The headline in a recent online edition of the Guardian led with, ...Saudis warned of London attacks....

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?