Wednesday, July 13, 2005

The London Bombings and Ufology

Firstly, can I again thank everybody who sent messages of goodwill after the recent bombings in London. I was actually very surprised by the volume of messages that came in and was very touched.

I make no apologies for the fact that what follows is going to sound a bit schizophrenic.

What is it these days with UFO Roundup and for that matter, Filers Files? The latest bulletin from Roundup has just come out and the lead item is about the outrage in London. What the feck has that got to do with Ufology? They do manage to twist into it some bizarre connection between the bombings and Jack The Ripper which makes the whole bulletin seem even more ridiculous than usual. But John H, if you're reading this, you're losing your way pal. And the conspiracy stuff is just inane.

I think I'm slightly pissed with the fact that these guys can include material that has nothing to do with Ufology and yet they both managed to totally ignore the biggest Ufological story for some considerable time, namely Nick Redfern's new book on Roswell.

A few days ago on the British site UfologyUK, Robert Rosamund, these days a leading light in BUFORA, was severely chastised by the List moderator Joe McGonagle for criticising him for an extremely parsimonious post about the bombings that Joe had put up. Joe's message was; no references to the atrocity here please, keep it strictly on Ufology. Go elsewhere if you want to express any feelings about the incident. Robert criticised Joe for what he considered was a nasty and unsympathetic post and was placed on moderation immediately because of it.

In terms of the principles involved, I can actually see both points of view. After something as shocking as the events of last Thursday, people are naturally very emotional and distressed and want to express their feelings. Would there have been any harm done if for a day or two, people had talked about what happened, even if it wasn't remotely connected with Ufology? Of course not.

On the other hand, Joe's point was that if the bombings were allowed to sway people away from the principle point of discussion of the List, then the bombers had "won". They were getting the publicity they wanted and were affecting people's lives when it might be better to ignore them as if they were insignificant and incapable of seriously reaching out to us. I can see where he's coming from with that too.

It was clear from Joe's irrational response that he obviously was affected by what happened and his actions towards Robert displayed a high level of emotion. On balance, I would side with Robert on this and I think Joe's response may have been a bit different if he actually lived in London instead of Stoke, 180 miles away.

Joe is prone to these occasional Machiavellian gestures at times and the results can be seen on the List. Of approximately a thousand members, maybe twenty to thirty, if that, actually post.

Elsewhere, the conspiracy crap has started about the bombings and I'm staggered by the crass ineptitude, insensitivity, and just plain utter stupidity of it all. I say to these sad excuses for humanity that are propagating this stuff, for God's sake go get a life. Tell you what guys, try talking to members of the opposite sex. You know, women and things. Oh, you've tried that and that's why you're turning out all this drivel. 'Nough said.

Stuart Miller


Blogger Aion said...

I am not sure what you mean by the conspiracy crap. By definition, if the bombings were carried out by more than one person, it was a conspiracy.

Wednesday, 13 July, 2005  
Blogger Stuart said...

Yes, of course, in the sense you mean it, it was. I mean, we're getting the same sort of stuff now that accompanied 9/11. For instance, there was supposedly a training exercise being run by a private company on the subway in connection with how to deal with a terrorist attack, at the same time as the bombs were actually going off, and this exercise was on the same rail lines as the ones where there were real bomb explosions. Supposedly.

There's other stuff as well involving the Israeli embassy in London, an alleged government involvement in the attacks, supposed deliberate confusion on the part of the police as to the timings of the explosions, shennanigans involving the mobile phone (cell) network and so on. I consider all this stuff is inappropriate.

Wednesday, 13 July, 2005  
Blogger Aion said...

Knowledge is justified true belief, Stuart. I don't think any of us know for certain who is responsible yet -- and it is extremely foolish, in my opinion, to ignore such facets as you suggest.

There was not 'supposedly' a training exercise. This has been confirmed. And if you do not find that synchronicity to be significant, then I simply don't know what else I can say to you to perhaps pursuade you.

False-flag operations are not as uncommon throughout history as you rebuke might suggest. I think you know this, so I won't presume to lecture. We owe it to the families and survivors of those who were so callously murdered in London to at least try to find the culprits. Closing down some avenues of investigation before they even begin is not going to help do that, and it sets a dangerous precedent.

Spies and psy-ops are very real in today's world. They're every bit as real as the shadowy terrrrr-ists. In fact, as you well-know, I believe they may be one in the same. To suggest otherwise is equally 'inappropriate' in my opinion.

Wednesday, 13 July, 2005  
Blogger Joe McGonagle said...

Hi Stuart,

A few things about your remarks...

1. The reason the individual was chastised was becase they made an off-topic posting after I had made it quite clear that the topic in question was not relevant to the list. Not for any cricism of me personally, I am well used to that!

2. I have seen terrorism from more angles than most. I come from a Belfast Loyalist background. Many of my contemporaries from school and even some family members became actively involved with the IRA/PIRA/INLA/UDA/UVF/UFF and probably a number of other three or four letter acronyms - as I mentioned in my post in ufologyinuk, terrorists are 10-a-penny. Turn over any stone, and you will find them scrabbling around underneath it.
My name is the same as my father's. Around the time of the "Free Derry" campaign and "Bloody Sunday", he worked undercover in Londonderry and as a consequence his name (the same as mine) appeared on a list of IRA targets. (Note to the IRA: it wasn't me, it was my dad and he died years ago, please leave my kneecaps where they are!).

I am not frightened of terrorist scumbags, I haven't changed my name, and I'm not shy about using it. If I did do any of those things, the terrorists would have scored a victory by altering my quality of life.

While I was in Ireland with my father, I heard bombs going off almost daily. I didn't alter my routine (I continued going to school, playing with friends, all the things that an 11 or 12 year old boy would normally do). If I (or my parents) had allowed the terrorists to interfere with my education or development, I would not be the same person that I am today, the terrorists would have scored a victory.

Of course, it wasn't only me that was exposed to all this, but the entire community got on with their life and didn't allow the terrorist scumbags to disrupt their lives any more than was absolutely necessary.

I could go on about the time that I nearly got shot by the RUC, the time I was within 150 yards of a bombe going off, not knowing if my father had been involved in it, or the time that the barracks that I was in in Germany got bombed, but at the end of the day, these events did not cause me to change what I did or who I am. If they had of done, the terrorist scumbags would have scored a victory.

As I mentioned earlier, my background is Belfast loyalist. When I announced that I was getting married to a Catholic, some of my family were not too happy about it. I didn't let that interfere with my life, I still got married to the "fenian bitch". (And even though I am now divorced, I hold her in the highest respect).

It has always amazed me how London-centric the UK is. A bomb goes off in Belfast - it gets a 2 minute slot on the 6 O'clock news, a few years later someone might get arrested for the crime, they get stuck in jail for a short time (perhaps having been found guilty of murdering a dozen people), then along comes Tony Blair and they get out of jail on an amnesty.

A bomb goes off in London though, and it gets daily news coverage for 2 weeks, they round up those supposedly responsible in a month (remember the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6?) and it's a big deal.

So what makes the London bombing so special that it should be discussed on a UFO list? The geographical relationship? The number of casualties? How many people have been killed in Iraq by bombs since it's "liberation"? Or the Russian theatre incident? The Russian school? How about the Israeli suicide bombing? Are foreign lives worth less than British lives? If not, why shouldn't they be discussed on-list as well? What about the British soldiers who have been casualties in Iraq - do they deserve list-space on a ufology list? Should the list policy be influenced by the actions of terrorist scumbags? if so, what else should we allow them to influence? Where would you draw the line, and why?

Do these remarks make me a fascist?

Joe McGonagle (and proud of my name)

Wednesday, 13 July, 2005  
Blogger Stuart said...

Well, that well and truly shut me up. Thanks for that Joe. A very powerful reply.

As I said in my piece, I could see your point of view. And I certainly take on board the point about where one draws the line.

The UK is London centric, as you say. When I myself would visit Northern Ireland regularly during the 80's, I'd roll off the ferry, turn on the radio, and then I'd start to hear all these news reports about incidents going on in the Province that just weren't in the news back on the mainland. I couldn't figure out why.

On the other hand, go to Norwich for example, turn on the local news, and you get the same thing. Seemingly major incidents happening locally and not making the national news.

It is not a case of prioritising so much as making a judgement based on impact. The London bombings made a massive impact globally and some might argue, merited some comment.

There's no easy answer. You developed a personal means of coping with the madness that was going on around you and you've employed that here. My criticism I suppose is, is it valid to make a judgement based on personal feelings without taking into account the different way in which others might feel about it?

But then, someone has to be in charge, and someone has to make those decisions.

Thursday, 14 July, 2005  
Blogger Stuart said...

Hi Shane,

I just can't see how wilder speculation helps anyone here. My personal reaction is to find it unhelpful and, quite frankly, silly. It's not a matter of closing down possible avenues of investigation and in that sense of course, the murky world of international terrorism holds no surprises at all in terms of possibilities.

Frankly, some of the comments have struck me as hysterical. If you want to hold that up as a valid means for some as a way of expressing their grief, then I have no problem with that. But if you're suggesting it as an acceptable way of pointing to possible avenues of investigation, then that's another matter.

I think we are coming at this from very different perspectives and I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other here.

Vive la difference.

Thursday, 14 July, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home