Not sure if this has been posted already; apologies if it has.
Islamic group claims London attack - MSNBC
Islamic group claims London attack - MSNBC
Claim of responsibility 'contains errors'
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Here we go.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Someone said this on the news yesterday that this doesn't look authentic because when these things are done they are usually very methodical and follow a set pattern and this looked more like someone trying to impersonate that. I thought it was amazing that it was mentioned that it was on a site thats known to not be trustworthy and then suddenly everyone was convinced that this was real etc. Brilliant piece of self delusion if you ask me...
What do you mean? Oh sorry, I forgot that you have to believe in extra-terrestrials from the Planet X to wonder if an anonymous posting on a website is truthful.Justin said:
When it comes to Al-Quaida guest postings, everything on the internet is true, of course
Most 'experts' are doubting the claims in the media.
It all goes back the the debate in general about the non-existence Al Qaeda debate
Those responsible...Murderers
It all goes back the the debate in general about the non-existence Al Qaeda debate
Those responsible...Murderers
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's an incredible statement.Jo/Joe said:
Would it make any practical difference if it was al-Qaeda, or an associated group, or their sister organisation, or the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe (SOGQJOE for short), or people emulating al-Qaeda.
Incidentally, now that SOGQJOE have posted on a website, will they be
dropping the secret part, and from now on be known simply as OGQJOE ?
Incidentally, now that SOGQJOE have posted on a website, will they be
dropping the secret part, and from now on be known simply as OGQJOE ?
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
In criminal proceedings you need to know what you're dealing with so you can follow the evidence and make the right conclusions.axon said:
How many skeptics...
Of course, anybody questioning the truth these days is likely to be associated with lizards and Planet Nibiru and other way out there ideas. It is sickening how the progressives on this site who seek connections have been reduced by the majority.
Think about why that might be.
It is time for progressives to deconstruct this tendency for the majority. There is a difference between presenting a conspiracy theory and exhibiting some healthy skepticism, why confuse the two unless the agenda is to do just that and prevent the pursuit of truth?
Of course, there will now follow a deluge of posts on "the truth" as if conspiraloons believe they alone have a handle on that.
Conspiralooning is the feint presented by uber-reactionaries but sadly too, there is much that is reactionary about conspiracies involving lizard monarchies and the illuminati.
We need to seperate what's what and if we define conspiralooning as a belief in lizards and Planet Nibiru and other such beliefs, then does questioning aspects of 911 etc fall into that?
However it seems as soon as any one poses a question about the "truth", the "conspiraloon" label is applied. There is clearly a need for progressive critical inquiry of events like the London terror attacks and 911 - posing questions is not conspiralooning, it is simply expressing skepticism...
Of course it makes a difference but only if you are interested in truth.axon said:
Of course, anybody questioning the truth these days is likely to be associated with lizards and Planet Nibiru and other way out there ideas. It is sickening how the progressives on this site who seek connections have been reduced by the majority.
Think about why that might be.
It is time for progressives to deconstruct this tendency for the majority. There is a difference between presenting a conspiracy theory and exhibiting some healthy skepticism, why confuse the two unless the agenda is to do just that and prevent the pursuit of truth?
Of course, there will now follow a deluge of posts on "the truth" as if conspiraloons believe they alone have a handle on that.
Conspiralooning is the feint presented by uber-reactionaries but sadly too, there is much that is reactionary about conspiracies involving lizard monarchies and the illuminati.
We need to seperate what's what and if we define conspiralooning as a belief in lizards and Planet Nibiru and other such beliefs, then does questioning aspects of 911 etc fall into that?
However it seems as soon as any one poses a question about the "truth", the "conspiraloon" label is applied. There is clearly a need for progressive critical inquiry of events like the London terror attacks and 911 - posing questions is not conspiralooning, it is simply expressing skepticism...
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Actually
1) One reason why people are hard on those who seem to fantasise is it distracts attention from actual covert operations
2) re the communique language being 'wrong'
--I wouldn't necessarily see Bin Laden as a Koran expert, actually
--in any event, if this bombing is 'Al Qaeda' in any meaningful sense, those doing it will have been a largely autonomous cell.
3) that the communique was issued on an esoteric web-site rather than Al Jazeera might point towards those planting the devices being European-based, primarily. And a similar point to the above: planting devices does not necessarily make any doing so Koran experts, any more than Richard the Lionheart was a biblical scholar: indeed there was no English translation of the bible till 250 years or so after the last Crusade.
4) Inasmuch as 'Al Qaeda' is a loose confederal network, an alliance of ideas rather than a pyramidal organisation, claims of responsibility for actions are always going to be far more difficult to verify than the old IRA system (recognised code-words/P O'Neill Dublin). This does not mean that 'Al Qaeda' in this loose sense didn't carry out the bombings, but it does make it in principle far easier for secret state factions to carry out 'flag of convenience; operations. And leaves greater space for speculation, both legitimate and also instinctive. That is part of the miasma which goes with the changed territory in which we now live.
1) One reason why people are hard on those who seem to fantasise is it distracts attention from actual covert operations
2) re the communique language being 'wrong'
--I wouldn't necessarily see Bin Laden as a Koran expert, actually
--in any event, if this bombing is 'Al Qaeda' in any meaningful sense, those doing it will have been a largely autonomous cell.
3) that the communique was issued on an esoteric web-site rather than Al Jazeera might point towards those planting the devices being European-based, primarily. And a similar point to the above: planting devices does not necessarily make any doing so Koran experts, any more than Richard the Lionheart was a biblical scholar: indeed there was no English translation of the bible till 250 years or so after the last Crusade.
4) Inasmuch as 'Al Qaeda' is a loose confederal network, an alliance of ideas rather than a pyramidal organisation, claims of responsibility for actions are always going to be far more difficult to verify than the old IRA system (recognised code-words/P O'Neill Dublin). This does not mean that 'Al Qaeda' in this loose sense didn't carry out the bombings, but it does make it in principle far easier for secret state factions to carry out 'flag of convenience; operations. And leaves greater space for speculation, both legitimate and also instinctive. That is part of the miasma which goes with the changed territory in which we now live.
editor
hiraethified
Strange thing is that you have a long history of believing anonymous postings on a website when it suits your agenda.DrJazzz said:
Or have you already forgotten about the untraceable, anonymous 'expert' posting on an untraceable, anonymous website about Saddam's sons or the untraceable anonymous 'eye witnesses' who supposedly saw those planes over Long Island who you totally believed in?
In your confused, conspiraloon world such anonymous, untraceable garbage passes for rock-solid proof.
'Nuff said.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
So if it wasn't islamic terrorists, who was it: who else blows up bombs in London?
The IRA?
The IRA?
editor
hiraethified
When it comes from people who have a long, long history of swallowing fact-free conspiraloon shite, then it's entirely reasonable to doubt their motives.Raisin D'etre said:
I suspect your mind is already fully made up as to (ahem) "what really happened" and no doubt it's 'backed' by yet another load of evidence untroubled bollocks.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Very unlikely to be the IRA. Anyhow, the forensics would probably make it clear if it were. It looks to me like someone copying the Madrid, Morocco and Bali bombings. Soft targets, no warning, aiming at fear.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck2 said:
1) Not the IRA (Provisional or Real)--different MO entirely
2) Quite probably ''Al Qaeda' in the loose sense I specified
3) However, we should never entirely rule out state chicanery in all such bombings--few seriously believe, for example, that Chechen separatists really did carry out the series of Moscow bombings that have helped Putin get re-elected twice now.
Well you can't know that can you? Because so far you have chosen to fling mud at me. Your loss. I am sure if you and I sat down,away from the inquisitive minds who are watching this little discourse, and if we were to have a conversation, you might actually know where I am coming from. It might not be so threatening to you then. However, here you have already set up your little feints, double and triple feints, and so I serve the Urban agenda by being a conspiraloon. Aren't you lucky!!!editor said:
editor
hiraethified
Why not save all the confusion and be honest and spit out out your opinion about what you think actually happened?Raisin D'etre said:
You tried all this "oh my mind isn't made up" bollocks before and I believe it failed to impress anyone, so why don't you have the courage of your convictions and actually state a firm opinion?
Can you do that?
Fuck off! You always try to get people to break everything down to a yes or no answer. Stop being so simplistic. Information is still being unravelled. My comments here were to address the lizardism that your followers are so keen on reverting too. I offered no comments on the events just on the uber-reactionaryism, you want to talk about that... then probe further.editor said:
editor
hiraethified
I haven't mentioned 'lizards'. Not once.Raisin D'etre said:
And flattering as the idea sounds, I'm afraid I don't have any "followers" either.
Generally, I find it's smarter to hold back from wild speculation until the dust settles and some facts emerge.
Maybe you could learn from that approach.
Oh, and a little less of the "fuck off" stuff please.
That's so hilarious! Considering that I was doing just that! Hah!editor said:
Raisin d'etre said:
Stop being such a hypocrite you! Master of profanity.editor said:Oh, and a little less of the "fuck off" stuff please.
You need to point that out for everyone. Post numbers and so forth. Show where I have been conspiralooning by talking about Lizardism, Planet Nibiru and so forth, otherwise rest your case.
So this is it? Burn me?
Hey! Blows raspberry at everyone...
Similar threads
