If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
it was al qaeda wot dunnit....
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
or so said ABC news last nite, they didn't say al qaeda are suspected of carrying out the attacks, they just straight out attributed it all to some mythical terrorist organisation........i just managed to catch the report before i fell asleep last nite, because it is interesting how this news is reported matter-of-factly in the states........over here the media is more cautious about pointing the finger straight away, especially when it was british citizens who did it........so does carrying out a terrorist attack instantly group you into al qaeda? the ABC reporter didnt even attempt to explain any evidence to support this statement, probably because there isn't any........trouble is, most of the americans will no doubt believe it........so how can ABC be so confident they are right, when they are only receiving evidence from Scotland Yard, who haven't jumped to such a conclusion.......seems like more propaganda to me.......
0
Comments
Says the BBC, even though of course, Al-queda is just a term with next to no meaning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676861.stm
They could have gone to live with a theorcracy, if so wished, and sampled the delights of Sharia Law.
The PNAC cabal has succeeded in replacing their formerly cherished "Cold War" communist boogeyman with a threat far more easily maintained. All the more so for its lack of any potential declining nation state upon which to rely in order to rally repeated public support for their increasingly authoritarian internal and militant external policy prerogatives.
Whilst the sheeple call it "conspiracy theory" the conspirators gloat and carry on with their unchallenged agenda. The powermongers' wet dream come true.
Yet people suggest that scrutinising our own agencies with decades upon decades of expertise in covert ops is a "conspiracy theory"? lol. Believing the former suggestion as a legitimate explanation of events requires a far greater lack of critical rational than the latter.
So sayeth the clanestine collaborator.
Whilst I agree withthe SMERSH comment, please provide any sources you have which either link the four suspects with the PNAC, or show that the suspect weren't involved.
Otherwise your conspiracy therory dies with regards this incident.
Perhaps Columbo has joined the Met.
In comparison to the only other random crazy bomber I can think of - the Unabomber (who sent traceable letters etc) they have done exceedingly well.
One might almost think they just ran down a list of the dead and picked out some asian names to tie in with it all.
Get with the programme - it was MI6.
It isn't shut.
But consider this possibility, then ask yourself when you think is more likely.
The police, in identifying victims find three people living in the same area (well away from London) on three different trains. Is that suspicious? Is that really so hard to believe?
Given that if you get 20 people in a room there is a 50/50 chance of two of them having the same birthday it's not so surprising really.
The parents of one of the "bombers" reported him missing. The rest were under surveillance aparently and then just dropped off the radar.
In a lot of cases the police knew precisely who the IRA men were. You can't arrest without proof.
Its also easier to identify a suicide bomber than you think. Being extremely close to the explosion creates distinctive damage to the human body. It doesn't take much to work out that if you see four young men all with this distinctive damage together at luton station carrying that in all likelihood they are the bombers.
These men were not trying to bomb and escape so they didn't take the precautions that a man trying to bomb and escape would take in covering up their identities.
I think you might want to look at those odds again.
Nope can't convict without proof.
I've seen RTA's up close and after even a small explosion you need a spatula and patience. Given that it's a suicide bomb, don't you think something would have been left for the families as explanation? Some letter in the post or will made out or something?
This explanation also works the other way. If you observe four men who have been blown up by your bombs on CCTV talking together, they are the ones you finger.
I do apologise, it's 23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
The point is that these suspects are far more likely to be handy patsies taken the rolls of some youth organisation or other dissent group than the actual perpetrators. Those neither I nor you would find concrete "proof" for unless sufficient public awakening occurred forcing full disclosure of the supposed evidence against those currently being held (which like the many still held in detention by Washington from Gitmo to Baghram without any show of evidence against them, for it being non-existent in the first place). Get past that hurdle in this charade of powermongering and the impetus to force an opening of the files held behind the fraud of "national security" would blow the matter off the criminality to which we are being subjected.
Oh and btw, discussion and debate of those most plausibly behind this and all other acts in this WoT, past and present, does not "die here and now" nor is it "conspiracy theory" just because you wish to claim it so. Your unquestioning acceptance of the entire paradigm of Islamic boogeymen is far more laughably a "theory", simply raised to the level of successful propaganda by those with power and extortionist budgetary allocations to gain with the aid of a compliant mouthpiece media which investigates nothing.
Welcome back Globe... nice to see youre still as idoctrinated into your rabid militancy and hyper-nationalism as ever. Hunt down and kill and "libruls" lately?
OK I'll give you that one
I've seen the aftermath of explosions are close (and in one case not just the aftermath) and your right they do make a mess of the body. But often they do not totally destroy it - at least not to the trained forsensic scientist. For example, coomonly with suicide boms clutched close to the torso the bottom half of their bodies destoyed but their heads are seperated from their bodies. In at least one of the cases (the bus bomber) this was reported a few days ago.
True - but given that they were seen together at Luton and co-incidentally they were all on different buses/trains which exploded, in at least one case it is reported his injuries are consistent with suicide bombing and that a car they rented was found with explosives I'm guessing that it may not be a police fit-up
Ahem, I also asked for a link which shows that they weren't responsible for the bombing.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the did it, and are linked to the PNC or they didn't do it.
If you cannot show either then where is your tie in with the conspiracy?
From memory only one person is currently being held with regards this incident.
A few points there. I made no reference to any other events. I referred only to this incident.
If you cannot show that there is any link, as mentioned above, then you cannot show that these events form part of a wider conspiracy. Which I might point out is part of the argument against this being a MSERH operation.
Finally, it is a conspiracy theory. You suggest that there is a conspiracy. You cannot prove it beyong doubt, therefore it is just a thory. I'm not sure why you find that hard to understand, I figure it's a simple use of the english language.
By the same token, the involvement of the suspects and SMERSH is just a theory too.
Unquestioning? HMm, you clearly don't read my posts very well.
But I need to remind you about your admitted "unquestioning" acceptance of the conspiracy angle.
Coincidences aren't that hard to come by as shown by the birthday problem. And all the rest of it is only true if the police are giving out correct information.
As the "government" never, ever tells the truth I can't trust it on this either.
What do you think the planning and execution of any event, this or otherwise is, by definition, MoK? Once again since the previously cited dictionary entry seems to have esccaped your cognitive processes, a "conspiracy". Any action planned by two or more persons to commit an illegal or illegitimate act is such. Thus "conspiracy theory" is an invalid excuse employed by those who simply wish to accept populist explanations of events.
Perhaps to say you don't question is wrong, however I continually notice your employment of categorical notions clearly drawn from the "inside the box" paradigm defined and propagated by saitised corporate media. The very filters which make appreciation of those actually gaining from this WoT charade so seemingly incomprehensible to the vast majority of our sleepwalking populace.
As for providing "links" to "prove" those named by UK authorities aren't responsible, thats a ridiculous notion. You think proof of any kind of specific individual's complicity or non complicity is contained in one handy website?? Yet again an odd suggestion to say the least.
No, what is available is more than sufficient analysis on the PNAC agenda, its aims and gols, its tie in with globalist corporate aspirations, the astronomical escalation of budgetary outlays since 911, the complicity of client state leaders with this agenda, its connectivity with known resource depletion and the necessity for a mollification of the public sufficient to pursue wars of aggression to secure the remaining resource centres of the globe for Western control, exploitation and profit. In that context the puzzle pieces of "random" events intended to maintain public trauma and reactionism fit much more rationally than they do as explained as some sudden quantum leap in Arab fundamentalist mobility, capabilities, and attacks from almost nil to the global network of not so masterful "masterminds" that we have seen since 911.
In the world of legitimate investigation and certainly of jurisprudence, the onus is not upon me to show that the named suspect(s) are guilty or innocent, but of those claiming they are. Just as the "alleged" hijackers became a simple accepted fact without any concrete show of evidence merely for the repetition of the allegations facilitated by mainstream media, so too you will undoubtedly see no concrete "proof" shown to the public for those "claimed" rapeatedly (and yet to come) for this or any other act in the "war which will not end in our lifetimes".
I don't know how many more times the logic of this charade, the interconnection of it from the earliest days of our present Washington cabal's careers during the Nixon/Ford administration's to its fomentation of their ideological-manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defences" and the ongoing context of its realisation from 911 onwards, needs to be rehashed for you to see through it.
One can but rehash it as often as mainstream media regurgitates lies, I suppose.
Perhaps I should say "PNAC conspiracy theory", just to be clearer?
You seem to think that you can do that for other attacks, just wondered why you can't for this.
None of which point to them being the perpetrators, but rather to them cashing in on it.
It's no different to people selling Diana related books. Paul Burrell didn't cause the crash but he's making a shitlkoad of cash from it.
You think it was sudden? I think you don't understand what the word "preparation" means.
Let me give you an analogy. On 6th June 1944 there was a "sudden" increase in violence in the Normandy region of France. Do you think that was planned overnight?
This is no different, in concept, to that. First you put you pieces into place, then you execute your plan. You learn from your mistakes and plan again. This method of doing things is referred to as PDSA, Plan Do Study Act although I think that the military would call it something else...
I enjoyed that. It has a flaw though, admitted in the article, in that certain variable are disregarded - so basically it's a room containiny no twins, with no-one born in a leap year etc. Still, it surprised me that it was so few, until it got to the 253 pairs aspect, then I realised where my error had been...
Do you know what Klamkin (1967) came up with?
Yeah it's good innit. My Pops talked me through it when I was about 13 and it melted my head. That Derren Brown guy uses them all the time. I bought his book "Pure Effect" to have a shufti how he was doing his tricks and they basically revolve around that with hypnosis and magic thrown in as well.
I don't I am sorry. I do know that the possibility of any event happening or not happening is always 50% though.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162476,00.html
Now we know....from the mouth of an "expert" witness
seeker
I notice one of the supposed "suicide" bombers (strange, wasn't it supposed to "timed devices" and NOT suicide bombers?) was a primary school teacher much loved by his colleagues and pupils. There's the character of a rabid fundamentalist fanatic for sure. Please! Can anyone smell the contrived patsy list in play here?
But of course, the papers and tv say so, it must be him!! :rolleyes:
Could you give us a run-down of the personality and previous jobs of terrorists? Not all of them grow horns and have previous careers as odd job men for the Mafia.
Seems all it takes for the sheeple is the mere allegation spread all over the press and whammo, of course he must be a homicidal fanatic. Try applying some critical rationale for a change.
Perhaps Cecilia Beaman is also another heretofore unrecognised fanatic whom we should be eternally grateful to the TSA for apprehending!
It doesn't take a PhD to see how contrived the whole charade is. Considering the US and UK administrations' ongoing support for known brutal regimes, especially Pakistan's delightfully servile dictator, how difficult do you really think it is for the architects of the "war which will not (read MUST not) end in our lifetimes" to gain lists of legitimate political opponents, malcontents, even groups attempting to assume their civic rights to rise up against their own tyrannical governments, which provide countless convenient targets upon whom to blame past, current and future acts?
Just ascribe the readily media-regurgitated moniker of "Al Qaeda" to anyone on such lists, hunt them down as a favour to our client leaders (for their dutiful compliance with our corporate aspirations in their countries or regions) and whisk them away to Guantanemo without ever showing concrete proof of guilt. Our client's public opposition is duly suppressed (by those who are meant to be "exporting" democracy, surprise surprise) and our leaders get an endless stream of previously unheard of persons (with requisite Arabic names) to feed to the unscrutinising public.
End result, the WoT charade continues and the corporate press has its gold mine of headline material to sell for decades if not generations to come.
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/news/department/news/?id=81
So your suggestion that a family man and a teacher wouldn't be a suicide bomber because he was a family man and a teacher seems a bit dubious.