Ex-Ambassador Craig Murray is a Conspiracy Nut

The BBC reports:

Earlier reports said bouncers from a nearby nightclub said they saw the car being driven erratically before it crashed into a bin. They said the driver then got out and ran off.

If you want to be a successful bomber, you should never drink and drive.

UPDATE

And former ambassador (!) and RESPECT-backed “Independent” parliamentary candidate Craig Murray asks “Cui Bono“:

But whoever did this, the only people who can possibly benefit are the vast and ever-burgeoning security industry of all kinds, and those who want discord between the Islamic World and the West.

Attaboy Craig! That’s the way to go if you want to carve out a career for yourself as a nutter conspiracy theorist!

UPDATE again

Craig Murray in the Comments denies being a conspiracy theorist. This is why I think he is.

Craig’s post starts by lambasting the Police for discussing the context within which this bomb attempt took place: namely, a high level of jihadist activity in the United Kingdom:

Peter Clarke, the Met’s anti-terrorism point man, gavea press conference claiming he was not going to speculate, but then doing everything he could to indicate it was an Islamic plot. He referred to other recent cases, including the Barot case, in which night clubs were mentioned as targets, and the use of gas canisters in cars discussed. The one bit of modus operandi pointing another way – the fact it wasn’t a suicide bomber – he was at pains to explain away by speculating that the driver had lost his nerve.

Of course the last time a nail bomb was actually exploded among clubbers in Central London, it was by a homophobic fascist. So it is right to keep an open mind.

Indeed it was. And so might this bomb be.

However, the Admiral Duncan bomb went off as part of what was evidently a neo-Nazi campaign. Bombs were also aimed at black people and asian people.

This attempted bombing does not take place in the middle of a neo-Nazi bombing campaign, so there is no special reason to think that it is such a bombing.

Now, here comes Craig’s conspiracy theorising

But whoever did this, the only people who can possibly benefit are the vast and ever-burgeoning security industry of all kinds, and those who want discord between the Islamic World and the West. Unfortunately, the extremists on all sides are strengthened by this incident.

There’s your conspiracy theory.

Craig asks “Cui Bono”? Cui bono in this context means: “to find out who planted the bomb, we need to know who benefit from it”.

That is a fair question to ask: but not if “cui bono” is used to suggest that people swallow whatever conspiracy theory you’re peddling.

Craig Murray’s first bit of speculation as to who benefits is “the burgeoning security industry”. That is who, primarily, he thinks benefits from the bombing. That is who Craig Murray thinks we should be suspecting.

He then goes on to speculate that:

Brown had already made plain he supports further anti-civil liberties legislation. This produces just the kind of febrile atmosphere in which that can be done. The television news is already pushing 90 day detention without charge again.

The obvious and intended implication is that the “security industry” is trying to influence public policy making.

In the Comments below, Craig Murray adds:

That the bomb was planted by the State is one of the least likely possible explanations – certainly, if you mean by that (and you said it, I didn’t) sanctioned by ministers I should say that is almost 100% impossible.

So Craig Murray makes it even clearer. He is pushing the view that freelance State security agents were responsible for this attempted bombing, without the knowledge of the Government.

Later Craig Murray posted this addendum to his original piece:

“I am adding this para in response to blogs attempting to say that I am claiming the bomb was planted by the State. I have not changed the above, and plainly it does not say that. In fact, I think that is one of the least likely explanations – . I have no idea who planted it. I am saying we should not leap to the conclusion it was Islamic fundamentalists. It could be, or it could be other extremists, or interests, who benefit from the War on Terror. The Cui Bono test throws up a number of possibilities. “

Precisely which “interests” does Craig Murray think may be benefitting, and therefore plausibly behind, this bombing?

In summary:

– It is, apparently, right to speculate that the “security industry” planted a bomb without Government knowledge, and to insinuate that the bombing is connected with attempts to increase the period of detention to 90 days.

– By contrast, it is wrong for the police to speculate on a possible connection between a bomb in central london, and a high level of jihadist activity in the United Kingdom.

Why doesn’t Craig Murray just come out and tell us straight what he thinks.

Or is he frightened that the spooks will get him, for saying too much…?

Further Update:

Nick in the comments draws my attention to an additional spasm of madness from Craig, who explains his “Cui Bono” theory.

Let me be quite clear again: Islamic extremists may very well be responsible. I am not saying they are not. I am saying nobody knows yet. But let me expand a bit on my Cui Bono theme.

There are plenty of companies – and wealthy individuals – making huge amounts of money from both the War on Terror and its equally ugly sister, the War in Iraq. There has been much speculation that Brown will edge away from both of these. If British troops were to withdraw from Iraq, for example, that could reduce the access currently enjoyed by companies, including Aegis and BAE, to billions of dollars of US government contracts for arms and mercenaries. These companies make money out of killing. Death is their business. Today’s car bomb – and the immediate media presumption it is Islamic terrorism – certainly forces Brown further into the War on Terror. The fact that the Iraq war is the root cause of an upsurge of terror in the UK, strangely does not negate the surge of political support for the War that this sort of incident brings as a reflex reaction from our leaders.

I am not saying it was Aegis or BAE. I am saying don’t be one-eyed about the possibilities.

This man used to be a British Ambassador.

Evidently, you can’t get the staff nowadays.