{THE PILL BOX } spacer
powered by blogger


Is it just me (and have I been reading too many paranoid blog sites?), or is the timing of this MEGA TERROR SCARE, just a wee bit suspiciously convenient? Labour looked like having a possible backbench revolt on its hands over Blair's spineless support of the Bush administration's unqualified support of Israel's current ethnic cleansing programme in the Middle East. (Well, hey, let's call a spade a spade.) And - well, what do you know, all of a sudden, out of thin air, this incredibly convenient 'Bigger than 9/11' horror supposedly puts everything back into "perspective". (I.e., the same old Western ethnocentric perspective, that says OUR victims have more value than the Other's victims. Cue John Reid talking solemnly about a "loss of life of innocent civilians which would have been on an unprecedented scale." As if that wasn't what was happening in Lebanon! But it also gives him an 'in' to compare/contrast "EVIL methods" as against the "common cause ... internationally" we are all reminded to take again.

Already, some of the lines looks a little fuzzy. The first report I heard on News 24 said that the "initial intelligence" behind the sweeping U.K. police action this morning had come from across the Atlantic. But then only an hour later, the timeline had been adjusted: Reid had notified Blair in Barbados (and how convenient that this doesnt have Blair's finger prints on, ay?) - who had then phoned Bush ... AFTER which, the USA was "also put on high alert." Now - if the intel initially CAME from US Intelligence sources, why on earth did it have to take that roundabout trip before the US did anything?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven of misdirection, taking our gaze away from Israeli atrocities, U.N./diplomatic feet dragging - not to mention terrible things going on daily in Iraq, which is now in the middle of a Civil War in all but official recognition.

posted by Ian 8/10/2006 01:25:00 PM

surely changing storyline-timeline (in this particular way) is evidence of LACK of pre-planning in re: mediation of event? it depends a bit where you think the manipulation is: just in the timing (=a genuine terror cell, arrested only when convenient); or everywhere (an entirely bogus story soup-to-nuts)? but in both cases, the particular element yr adducing as sinister has to clamber past an everyday fact = news outlets get things wrong all the time, esp.instant 24hr rolling news sites

if this is fake, and both the two versions were reported accurately, then the "breaking story" element of it has to have been scripted = why not script it to their advantage, rather than provide fuel for paranoia?

but if it's an error in the reportage, then the coverup element vanishes

the thing that bugs me abt those kinds of sites is the "powers that be" are simultaneously all-knowing and all-powerful AND blundering cockup monkeys whose GREAT PLAN is full of silly holes that anyone can see if they look carefully
also: i can understand distraction when the event being distracted from is a potentially embarrassing report or one-day wonder which, once buried on the 10th page, will only resurface in footnotes -- but iraq and lebanon are going to be there at just the same awful intensity when this story banks back down

ie this doesn't distract, it piles on: "things falling apart everywhere on bush-blair's watch" -- i'm usually against world-run-by-secret-cabal theories bcz the root of them is rotten politics and poor analysis of how power works -- but sometimes they're quite comforting (as in "at least someone is in charge and knows what's going on") -- my dread today is that events are out of EVERYONE'S control; that huge lethal forces are being put in motion by the totally clueless

there may well spin in terms of "when is least worst time to bring this story to a head" (and as soon as there's discernible spin, natural response is to counterspin in our heads to most sinister effect -- which can be enormously dispiriting and siempowering, and is therefore on the whole a BAD IDEA... )
I dont really disagree with anything you say here, Mark. But I never really thought this fell under a Conspiracy heading anyway - surely its just good old bad old out in the open cynical/opportunist 'real politiking'?
(Another installment of today's post-Baudrillard 'we know that you know that we know that you know this is just spin' masquerade.)

There is obviously a huge gulf seperating 98% of so called conspiracy/paranoia-as-politics websites/blogs (look closer than a breakfast glance at most of their 'theories' and they crumble) and, say, a book like Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane, the work of a proper invetigative reporter and footnote sourcer and adept interviewer and old fashioned tireless journo. Yes, too much of waht passes as 'comment' or 'oppositionality' these days is driven by some need to react INSTANTLY, and to read everything, in a teen Gothic 'woe is me and the world' stylee, for its third shadowiest meaning; plus, the psychologically interesting inabilty to EVER accept 'screw up' (or even opportunistic exploitation) as plausible answer for *anything*...

But there IS weird shit being covered up out there, too... jsut cos youre paranoid dont mean theyre not out to fog up your brain with bizarro disinformation...
Today's conspiracy theory often becomes history years later - and is 'officially' documented. If we recall the 50s red scare, all kinds of mad shit was justified (nuclear arms race, blacklist, the ascendance of the rightwing, massive extension of intelligence capabilities etc. etc.).
It does bug me when folks go on about lizards, masons, illuminati etc. when the 'plot' is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE NEWS. Can't they just accept the high level of confusion and imcompetence among decision makers? This need for the 'big truth' leaves little room for INTERPRETATION.
I believe the term is 'Covert Spectacle' - what 'happens' appears obvious and 'clear' because of its audio/visual impact; but its 'meaning' becomes ever more murky. AGUIRRE
Post a Comment