The London Bridge (June 3rd) Attack – Notes, Observations & Problems…

Armed police during London borough market terror attacks, June 3rd 2017

To be clear from the outset, what is said in this post is NOT to make an argument that the June 3rd terror attack in London was a ‘hoax’ or totally fabricated psy-op (as some others are suggesting).

That isn’t what I’m arguing here.

Rather, I’m asking the question of whether this attack was – like Manchester – a more complicated case of what I call ‘state-enabled terrorism’, enabled or encouraged to happen for various reasons.

For clarity’s sake, I’m assuming – as I usually do – that there was a real attack and real victims and real violence.

For one thing, the sheer volume of eyewitnesses who testified to the van attack, the men with knives and the general chaos leaves me in no real doubt that the attack did happen. I’m not relying on TV news media or on newspaper reports for that, but primarily the multiple eyewitness call-ins to overnight radio on the 3rd/4th June, from which it is clear that a genuine horror story and mass panic did occur in London that evening and that innocent people were targeted by marauding attackers.

However, it remains as important as ever to maintain critical thinking and to not get sucked into the psychological warfare, population control or mass conditioning.

Admittedly, there’s a lot of confusion in this story and what happened on Saturday. Curiously, even CNN  apparently used the term ‘psy-op’ when covering the June 3rd attack, which is itself fascinating. I tend to think confusion is actually part of the psychological warfare.

As argued multiple times before, in many ways the micro details aren’t even the main issue – because it is demonstrable at the macro level that there has been substantial state/intelligence-agency collusion with the ‘terrorists’ and extremist networks and that our present paradigm of false-flag attacks and the ‘terror wave’ seems rooted in the Gladio strategy.

Nevertheless, it remains valuable to look at the micro details of specific attacks anyway, so that we don’t get swept up in the tide or go along with the continuation of a fabricated psy-opera.

And there are a number of things that really should be noted, concerning this latest attack. I’ll touch on them one by one.

To start with, the obvious thing: the timing.

A terror attack to terrify British voters into making the ‘right choice’ in a few days time? Possible. The first attack clearly hadn’t done the job well enough.

Even if these weren’t state-arranged psy-ops, Theresa May‘s government was so worried about their poor performance in this election lead-in so far, so concerned about the opposition leader’s unexpected progress in polls and general perception, that – frankly – some must’ve been grateful for the two separate terror attacks – one in Manchester, and now one more in London.

This latest came just five days before the British people are due to cast their votes in the election – an election that will now unfold in a climate of total fear and anxiety and in which security might be foremost in people’s minds.

It is hard to imagine this attack won’t influence a number of voters, and moreover that it won’t influence campaigning and rhetoric in the remaining few days. ESPECIALLY when one of the two main party leaders is being continuously portrayed as a ‘friend of terrorists’ or as a terrorist sympathiser.

It is also curious that there hadn’t been a major terrorist incident in this country for 12 years: until a snap general election was called, since which we’ve had two very major attacks in under two weeks.

 Daily Mail frontpage, Jeremy Corbyn 

The extent to which Theresa May’s lead in the polls has been unexpectedly reduced in the days prior to the June 3rd attack cannot be understated. Reuters reported (on June 3rd) that her lead had been reduced to just one percentage point. “British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservatives have a lead of just one percentage point over the opposition Labour Party ahead of the June 8 election, according to a Survation poll conducted for the Mail on Sunday newspaper,” it reported.

The London attack also happened on the same day as the annual Bildeberg meeting.

And one of their most pressing concerns might conceivably have been to make sure Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t get the keys to Downing Street.

The three suspected attackers, shot dead by police, are reported to have been wearing *fake* suicide-bomb vests.

This is the oddest aspect of the reports: if the attack used a vehicle to kill people and then knives to kill more people, what was the point of fake suicide vests? If it was to terrify people, the vehicle attack and the horrific knife attacks would’ve done that anyway.

It’s possible, of course, that the perpetrators were just not right in the head or maybe they were obsessed with the imagery of suicide-bombing (even if they didn’t actually have explosives); but that part still seems very odd.

 London Bridge attacker wearing fake suicide vest 

It also seems odd that as many as 48 people are reported to have been seriously hurt (in addition to the seven innocent people murdered): while it is possible that three attackers got to that many people in the space of about 8 minutes, it seems a little counter-intuitive. If that many people have been hurt, there must’ve been more than three people doing the attacking – had the attack been reported as going on for fifteen to thirty minutes, it would make more sense, but we’ve specifically been told that all three attackers were dead within 8 minutes.

8 minutes, 3 attackers and 55 victims, just doesn’t translate right.

I entirely acknowledge, however, that I may simply be being too cynical, given past instances of false-flags or state-collusion.

According to some reports, ‘Four controlled explosions were heard near The Sun’s offices in London Bridge between 1:20am and 1:50am’.

Were there bombs involved? If so, why did they wear fake explosive-vests?

And what was the story concerning the ‘Blue Thunder’ helicopter?

According to multiple newspapers, including The Telegraph, a Special Air Service (SAS) counter-terrorism team had landed on London Bridge (apparently in the ‘aftermath’ of the attack), though apparently they played no role in the operation.

According to The Telegraph, ‘The elite SAS unit nicknamed ‘Blue Thunder’ is understood to have arrived after the attack had been ended by armed police, and sources said they played no role in confronting the three terrorists.’ It adds, ‘The Ministry of Defence declined to comment on special forces operations, but a Whitehall source confirmed the helicopters were carrying SAS troops.’

The Daily Mail, in a piece of confusing journalism, says the ‘Blue Thunder’ squad ‘joined in the hunt for three attackers’.

But the reports are all that the Blue Thunder unit didn’t arrive until after the attack was over; and in the same Daily Mail article, it is affirmed that the ‘Three jihadis were shot dead by armed police who arrived on the scene within eight minutes of attack…’

Which is it then? Did they join in the hunt for the attackers or not?

And, if they did, why did they arrive after the attack was over – and if the police had shot dead all three attackers within eight minutes, what the hell was the ‘Blue Thunder’ unit doing after this?

 A Blue Thunder SAS helicopter in London during the June 3rd terrorist attack 

Interestingly, the article also says ‘Special Forces unit had been rehearsing terror scenarios including how to take out rampaging jihadis’.

This specialist SAS unit was, according to some reports, established after the November 2015 Paris attacks (of which these recent UK attacks are our version).

Also interesting, the name ‘Blue Thunder’ comes from a movie of the same name: the film is apparently about a ‘helicopter pilot who discovers a Government Conspiracy to use an experimental Black Helicopter for urban riot control’, involving ‘a conspiracy to incite unrest in the city’s ghettos in order to showcase the new helicopter.’

Now, as I’ve already written here a bunch of times before, the Islamist terror wave in the West appears to be based on the Gladio model of false-flag attacks for the purpose of controlling the population and expanding state power.

As it happens, the SAS, we might note, played a part in Operation Gladio – the NATO-backed programme that murdered civilians in multiple acts of false-flag terrorism in Europe decades ago. A hat-tip to Aanirfan for this piece of archived press from 1990, testifying to that fact.

The presence of special forces and units always raises questions, just as was the case for the Paris attacks and the Charlie Hebdo attack, where – in both cases – masked and armed special ops units would’ve been virtually indistinguishable from the masked and armed ‘terrorists’.

This is one of the immediate problems in sending special ops units out into public places, as France did after Charlie Hebdo.

To illustrate this point, the first picture below shows French special forces deployed on the day of the Charlie Hebdo attack (read more about the Charlie Hebdo false-flag here) and the second shows the alleged terrorists – aside from what we were told happened, how the fuck can anyone know the difference between the two…?

 Special Forces, masked men, during Paris terror attacks in 2015

Masked gunmen attacking Charlie Hebdo office in Paris, 2015 

I fear that Britain is going to normalise the same thing as France has: special ops units and armed forces out in public on a permanent basis. It was a fear I was in fact expressing from Charlie Hebdo onwards.

That suspicion was heightened earlier this year when, just before the Westminster terror attack, Cressida Dick was appointed the new head of Scotland Yard. Prior to this, she was best known for having been the officer in command of the operation that saw the fatal shooting of electrician Jean Charles de Menezes in the London Underground in 2005 (after the 7/7 attack) by a special forces unit. She has previously been Head of Counter-Terrorism and ‘Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations’.

For twelve years after 7/7, there had been no major attack in the UK: after Cressida Dick was appointed as head of Scotland Yard a few months ago, there have now been three attacks.

And regardless of whether real terrorists did or didn’t go on the rampage on Saturday 3rd June (again, I tend to believe there were real jihadi attackers), we know that there was a special forces unit on the ground in the area. We’re now told that officers fired 50 shots or so into the three terrorists, which sounds much more like SAS or a special ops unit than police officers even though the newspapers have all said that the ‘Blue Thunder’ unit wasn’t involved in stopping the terrorists.

Curious too that Theresa May used the attack to firmly reestablish her plan for Internet regulation and taking more control of cyberspace; as opposed to talking about the violent jihadism that has been deliberately nurtured and utilised by British intelligence agencies for the purposes of geopolitical warfare in the Middle East (or the fact that she was Home Secretary in the years that radical jihadists were heading over to Libya, Syria and Iraq).

Having already brought in the Investigatory Powers Bill (Snoopers Charter) a couple of months ago – which clearly hasn’t helped to stop massive terror attacks, if the evidence of recent weeks is anything to go by – her immediate instinct was to now push for more control of the Internet. None of that is really to do with countering extremism or stopping terrorism: but is about establishing thought control and thought police and pushing us firmly into the 1984 paradigm.

As things currently stand, we are heading firmly into a police state – and each terror incident pushes us that bit closer.


So what happened on Saturday night?

I tend usually to gravitate towards the likelihood of state-enabled terrorism involving real terrorists rather than total fabrications. It could’ve been a real terrorist/jihadist attack, possibly state-enabled (aided by special forces or intelligence operations), along Gladio lines.

In some ways, it almost doesn’t matter: because, as said earlier, the whole business of ‘ISIS’ and the current terror wave is a false-flag at the macro level anyway, as Manchester demonstrated (where there was probably a real suicide-bomber – but he was himself the product of the intelligence community and regime-change/foreign-policy operations).

Whatever the answer, I am not questioning that people were killed, innocent bystanders were stabbed, and that a barbaric attack did occur.

Whatever the full truth of this attack is – whoever was involved, whoever carried it out, whoever enabled it, and for whatever mixture of reasons – it was, by definition, an act of callous terrorism: in that scores of innocent people in London were terrorised and traumatised, and while some were the victims of physical, horrific violence, everyone else is also the victim of deliberate psychological warfare.

What I am urging, however, is that we all maintain our critical thinking, our ability to question what we’re told, and we don’t allow ourselves to be taken for a ride.

We’re in an age of mass psychological warfare. The result of this attack is what we now have to watch and assess. Again, just as with Manchester, all mainstream political and media commentary is completely divorced from the history of state/intelligence collusion with extremist networks and jihadists. A psy-opera is clearly being played out still (this attack also happened the day before the big ‘One Love’ concert to commemorate the Manchester attack) and perception is still being carefully configured and manipulated.

And that’s without even considering the possibility or likelihood that these ‘attacks’ may continue. Where we’ll end up if the attacks do continue is anyone’s guess. It won’t be anything good.


Read all ‘False-Flag Terror’ posts here.

S. Awan

Independent journalist. Pariah. Believer in human rights, human dignity and liberty. Musician. Substandard Jedi. All-round failure. And future ghost.


  1. Great job! You are on the right track!! I am no fan of Corbyn, but no ends justify these means. In some ways, fake/synthetic terror is worse than the real thing. Distinguishing just what was real and what wasn’t is immensely challenging.

    But you made all the correct observations, in my opinion. No doubt these two attacks were part of a strategy to prop up May. I say that as an American conservative and Trump supporter.

    Our integrity rests on our ability to go against our own ideology when truth demands it.

    I’m no fan of May, but even less a fan of Corbyn. Yet, these attacks very much parallel Operation Gladio. And once again, the Left is getting screwed over by false-flag terrorism. I’m sick of it. I don’t care what the agenda is. No more false flags!

    Sorry…I’m a little impassioned about this.

    But as I said, you have made astute observations. In total, the pieces don’t add up as “reality”. Particularly the people being paraded with their hands behind their heads. As a film critic, I must ask: how was the camera person able to set up such a perfect shot?

    In other words, is it a critically unstable area (as indicated by the humiliation of these bystanders), or is it a secured area (as evidenced by the camera’s position). Probability says it can’t be both.

    Classical logic says it must be one or the other (assuming I have framed it accurately with my premises).

    Beyond all that, I think I have come to know acting when I see it. I contend that the hands-up gaggle were actors. And, in totality, the event was an affront to truth.

    Again you nailed it… The One Love Manchester concert. This is spectacle. I’m not buying it.

    And how, some may ask, would any decent person go along with such fakery? Because the participants have been convinced that they will be preventing REAL attacks in the future.

    It’s controlled burn. The only question is, “how much burn was there?” As Guy Debord wisely said, “reality erupts within the spectacle, and the spectacle is real.”

    God bless you for standing up to this insanity!


    • Thanks Paulydeathwish. I really respect your statement too about going against our own ideologies for truth. I can respect that you’re not a Corbyn fan, but are nevertheless on the side of truth and against conspiracy. That’s really how we should all be.
      I’m not a Trump fan – but I’ve stood up for him where I think he’s made legitimate statements. And even *then*, I’ve gotten a negative reaction for ‘defending Trump’ – even though 90% of what I’ve written has been critical of him.
      I also now have to Google ‘Guy Debord’, as I’ve no idea who that is – but I like the quote a lot.

  2. After each of these latest events the tory party have made clear they believe more needs to be done in the sphere of cyberspace in combating the ideology etc. It is also in black and white in their manifesto what direction they are heading with their plans for the internet:

    “Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree. While we cannot create this framework alone, it is for government, not private companies, to protect the security of people and ensure the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses abide. Nor do we agree that the risks of such an approach outweigh the potential benefits.”

    Pulled straight from the tory manifesto under A FRAMEWORK FOR DATA AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY it is obvious from the above paragraph that they want complete control of the internet to give their corporate donors greater freedom and to make sure the only news we get is the news that new and approved from big brother. It goes on to state:

    “So we will establish a regulatory framework in law to underpin our digital charter and to ensure that digital companies, social media platforms and content providers abide by these principles. We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law. ”

    How long before they are cracking down on bloggers and independent news sites? How long before the internet as we know it, with differing opinions and viewpoints squeezed out, is redesigned in the tory image, until all we have in an official echo chamber of government sanctioned talking points? If this election results in a tory victory with a large majority you can bet that they will use these recent “terrorist” events as justification for their draconian/orwellian measures to cut us all off from everything but the official propaganda. The Investigatory Powers Bill will look like a warm and friendly blanket compared to what they will do next with a bigger majority in parliament and recent terror events will continue to maintain their control.

    • Thanks Trinkats – I haven’t bothered reading the manifesto, so I’m glad you’re wise to it. In terms of cracking down on bloggers and independent journalists, I fully expect that crackdown to come if Theresa May wins the election. And sites like this one – and many others – will be in serious trouble.
      It is going to be an across-the-board operation: the Snoopers Charter is one part of it for policing ordinary citizens. May’s attack on the Internet will go after bloggers, YouTube posters and alternative platforms and ‘fake news’. Meanwhile, a couple of months ago they were also discussing legislation being prepared that will send *mainstream* journalists to jail if they publish anything obtained from ‘whistleblowers’, while at the same time increasing the prison sentences for whistleblowers to (I think) 14 years.
      Most journalists themselves aren’t even talking about it – even though it would be an attack on their own freedoms.
      And too many people aren’t aware of how much is at stake in this June 8th election.

  3. I think the video you are on about is circulating on social media but one thing that is not mentioned much is the tweet by the met police regarding the attacks, tweeted at 4.50pm on 3rd june, 5 odd hrs before the attack, very strange!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.