Democratic? No public enquiry on the 7/7 bombings.

[Badger Kitten]

Oh for God's sake.

The IRA have fuck -all relevance to this thread, stop being an arse.

And answer the damn questions I asked you, why don't you? I have answered all yours, in some cases, twice.

 

[TAE]

Prole - Murder is not the same as killing in a war, as the IRA members saw it.

FFS! 72 virgins yadda yadda yadda.
What is this, my heaven is better than your heaven?

Christianity has its concept of martyrdom too you know.

I never mention any virgins and I don't think the koran mentions them either.

The christian concept of being a martyr (greek: witness) is very different from an islamic concept of being rewarded for dying in battle.

And as Pickman's model pointed out, the IRA were politically motivated.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Yes, but the IRA associate themselves with catholicism not islam and , and in RC doctrine suicide is a mortal sin, there is no cultural concept of suicide martyrdom attacks whereas in the particular misrepresentation of Islam that is cited by those who call suicide attacks ''martyrdom operations'', it is seen as acceptable. This is not about th eIRA or any other terrorist movement, this is about a particular type of ideology and the IRA are no more relevant than the Angry Brigade to the discussion

True enough about Catholicism, but the most frequent users of suicide bombing tactics are Hindus, who, as with elsewhere (eg Palestine, Iraq) use them as a means of driving occupiers out of their land. The concept of a british born suicide bomber, used against a domestic population for unknown reasons apart from publicity is a total departure from practically all known terrorist activities.

Most are aimed at occupiers, the aim is to kill as many of them as possible so that the others will get scared and leave (eg Palestine, Ireland, Ski Lanka), others are aimed at immigrants, again aiming to kill as many as possible so that the others will get scared and leave (eg the Brick Lane Nail Bomber). A smaller group are aimed at high-profile targets, to decapitate the leadership and force it to dramatically re-consider its policies (eg the Brighton Bombing). But bombings purely for publicity tend to be limited to property damage only (as you mention the Angry Brigade), not harming people and not suicide bombings.

 

[Prole]

Oh for God's sake.

The IRA have fuck -all relevance to this thread, stop being an arse.

And answer the damn questions I asked you, why don't you? I have answered all yours, in some cases, twice.

I don't have answers, I don't know what happened that day or why, instead I have questions. Many questions that seem to upset some of you who already seem to know what happened that day and why. Excuse me if I am unable to 'join the dots' and make the same picture.
As I have previously said: only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

And as Pickman's model pointed out, the IRA were politically motivated.

And you dont think there might be some political motivation behind an opposition to mass murder of civilians, land-grabs and theft of natural resources that is currently going on all over the middle east?

 

[Badger Kitten]

I don't have answers, I don't know what happened that day or why, instead I have questions. Many questions that seem to upset some of you who already seem to know what happened that day and why. Excuse me if I am unable to 'join the dots' and make the same picture.
As I have previously said: only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation.

No. I am not letting you off the hook.
Answer the questions, Prole. You demand answers for yours, so why can't you extend the same courtesy?

Let us assume for one second that the government decided to blow people up. What was that supposed to achieve? Has it succeeded in any of the aims one could assume were behind a psy-ops bombing by the state, of the British population. ...

why not examine both sides of the argument in your search for the truth? Why not start with the basic challenge of your hypotheses - is this really another 9/11? Why do you think that? What happened after 9/11 and what happened after 7th July? In what ways are they different?

Here's the whole post, which qwerty has had a stab at but there is silence from Prole...
Let us assume for one second that the government decided to blow people up. What was that supposed to achieve? Has it succeeded in any of the aims one could assume were behind a psy-ops bombing by the state, of the British population.

We were already at war in Iraq, and it has not whetted the appetite for the continuation of the war. Support for the war, already low, has gone down since the July bombings.

Attempts to terrify the population and the Houses of Parliament into support of draconian civil-liberties-restricting new legislation have not worked, see the defeat of the 90 days internment clause in the Anti-Terrorism bill. Support for ID cards has not been forthcoming.

Tony Blair is not riding a wave of loyal support, in fact the Tories have overtaken him in the polls.

The population has failed to succumb to hysteria and has not taken to rioting in the street and torching mosques.

See? If this whole thing was meant to be a black-ops tool to heighten the war against terror it has utterly failed. If it was meant to create support for Blair’s war in Iraq, or for US and USA foreign policy it has failed. Even Blair himself made a crapper speech than Ken Livingstone ( from Singapore) - if he had orchestrated it he’s surely have got his lines rehearsed? He is also unlikely to have had it all happen at the moment of what was meant to be his great triumph – hosting the G8 and feeding the poor of Africa and sorting out fairer trade, hot from an Olympics triumph. It really cocked that up for him, probably to his lasting chagrin snce he clearly has a desire to be seen as an international statesman.

Meanwhile Muslims themselves have pointed out a dangerous and horrifying strain of hate filled ideology that targets Muslim youths, that exists in the UK as well as abroad. I need not stress how abhorrent it is, and how it is not representative of the teachings of the Qu’ran. It disgusts most people irrespective of faith, politics, ethinicity. But in this age of 24 hour news, the internet and instant information–swapping, it is easy for wild ideas to spread. (Conspiracy theorist sites are proof of that.) An ideology which whips up anger at British and US foreign policy to deadly ends. You can disapprove of US and UK foreign policy and many do, including me, and including many Muslims, but this anger is being exploited by hatemongers for sickening reasons. A deadly misinterpretation of ‘jihad’ rooted in a perversion of Islam exists , and it really does advocate violence and nihilism and suicide ‘martyrdom operations’. You can find it on websites. You can read interviews with those who were recruited and then left. If you spent half as much time researching that as the damn train times, I would have more respect for you. Rather than run with a theory which you don’t seem to have evaluated at all before charging in, so sure are you that this is ‘’another 9/11’’, why not examine both sides of the argument in your search for the truth? Why not start with the basic challenge of your hypotheses - is this really another 9/11? Why do you think that? What happened after 9/11 and what happened after 7th July? In what ways are they different?

They are completely different things, happened in different countries, at different stages in the history of ‘Al Quaida’ - which then was more like a movement with leaders and training camps and bases – but now is more like an idea or a brand. This conflation of the two different events is such a huge and glaring basic error I am really surprised about it, but the fact that you seem to have ignored this basic noddy starting point makes your claims to be a ‘’seeker of truth’’ pretty fucking laughable

 

[sparticus]

This conflation of the two different events is such a huge and glaring basic error I am really surprised about it, but the fact that you seem to have ignored this basic noddy starting point makes your claims to be a ‘’seeker of truth’’ pretty fucking laughable

Just because you believe there is no connection and that HMG has not benefitted, don't make it so. It is opinion and expressed in an unnecessarily patronising manner.

When looking at incidents attributed to Al Qaeda, whether at home or abroad, I suggest there are 4 possibilities to consider

Al Q operatives acted alone

Al Q operatives acted together with western intelligence operatives (either knowingly or unknowingly)

No Al Q operatives involved, the act was the work of western intelligence operatives (rogue or otherwise)

None of the above (as in the case of Timothy McVeigh's alleged guilt for Oklahoma City Bombing)

We only have to look at British agents direct involvement in Irish terrorism to see a historical precedent. Staying on the Irish them, that is not to say that the IRA did not exist or that it was not responsible for terrorist outrages, but it is equally true that in SOME incidents British agents were involved directly in terrorism and also in the cover-up and false prosecution of IRA terrorists' such as with the Guildford and Birmingham bombings.

The likelihood of western agents involvement in Al Q incidents is further strengthened by the connections between US/UK and Al Q and the events of 9/11.

In conclusion we are on the same side in this debate. We both support a public inquiry. Where we differ is your dismissal of the POSSIBILITY that western intelligence agents were involved in any way.

That's fine. You are welcome to that opinion, but please respect others right to hold different opinions

 

[editor]

The concept of a british born suicide bomber, used against a domestic population for unknown reasons apart from publicity is a total departure from practically all known terrorist activities.

Err, apart from the Derby born suicide bomber in Tel Aviv two years previously, of course. That was a first. So why should it be so unusual for it to happen here?

 

[editor]

J
In conclusion we are on the same side in this debate. we both support a public inquiry. Where we differ is your dismissal of the POSSIBILITY that western intelligence agents were involved in any way.

So what hard evidence do you have to support any involvement of western intelligence agents?

Anything?

 

[Badger Kitten]

When people claiming to be ''seeking truth'' don't even bother to query their starting hypothesis - that 9/11 and 7/7 were in many ways similar/the same/a put-up job by the Governments of the time, then I will point out that they are being pretty fucking rubbish.

If one of the conspracy theorists could demonstrate for one minute that they had put anything like the amount of time into investigating the growith of radical and murderous idealogy in the Uk and abroad, than they have into trying to make the facts fit their initial hypothesis - that HMG was behind it or other shadowy forces - then I would have some patience with you people.

''Unecessarily patronising manner''. Good, I am glad I have started to piss you off, perhaps you will then get some inkling of how infuriating it is to have everything made into a a giant conspiracy theory when there is no need.

Why the fuck can you peole not accept that young British men got onto trains and blew themselves up on purpose? Do a bit of research, you clearly enjoy researching stuff - why not look at the amount of stuff on the web about martyrdom operations and the arguments used to convince people that ''this is a war and they are soldiers'' because iof the UK and US foregin policy.

Why won't you do this? Why do you have to make your stupid theories fit the facts, why don't you do some proper bloody investiagtion for once? Why can't you believe what happened? What the fuck is your agenda? Why can't you deal with it?

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Err, apart from the Derby born suicide bomber in Tel Aviv two years previously, of course. That was a first. So why should it be so unusual for it to happen here?

That was a British born suicide bomber yes, but used against a occupier abroad with the aim of driving the occupier out of palestine.

It would be unusual because England is not usually considered an occupied country and the aim is not to drive out an occupier.. as is the case with practically all suicide bombings.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Fuck's sake, it is like swimming in treacle talking to these people.

Might as well drag all the crap out onto the open though, and it has been pissing me off for so long that I am finding it quite a relief to challenge these people like this, at last.

Suicide bombings are not just about terrority, they are about idealogy, and if as Khan stated , you identify not with the country you live in but with '' my people'', ''my brothers and sisters'' - meaning, other Muslims whom he claimed were being ''tortured and killed and gassed'' then you have your reason. He claimed to be a soldier, he saw it as a retaliatory attack for atrocites he saw us as complicit in committing against his fellow Muslims. Watch the fucking video, FFS.

 

[sparticus]

Dear oh dear

More opinionated patronising twaddle.

I am not 'you people' and I have done considerable research especially into 9/11 and the origins of Al Q.

As for the editor's "So what hard evidence do you have to support any involvement of western intelligence agents?" I give you considerable historical precedent to start with. Surely you are aware of such historical precedents or are all our secret agents straight out of a BOND film

 

[editor]

It would be unusual because England is not usually considered an occupied country and the aim is not to drive out an occupier.. as is the case with practically all suicide bombings.

So what? Does that prove that it could not happen here? No, it categorically does not.

But seeing as you appear to be claiming it was someone else who did the bombings, could you explain who actually did the bombings and how it was achieved please?

 

[editor]

As for the editor's "So what hard evidence do you have to support any involvement of western intelligence agents?" I give you considerable historical precedent to start with

That's not "hard evidence". Try again.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Dear oh dear

More opinionated patronising twaddle.

I am not 'you people' and I have done considerable research especially into 9/11 and the origins of Al Q.

As for the editor's "So what hard evidence do you have to support any involvement of western intelligence agents?" I give you considerable historical precedent to start with. Surely you are aware of such historical precedents or are all our secret agents straight out of a BOND film

My opinions as I keep pointing out are based on having been feet away and having regular contact with 90 survivors, the police, the train driver and the other first responders, and whilst I have certainly ridiculed the conspiracy theorists, I have not posted 'twaddle' that is your department. You have not answered our questions, though I have answered all yours. I win, you look like a git. Happy fucking Christmas, will you be asking for a leg to stand on from Santa? Because you don't seem to have one at the moment.

 

[Badger Kitten]

who did the bombings and how was it achieved please?

 

[sparticus]

Ed, sorry there is considerable HARD EVIDENCE of historical precedent, which means the possibility should not ruled out prior to any inquiry

With regards to 7/7 there is a lot of evidence that is not public that I would like to see released and interrogated, hence the need for a public inquiry.

It's a basic case of accountability and transparency.

 

[editor]

who did the bombings and how was it achieved please?

You've got no choice of getting a real-world, staightforward answer to that one - I've been asking the same question for ages!

 

[Badger Kitten]

It would be unusual because England is not usually considered an occupied country and the aim is not to drive out an occupier.. as is the case with practically all suicide bombings.

Suicide bombings are not just about terrority, they are about idealogy, and if as Khan stated , you identify not with the country you live in but with '' my people'', ''my brothers and sisters'' - meaning, other Muslims whom he claimed were being ''tortured and killed and gassed'' then you have your reason. He claimed to be a soldier, he saw it as a retaliatory attack for atrocites he saw us as complicit in committing against his fellow Muslims. Watch the fucking video, FFS

What's is patronising twaddle or opinion about this: did you watch Khan's video? Or not? He answered your question himself.

 

[Badger Kitten]

You've got no choice of getting a real-world, staightforward answer to that one - I've been asking the same question for ages!

I know, I'm going for the broken record technuique. I have answered all their questions, why the fuck won't they answer mine? They even claim to be seeking truth for the victims, yet when a victim challenges them. they call it 'patronising' and 'opinionated' and 'twaddle'!


And then people wonder why i think conspiracy theoriosts are twats.

 

[editor]

Ed, sorry there is considerable HARD EVIDENCE of historical precedent, which means the possibility should not ruled out prior to any inquiry

Right. So you admit you have not a single, solitary shred of hard evidence to support any of the wild theories being spouted by conspiraloons about 7th July?

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

Call me old fashioned here, but isn't it usually wise to compile some credible, solid evidence before slapping up suggestions all over the web that some immense, murderous conspiracy has taken place?

As it is, your suggestions of a conspiracy are supported by as much evidence as someone claiming that UFOs were somehow involved (i.e. none whatsoever).

But seeing as you seem so insistent, could you posit what you think really happened please?

 

[editor]

They even claim to be seeking truth for the victims, yet when a victim challenges them.

Ah, thatll because you're the wrong sort of victim!

 

[Badger Kitten]

Ed, sorry there is considerable HARD EVIDENCE of historical precedent, which means the possibility should not ruled out prior to any inquiry

yeah, and there's also considerable previous of suicide bombings and 'martyrdom operations' happening in this world so why can't you get your head round it? Or are radical young men from the UK so wildly different to radical young men everywhere else in the world that they couldn't possibly have blown themeselves up, oh no?

Who did the bombings and how was it achieved please?

 

[Techno303]

Or are radical young men from the UK so wildly different to radical young men everywhere else in the world that they couldn't possibly have blown themeselves up, oh no?

It because they were British. Terribly sorry old boy we just don’t do that sort of thing.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

When people claiming to be ''seeking truth'' don't even bother to query their starting hypothesis - that 9/11 and 7/7 were in many ways similar/the same/a put-up job by the Governments of the time, then I will point out that they are being pretty fucking rubbish.

I never said this. But 9/11 and 7/7 are both attributed to Al-Q and are linked with the "war on terror"

If one of the conspracy theorists could demonstrate for one minute that they had put anything like the amount of time into investigating the growith of radical and murderous idealogy in the Uk and abroad, than they have into trying to make the facts fit their initial hypothesis - that HMG was behind it or other shadowy forces - then I would have some patience with you people.

I spend a great deal of time investigating the murderous ideology that is wiping out the population of Iraq, causing an exponential growth in the cancer rate, and promoting torture as a means of spreading "democracy"

Why the fuck can you peole not accept that young British men got onto trains and blew themselves up on purpose?

Dont you think it is even a little bit odd. How many people do you know that would do this?

Do a bit of research, you clearly enjoy researching stuff - why not look at the amount of stuff on the web about martyrdom operations and the arguments used to convince people that ''this is a war and they are soldiers'' because iof the UK and US foregin policy.

Then why not target the enemies? Someone who is politically aware to be a suicide bomber against the spread of western "democracy" around the globe , must be aware that western democracy is a sham, that we are no more free here than in many countries which are considered totalitarian. Why then pick on us and not the rulers or the occupiers directly?

Why won't you do this?

What would the point be - yes there is a concept of jihad out there which embraces violent martyrdom. Yes there are some really pissed off people. Yes, people may be so pissed off that they might blow themselves and others up...but four of them...with young families...

Why do you have to make your stupid theories fit the facts,

I dont. My theory is that there are alternative explainations to the london bombings than suicide bombers. There are no facts which support suicide bombers any more than tricked or duped bombers.

why don't you do some proper bloody investiagtion for once?

Because I dont have the time or resources. That is why I would like a full public inquiry

Why can't you believe what happened?

I believe there were bombings, I believe there were people with the bombs, but I have seen no evidence that they were intentional bombers.

What the fuck is your agenda?

I want to know the truth behind Al-Quaeda. Western governments created it and funded it for years. Now they claim that it is their enemy and they have nothign to do with it while it kills and maims civilians of western powers. Western governments dont have a very good record of telling the truth, I would like a full public inquiry to explore whether they are telling us the full truth about their current relationship with Al-Quaeda

Why can't you deal with it?

Because last time it was nearly you, next time it might be me.

I pay a lot of good money in taxes to this government so that they can meander round the globe murdering its civilians and thieving their resources in the name of keeping me safe. I dont believe it is doing that, I believe it is putting me in danger in order to make profits for its friends.

I believe that the US government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of its own citizens to rake in ever greater profits for a tiny rich segment of its population. I believe that the US government was in neglect of its duty of care of up to 8,000 of its civilians to minimise its insurance payments and thieve the resources of its own population for the benefit of that tiny rich segment.

The UK government has deported my friends to countries where they have been raped and watched their families murdered; the UK government has allowed planes loaded with prisoners destined for torture camps refuel on UK land; the UK locks people up on the flimsiest of evidence and has been complicit in sending people to Gitmo. The UK government wants to introduce surveillence on a scale that has never been seen before, yet despite having the most cameraed up capital city in the world, all they can do following a major terrorist atrocity is release a handful of still pictures. The UK government murdered a man on the London Underground in this "war on terror", if there had not been such a stink about it and such obvious lies, it would have been covered up. A friend of mine's son was killed in Iraq after being recruited at the dole office on the promise that he could get a driving licence if he signed up, he was given inadequate training, inadequate equipment and sent to fight an illegal war on the basis of lies. There are now over a hundred UK troops that the British government have sacrificed for that lie...yet worse we are now implicated in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Is complicity in a few murders on the London Underground really so outwith the bounds of possibility.

 

[sparticus]

who did the bombings and how was it achieved please?

Obviously if I knew and could prove this, I wouldn't be supporting your call for a public inquiry

Specifically, do let me know what twaddle you are referring to

For the sake of argument. Let's go with the assumption that the basic official 'narrative' that the 4 named bombers were responsible is true. Beyond this we don't really know do we? And your presence at one of the bombings gives you no greater insight into who else might have been involved than me.

Given the historical precedents of UK involvement in terrorism and the emergence of Al Q, only the blinkered would automatically rule out this possibility in the case of 7/7.

That has consistently been my point. All that you have witnessed can be taken as true and still HMG could have been involved and you wouldn't know either way

To illustrate this possibility I ask whether Haroon Rashid Aswat was involved in 7/7 and whether he was an MI6 agent as claimed by John Loftus

 

[Badger Kitten]

straw poll...

Who thinks the conspiracy theorists are winning the argument here, who finds all their 'truth-seeking questions'' convincing? ( quick straw poll survey).

Anyone?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Who thinks the conspiracy theorists are winning the argument here, who finds all their 'truth-seeking questions'' convincing? ( quick straw poll survey).

Anyone?

A bunch of delusional self serving cunts without about as much grip on reality as George Bush has on the use of launguage. Fuck em all.

 

[editor]

Dont you think it is even a little bit odd. How many people do you know that would do this?

Sorry, is this supposed to be some form of proof that it was all a conspiracy because you personally find it 'odd' that young Muslim men chose to become suicide bombers?

So who did do it then?