Terror threat Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
What enquiry is needed? London Underground, Visor Consultants and Local Police were conducting a 'Simulated Terrorist Bombing' at the same time, the same day and with simulateous bombs going off in the exact locations it actually happened. So the people paid to protect the public do have their finger on the pulse, they know the targets, they know how it will be done and how to react to it.
What more information do they need?
Co-incidence, yes, actual bombings and simulated response to simulated bombings.
So i agree with Clarke, there is no need for a public enquiry. No need to waste money.
I think it's totaly disgusting that people here value the life of one man, the brazillian Charles de Menezes over that of the 52 innocent people who died terrible agonizing deaths on 7/7! Why an enquiry into his murder and not the murder of the 52 innocent Londoners who died on that day? They were murdered too, and not by mistake people!! And there were 52 times as many of them! Is it because De Menzes was murdered by a white policeman, and the 52 bomb victims were murdered by those from a supposedly down trodden ethnic minority -so therefore it's ok then!? Let's all forget about it!?
The investigation really needs to go ahead, although the bombers are dead, I think there are definatly direct links to Al-Queda and the bombers were just the last link in the chain.
It's highly unlikely the police will shoot an innocent person by mistake again after the all the outcry over the De Menzes cock up, but a bombing is very likely to happen again, if you look all over the world terror attacks are everywhere, sadly I wouldnt be surprised if London is hit again.
I think what Joseph Stalin said is proved true by this: one man's death is a tragedy, the lives of millions just a statistic.
I think the government is just pulling its belts for London becoming more like Israel where public transport is bombed all the time. They dont bother with enquiries there and just clear up and get on with it, because it just happens so often.
- 2 Replies to Georgina
In response to georginaf72, your comment 'The investigation really needs to go ahead, although the bombers are dead, I think there are definatly direct links to Al-Queda and the bombers were just the last link in the chain' may well be true. But do we, the public, need to know? There are already investigations going on and the people that need to know the results, i.e. police, MI5, the government, will be informed and will plan for and try to prevent future attacks. How will a public inquiry help? If I and people like me know the full details of these attacks will it stop it happeneing again? No! The only purpose of an inquiry would be to satisfy the publics curiosity and morbid interest in how those poor people died. It could damage ongoing investigations by making sensitive information public, it would waste the time of the officials set to do it, it would waste public money, it would not tell us anything new and it would not change the fact that the bombings happened and the people are dead. Stop being so reactionary, don't allow yourself to get caught up in the self-righteous hysteria of the tabloids, and let people get on with more important work.
We don't need an enquiry to confirm that the bombers were members of AQ ! That mucg is public knowledge. I don't think there is any hysterics about the murder of the Brazilian either. However I am uncomfortable that our so called highly trained armed ressponse units could perpetrate such a cock up. Obviously they are not trained sufficiently to deal with this and displayed some levels of hysteria and panic themselves.
As another poster has noted, there seem to be a lot of calls for public inquiries into this or that event. Perhaps this is because many people have lost whatever faith they had in the integrity of the ruling party and mistrust any and all pronouncements they see fit to make.
We simply have to face the fact that there is to be no accountability to the people of this country from our political masters for the decisions they have taken.
In the typically weasel words of Charles Clarke, we are to be given a 'narrative' of events on and leading up to the 7th of July. More Newspeak. (Not unlike the blanket use of the word 'robust' which is used now to describe anything and everything, from an exchange of views, to a performance at PMQs, to a piece of legislature, or a government policy. It's use is infintely mutable, and, therefore adored by politicians who employ it all too freely, either as a pompous way of saying nothing at all, or as a catchall, get out of jail free card. As the Red Queen told Alice, 'Words mean exactly what I want them to mean.') It's rather like the glib, dare I say 'sexy', reduction of the 7th July to 7/7 which give media pundits their own cut price version of the 9/11 phrase. How thoughtful of the bombers to have given us so alliterative a date. Rolls so much more easily off the tongue than, say, twenty-ninth of April, or 29/4. Would that they had waited until the 24th of July, and then we could have had real confusion with 24/7. Indeed, I don't doubt it would have been 24/7 24/7.
This narrative Clarke promises will be written by a senior civil servant, and I would imagine we can look to this author to be as wholly unbiased in his appraisal as Hutton was in his judgement of the whole of the Kelly affair.
But, back to the question. Should there by an independent public inquiry into the July terror attacks? Yes.
Would we be allowed to learn anything from such an inquiry which might undermine the ruling party's stand on the "war on terror" or the invasion of Iraq? Not on your life.
I'm so close to rolling over and accepting that our political masters can do what they like -- for I sense that is what they would like: no more disapproval, no more difficult questions, just praise them with great praise... and yet... and yet...
Though a public inquiry might not achieve very much and would doubtless cost a lot of money (though not as much as the cost of keeping our forces in Iraq for a day), we should still have one to give the swines responsible for getting us into this mess an uncomfortable hour or two in the hotseat. For, in a country where a young woman can be arrested, charged and convicted under Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act -- for failing to notify the police that she was going to stand at the Cenotaph and read out the names of British service personel killed in Iraq -- we surrender our right to question, and thereby our freedom, at our peril.