Anyone who thinks they don't make insanity like they used to ought to take a peek at the blog of former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray.
First, I want to point out that I think Murray has done some noble things by exposing the regime of Islam Karimov and the brutality of its dungeons. This is detailed, for those with a strong stomach, here. He's been a critic of the US and UK governments choice of allies in Karimov and also Uzbek-Afghan warlord General Dostum and many of his criticisms are completely valid. I've read and I recommend his book on his experiences in Uzbekistan, Murder in Samarkand, the contents of which should be more widely known. His detailing of the torture by the regime, sometimes as the behest of American and British intelligence, however, is sometimes offset by his heavy hints that the British government tried to have him assassinated or that evidence against him was fabricated.
In his latest blogpost, he seems to want to play down the seriousness of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab's attempted bombing of a plane heading to Detroit with such breezy comments as "The non-explosive and non-dangerous (as it proved) substance he had might very well prove to be duty free alcohol - it is being described by the US authorities as "incendiary" rather than "explosive". But the BBC is still referring to an "Explosive mixture", even though it plainly was not "explosive" as it did not explode." So, there you go. Anything that doesn't explode cannot be explosive, hmmm.
This doesn't stop him also pointing out that despite there being no security threat, there is a security threat which is blowback for the foreign policy of the west. "I just saw an eyewitness on BBC TV News recount that the Nigerian man who set fire to his leg on a Delta flight was shouting "about Afghanistan". Which proves yet again that by occupying Afghanistan we are provoking, not preventing, attempted terrorism."
Well, the theory that Abdulmutallab set fire to his duty-free booze in protest at the war in Afghanistan seems to have been refuted but regular readers of Craig Murray's blog are on the case and after a few clues, "The security at Amsterdam airport is provided by ICTS ( Private Security firm – owned by Israeli Ezra Harel - see http://www.icts-int.com/)
- employing many Shin Bet personnel. ICST was in charge when Richard Reid boarded a plane for his trip to do the “shoe bomb” trick." (Courtenay Barnett) and a couple of questions, Jaded: "Why didn't he go in the toilet? Why didn't Richard Reid go in the toilet?", and a bit of background, MJ: "ICTS also provided security at all the airports from which the alleged 911 hijackers boarded the planes. Since none of them appeared on the passenger lists we must assume they managed to do this without tickets or boarding passes." it becomes quite clear what's going on...
Jaded: "This was almost certainly a government job. Why didn't he got to the toilet? There is no answer to that question!"
Which government?
"U.S. government, or rather security services, but it's all linked with the U.K. and Israel. You think they pulled off 9/11 and 7/7 and then nothing happens after that? It's bullshit!"
Resident Socrates, Tony, is a little more circumspect: "The principle of 'Cui Bono' (philosophical equivalent of Follow the Money) would point a finger at CIA, Mossad or MI6 - and I am sure they would have done a more professional job as well."
A little later, in a slightly less philosophical mood he declares: "Look - this is Total Fucking Bollocks To Try and Stop People From Trevelling in Aircaft. I Don't Know Who is Behind It But Strongly Suspect It Is The Global Warming Cult...."
This made me laugh so much I couldn't keep it to myself and so I quoted these words on the 9/11 debunking blog, Screw Loose Change who wrote their own post leading, presumably, to a number of readers making their way to Murray's blog.
While I had tried to engage Jaded and MJ's questions and assertions about 9/11 in the comments box and asking what evidence there was for suspecting 9/11 and 12/25 of being an inside job a new theory occurred to Jaded:
"Angrysoba you are either a moron or a shill."
Why? Because I didn't know why Abdulmutallab didn't go to the toilet to detonate his bomb. Could it be that he wanted to detonate it over an urban area and wouldn't be allowed in the toilet during landing?
"you have even made my little niece start laughing and ask me if you are a 'crazy man'! That is the most moronic internet response I have ever read in my life. Well done. I don't think you are capable of smelling bullshit or your job is actually to create it."
Commenter, Asalan Goldberg, mused, "Speaking as a Muslim, something sounds really fishy about the name Abdul Mutalib? It sounds like a name made up by someone who doesn't know Arabic or much about Islam to try and pass as a Muslim."
Well, aside from the spelling error, it was the name given to him by his parents while his father, chairman of the board of directors of the First Bank of Nigeria, was worried enough to go to the US embassy to express his fears about his son's radicalism. But let's not let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. It's getting better as the appearance of a few SLC readers gave the resident fantasy dissidents something to fantasize even more over.
Rhisiat Gwilyiam: "Craig, you seem to have some fairly obvious trolls/black-ops-shills multi-posting on this thread, specifically Angrysoba and Agent XYZ. Is it your policy to let such wreckers' posts stay up? Just clutters up, confuses and diverts actually-useful discussion into ridiculous flame-duels, after all, which is its purpose."
According to Glenn, who obviously knows these things while not offering any evidence, each time a "shill" posts on a blog the said shill will earn fifty cents. I think that's quite generous and if I wasn't a secret agent for Mossad I might try to get work like that. Even if it is in the service of the "dark side".
As proof, one of the posters links to an article by reputable news source, Prison Planet:
"Israel has announced that it is setting up a network of bloggers to combat websites deemed “problematic” by the Zionist state, presumably to propagandize about the necessity of killing babies and infants in the name of self-defense."
Watch for that word "Zionist". It's a popular one thereabouts.
Mark Golding offers his nuanced view of the world: "When we get down to the wire politics is now polarised between the grasping Zionist banking New World Order on the one side and conscience and Islam on the other."
Not to be outdone, Arsalan Goldberg adds that "The people who I hate are the right wing false Christians, and the Zionist false Jews and their false Muslim Friends...Look, I am a true Muslim so I am antiZionist. While the false Muslims such as Quliam and the Qadianis are all Zionists...Every Religion forbids usury, while usury is what America is based on. Usury is the cause of all of its wars and Usury is the god the rulers of America and their Zionist masters worship above God."
In fact, Arsalan Goldberg, while railing against "false Muslims", "false Jews" and "Zionists" decides he quite likes the sound of the word "usury" and is happy to deploy it at the drop of a tinfoil hat:
"Larry your not changing my topic. I'm here to talk about usury and how God hates it. You here to get us to fight amongst ourselves to stop us fighting your usurious masters."
"So it doesn't matter what religion someone believes in. God Hates Usury, and God hates your usurious Zionist masters, and the usury America is based on."
"God hates the fact that America starves most of the world with its usury. God hates what America is doing to this planet with all the CO2 it produces. In other words, God hates you and God hates your Zionist usurious bastards that you worship above God."
Who could have predicted such a descent into rants about Zionism and usury. Are none of the posters aware of the less than healthy connotations these words have and the ways that people have suggested that the evil bony hands of the elders of Zion were controlling all events and all media to destroy the world and recreate it as a New World Order?
Well, yes. It appears that Jaded is all too familiar with the way that these words sound to non-conspiracists:
"An Israeli firm controls security at Amsterdam airport by the way. Same with all the 9/11 flights. I guess saying this must make me an 'anti-semite' or something, but what the hell!"
All this is among a familiar litany of conspiracy theories, Richard Reid the "shoe-bomber" was a "false flag" attack, as were the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 underground bombings as well as the death of Dr David Kelly (it was murder!!1!) and JFK was killed in a conspiracy too. Sure, why not bung in the hackneyed old, "Jews run the world!" meme and the accusation that anyone who disagrees is certainly on the payroll of the "usurious Zionists". I wouldn't mind being a secret special agent if all I had to do was sit and type away on a computer keyboard. It sounds a bit cooler than being a high-school teacher on winter vacation, but I suppose I wouldn't be able to tell very many people about all the conspiracies I was party to.
Update: Arsalan Goldberg was not happy about being referred to as a Truther as he considers himself an "Islamic extremist" and would like "Islam will Dominate!" to be printed on his T-shirt when he stands beside Craig Murray at the latter's next run for parliament. Personally, I do sympathize with Arsalan as if I were someone like, say, Ayman al-Zawaihiri then I too would be pissed off that the Jews were getting all the credit for 9/11.
Also, Tony Opmoc points out that while he made the allegation against the Global Warming Cult for the 12/25 bombing, it was a different Tony who thought that the CIA, MI6 or Mossad were behind it. I must offer my most heartfelt apologies as mistaking anyone else for Tony Opmoc is really bad of me.
Anyway, Craig Murray thought this little banter was worth a thread of its own where it turns out to be me that was asking for posts to be deleted... See what you make of it yourselves, ladies and gentlemen.
Update: It seems that on the new thread devoted to l'il ol' me, MS and Jaded have reached the opinion that what this conversation needs is a little deviation from crazy territory into the realms of the ultra-loony.
I had pointed out that such crank conspiracy sites that many of the commenters refer to as sources of their beliefs engage in all kinds of unsavoury activities as Holocaust denial (What Really Happened was my example but Glenn helpfully links to Rense.com later just to drive the point home) but one commenter, MS, was upset about the use of the word, "denier":
"Whoever came up with the "denier" adjective,be it Holocaust or Climate Change,probably knew what they were doing.It seems to me that it is designed to stop debate dead on its tracks."
Does this mean that for MS whether the Holocaust really happened is a matter for debate?
MS clarifies: "yes the Holocaust did happen. but it's not my opinion,it's fact.but as a historical event it should be open to scrutiny."
But this doesn't leave me much the wiser. Why would MS be upset about the use of the term "denier"?
"I think 'holocaust denial' is an umbrella term,if you like,that ghettoizes anyone who questions any aspect of the 'official' discourse - so it doesn't just apply to nutters who deny it."
Okay, so you have said that the Holocaust is a fact but you don't like the way the word "denier" being thrown around. But what "aspects" of the official discourse do you think are squeezed out by this term. What questions about the Holocaust (or, perhaps as Jaded curiously has it, the 'Holocaust') do you think are legitimate that are suppressed by the word "denier"?
Also, I'd like to point out a couple of ironies I've just noticed.
1) While some commenters here are pouting about the use of the term "denier" limiting free inquiry it was David Irving who took Deborah Lipstadt to court in a libel case for calling him a Holocaust denier.
(And, as has been pointed out, whatever the laws are in Germany and in other countries where the actual Holocaust took place, Holocaust denial is not illegal in the UK, the US or here in Japan.)
2) While Craig Murray made a post suggesting I wanted comments to be removed and I was some kind of anti-freespeech ogre, it continues to be commenters who disapprove of MY comments calling for censorship.
Here is the indefatigably obtuse Jaded:
"And angrysoab and Larry the Lamb are shills and it would indeed be the best thing for decent humanity to delete their comments and ban them. It's so obvious it's funny... ;-0"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Fabulous! This is even better than the original comments thread. They're still carrying on, btw. I'll get the popcorn out.
Ha ha, thanks!
Unfortunately, I can't claim ownership of the funniest or craziest lines.
your post played a part in inspiring me to write again on the subject. I have, incidentally, never doubted the existence of a terrorist threat. Its extent is however greatly exaggerated. I don't doubt this Nigerian gentleman's desire to do harm; but plainly it exceeded his capability.
Well, your second post seems to be getting a bit closer to the truth, as opposed to the "Troof", by agreeing he did actually have explosives on him, you're just denying he had enough explosives to blow up the plane and saying that even if he had managed to blow up the plane the atrocity should be seen as fairly small in the grand scheme of things:
In the real world, a Nigerian man singed his own gonads. That is not to excuse him. He planned to do harm and may be a very horrible person indeed. But he just singed his own gonads. It is also worth noting that, if he had destroyed the plane, he would have killed only one third of the innocent civilians who died on just day one of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq.
When you next run to be an MP, what are you going to say to anyone who expresses concern about bombings on the underground or on double decker buses?
"Oh the last time that happened only about 50 people died and when you compare that to what happened in Iraq, it is a miniscule number." With supporters, Jaded and Arsalan Goldberg, standing behind you wearing 7/7 Was An Inside Job T-shirts. Do you think that will get you many votes?
Or perhaps when someone in Parliament does raise the question of British intelligence's complicity in torture and gives their source as Craig Murray, how will you feel if those listening start chuckling and asking, "Isn't he the guy who thinks the world is run by lizards?"
The comments box to your latest post is pretty much a carbon copy of the first.
Pretty much all we have had since 9/11 and 7/7 are plots and scares. There are several reasons for this:
1. Logistically, it isn't easy to carry out these false flag attacks. There are probably only a small number of individuals working for black operations. It must all take months to plan and execute....blah blah blah...
You can say in your blogposts that the government are exploiting these incidents to ramp up fear in the general public but what do you think the paranoid fantasies of your commenters do? Do you ever address these or are you happy enough to get comments from anyone? I wonder if you have seen a general squeezing out of the intelligent commenters by the swivel-eyed community?
I have, incidentally, never doubted the existence of a terrorist threat. Its extent is however greatly exaggerated.
Fine, what do you make of this story?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6971098.ece
Or, "grasping Zionist banking New World Order"?
angrysoba
"Oh, and Craig, do you not feel even a little uncomfortable with supporters using the euphemisms "usurious Zionist masters"?"
But I don't divide people who comment on my blog into supporters and opponents. You commented on my blog, for example, and you said some very supportive things about Murder in Samarkand. But I don't agree with everything you say anymore than I agree with everything the 9/11 truthers say. The comments forum is very open. I have almost never deleted comments.
I have deleted a very few for being completely off-topic, one about Tony Blair's children and one about my own family. The only political deletions have been three deleted as anti-semitic.
There are at least a dozen regular commenters on my blog who are erudite and not 9/11 "truthers". It is a free speech forum. The views under my name are the only ones that are mine. Otherwise everyone - including you - is entitled to say what they like.
Am I sometimes exasperated by the barmier entries, including by those who appear to believe that all terrorism is always false flag? Yes, I am sometimes. But no more than I am exasperated by those who swallow the entire war on terror agenda and the associated wars and attacks on liberty at home.
As you are spoiling me with my very own post, my response will be over at your blog:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/12/angrysoba_doesn.html
"troof" or not, the likes of you are on the losing side, and the "troof" is liberating people.
However, your condescension upon us all (apparently you ought to have a gcse with an ology of some sorts appended to), as reflected in the copious verbiage to boot, the length of which does not somehow take accounts of the developing craks in the exploding pants episode of the keystone terror merry go around.
Start reading instead of pontificating you may even find "troof" a lot closer to reality than the "reality" brand you are peddling.
PS perception of terror, has been the back bone of the Western governance for the duration of the last decade without the aid of which the ideologically baron and morally bankrupt political apparatus of neo liberal/conservative construct; might as well had been holding court in the relevant dock-house on the relevant pond.
Anonymous, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You are only reiterating your position, otherwise your post would have been a contribution, instead of yet another regurgitation.
content reiteration/regurgitation for the likes of Murdoch the ......... is a no brainer, however synthesis and separation of the chaff from the "troof" is the goal which I and others strive for.
Therefore the evident lack of connection, and your utter bewilderment at the earlier post.
the Anonymous
Well, then, if you are making any sense at all, do you mean that the story of the "pants bomber" is all completely made up?
"the length of which does not somehow take accounts of the developing craks in the exploding pants episode of the keystone terror merry go around."
What is made up about it? Can you tell me what the "craks" in the episode are?
This will mean you may have to lapse into coherence, if it's not too much trouble.
Also, would you mind giving yourself some kind of handle so I know if I am talking to just one or a number of people.
Thanks
Anonymous said:
"troof" or not, the likes of you are on the losing side, and the "troof" is liberating people.
I don't know where "anonymous" has been, but the troof movement is dead as of almost 2 years ago. That there are still several dinglberries who have yet to let go, is just a testament to the power of the venomous lies so strongly promoted at various times by the "movement".
@Craig: I wish you would take a new look at the comment thread on your original post -- like angrysoba, I would not be in favor of deletions of any posts (except those which get dangerously personal or racist), but please PLEASE look and see that of the original commentors, the ONLY ones asking for posts to be deleted and posters to be banned, were the troofers.
Falco, thanks for the message and thanks for pointing out that I have not asked for anyone at all to have their posts censored or for them to be banned.
There were only a few comments at first that demanded I be banned for being a government agent but they've mushroomed since then and now I have no idea how many posters have tried to get me censored there. Weirdly these are the same kind of people who demand that it is their right for their inane drivel about inside jobs and false flags to be heard.
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
I know and have socialized personally with Angrysoba, and I can attest that he is not a paid shill for anybody. But he is still fairly young and green and a bit deaf to the under- and overtones of political intrigue. Still, I've high hopes of the world making a paranoid conspiricist out of him in time.
Craig is one of Britain's living national treasures and it's not at all surprising he has plenty of admirers, loony and otherwise. Come the anti-globalist revolution, when our crypto-papist former fuhrer Tony Blair has been tried and convicted of treason, it is my fond hope that Craig don his kilt and sporan to play the role of trusty axeman in sending the blighter off to meet his maker.
Post a Comment