Immediately following my learning of the bombings, I went to all the major news sites I visit several times a day. I get my news from online sources, because I can get the information faster and in a greater amount than radio or TV. That, and the sources have been consistant when it comes to telling more truth than everyone else.
Its important to point a few things out that were going on before the bombings took place. First is that the UK was preparing the withdrawl of its forces in Iraq. At this time, they amount to most of the soldiers in the southern part. Couple this with the Downing Street Memo, a series of documents that gives a summary of meetings held in 2002 that proves the intelligence was being fixed around the policy of going to war in Iraq, or in other words, we were being lied to about the Iraq- Al-Qaeda link, the WMDs, and pretty much everything else. The Brits aren't too happy with Tony Blair, and he faces a "no confidence" vote in Parliment over all of this. Unlike most Americans, the Brits aren't daft and won't march to the sound of a political drum.
Secondly, there was to be a meeting right near one of the explosions with the Israeli Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, about investing in Israel. While on any other day this would have been nothing to blink at, whats interesting is the conflicting stories that came out the first day. Apparently, Netanyahu got some kind of warning not to go out because of possible terror attacks. The conflicts arise in when he was warned and who warned him. The original story appears to be that the Israeli embassy got a call from Scotland Yard, and it was passed on to him, all before the first bombing. This was initially backed up by the embassy staff. Shortly afterward, Israel backpeddled their story, saying Netanyahu was warned after the first attack (which at the time no one knew what it was, although it was reported as a transformer explosion).
But then we have a news website in India claiming that Israel had warned the UK about a pending terror attack. Interesting to note since Israel did the same thing before 9/11 occurred.
Except the Brits deny having told anyone about anything, and that they had no idea there were to be terrorist attacks. There are a couple of possibilities here:
1) The Brits are lying about not telling the Israeli Embassy to cover up the fact they didn't warn any British citizens or police.
2) The Brits aren't lying, and that Netanyahu got a warning from somewhere else, possibly pretending to be Scotland Yard
3) Someone is trying to cover up who carried out the attacks by protecting both the Israeli's during the attack and by denying an foreknowledge of such attacks.
It doesn't make sense at the moment, does it?
Ariel Sharon called Netanyahushortlyafter the first bombing to see if he was ok. Again, the original thought was itwas just a power transformer since there was a power failure in the tunnel. What's reallyinteresting is what Netanyahu said to Gordon Brown:
"If there is anyone whounderstands what you are going through, it is Israel."
What makes that statementinteresting is what Brian Kilmeade said on FOX News.
"I think that works to our advantage, inthe Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500milesfrom where the attacks have happened."
Let's get back on topic here with allthe denials of who was warned about what. Everyone in the highest positions is denying everythingthat would give any inclination that it was a staged attack. But now we need someone to pinthe blame on, if it wasn't staged, right?
So of course, Tony Blair immediately blames the"terrorists." And who comes out saying they did it? A completely unknown group claiming theattack in the name of al-Qaida. They post on a website of course, rather than release a videointerview or audio tape. But someone picks up on this when they noticed that one of the versesfrom the Koran has an error in it. MSNBC translator Jacob Keryakes suggests thatitmight be a fake claim, since "This is not something al-Qaida would do."
Back tosquare one. Cui Bono? Whats the motive behind this? Somehow I'm finding it hard to believe thatright after Britian declares its pulling its troops out of Iraq, bombs go off. Again, who is toblame? Blair and some "analysists" see an Islamic link (before we know any more than what buseswereblown up, they're pointing fingers). So who are these analysists? Boaz Ganor, directorgeneral of Israel's International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, and MordechaiKedar,a counter-terrorism analyst for Israel's public television. Now would be a good timetomention Brian Kilmeade's comment again on sharing experiences.
There are only a fewpolitical motives for this attack that are possible.
1) Gain support for attacks onIran. The White House has been talking about how al-Qaida leaders are in and out of there,including bin Laden and Zarqawi. It was the British MP, George Galloway who said that public opposition to a war with Iran would change if there were a staged terror attack. It's also nosecretthat Israel wants Iran to be dealt with, as they've been the ones pushing for harsherdealings and making bold lies about Iran's nuclear facilities. Those lies have beencounteredby the U.N. and the IAEA, but regardless of this the United States government hascontinued to repeat what Israel is saying.
2) Political revenge for this:
Sharon Grants Egypt Military Rewards inSinai, Is Outmaneuvered by a Secret UK-Egyptian-Palestinian Gas Transaction Basically,the Israeli government made a deal with Egypt, but didn't know about another deal Egypt had with the UK. Apparently it will bring in $150-200 million for the Palestinian Authority.
3) Help save Tony Blair's ass, boost Bush's poll numbers, and keep the "War on Terror" goingjust a bit longer.
4) Revenge for supporting Bush's war in Iraq.