Responding to criticism that leftwingers smell conspiracies where none are present, Krustallos comments on the Guardian (bear with me) website:
"Scepticism is not the same as conspiracy theorising. We sceptics try and make no judgement that the available evidence will not support. The available evidence in this case consists of a number of highly ambiguous statements by police and politicians, all using the conditional tense - "intelligence suggested that devices were to be constructed" etc. They do not say at any point that explosives have been found.
Comparing the language used so far with the language used in previous episodes, combined with the Lebanon-unfriendly timing, is what leads many of us to suspect that there may be more, or to put it another way, less to this plot than meets the eye. And that the timing is more a matter of choice than necessity. But we will wait and see what actual evidence emerges in due course.
I really would have thought that after their governments invaded a country in search of non-existent weapons, killing tens of thousands and triggering a civil war, people would be a little less inclined to believe what they are told without question. Apparently not."
Of the hundred or so comments (from a total of 400+) that I read, the above seems the most sensible summary of today's situation vis the liquid bombers plot though I don't believe the Lebanon-timing connection - it's cock-up instead of conspiracy for me every time. I would advise you to read the postings - there are some great riffs there. (Oh, and of course one must believe that there are Islamic fascists who have no qualms about killing in the name of their beliefs).
Powered by Qumana