| |
 |
Saturday, June 30, 2007 |
WISTV: "Police in London confirm a second car bomb has been discovered in the city.
... the bomb was 'potentially viable'."
What are 'potentially viable bombs'? A bomb is a bomb. 'Potentially viable' means anything that could explode, such as a car, a tv set, a patio gas barbecue, a laptop battery. So we are not talking about real bombs here. It seems the stuff was put there to create a scare, nothing else. The stories and videos showing how lethal something like that could potentially have been were ready for broadcasting. The period and time of the scare were carefully planned.
And police is doing everything to limit the information to a minimum. Why have they made the car's number plate invisible? I would think that in order to get the criminals the first thing to do would be to give the public all information about the car and show pictures of the driver. The car must have been registered in several cctv and other systems as it was parked in the congestion charge area.
And why would anyone want to detonate a bomb in a sturdy Mercedes? I suppose an explosion would only set the car on fire and keep the blast very much inside.
NoQuarter: "For starters, gasoline is not a high explosive. If we were talking 50 pounds of Semtex or the Al Qaeda standby, TATP, I would be impressed. Those are real high explosives with a detonation rate in excess of 20,000 feet per second. Gasoline can explode (just ask former owners of a Ford Pinto) but it is first and foremost an incendiary. If the initial reports are true, the clown driving the Mercedes was a rank amateur when it comes to constructing an Improvised Explosive Device aka IED. Unlike a Hollywood flick the 50 gallons of gas would not have shredded the Mercedes into lethal chunks of flying shrapnel."
Guardian: "The builders of the bomb found in central London today would have probably been 'keen amateurs', an explosives expert said.
Patio gas cylinders found by police in the light green Mercedes would have been an unlikely weapon for experienced terrorists unless they wanted to create a fireball for the cameras, Sidney Alford, founder of explosives company Alford Technologies, told Guardian Unlimited."
Craig Murray asks the usual question in a case like this: "cui bono?", who profits from it?
In short, a 'potentially viable bomb' is NOT a bomb. Another gem to be added to the British 'family jewels'? A big blow-up, indeed.
Some alternative comments:
TheDailyMash: "Mr Brown is understood to be disappointed with MI5's effort, describing it as 'half-arsed and transparent'.
A source close to Brown said: 'The PM wanted to start things off by scaring the absolute, holy shit out of people.'"
TheSpoof: "Police were called at 2am after a bomb in London did not explode and was heard many, many miles away in Manchester. Scotland Yard said detectives were investigating how the bomb came to be heard so many miles away when it never even exploded."
12:20:13 PM 
|
|
TruthOut: "Striking down an antitrust rule nearly a century old, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that it was not automatically unlawful for manufacturers and distributors to agree on minimum retail prices.
The decision will give producers significantly more, though not unlimited, power to dictate retail prices and to restrict the flexibility of discounters."
In shrill contrast with the above is this:
CommonDreams: "The American Civil Liberties Union is asking a federal judge to void a new law making it a crime to sell products with the names of dead soldiers. It may be the first such challenge of any law of this kind in the nation."
11:44:11 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
