Metropol

johnnyboy wrote:

Dr Lobster* wrote:

johnnyboy wrote:However, the scramble to blame Muslims and Al-Qaeda without providing any reasonably convincing evidence to go on will lead the sceptical to conclude that they have no evidence yet and are trying to either provide the public with some relief that they are in charge of the situation, or that there is a political motivation behind it.

that doesn't make sense; it does the government no good to create a divide or animosity with Muslim community.

You're an intelligent fella, Dr L, and I'm surprised that you can't see that this is a classic case of "divide and rule".

The strategy of "divide and rule" has been used throughout history. Hitler used it against the Jews, the Communists, the Gypsies, etc. So, why would he do that?

"Divide and rule" plays to the very basic instincts of human emotion - ie the sense of belonging, whether to a family, a group of friends, a region, etc. Using "divide and rule" creates the impression that your group is in threat, in mortal danger of an enemy that can't be reasoned with. The "Reds under the Bed" during McCarthyism in America in the 50s.

"Divide and rule" uses the most extreme and ugly form of stereotyping imaginable to create its end. In this case, Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, have been under constant attack, verbally and physically, since 9/11 - they are constantly portrayed as a backwards religion whose holy book spews hatred, repression and violence (all major religions do that, but somehow the Islamic faith is far worse), its followers as a distinct group looking to "Islamicise" the UK and the rest of the world (Islam is hardly the only religion that looks for new believers), and so on and so forth.

Muslims are just one of the latest in a long line of "mortal threats" to our existence - along with asylum seekers. In the 80s, it was Loony Lefties trying to undermine us, the 70s brought us trade unionists.

It is completely in the Government's interest to stir racial hatred - not too much, but enough. The non-Muslim peoples view the Muslims as the threat - a people out of the modern world trying to force us down their backward path. It is a form of subtle psychological justification for foreign policy.

With the Government actively involved in Iraq, one of Israel's biggest sponsors, and sabre-rattling in Iran and Syria, all countries with large Muslim populations (including Israel & the occupied territories), how could it not be in the Government's interest to demonise the Islamic religion and its followers?

I'm sorry but that is complete rubbish. Of course it's not in the interests of the government to stir up racial hatred. The Iraq agenda has far far more to do with oil than with the fact Iraq is a Muslim country. Racial hatred just plays into the hands of scum like the British National Party.

You seam to have forgotten that this country went to war in Kosavo to protect Muslims.

The ones who do have an agenda against Muslims are the owners of the scandal sheets of the tabloid press.

I'm sorry jonnyboy but you do seam to live in a fantasy world. Governments may do many nasty and immoral things but they do not blow up 700 members of the public and bring London to a halt, just to get a few votes. For a start the top of Government leaks like a sieve. Do you really thing a major plot like this could be kept secret.

Hey maybe it was the Duke of Edinburgh to divert people away from the fact he killed Diana

Marcus wrote:I'm sorry but that is complete rubbish. Of course it's not in the interests of the goverment to stir up racial hatred. The Iraq agenda has far far more to do with oil than with the fact Iraq is a muslim country. Racial hatred just plays into the hands of scum like the British National Party.

Oh, Marcus, grow up, fella.

Governments have created divides for decades, nay centuries, between the people. It's easier to govern a country when the peoples are fighting against each other.

I'm not suggesting it's a new strategy for this current "mortal threat" - it's been used for all time in all societies.

Marcus wrote:You seam to have forgotten that this country went to war in Kosavo to protect Muslims.

Governments go to war for geopolitical reasons, not moral reasons.

Marcus wrote:The ones who do have an agenda against Muslims are the owners of the scandal sheets of the tabloid press.

I don't disagree with you on that point.

Marcus wrote:I'm sorry jonnyboy but you do seam to live in a fantasy world. Goverments may do many nasty and imoral things but they do not blow up 700 members of the public and bring London to a halt, just to get a few votes. For a start the top of Goverment leaks like a sive. Do you really thing a major plot like this could be kept secret.

Governments do many nasty and immoral things. For example, lying to get our country to go to war in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of 100,000+ people just as innocent as our countrymen and women who died last week.

If they can sleep at night with the deaths of 100,000, it is a fair argument to ask if 50 would bother them, is it not?

It's also important to note that I have said I neither believe nor disbelieve anything I've read so far - I'm in the process of weighing up evidence to come to a subjective conclusion.

What exactly have I said that strikes you as "fantasy"? Can you argue your case or is it just a gut reaction, devoid of any solid intellectual base. I love arguments and debates - I have always done. Challenge the sources I have presented and I promise I will listen and react to your point of view.

Marcus wrote:Hey maybe it was the Duke of Edinburgh to divert people away from the fact he killed Diana

What does that have to do with anything? If you're linking the death of Diana with the London bombings, you're even crazier than David Icke.

Don't forget as well, Marcus, that there is plenty of evidence suggesting collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries and British security services during the 70s and the 80s.

For the UK government to collude with terrorists is not without precedent.

johnnyboy wrote:Don't forget as well, Marcus, that there is plenty of evidence suggesting collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries and British security services during the 70s and the 80s.

For the UK government to collude with terrorists is not without precedent.

So do you really think that Tony Blair would santion the planting of four bombs on London Transport, for his own political ends?

Marcus wrote:So do you really think that Tony Blair would santion the planting of four bombs on London Transport, for his own political ends?

I dunno, matie, I'm not part of his inner sanctum. I can't say for definite "yes" or "no" to that.

However, British security services do have a history in this type of thing - they do have form. So do most governments around the world of every political creed.

He lied the country into war for his own political ends - what was a conspiracy theory just 3 years ago is now accepted as fact by most. Tony has form on this too.

An impartial and sceptical observer would think however that there are certainly questions to be asked about this whole incident - including but not limited to the profiles of the alleged bombers not fitting any criteria of your average "suicide bomber", the "tests" being done on the same morning, the leak about the halving of forces in Iraq, and so on and so forth.

I haven't drawn any personal conclusions yet, but the day we stop asking questions like these is the day we are not a democracy. And we all know democracy in this country is on life support anyway.

I have no axe to grind with you, Marcus. I'm just bringing different thoughts and theories to the table - I don't want to make up anyone's mind for them. I don't have all the answers, funnily enough!

johnnyboy wrote:

Marcus wrote:So do you really think that Tony Blair would santion the planting of four bombs on London Transport, for his own political ends?

I dunno, matie, I'm not part of his inner sanctum. I can't say for definite "yes" or "no" to that.

However, British security services do have a history in this type of thing - they do have form. So do most governments around the world of every political creed.

He lied the country into war for his own political ends - what was a conspiracy theory just 3 years ago is now accepted as fact by most. Tony has form on this too.

An impartial and skeptical observer would think however that there are certainly questions to be asked about this whole incident - including but not limited to the profiles of the alleged bombers not fitting any criteria of your average "suicide bomber", the "tests" being done on the same morning, the leak about the halving of forces in Iraq, and so on and so forth.

I haven't drawn any personal conclusions yet, but the day we stop asking questions like these is the day we are not a democracy. And we all know democracy in this country is on life support anyway.

I have no axe to grind with you, Marcus. I'm just bringing different thoughts and theories to the table - I don't want to make up anyone's mind for them. I don't have all the answers, funnily enough!

Well you are saying the Prime Minister of the country could be a mass murderer. That is quite a charge. You really ought to have some evidence to support this. It's actually quite libelous without proof. What about the Queen? She would have to be involved. What about the rest of the cabinet? Have they all got blood on their hands?

What about the Police. Hundreds of officers all involved. Are they all supressing evidence. Those sweating in the tunnels in 60 degree heat, picking their way through the rats to try to assemble as much evidence as possible. Have they all been told to throw away any DNA they find which belongs to MI5 agents. What about the families of those who planted the bombs? Do they exist? Were their kids killed by the security services and the bodies placed in the wreckage.

I'm sorry but to many people would need to be involved. The story would get out. These stories always do.

Yes Governments lie, yes they do distort the truth. I'm even prepared to admit they may have bumped off a few "undesirables" in the past. The Gibraltar killings were almost certainly planned in advance.

But killing 54 of their own citizens and maiming over 700 more is just to far fetched to be credible. The political risks are just to large.

You see plots in everything. I'm much more inclined to the cock up theory of life.

Marcus wrote:Well you are saying the Prime Minister of the country could be a mass murderer. That is quite a charge.

It is quite a charge. On Iraq alone, with all the evidence to support the contention that he lied the nation into an illegal war that has so far cost 100,000+ lives, there can be no doubt that he is a mass murderer. He is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands.

I doubt many in the country would disagree. Do you? And if so, where am I wrong about the Iraq war? Have you heard about the Downing Street Memos from 2002?

Marcus wrote:You really ought to have some evidence to support this. It's actually quite libelous without proof. What about the Queen? She would have to be involved. What about the rest of the cabinet? Have they all got blood on their hands?

If Tony wants to take me to court, so be it. I would love the opportunity. But he won't, and he never will. Marcus, there are millions in the country that feel this way - it's not just me.

And where does your illogical contention that the Queen and the Cabinet would have to be involved come from? Neither were involved in the decision to take us to war with Iraq - that is well documented.

In any hierarchical structure, business or government, the person at the top always has the most information and chooses to show what s/he pleases to the people below. To suggest that the Queen would be involved, let alone the Cabinet, stretches credibility to the extreme.

Marcus wrote:What about the Police. Hundreds of officers all involved. Are they all supressing evidence. Those sweating in the tunnels in 60 degree heat, picking their way through the rats to try to assemble as much evidence as possible. Have they all been told to throw away any DNA they find which belongs to MI5 agents.

What makes you think that the police down there necessarily have a clue what's going on? Their job is to collect evidence and have it interpreted by others. It's exactly the same at any crime scene.

The Police is another hierarchical organisation. In this or any other high profile case, are you seriously suggesting that PC Bloggs has the same knowledge of a situation than the people in charge of the investigation? You KNOW it doesn't work that way!

Marcus wrote:What about the families of those who planted the bombs? Do they exist? Were their kids killed by the security services and the bodies placed in the wreckage.

All we have seen so far is one dark-skinned guy with a rucksack on his back. That's hardly enough evidence to convict in a court of law, let alone have the media pin them as the perpetrators of the attack.

As to what has become of the alleged bombers, why the hell do you think I would know? All I am doing is asking questions - why don't you like that? Why are you so vehemently against that (as is shown by your tone)? If the story is so watertight, there shouldn't be a problem, should there?

Marcus wrote:I'm sorry but to many people would need to be involved. The story would get out. These stories always do.

I refer you to the earlier point about dissemination of information within a hierarchical organisation.

Marcus wrote:Yes Governments lie, yes they do distort the truth. I'm even prepared to admit they may have bumped off a few "undesirables" in the past. The Gibraltar killings were almost certainly planned in advance.

But killing 54 of their own citizens and maiming over 700 more is just to far fetched to be credible. The political risks are just to large.

Marcus, matie, I hate to burst your bubble, but the media don't really give a toss. How many times since 9/11 have you heard about the 19 hijackers? So many you have lost count, I bet.

However, it has been conclusively proven (and quietly reported on mainstream news media websites) that 7 of the hijackers are still alive. They were never on the plane. Their passports were not stolen. The truth is that no-one knows beyond a reasonable doubt who did that horrible crime.

When did you hear about it on the 6 O'Clock News? Never.

Marcus wrote:You see plots in everything. I'm much more inclined to the cock up theory of life.

Another personal attack on me, despite the fact I have said many times in this thread I don't know who to believe and disbelieve.

If the case is so watertight and beyond doubt, Marcus, why are you being so hostile towards what I am saying? Can you keep an open mind? Is that possible?

And will you ever address the charge that Tony Blair is a mass murderer, by aiding and abetting the US in invading a foreign country on illegal grounds resulting in the death of 100,00+ people as innocent as those last week?

edit: ignore, can't be arsed.

johnnyboy wrote:It is quite a charge. On Iraq alone, with all the evidence to support the contention that he lied the nation into an illegal war that has so far cost 100,000+ lives, there can be no doubt that he is a mass murderer. He is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands.

A little off topic, but I think it's worth mentioning...

If Iraq was an illegal war with 100,000+ murders, then every soldier who killed someone during that war could potentially be charged with murder, and for more senior army officers experience shows us that it is likely that they will at some point in the future. As has been shown in hundreds of cases (most notably at the Nuremburg trials and the trials follow Vietnam), a defence of 'following orders' has rarely been successful in court, as soldiers are expected to follow only <i>legal</i> orders.

Are you sure enough that this war is illegal that you're willing to convict hundreds of people who risked their lives for - or so they thought - their country? Or are you instead willing to accept that Lord Goldsmith's opinion (or, at least, his most recent one) might possibly have a shred of substance to it, and that the legality of the war is only questionable? And, given the above, can you really blame Mr Blair for trying desperately to defend his stance and its legality?

Edit: That sounded almost like I'm defending Tony Blair... which is certainly a novel idea for me.

As someone who was very anti the Iraq war I have now doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of it. Blair, however misguided he was, was convinced it was a legal war. His own attorney general told him it was. Whatever his motives for going to war in Iraq, Blair believed he was doing the moral thing in removing Saddam. I believe he was wrong and the Iraq war will haunt us for many years to come, mainly because of the appalling way the country's borders were left open and there was no plan for the aftermath of the war. But he believed he was morally right and in the long term was doing the right thing. I sincerely doubt that Lord Goldsmith gave Blair secret advice that it would be legal to blow up four bombs on the transport system.

I ask you again about these kids, do you think they existed. Were their families just a series of actors? Was it just luck they were all seen on the day of the bombs with large rucksacks on their backs?

I am not aggressive against you JonnyBoy. What I do think is that if we are to prevent this sort of thing we need to understand what happened and why it happened. How did a Kid from Leeds become so brainwashed he blew himself into bits on the no 30 bus. Throwing mad conspiracy theories into the mix does nothing to help the situation. The Muslim community is shocked at this events. MY god if I discoved my 18 year old son had been so twisted that he had blown himself up I would be devastated. Wild theories like this allow diversions which stop people facing up to the real problems. Babyben is right it's a real disservice to those who died. we owe it to them to stop this ever happening again.

Bizzare theories on the Internet, which have never been proved do not belong on the Six O'clock news. I assure you the news editors do not run their scripts via MI5 before broadcast. The BBC however does require conformation and proof before running with stories. I assure if you have evidence that the 7 hijackers are still alive send it to the editor of TV News. I can assure you if it can be stood up it would run.

Marcus wrote:As someone who was very anti the Iraq war I have now doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of it. Blair, however misguided he was, was convinced it was a legal war. His own attorney general told him it was.

Marcus, honestly matie, there is so much evidence to the contrary on that position.

Over one hundred thousand people have died in Iraq. Every single one as innocent as our countrymen and women who died last week.

Blair gave his assurance that he would go to war with Iraq in April 2002. It's not wacky conspiracy theorists saying this - it's Claire Short, Robin Cook and the Downing Street Memos (DSM). The DSM show that the "facts were being fixed" to present Iraq as very dangerous by taking a very dim interpretation on the intelligence (most of which was provided by one drunk).

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, presented a 13 page document in early March 2003 saying that, without the second resolution, war was not legally justified. American lawyers leaned on him heavily and he produced a 1 page document two weeks later saying it was totally legal without the second resolution.

There is so much damning evidence against Tony on this.

Marcus wrote:Whatever his motives for going to war in Iraq, Blair believed he was doing the moral thing in removing Saddam. I believe he was wrong and the Iraq war will haunt us for many years to come, mainly because of the appalling way the country's borders were left open and there was no plan for the aftermath of the war. But he believed he was morally right and in the long term was doing the right thing. I sincerely doubt that Lord Goldsmith gave Blair secret advice that it would be legal to blow up four bombs on the transport system.

Governments go to war for geopolitical reasons, not moral reasons. The original reason was WMD disarmament - nothing to do with morals. As soon as it became clear that he had no weapons at all (Hans Blix et al tried to warn them of this before the war), suddenly it became to free the people of Iraq. Now, it's morphed into a crusade to bring "democracy" to the Muslim world.

We will never know the true reasons for going to war in Iraq - there's probably a dozen of them, including oil, Israel, etc etc.

If the bombings were self-inflicted, I sincerely doubt that Lord Goldsmith would have been asked about its legality. Please read again my earlier post about the way information is disseminated within a hierarchical organisation

Marcus wrote:I ask you again about these kids, do you think they existed. Were their families just a series of actors? Was it just luck they were all seen on the day of the bombs with large rucksacks on their backs?

Again, Marcus, please do not think I am trying to present some watertight theory here. From my point of view, and probably the point of view of a couple of million others, I just have questions about this incident that no-one seems to be answering.

The fact is that one grainy picture of a dark-skinned guy with a rucksack does not prove he was a suicide bomber. In terms of their MOs, if you read them carefully, do they REALLY sound like suicide bombers? One guy worked with handicapped kids, another guy had an 8-month old baby and ran a fish and chip shop. These are all reasonable questions - it won't be the first time there has been a miscarriage of justice (see the Birmingham Six & Guildford Four), and if they were, it won't be the first time that a patsy has been set up.

Again, these are all QUESTIONS, not statements.

Marcus wrote:What if we are to prevent this sort of thing we need to understand what happened and why it happened. How did a Kid from Leeds become so brainwashed he blew himself into bits on the no 30 bus. Throwing mad conspiracy theories into the mix does nothing to help the situation.

Nice pejorative use of the word "mad" there!

The facts are this - there is no evidence that the 4 suicide bombers were suicide bombers. Just because the government and the media say it is so does not make it true.

What's weird is how they've only identified 11 of the 53 dead so far, but they seem to have figured out who these people were so quickly. Again, is this not a reasonable question?

Marcus wrote:The Muslim community is shocked at this events. MY god if I discoved my 18 year old son had been so twisted that he had blown himself up I would be devastated. Wild theories like this allow diversions which stop people facing up to the real problems. Babyben is right it's a real disservice to those who died. we owe it to them to stop this ever happening again.

So, because people have died, we should make ABSOLUTELY SURE that we know who killed them by asking all the tough questions possible.

For example, why did these suicide bombers buy pay and display tickets at Luton train station? (Source: The Mirror)

Again, what I am saying, even though it is not a theory, is "wild". So, you've used the terms "mad" and "wild" so far - can you back those descriptions up by showing why these questions are stupid? Or is it yet again another gut reaction to difficult questions?

Marcus wrote:Bizzare theories on the Internet, which have never been proved do not belong on the Six O'clock news. I assure you the news editors do not run their scripts via MI5 before broadcast. The BBC however does require conformation and proof before running with stories. I assure if you have evidence that the 7 hijackers are still alive send it to the editor of TV News. I can assure you if it can be stood up it would run.

Correction. Bizarre theories do belong on the Six O'Clock News, if that's what the Government tell them. The BBC and others, despite decades of inaccurate and lazy reporting, will always use a governement source as credible because a) it's easier, and b) if they go too much against what the Government say, they will be in danger of losing their contacts and access to information. Ask any journalist this.

So, if the BBC require confirmation and proof, why are they reporting the suicide bombers as who they are without confirmation and proof? What is the reason for this?

7 of the "hijackers" on 9/11 were never on the plane and are still alive. The BBC et al know this, but still continue to report that there were 19 hijackers, despite the fact that their number and identities have never been verified. Why aren't the BBC tripping over themselves to provide a correct version to the public? Enquiring minds want to know.

FLIGHT ELEVEN - Crashed into WTC1
Waleed M. Alshehri - ALIVE - BBC
Wail M. Alshehri - ALIVE - LA Times (no longer available)
Abdulaziz Al-Omari - ALIVE - Daily Telegraph

FLIGHT SEVENTY-SEVEN - Crashed into Pentagon
Khalid Almihdhari - ALIVE - Guardian
Salem Alhazmi - ALIVE - Guardian

FLIGHT 175 - Crashed into WTC2
Mohand Alshehri - ALIVE - AFP

FLIGHT 93 - Crashed in Pennsylvania
Saeed Alghamdi - ALIVE - Chicago Tribune
Ahmed Alnami - ALIVE - Telegraph

There you go, Marcus - proof that what I am saying about 9/11 is correct. And, for your convenience, I've deliberately sourced all the information from mainstream media such as the Beeb and major newspapers.

This information is out there, but it's been slipped under the radar and is never reported on their main ways of getting the news out. Why is that?

If the Government and the media get it so wrong about 9/11 and who was behind it, how can you be sure they've not been as lazy and slapdash with their approach to the London bombings? Does this shake your trust in them at all?

Perhaps not yet, and I don't blame you - I'm asking you to think about some horrible things. But there will come a point where you see on your screen on in your newspaper something that just doesn't make sense.