Ex-CIA Man Exposes Hysteria Of Car "Bomb" Terror
London car bombs would not have killed anyone, government using terrorist tactics by hyping fear to morph society
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Countering the frothing rabid hysteria that is being whipped up by a fervent media in response to three failed car "bomb" attacks in the last few days in the UK, ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson joined Keith Olbermann to underscore the truth behind the madness - that the so-called bombs were primitive at best and would not have killed anybody.
In the immediate aftermath of the discovery of a Mercedes parked outside a London night club containing up to 60 litres of petrol and a similar second vehicle, authorities claimed that the bombs would have caused "carnage" had they been detonated, killing hundreds of people. A burning Jeep that was driven into a terminal building at Glasgow Airport yesterday was also believed to contain petrol, but failed to explode beyond simply burning out the interior of the vehicle.
The truth about the "deadly" car bombs that led to airports and other transit systems being closed across the country as well as the UK terror threat level being raised to critical is that they displayed an almost laughable level of proficiency and would not have killed anyone.
"This is not one of the truck bombs or car bombs we see going off in Iraq - what's really striking about this today is that you had two non-bombs in London when we had at least five bombs in Baghdad in which U.S. soldiers were killed in one of those so I think it's just out of proportion - this was an incendiary, this was not a high explosive," said Johnson.
Johnson said that had the gas been ignited properly, there would have been a loud boom that would have split the tank but that no projectiles would have even exited the vehicle.
"If someone was within 20, 30 feet of it they would have ear damage but not much more," said Johnson. Johnson contrasted how the media glaze over deadly car bombings in Iraq which occur every day "And then you have a non-event in London and we're going to battle quarters and beginning to give the hairy eyeball to every Muslim."
Olbermann called the terrorists, "the graduating Al-Qaeda bomb squad that need remedial work" while attacking the concept that we're fighting them in Iraq so as to not have to fight them over here."
He also called out the so-called counter-terrorism experts who have hyped this non-event on television to enhance the profile of the counter-terror companies that they head up.
As Johnson outlines, fewer than 50,000 people worldwide have died as a result of terror attacks since the 60's, and as we recently highlighted, accident causing deer, swimming pools and peanut allergies have all proven more deadly than international terrorism.
The true extent of the damage that could have been caused by these recent attacks pales in comparison to the overblown exaggerated hype that the authorities have claimed and that the media has willingly parroted.
Similar attacks were a staple of the 60's and 70's but the government and the media downplayed them because they were of minimal threat to anyone and to hype such non-events was handing a propaganda victory to the terrorists.
Since the very definition of terrorism is to influence government policy not by the attack itself but by hyping fear of new attacks, the government of Gordon Brown is engaging in terrorism by strongly intimating that fresh attacks are inevitable.
Brown came to power with an agenda to push through new anti-terror laws including wiretaps being admissible in court and extending the 28-day detention without charge law to 90 days. Though such proposals failed under Blair and Brown was expecting a fight to get them passed, expect them to breeze through Parliament with little opposition following the outright panic that has been generated as a result of recent events.
There were no high explosives, merely flammable substances. It looks more like an "inside job" to keep terrorism in the spotlight. A Mossad job would have killed dozens.
See the video of Larry Johnson speaking here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK5-jIfOBjQ
Johnson says, "They can afford a Mercedes, but they couldn't afford enough money to get a decent class in how to make a bomb that would actually go off."
About a week prior to the London 7/7 bombings - and about 3 weeks before the Sharm al-Sheikh 7/23 attacks - Israel believed it had been double-crossed by British Gas and Egypt:
Sharon preferred the Egyptian gas offer to the bid made by the Palestinian Authority-British Gas on the grounds that any cash flow to the Palestinian would end up bankrolling terrorist operations against Israel.
DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources reveal that, when Ben Eliezer shook the hand of Fahmi in Cairo, he had no notion that Egypt and Britain had secretly struck a separate deal behind Israel’s back. It provided for British Gas and its Palestinian partners - through the Athens-based Consolidated Contractors Company – CCC - to resume drilling at the Gaza offshore field and sell the gas to Egypt over the same 15-year period as the contract with Israel. This contract stands to put $150-200m a year in Palestinian pockets.
Britain and Egypt will lay a marine pipeline from the gas fields to El Arish outside which the British have begun constructing a gas refinery at Sheik Al Zwayed. A small part of its output will be piped to the Gaza power station to replace the energy supplied by Israel’s electric corporation.
The Israel-Egyptian military protocol if signed will turn El Arish into a boom port, the harbor of the Egyptian fleet and site of a gas terminal for European tankers to transfer liquid gas outside the Middle East. Britain is sinking $150 m into its construction. The refined Palestinian gas left over from its domestic use, about 60%, will be siphoned into Egypt’s gas pipe system which is linked to Jordan and by the end of summer 2005 will reach Syria. Egyptian and Palestinian gas will both flow through this system and it is entirely possible that Israel will end up with Palestinian gas after all.
DEBKAfile’s Palestinian sources add: The head of the Palestinian Electricity Company Walid Sayel (son of the PLO military commander in Lebanon General Saad Sayel who was murdered by the Syrians in 1993) is handling the project for the Palestinians. He
Is also the go-between with the CCC, which runs the Palestinian Investment Fund.
This turn of events is at complete odds with the Ariel Sharon’s energy strategy.
His decision to buy Egyptian rather than Palestinian gas was influenced by the following security considerations:
1. If Israel rejected Palestinian gas, it would have no alternative buyers given the world’s glut of gas.
2. The Palestinians would thus be denied revenues that would obviously have been used to fuel armed action against Israel rather than Gaza’s reconstruction.
3. Egypt has a surfeit of gas. Sharon hoped the transaction with Israel would have deterred Cairo from helping the Palestinians develop their own field.
4. Israel feels betrayed by Britain and Egypt. Both had promised helpful partnership roles in support of Israel’s evacuation of the Gaza Strip and undertook to create a new, effective Palestinian security force to quell terrorist activity. (A British MI6 secret service war room has been set up in the Gaza Strip). Now both are instead acting in ways detrimental to Israel’s security interests.
Source: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1051
Compare the situation just before 7/7/05 with the present:
GAZA CITY: The Palestinian Hamas movement, which seized control of the Gaza Strip this month, intends to ask for changes in an agreement with BG Group, giving it a bigger slice of the proceeds from a pending natural-gas deal with Israel.
“It is unreasonable that the owner of the gas, Palestine, gets 10% only,” Mohamed al-Madhoun, the director of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya’s office, told the Palestinian Information Center, a Hamas website. “The government has no problem co-operating with the British gas company but only after modifying some points of the 1999 contract.”
BG wants to develop the Gaza Marine gas field off the Gaza coast and build pipelines to sell gas to Israel. Under the initial proposals, BG would transport gas by pipeline to the Israeli port of Ashkelon, without crossing the Gaza Strip. BG’s discussions with the Palestinians have been mainly through the Palestinian Investment Fund, which is affiliated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s office.
“If the contract is changed, the economic consequences for Palestinian society would be tangible,” al-Madhoun said. Palestinians would be able to depend on their own resources, rather than on international aid, he said.
The Hamas website said the gas was found in two fields, one located 35km (21 miles) off the central Gaza Strip and the second near the Gaza-Israel border in the northern part of Gaza.
BG is also facing a petition by the Israeli company Yam Thetis, whose natural-gas reserves off Israel’s Mediterranean coast are currently the country’s sole source of the fuel. – Bloomberg
Source: http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=157599...
So just before the 7/7 attacks, Israel had been "betrayed" by having to pay top dollar for its energy supplies and was feeling the ignominy from the possibility of the Palestinians simultaneously receiving a decent income from gas sales. Two years later, BG (British Gas) Group is only too willing to supply Israel with Gaza gas, and the Palestinians are being offered only 10% of the proceeds.
http://ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com/2007/07/01/london-mayor-defends-...