And now we have house arrest...

Former Member

Ha ha Clandestine...if you read teh_gerbils post it reads more like Jamacian English than normal English. I'm fully aware of your own grasp of the English language.

Former Member

Oh right, sorry, only saw it as I was finishing up a later response and its position just after my post lead me to believe it was directed at me.

My bad. Apologies again.

Former Member

Clandestine wrote:

First of apologies for patronising you, MoK.

Apology accepted.

Reviewing at length the research which has been compiled by countless researchers

Let’s start with a little honesty. Researchers with an agenda, they are looking for holes. It’s important that we see them for what they are, just as we see “official spokesmen” for what they are.

perfectly viable scrutiny of the issue

Again, who is scrutinising the researchers work?

You on the other hand take no stand ever it seems

I thought I had taken a stand, it just isn’t the same as yours.

My stand is that the PNAC are using terrorism as a means to achieve their own aims – in order to get control over our lives. At the same time, the terrorists are achieving their goals because the general population is shit scared.

Which is how the PNAC wants them to be, so it uses the media to increase that fear factor.

Now, either we have two “groups” of individuals vying for control, one through bombs the other through politics. Or we have a single group which does both. I think the former, you seem to think the latter.

(means, motive and opportunity)

Are you suggesting that terrorists do not have the means to carry out attacks (the ability to make bombs), do not have the motive (i.e. to terrorise) and cannot gain access to, for example, the tube system?

I suggest you take a look at the IRA’s activities over the past century and then perhaps we can talk again about those elements.

"Confronting the truth" is every bit as legitimate a concept as "confronting the lie"

You accept the truth. Or you are confronted by the truth.

You do indeed love your little mantra of "those who benefit didnt necessarily do it", but yet refuse to admit that those who gain the most are the most likely suspects

Those two things are not exclusive. Both are possible and actually say the same thing. Just because you are the most likely suspect, doesn’t mean that you are guilty.

Makes far greater sense than believing that those who stood to have their families, neighbours and entire nations on the receiving end of militarilistic destruction and domination were ever so cooperative to provide the very events necessary for our govt powermongers to launch their agenda.

Only if you ignore the past.

Seriously, you need to understand more about the history of the two “groups” I mention, that way you know where they started and get an idea of where they are heading. Or rather where they think they are heading.

Both believe that the liberal agenda undermines the fabric of society. Whilst the neo-cons managed to use the fear of the Soviets to gain popular support, when that failed to stem the liberal advances, they then created a new enemy. Clinton. We all know whose election followed.

The Islamic radicals could not get popular support, in light of the different political viewpoint – that voting is against the teachings of the religion - and so turned to violence. They had no fear of killing their own, because they do not see the victims as muslims, where they vote or follow any kind of western ways. That violence has been ongoing for decades but it’s only recently been turned towards the Western influences, rather than against their own countrymen.

Better than that of course was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which helped recruitment to the radicals cause.

Suggest you read the teachings of Sayyid Qutb.

a full, transparent, unhindered, judicial investigation must be made of all persons and agencies involved on that day without partiality to office or attempts to deny access to any additional evidence.

So let’s finish with some honesty too.

That wouldn’t be enough for you. Unless the outcome was exactly what you expected then you would accuse the investigation of being the exact opposite. What you really mean there is that what you want is to be told that you are right.

Even if you’re not.