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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Well its a bigger stronger than co-incidence. But I'd actually say the strongest point is either the families conceeding that they were terrorist bombers or the specific blast wounds from the 'bodies' consistent with being next to a bomb.
Bad/good luck. If you're the Government and planning a terrorist outrage on your own people that your going to blame on Islamic militants you try and keep it quite - you do not organise exercises for that day.
What do you make of the fact that this is the only thing you can come up with to suggest that the Govt was directly involved in the bombings?
Clandestine makes the most of the "innocent until proven guilty" nagle, yet misses the fact that in any "trial" an alibi would need to be provided. As none of the families has come forward with anything, and in fact seem to have accepted some guilt on the part of their family member, doesn't that also say something?
And you are right, "coincidence" plays a big part. But then isn't that the case in law? It's a balance of probabilty thing, beyond reasonable doubt is just that - a probability issue. How probable is it that four people would be seen together getting on a train to Kings Cross with backpacks on (considering the variable option of trains from Luton), that they would then all end up in London (considering the variable number of stops between Luton and London), that they would then "happen" to end up on the three trains and one bus which exploded (considering the variables of transport options once they hit London - how many buses/trains/taxis/walking)...
I suspect that me winning the lottery is more likely...
Dead people don't have that inconvenient "innocent" tag to have to work around. How many murder victims get cross-examined in trial? You would never suspect one of the dead, would you?
It's a piece of piss to get four or more people in the same area at the same time and get em to do something unusual. It's called money.
Now, it has to be true that this is down to the "government". Either they did it directly, or they created the conditions that made it happen.
No. You are guilty until you can prove otherwise in all courts I have heard of, whatever they profess to the contrary.
The families express surprise - where do they concede?
What wounds did the bombers have? Have you seen them? Have the journos seen them?
Right, so you've been part of a government that has attacked civilians, and you know how they act?
I really am not seeing any convincing evidence on which to decide the balance of probabilities.
Is this the best you've got?
An hour ago it was suggested that the London bombers did not intend to become martyrs
Truth is, we have no idea what they thought or where they got the bombs, or even if they did have the bombs.
For all we know, they may well have thought they were delivering drugs for cash.....
Again, he wont acknowledge the clear stonewalling of our own leaders who themselves have shown the untrustworthiness of their "official" pronouncements as they have systematically been unmasked as lie after lie after lie.
Neither does he factor the very clear hardline ideological bent of those presently in control of two out three branches of the US government and soon to be all three. That these ideologues have disavowed all obligation to international law which in any way might circumscribe their self-assumed right of unilateralist militancy against any nation that opposes them, has also been left off the countervaling side of his claimed "balance".
Moreover, he leaves out more than half a century of repeated "fingerprint" (stock in trade, if you will) subversive Intelligence community activity in manufacturiing events to further known strategic objectives for the UK/US/Israel, especially where Middle Eastern interests are involved.
Seems the only elements NQA, like all similar sheeple who fancy themselves informed because they heard it on the news or read it in the papers, has deigned to include in his "balanced" assessment is mainstream articles and the odd photograph accompanied by no real contextualised investigative journalism, but merely regurgitated claims by the "authorities".
Face it NQA, your view is nothing more than gullibility and mental complacency which is unwilling to see the very same problem-reaction-solution methodology which has been employed by our governments for decades to "manufacture consent". Nothing i have suggested is strange nor novel to those who bother doing some actual research into the global agenda which this and other "terrorist" bombings are intended to further.
Your purely compartmentalised suggestion of strained race relations inside the UK itself is a mere incidental inconvenience to those in power who's aspirations are focussed on a much more substantial global goal. Any civic unrest that arises from such contrivances only facilitates their domestic security "solutions" and provides the cash cow I have already mentioned re: a buregeoning lucrative new industry in ever more intrusive and restrictive security and surveillance mechanisms and broader-ranging policing powers.
Where do they provide any comment to suggest that the suspects didn't do it, or know what they were getting into?
This may be because, in spite of several requests, you have been unable to offer anything, with regards this incident, which suggests an alternate option. Other than rhetortic that is.
At least Freethepeeps is offering something...
Face is Clandestine, your view is nothing more than blinkered. You will not accept the possibility that you are not being lied to in this instance because you have already decided that MI5 (or whatever) were responsible. I'll bet you even made that leap within five minutes of hearing the news.
You admit that you do not question your beliefs and then have the audacity to call people like NQA and myself "sheeple". What you need to ask yourself, is who could be pulling your chain, and why? But I guess that you would never consider that a possibiliity, huh?
"Blinkered" is accepting as fact the guilt of those named without evidence or explanation beyond the mere assertion of their hidden fanaticism. You cajole me to prove a negative (which you should know is impossible), yet where is the evidence that calm, kind loving family people are guilty of more than being on trains that were bombed like so many others at that hour? Who stood to gain and who IS gaining.
No matter how many times it is repeated you simply ignore the main point being advanced and continue to make your apologetic for the convenient and popular explanation of the events made by less than credible "official" sources. Hard to hop off the bandwagon, I realise.
What is it about demanding fully transparent public enquiry that you evokes such antipathy in your every reposte? Do you fear your precious status quo myths will be shattered once and for all to discover a darker interconnection at work here than your morning paper or a 2 minute BBC spot is prepared to expose?
How many Germans in 1933 simply believed the Reichstag Fire was surely the work of the nasty Communists because it was reported as so?
I wont hand you evidence because the evidence is precisely what I and others are calling for public enquiry to finally expose. Official claims from liars may satisfy your standards of the burden of proof, but those of us who bother examining decades of repeated machinations to advance larger geo-political agendas recognise the need for a more transparent scrutiny of those claims.
Thing is, they weren't. They were having a meeting in an office doing a mental planning exercise. Some of the stations were the same, so what? There are loads of emergency planning type organisations in London, doing planning exercises for different companies. Its quite likely that on any given day, someone is doing a planning exercise somewhere. Its a growth industry.
What's a "walk through" exercise Blagsta?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/318160.html - scroll to comment 6
What straws am I clutching at Blagsta?
italics mine
i.e. it was a mental exercise in an office
Anything that looks like a conspiracy.
Any chance that you can show proof of that?
So far you've seized on example of a co-incidence that I was pretty sure NQA would dismiss.
I have no idea what the real story is - neither do the corporate media, or the cops - all anyone can do at this point is specualte about what happened.
And, I see no grounds at this stage for reaching a decisive stand on what is and isn't relevant information.
Oh, and in order to pre-empt you: - No, I haven't checked under my bed this morning - thats because its a futon, and nothing larger than a lizard could possibly fit under it........
:eek2:
Yes, we've been getting along fine on here. However, this issue is central to the difficulties experienced in the past - where "Tin Foil Hat" is used in the same way as "anti-semite" as a device to shut down discussion, and to maintain the propaganda advantage of the powerful.
Try reading my last post again ........
No, that would be opinion based on evidence presented to me. Blinkered is deciding that the evidence is bull without actually having anything which shows an alternate option.
No I don't. I cajole you to show an alternative option. Not to offer rhetoric alone.
You mean apart from the informtion we are getting about forensics? You want me to speak to an investigating officer personally, or are you suggesting that the BBC is the Govts mouthpiece?
Erm... the terrorists? They stood to gain by creating fear, they have achieved that. In fact, your comments help them too.
And yes, I know that those who would restrict our freedoms stood to gain, but you cannot show any evidence that they were responsible.
Nothing. It wouldn't make any difference to you though. You would still argue that it wasn't truly transparent unless it came up with a verdict which suited your pre-judgement.
In other words, you don't actually have anything, do you? Why can't you admit that?
Thing is, most of this stuff doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Like the VIisor exercise for example
You claim you've seen EVIDENCE? What evidence pray tell? Mainstream reports which, once again for the cognitively dissonant, provide nothing but CLAIMS? No MoK, unless you are privvy to Scotland Yard files or enjoy MI5 computer access I doubt highly you've seen EVIDENCE.
This is precisely the ingrained mental conditioning that establishes the groupthink paradigm within Western society, accepting repeated assertions offered by recognised corporate media brands as if it is fact, which it is not.
If you refuse to simply consider the logic and telltale fingerprint of a larger agenda being served by this and similar atrocities since and including 911 simply becuase you have some personal grudge against me, what point in any similar "rhetoric" (which it is not by the way, i suggest you learn the difference between rhetoric and analysis) from anyone else. The bottom line remains the same no matter where you read or hear it, the demand for FULL, TRANSPARENT PUBLIC INVESWTIGATION. A notion to which you appear adamantly aversive for some unknown reason.
Obviously its easier to just believe what you are told than demand a full acounting. Im sure the Birmingham Six or Guilford Four would have loved to have you on their jury. Certainly no history there of false accusation widely reported as fact which never was fact at all.
Oh, I'm sorry, I used the wrong term. I should have said information.
But I get the impression that you are suggesting that cannot form an opinion then because I haven't seen the actual bodies or forensics. In fact without actually having been on site carrying out the investigation I cannot be certain that those are true either. Even then I may make a mistake in my tests. We're fucked basically because, by your argument, all 6bn of the world population would have to be actively involved in the investigation, at every stage, if we are to ensure that someone isn't lying to us.
However, on the basis of what you have just asked me to provide, have you ever seen the EVIDENCE which supports any of your theories. I assume that you don't have access to many CIA files...
So, it isn't EVIDENCE you use, but logic.
Erm, in my post above I said that I had nothing against it. Wasn;t that clear enough for you?
I then said that it would be a waste of time though if it didn't provide the outcome you have already decided to be "FACT". If it didn't, you would dismiss it as a whitewash.
Hmmm, are you suggesting that everything I have ever been told by the mainstream media is a lie? As they told me that those two groups you refer to were innocent, should I not believe that now?
So you say that this wasnt the work of four men from Luton and Leeds, it was Mosad or whoever.
And?
What exactly does that achieve, or what exactly are you going to do?
Oh, and what scrutiny is that? I have no idea how it can be scrutinised, when we don't even know who the client is, or what the exercise actually involved.
But hey, who needs facts to decide its 'Tin Foil Hat' time and to dismiss it?
So far the 'official version' doesn't stand up to scrutiny either.
However desperate an individual might be for it do so.......
it means probable legal changes by the government wont stop things like this happening, and will be going after the wrong people.......
Whatever ftp, whatever :rolleyes:
Okay, so far we have the following:
1) The bombs are believed to be fairly crude acetone based bombs with a small amount of military grade explosive in them.
2) There is speculation that they were on timers because no-one can think of another occasion where suicide bombs were detonated with such precision wrt to timing...
3) ...if they were on timers, it suggests that the guys carrying them weren't intending to be suicide bombers but were suckered by whomever made the bombs, into thinking they'd be coming back (also borne out if what another person has said about them having return tickets, is true).
Evidence for the 4 guys being the likely culprits?
All 4 leave Luton on the same train. They are caught on CCTV talking to each other so we know they knew each other. They've all go enormous rucksacks on. They each get on seperate trains and one bus. 2 of those trains are on the Mertopolitan Line, one's on the Piccadilly Line and we've got one of about 10,000 buses and ALL of them explode. Not just injured, but killed. Not just killed, but sitting in the immediate blast area of the bombs.
That's before you get onto forensic concerns like testing what's left of the rucksacks and working out a blast plan of the carriages...