Usual story - need for an enemy image, profits to be made from war, collapse of communism, etc.
There is of course the issue of evidence about the recent events and LOTS of historical precedent for these kinds of deceptions.
I disbelieve the official versions of 9/11 and 7/7 simply because the evidence doesn’t stack up. It’s more than it being a bit shaky - it’s downright implausible.
This is a common belief in the world of conspiracy media.
Global civil war? Dictatorship? I’m not sure. But I do know that first, you’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to say “I’m a human being goddamnit, my life has value!”…
According to the narrative, this was also a suicide bombing, committed by Hasib Hussain.
Why would Hussain try to contact the other alleged bombers? The narrative makes no attempt to answer this obvious question.
So much for the public knowing exactly what happened. I find it amusing that the narrative admits this is speculation, but fails to identify the dozens of other examples where speculation is treated as fact.
Why would an Islamic fundamentalist go to McDonalds? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Again, unsourced information dressed up as fact.
Why ‘almost certain’? No supporting evidence at all for a claim that, once again, seems to be in here simply to support the narrative’s desired version of events.
Fortunately for the narrative, the CCTV on the bus wasn’t working. EXCLUSIVE: THE HUNT
Again in this story, the use of high explosives, this time at all four sites, is mentioned. Again, this fits with the witnesses who spoke of smoke at the scene: telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … omb208.xml
This video shot on a mobile phone appears to show smoke but isn’t of high enough quality to say: youtube.com/watch?v=nuhBdHc8Nqs
I think it’s safe to say that Richard Jones, whoever he is (Obachike believes he is an agent), did not see Hasib Hussain fiddling with a bag just before the explosion. That the narrative would include this testimony despite it not supporting their version, but include it in an unsourced way to stop people checking whether it supported their version, smacks of a willingness to outright lie to the public.
The other evidence linking Hussain to the scene - his remains being found there, are also suspicious, and inconsistent with the narrative version.
If so, what agenda? British troops are playing an increasingly smaller and smaller role in operations in Iraq. So it couldn’t be to spill blood for oil as many think. It’s also highly unlikely that the British government would commit such an act to provoke hatred for Muslims in the U.K. seeing that they go out of their way to accommodate Muslims into British society.
The British government panders to radical Islamists more than just about any other western country. The British believe that if they give them a reason to like British society they wont be motivated to commit such atrocities. The British government is faced with a problem of locally grown Islamic Fundamentalists that want to wipe out western society, and the government’s answers is to give in to the demands and perceived needs of this group of their population. For example the British Health Service has ordered that all of their employees refrain from eating at their desks next month due to the fact that it is the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and doing such could offend their Muslim co-workers. http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1275192007
Furthering the value of the British weapons industry, establishing global authority by linking ourselves even more so with the greatest military power on earth, having an excuse to subvert democratic rights via legislation - the list goes on and on…
British government troops, yes. British troops working for private mercenary armies, no.
This has always been a simplistic view of the situation. This isn’t really about oil.
Yeah, because it’s not like they arrest them in their hundreds on grounds of suspected terrorism, which they announce to the world as though these people have already been convicted, only to release them later, usually without having ever charged them, let alone put them up in front of a jury, which they fail to announce to the press. It’s not like they shot a Muslim man during a terror raid on a house containing a family who were completely innocent, and then covered up the fact that they’d shot him by putting the whole thing down as an accident. Oh no, this shit never happens.
Bullshit, and I’d appreciate you not making ludicrous claims about my country.
Again, untrue. What is true is that for decades the British government and intelligence services have been working with these people. There’s the outmoded and thoroughly stupid practice known as the covenant of security, which could be what you’re referring to.
There’s very little evidence of ANY homegrown Islamic fundamentalists over here. And after the London Bombings they jailed Abu Hamza and got rid of Omar Bakri. So I really think you’re just repeating a line often published in the US press that has no basis in fact.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting this story to try to prove an incorrect point, or are you just ignorant of this country?
This isn’t a directive to all NHS workers, as you’ve claimed. The story quite clearly states:
So, one Health Authority, not the entire country, and it is advise, not an order. Whatismore, the story also contains criticism of the policy:
So apart from one story which you’ve utterly and completely misrepresented, where’s your evidence that
a) there’s a serious problem with homegrown Islamic fundamentalists in the UK
b) the government is pandering to them
?
The same agenda you’ve clearly written from in this very thread…
Well, not ‘bad’ in any transcendental sense, but bad in the sense that I don’t want it happening to me, my friends, my family, my country. I’m not going to pretend I have any argument about the morality of politics beyond my particular desires because, well, I know that we could both tear down anything I might put up…
you missed my point… it has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with power… the weak do not establish global authority… and it requires that authority to ensure that “democratic rights via legislation” or any other rights actually exist… as it stands, the terrorists are vying to claim that authority, and the question becomes will we cede it to them by eschewing the weapons industry and the greatest military power on earth?
If it were simply a choice between those two things then obviously I’d side with the military-industrial complex. But I don’t believe those are the only two options on the table. Of course, violence is the ultimate arbiter, and if either the terrorists or the government come for me, they’ll have a fight on their hands.
An article written five years ago, about an organisation which has ceased to exist (due to becoming proscribed, and thereby being banned). Where’s the pandering?
As I said, there is a stupid and outdated strategy (referred to at some length in the BBC Newsnight report you post below) in the intelligence services known as the covenant of security. It’s basically ‘you leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone’. I suppose you could see this as pandering, I see it as a means of covering up complicity.
What good is his information? Everyone calls themselves a terrorism analyst or expert these days, and the media is almost entirely uncritical in selecting which ones to interview. And the story does exactly what I accused it of doing - treating those arrested (in this case charged) as though they were guilty. The airline bomb plot it refers to has not yielded any convictions, or any serious proof of a plot. Now, maybe you think people should be locked up for thinking about how to carry out terrorist attacks, but I don’t.
1165 arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000
41 Terrorism Act convictions to date
While plenty of others have been convicted under other legislation, 41 convictions (most of which are not Islamic terrorists) out of 1165 arrests would indicate that rather than pandering to these people, they are going overboard in arresting anyone they have the slightest suspicion about.
So he hasn’t had long term residence in the UK (or hasn’t even necessarily been there) since the early 1970s. At which time Al Qaeda didn’t exist. And somehow, working at a Pakistani Uni and a couple of American ones makes him an expert on what’s going on in the UK?
Ludicrous. Find someone who actually knows what’s going on here.
All this really illustrates is the fallacy of Bush’s original statement. I’m not with him or the terrorists. If Bush creates a false dichotomy then he should expect some people to take the piss out of it.
Their organisation was banned, their leaders exiled or jailed. What have either of these two groups done since? Killed anyone? No. Tried to kill anyone? No. Tried to blow something up? No.
The same question that comes up whenever we discuss such tragedies is whether or not the authorities knew what was going to happen before the event. There are three different aspects to answering this question - the Netanyahu warning, the foreign intelligence agency warnings and the anti-terror drills being run at the same time in the same places as the actual events.
Netanyahu warning
Now, two of the main sources for this story are the Associated Press and Arutz Sheva, but the online versions of these stories on Yahoo and IsraelNationalNews have been deleted. This in itself is suspicious because I’ve searched for both the titles of the stories and direct quotations from them via google and the stories have simply been deleted rather than moved to another address. These are the original locations: israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/85346 news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_ … plosions_1
As you can see, both come up with error pages. Now, in the case of the Yahoo page it was deleted in the months after the bombings (and the story was filed on the day of the bombings), but with the INN story it happened much more recently - over this summer just finished. Fortunately, Prisonplanet has versions of both stories published on their website, and while of course Alex Jones is not a particularly reliable man, I can personally verify that the content has simply been copied over from the original locations above.
For those of you that are still sceptical, we have an additional report than is still live, from the India Daily. indiadaily.com/editorial/3489.asp
This story complicates matters, claiming that the Israelis gave a direct warning to the British in the days before the bombings, but also that the British warned the Israelis in London on the morning of the bombings.
I don’t know about you, but I find this highly suspicious. At the very least, this is the elite lying to us and protecting their own. It also suggests something much worse, that they not only knew about this beforehand, but were behind the planning and execution.
Foreign Intelligence warnings
There’s a lot to get through on this topic and I don’t have the time to go into every single issue in detail, but one of the most significant of the advance warnings to Britain from foreign intelligence services was from the Saudis, who said that they passed on a warning in December 2004 that there was a plot to bomb the Underground or a London nightclub, a plot involving four individuals, and that it would take place within 6 months. Now, the actual attack took place 8 months later, but the timescales are similar.
Now, there were various other warnings, but this is the one that bears most similarity to what actually happened, or at least to what we’re told is what happened.
The ‘coincidental’ terror training exercises.
On the day of the bombings, Peter Power gave two interviews stating that his company, Visor Consultants, were running anti-terrorism training exercises in the exact same places at the exact same times as the bombings. In the first interview, on BBC radio 5 (which I listened to on the day of the bombings) he said:
“At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.”
He was then asked by the BBC host,
“To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?â€
To which he replied,
“Precisely.â€
You can listen to/download the whole interview here.
Later that day he spoke to ITV news, where he was asked,
"Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?â€
A couple of days later he gave a third interview to CBS: Sunday Night inw which he said,
“Our scenario was very similar, but it wasn’t totally identical,’ he said. 'It was based on bombs going off - the time, the locations, all this sort of stuff. But it wasn’t an accident, in the sense that London has a history of bombs." channel4.com/news/articles/u … ses/109010
So, that’s three different interviews given on two different days, all in which he says basically the same thing, that his company was running a terrorism training exercise on the morning of the bombings, at some if not all of the same locations.
Peter Power is a curiously connected fellow. He is “a Fellow of the Emergency Planning Society, Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, Fellow of the Business Continuity Institute, Fellow of the Institute of Risk Management and a member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London.” visorconsultants.com/teamvis … power.html
So he’s a Mason and a member of a series of institutes related to risk and terrorism, and runs a Crisis Management Consultant Agency. Somehow, this doesn’t dispell my suspicions that these exercises were a front for what actually happened. After all, several members of the Italian Masonic Lodge P2 were convicted of involvement in the Bologna train station bombing of 1980.
Regardless, Visor Consultants have attempted to whitewash the whole thing by issuing a statement to those making inquiries that contradicts the three different interviews given by their managing director.
Even this attempt to downplay the situation smacks of a cover up, and even if only one of their exercises was very similar to actual events, that’s still an implausible coincidence. Who is the private company of around a thousand people? Could it be Verint, the security company who provides CCTV for the London Underground (the CCTV that failed completely to show what happened, at least as far as the public record is concerned)? israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/69208 Verint Press Release
I doubt it, since they appear to be a much bigger firm. I’ve contacted them trying to find out, but so far they haven’t given me any answer.
No, of course not, no question at all. Except the questions I’ve asked in this thread and thousands of other people have asked in thousands of other forums. Which, unless you’re prepared to answer in full, stand to this day.
These pathetic “questions” are just conspiracy nut misunderstandings. There is no motive for a conspiracy to have been carried out and by far there is no evidence.
Oh, come on. As if the British Government could pull off anything as elaborate as that. Bollocks. The British Government have the tactical ability of a brain-damaged rat. They can barely run the country, never mind fool it.
