Monday, 28 March 2016

Lahore Bombing: Familiar Red Flags!

Hotel Fall Update.

As soon as I saw the BBC headlining the Lahore bombing on the 9 o'clock news,(5) complete with moving, heart-wrenching personal descriptions and on-scene camera images, I had those familiar uneasy feelings of deja vu, those familiar uneasy questions. What was the event for? What reaction was it meant to provoke? Who was actually behind it? Was it what it was purported to be or yet another 'False Flag', with which the world now appears to be plagued?

Tragically the reputation of the BBC has been besmirched by the revelations concerning its knowledge and protection of the serious misdeeds of Jimmy Savile. But much worse for its credibility, has been its biased and factually inaccurate representation of, particularly, events in Gaza and Ukraine and of the terrorist atrocities of, particularly, 9/11 in New York and 7/7 in London.

In all these instances it has done little more than provide an unquestioning outlet for government opinion. It has also gone beyond it, trashing the factual evidence of government conspiring to present a false story to the public. 

In the case of 9/11 from the very first, with the now legendary reporting of the collapse of Building Seven, (itself clearly a planned and coordinated demolition, unconnected to any plane) before it actually took place (1); through the rubbishing of scientists and architects with compelling evidence of fraud (2); to refusing to acknowledge or disseminate the truth about it. 

The same basic criticisms apply to the London tube bombings (3) where its treatment of those who have sought to reveal the truth, vindicated in criminal proceedings, as in the case of 'Muad'Dib' the author of the widely seen '7/7 Ripple Effect'.(4)

A much more detailed 'Global Research' discussion on BBC reliability in matters of world events and public policy can be found here (6).

I am sorry to say it, but we cannot trust the BBC when it comes to fair and accurate reporting, particularly if and when the events involve the security or intelligence services of this or other countries. 

Not only has it proved itself unreliable over what it reports, it has actively gone out of its way to undermine the truth, which for any patriotic Englishman, is very hard to accept. Either in respect of the BBC or Government. Nevertheless it is with this in mind that we must view its coverage - or absence of -any 'terrorist event', at home or abroad, and most recently in Lahore on Easter Day 2016.

The received 'wisdom' in the case of Lahore, as with events in Paris and Brussels, is that the outrages have been organised and carried out by ISIS-related jihadist entities and personnel. Nothing is allowed to challenge this basic narrative. Any countervailing evidence or indication is not given the time of day or allowed air-time. There can be no whiff of 'false-flaggery', despite its undoubted existence.

The very fact that this event, admittedly quite horrific, was given such immediate and prominent coverage, is therefore an immediate a warning sign. On the face of it, it might not seem strange given the circumstances, but it needs to be set in the comparative context of how other similar events have been treated. 

Of the two hundred and forty four (244) terrorist events in just six months from July to December 2015 listed here (7) , only a handful have been reported by the BBC and even less as headline news items across the network. This must tell us something about how 'news' is created and disseminated. It also tells us something about Lahore. It is as much shaped by the news empire, as it is by the terrorist! 

In this instance the main message was merciless Muslim violence against specifically Christians on Easter Sunday. Apart from the dubious nature of the claim that it was only Christians who were affected, it is so obviously in tune with the propaganda being pumped out from certain quarters that it shouts fraud. 

Women and children, as so often is the case, are given high profile. It incidentally maintains the momentum of Paris and Brussels, whilst conveniently distracting attention from the brutality (including murder by the IDF) and repression going on in the West Bank.

So the timing, thrust of the message, its treatment and its context is highly suspicious. Despite the inhospitable and remote location, it appears BBC cameras were on scene almost immediately to record in graphic detail the suffering.

Even Facebook immediately put a warning system into play that went disastrously wrong - or did it? 

Many (we don't know how many) subscribers were warned even if nowhere the scene. (Others may be able to check the timing of this for we often find planned events are often pre-announced in the media) Or was it an attempt to personalise and make real the event and generate anxiety and alarm, particularly in the United States and Europe? (8)

Then there are a number of additional, and now rather predictable tell tale signs that everything is not quite as it should be. 

Despite causing such devastation with presumably innumerable body parts blown everywhere, it is possible for the authorities to miraculously discover a 'skull', which it can not only identify but also attach to the bomber. Further, and yet again, the very helpful contribution by a miracle document that the bomber thoughtfully brought with him and which survived the inferno, to guide the police to the likely offender! 

The preposterous nature of this phenomenon amazingly replicates 9/11, 7/7, Paris and Brussels. As always we have the predictable 'crackdown' AFTER the event with the arrest of associates. No one ever explains how they are so quickly identified or why if known, the attack could not have been prevented. Sadly the fact is that usually government agencies are not only aware but also involved!

From 'Dawn' we get this: 

"DIG Operations Haider Ashraf said that at least 15 to 20 kg explosive material had been used by the suicide bomber. He said that police found the ‘skull’ of the suspect from the blast site and sent it for forensic analysis. To a question about the motive behind the terrorism, he said it would be premature to say anything at this stage. "However, the terrorist hit a very soft target of women and children," he said.

"An identity card police found from the site of the blast may be of the alleged suicide bomber. The DIG Operations said that according to initial inquiry, Yousuf, a young man from Muzaffargarh, might be the bomber. He said four friends of Yousuf had been detained by Muzaffargarh police from Basti Sohrani for questioning.

A witness, who was running a stall near the blast site, told reporters that a suspect aged between 20 and 30 was seen roaming in the park. He said one of the security guards of the Park had questioned 
him for his presence and then left him unattended." (11)

Vice, an agency that exclusively brought us the ISIS 'beheadings' has this: 

"Authorities said they had recovered one leg and the head of the suicide bomber, who they said was around 23 to 25 years old. Initial reports suggest at least 20 kg of explosives were used in a suicide jacket that also contained nuts and bolts." (9) 

Reuters has this : "Rescue services spokeswoman Deeba Shahnaz said at least 29 children, seven women and 34 men were killed and about 340 were wounded, with 25 in serious condition." (10) 

The timing of the Easter attack in Lahore and the way it was presented as a clash of religions and ideology and linked to events in India and Brussels is highly suspicious to my mind.

Why was the Lahore attack given such prominence by the BBC and other news agencies, whilst other similar have been virtually ignored? That is the question that needs to be asked. 

Whoever planted the bombs needed expertise, infrastructure, material and control, which might equally, if not more likely, be in the hands of those with a much wider global and coordinated agenda.'

1. See:

2. See the notorious interview with Niels Harrit here:






8. facebook apology: and




Fall from grace?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.