False Fag Terrorism

Yesterday morning on a budget intercity coach headed southbound on the M6, a passenger was seen ‘pouring smoking liquid into a box’ and alerted the driver. The coach pulled onto the side of the motorway and was soon surrounded by the counter-terrorism authorities, including an armed response unit, bomb disposal squad, the fire brigade, police, about 200 people in total.

A 27 mile stretch of the motorway was shut down, much of it for several hours, causing massive delays and tailbacks. Decontamination tents were set up, the passengers were made to file out of the coach with their hands above their hands, and were then searched before being made to sit in taped-off areas of the motorway.

Inevitably, there was no bomb, no threat. A passenger had simply been using an e-cigarette, which produces vapours similar to those of proper cigarettes. So, this was a case of false fag* terrorism, caused by the state’s constant fuelling and feeding of people’s paranoia, and then by the state’s reaction to the paranoia they’d helped create.
guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ju … ted-police

*Note, in British slang the term ‘fag’ does not refer to a homosexual gentleman but to either a tobacco cigarette or a pupil in a private school who runs errands and obeys the commands of senior pupils.

You know what this story makes me think of? Years ago, I was given a rental car after helping a friend move, so that I could get home. When I returned to my city, I needed to return it to the terminal at the airport here. So, I had a friend follow me in my own car, so that I could drop the rental and drive back with him.

Now here’s the funny part. I am an avid shooter, more often than not, I am in possession of multiple firearms. So pretty much any time you search my car, you will find handguns under the seat, and at least some kind of assault rifle in my trunk. I normally don’t think anything of it, but my friend was driving my car into the airport and so they were opening all the trunks to make sure no one had anything bad.

So here’s my friend, behind me in my car, getting pulled out because unbeknownst to him, he is carrying several weapons and a shit load of ammo, because right before I went on the trip, I had been to the range. I think there was a glock .45, an old ww2 paratrooper rifle the .30 carbine, a chinese made SKS, and a ruger mini 14 and mini 30.

So I try to stop my car and get out to inform them that we’re just returning a rental car, not actually entering the airport itself, and they tell me to MOVE FORWARD AND CLEAR THE AREA! So I do, and I pull up wonder about the fate of my friend, and of course the thousands of dollars worth of ordinance in my car.

Next thing you know, he just pulls right up and I’ve returned the rental, and I ask him what the hell happened, and he’s says, “they told me as long as no one else knows about it, then it’s ok”.

So seriously, this was in like 2002 or 2003. My friend accidentally went to the airport with me carrying enough shit to arm a small group of fighters, and they searched him and discovered it, he admitted he was driving someone else’s car and said he knew nothing about the guns, and they just let him drive right through.

Crazy shit dude.

Conversely, if it had been a bomb the precautionary measures would have been justified.

Additionally, you could stop importing Muslims into your country. That’d be at least a start to putting an end to the state’s paranoia.


How so?

This is moronic because:

  1. A bomb would not justify the decontamination tents or shutting down over 20 miles of motorway.
  2. No terrorist would bomb a budget intercity coach, it just isn’t a sufficiently valuable target.
  3. The chances of there being a bomb are pretty much zero, so defending the reaction on the grounds that if something really, really, really unlikely were to happen then they would have been doing the right thing is ridiculous.

This is moronic because:

  1. We don’t import Muslims. Some Muslims emigrate here.
  2. Most of the Muslims here were born here.
  3. There are almost no Muslim terrorists in the UK.
  4. The state is not paranoid because of Muslim immigration.

Everything you said was utterly stupid. If you were trying to be stupid then well done, you really achieved it this time…

Precautionary measures. Better to be safe than sorry.

Still a target nonetheless.

Yeah right, 'cause bombs have never gone off in the UK before :unamused:

It’s damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If the state does nothing and bombs go off then you get whiners claiming the state ought to have done more, then, on the other hand, if they do enact precautionary measures you get clowns like yourself whining about it putting it down to nothing more than paranoia.

Well, there were a number of bombs that went off a few years ago by Muslims over there. Additionally, I’ve seen a number of hate videos by Muslims (can provide them if you doubt them) castigating British/Westerners as trash.

That’s nice. If you were trying to be a clown then well done, you really achieved it this time …

If you truly believed that then you’d never leave the house. Or go on the internet, for that matter. As such, by your very writing on this forum you’ve proved that this maxim is not true.

No it isn’t. I know the state likes to tell you that everyone is a potential terrorist and everywhere is a potential target, but it’s bullshit. In the long history of terrorism there are distinct and in some ways quite rational patterns that explain who becomes a terrorist and what and where they attack.

We’ve had more than most, actually, but the chances are still pretty much zero. Why? BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ACTUALLY VERY MANY TERRORISTS OUT THERE.

The state encourages the people to whine after an attack and demand more security. That plays entirely into their hands, it isn’t being ‘damned’ at all. My position is that there are almost no terrorists, so we fundamentally don’t need all this security and paranoia when it is so obviously detrimental to people just getting along with more important things.

That wasn’t done by Muslims.

Do you mean statements from the likes of Omar Bakri the Islamic radical/MI5 informant? Or Abu Hamza, the Islamic radical/MI5 informant? Or Abu Qatada, the Islamic radical/MI5 informant? Or their buddy Anjem Choudary who has not yet admitted to being an MI5 informant but give it time, I’m sure he will just like the rest of his Al Muhajiroun buddies.

Do you not wonder why these people make such inflammatory statements yet are hardly ever arrested, despite draconian anti-terrorism laws that basically let the state do whatever they want? Does something not quite add up here that would be explained if these guys were actually working for the security services?

You clearly know bugger all about all this, either from a conventional history of terrorism point of view, or from a more unconventional but just as true covert ops point of view. Look at your own arguments - they literally could have come, word for word, from a government press release…

That’s an extremely long bow.
These precautionary measures occur everywhere, not just for terrorism. Car accidents, work accidents, accidents or incidences of all kinds are usually followed by “inquires,” “reviews,” or “investigations” that recommend measures to be taken to limit or stop further incidences of these kinds. That’s what happened with this incident in question.

If that was so then all terrorists incidents could have been prevented. The very fact that they continue means they often defy ‘rational patterns.’

It’s only normal that people will complain for more security after an attack.I don’t think the day will ever come that people will shrug their shoulders and say “that’s life” after an attack.

Umm… yes it was. Let me guess, it was some state-planned conspiracy to hurt Muslims or impose new security measures or some other kooky stuff?

Whether those in particular are informants, or turned informants, doesn’t negate the fact that Muslims hate Britain/Westerners.
Theirs is a return to, or a working toward, a theological style dictatorship that is at complete odds with liberal democracy.
I find it fascinating those who are not Muslims actually defending Muslims and their 7th century barbaric ways and practices. There must be a hatred so deep for their own culture that they will side with a group who wants to destroy it.

I know more than you’re willing to give credit for.
I could also remark that your views look plagiarised straight from Green Left Weekly or Socialist Alliance etc.

So are generic state admonitions like ‘better to be safe than sorry’. With that logic, ANY and EVERY security precaution is justified regardless of whether the threat is real or only perceived, and regardless of how likely it is to affect people.

This is simply untrue. This wasn’t an inquiry or a review - it was a bunch of armed thugs dragging a bunch of people off a coach, threatening them and ordering them around, all in the name of dealing with a threat that did not exist. It is not the same as carrying out an investigation after a car accident. You are, either out of deceit or utter and total stupidity, confusing apples and oranges.

Or that the very people supposedly trying to stop them are hopelessly incompetent, busy chasing the wrong people, or (most obviously) carrying out the terrorist attacks themselves.

Alternatively, let’s test your hypothesis - give me several examples of terrorist attacks that defied rational patterns. You claim to be knowledgeable about this so it shouldn’t be the slightest problem for you. I can give you literally dozens of examples of attacks that were either allowed to happen or simply carried out by members or assets of the security services.

That reaction is very much encouraged by the state, who invariably overreact to deliberately scare the shit out of people (and thereby create the excuse for an advancement of their power).

Regardless, your argument that this reaction constitutes being ‘damned if they don’t’ is simply untrue.

If you are so sure, perhaps you can tell me which explosive was used in the bombings? Or the mechanism by which they were set off? Or how the devices were assembled? Or where they were in train carriages and bus that were bombed? Or how they got there? And, mostly of all, if you are so sure perhaps you can tell me what all of this has to do with the four Muslims that they pinned it on?

I don’t know what happened. You’re the one who mentioned a state planned conspiracy to hurt Muslims and impose new security measures, I think you’re probably right about that.

Which Muslims? All Muslims? Some Muslims? Could you perhaps give some examples, rather than just make an assertion about a group of people that numbers over a billion?

Yeah, those guys up the road running that curry house, they’re really fighting towards creating a theological dictatorship and I’ve occasionally even heard them mention Allah, which must mean they hate liberal democracy and see all their customers as infidels. Maybe I should go and burn down the curry house because, like you say, ‘better to be safe than sorry’…

As I said above, this is utterly moronic. It’s just a bunch of prejudiced bullshit that you’ve heard via the mainstream media. It is exactly what the government wants you to think, and you’re so weak minded you just repeat it without ever questioning.

I like curry.

I look forward to you providing me with abundant evidence backing up your assertions.

I have no idea what those things are - perhaps you could give me links to where they have expressed such views? I mean, since you’re so knowledgeable and all, and not in any way a dickhead racist who is so puny and frightened of his own shadow that he thinks that all state force and control is justified.

Serious laugh there with the OP and title. I was thinking crossdressing fake homosexuals infiltrating and causing problems. I know it sounds stupid but, think about it, who would suspect a crossdressing homosexual of bombing. Its a perfect cover.LOL

People have to get on with their lives - work, shop - so staying in the home and never leaving is a long bow.

If we move back for a second and concentrate on what I said then you’d see that I said that after almost all accidents or incidents - work, car, terrorism - they put in precautions based on reviews on the previous incidents. The seemingly over the top response in this situation was based on their training and precautionary measures put in place due to previous incidents. They didn’t just rock up and take them off the bus for the fun of it.

9/11 defies traditional terrorism. Hijacking planes full of passengers armed with box cutters and ramming them into buildings was a new one. There were previous attempts and warnings of attacks to be carried out on the Twin Towers, but it couldn’t be predicted in this manner.

So fear against getting blown up is socially constructed by the state? I don’t think you know people very well. People fear numerous things whether the state is involved or not. And fearing bombs seems very rational to most people.
Taking irrational views against state power often ends up people making silly claims like the state makes people fear death by bombs, when it actual fact fearing such things are normal.

Here ya go.


The four suicide bombers were later identified and named as:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 … n_bombings

I like how you make stereotypical claims about Americans all over the forum without blinking an eye, but are skeptical about when they’re made against Muslims. It’s starting to unfold that you may be one of these pinko-Marxist-anarchist-Foucauldian types.

Check out some of this:

Here’s a lovely one calling you “serpents” and “snakes” and “worst creatures of all” youtube.com/watch?v=Kau7SItYcSY

Here’s some Koran verses for you. Enjoy:

Old Allah was a bit sexist too:

Firstly, curry is an Indian dish. Indians are predominantly Hindus.
Secondly, you can read the above for evidence. And I have heaps more where that came from.
Thirdly, I could say your anti-state rants are prejudiced and probably come from some Lefty trendy magazine who rail against the state because it’s the “cool” thing to do.

It must be a real problem for you when the state comes in to help when you have problems: police, Fire Brigade, etc. Plus all that state funded infrastructure you probably use everyday must send you crazy knowing you have to rely on something you hate so much. Not to worry, trendy lefty types such as yourself often have these cognitive dissonances. In time you might be able to overcome your childish anger against the state. Most do.

While Muslims are in the minority they won’t threaten others too much. But if they become too numerous then problems begin. It’s funny you know because anarchist types would be the first put to the sword if the caliphate was installed. Allah don’t like people dissin’ his name, bra!

Islam is a religion, not a race. Such oversights among trendy anarchist types are common. In time when you go through puberty you’ll come to see the state is required and your childish anger will subside and be frowned upon like a bad dream.

Green Left Weeky and Socialist Alliance are anti-authority groups (except when they’re in power of course) and their positions on the state inciting fear against terrorists and Muslims is common.

They were running a simulation of the multiple plane hijack that very day. Some members of the FBI had warned of an attack of this form. Other agents had specifically reported about some of the hijackers.

That’s not what he said.

I’d like a reference.
It seems like the state should have interfered earlier? But Siatd doesn’t like the state taking precautions against such things, he thinks it’s all hyped up by the state and terrorists don’t really exist. But such contradictory positions are commonly taken by anarchist types.

He strongly indicated that fear is manufactured by the state: “That reaction is very much encouraged by the state, who invariably overreact to deliberately scare the shit out of people.” Could not the state just be acting on the fears displayed by the people? There is always a mixture of responses from incidences like this, but most fall on the side of wanting something done. Who shrugs their shoulders after a terrorist incident and says “oh well, life goes on”?

Which is why the logic of ‘better safe than sorry’ fails.

What previous incidents led to this reaction?

As I said, no terrorist in their right mind would bomb a budget intercity coach on the M6. There is no precedent for that in this country. There is no prior incident that in any way excuses this reaction. Your argument is just a load of assertions, with no factual information backing it up.

You are utterly wrong about this. In 1974 an unemployed, manically depressed ex military man named Sam Byck attempted to hijack a plane and crash it into the White House in an attempt to kill Nixon. In the 1980s, partly inspired by the mass-murder-suicide of David Burke, Brian Jenkins of the RAND corporation (y’know, that one that is basically a DOD/CIA front company) spoke of suicide hijackings in his essay ‘The Terrorist Threat to Commercial Aviation’. In 1994 a FedEx employee named Auburn Calloway tried to hijack a FedEx flight out of the Memphis superhub, apparently with the aim of crashing it into the building. Also in 1994, an unemployed, depressed ex-military man named Frank Corder stole a small plane and crashed it into the side of the White House. Also in this period, a panel of high ranking officials produced a report called Terror 2000: The Future Face of Terror, in which the possibility of a hijacked commercial airliner being crashed into the White House or Pentagon was discussed.

Also in 1994, a bunch of Algerian Islamic terrorists, led by a government operative, hijacked a plane with the aim of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower. This is the first time Islamic terrorists have attempted a suicide hijacking, compared with the two decades previous of Americans attempting suicide hijackings. That should tell you something. Also in 1994-95, the Algerian hijacking inspired two terrorists (Ramzi Yousef and Hakim Murad) in the Philippines to talk about crashing a plane into the CIA headquarters in Langley. The two were captured soon after this and their various plots and schemes uncovered.

Then there’s flight 990 in 1999, and a whole bunch of films throughout this period (Escape from New York, Black Sunday, etc.) and TV shows (Martial Law, The Lone Gunmen etc.) that also predicted using commercial airliners as missiles against buildings, either by remote control or by suicide hijackings.

Then there’s the literally dozens of exercises run before 9/11 that also envisioned the same scenario, most of which were run by NORAD, the very agency most centrally responsible for stopping airbourne attacks. You can read about most, but for some reason not all, of these NORAD exercises via this document, prepared for the 9/11 Commission:
scribd.com/doc/16411947/NORA … ck-Summary

You can read about the eminent predictability of 9/11 via this document, a timeline prepared by the law firm Motley Rice, who have represented some of the 9/11 bereaved families:
scribd.com/doc/16095016/T3-B … 11-Attacks

There is even more, but fundamentally the 9/11 attacks were not just predictable, they were predicted. For the previous three decades, Americans had been attempting suicide hijackings, with some degree of success. The scenario was portrayed in films and TV shows, discussed in government papers, prepared for by Air Force and other exercises. You are plain and simply wrong about this, though it’s no surprise, since you clearly believe everything the mainstream media tells you about terrorism.

So, aside from the rather obvious and now demonstrably irrelevant example of 9/11, what have you got? What other incredibly irrational, innovative means have terrorists used to carry out attacks that means we should consider anything and everything a possible terrorist target? I mean, to have leapt so quickly to 9/11 suggests you actually have very little knowledge of the history of terrorism (and counter-terrorism).

Fear of being blown up by terrorists on a budget intercity coach certainly is constructed by the state, yes.

Seems very rational to most people? That’s your justification? Does it not occur to you that what ‘seems rational to most people’ is obviously something produced and manufactured by propagandists (not just within the state, but the state is central to the terrorism myth)? No? You think people just come a conclusion about what ‘seems rational’ to ‘fear against’ through a considered, informed process?

If so, I suggest that it is you who does not know people very well.

Something being normal does not make it rational, justified, or not silly. This is hiding in a crowd, arguing that because a lot of people believe something, it therefore must be true and they must be right to believe it. You should be very embarrassed by the puny, effeminate nature of this argument.

This is going to be good.

Is that it? An early summary from the BBC? So no actual evidence, just assertions in the media?
• The four were captured at Kings Cross Thameslink (not the underground station) at about 8:26. There is no CCTV of them going through the underground station, approaching the trains, boarding the trains, riding on the trains, or detonating ‘their’ bombs nearly half an hour later. The excuse given for this is that the CCTV in Kings Cross mysteriously failed for that exact half hour period. The fourth supposed bomber is on CCTV after about 8:55 until about 9:30, wandering around the Kings Cross area not really doing much. There is no CCTV of him approaching the bus he supposedly bombed, or of him boarding it, riding on it, detonating ‘his’ bomb on it.
• According to the official record of people being pronounced dead at the scenes, the blasts only killed 15 people. None of the alleged bombers were pronounced dead at the bomb sites.
• No manual detonators (or remnants) were found at the scenes. No trace of the explosive used was found at the scenes.
• The ‘personal belongings’ of the alleged bombers were found entirely intact, showing almost no signs of explosion damage, some distance from the centres of the explosions. Mohammed Sidique Khan’s personal belongings were apparently found at all four explosion sites, almost as though someone was running around planting this stuff.

These tapes make no mention of suicide, no mention of carrying out terrorist attacks, no mention of the tube, no mention of attacks in Britain, just some rather vague and fruity stuff. Even if we assume they are authentic, they don’t really say anything. It has never been made clear who filmed these tapes, or where, when, why. Officially these four men were acting alone, a ‘self radicalising cell’ who operated with no provocation, inspiration, or help from outside. So who sent the tapes to the media months after they had died?

In sum, you’ve provided no answers to my questions beyond parroting the (wholly untrue) official version, via the BBC and Wikipedia. Are you really that gullible? Do you just accept what people tell you without ever looking into it further?

If so, why?

My ‘stereotypical claims about Americans’ have been proven true by an abundance of evidence, including the reactions of the very Americans I was talking about to me talking about it. You’re really struggling now.

One. OK, fine, that’s one who has said some pretty ridiculous things.

This doesn’t add any weight to your argument that all Muslims hate the West. It’s just cherry picking some of the not very modern passages from a non very modern text.

My god. You really are just incredibly ignorant aren’t you? Even your own favourite, Wikipedia, has got it right:


The lads who run the curry house are, in fact, Pakistani lads from Keighley. That’s really not very far from the Pakistani lads from Leeds who, according to the BBC and Wikipedia but not according to the evidence, carried out the 7/7 attacks.

But it’s OK, because you, who clearly knows fuck all about anything, have pronounced that curry is an Indian dish, and an Indian dish alone, and therefore has nothing to do with this discussion.

For fuck’s sake.

Please do continue. So far your evidence has amounted to one video of one guy talking bullshit, and a lot of irrelevant diversionary crap.

You could say that, but you’d be wrong. I don’t read those magazines, have been an anti-terror anarchist for years now, and know a lot more about all this than you do.


Still moronic.

We were talking about Muslims, not Islam.

This has nothing to do with anything, except your own demonstrably trumped-up view of the world. Next time, try bringing some evidence to the table…

The state was behind the attacks. They can’t interfere in their own operation. Well, they can, but obviously they weren’t going to. You can find instances, the Able Danger program for example, where people who tried to stop 9/11 were blocked. Same with Vulgar Betrayal.

No, terrorists do exist. Pretty much all the major terrorists in the West over the last half century (since terrorism took off in the 1960s, before that it wasn’t even really called terrorism, it was called sabotage) have been state sponsored. There are a few non-state terrorists, like Sam Byck, but they don’t usually amount to much.

No, because the state doesn’t just listen to people and then do what they ask. That is obvious to anyone who bothers to look for more than 10 seconds.

The state always says ‘we shall not let these terrorists change our way of life’, before proceeding to change our way of life.

That should tell you something, but it probably won’t because you are incredibly gullible and believe everything the government and mainstream media tells you about this. Needless to say, if you persist with these strawmen, ad populum arguments, arguments from authority, I will not bother to continue. You’ve had your chance to show your opinion on this wasn’t just a load of manufactured hogwash, and you’ve failed miserably. That you don’t even recognise your views as manufactured hogwash just illustrates how weak minded you really are.

In sum, your argument is that government sources are bad. And we must be skeptical of the government generally. And that Muslim freaks taping themselves lambasting the West are actually illusions. Excellent stuff.

In sum, you know nothing about this subject and so have to resort to truly pathetic and obvious straw man arguments in order to pretend you are actually saying something valid. For example:

This coming after your sources were the non-governmental Wikipedia and the BBC. Your position is absurdly stupid, and based entirely on prejudice and assumption. Feel free to mischaracterise my position once more because you cannot actually argue against the information I have presented…

This may have already been said but it is worth repeating. Seems to me Jewish and Christians are damn hate filled and have done horrific things in the name of their god.

It won’t matter what sources I present, you’ve already decided the state is evil and that there’s some state conspiracy involved. Talk about prejudice and assumption.
Look, there are extremist Muslims who hate the West and will do whatever to bring it down. I couldn’t care less if you believe it or not. Anarchists are nothing in the grand scheme of things.