I have to say, I'm quite baffled at all the bother this feature has caused. I tend to have a nigh-on kneejerk, hair trigger just on hearing the phrase "false flag"... 6 years of reposts from PrisonPlanet and WRH can do this to the most cynical person.But, I at least clicked on the link and gave it a chance. Okay, the title may sound like a fanfare to biggest load of non-researched rot from the alimentary canal of Alex Jones. But, I found it as a whole pretty balanced. Perhaps the parentheses around the word bomb was a bit too subtle?The title of the Craig Murray piece made me twitch, but having read it, it clearly and openly speculative.. it wasn't pretending to be otherwise. Wouldn't be top of my list, but at least it isn't some tripe citing other tripe citing other tripe.The media analysis piece from islamophobia watch was spot on. I was just a little disappointed the piece wasn't a bit more extensive... seems a little small for a media farce of such epic preposterous proportions.The Civil Liberties piece is BOG-standard, assuming there are no accuracy issues- none seem to have been raised.I think the Register article is iffy-ish. It's not inaccurate, as far as I know. Just a bit sloppy, rambling with pretty lazy and irrelevant editorial content. But worth posting and worth discussion. I'd would've liked to see more a more balanced stance with more of an emphasis on the methods of tackling the "bomb recipe" issue and the opportunism at play.United Against terrorism: obviously has to be covered. It's good to hear that "real" people are seeing past the propaganda.The Nafeez Ahmed piece was great stuff. Probably too pithy and dense for most readers (just like his books) but definitely a voice of sane research that gets drowned out by a mountain conspiracy crap. Read his books (meticulously researched) drink lots of coffee, but it's well worth it to occasionally pick your jaw off they floor; "They did what!???" The rest of the stuff in the revision seems pretty straightforward!I think the these most bizarre events need scrutiny. 1. Why did they happen? 2. What the hell was the media on? 3. Background to what we know about UK/Al Qaeda relationship. The MSM has overwhelmingly avoided these points and every "story" on the feature is worth a read. It's the kind of editorial I'd expect to see here and nutty false-flag trash free. It certainly covers a few grassroots activist areas: civil liberties; racism; anti-militarism to name but a few.Okay, I have to get back to my 'New-antisemitism for Dummies' book. A bit too high-brow for me, I fear.