Saturday, July 30, 2005
The Logic of Lunatics
Giuliani and Netanhayu; Terrorist Czar's?!Let's see. 9/11 happened in one of the world's most major commercial districts. The odds of any business person or government entity being "a block away" (in a town where a block can be several square miles by the way) aren't too high.
The fact that Giuliani was "only yards away" from the UK bombings is strange enough for sure. Then there was Giuliani and Netanhayu conducting simultaneous BS marathon media appearances for MANY different media outlets, from London, on the morning of 7-7. A little too staged and convenient if you ask me.
Then I find out that Netanhayu and Giuliani were staying in the same hotel!
"...Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been on his way to a London hotel near the scene of one of the four blasts that ripped through the city today, said Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. Netanyahu was the scheduled keynote speaker at an Israeli corporate investment conference at the Great Eastern hotel near the Liverpool Street subway station..." [Source]
July 8, 2005 - "...Giuliani was having breakfast at the Great Eastern Hotel a half block from the Liverpool Street Station in Central London, when he heard an explosion, according to his spokeswoman Sunny Mindel..."
Both Rudi Giuliani and Bin Netanhayu were also together "only a block away" from the NYC attacks the morning of 9-11. Now what are the odds of one man being a block away from both 7-7 AND 9-11??
But the 'proof' gets better...
Not only this, but we do know that there were large-scale terrorist attacks being "exercised" that morning by "anti-terrorist security forces".And? Thanks to the threat of terror, most law-enforcement agencies are practicing daily in every country that is threatened. Thankfully, it is this training that contributed to what I regard as a highly successful response to what happened in London. I fail however to see the connection between "training exercise" and "terrorist attack", but then what would I know, I'm obviously reading the wrong 'sources'...
Indeed this same argument was used by conspiracy theory Mecca - What Really Happened, to suggest that NYC Emergency services were planning a training exercise prior to 9/11. Presumably the authors are resigning themselves to the reality that the mere public recognizing 9/11 as an inside job is rapidly going the same way as Elvis and the Fake Moon Landing. Time to try the exact same arguments in London and hope nobody notices the 'amazingly coincidental' similarities in your arguments.
We know that Mossad had been training UK security forces in anti terrorism before and after the bombings.I can't imagine why Israeli organizations would be world leaders in anti-terrorism. Perhaps they should get you to run the course instead?
We know they initiated the "shoot to kill" policy.You seem to be a little free with the words "we know". In any case, a policy of shooting to kill terrorists doesn't seem to bad. The current issue surrounds identification (or misidentification) of the terrorists.
We know that immediately following the London bombings, Israel launched major attacks against Gaza.Actually, we also "know" that Palestinians continued launching attacks against Israel, but we wouldn't want the implications of this to get in the way of what "we know" now would we?
If you have a clue and want to learn more of the real news and not the "Wag the Dog" you get on the idiot box, I'd suggest these sites...And I wouldn't. No links for the stupid.
Normally I would not bother 'Fisking' rubbish like this as it only encourages the authors to try harder next time rather than my preference for them removing themselves from the gene pool. However, it is useful from time to time to illustrate how low the burden of proof is set by some conspiracy theorists. In this case, I must ask the question, given that it is so 'obvious' this was an inside job due to Bibi Netanyahu's presence in London, simultaneous anti-terrorist exercises etc. Don't you think, if it were an inside job, they'd make it a little less 'obvious'?
But then (according to lunatic theory) that's what they'd expect you to think, so therefore by doing the opposite, they really cover themselves. In other words, whether they were there or not, whether they did something or didn't, every possibility can only lead to the same conclusion.
And Indymedia will publish it.