No, not directly, but he is highlighting past connections between Al Qaeda and UK/US security forces (which anyone who has watched the BBC's Power of Nightmares will also be aware of) and questioning whether the investigation might be thwarted by powerful (domestic) forces. I would say that is to why we might have doubts about an officially produced 'narrative' and why a public inquiry would help test the evidence and hold the government to account (not least for the links between 7/7 and the Iraq War)
Democratic? No public enquiry on the 7/7 bombings.
- Thread starter mod
- Start date
Actually laptop, although your basic point is right and at the risk of being pedantic: It is possible to suffer paranoid delusions while actually knowing and accepting that you are (in other words you have the feeling of paranoia/fear and get wierd ideas coming to you, but you realise that it is just paranoia and you don't act on the ideas). Also having a psychiatrist giving a "diagnosis" is neither here nor there - in itself it doesn't make anyone more or less "dangerous" (the impact of dosing people with drugs is more debatable).laptop said:
Oh well, I guess with you and certified nutters like Bush deciding who's loony and who's not, we have nothing to fear hey?
TeeJay said:
I thought it didn't count as psychosis if you were aware of it...
TeeJay said:
Of course not. I was trying to be fair to paranoids in general, and using "diagnosed" as shorthand for "usual societal definition of paranoid" - not suggesting that psychiatrists are a causative agency for... well, for anything other than 'scrip, really. (As for psychiatrists who believe in their own effectiveness...
)
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
TeeJay said:
That I disagree with many of the hypotheses of the 7/7 'black op' believers is not in doubt. However, I also have grave reservations about the 'psychiatrisation of politics', whereby uncomfortable/unpopular opinions are primarily discussed in pseudo-medical/pathological terms. Such was the way in the old Soviet Union, and closer to Home more recently. Unacceptable. I think the roots of unreferenced/unsubstantiated theories are complex, due to factors such as:
1. the internet: facilitating the replacement of real communities by virtual self-chosen ones, whereby esoteric beliefs can find instantaneous amplification
2. the decline of proper oppositional politics
3. the closing out of alternative views in the media on the one hand, countervailed by the internet (above) & self-generated news facilitated by digital technologies.
4. reduction in mass participation in politics (& I don't particularly mean voting).
5. Evisceration/slow death of the global vision provided by the 'Last Century Left'
6. UK political/cultural subordination to the US, which has ramifications even in the 'alternative news' field.
7. the presence in the ether of anti-semitic/conspiracy theorising.
8. the routine practise of disinformation by government & state bodies--eg over Iraq's WMD & the de Menezes execution.
Some of the above factors impact on social psychology, but the routine discussion of perhaps distasteful views by reference to individual psychiatric models is hardly helpful, and probably isn't intended to be.
Larry O'Hara said:
And what would make you think that I don't have reservations at least as strong?
Larry O'Hara said:
To extrapolate that from what I have suggested about very specific conditions involving obsessive seeking of links in texts; bloody-minded adherence to "suspicions" despite the utter lack of evidence; and beliggerent defence of said delusional beliefs - that extrapolation would be... let's just say "over-suspicious", wouldn't it?
Yes but that is just your opinion.
Your opinion is that I'm "overly suspicious" of Blair and our secret services. My opinion is that you are 'let's just say' "overly trusting" despite the EVIDENCE presented that should, in many peoples' opinion, undermine your unwavering trust.
That is not to say either of us is 'mad' and that is why the use of conspiraloon, fruitloop and similar terms and deviations into pschco-babble is so dishonest
Your opinion is that I'm "overly suspicious" of Blair and our secret services. My opinion is that you are 'let's just say' "overly trusting" despite the EVIDENCE presented that should, in many peoples' opinion, undermine your unwavering trust.
That is not to say either of us is 'mad' and that is why the use of conspiraloon, fruitloop and similar terms and deviations into pschco-babble is so dishonest
sparticus said:
Your entire position appears to rest on a false dichotomy between "suspicious" and "trusting".
More relevant would be a set of three approaches: not caring; wanting to know what happened on the basis of a sceptical evaluation of evidence; and arguing vehemently for the right to express vague suspicions with no regard to evidence.
A friend uses the email signature "Don't believe everything you think." That's proper scepticism. I recommend it to you.
sparticus said:
We're still waiting for that evidence, remember. All you have is so far one claimed inconsistency, and that a shaky one as many posters have pointed out.
So: what's the evidence? What is it evidence for - what is supposed to have happened?
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
So the intellgience people paid radical muslims 10yrs ago to go and kill serbs .
why dos that make it a black op when they later decide to bomb london.Embrassing yes if true but not a black op .
why dos that make it a black op when they later decide to bomb london.Embrassing yes if true but not a black op .
Badger Kitten said:
I've read pages 5-23 of this thread (just catching up like ...
) and as far as I'm concerned Badger Kitten has been talking the most sense.Every time, in threads like this, conspiranoids repeatedly trot out their usual insulting shite about how gullible of official/establishment propoganda their sceptical opponents are, while simultaneously showing an utter LACK of scepticism themselves towards even the most wild and ridiculous 'anti-official' or 'alternative' versions, or towards the possibility (however extremely improbable) of same.
Everything the Government says is automatically a lie in conspiranoidland. Question this sweeping default assumption by the conspiracists, in relation to a specific event, and you get labelled a dupe of official propoganda, or as someone who never believes that any Government lie has ever happened ever (with completely irrelevant and unconnected examples quoted), simply because you're sceptical towards the more farfetched and delusional 'alternative' versions put forward in relation to the specific case under discussion.
Apply the same level of scepticism towards the 'alternative' versions** as towards the official ones, and apply a bit more Occams Razor based common sense in interpreting stuff, and a bit more credibility (or less INcredibility, more to the point) might finally attach to these conspiraloon ramblings.
I'm talking generally here you understand. But features of all the above have come from several conpiracists on this thread.
**Particularly when said 'alternative' versions appear on ranting blogs or obsessive clearly lunativc websites ...
editor
hiraethified
Ah the classic conspiraloon bullshit! You don't believe my barking, evidence-free, fruitloop speculation, therefore you must be "overly trusting" of the government! Fantastic logic!sparticus said:
Still waiting for Jazzz to finally answers my questions too....ho hum...
<taps fingers.....>
Bugger. Did I miss it!! You hang about for twenty three fucking pages and then turn your back for a second and - bang - you miss it!sparticus said:
Was it good?
sparticus said:
editor said:
Sparticus you need to attend logic classes.
Just because some posters here find baseless speculation and random 'it MUST inevitably be a conspiracy because that's what Governments always do' theorising totally implausible**, does NOT render them sure that the Government can be trusted on this.
**Edit to add/clarify : I mean in the case of 7/7 particularly ...
Just that they don't trust the paltry contentless 'alternative' versions seen so far on this thread (which such as they are, have been entirely lacking in any facts or evidence).
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
*Watches the giant lizard's puppet suppressing the truth*detective-boy said:
I think this argument that you have been the one acting in ST's interests while I have not is quite breathtaking. I only thought Tony Blair could come out with such nonsense.editor said:
We now know she never had any case to answer, and she will not mind at all that the name which I cleared was her real one.
Do you want me to ask her?
Regarding 7/7, I have given reasons for my opinion in previous threads. I cannot prove that opinion. Rather I expect the official narrative to be proved before I accept it, and due to many reasons such as the lack of the evidence one would expect - we are given one grainy CCTV image in which three faces are invisible!), that the alleged bombers do not fit the profile of suicide bombers (some with new families etc, no apparent interest in politics, those close to them suspected nothing etc.)
And that a public enquiry gets nixed - well that is completely in keeping with a cover-up.
Incidentally DNA evidence has been quoted; one might be under the illusion that they have claimed a match for each bomber at each location, but I don't think this is the case at all.
You supposedly always call for 'evidence' in order to believe a theory. But you have no respect for those who call for that when it comes to the official narrative, why is this?
Indeed the reason you are singling me out is because you have been trying to play your usual tactic of 'displacing the burden of proof' with prole. She was having none of it, and it was really quite amusing to read your exchanges. So you gave up on her and went back - by your own repeated admission - no less than twenty pages of thread to try it on with me to satisfy your 'attack-the-conspiraloon' blood lust orgy.
editor
hiraethified
Not sure what you're trying to achieve with this wriggling, but I have emails where she specifically asked me to remove her real name off this site, which, being an obliging sort of chap, I did for her.Jazzz said:
I've no idea what you thought slapping her real name all over these boards and associating them with her previous posts would achieve, but I can categorically say that they were against her wishes, as previously communicated to me. Unless you're saying she was lying, of course.
Despite being warned several times about posting up her real name, you carried on regardless with your FAQ-breaking actions which rather makes me wonder whose interests you were supposedly serving.
That doesn't even remotely tally up with your bold claim that a "proper inquiry" would "reveal 7/7 to be the black op that it was."Jazzz said:
And your bleating and whining that I dared to ask an on-topic and totally relevant question related to the claims you made here just reveals your laughably slapdash approach to research.
Maybe you're prepared to gullibly swallow up wild claims about 'black ops' without a solitary shred of credible evidence, but I'm afraid I expect more.
Jazzz said:
Perhaps because the 'alternatives' so far suggested (black ops operations etc., all that nonsense about train times, etc.) are so much more implausible?
And so altogether lacking in anything remotely describable as evbidence, that the basics of the official version -- I don't say every detail, I don't say there won't be inconsistencies because there inevitably will -- are by comparison to the alternatoves, somewhat more credible, less obviously barking even ...
Up to the believers in an utterly implausible case to substantiate it. Speaking more generally now, your automatic scepticism towards Government/official accounts** is never mirrored by any scepticism or critical analysis at all by you towards the 'alternatives' however contrary to common sense and lots of known facts they are.
**Shared as it happens, by plenty of conspiracy-sceptics (like Larry) who get understandably annoyed by the obstructive clutter of barking conspiracies that serve to distract from and discredit real, rigorous, fact and evidence based investigative research
In any case, plenty of non-conspiracists, Badger Kitten and myself included, would support a public enquiry.
ED
You asked for evidence of why you should suspect that HMG involvement in black ops terrorism and I gave you the Stevens Inquiry amongst other examples
You then lie saying I have given you no evidence that would warrant a public inquiry into 7/7 and continue with your tedious offensive insults
I answered your question. Now answer mine
Is Michael Meacher a conspiraloon, if so why?
Do you trust your government to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth in regard to 7/7, if so why?
Do you support the call for a public inquiry, if so why and what would it investigate? The actual incident and its background or just a slimmed down version looking at the emergency response, etc as proposed by Badger Kitten
You asked for evidence of why you should suspect that HMG involvement in black ops terrorism and I gave you the Stevens Inquiry amongst other examples
You then lie saying I have given you no evidence that would warrant a public inquiry into 7/7 and continue with your tedious offensive insults
I answered your question. Now answer mine
Is Michael Meacher a conspiraloon, if so why?
Do you trust your government to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth in regard to 7/7, if so why?
Do you support the call for a public inquiry, if so why and what would it investigate? The actual incident and its background or just a slimmed down version looking at the emergency response, etc as proposed by Badger Kitten
William of Walworth said:
If you check my posts that is the only thing I have called for as well.
Can I just check William what you would want the public inquiry to look at? Would you support a no holds barred inquiry or a far more limited affair as proposed by Badger Kitten
And can you show me where I have ever said (or implied or whatever) that "that nothing is true" and "that everything official is a lie" and "Everything the Government says is automatically a lie in conspiranoidland." or indeed where I have put forward an alternative scenario other than the possibility that the secret services could have been involved and that this possibility is based on considerable relevent precedent.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
The northern irish operations of the intelligence services cynical and evil
as they were "they (the loyalists) were going to murder people anyway we just pointed them in the right direction" is supposedly a quote from one of the spooks . And even understandble get loyalist terrorist to kill inconvient republicaian . Why would british inteligence blow up tube trains ? Iraq war already happened ,Muslims already enemy number 1 . I cant see any reason for anyone apart from those accused already . If you were going to be a sucide
bomber in this country blabing to your family &friends is unlikely to resort in a
joyus send off whatever bnp loonies think .
as they were "they (the loyalists) were going to murder people anyway we just pointed them in the right direction" is supposedly a quote from one of the spooks . And even understandble get loyalist terrorist to kill inconvient republicaian . Why would british inteligence blow up tube trains ? Iraq war already happened ,Muslims already enemy number 1 . I cant see any reason for anyone apart from those accused already . If you were going to be a sucide
bomber in this country blabing to your family &friends is unlikely to resort in a
joyus send off whatever bnp loonies think .
Similar threads
- Locked
