SUGGESTATION

(via Chickyog)

An incredibly moving post by Rachel North on the 7/7 bombings. First, as PDF notes in the comments there, it is important for everyone to put down harmful conspiracy theories. I am possibly the least known blogger on the planet, but if I can get one friend, work colleague, relative or random browser to read this, then great.

There is a lot we don’t know about the events on 7/7 (and indeed 9/11) - but we are also starting to hear the good, documented evidence. Conspiracy theorists often dismiss outright any evidence which contradicts their viewpoint, and in doing so debase the search for truth - something which hurts the very real survivors and bereaved relatives of those lost in these terrible events.

There are very good activists who question establishment narratives, and push for deeper investigation into events. The difference between these people and the conspiraloons is that they base their opinion on an objective view of evidence, rather than looking for evidence to support a proconceived opinion. We’ve all heard stories on how evidence was gathered, shaped and accepted or discarded in order to make a case for for the war in Iraq - conspiracy theory is constructed in the same way. Fitting that some of the most anti-establishment nuts adopt some of the worst examples of establishment behaviour.

Rachel’s piece is moving as it tells the story of one of the bombers, Mohammed Siddique Khan, saying goodbye to his two year old child before leaving. We must remember that we are facing human beings with human motives, hopes, fears and ambitions. When we devolve those we fear into some biblical ‘evil’ force, we cannot hope to understand. We do not have to agree with, appreciate, or in any way condone their motives - but without understanding, we cannot hope to succeed.

Septicisle has posted on the start of the liquid explosives trial.

When this case first came to light back in 2006, it was cited as the reason for the restrictions in airports on carrying bottled drinks - restrictions still widely in place today. The mainstream media carried numerous articles on the story, and ‘liquid explosives’ became the new ‘dirty bomb’.

The idea that these liquid explosives are a real threat has been pooh-poohed by some of the more skeptical press. Nevertheless, stories such as this will continue to dominate the headlines. Other, more mundane stories, often go virtually unreported.

As Septicisle quotes:

The prosecutor added that there was no evidence to confirm that the defendants had managed to build a “viable device”.
But he said it was clear that the would-be bombers would eventually have been able to achieve their ultimate aim.

The trial is ongoing, and it is for the court to decide innocence or guilt - if the defendants did try and build a bomb, however small their chance of success, then they are threats to society. Let us be realistic however - if their alleged plan was little more than the hairbrained scheme of a bunch of wannabe jihadists, with a miniscule chance of ever coming to fruition, then the media needs to be very careful in its representation.

The mainstream media uses sensationalism as a tool to increase interest (and ultimately profits), but this must not come at the price of objective reporting. I know. I’m being naïve.

I think Septicisle’s closing sentence says it best.