It
appears that a few weeks before the London attacks, Saudi
intelligence officials had been monitoring a Saudi'based
terror group and had gathered information regarding an
imminent attack on London. They shared this intelligence
with their British counterparts, who according to the
official line ...didn't recognise the intelligence....
I'm not sure what ...didn't recognise... means. So, it
was a Saudi group that was behind the attacks, and not
a Pakistani group, and British officials had prior warning?
It will be interesting to see how much coverage this gets
in the mainstream media. Before continuing, I'll have
a quick scan of the online editions of some major newspapers...
The
New York Times carries no mention of the story in either
the main or the international sections of the online edition.
It does have a story on Blair on his plan to curb Muslim
radicals who ...preach hate.... The Australian doesn't
mention the Saudi story either, but it does have a story
on Blair's moves to crackdown on terror in the face of
a renewed threat. In order to fight terrorism, Blair is
considering ...opting out of European human rights obligations
....
The
LA Times doesn't mention the story. Le Monde doesn't carry
the story, but does have a story about Tony Blair's determination
to fight terrorism, and outlines some of the measures
he plans to take. It mentions that racist attacks in Britain
have increased by 600 percent since the London attacks
occurred. The Times of India doesn't carry the story,
but does carry a story about Blair's plea to immigrants
to be more British. The Washington Post doesn't mention
the Saudi story. Reuters doesn't have any mention of the
story. The China Daily has a story about Blair's efforts
against Muslim radicals, but doesn't mention the Saudi
story. Al Jazeera doesn't mention the story. MSN doesn't
mention the story.
This
quick scan of the online editions of these newspapers
reveals that the Saudi story must not be newsworthy (or
that the editors have been slow to react). It appears
that currently the main newsworthy story concerning the
aftermath of the London attacks is about Blair's move
to combat terrorism by opting out of human rights agreements,
shutting down schools and mosques, and asking immigrants
to be more British (perhaps if only those young men had
spent more time in the cricket nets, these attacks would
never have occurred). Blair is also implementing new anti'terror
laws that previously his own party has blocked. It appears
that now his party supports the restriction of civil liberties
if it fights terrorism. There's a strong anti'Muslim,
and in particular, anti'Paki sentiment in the UK at the
moment. As Le Monde notes, racist attacks have increased
by 600 percent. Blair is talking about restrictions and
closer monitoring of immigration from Muslim countries.
The
fact that a Saudi Arabian group was responsible for
the attacks, and that both Saudi and British intelligence
officials had advanced warning is not important. Its
funny, because it was the Saudi's who had all those
dodgy links to the 911 attacks. Saudi Arabians funded
the attacks; it was mostly Saudi nationals who carried
out the attacks, and it appears that US intelligence
had advance warning of the attacks. Planeloads of important
Saudis living in the
US, many of whom have (or had) business links with some
of the top figures in and behind the Bush Administration
were safely escorted out of the country when almost
all air'traffic had been grounded. Although the overall
state of the US economy has suffered since the attacks,
the industries in which Bush Administration individuals
and their Saudi partners have invested have boomed.
I'm not sure why Afghanistan (or Pipelinistan as I like
to call it) needed to be invaded when the only nations
that had any major links to the attacks were Saudi Arabia
and the US. The mainstream media has been mostly silent
about the Saudi connection to 911, and at this early
stage, it appears to be keeping quiet on the connection
to the London attacks.
Rather
than a new look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia,
British citizens can now look forward to ID cards, more
arbitrary police checks (although that may depend on
physical appearance), and more 'unfortunate accidents'
like the killing of the Brazilian electrician. Politicians
will be able to campaign on issues such as immigration
and terror instead having to worry about those annoying
issues like health care and education which pop'up once
in a while. Right wing parties will see their following
increase rapidly as Paki'bashing gradually becomes a
national sport. And lets not forget all those juicy
defence checks just waiting to be handed out.
I
remember reading once, something along the lines of
...if something happens once, it might never happen
again, but if it happens a second time, it will surely
happen a third.... Why is it that going back more than
a decade, Saudi Arabian groups have repeatedly staged
attacks that have been in the interests of the ruling
elite of Britain and the US? Why do the 'terrorists'
come from Saudi Arabia, a country where the US has its
biggest overseas military base, a country whose leaders
have extensive business links with US leaders? Are these
things just meaningless coincidences?
