7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7

[gurrier]

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;

Jazzzz, you shape shifting reptile, there is a very good reason that nobody ridiculed or completely dismissed the possibility that Iraq had WMD - because only an absolute moron with a conspiranoid way of thinking would do such a thing. Why? Well because nobody knew this for sure. Sane people recognise that it is essentially impossible to be 100% certain about such things and thus do not make absolute statements about things that they could prove to be wrong about. They have 'good names' (a concept that you'll probably think is from Mars) and are reluctant to make sweeping claims without being relatively sure that they are right. From a strategic point of view it is also disasterous to one's credibility to make bold declarations which later turn out not to be true. The anti-war movement, being mainly composed of people who are connected to reality, understood that it would have been stupid to draw the battle lines on the point of whether any WMDs were found or not as they couldn't know if something, no matter how trivial, would be found and used thereafter as proof that the anti-war crowd were simply wrong. Instead there was a general disbelief at the propaganda put out by the imperialists and a promotion of a point of view that the WMD issue was merely a pretext for an oil-grabbing war - whether there was any truth to it or not

At this stage we can be pretty sure that all the WMD's had been destroyed during the inspections regime, but the only reason that we can be sure is that a quarter of a million troops of occupation have had 3 years to find that elusive vial of nasty stuff and they have failed. Until we had this evidence it was literally impossible to pronounce definitively on the matter - that's just the nature of the world and a consequence of the fact that nobody ever has access to all the information. It is also quite clear that the yanks thought that they might well find something - they spent enough energy looking after all. Indeed it is amazing that the level of disbelief of their claims and motives was so high - particularly amongst experts - that they haven't even risked manufacturing a find of a few vials of some pathogen in a secret lab somewhere.

If you do manage to find somebody who stated definitively that there were no WMD before the war then you have just found yourself a fellow-idiot who deals in certainties when only probabilities are possible.

 

[Jazzz]

gurrier, you beautifully describe the success of the 'the big lie'. With no evidence that stood up, that's how our government, got before the march, 74% to state that Iraq certainly had weapons of mass destruction.

Because it is so difficult to so completely reject such announcements by the state, they only have to tell absolute whoppers repeatedly (with the help of a very compliant media), and the drip-feed takes hold across the populace. Which it did. And you are right - those who make an issue that the whole thing is nonsense are rejected.

Indeed you go as far as to say that someone who rejected the notion of WMD would have been an 'idiot'! Well thankfully there are a few of those around here on that issue to keep me company.

 

[Jazzz]

Top source. Janitor wasn't he? Clearly a man whose opinion of such matters is totally and utterly reliable...

Just quickly - yes. William Rodriguez held the master key to the WTC complex which he knew well and refused to leave when instructed (on several occasions), instead helping the firemen save many lives. He is held as the last man out of the towers, sprinting out to dive under a truck when the north tower came down. He was proclaimed a hero, and deservedly so.

I've also heard him first hand, and he have been working as a lowly janitor but he is a very good public speaker.

I don't think you can simply dismiss him in such a manner.

 

[detective-boy]

I don't think you can simply dismiss him in such a manner.

Unless he has some qualification, expertise or experience which is relevant to the issue, why does the fact that he is an all-round good egg mean that his opinion on why something happened or on what caused something has any more weight than anyone else's? I have no particular problem with accepting what he SAW and HEARD. I have a huge problem with accepting his OPINION.

 

[Jazzz]

...I have no particular problem with accepting what he SAW and HEARD. I have a huge problem with accepting his OPINION.

Forgive me, I was under the impression you were dismissing his account.

I have no quarrel with that principle; I would say the same to badger kitten.

 

[Badger Kitten]

I had a nice lunch

I note <zero comeback from Prole>

I am not surprised. Poor thing, she doesn't like it when you put her on the spot. Questions she like, answers/alternative explanations she has none.

Not surprising, really.

I take that as a victory for the COINTELPRO lizard forces of darkness then.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Loon

EDIT: I note that this is the 666th reply!


CONSPIRACY!

 

[gurrier]

gurrier, you beautifully describe the success of the 'the big lie'. With no evidence that stood up, that's how our government, got before the march, 74% to state that Iraq certainly had weapons of mass destruction.

Because it is so difficult to so completely reject such announcements by the state, they only have to tell absolute whoppers repeatedly (with the help of a very compliant media), and the drip-feed takes hold across the populace. Which it did. And you are right - those who make an issue that the whole thing is nonsense are rejected.

Indeed you go as far as to say that someone who rejected the notion of WMD would have been an 'idiot'! Well thankfully there are a few of those around here on that issue to keep me company.

Jazzzz, you are an idiot. You are also seriously deluded and you should seek help.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazzzz, you are an idiot. You are also seriously deluded and you should seek help.

You've already said that those who (like me) thought Saddam had no WMDs before the war were 'idiots'. From you, I take this as a compliment.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Prole?


*tumbleweed*


Not going to answer the editor's questions then? My questions? Anyone else's questions?


No comeback?


None?


Fine. Good. See ya.

 

[Prole]

So why don't you just shut the fuck up and wait and see what is published then? It'll be along in a few weeks which, after all, is "just" a short time as we now know! Moron.

That's good advice, perhaps I'll come back when the narrative is published and we can discuss it further then.

('Discuss' being a loose term for some of the level of 'debate' I endure here).

 

[Lock&Light]

('Discuss' being a loose term for some of the level of 'debate' I endure here).

You wouldn't have to endure it if you were to bugger off.

 

[Prole]

You wouldn't have to endure it if you were to bugger off.

True.

One last thing, Charlie Sheen challenging the official 9/11 theory. Not an easy thing to do in the US I suspect.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/150406sheentv.htm

The truth comes out eventually methinks, just takes people to keep asking the questions folks.

 

[Badger Kitten]

@Prole

edited to say: Happy Easter Prole and I hope you have a nice holiday and a good long rest.

 

[editor]

True.

One last thing, Charlie Sheen challenging the official 9/11 theory. Not an easy thing to do in the US I suspect.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Not only has this already been discussed to death, but since when have the witterings of a fucking Hollywood actor seen as more important than that of highly qualified experts?

You've already been warned about posting up endless consiraloon tosh while refusing to engage on any meaningful debate.

Keep up your scattergun, question-avoiding delude-a-loon antics and you'll be history.

 

[editor]

That's good advice, perhaps I'll come back when the narrative is published and we can discuss it further then.

('Discuss' being a loose term for some of the level of 'debate' I endure here).

Are you ever going to answer my questions?

 

[Badger Kitten]

Nah. She can't. She only does pointless suggestions and vague insinuations. ''It's not for her'' to deal in facts (or something)

 

[Badger Kitten]

And she only contributes to 7/7 threads: smell an agenda?

 

[Jazzz]

Well come on guys, you've been shouting at her to take a break, and she has, I don't think it's good form to keep taunting.

Anyway, all getting rather heavy around here.

Banana anyone?

 

[jæd]

Well come on guys, you've been shouting at her to take a break, and she has, I don't think it's good form to keep taunting.

Anyway, all getting rather heavy around here.

Banana anyone?

Have you really been on here all day posting your fruitloop theories...? at anyone who takes this all so seriously...

 

[Jazzz]

Have you really been on here all day posting your fruitloop theories...? at anyone who takes this all so seriously...

No, that was yesterday. Just realised the banana wasn't so wise.

Tomato?

(forgive me, I just found a new smiley page the other day)

 

[JHE]

Your new smilies are not showing up, at least for me. Further evidence of pixies?

 

[Jazzz]

You are so missing out

 

[editor]

Well come on guys, you've been shouting at her to take a break, and she has, I don't think it's good form to keep taunting.

It's even worse form to post up a stream of highly dodgy claims and then refuse to engage anyone who dares bring up a related question.

These boards aren't virtual chalk boards for random delude-a-loons (TM) to post up whatever bonkers thoughts are going through their minds.

They're discussion forums.

 

[Azrael23]

The ease with which you stoop to simple slander shows your unwilling to challenge those like me and Jazzz on real issues or facts.

Is Robert Fisk a loon? Is Paul Craig Roberts a loon? Is Sen. Cynthia McKinney or Sen. Ron Paul a loon?

The people on the inside of "the system" are coming out more and more in support of views like mine and Jazzz.

Not that ignorant hacks will have any idea about this. If its not in the paper, or trevor isn`t parroting it, its not true right?

Go back to bed.

 

[dylanredefined]

So you have a secret knowledge of those "inside the system " and how they think ? Doesn't that make you sound like a delude-a-loon (tm editor 2006)

 

[Jazzz]

I think the name calling is rather immature and this forum should make up for lost time by respecting the issue here. Here's Charlie Sheen on ABC recently - note the applause he receives from the studio audience.

 

[detective-boy]

Also note that when asked if he has questions or some other theory he says:

"I just have questions. I have a lot of questions".

He simply says there is a need for more information, without subscribing to some alternative theory which is "proved" by some of the things which are known and by some of the things which are not.

Having questions is not a problem. There ARE some issues with the way in which both the US government (re- 11 September attacks) and the UK government (re- 7 July attacks) are supplying the public with information. The public should be made aware of the facts, unless there are overriding reasons why not, even if, for some reason there is no criminal trial.

In the UK the inquest system, as it stands, is not suitable as an alternative. The Public Enquiry system is not, in my opinion, suitable, being far too long, expensive and hidebound. The media, by and large, are not up to the task.

We need some other mechanism by which the evidence can be presented and challenged, in public, so that the facts are a matter of public record. We have the "narrative" being tried in relation to 7 July. Let's see where that takes us.

 

[editor]

Here's Charlie Sheen on ABC recently - note the applause he receives from the studio audience.

FFS: even I've had enthusiastic applause from a live American studio audience! It's what they're there for.



It's a sign of your increasing desperation and rapidly disappearing connection with the plot that you're including studio applause as some sort of validation for your bonkers conspiracy wafflings.

Call me a stick in the mud if you like, but I generally give a little more credence to the opinions of highly qualified experts rather than fading Hollywood actors.

 

[Jazzz]

Had Charlie Sheen said the same a few years ago, for someone to insinuate that 9/11 could have come from within would have been met with stunned silence, boos, or possibly death threats.

Even if you had said it editor!

It is a measure of how much awareness of the issue has changed.