Conspiracy Theory Update - Was London an inside job?

[johnnyboy]

Why do you have to be so insulting when your views are questioned.

Because you are insulting me by implying or outright saying that I believe everything I have presented when I have said multiple times that I am not sure what to believe and what not to believe.

I only opened this thread for talking about some of the inconsistencies and bringing some new information to you lot. I really was not interested in getting into a flame war.

However, you have consistently refused to acknowledge that and argued with source.

Don't call me dummy because you cant support you own arguments.

Unlike some of us, I actually PROVIDE SOURCES which is more than you have done.

Again you use "support your own arguments" implying I believe everything I have posted.

I take exception to you smearing the thousands of BBC staff who are deeply committed to the corporations values of Independence and impartiality. The BBC does get it wrong sometimes but it is one of the few organizations who admit it when they do.

I've never been a journo, admiteddly, but some of the mistakes they constantly make about important events (even with years to correct them) mean that they DO NOT "check and double check their facts".

The BBC had not blindly followed the governments line. You must have missed the vast number of guests interviewed over the past week from all points of the political spectrum and all networks. It's why the BBC is the most trusted news source in the world, including the Arab countries.

The "dissenting voices", as you call them, are interviewed within a given framework of what the BBC says happened.

Has there been anyone on who seriously disputes the version of events given? No. I have watched the same coverage as anyone else.

Your accusations against the Prime Minister are pathetic. They would be treasonable if they weren't so absurd. Unfortunately you are in such a blind spot and have such hatred against the man they you are willing to believe anything. Can't you agree he believed he was doing the right thing. Why are you so unwilling to believe he is anything but totally evil. You are as ridgid in your views as some of the fundamentalists

You and I must simply have a different moral framework. I believe, as do millions of others, that he lied the country into war. I do not believe for a second that the intelligence services got it wrong. The intelligence services actually got it mainly right, but, both here and in the US, it was manipulated and selected to build a case for war. I can't understand why you think what I am saying is controversial!

In many things, I have supported Tony Blair. Robin Cook, Claire Short and the Downing Street Memos PROVE that Tony knew there was not a case for going to war. Dozens of LIES were told to take us into it.

How can you possibly hold two contradictory opinions at the same time - that he was a moral man who believed in his case and that he had to lie to convince everyone that this case was moral? I just don't get it.

If that makes me a "fundamentalist", as you jokingly put it, there must be more than 10 million like me in the UK.

[Corin]

An answer, from one perspective, to the question posed in the title of this thread can be found at

<http://www.edstrong.blog-city.COM/londo ... eory_2.htm>

And when the police shoot an innocent man five times (just to make sure presumably) whom they have aprehended and pinned down on the floor, it makes you think, dunnit?

[Marcus]

The problem is that governments and security services are all made up of people like you and me. Most of them are decent people who believe they are doing a good job.

The is no reason why they become mass murderers involved in a massive cover up as soon as they join the establishment.

Unless they are all under an Imperius curse.

[Ant]

I don't really believe that the London Attacks were planned by anyone (excluding of course the terrorists) but it is a bit weird to shoot an innocent man dead five times in the head. I've been on holiday the past couple of weeks and I haven't really seen the evidence for shooting the guy dead, so what is it?

[babyben]

Here's the evidence - he's a suspect.. secret service have been trailing him for a while.

He's just run on to a tube train after failing to stop for Police. Perhaps he's got a belt full of explosives and could trigger them at any second killing many innocent people? I don't believe he was just an ordinary joe who ran away from police - the UK police don't act like that lightly.

It's a horrible split second choice for that policeman.

[johnnyboy]

The problem is that governments and security services are all made up of people like you and me. Most of them are decent people who believe they are doing a good job.

The is no reason why they become mass murderers involved in a massive cover up as soon as they join the establishment.

Unless they are all under an Imperius curse.

Here is the future of BBC News, folks. Slavishly obedient to the official Government line. No chance of this one ever being a Gilligan, no chance of this one being a "Death On The Rock" reporter, etc.

He believes everything the Government tells him. No asking questions, no looking deeper, he just parrots the official line. And if anyone disagrees with him, they are a David-Icke-conspiracy-wannabee.

Look at the faulty logic. If anyone doubts the official line, Marcus thinks that the doubters must believe that everyone involved are "mass murderers as soon as they join the establishment". This is our future - this is the future of the most respected mass media organisation in the world.

If it wasn't for the odd non-lazy journo like Martin Brunt, the truth about the shooting would never have emerged. Is he some kind of wacky conspiracy theorist now?

Welcome to the future of our world, as presented by Marcus.

babyben, while I appreciate what you say and I believe the Police were acting in what they believed to be the best interest, you can not shoot people because they are running away from the Police. How many other criminals, not involved in terrorism, do that? We both know how many. If the British police ever adopt a "shoot-to-kill" policy on people who try to avoid arrest, we're heading down a very dangerous road.

[cwathen]

Surely it just shows that the Iraq war has made Britain more of a terrorist target? The same Iraq war that Blair was behind. The voting public won't vote for someone who doesn't keep "us" safe.

The voting public however, did vote for and cause the re-election of someone who took us to a war which may well have been illegal. We had the choice to get rid of Blair only a few short months ago. We didn't take it.

The problem with democracy is that you are allowing the poorly educated masses who believe anything they've read in The Star to play a part in the appointment of the government.

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?

With respect Marcus, the idea that the Queen is any way involved in the running of this country is something I find somewhat beyond laughable. The monarch has been nothing more than a figurehead head of state for more than a century, and in recent years has become little more than a tourist attraction to keep the Americans visiting.

[Corin]

you can not shoot people because they are running away from the Police.

If the observation reported by the eye witness is to be believed, the police did not shoot the suspect whilst he was running away (which under the circumstances even I would have to admit would have been justifiable) but that he was shot, not once, but five times, whilst pinned to the floor by several officers.

Why shoot somebody who is immobilized, and furthermore by all accounts, was in a state of fear, not of antagonism towards those chasing him?

Incidentally, is it evident that the officers clearly identified themselves as police (since were they not undercover and not uniformed officers) whilst chasing the suspect?

[tillyoshea]

He's just run on to a tube train after failing to stop for Police. Perhaps he's got a belt full of explosives and could trigger them at any second killing many innocent people?

If they thought he was wearing explosives, why shoot him? That would have a very high risk of setting the explosives off! And I would imagine that police protocol wouldn't include shooting someone who's on the floor five times at close range anyway.

A far more likely scenario to my mind is that one police officer lost it, saw this Asian-looking guy, apparently a suspect in the murder of 50 people, running away from the police, assumed his guilt, and shot him in a moment of pure rage. Police are only human, and I'd suspect that a proportion of London's young men would have acted similarly in that situation.

The man was, by all accounts, unarmed, on the floor, and if they'd considered that he might be wearing explosives, the last thing they'd do is shoot him. Five times. And, of course, they wouldn't want to kill him anyway because they need his information. I can't see any way this could possibly have played that didn't involve someone going off protocol.

[Marcus]

The problem is that governments and security services are all made up of people like you and me. Most of them are decent people who believe they are doing a good job.

The is no reason why they become mass murderers involved in a massive cover up as soon as they join the establishment.

Unless they are all under an Imperius curse.

Here is the future of BBC News, folks. Slavishly obedient to the official Government line. No chance of this one ever being a Gilligan, no chance of this one being a "Death On The Rock" reporter, etc.

He believes everything the Government tells him. No asking questions, no looking deeper, he just parrots the official line. And if anyone disagrees with him, they are a David-Icke-conspiracy-wannabee.

Look at the faulty logic. If anyone doubts the official line, Marcus thinks that the doubters must believe that everyone involved are "mass murderers as soon as they join the establishment". This is our future - this is the future of the most respected mass media organization in the world.

If it wasn't for the odd non-lazy journo like Martin Brunt, the truth about the shooting would never have emerged. Is he some kind of wacky conspiracy theorist now?

Welcome to the future of our world, as presented by Marcus.

babyben, while I appreciate what you say and I believe the Police were acting in what they believed to be the best interest, you can not shoot people because they are running away from the Police. How many other criminals, not involved in terrorism, do that? We both know how many. If the British police ever adopt a "shoot-to-kill" policy on people who try to avoid arrest, we're heading down a very dangerous road.

Jonny you are so blinkered in your hatred of Tony Blair and the BBC that any rational thought has gone out of the window.

Time and time again I have said that I don't agree with the actions taken by the Blair government. The Iraq war has made the world a much more dangerous place.

However is does not follow that Blair was so evil he would order the murder of many of his own citizens. You are unable to believe that he believed he was working for the best. He was a decent man who goes to church and has a wife and family. Why would he turn into a mass murderer. It makes no logical sense. And there is a difference between launching a war against another country and a covert terrorist attack

Of course your or my views don't matter when reporting events. The BBC had to go on the evidence and facts. It has time and time again questioned the government on its official line. Were you listing to Broadcasting House this morning? Do you think that John Humphreys is a government stooge?

The truth of the shooting on the underground was released by the police after being leaked to sky first. The same sky who had labeled him a Suicide bomber throughout the previous day whereas the BBC had him as a suspect. How do you think they were going to cover it up. Kill the poor mans entire friends and family. Would every PC who found a piece of evidence that did not fit the official line be brought off?

[Corin]

Imagine this bloke HAD been a suicide bomber and the Police HADN'T shot him. He boards the train, sets off his device and another bounty of infidels have been purified.

Why are you asking us to imagine a different scenario, and ignoring the reported observation that this man HAD boarded the train and WAS pinned to the floor by several officers, WHEN he was shot five times and NOT while he was being pursued?

As to why the man did not stop when ordered:

1) Did he know that the men were police officers (since presumably they were undercover and not wearing uniforms) and not members of an armed criminal mob (which would not be unusual in large Brazilian city)?

2) Was he sufficiently fluent in English (Portugese presumably being his mother language) to understand what they were saying?