Why MIHOP theories re. London are, for now, baseless

[Goldmund]

1) Have we all not been saying that Bush/Blair policies have made us far less safe? Have we not been arguing that the War in Iraq is only increasing the danger of terrorism, the recruiting ability of Islamic terrorist organizations, their propaganda? We have -- I have. Therefore we should not be surprised when that argument is validated by fact, and we shouldn't circumvent that validation by impulsively looking for reasons elsewhere. Bush and Blair have created conditions which inevitably lead to events such as this. On the large scale, it could be considered a kind of MIHOP -- they've done everything they could to create conditions that result in, among other things, attacks -- but on the small scale, as a particular event, I see no reason to shout "MIHOP". I'm actually surprised that this hasn't happened more often.

2) Attacks like 9/11 are preventable; attacks like what just happened in London are fundamentally not, without resorting to a complete police state. It's not too much to ask of your government to guarantee protection from jet liners that stray off course for an hour of more. Asking guaranteed protection against bus bombs, truck bombs, etc is unreasonable. The only real protection against these is a more national-interest-, as opposed to corporate-interest-, oriented foreign policy (including hunting down terror organizations, as well as creating a ground less fertile to their creation and advancement). They obviously haven't provided one; to the contrary.

3) Motive: "Whenever Bush is in trouble, something happens". The problem with that argument is that Bush is ALWAYS in trouble. The only time he's not in trouble is when people buy the snake oil of "protection" against terrorism he's selling. Had this happened a few months ago during the Schiavo/filibuster fiasco, this same thing could have been said. Had it happened during the Abu Ghraib scandal, again, the same thing could have been said. And so on.

So, yes, Bush and Blair have nourished a world and enforced a set of conditions in which events like this are likely to happen. But I see no reason to believe that bus bombings and car bombings need to be micro-managed from all sides.

[Talismom]

1. Well analyzed; well said. n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

2. well said

It's a little annoying whenever the tinfoilers try to blame every single bad thing that ever happens in the world on Bush, and go through ridiculous leaps of logic to explain why. There's plenty of bad things Bush has done that we know for sure to blame on him, we don't need to jump into crackpot territory just to take more swipes at him.

[Mz Pip]

32. I agree

I pretty much believe the Bush administration is incompetent. They may benefit from things like this happening in the short term, but in the long run it just tends to highlight their incompetence. That may not be happening fast enough to suit most of us, but it will happen.

There are crackpots out there who do want to kill us, not because of our freedoms, or because of how we live, but because they just don't like us. There does not have to be a rational explanation for it. Assuming it will all go away if we just change our foreign policy is naive. These people exist and existed long before Bush was in office. Long before. Radical Islamic fundamentalism has been around for a very long time.The western world didn't pay too much attention to it it much when they were just attacking their own people.

Everytime something bad happens there will be people who will give the Bush administration all that power and say "Bush did it." I don't believe that. There are plenty of evil people out there and they all aren't part of BushCo.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[6 sack fiber]

3. Well said,

Some posters deny the possibility that of the world's 1 billion Muslims there is not even 10 people among them that are fanatical enough , capable enough and motivated enough to carry out an action like this.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Exactly.

and completely ignoring the fact that they've been promising to do just that for how long now ?

[Goldmund]

10. Indeed

Take any billion people, you'll find many capable people.

Take any religion, you'll find fanatics -- especially in theocratic regimes.

Take US foreign policy, and you'll find motive.

Take any war-ravaged region, and you'll find people callous enough to murder innocents in retribution.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

5. It "neutralized" Abu Ghraib, and you can't even remember his name?

Mmm-kay.

[fooj]

11. Oh c'mon, Goldmund! You know who he is talking about!

I can't remember his name at the moment, either, but it doesn't mean that he didn't exist and that it didn't happen!

peace.

[Goldmund]

13. Oh, I know it happened

I'm not saying it didn't. I'm just disputing that it neutralized Abu Ghraib. Bush's approval ratings never recovered to the 60s he was enjoying pre-Abu Ghraib.

[fooj]

14. Nick Berg. We owe him that respect. His name was Nick Berg.

peace.

[Goldmund]

15. Thanks, you're right

:hi:

[fooj]

24. Right back at you, my friend!

:hi:

We are all frustrated. We all share the same love of country. These are difficult times, indeed!:patriot:

peace.

[fooj]

8. Welcome to DU! Neutralized is right!

peace.

[rinsd]

18. You're right...

Many at DU went on talking about the unique white plastic chair and western mannerisms exhibited by the terrorists.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

12. You're misprepresenting what I said

What I said was that if our (liberals') idea of how US foreign policy affects the Muslim world is half-way correct, then it's only to be expected that there will be attacks like this.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

28. So, had there been more attacks in between, you would be less likely...

...to believe in MIHOP?

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

40. First, I agree that 9/11 was at least LIHOP

Second, I'm not ruling anyone out. I simply think that terrorist attacks will inevitably happen in these conditions, and that is, by the way, one of the reasons why I oppose policies such as Bush/Blair. I also think that attacks generally benefit them, which I recognize as one of their motives for creating conditions such as this. So, it could be considered an indirect MIHOP by proxy, even if there was no direct involvement.

But to answer your question, with all things being equal and all hard evidence being either ambiguous or highly dubious, then, yes, of course. Suicide bombers acting one at a time are a far more believable Jihad-inspired response than simultaneous, coordinated Dr. No-directed terrorist strikes.

That's a valid line of reasoning, but look at Israel, for example. Look at Iraq. Do you think that every time there are coordinated attacks, the host government is involved? London was obviously an organized action executed with planning and deliberation, that much is clear. But to think that "jihad" is waged exclusively by desperate acts of personal suicide is also a folly.

[stickdog]

48. Yes, look at Israel. Then compare that to 9/11 and 7.7

Real terrorists don't pick fancy memorable dates (with years of silence in between) to launch singular but highly memorable and well-coordinated attacks. Real terrorists try to highlight their desperate causes by taking credit for their violent acts whenever and wherever the opportunity to strike arises.

Maybe I'm way too cynical, but sometimes I think that "al Qaeda" has come to signify any anonymous act of terror that would otherwise appear sophisticated enough to implicate state-sponsored mil/intel.

I realize that this is only a generalization, but right now I think it's pretty apt.

[Goldmund]

51. I agree re. "Al Qaeda"

I think it's a consequence of the propagandistic tendency to anthropomorphize complex issues into monolithic, personal, singular targets for mass consumption. And even give them a face: Osama. I'm willing to bet that the connection between Osama and most functioning terrorists consists of having him on a poster in their bedrooms.

So again, look at Israel -- there have been coordinated attacks there. I distincly remember a 4-bombing attack minutes apart in Tel Aviv in the near past. If you dispute that, I'll Google it up.

Iraq, the same thing -- coordinated attacks in Baghdad just days ago.

[stickdog]

52. It's my opinion that the more sophisticated and spectacular an act of

terrorism is -- the more, shall we say, made-for-TV -- the greater chance that it was state sponsored to achieve some political end.

Surely you'd agree this has been the case in the history of Indonesia, for example.

In what percentage of these atrocities were over 40 people killed in multiple well-coordinated attacks (3 or more separate incidents within 4 hours of each other)?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html

[Goldmund]

53. That's only a part of the truth

The more made-for-TV, the more likely a capable, financially flush, politically oriented organization is behind them. So, yes, it increases the likelyhood of a government as the perpetrator to the expense of an individual rag-tag. But it also does the same for a terrorist organization, Al Qaeda or not.

[stickdog]

54. Yes, but just look at the numbers.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html

How many times have terrorists in Israel managed to kill 40+ individuals using three or more separate incidents that occurred within three hours of each other?

Now compare that number to the number of fatal terrorist events in Israel.

Now compare that percentage to the number of fatal terrorist events in the US and GB.

[Goldmund]

55. I have asked myself, many times,

why there haven't been many small-scale attacks in the US or elsewhere in the West? What stops some kook from mixing up some explosives in Brooklyn and taking them on the 4 train?

I don't have a good answer to that question. That's a completely valid point.

However, I believe that "Al Qaeda"-style attacks still can function independently from smaller incidents. We may be counting apples and oranges here when we compare the proportion of coordinated to singular attacks.

But still, you've made a good point.

[stickdog]

56. My answer is that successful small scale attacks (read: unabomber)

encourage REAL terrorists while horrendous, large scale attacks discourage them from executing their comparatively meager plans.

I don't think TPTB have must stomach for REAL terrorism. But, as PNAC attests, they sure love that "Pearl Harbor moment."

[whatever4]

29. And then you said things like

micro-managed from all sides

as if a government was somehow less likely a suspect than a group of terrorists. In the face of the fact that we have here at least two SERIOUSLY lying goverments who collectively managed to kicked of a war that has killed...how many?

No reason to suspect them? I have to disagree. That's not right. There is EVERY reason to suspect them.

I don't think it was a misrepresenation of what you said at all.

[Goldmund]

35. No reason to suspect them not because they're lilly white,

not because they don't have the motive -- but for the same reason that I don't need to water my lawn today: it's likely to rain.

[stickdog]

37. But it's not likely to rain frogs & fish in the midst of a drought --

which is closer to what we are talking about with these Dr. No-planned coordinated strikes.

[whatever4]

38. So then, the race is the reason?

I believe "No reason to suspect them not because they're lilly white" must mean that there is no reason to suspect them because they ARE lilly white? Perhaps, but I don't think so. If one believes the mihop, that has no basis in fact at all.

And motives have nothing to do with the matter whatsoever? I don't follow you at all, sorry.

Its likely to rain. It's also likely this government of ours, and sadly theirs too, is corrupt and has lied to us. About many things, life and death issues. Now it's just a question of what they lied about, not a question of their actual lying. Just a question of who all they've murdered, not a question of there having been murders. Ammo falls in Iraq like rain, but doesn't do much for the lawns.

[Goldmund]

43. I didn't mean anything racial by "lilly white" LOL

I meant, innocent, you know, O8) -- that kind of thing.

Motives do have to do with the matter, but as I said already, they have created overarching conditions inevitably leading to these kinds of attacks. They have sown seeds on the field, and the soil and the rain and the sun will take care of the plants' growth -- they don't have to go there every day and pull on the plants to make them grow.

[whatever4]

66. Well naturally I agree the conditions are ripe

for terrorist acts. But I refuse to agree it is unreasonable to suspect our government, and perhaps the British government too.

If one believes, as I do, that our government was complicit in 911 (embracing both theories of "made it happen" and "let it happen"), this suspicion is all the stronger. Though I can see how for those that do not, 911 provides no basis for suspicion. It's not an agreed upon fact, and, it's another argument.

But I noticed you didn't say it wasn't possible, only that so far it is "baseless". That seems fair enough to me; if one believes they are innocent of 911, then it is baseless to worry that the government was involved in the bombings yesterday.

On top of it all, I hope you're right. I'd much rather be 100% wrong.

[Goldmund]

68. Yes, exactly

Far from impossible. Just, at this point, "baseless". :)

[whatever4]

70. ahhhhhh

baseless to *some* :)

[Goldmund]

74. Indeed

:)

[6 sack fiber]

25. This action shows that the neo con policies

have created MORE terrorists. It shows the neo cons are unable to protect the home front. How does that benefit neo cons?

[stickdog]

39. War begets war. How do war profiteers benefit? (nt)

[bloom]

41. yeah - what happened to evidence?

One of my first thoughts today was IF Bush&Co. were responsible - who would be able to find out. Probably no one.

[sojourner]

7. But don't you see how it fits neatly into a rationale for INCREASED

"protection"? Perhaps to institute Martial Law? I fully expect it's coming...whether sooner or later is the only question I have.

[Deja Q]

16. Why can't the terrorists go after the politicians instead?

I must agree. It might be MIHOP. Might be LIHOP. Might be coincidence.

And it's vile REGARDLESS. Why can't these terrorists go after the politicians instead of the innocents? The politicians are the ones who make and enforce laws to their design. Everyday people are stuck in the system and don't deserve the maiming and death. It's their war. And until our politicians can PROVE WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that we're utterly innocent, we are as much a part of the problem with our bullying and arrogant ways. Sorry.

[paula777]

17. Look at this article from a couple of days ago ...

This makes me think this was a revenge bombing

http://pakistantimes.net/2005/07/05/top8.htm


Concern by UK

In London, the British government said Sunday that it had raised concerns with the interim Iraq government about reports that its police force had abused prisoners.

The Ministry of Defense and the Foreign Office said they were "deeply concerned" by reports of the abuse of suspected terrorists held in Iraqi police cells. Neither government department would detail the alleged offenses.

On Sunday, the Observer newspaper published three photographs it said were from post-mortem and hospital examinations that showed evidence of torture of alleged terror suspects by Iraqi security units.

Government spokesman Laith Kuba blamed the abuses on a "culture of violence" in Iraq and stressed that the practice wasn't sanctioned by the government.�œ

[JDPriestly]

19. Actually, with Bush, anything is possible.

I tend to agree with you in general about MIHOP theories. However, Bush was so extremely nervous, even more so than usual going into the G-8 conference, I wondered if something was physically wrong with him, and the MIHOP theory would explain his extreme nervousness.

I noticed Bush's nervousness while watching a video someone posted of an interview of Bush before going to the G-8 conference. My audio wasn't working, so I watched it without sound. Bush was visibly even more frightened and worried and scared looking than he normally is. Maybe he had a premonition, or maybe he knew something more than he will ever admit . . . . On top of that there is the bike accident. Running into a police officer is not an easy thing to do, especially if you are president of the United States and presumably in the company of secret service officers. He seemed distraught about something.

I am by nature extremely skeptical. I agree that MIHOP theories are baseless at this time, but the more I watch the machinations of this Machiavellian administration, the readier I am to believe that the MIHOP theories, as crazy as they sound, cannot be summarily rejected.

After all, this administration was able to create and disseminate the myth that Saddam's WMDs posed an imminent threat to the US and Saddam's neighbors. The British knew that was a lie, but Bush was able to sell the lie nonetheless. He has completely seduced what used to be a very free, investigative press in this country.

Remember Kelly in Britain. We will never know whether he was murdered or committed suicide. And that is just one of so many unanswered mysteries surrounding the Bush and Blair regimes' roles in all kinds of events. In my view, DUers are entitled to think up and believe just about any crazy-sounding explanations they want for the strange events going on today.

So, I agree with you, we shouldn't jump to MIHOP conclusions, but, frankly, I don't see anything wrong with theorizing about a Bush role in the bombing attacks. There are just too many strange coincidences recently -- like the extreme number of terrorist alerts leading up to the elections and the near lack of them since. Examples of this are endless.

Keep in mind, none of the left-wing MIHOP theories are as strange as that ultimate right-wing MIHOP theory -- creationism.

[Goldmund]

26. I agree that it wouldn't be beyond them

And I firmly believe in 9/11 LIHOP and don't blanketly discount MIHOP. But they've worked hard in the last 5 years to create a world in which attacks will inevitably happen, whether they like them or not. If they do, then they can have them without having to do the pesky and dangerous planning.

In other words, it's so obvious that Bush/Blair have created conditions for these kinds of attacks to happen, that when they do happen, the most likely explanation is that they are simply manifestations of created conditions.

Of course, if new facts come out to change that, then we can discuss anything. For now, it seems going out on a limb -- in addition to tacitly suggesting that terrorist attacks in the west would not and could not happen without internal intervention. That's simply not true -- policies of Western leaders have empowered terrorists and provided them with a target.

[crispini]

20. Thank you.

And I wish people would ease off on the :tinfoilhat:

[longship]

22. Hoooray!

Good for you. I couldn't agree more.

I'll go further on this topic.

MIHOP is invariably starting with an assumption that MIHOP is true and then finding the evidence to fit the assumption while ignoring all evidence that falsifies the assumption. Along the way the conspiracy theorist uses special pleading, simplistic explanations for complex events, bad science, and any other thing to support their pet theories. I've not seen one MIHOP theory that doesn't have these traits.

Conspiracy theories can be very damaging to our movement. We'd like to bring down the * administration because we know they aren't playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Conspiracy theorists distract attention from the only procedures that will be successful in bringing the * administration to account. That is to find and work the facts and let them take us to the truth behind *'s illegal activities.

What's worse is that the conspiracy theorists can easily be labelled as kooks, which makes it easy for the opposition to label the whole movement as kooky. That makes our job that much more difficult. If we want to bring * to justice, conspiracy theories are not going to help.

Carl Sagan devoted his life to fighting this kind of business. One of his last books, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark was devoted to this very subject. In it he outlined a set of procedures and principles he called his Baloney Detection Kit. I invite all to review this document and see if the conspiracy theories can pass muster. They do not.

[beam me up scottie]

34. Excellent post.

Thanks for the link, I had forgotten his test.
He was a great man.

[Mz Pip]

36. I do believe

that some people hate Bush so much that they really want it to be true that he and his merry band of neocons are responsible for everything bad that has happened in the world since January 2001.

Speculation does not make it true. Wishing does not make it true. Calling people blind who doubt you does not make it true.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Goldmund]

61. I think we need to be careful of blanket characterizations

It all depends on what you mean by "conspiracy theory". One of those "conspiracy theories" -- the most common one -- is that there are no conspiracies.

We also don't need to dance to the right wing's beat who call any and all challenge to their official stories "conspiracy theory".

It all depends on the case.

[ButterflyBlood]

64. I agree with 100%

I too have been rather worried that the tinfoilers shouting out crackpot conspiracy theories whenever something goes wrong might discredit people from listening to the whole story, including things that have actual solid evidence to back it.

[whatever4]

23. yes but

But going by your logic, there would never be a reason for them to use violence against us, to intimidate us, and I cannot believe that's true. It's like saying the government would NEVER send us into a war unnecessarily; it's just not true. Our government willingly killed, and, may have done so again. Not so crazy. Happens every day. Going by your logic, there is never a need for it.

We've been TOLD to fear terrorism. Now we should accept the fact that this incident validated that idea? Hardly. But, that is what you basically said, "Therefore we should not be surprised when that argument is validated by fact..." Depends on what the facts really are, doesn't it? Fact is, we don't know who did it, or why.

Going along with your "no reason to believe that bus bombings and car bombings need to be micro-managed from all sides" says, basically, nothing. There is no reason to think otherwise. Equally as true. This was an insane, violent act, done by someone or someones with the expressed purpose of killing people. For SOME reason, and we must believe there was a reason. It make no sense to belive they'd just...never have to do that, never need to "micro-managed from all sides". I fail to see the basis for that assumption. Just because they didn't NEED to doesn't mean they didn't, and it's hardly a defense.

Human beings commited these acts. It's just a question which human beings had anything to do with it.

In light of the lies we're aware of, I think it's a perfectly valid question, whether or not the government was involved. Unless one believes there are WMD in Iraq, one has to admit, intelligence fixed around the policy indicates FAR reaching and wide spread lying at the highest levels, and not for any good reasons we're aware of. Not to be taken lightly, not to be forgotten, and realize that those lies lead to many, many deaths. Intentionally.

No. In my mind, they're prime suspects, even to the point of having to prove their innocence. In my mind, already believing this government facilitated 911, I believe they're more likely complicit than not. I base my opinion on their past behavior and motives, having no other facts, and taking into account the level of violence and how well it was executed.

If this was done by terrorists, I'd like to hear in a tangible way how it helped them. I can see easily how it could help the government further control and restrict people, through fear and a ready willingness to pass dangerous legistlation. It's happened before.

[fooj]

27. I live in California and I never thought that I'd see the day

when my own National Guard would be under investigation for "SPYING" on me or my neighbors...

Fact. No:tinfoilhat: here!

peace.

[whatever4]

31. That's what I'm talking about

It's so easy to write these ideas of suspecting our government off as crazy. 'til it happens. Then we realize, we can't suspect enough. Unfortunately. Tin hats indeed.

Just saw Bush on tv. He doesn't look too broken up. Looked a lot worse during the debates, looked like a different person.

[Goldmund]

33. I believe in government involvement in 9/11 as well

First of all, I'm not completely discounting MIHOP as a possibility in the London attacks; anything's possible. I merely called it "baseless".

But going by your logic, there would never be a reason for them to use violence against us, to intimidate us, and I cannot believe that's true.

No, I didn't say that. And I clearly don't believe that. I simply think that 9/11 attacks were made to lure us into a snake den. Once we're inside, the snakes will bite; and when I feel a sting on the leg, the first thing I'm likely to think is that a snake had bitten me, not that the guy who shoved me into the den followed me in with a syringe.

I also don't see how my argument extrapolates into "so they NEVER have the need to perpetrate violence against their own people" -- no, sometimes they do. Sometimes they do it by proxy.

I'm not putting it beyond them. Even if we assume that this will benefit Bush/Blair (the mirror argument to your "show me how this will benefit 'terrorists'") -- which is likely a valid assumption, but we'll see -- that doesn't mean that they have to, as I said, micro-manage every part of the process their policies have cultivated. Violence against Westerners is inherent to that process.

[lonestarnot]

30. Waiting... watching... still believe MIHOP

[geek tragedy]

42. 4) A complete lack of evidence. eom

[Goldmund]

47. True, but

the problem with that argument is that there is a complete lack of evidence to indict ANYBODY at this point.

[G_j]

44. if people think it is even a possibility, it is because

the BFEE has proved they are capable of any crime.
I would not bother to speculate with zero information, but because these people are psychopathic war criminals the possibility can not be ruled out either. The fact that this can even be remotely considered is solely their doing, not ours.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. 3) Motive -- very good point.

I made the connection just, literally, moments before I read it here -- no matter what happens when, it could be seen as a distration from some scandal in the Bush administration because there are so many scandals brewing at any given time.

But I'm still waiting for some proof that it was Al Qaeda.

[Lorien]

46. The London attacks look like classic Al Qaeda

they share more in common with the attack on the USS Cole than they do with 9/11-unsophisticated and low tech. What was extraordinary about 9/11 was that the seemed to go from homemade bombs in vans on on dingies to highly trained pilots overtaking flight crews with box cutters in a very sophisticated and coordinated attack which circumvented all of our standard defenses. Quite a leap.

[stickdog]

49. Maybe I'm way too cynical,

but sometimes I think that "al Qaeda" has come to signify any anonymous act of terror that would otherwise appear sophisticated enough to implicate state-sponsored mil/intel.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. Good post

Hold your head high, sir.

I've always rejected MIHOP out of hand. There are some things even these evil bastards won't do.

And yes, Bush is always in trouble. Given that this event gives the lie to any claim he has that what he has been doing about terrorism is at all effective, he ought to remain in trouble.

[SmokingJacket]

57. Wisest thing I've read all day.

Plus, if Bushco wanted to create a distraction, they'd only have to drag out the anthrax again...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

58. MIHOP. Now the G8 can concentrate on terrorism and put Blair

in his place when it comes to poverty and global warming. At the same time this is eclipsing the Plame investigation and the DSM. The first reports of a group taking responsibility on the Internet was squarely trounced on as being a fraud by a person on CNN who actually could tell that it was written by someone who was illiterate in the language.

[Zorra]

59. I disagree.

The stated content of the PNAC manifesto, the presence of so many PNAC signatories in the Bu*h administration, and the fact that we were deliberately lied into a war that is plainly for profit and corporate empire is more than enough to justify speculation that these documentable traitors, liars, and murderers are fully capable of remorselessly bombing a London subway and killing and maiming thousands of people if it suits their purposes.

While I agree with many of your points, IMO, rejecting speculation regarding MIHOP theories and labeling them baseless is not reasonable.

When there is a psychopathic serial liar, thief, and killer living in the neighborhood, and your next door neighbor is robbed and murdered, who, logically, would be the first to be suspected of committing the murder?

The conscienceless lying freak that had a history of robbing and murdering people, no?

In the case of the London bombing, who has the most to gain by committing this terrible crime?

Now, if the G8 conference had been bombed, I'd say Islamic terrorists striking a blow at western imperialists would be first on my list of suspects.

But a bunch of regular folks in a subway, most probably on their way to work or school, were targeted.

So, how do Islamic terrorists gain from this? Are they so stupid that they do not realize that there will be a backlash against Islamic peoples as a result of this seemingly senseless killing, a backlash that will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be completely counterproductive to their cause?

Again: Who has the most to gain, and who will visibly gain, from this tragedy?

[Goldmund]

60. All good points

But the interests of Islamic terrorists and the interests of the Islamic peoples -- much like the interests of BushCo and the interests of American people -- are not the same thing; they are often mutually exclusive.

In addition, the interests of BushCo and the interests of Al Qaeda are not mutually exclusive; they both benefit from Western militancy. Al Qaeda because it gives them support, recruits and funding, and BushCo because it gives them support and funding -- they're still working on recruits.

Cui Bono?

BushCo AND Islamic terrorists, both.

[rinsd]

62. How do Islamic terrorist gain?

"So, how do Islamic terrorists gain from this? Are they so stupid that they do not realize that there will be a backlash against Islamic peoples as a result of this seemingly senseless killing, a backlash that will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be completely counterproductive to their cause?"

That fact didn't stop the Palestinians.

If Islamic terrorists did do it, its win-win for them.

If war is continued, more recruits and even sympathy.

Brits decide to get out of the Terror War, well then they got what they wanted.

[stickdog]

65. Palestinians terrorists and "al Qaeda" terrorists are quite dissimilar.

Israel quite obviously deals with a large number of hardline Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attacks on a weekly (or, at best, monthly) basis:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html

The webpage linked above lists over 350 separate fatal incidents resulting in well over 1000 Israeli fatalities since September, 2000.

But I haven't yet located a single incident out of these 350+ in which more than 30 Israelis died. Nor have I found a single example of a well-coordinated, multiple-attack terrorist strike (defined as three or more separate fatal acts of terrorism executed within a span of three hours). Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could direct me to these entries?

Now, it seems to me that the more sophisticated and spectacular an act of terrorism is -- the more, shall we say, made-for-TV -- the greater chance that this dramatically successful act of terrorism was state sponsored to achieve some political end. This is purely a function of the far greater MEANS and OPPORTUNITY of state sponsored mil/intel organizations when compared with those of the typical Jihadist terrorists they are tasked with foiling. Surely, we would all agree that this exact pattern (of highly dramatic and potent terrorist acts correlating with covert state sponsored activities) is quite typical in the historical records of many perhaps less "politically enlightened" regions -- such as Indonesia, South Africa and Latin America, for example.

Unlike Israel (which deals with far more numerous but typically far less potent Jihadist attacks), the USA & Great Britain appear to deal almost exclusively with spectacularly successful, well-coordinated, highly sophisticated MADE-FOR-TV Goldfinger/Dr. No-type terrorists.

The Jihadist terrorists attacking Israel don't typically choose highly symbolic strike dates (like 9/11 or 7.7 -- with years of inactivity between) to launch singular and discrete but highly memorable, extremely fatal and very well-coordinated multi-strikes. In contrast, real terrorist organizations almost invariably attempt to highlight the desperate straits of their causes by aggressively claiming full responsibility for their violent acts using previously known and recognized channels and spokesmen. Furthermore, these real Jihadist terrorist organizations do not put a premium on huge and horrifically fatal MADE-FOR-TV terror muscle-flexing but instead foster a continual atmosphere of perilousness by striking whenever, wherever and however they can.

Maybe I'm far too cynical, but I've started to suspect that the term "al Qaeda" has now come to simply signify any anonymous act of terror that might otherwise appear sophisticated enough to implicate state-sponsored mil/intel. I realize that this is a generalization at best, but please understand the context in which I'm daring to utter such blasphemous thoughtcrime. Our entire corporate media apparatus and political hierarchy have already convicted Islamic fundamentalists of today's crimes with nary a shred of backing evidence. In contrast, I'm not trying to convince anyone to jump to any hasty conclusions -- just to duly consider all logically probable alternatives.

[The Magistrate]

71. You Might, Mr. Dog, Try Taking People At Their Own Word

The literature of the jihadis is readily available, and worth a thorough look....

[Cha]

63. Yes..my feeling is that

the Original 9/11 was lihop for the obvious reasons for that all that would follow. But, the factor of "Unintended Consequenses" is what's up now.

Even if it was not lihop ..it was Gross Negligence and they should have been fired NOT hired for four more years.

We need a new course in Iraq.

[leesa]

67. I don't think you have made your point. Bush is in worse trouble than he

has ever been in. How does micromanaging buses/trains have anything to do with the Neocons planting the bombs instead of the Muslim terrorists they are so quick to blame?

I don't think you have made ANY points to make MIHOP go away. Only a real investigation will tell. I doubt there will be one though.

[Goldmund]

69. It's not my desire to make it go away

To the contrary. I think all possibilities should be fairly investigated.

I simply think that we should adopt a more "scientific" approach to this than to simply make impulsive accusations.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

72. The problem I have with MIHOP theories is that I don't see how it accounts

for suicide bombers. The one thing I see in shrubco is people who are greedy and not courageous in any way. The opposite of someone who is willing to die for a cause, regardless of whether you disagree with the method or the cause.

(on edit)
I don't have any problem assigning motive or the lack of ethics necessary to do this kind of thing to shrubco. I just don't see how it'd work.

[Goldmund]

73. Good points

But not necessarily definitive: we don't know that the bombs were set off by suicide bombers in London.

Also, suicide bombings aren't inconsistent with LIHOP.