be worse.

    • Don’t Be Naive
      Obviously you are not aware of the revolutionary-nihilistic nature of Shabbatean-Frankist Global-Zionism, a strange godless universe where the ends justify the means, as their agent Karl Mordecai would have it. Shabbatian Zionism has captured completely the intelligence services and governments of America and Britain.

      Bush is nothing more than a third-rate actor carrying out the plans of his feminist techno-socialist internationalist ‘advisors’.
      Bush’s ‘handlers’ have done a good job in ‘suggesting’ to the braindead imperial masses that the rampaging Illuminist neo-Trotskyite Globalism which Bush serves equals ‘christian conservatism’.

      Democratism, socialism, anarchism, communism, fascism—ultimately all of these sick ideologies stem from the same accurst area of Frankfurt-am-Main and cabalistic subversive occult-financial groups like the “Asiatic Brethren”, the “Nascent Dawn Lodge”, “Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor”, etc. Do some research on a particularly nasty Jewish Frankist by the name of “Moses Dobrushka”. Chiliastic gnosticism is the religion of the Anglo-Israelite banking elite and is the curse of the modern age. Things like Crowley’s OTO and Anglo-Israelism are very popular amongst the decadent British aristocracy. Machiavelli and Nietzsche are the Sabbatian-Frankists’ idols. The Global Banking Elite is capable of anything. Fucking up the world is a literal mitzvah to these people. “Islamofascist Terrorism” is a clever means of governmental centralization and regimentation of the herd. Ian Fleming (once himself a banker) tried to leave a few clues to the intelligent in his writings where evil archenemies intent on destroying the world have names like “Goldfinger”. The Shabbatian and Frankist Jews, and their collaborator the House of Rothschild, are bent on total destruction in their lust to actualize global theocratic messianic Zionist rule from Jerusalem, and the spectre of “modern Islamic terrorism” is a useful puppet-show for the noninitiated plebian masses.

Comments are closed.