The attack on London represents a brutal attempt to coral the British population behind accepting the introduction of the national ID card, renewing support for the war on terror and reinvigorating trust in a government that had the backing of less than 15 per cent of the country.

Even at this very early stage it is clear that the evidence points to inside involvement.

The statement on a website from an unknown Al-Qaeda group claiming responsibility is exactly what we'd expect after such an event. Santa Claus could post a message saying he was responsible for the attack, does that make it so? Rupert Murdoch's Sky News are busy playing Al-Qaeda training videos with masked militants jumping through flaming hoops. The emotive propaganda is clear, these images are being linked in montages with past images of 9/11, the Bali bombing and the Madrid bombing and injured people crying in the streets.

Even if the police and government back away from the Al-Qaeda claim, which now appears to be the case, pro-establishment Neo-Con media outlets will repeat it like an endless drumbeat until it sinks in.

The key evidence thus far is as follows.

Original Associated Press and Israeli radio reports stated that Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli Prime Minister received a warning before the first explosion that an attack was about to take place. Scotland Yard passed on a warning to the Israeli embassy who forwarded it to Netanyahu. Netanyahu was due to make a speech at a Hotel adjacent to the site of the first blast. He cancelled the speech and remained in his hotel room.

Arutz Sheva sourced Army Radio with the following.

"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit."

For an hour after the first blast, the government and the news media were reporting that the cause was an electrical power surge. If the government knew bombs were going to go off before they did, why did they report for an hour that it was an accident? Were they trying to bide time so they could get their story straight?

Both Scotland Yard and the Israelis have since denied that they had any foreknowledge of the attack.

Since the original report, major TV news networks have been completely silent on the Netanyahu story. They are just repeating claims that there was no prior knowledge.

About an hour after the story broke, Associated Press started altering their online news stories, stating that Netanyahu got the warning after the first blast and not before. It seems as if they are scrambling to co-ordinate their cover story. Either there were no warnings or the warning was after the first blast. The dithering seems to suggest there is some confusion on how to successfully hide the smoking gun, the fact that Netanyahu was warned before the first explosion.

Why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

On June 7th, MI5 downgraded the London terror alert from its second highest level “severe general” to a lower category of “substantial”.

Why did they do this, was somebody lowering the guard?

The timing of the attack is very suspicious, coming on the heels of the start of the G8 conference. Both Tony Blair and George Bush in their speeches have tried to paint the attack as an assault on globalization and the G8 itself. This means that if you're against the G8 and globalization, then you're with the terrorists! It's a tried and tested method they've used time and time before.

In any crime you look at history and motive, The British government has been caught in multiple examples of carrying out bombings in London which were then blamed on the IRA. They even had one of their own MI5 agents wihin the Omagh bomb squad. Click here for an archive of this evidence.

The British government has also been caught scripting fake terror alerts for political effect. Days before the Queen's speech notable November speech in which she first introduced ID card legislation, ITN news correspondants and government lobbyists got together to cook up a fake terror alert involving planes attacking Canary Wharf. A London Independent article later exposed this as a crass psy-op campaign to get the British people behind the ID card.

From Putin blowing up his own apartment buildings to Israel being behind Hamas, the evidence is consistently clear that large scale terrorism is always state sponsored.

The Madrid train bombing is another example. The bombers were found to be police informants with close links to the Spanish security services. They had access to the most secure areas of the Madrid train system. The Spanish government initially tried to blaim the Basque group ETA for the blast in the hope that the people would rally behind the government and get them re-elected. After ETA denied involvement and the people started saying the government was involved, the Spanish government had to blame Al-Qaeda and kill some patsies by claiming they blew themselves up during a raid.

The wider agenda will become clearer when Blair firmly points the finger at the selected patsies designated to take the fall. But for the moment he's happy to grandstand as the courageous leader who immedately returned to London to take control of the chaos.

BBC polls that were showing 80 per cent plus opposed the ID card will now likely flip back in the opposite direction. Support for the European Union and increased globalization through the G8 will rise. Who stands to gain from all this? Who has the motive?

We will continue to track developments as they occur and keep our readers posted.