Friday, January 29, 2010

Silly Goose, Tony Gosling, on the 7/7 Bombings

Anything Yanks can do, Brits can do better!
This video is a couple of years old now but I thought I'd post it because it is a good demonstration of what Iranian state media outlet Press TV does best: fomenting conspiracy theories. It is a debate primarily between David Aaronovitch and Bilderberg-botherer Tony Gosling about the suicide bombings on the London underground and a double-decker bus in 2005. It is hosted by Yvonne Ridley.

Tony Gosling is not persuaded that there are people out there who want to blow him up despite the fact they make videos saying exactly that. However, he does point out that Benjamin Netanyahu got a phone call at some point on that day allowing Aaronovitch to roll his eyes and moan, "Ohhhhh God!"

Anyway, it soon becomes clear that if the Americans can have a false-flag terror operation then so can the British. If the Madrid bombings can make the Spanish flee from Iraq then clearly the London bombings can only have been designed by the British government to have the opposite effect, right?

I don't want to prejudice your opinion either way, so please watch this video (there are five parts!) and see Tony Gosling made to look a fool.

If you liked that you may be interested in watching a bit of Peter Cook exhibiting an extraordinary display of clairvoyance in impersonating a well-known silly goose.

Here's an important debunking of the 7/7 conspiracy theory by someone who unwittingly set one off in the Guardian.


FGFM said...

Sir, I salute your indefatigability.

angrysoba said...

Thank you sir! And I salute yours!

Clark said...


I just dropped in to see what was going on over here. I'm glad to see you're blogging again.

I'm glad someone pointed out the PressTV / Chavez fabrication to you - I saw that somewhere a couple of days ago, too.

There are proper Alt 7/7 sites. There's a load of rubbish about, but the serious stuff is more difficult to find. If I remember where it is I'll point you towards it. In the meantime, you could sign the "Release the Evidence" petition - that there hasn't been a proper, open enquiry is indefensible, I hope you agree. Same goes for Dr Kelly.

Just because the one thing isn't, doesn't mean that something else is, eh?

angrysoba said...

Thanks for dropping by Clark,

I'm afraid I am not going to sign any petitions to get material released over David Kelly not only because I believe it was suicide and don't need further convincing but also because his family believe it was suicide and apparently don't want the material to be released.

It seems to me that conspiracy theorists will not be satisfied by any amount of evidence and cannot be trusted to use any released material with sensitivity but instead will be splashed across the Internet for amateur pathologists to muse over.

Also, I find it really unusual that anyone can believe that the London bombings weren't conducted by those who made videos saying they did it and why. What is it that you find suspicious about the bombings?

Clark said...

Hi Angrysoba,

I do wish you weren't so quick to jump to incorrect conclusions about my opinions. Or anyone else's, for that matter.

The "Release the Evidence" campaign regards 7/7; that's why I put it in that paragraph. You do know that there's never been a proper public enquiry, don't you?

So I WASN'T asking you to sign a petition about Dr Kelly! However, no inquest has been held regarding Dr Kelly's death.

Personally, I don't like these moves towards greater secrecy, it can only increase the likelyhood of conspiracy theories. Are you running short of theories to debunk, and hoping for more material?

There are serious questions about 7/7, but they are not concerned with the identity of the perpetrators. It was available on the 'net last time I looked.

I won't drop in here if I feel that you're characterizing me as a conspiracy theorist. If I want sensationalism I can buy a tabloid newspaper.

angrysoba said...

Hi Clark,

I'm sorry if I misrepresented you. I must have understood this sentence incorrectly:

"If I remember where it is I'll point you towards it. In the meantime, you could sign the "Release the Evidence" petition - that there hasn't been a proper, open enquiry is indefensible, I hope you agree. Same goes for Dr Kelly."

I thought you were equating the two and asking me to sign petitions about both 7/7 and David Kelly.

Are you running short of theories to debunk, and hoping for more material?

Not at all. There are thousands and thousands out there. And whenever any factoid supporting a conspiracy is debunked the explanation itself has a tendency to spawn new theories which grow out of the original one.

I don't want to sound pessimistic but the more information released, the more material to pore over and twist out of context, misrepresent and otherwise misuse.

I'm not in favour of greater secrecy either but I am against outright distortions.

I'd be happy to look at any links to 7/7 that you have. But I'd also be interested in knowing what you would like to find out from a public inquiry into 7/7.

Thanks again for commenting.

Clark said...


I have a small personal interest in 7/7; a friend of mine has two friends that were directly involved. One saw a bomb detonated on the Underground, and lost a leg in the explosion. The other, working at an accident and emergency department, was warned to expect many casualties some minutes before the explosions occurred.

But my point isn't personal, it's general. Thousands of people were directly affected by 7/7, and they deserve as thorough an exposition of the facts as possible. However, a public enquiry has never been held.

Secrecy breeds speculation.

angrysoba said...

Hi Clark,

I'm sorry to hear about those you know who were affected by the bombings.

However, I haven't heard anything that makes me suspicious about the bombings.

You say that there has been no public inquiry, but I wonder if such a thing is regularly the subject of one.

The reason why I ask that is that the bombers' identities appear to be pretty clear. Mohammed Sidique Khan made a victory explaining his actions ahead of time.

What do you find suspicious about it?

I'm trying to look into the way that this was handled compared to, say, the Brighton Hotel bombing or the Omagh bombing.

As far as I can see there were not public inquiries into either of them. Although I could be wrong.

Clark said...

Hi again,

I'm wary of publishing my questions here, as you seem rather critical of people who question official accounts of events like this. But it was all available on the Internet last time I looked.

Official accounts are often flawed, sometimes deeply. Some of them eventually get corrected, but often the initial sensationalism greatly outweighs the sensible restatment, as in the case of the "Ricin Plot", which I've linked to an article about via my name.

Clark said...

PS, as I said earlier, my questions DON'T concern the identity of the bombers.

Clark said...


if you're serious in your opposition to outright deception, you could look up the Glen Jenvey Hit List that was published in The Sun newspaper. Had you already heard of this incident?

angrysoba said...

Hi Clark,

Yes, the Glen Jenvey Hit List does sound familiar, so I looked it up again.

I completely agree that there is a lot of stuff like this which in turn spawn conspiracy theories.

Liberal Conspiracy

I don't know much about the ricin plot. Thanks for sending that to me. I'll have a look.