The London Bombing: Why did British Gov Fail to Warn the Poeple?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Stories keep changing. Scotland Yard was warned by Israeli intelligence about a possible bombing. They told Benjamin Netanyahu to stay where he was. Scotland Yard now claims they were not warned. What t/f is going on?

One thing is for sure, the only group who benefits from this tradgedy is the Bush administration. They are desperate to keep England's troops in Iraq and desperate to get traitor and criminal Karl Rove's name out of the headlines.


Make no mistake, this was a false flag operation. A desperate attempt to divert attention from news that the Bush administration's crimes are about to catch up with them.




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Here's an article I meant to link to my last post.



Britain failed to protect London even after Israel warned Britain of coming Al-Queda terror – inefficiency or conspiracy?
India Daily News Bureau
Jul. 7, 2005

Israel knew and warned United Kingdom of possible terror plots to disrupt life in London. But British authorities failed to respond accordingly to deter the attacks, according to an unconfirmed rumor circulating in intelligence circles. Israel is keeping quiet for the time being with a lot of pressure on them.

Fact of the matter is that British Authorities knew it is coming, warned the Israelis before the first bomb. The Associated Press reported July 7 that an anonymous source in the Israeli Foreign Ministry said Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks in the U.K. capital. The information reportedly was passed to the embassy minutes before the first bomb struck at 0851 London time. The Israeli Embassy promptly ordered Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in his hotel on the morning of July 7. Netanyahu was scheduled to participate in an Israeli Investment Forum Conference at the Grand Eastern Hotel, located next to the Liverpool Street Tube station -- the first target in the series of bombings that hit London on July 7.
www.indiadaily.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   


Galloway Wary Of Staged Terror Attack As Pretext For Iran Invasion

Prison Planet | June 1 2005

George Galloway made worldwide headlines on May 17th when he appeared in front of a Senate committee on investigations, after its members accused him of profiteering from Saddam Hussein's regime by receiving vouchers for oil, despite the fact that such allegations against Galloway had already been proven to be based on forged documents.

Galloway did what no American on Capitol Hill could, he told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
www.prisonplanet.com...


In an interview with Alex Jones, Galloway predicted (June 2005) more state sponsored terror was coming.



GALLOWAY: "We need a vigilant citizenry that are wise to all the tricks that these monkeys are up to."






posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The timing of this bombing is beyond suspect.


The Brits announced their plans to pull troops out of Iraq, to BushCo's great chagrin. So what happens? al-Qaeda goes and bombs London, causing the Brits to stay in Iraq? Right, that makes perfect sense..




MoD plans Iraq troop withdrawal
By Jimmy Burns and Peter Spiegel
Published: July 4 2005 22:02 | Last updated: July 4 2005 22:02

The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt.

In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces.
news.ft.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Well, if they didn't get a warning it's quite hard to warn anybody, right?...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
ECK, Thank you for your very wise posts, as always.

As i've been saying all along...who gains?

Is it 2008 yet?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Thx for reading them and contributing, Dg.

I've been saying recently that something was coming down soon. Galloway said the same. Unfortunately, in the wake of very bad press for BushCo. (Rove), it has come to pass.

Gotta distract and scare the sheople.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Warning, no warning. Do we really know. I find it so amusing how so many can sit back and have such wonderful hindsight on matters they were not even there for nor have knowledge of.

It is almost like posters here seem to think that gov'ts just receive warnings that are validated daily and then just toss them in the garbage. Do you really think gov'ts in the US, Britain, Spain etc just turn their back? I don't think so. I also would suspect that thousands of "warnings" of "something coming" occurs daily. To try and figure out what is real or not is not so easy. What would you suggest, sound the alarm every 2 minutes that a "suspected attack" is to occur. Just how long will that go over?

Can people just face the facts that there are some nutty bad people in the world referred to as terrorists and that warning or no warnings, we just don't know when and where their next attack will occur. How do you announce such things to the general public? Get on top of a building and scream "run for your lifes, we think there is a bomb". So starting mass panic only to find out you reacted to a "warning" that turned out fake is a good idea? I suspect your reaction if that had happend would be that the gov't doesn't know what its doing and how could it sound a false alarm.

Gov'ts are in a no win situation with terrorism and all the whining in these formums is not going to change that. No matter how they react or don't react they will be blamed. People need to blame someone, it is human nature when trauma strikes and gov'ts will continue to be the escape goat. If you ran a city, a state, a country, just exactly how would you deal with information and when? How would you evacuate a city the size of New York and to where? What if you were wrong in your reaction?

Perhaps instead of turning in on your gov'ts perhaps you should look out at the terrorist groups and if you have some grand idea on how to deal with them, by all means, contact your local gov't and lend them a hand for a change.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Memorialday1999
Warning, no warning. Do we really know. I find it so amusing how so many can sit back and have such wonderful hindsight on matters they were not even there for nor have knowledge of.


just imagine how many intelligence services there are in england perving into endless amounts of peoples lives. so you somehow think that the intelligence services would not be perving into muslims peoples lives, in this this day and age.
what are the intelligence services there for?

how come there are always people claiming that these intelligence services do nothing and know nothing.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by andy1033]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Can you understand that these attacks are real? There is ZERO proof in any of what your are saying...

...you seem to have left out the fact that these attacks were timed to happen during the G8 sumit in the U.K.

No, body was warned of this attack the only thing that happen was that a Isreali diplomat was told to stay in his hotel room because a bomb had gone off in front of the building! Nothing odd about that.

Get a clue...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
what good would warning do? These bombs were more than likely not fixed in their places for days on end. No, they more than likely were dropped off by one or two men. If a warning had been issued, new locations or a later date would have been planned.

Does anyone know how long it takes to get from each bombing site starting from the first to the last? Just a theory of mine I'm trying to go for.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Does anyone know how long it takes to get from each bombing site starting from the first to the last? Just a theory of mine I'm trying to go for.


Alot of time, thats why its believed that there may be 4 + bombers, one at each site..



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The Terrorist works in small groups.No contact is made with another group (cell).The IRA/ETA and most western terrorist were slow to pick up the concept.The point is to prevent infultration and allow the task to continue.It is probable that in London each of the bombers wouldn`t have known the other bombers plans or id.A central control eliment would organise maybe years ago the plan only to be carried out when contacted.After the plan carried out the terrorist would return to everday life were even close family members may have no idea what or who that person was.As far as they were concerned that person was in work or whatever.After maybe a year or two that person would then be contacted with another plan to go ahead maybe again in two three years time.If that person does get caught he can only id maybe one other member of the group at most.
If MI5/MI6 had a person within the loop that knew what was about to happen the last thing the service would do is warn people,this would alert the central control eliment to the fact somebody knew.The difficulty in recruiting a terrorist of these kinds is extremely extremly difficult sothere id would remain Top Top Secret at all costs.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Losing Proposition

When governments warn of possible impending terrorist attacks, like the U.S. government all-too-famously has (what color alerts haven't we joked about ad nauseam?), it is mercilessly lambasted for “trying to scare the sheeple”.

When it doesn't, then the same crowd of naysayers invariably accuses the government of either not being prepared enough, not warning people when it should have or, ironically enough, being behind the attack itself.

The first rule of conspiracy theory is that a conspiracy can only exist if it makes sense.

Most of what I see posted about this and other terrorist attacks these days doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Hence my enduring skepticism.

For what it's worth, I still don't know for sure who was responsible for 9-11, let alone this attack, but I would rather be uncertain -- and be right to do so -- than jump to some ridiculous conclusions, think I'm infallible, shout it from the rooftops in front of God and everybody and end up being dead wrong.

Though it may not be much, I respect my credibility too much to throw it away like that.

Different strokes for different folks.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Magic, the rest of us should have your clarity of mind and wisdom. I could and have taken a lesson or two from you before. Thanks!

The only problem is, when do you suppose we would find out the truth?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

When governments warn of possible impending terrorist attacks, like the U.S. government all-too-famously has (what color alerts haven't we joked about ad nauseam?), it is mercilessly lambasted for “trying to scare the sheeple”.


can you tell me what the intelligence services are there for. there are countless amounts of these agencies, but what do they do then magic



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

can you tell me what the intelligence services are there for. there are countless amounts of these agencies, but what do they do then


They police the un-policable.They stop bad people from carrying out incidents such as London,911 and Madrid happening too often.They are only human after all mistakes can and do happen.Also sometimes the loss of life is required to keep in place years of work.Security Services work isn`t the most rewarding.Nobody outside thanxs you.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
The little boy that cried Wolf.

Question: How effective would have been a government warning if the government only knew that something was "imminent," but was not aware of the time and place and how the attack(s) would take place or be delivered?

That is not an effective warning and one that IMHO, the British government rightly choose not to issue, if the luxury of choice was applicable.





seekerof

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Sands Of Time


Originally posted by dgtempe
The only problem is, when do you suppose we would find out the truth?

If history is any guide, long after it would make a difference.

No one ever said the truth didn't suck.


The Oxymoron Of Government Intelligence


Originally posted by andy1033
can you tell me what the intelligence services are there for. there are countless amounts of these agencies, but what do they do then magic

The best they can, based on what I've seen. Sometimes that's good enough, but often it isn't.

For every successful intelligence operation, there are hundreds that fail. For every intelligence agency that succeeds, there are dozens who -- by virtue of that success -- have failed.

The idea that the business of intelligence is somehow cut and dried is nonsense. It is a bizarre, mystic blend of art and science -- and voodoo -- and just when people finally start to get good at it, they either die or retire.

Without delving into a long, off-topic tirade on the subject, I think it's worth pointing out that it is easy enough to criticize intelligence agencies and the governments that employ them for not being omniscient.

But when you get down to it, that's a pointless exercise, because they already know quite well they don't know everything. They have to deal with the esoteric calculus of factual uncertainty on an ongoing basis, and that represents some of the greatest challenges the human mind can tackle.

The sooner everyone else understands that, the sooner we can dispense with fruitless finger-pointing about something that can never be changed (do we really want them knowing everything?), and turn our attention to things that can be changed.

Lest I be misunderstood, I fully respect the right of anyone who wants to to give any intelligence agency all the hell they feel like dishing out. I consider that healthy -- if perhaps somewhat vain.

But where I can, I advise folks to try to maintain a reasoned perspective on all this, because without it, we are well and truly lost, with little hope of finding our way out of the darkness.

Things are complicated enough without us making them more so.

My tuppence, yours may reasonably differ, and that's the way it's supposed to be.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Losing Proposition

When governments warn of possible impending terrorist attacks, like the U.S. government all-too-famously has (what color alerts haven't we joked about ad nauseam?), it is mercilessly lambasted for “trying to scare the sheeple”.


Humans will naturally ignore signs of Danger.People swim when told not too,they try to fix electrical items when they shouldn`t,they drive cars fast when they shouldn`t,they smoke,they drink.



When it doesn't, then the same crowd of naysayers invariably accuses the government of either not being prepared enough, not warning people when it should have or, ironically enough, being behind the attack itself.


Only the ones that don`t participate.The people who do afterwards can`t really explain why.



The first rule of conspiracy theory is that a conspiracy can only exist if it makes sense.


There are no rules to conspiracy the more ridiculous sometimes help to hide.Too understand the conspiracy you need all the facts.Without them you cannot decide if it makes sense.The missing bits can change ridiculous to believable.



Most of what I see posted about this and other terrorist attacks these days doesn't make a lick of sense to me.


They don`t have to make sense to you or anybody.There`s a bigger picture you only seeing a small 1cm of a large 30 meter painting.With that 1 cm bit you cannot decide what the picture is.



Hence my enduring skepticism.


Then you have no option but to believe the official line that the govts put out.Until you are blessed with seeing the full 30 meters you and others of this site are only guessing at best.



For what it's worth, I still don't know for sure who was responsible for 9-11, let alone this attack, but I would rather be uncertain -- and be right to do so -- than jump to some ridiculous conclusions, think I'm infallible, shout it from the rooftops in front of God and everybody and end up being dead wrong.


If you cannot see the 30 meters again you have no option but to believe the official line.9/11 was a terrorist attack by none Americans.Simple.Theres no point looking at any other conclusion cause you would never find out if it was a cover up.



Though it may not be much, I respect my credibility too much to throw it away like that.

Different strokes for different folks.




It`s so odd that people living in America believe that there govt would do such an act.Outside of America when the 9/11 theories came out most people believed them to be rubbish.I could understand there thinking if they were lead by a cruel dictator but hell you guys are nowhere near that.O k Bush has his faults what leader hasn`t but that.But you never know without nowing that 30 meter picture.

W.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum