THE SO-CALLED LONDON TERROR PLOT "BOMBS"

I figured that the "London terror plot" would unravel. Frankly, I thought it would happen sooner, but you can't win 'em all.

A judge in Pakistan threw out the terrorism charges against the supposed mastermind of the "plot." Now say what you will about Pakistan and justice, but they are our allies in the war on our freedom...I mean, the war on terror. Here's what went down (yeah, I'm a week late on this story):

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 13 — A judge threw out terrorism charges on Wednesday against Rashid Rauf, a Briton of Pakistani descent whom prosecutors depicted as a major figure in a plot to smuggle liquid explosives onto trans-Atlantic airliners and detonate the bombs in flight.

The ruling means there are now no terrorism charges against two people once accused of being linchpins of a major Al Qaeda bombing plot. The other is Tayib Rauf, Mr. Rauf’s younger brother, who was detained in Britain last August and soon set free without charge.

The problem for this guy Rauf is that once you get accused of something, the stigma tends to stay with you even if you've been proven innocent. Everyone has the question "Yeah, but why would they even go to the trouble of accusing him if he really didn't do anything?" in the back of their minds.


Terrorism is a problem Republicans do not want to solve

And this is true even if you're a veteran of the Navy, and white, and a U.S. citizen.
Just like Donald Vance was. He was a whistleblower who was thrown in detention in Iraq for being a whistleblower. That's not what they told him, of course--they told him he was a suspect because he was working in the same place as the people on whom he was blowing the whistle.

Anyway, my point is that the "war on terror" is a farce and these two incidents are further proof of that fact. But terrorism is a problem Republicans would like to be viewed as trying to solve but which in fact they do not want to solve.

So they find somebody, anybody, they can accuse of whatever they need them to be accused of, blare it in the press, then the reality gets whispered weeks, months, or years later. But the job has already been done--the stigma remains. The patsies have been used, the public has been fooled, the politicians have covered their asses, the press got a juicy story--and our freedoms are that much more in jeopardy.

If you doubt that, and/or think such things don't affect you directly, think back to when the story of the liquid bomb plot broke. Mothers were having to pour out breast milk, boarding was delayed for hours, the entire air travel system was in complete disarray. Airlines immediately banned liquids in planes but relaxed that restriction about a month afterward. The current guidelines are still pretty ridiculous. Especially when you consider the fact that the liquid bomb plot was either manufactured from whole cloth or was purposely blown way the hell out of all proportion to its significance. And that one of the main suspects has been cleared of those charges.

Feeling safer yet? Feeling freer?

The conventional wisdom now dictates that there was a liquid bomb plot against British airliners. And pundits and reporters continue to talk of that supposed incident as if that is absolute fact, despite the news that the charges against the mastermind were dropped. And that's how this war on our freedom, I mean, terror gets perpetuated.

Be skeptical and you'll probably be right.

BEING RIGHT RULES. BEING RIGHT-WING DOES NOT.

Here's what I posted on the forum of my local paper on Aug. 10:

It is very likely that news of this latest "foiled terror plot" is just designed to take the oxygen out of the fire that is the Lamont victory and the news that 60% of the country thinks the Iraq occupation is/was a mistake.

I'm almost certain that in a couple of weeks, there will be a small item published about how the Brits got it all wrong regarding this supposed "terror plot"--that it was all just a mix-up. But that won't be splashed across the front pages of every news outlet like this story is.

There's already been an example of that scenario playing out--almost exactly a year ago. After the 7/7 bombings last year, it was big news that the British police shot and killed a suspect in those attacks. It was reported widely that he was running from the police, that he jumped the turnstile at the Tube, and that he was wearing a big bulky coat.

It turned out that none of those things were true. He was simply a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician. But that was not trumpeted nearly as widely as was the news that the Brits had bagged a "terrorist." And the British police didn't admit their mistake until two to three weeks later (at least they did admit it).

And I have a feeling that something similar will come out about this most recent story.

It now looks as if this is coming true...here's a quote from the World Socialist Web
Site that synthesizes the info coming from more mainstream, gullible publications:

"It this case, it transpires that not only were no bombs actually assembled, but none of the British-born Muslims being held had purchased airline tickets, and some did not even possess passports. Despite a massive trawling operation by police involving days of extensive searches at 46 separate locations, no trace has been found of chemicals that were supposedly to be used as explosives."

Scotland Yard has nothing on these guys. Why? Well Wayne Madsen clears that up for us (at this link, scroll down to Aug.11):

"According to knowledgeable sources in the UK and other countries, the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new "terror" scare to avert the public's eyes away from Blair's increasing political woes. British law enforcement; neo-con and intelligence operatives in the United States, Israel, and Britain; and Rupert Murdoch's global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 "Oplan Bojinka" plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the United States. In the latest plot, it is reported that liquid bombs were to be detonated on 10 trans-Atlantic planes outbound from Britain to the United States."

Being right rules. Being right-wing does not.

IS URINE ALLOWED?

Looking at the new carry-on policy over at United Airlines today, a thought occurred to me: is urine allowed on a plane? Is it possible that a "liquid explosive" could be drunk before take-off then collected through urination in-flight (in the rest room, of course)? Are bladders allowed on airplanes now?

Israel Given Go Ahead To Attack Lebanon "Earlier This Summer"

From the New Yorker:

"Earlier this summer, before the Hezbolla kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington separately, "to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear." The consultant added, "Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council." After that, "persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board," the consultant said."

That makes me wonder even more about something that occurred to me recently, which is this--were two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by actual Hezbollah people or by friendlies posing as Hezbollah? Because the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers is an awfully slim pretext for the kind of bombing campaign that Israel waged against southern Lebanon.

And then there's the fact that Bush didn't want an immediate cease-fire--he wanted "a lasting peace." That was a very strange position to take given the ferocity of the bombing campaign, which horrified most observers. Probably because they weren't in on it like Bush apparently was. Hmmm...and then there's the expedited shipments of bunker busters and cluster bombs and what not...

Whoops, no...I guess not

But now that I read more, I see that Nasrallah took credit for the kidnappings, so I guess that blows that theory out of the water. But the whole thing about this campaign being planned already and asking for Bush's permission and what not...I have absolutely no evidence or anything for my little baseless theory, but everything about this just seems fishy.

I mean, I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but good Lord--stranger things have happened...