The 7/7 Report

[Badger Kitten]

BK: I had no idea I should contribute to other threads other than those that interest me, such as the 7/7 threads.

We should always be grateful and interested in other opinions and views, IMO, whether we agree with them or not. As long as they don't just descend to unwarranted personal abuse as has often happened to me and others here.

.

Oddly, Prole, I am not 'grateful' to be told that the 4 mass-murdering criminals who blighted the lives of so many last year are 'innocent'.

I put the post up about CCTV because it is congruent with my belief that information should be shared. Information, not fact-free offensive speculation.

 

[Prole]

Oddly, Prole, I am not 'grateful' to be told that the 4 mass-murdering criminals who blighted the lives of so many last year are 'innocent'.

I put the post up about CCTV because it is congruent with my belief that information should be shared. Information, not fact-free offensive speculation.

Innocent until proven guilty whether we like it or not. I can agree to disagree with you though.

Perhaps if Gareth Pierce had taken the view that upsetting the victims and survivors (5 dead and 65 injured) when she represented the Guildford 4 or the relatives of the 21 dead in Birmingham that were blamed on the Birmingham 6, we would never have known about these miscarriages of justice.

I hope for all our sakes BK that you are right and that these 4 young British Muslim men are guilty, because if they were to be proved innocent, perhaps 'patsies', then we are all in big trouble. Once we have seen the evidence or a truly Independent Public Inquiry, outside of the Inquiries Act 2005, is held, then we'll all know for sure. Until then, I cannot say that I believe they are guilty.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Can I just point out here that you cannot libel, nor try, the dead?

And that forensic evidence ie. their video statements and their exploded bodies means that they intended to commit, and did commit mass murder on that day?


And nothing will change the fact that I find your wilful perversion of the facts to suit your agenda to be deeply offensive, and worse, conducive to the fostering of a culture of victimisation and cynical conspiracy theories in which extremism and hatred thrive, which is why I will fight your fact free untruthful position that these murderous criminals were innocent every single step of the way.

 

[Prole]

BK: It appears that you agree with the White House in their 'Strategy for Winning the War on Terror' where they state:

The terrorism we confront today springs from:

* Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

If I've interpreted this twisted logic correctly, believing that some terrorist attacks are false-flag ops, actually leads to real terrorist attacks. Perhaps Rumsfield wrote this in his 'unknown known known unknown' speak.

It certainly makes no sense to me. Unless it is to warn people that believing in false-flag ops immediately flags them up as potential terrorists?

 

[Loki]

Despite many attempts to get me banned.

zArk and Big Fish both were, for no discernible reason other than a dislike of the views they expressed.

Freedom of speech and thought are principles worth fighting for, or do you all just like to think the same?

I love free speech, I wish you'd fuck off though.

eta zArk and bigfish had loads of opportunity to express their thoughts, uncensored and they're still there if you search!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

On the other hand. Back when the US was developing the stealth fighter-bomber (the funny looking angular one) during the Reagan years, they were flying in squadron strength from a particular USAF base in a remote part of the US Southwest. At that time the existence of the aircraft was being kept secret because the US were concerned that the Soviets might get over-excited when they found out their extensive air defences were now compromised.

At about the same time, the Roswell alien stories started circulating. Roswell is close to the USAF base in question.

Guess what happened when people in that vicinity reported funny looking aircraft that didn't show up on radar?

Conspiracy theories are a wonderful asset to people engaged in actual conspiracies.

Circulate them loudly enough and very few people will be willing to give time to allegations, no matter how well founded, that even slightly resemble them.

 

[Prole]

I love free speech, I wish you'd fuck off though.

eta zArk and bigfish had loads of opportunity to express their thoughts, uncensored and they're still there if you search!

Why were they banned then?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Why were they banned then?

Because they broke the rules. Repeatedly and the ed's patience ran out. Now i dare say that the ed's patience with you has also run out, but you don't break the rules (or at least as often). Jazzz too sticks to the rules for the most part.

 

[Loki]

Why were they banned then?

Because they tried everyone's patience / broke the FAQ I presume. This place would be over-run by attention-desperate single issue freaks if nobody ever got banned.

I, personally, would have banned you by now. Good I'm not a mod eh?

 

[Prole]

Conspiracy theories are a wonderful asset to people engaged in actual conspiracies. Circulate them loudly enough and very few people will be willing to give time to allegations, no matter how well founded, that even slightly resemble them.

I agree. That's why it is so important to examine the evidence for the official version rather than speculating what 'might have happened'. Many CT sites are actually dead-ends, where 90% truth leads to theories of Lizards or Zionist consipracies etc. They take people's genuine quest for the truth based on mistrust (rightly so) of the PTB, and lead them to bizarre and incorrect analysis of the situation. Whose interests does that serve?

 

[Prole]

Because they tried everyone's patience / broke the FAQ I presume. This place would be over-run by attention-desperate single issue freaks if nobody ever got banned.

I, personally, would have banned you by now. Good I'm not a mod eh?

But I take it you are a 'mischief maker'?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure. But do you for some reason imagine that what you're doing now is having any effect other than making most reasonably open minded people switch off and write you off as another obsessive nutcase with a wild theory?

 

[Prole]

Sure. But do you for some reason imagine that what you're doing now is having any effect other than making most reasonably open minded people switch off and write you off as another obsessive nutcase with a wild theory?

What wild theory would that be? Although it is often demanded of me that I state what I think happened that day, I always reply that I don't know. All I know is that I have yet to see the evidence for the Official Version.

 

[Prole]

Have any of you seen this strange comment by this even stranger man?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

 

[editor]

What wild theory would that be? Although it is often demanded of me that I state what I think happened that day, I always reply that I don't know.

You seem to have forgotten that your mind was made up some time ago when you declared the 7/7 bombers to be all as innocent as new born lambs.

 

[editor]

Have any of you seen this strange comment by this even stranger man?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

Right. Let's get this straight.

It is not acceptable to post up links without bothering to explain what the content is.

 

[editor]

Why were they banned then?

Proof indeed of your woeful inability to research even the most basic of facts.

Bigfish is not banned. In fact, he's busying himself with FAQ-busting cut and pasting right now!

 

[Prole]

You seem to have forgotten that your mind was made up some time ago when you declared the 7/7 bombers to be all as innocent as new born lambs.

When I read the official report saying they caught the 7.40 train which I knew was cancelled, yes the evidence did point to them being innocent.

As you know this fact has now been changed although the reason for this error has not been disclosed to the public yet.

Still there is a woeful lack of evidence in the public domain that would allow me to categorically state their guilt.

 

[Prole]

Right. Let's get this straight.

It is not acceptable to post up links without bothering to explain what the content is.

It is a link to Bush claiming he saw the first plane hit whilst he was waiting to go into the class room. A blatant lie.

Do I have to tread very carefully now as the finger hovers over the banned button?

 

[laptop]

Bigfish is not banned. In fact, he's busying himself with FAQ-busting cut and pasting right now!

I must say in advance that I have no theory as to what happened to bigfish.

But you are The Authorities and I refuse to take your word for it. You must have done something bad!

Release the video of him posting oil company share-boosting press releases now!









Ooops.

 

[editor]

Still there is a woeful lack of evidence in the public domain that would allow me to categorically state their guilt.

Yet you categorically declared them to be totally 100% innocent and victims of a cover up.

 

[editor]

Do I have to tread very carefully now as the finger hovers over the banned button?

You just have to respect the rules of the board like everyone else.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You're missing my point I'm afraid. Look at the UFO thing again. It didn't matter that there actually were funny looking aircraft that didn't show up on radar flying around Roswell. It didn't matter at all. What mattered was the structural resemblance of those reports with reports of UFOs. The truth of the matter only comes into it once someone takes the report seriously. A strong structural resemblance to something known to be almost invariably gibberish prevents them from taking it seriously in the first place.

I've certainly never got past your way of engaging with people. You sound like an obsessive nutcase because whenever I see you on Urban, you are always in the same shit fight about the same subject with the same people and I think people are unlikely to get past that.

I therefore have no comment on your theories, but I'd advise you to try a much less obsessively confrontational approach if you want people to take them at all seriously.

 

[Prole]

Yet you categorically declared them to be totally 100% innocent and victims of a cover up.

Again, on the basis of the official report, yes I did. If the official report states categorically they caught a train from Luton I knew was cancelled, they could not have been in London could they?

That's why I say we have to investigate the evidence, because only the truth stands up to rigorous scrutiny.

Evidence that is woefully lacking. The reason given in John Reid's letter that this evidence could prejudice any future trials is a nonsense. This evidence is already referred to in the official report, so I take it that the publication of the report would prejudice any future trials. What sort of logic is that?

Apart from the fact that there is not even a hint that there will be a future trial for the involvement of anyone else. Just one arrest in connection with these events? How unlikely is that, given the 43 arrested and 17 awaiting trial in connection with 21/7 when no one was hurt?

 

[Prole]

I've certainly never got past your way of engaging with people. You sound like an obsessive nutcase because whenever I see you on Urban, you are always in the same shit fight about the same subject with the same people and I think people are unlikely to get past that.

I therefore have no comment on your theories, but I'd advise you to try a much less obsessively confrontational approach if you want people to take them at all seriously.

Perhaps I just take a defensive stand because I have come under attack on these boards? Some of it extremely offensive. I certainly don't have to take this stance when I post on other forums, it can be very aggressive here.

Again it's important to state that I don't espouse any theories. I just try and question the evidence and engage with those that are concerned about these events. Which is why I am posting in a thread entitled the 7/7 report, which is what I assume we are discussing.

I often wondered when I was learning at school about the events in Germany in the 30's why people didn't speak up or do something to stop what was happening. So if I am wrong I really don't care, but my fear is that we are moving rapidly towards an intolerant unjust society that increasingly resembles a police state and one in which Muslim's are demonised, persecuted and feared. A breeding ground for the BNP and the far-right. Just throw an economic recession into the mix and we're all in trouble.

History as tragedy repeated as farce, except there is nothing funny about the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes or Forest Gate or the increasingly ludicrous accusations of liquid explosive plots etc, all on the basis of the events in London on 7th July. I need to know that what we are told happened actually was what happened, as with the Reichstag fire, there is too much at stake. A correct analysis and a correct political analysis is what is needed. 'Islamofascism' just doesn't fit what I see is going on.

Did you watch the Bush comment that I posted where he claims to have watched the first plane hit? Why has he lied?

 

[Loki]

But I take it you are a 'mischief maker'?

Yes, and one who occasionally gets the odd result. but while still remaining (mostly!) interesting. And without being an insensitive, single-issue, closed minded droning crashing bore.

You're only here because you know you can take advantage of the editor's good nature, even while attacking him and bleating about censorship.

You know you'd get kicked out of almost any other forum inside of 10 posts.

 

[Loki]

I certainly don't have to take this stance when I post on other forums, it can be very aggressive here.

That's cos the only other forum you post on is the one full of your fellow conspiralunatics. You're too busy agreeing with eachother to bother checking your facts or debating anything

 

[Jazzz]

I'm getting bored with your bullshit now and I don't take too kindly to you posting slurs up elsewhere, or using my real name.

The mods did not make a mistake

I've bothered to explain the reasons why he was banned - not censored - but you seem unable to understand them.

So I'll try one last time: he posted up material that he knew could have caused very serious legal implications for urban75. That was his first post.

That post contained a page full of FAQ-trashin', copyright-bustin' cut and paste - potentially more trouble for the boards there too - as well as advert forhis won site.

And then he came back and ore or less did the same all over again.

And when he was (rightfully) banned, he immediately posted up a highly spun version of events and censored any attempt by the mods to give their side of the story (you see, we even bothered - all three of us - to explain to him the reasons for his ban).

YOU BANNED NAFEEZ AHMED????

oh you prize twats

some points:

1) his blog is his blog - he can accept and delete contributions as he wishes. It's not a discussion forum. If I was him, I'd delete your nonsense too. And you banned him for god's sake so you can hardly complain about not being allowed to post on his blog!!!!

2) If you have minor quibbles about posting etiquette (such as linking to blogs) then you should tell the poster especially if they are new and unlikely to know certain customs about urban75. This is just decency.

3) "I am disappointed to say that so far there has been very little serious critical discussion, grounded in factual analysis, of the alleged “Terror Plot” foiled on the morning of Wednesday, 10th August 2006. Except for a few noteworthy comment pieces, such as Craig Murray’s critical speculations published by the Guardian last Friday, the mainstream media has largely subserviently parroted the official claims of the British and American governments. This is a shame, because inspection of the facts raises serious problems for the 10/8 official narrative."

If this was indeed the post that resulted in an immediate, no discussion ban that is really a new low even for urban75

 

[Prole]

That's cos the only other forum you post on is the one full of your fellow conspiralunatics. You're too busy agreeing with eachother to bother checking your facts or debating anything

What is your interest in the 7/7 Report Loki? It's a long thread now and I'm not sure I remember you posting anything about the report, apologies if you have and I've forgotten.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

the mainstream media has largely subserviently parroted the official claims of the British and American governments. This is a shame, because inspection of the facts raises serious problems for the 10/8 official narrative."

If this was indeed the post that resulted in an immediate, no discussion ban that is really a new low even for urban75

Oh I don't know - just from the quote
Cutting it out would get my vote