Who Is Behind The Bombings? Is it Al-Qaeda Or Someone Else?

So lets look at recent events in a logical way.

On November 20th 2003, London was gearing up for a huge protest against the
visit of President Bush. The media had been hyping up the protests, as the
largest protests 'ever seen against a head of State'. More people were
expected to attend than had ever protested against Saddam, or Mugabe.

However, Bush seemed unnerved. He would smile when asked about the protests
and he said it didn't affect him at all. I couldn't understand this. This
man was being told he was the most hated man on the planet, and yet he
didn't seem to mind. Almost as if he 'knew' something no-one else did.

The news of Michael Jacksons sex scandals were given 2nd rate coverage in
light of the protests, which would culminate in a ceremonious 'toppling' of
Bush's effigy, to replicate the staged toppling of Saddams in Baghdad.

I was thinking all the while, unless the world should end, there is no way
Bush can divert the worlds media attention from this. If anything, there was
nothing he could do, to avoid the British public from seeing that his war
against terror was a phoney war. I was hoping the worlds media would
broadcast the protests and images of the toppling effigy would be beamed
throughout the world. Bush's calmness unnerved me.

It just wasn't logical.

On 20th November, I woke up expecting the news to be full of the protests.
But it wasn't.

Someone had bombed the British consulate and HQ of the HSBC bank in
Istanbul.

At 09:10 GMT the first blast had gone off outside the HSBC HQ, and 2 minutes
later, the second bomb went off. At 09:18 GMT, news channels in Britain were
stating 'Al-Qaeda has bombed the British consulate'.

I didn't understand. I watched the tv, to see how they had already figured
out within 6 minutes that Al-Qaeda had done this. I searched frantically and
all I could find were statements being released 'the bombings had all the
hallmarks of Al-Qaeda'. I wonder even now, what these 'hallmarks' are.

I was at work, and I joked to a friend, that soon an e-mail would arrive at
some Arab newspaper, where Al-Qaeda would accept responsibility. By
lunchtime, a Turkish newspaper had received that e-mail. To this day,
Al-Qaeda hasn't accepted responsibility for 9-11, 'their crowning
achievement'. The faked CIA tape of a fake Bin Ladin, gloating about 9-11,
has funnily stopped being shown on tv, since it was ripped to shreds by all
who saw it. Al-Qaeda hasn't owned up to any of the terrorist acts that it is
blamed of. Not until the perpetrators are in custody, do any admissions come
out.

The Bali bombings, the first WTC, the Karachi hotel bombings, the Kandahar
hijacking, 9-11.nothing. Al-Qaeda just don't do that. They don't admit they
have done anything. Well not until recently, well..not until the US bombed
Afghanistan and 'destroyed Al-Qaeda's communications capability'. Not until,
Al-Qaeda's network has been dismantled, and the cells under close watch, and
all communications between Bin Ladin and his followers, is now being made
via messenger boys on donkeys. When Khalid Sheikh was arrested, he even said
that Al Qaeda was no longer using e-mails or telephones to keep in touch, as
it was too risky, and the CIA had tapped everything.

So I don't understand how these messenger boys send the e-mails on their
donkeys.

It just isn't logical.

As the crowds gathered for the beginning of the protests, Bush and Blair
gave a televised address to the world. They re-affirmed the war on terror,
and cited the Istanbul bombings as an example of the kind of terror they
were trying to fight.

Bush seemed to have almost memorised what to say, through days of practice.
He condemned the acts and in his now familiar stage voice told the invasion
on Iraq, was part of the fight against terrorism. I didn't know Saddam was
part of Al-Qaeda until recently. Actually, I don't think Saddam knew he was
part of Al Qaeda until recently.

The news networks all over the world were showing the picturing of bloodied
faces, and the carnage in Istanbul. There was a small side mention of the
150,000 protestors who had marched through London, and toppled the effigy of
Bush. But nothing more.

I sat there and watched Bush's interview again. The smile, the confidence.
It was just perfect.

If ever there was a time that the US and UK needed an attack to occur
against BRITISH interests, it was well.at about 09:10 GMT on 20 November
2003.

Many commentators have said that the 9-11 attacks happened at the right time
for the US. And I think it is even more clear today that the Istanbul
attacks have happened at just the right time for Bush and Blair.


Either Al-Qaeda doesn't know what it is doing, or this wasn't Al Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda want the world to see the evil that Bush and Blair are doing. And
the protests would have done that. There was no need to bomb Istanbul. The
only, and reiterate ONLY people to benefit from the bombings are Bush and
Blair. It diverted attention from the protests, to the 'terrorists'.

I wish I had terrorists like that on my side. The kind that bomb the UN in
Baghdad, the day after the UN say that US forces should leave Iraq. The kind
that bomb a Bali nightclub, the week 250,000 Australians took to the streets
to protest the war. The kind that bomb a Riyadh compound full of Arabs, when
Saudi Arabian citizens are beginning to become increasingly vociferous in
their condemnation of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Since 9-11, and some say including 9-11, Al Qaeda has practically done
everything the US govt would ask its CIA to do. They have killed muslims.
They have killed their European supporters. They have timed each bombing to
maximise the amount of criticism they will receive and minimise the support
for their actions. Is that the actions of the 'biggest threat to mankind,
freedom and democracy' ? Logic tells me, that it isn't Al-Qaeda at all.

Now tell me, what does logic tell you ?