tarannau said:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,310 for "crack squirrels".
SLP, Guardian, the Register, Life Style Extra, the Sun, Fox News on p1.
Then Telegraph, Time Out - hey, u75's been pushed down to p3, so successful is the meme!
7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,310 for "crack squirrels".
SLP, Guardian, the Register, Life Style Extra, the Sun, Fox News on p1.
Then Telegraph, Time Out - hey, u75's been pushed down to p3, so successful is the meme!
Azrael23 said:
But she's full of shit. Although I will admit that I haven't read everything she has to say, I suppose I could attend her 2 day course of lectures at ULU (235 quid), or maybe not. She doesn't seem to have published many of her theories, but I guess that is just the establishment suppressing the truth for their own nefarious gains.
Jazzz said:
The same photos our old friend Kirsch commented upon, probably more for all we know, appeared throughout the international media, certainly in the UK broadsheets and tv news I remember. If I can remember them, don't you think one or two pathologists may have seen them too. Or did they take a view of the paper at breakfast, think that the photos were stinking fakes, but then engrossed themselves in their cornflakes, either too apathetic or fearful of govt. reprisals that they wouldn't comment further. Thank god we had the anti-semitic pathologist hero Dr Kirsch to enlighten us, before he disappeared, phantom-like, back to his untrackable Tracy island style hideaway, along with Lord Lucan and Shergar.
And let's be straight, Kirsh isn't arguing about one or two minor discrepancies. He's convinced that it's piss easy to spot that it's a fake. Could no-one else see this?
Extrapolation by omission is a weak argument? A weaker argument is convincing yourself that the cadavers are fake, based on the words of one supposed retired pathologist, who no-one seems to be able to track down. Why doesn't one solitary pathologist seem willing to back Dr Kirsch?
laptop said:Results 1 - 10 of about 1,310 for "crack squirrels".
SLP, Guardian, the Register, Life Style Extra, the Sun, Fox News on p1.
Then Telegraph, Time Out - hey, u75's been pushed down to p3, so successful is the meme!
Which just goes to show that our Bob's crack squirrel fabrication was far more believable than Jazzz's Birmingham hotel terrorist expose.
Jazzz couldn't even make the fanciful Fox News, unlike the squirrel yarn. Oh the shame...
Strangely enough. My gran didn't quite look herself in the coffin, even with all that make up the undertaker had put on. And she hadn't even been involved in a military assault.
Do you really believe that it's as simple as that, allowing you to become an instant expert? Move aside facial reconstruction experts and pathologists, Jazzz is here, armed with the certainty that a couple of photos he's found on the internet 'don't quite look right'
The Pentagon really has let to standards slip though hasn't it? It could pull off a near-perfect conspiracy involving crashing planes, exploding buildings and guided pod missiles apparently, but they couldn't get a simple likeness right. You just can't get the staff at Husseins-R-Us these days...
Do you really believe that it's as simple as that, allowing you to become an instant expert? Move aside facial reconstruction experts and pathologists, Jazzz is here, armed with the certainty that a couple of photos he's found on the internet 'don't quite look right'
The Pentagon really has let to standards slip though hasn't it? It could pull off a near-perfect conspiracy involving crashing planes, exploding buildings and guided pod missiles apparently, but they couldn't get a simple likeness right. You just can't get the staff at Husseins-R-Us these days...
axon said:
But if you buy the whole 48-month distance learning course all at once, it's only £199.97!
That'll be actual science, then.
* Bookmarks www.wddty.co.uk/thefield/ for a certain weekly column
*I especially like "remote view from the future". But how long would you have to wait to find out whether you'd seen anything?
Jazzz said:
Congratulations. You're a self certified expert based on a couple of photos and absolutely no real world experience of either Qusay or Uday.
I salute you and your greater knowledge and am glad that you could pick up the obvious flaws along withthe strangely reclusive Dr Kirsch. Strange that the thousands of other pathologists and the many, many people who had the misfortune to deal with the Hussein boys over the years didn't raise the same concerns as you, never piping up together and publically. But I guess that they don't have the same depth of knowledge, face-assessing aptitude or insight as you.
Next week you'll be confidently giving us your expert opinions on popular mechanics, avionics and the explosion forces, despite your seeming lack of qualifications and expertise. Oh wait, you've already started on that...
Jazzz said:
If you do a little bit of Googling you can find links to an American University alumni brochure where they give details of the forensic scientist (an alumni of the uni) who conducted the DNA tests that confirmed the identity of Uday and Qusay. Is the university part of the conspiracy too?
I seem to remember a certain bit of piping up by the UN inspectors, hundreds of articles in the mainstream media and tens of millions of people marching through the capitals of the world all saying that the whole thing was a load of cobblers.Jazzz said:
But no point in letting that get in the way of a good conspiraloonathon
Yes I saw that later on. No it would not be necessary for such a person or establishment to be part of such a propaganda coup. DNA tests are great but only as good as the people that supply the samples. If you are willing to believe that the US military is run by a bunch of lying bastards, with budgets of $millions for psy-ops, well you even have to wonder about their DNA tests too.Techno303 said:
I'm sure that the millions are perfectly happy that Jazzzz has appointed himself their spokesperson.Jazzz said:
In any case, it is patently obvious that the propaganda was not very successful since its whole purpose was to drum up fears about the threat from Iraq and thus win support for the war.
The biggest public demonstration in history and worldwide opinion polls are my evidence of the failure of the propaganda*. What's the evidence to support your WMD propaganda efficacy theory?
* How do you explain the sheep acting in such an unsheeplike fashion on this occassion by the way?
The WMD propaganda WAS successful - everyone wanted to give the inspectors 'more time' and for Saddam to give up his weapons diplomatically. Without everyone believing that it was at least very likely he had them war would have been quite impossible, not merely unpopular. I don't remember reading in the news that the whole thing was a load of nonsense, except for one chap called Dr. Kelly and look what happened to him.
gurrier said:
Well said. There were severe doubts about the quality of information and whether Iraq really possessed WMDs at the time, although Jazzz seems to have conveniently airbrushed those concerns.
Does Jazz really believe that:
Everybody believing that it was very likely? You're surely having a laugh - the record's there for everyone to see; thousands upon thousands of people marching, many of them (myself included) who didn't believe that Iraq constituted a genuine WMD threat. That may escape your revisionist take on things Jazzz, but the marches, the lack of a second UN resolution, the comments many of us heard of the time, all count against your belief that war was 'impossible' unless everyone believed WMDs were 'very likely'
Strangely enough there even seemed to be than one dissenting voice back then. And even from characters more convincing than one retired supposed pathologist, who seems to have left no trace of a convincing career anywhere.
Here ya go: the coverage of just one aspect of Powell's presentation to the UN:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="colin+powell"+UN+trucks
532,000 hits, many from mainstream media.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="colin+powell"+UN+trucks
532,000 hits, many from mainstream media.
Quite striking example that Laptop. Some impressive names showing their scepticism at the time about the WMD claims, including a politics doctor from Cambridge. Not some untrackable, disappearing expert you'll note.
It's amazing what you can find out using this interweb thingie. And it's even more amazing just how little care the average consparanoid takes before making their latest remarkable claim. For folks who want to pick holes in the minutae of 'official' reports and find contradictions, many tend to be ridiculously careless with the idea of research and reporting events accurately.
It's amazing what you can find out using this interweb thingie. And it's even more amazing just how little care the average consparanoid takes before making their latest remarkable claim. For folks who want to pick holes in the minutae of 'official' reports and find contradictions, many tend to be ridiculously careless with the idea of research and reporting events accurately.
tarannau said:
I keep saying it: the world is of no interest to them. Only the "story".
I mean - I did that search by thinking "who said what?"... googling "Powell powerpoint UN" which was the first that came to mind - realising I was going too wide, but having my memory jogged about the presentation, ah, "trucks" - 30 seconds or so. Someone whose memory is more shot could have done it in a minute with a pre-search to find out that Powell did make a presentation to the UN. Even a non-typist could do it in three minutes.
Long, long ago, I decided to find out who owned the stores for food, favoured populace in the event of nuclear attack for the use of. There were dozens of companies. By the time I'd finished getting the records of the companies with common directors, I had a shoebox full of microfiche (say 30,000 paper pages) of utterly worthless information. That was paranoid research - just follow the links you come across, forget about the reality they are embedded in. I haven't done it since.
So I take it that everyone agrees that WMD is a conspiracy FACT, one that has led to the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people?
Isn't there any doubt in your minds that the same people behind WMD could & would conspire to murder some of their own? After all, who gains from 9/11 or 7th July? Other than the war OF terror, methinks.
Isn't there any doubt in your minds that the same people behind WMD could & would conspire to murder some of their own? After all, who gains from 9/11 or 7th July? Other than the war OF terror, methinks.
Physical plausibility is not important to conspiraloons. For the purposes of finding others who share the same sense that there are individual, personal, persecutors, the "they could'a, couldn't they" argument is even better than actual research.
This takes me back to the idea that the purpose of conspiraloonery is simply to construct an elaborate set of justifications for the proposition "there is personified evil in the world".
(Not just evil; not just people who do bad things, but individuals who are evil itself. Personal persecutors.)
Or as Bernie put it (in a thread now in the bin):
This takes me back to the idea that the purpose of conspiraloonery is simply to construct an elaborate set of justifications for the proposition "there is personified evil in the world".
(Not just evil; not just people who do bad things, but individuals who are evil itself. Personal persecutors.)
Or as Bernie put it (in a thread now in the bin):
Bernie Gunther said:
The WMD propaganda did indeed 'trick' us into war: that's why people were so annoyed. When I say 'everyone' I mean a very large section of the general public. While there were many here on urban75 saying the whole WMD thing was a sick charade, this was absolutely not the case in the mainstream. It is only on www.iraq.ru that I remember finding a decent commentary. I can remember watching Question Time and everyone accepting that he had the stuff and wanting to throw a chair at the television!
Here's Chomsky's take - "War would be insane". Did he of all get it right?
"There is no debate about the importance of disarming Iraq and indeed other countries that have the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction. That is very important and everyone agrees on it."
err there should have been a debate on that Noam, how can you disarm a country that doesn't have anything in the first place?
A couple of comments from anti-war people on the BBC site
"War on Iraq is not the answer to terrorism or Saddam's regime. the Iraqi people have suffered enough we need to find a peaceful solution to disarmament."
"...This would seem to be a fairly good argument in favour of inspections. If the aim is truly to disarm Saddam, then one of many alternatives to war is the support of this process with UN peacekeepers and a mandate to destroy such weapons that we find."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2750329.stm
Yes, there was the occasional person cropping up in mainstream media remarking that the case that Saddam had WMDs was not proved; but this is a far cry from rejecting it as a load of nonsense, and really most of the public fully accepted that he had them, or very likely had them; and the anti-war case accepted this premise but was a case for more sanctions, allowing the inspectors more time, etc.
Here's Chomsky's take - "War would be insane". Did he of all get it right?
"There is no debate about the importance of disarming Iraq and indeed other countries that have the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction. That is very important and everyone agrees on it."
err there should have been a debate on that Noam, how can you disarm a country that doesn't have anything in the first place?
A couple of comments from anti-war people on the BBC site
"War on Iraq is not the answer to terrorism or Saddam's regime. the Iraqi people have suffered enough we need to find a peaceful solution to disarmament."
"...This would seem to be a fairly good argument in favour of inspections. If the aim is truly to disarm Saddam, then one of many alternatives to war is the support of this process with UN peacekeepers and a mandate to destroy such weapons that we find."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2750329.stm
Yes, there was the occasional person cropping up in mainstream media remarking that the case that Saddam had WMDs was not proved; but this is a far cry from rejecting it as a load of nonsense, and really most of the public fully accepted that he had them, or very likely had them; and the anti-war case accepted this premise but was a case for more sanctions, allowing the inspectors more time, etc.
Prole said:
I've no doubt governments contain some unscrupulous, sly individuls. Politicians are a bunch of back stabbing bastards in the main.
But it there's one thing that the WMD fiasco shows, it's difficult to stop tongues waggling from dissenting individuals and more truthful reporting of the situation occuring in a comparatively short space of time. Given the far greater complexity of trying to stage or allow a terrorist plane attack on home soil, it's not logical to extrapolate the WMD claims to suggest that evil Govt heads planned 9/11 in some way. In fact it tends to indicate the opposite - covering a conspiracy of this scale would effectively be near impossible. At the least it's not something, as some truth seekers here suggest, that you can arrogantly rant on about as being an obvious conspiracy.
Similar threads
- Locked
