7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
Jazzz said:
Jesus Jazzz, do you making a beeping noise when you backtrack so suddenly?
One second you're talking about 'everybody' believed WMD were present, telling millions of people (including me) why they marched, the next you're shifting the goalposts talking about the occasional mainstream media comment. And just look at some of the comments from Laptop's google suggestion - it's fair to say there's more than the occasional concern. Hell, how did you accurately gauge the opinions of the country and marchers at the time - did you have some access to some secret market research or something. You certainly seem to have got my reasons very wrong, and I'm just one of a handful of people on a bulletin board - how does that statistically extrapolate out to a march of so many?
You constantly revise history and report events in an inaccurate and twisted way Jazzz. You can't even be accurate over the space of a few of your own posts on a bulletin board, let alone report the mood of the country and media without heavy bias.
Right. Well I've just gone through the top ten on your google hit list of 'half a million reporting and critiquing' And only two were before the event and properly critiqued it.laptop said:
Both of those were on sites I'd never heard of.
The two mainstream media sites on the issue, CNN & Guardian, allowed him free rein to spout pure nonsense. Their 'critiquing' involve publishing a transcript.
Must I go through the others?
I have just read Milan Rai's book '7/7 the London bombings & the Iraq War', a book that states they caught the 7.48 from Luton. I went to the book launch, at which Maya Evans chaired and BK spoke. I was prevented from asking questions, one of which would have been 'How could they have got a train that arrived too late for them to board each of the underground trains that day?'
Anyone here care to answer? Or is it just unimportant that 9 months after these events, basic verifiable facts that prove conclusively the guilt of these men are proving to be false or absent.
Anyone here care to answer? Or is it just unimportant that 9 months after these events, basic verifiable facts that prove conclusively the guilt of these men are proving to be false or absent.
Try this oneJazzz said:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=un+weapons+inspectors+iraq&btnG=Search&meta=
13,000,000 hits. The number one hit being a cnn story :
"U.S. Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs"
Now, although this may be a story after the event, it was published within a year of the war, which is 1/5th of the time since 9-11.
We have the world's top experts on the subject clearly telling us that they thought all along that the whole thing was cobblers. A teensie bit more than the 9-11 crowd can muster for their much-more-difficult-to-pull-off conspiracy.
I was on the big march. I didn't do too much chatting, I was shouting out slogans. However I well remember the media reporting, chatting to friends and family.editor said:
It was only on urban75 that I found others dismissing the WMD ruse. Look - even Chomsky was accommodating it! Maybe there were some on the march too, but that again was subsection of society as a whole, and certainly all the pro-war people believed in WMD.
I can't remember a mainstream media article saying that the WMD ruse was a sack of propaganda, unfortunately.
tarannau - my use of the word 'everyone' really was referring to 'the masses' - I know urban75 didn't fall for WMDs.
I am referring to media reporting and public perception before the event - El Baradei and Blix were certainly two of the good guys, but they were constrained in what they could say being public servants. It was up to journalists to give the right commentary. They failed us.gurrier said:
gurrier said:
And we had many, many people with expertise telling us immediately after the Powell presentation, immediately after the dodgy dossier... (can our pet conspiaranoids spell "plagiarism"? Maybe "sexed-up" is easier?)
* Light dawns *
gurrier said:
It's Manicheanism.
Anyone who says anything they like is not an "expert" but a "truth-seeker".
All "experts" are Part of the Plot, not "truth-seekers".
So the assertion that there were no experts exposing the lie is (to their warpe d perception) self-evident.
Note also how the assertion reinforces what a special minority they are.
How the hell do I know, I'm not the one saying they were on the train am I?editor said:
If July 7th happened as we have been told it happened, simple things like train times & CCTV images should all be verifying the official account.
Why not ask BK why she is promoting a book that is based on a lie?
Only the truth stands up to rigorous questioning.
Prole said:
Where do you get that pile of bollocks from? It's just not true is it. Sort of shite you pick up from some motivational poster in a US office.
A true account may well not hold up to the most rigorous and nit-picking of approaches - humans are fallible and our perception of things is far from perfect after all. Witness the difficulties in getting accurate witness statements from even the most trustworthy of sources.
Picking on one innaccuracy, or even a typo, in an account does not make the whole thing false or unworthy. Especially when British Rail are involved...
editor
hiraethified
So you've no idea whatsoever what 'really happened' but you're still happy to keep on suggesting that it was all a big cover up, even when you haven't a shred of evidence to support a credible alternative theory, yes?Prole said:
And you're basing your assumption that we're all being "sold a bigger picture" on a minor detail that you could well be wrong on?
I'd like to know more about this 'bigger picture', please.
You could start by offering a theory as to what really happened, why the four suspected bombers went to London on the same day and where they are now.
Could you do that please?
laptop I'm extremely fed up of your snide posts. Your * sneers *. The green ink. And your demanding that I apologise because I didn't trawl through half a million links when the ones I did bother to go through on your account supported my line.
If you want to remind me of a mainstream media article before the war that ridiculed the notion of WMDs, do go ahead. I am surprised that with your googling skills you have not yet found one. Sexed-up dossiers and plagiarised evidence are not the same. Here's Menzies Campbell in the House of Commons commenting on that dossier;
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume."
Note that while the dossier was being dismissed, the mood of the first sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
If you want to remind me of a mainstream media article before the war that ridiculed the notion of WMDs, do go ahead. I am surprised that with your googling skills you have not yet found one. Sexed-up dossiers and plagiarised evidence are not the same. Here's Menzies Campbell in the House of Commons commenting on that dossier;
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume."
Note that while the dossier was being dismissed, the mood of the first sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
Journalism is shit and heavily influenced by the powerful shocker!Jazzz said:
The point is, my point-changing reptile, that there is a vast amount of evidence that shows the inability of "them" to shut people up when they try to distort the truth about major things - an inability which included pretty much every single major expert in the world on this issue. This reveals your total lunacy in believing that they could possibly shut all the conspirators up if they were to do something even more outrageous, such as, say, murdering a few thousand of their fellow citizens in a massive bomb plot live on television.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I talked to plenty of people on the big protest, With no exception, they said that their reason for marching was because they thought that Bush and Blair wanted to take over Iraq in order to control the region and its oil or that they wanted to use the war as a symbol of the "war on terror"
Well one thing is for certain if they got on a train, then that train left a station at a definite time, and arrived at a definite time. It's what I would call a fact. Facts about 7th July are what I have been researching. Facts are the nearest we can get to establishing whether something happened or didn't happen. Therefore only the truth, the facts, can stand upto rigorous questioning. Facts, such as train times, don't change. They are objective rather than subjective (as in, I was on one of the trains therefore I must know what happened). Sorry to have to spell it out, but I'm tired, and I want to make myself clear.tarannau said:
g'night.
Yep, that's funny, I also remember that pretty much all the chants were along the lines of "no war for oil" as well as pretty much all the placards. Come to think of all the speeches were too.
Doesn't seem like as many of the sheep fell for the WMD line as Jazzzz is making out!
Jazzzz proved wrong in every conceivable way shocker!
Doesn't seem like as many of the sheep fell for the WMD line as Jazzzz is making out!
Jazzzz proved wrong in every conceivable way shocker!
Hi Crispy, yes I found that too with those I spoke with; but that view was held along with people thinking that Saddam could well have WMD. Loads of other countries have WMD after all, and we don't have to go to war with them (and they us).Crispy said:
I don't think so.gurrier said:
editor
hiraethified
Assuming that:Prole said:
(a) the train left on schedule
(b) the train arrived on schedule
(c) the train's timings was recorded correctly
(d) the person/thing recording the time had the correct time
(e) the records were expected to be maintained to a reasonable accuracy in the first place
What research have you undertaken to check these five key points?
jazz said:
Your assertion was that everyone (except you) was taken in by the WMD claims, that there were essentially no experts debunking it. (Of course you've changed this several times since then.)
The point of providing a google not an example is to try to teach you some research skills.
You have been picking through looking for quotes that support your story. Stop it.
If you were interested in what happened, you would be sampling to see the preponderance of straight reporting, of gung-ho amplification, and of demolition jobs, weighted for the credibility of their sources, and allowing for the fact that the demolitions inevitably appear later than the straight reports.
So do it.
Similar threads
- Locked
