Someone else has just pulled me up for being a tad harsh about the media coverage of that day, particularly the coverage given to the firefighting operation…
Stef. I didn't have the opportunity to say before, but in the later clips on Al Jazeera (English), I saw 3 lines in operation against the burning car. Probably water (no layering observed). I think it's likely that a risk/damage assessment was made by the people on the scene and they did what they thought was necessary at the time until more info/pesonnel came in. Also, the media will always* try and show the most dramatic pics of such an incident.
Your observation at the time, while reasonable all things considered, was I a wee bit harsh.
Gosh that wasn't easy to say having realised the number and extent of USUK false flags over the years.
* unless it exposes the truth of British army/establishment crimes or those of their US buddies, in iraq for example.
Which is fair enough.
Since I made my original post someone took the time to explain why a specialist airport fire-fighting team was not on the scene. Fine. I asked a question and someone answered. I never doubted that the firemen were doing their best to deal with the fire but something wasn’t right. Even we Conspiraloons™ acknowledge that cock-ups, as opposed to conspiracies, happen sometimes.
And no doubt our sensationalism-hungry media will get stuck into the story of British Airports which, in the midst of a domestic war on terror that will last for generations, have reduced fire-service cover and no armed police on site but have all the resources they need to compile biometric databases and to jerk their passengers around in the pursuit of nonsense
/ starts waiting patiently
/ not holding breath
Let’s not kid ourselves here. The media coverage of the Glasgow attack was hysterical and no effort was spared in emphasising the scale of the ‘Terror Threat’.
The BBC, in particular, should be held to account for the way it is covering this and other issues. Unlike any other media organisation the BBC is funded by compulsory taxation. The rationale being that this liberates the BBC from crass, commercial pressures. What we get instead, taking the War on Terror as an example, is a succession of wanker-‘experts’ spouting bullshit and half-truths as they plug their risk consultancy service/ book/ spooky paymaster’s agenda. Fuck that, I can get shit like that on Sky for free.
Here's a relink that Keith Olbermann clip on the subject of bullshit War on Terror reporting I already linked earlier this month...
The War on Terror pays well. The Not War on Terror is considerably less lucrative
And to be honest, the often-repeated observation that ‘the media will always seek the most dramatic images and accounts of an incident’ is so full of exceptions and caveats as to be effectively useless. To have meaning it really needs restating along the lines of ‘the media will always seek or create the most dramatic coverage that fits its controllers’ agendas’
Which is why for example...
- Stories of Egyptian spies falling off balconies in London get piss-all coverage
- The story that someone was smearing polonium all over London is very tightly controlled and subject to a fraction of the sensationalism there would have been if Muslims had been involved
- And not forgetting bollocks stories about a pair of antiquated Russian bombers diddling around the Arctic that get reported as being a portent of a new Cold War
And so on, and so on
Anyone with even a passing interest in the output of the British press surely can't help but feel the stage is being set for another conflict somewhere. There's an almost palpable sense of looming confrontation just over the horizon. Probably not with Russia, maybe with Iran, maybe with somewhere else. I'm not even sure it matters who we end up fighting, as long as we're fighting someone. All we are doing now is waiting for the papers to be told to tell us who it's going to be...