Indy Media Watch

Of course it's your decision to keep and delete whatever posts you feel like, but by selectively deleting the posts that bring up questions unanswerable unless the "official" story is bunk you showcase your narrowmindedness, naivete and, yes, moral cowardice for not being willing to even look at the facts right there in front of you.

Let's see... One of the fellows who was apprehended for the 21 July pyrotechnics show was a naturalized British citizen from Eritrea. He had at least one violent felony on his record, yet "somehow" though this was known he was granted citizenship anyway (sound like he is an MI5 asset?). The one in Rome awaiting extradition admits to his part in the 21 July farce and states the painfully obvious, that the 21 July display was meant for psychological effect, not physical damage. They were so transparently designed that way. Consider: 1.The 21 July ones were all at more oulying stations than 7 July; 2.They were at a much less-crowded time of day for the city's transportation network; and 3.They were allegedly "much smaller" explosives that "failed to detonate" [read: blasting caps attached to a lump of clay or some such]. The blasting caps apparently went off, as they themselves have a small explosive charge (ordinarily to set off the main charge). This "event" was meant to scare people, not kill them, and the MI5 operative Hussein Osman or whatever his real name is in Rome just admitted as much. Now why would genuine Islamic fundamentalist terrorists opt for a non-lethal operation like this instead of a destructive one? They wouldn't. MI5 on the other hand, meaning to simply "reinforce" the psychological effect of the 7 July bombings without causing further suffering, would. Look at who benefits, that is, if you have the guts. Oh my, what a "coincidence" that Tony Blair scheduled a meeting with top lawmakers regarding draconian, Nazi-like "anti-terror" laws for the same day he scheduled the fake "attempted bombings" to reinforce his message and quell any hint of dissent regarding it.
Over in the U.S. they have been debating if one wants to call it that about renewing the "controversial" [read: most intrusive police state] provisions of the Patriot Act, which are set to expire at the end of this year if not renewed. For weeks preceding the London bombings they have been jabbering about these Patriot Act provisions, just as Tony Blair and company have been hammering incessantly about a national ID card programme and further police state measures over here. If you have the bollocks(doubtful), I would suggest you ask yourself the one obvious, most important question regarding this matter: WHO BENEFITS?