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
This discussion is about recent events i.e the bombings and attempted boimbings of London.
I asked why Clan thought it were more 'likely' the work of the government and you replied with...
What evidence have you to suggest that is correct?
And Skive, Ive made considerable repeated effort to outline how they are far more likely the suspects in more than one thread in past weeks. I shouldn't have to lay it all out for you again.
Sorry, I havn't seen that.
I've come across your theorys on 9/11 but havn't seen you post any evidence that these recent attacks in London were engineered by the government.
Your "case" being several paragraphs of doublespeak and loony claims.
You say that it's more likely for the government to be responsible for the attacks than islamic terrorists. I think where you say more likely, you mean more interesting, because that's what conspiracy theorists are really about. They create and believe these things as a kind of fantasy, gives them excitement to believe it.
Unfortunately the government is far more inept than you say and isn't really under the thumb of a superior lizard empire. They'd lie and shmooze to us, but they don't bomb us. Boring, I know!
Those British chaps convicted in Saudi of murder a few years ago come to mind.
Not to mention Guantanamo prisoners.
Sleep on content in your naive faith in social contracts and the trustworthiness of the establishment. You've made that much about your views perfectly clear.
They know full well that a verbal or signed confession subsequently broadcast to the conplacent masses gives the people a target toward which to cast the blame, whilst the real criminals and terrorists consolidate their control.
One need look at how many in these threads adopt the very official definitions and categories of thought with which they are inundated daily by mainstream media. The majority dare not suppose for a moment that its all a lie and that those who would dismiss such universal standards are capable of perpetrating any dispicable act. All thats needed for plausible cover is a sufficient perception of foreign threat from which to source a ready supply of possible "suspects".
The sheep remain mollified for that much longer content that their "good" government is "doing something about it" and that the status quo is maintained.
All in time to avoid missing the next episode of East Enders. God forbid!
Larry O'Hara has some interesting things to say on this in the UK p&p forums over on U75. I'd rather listen to Larry (a well known person with a long history of investigating the secret state) than someone like Clandestine.
The argument is one or means, motive and looking at who benefits.
It conveniently ignores that all apply to terrorist organisations too and assumes that because someone exploits a situation to their own ends, then they must have created the situation themselves. Or something like that.
He hasn't actually provided anymore evidence to support this claim than the Govt has - in fact he provides even less information because most of his links are based on assumptions and conjecture.
does it matter if they are tortured with british daytime tv?
And again we have MoK also continuing to reinforce the false notion that I have indicted our western intelligence services when all I have repeatedly argued is nothing other than the fact that by fundamental invesitgative principle they stand as far more likely suspects. Unless the groupthink school of non-thought has now equated "suspect" with conclusively "guilty", seem my assertion that a full transparent public enquiry is what is actually required.
Shame Tony has categorically refused to allow one. Obviously he or those who might have his balls in a sling have nothing to hide.
Yes indeed, dismiss it as conjecture and go back to veging out in front of East Enders.
do you ever post anything concise, maybe you have lost the plot because you over analyse something that just isnt there?
And once again you seem to have read words which I haven't used.
Please show where in my comment I have made any reference to Western Intelligence agencies.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
Shut out all that you are incapable of discussing as an adult, by all means. The mark of true critical reasoning capacities indeed!
No protest, MoK. You can mock, twist or otherwise ignore my quite historically verifiable commentaries all you wish. It matters little me what is done with the analyses I post here. In the end I have been sufficiently vindicated in my assessments against detractors going all the back to the the original squad of military zombies back in 2002.
And no MrG. Concise is for tabloid hacks. Dealing with the complexity of geo-politics, the real protagonists behind and the interconnections of global events - sold to the public as supposedly compartmentalised and disconnected - demands a more extensive elaboration.
You can expect no less from any of the sources I have already pointed to for those who wish to actually read more than a piece of mainstream media spin.
Here is where your intimation, to which I referred in more specific terms, is falsely asserted.
Suggesting that they are far more likely "suspects" merely advances the demand that a full public enquiry with full show of concrete evidentiary findings is conducted. Seems even such a basic civic demand is too much for the naysayers to handle.
God forbid we actually find out that those who suspect far greater complicity are not so dismissable after all.
trust you to be the one able to use geo-politics and tireless effort to make a yes/no answer into a textbook of paragraphs and tables
It bores me to death. :yeees:
A civic demand from an American living in Belguim? Why do you think that Blair would do that because you have asked for one?
When he refuses Parliament then we should be concerned... that has not happened. It will not happen either whilst criminal procedings are underway because it could be predjudical. You know that.
Might be worth you considering that, in the event of a trial, the defence will have the opportunity to put forward the type of claims which you have made. Assuming that there is any "evidence" in existence.
"Logic" isn't enough
Historical or hysterical?
"Civic demand" as in the UK citizenry itself waking up and realising that claims of "invesitigations" being conducted by those who themselves fit every criteria for being suspects as well are utterly laughable. More so when the repeated falsehoods of the government are factored in.
Blair rejects Parliamentary calls for public enquiry
You do, however, parrot well the lame excuses which were indeed made by Blair to Parliament as to why he would not allow such an enquiry (as if a public enquiry which should be investigating him as well should need his authorisation). Seems people are all too content to allow supposed "representative" government leaders and officials to presume themselves rulers, accountable to noone by their own decree.
Yes it might prejudice closed door contrivances which seek to find any evidence to support a single starting premise of "foreign" terrorists rather than simply scrutinising all those with motive, means and the more demonstrable gains from it all.
Don't dare ask "what do you have to hide, Mr. Blair?"
But then, you seem to hold the view that evidence cannot be fabricated (all more so when MI5 themselves are conducting the non-transparent "investigations") as if there is no history of our western intelligence agencies colluding to do just that. I suppose they just sit around listening to "chatter" and playing bridge.
Pick that up from the Matadore School of Robust One-liners did you?
I don't want to be critical - but he didn't. He rejected a call by the Leader of the Opposition which is quite a different thing.
the leader of the opposition is technically the spokesperson of the non government a la opposing groups