The 7/7 Report

[Badger Kitten]

So, no evidence to support your claim that the bombers were as innocent as new born lambs? You espouse a belief based on zero credible proof?

I think we have a word for that.

Thank you and good night.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Are you sure about that?

Yes, absolutely.

Nothing you have said on these boards could in any way be construed as constructive.

Tbh, you are one of those people who make me ashamed of the human race.

 

[Jazzz]

Wilful misinterpretation on his part, yep, and that is being very polite. Industrial accident, he claims for the trains, covered up, and the bus was full of actors and nobody died.

CLAIMED. Wasn't that one retracted?

 

[Prole]

CTs need to be kept at arm's length from people pursuing an inquiry for sane reasons. Their cries that it was Mossad, lizards, an inside job, whatever simply make anyone who espouses an inquiry look like a crank. Baby, bathwater.

CTs also help to foster the sense of grievance in which extremism thrives; they are part of the problem, and allow denial and paranioa and anger to flourish, create a sense of suspicion and victimhood, and frankly, are no help for those looking to stop suicide bombings and the growth of extremism, because to deal with it you have to face the fact that it happens in the first place.

That is outrageous and straight out of the Bush doctrine of what creates terrorism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html

How can not believing that 9/11 was the product of 'suicide-bombers' create 'suicide-bombers'. Double-think reigns.

 

[Prole]

Yes, absolutely.

Nothing you have said on these boards could in any way be construed as constructive.

Tbh, you are one of those people who make me ashamed of the human race.

I'm gobsmacked! Does that put me in the same league as Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney or Blair or the thousands of others who actually harm other people?

Shit freedom of speech and thought is really and truly absent from u75 isn't it.

 

[Loki]

Shit freedom of speech and thought is really and truly absent from u75 isn't it.

Then why don't you fuck off to somewhere else.

 

[JHE]

Shit freedom of speech and thought is really and truly absent from u75 isn't it.

Not entirely. You, for example, are free to post your shit.

Don't mistake contempt for suppression.

 

[Jazzz]

CTs need to be kept at arm's length from people pursuing an inquiry for sane reasons. Their cries that it was Mossad, lizards, an inside job, whatever simply make anyone who espouses an inquiry look like a crank. Baby, bathwater.

Nonsense, and as I've shown, CTS don't bother the 9/11 widows who campaigned for the 9/11 commission.

CTs also help to foster the sense of grievance in which extremism thrives; they are part of the problem, and allow denial and paranioa and anger to flourish, create a sense of suspicion and victimhood, and frankly, are no help for those looking to stop suicide bombings and the growth of extremism, because to deal with it you have to face the fact that it happens in the first place.

Let's lock them up, eh?

 

[Prole]

Nonsense, and as I've shown, CTS don't bother the 9/11 widows who campaigned for the 9/11 commission.

Let's lock them up, eh?

Hey Jazzz that's exactly what I thought when I read it. Do you think there's a right-ward shift taking place along with an increasing intolerance?

Banning Nafeez is just a symptom of this IMO.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Shit freedom of speech and thought is really and truly absent from u75 isn't it.

Er, no.
Don't imagine for a pico-second that you have some sort of martyr status.
You can think what you want.
You can say what you want.
I think and say you're a total waste of space.

 

[Prole]

I was reminded of a quote by Giuliani, who happened to be on the spot on both 11/9 & 7/7 where he says

Giuliani brushed aside the suggestion that the West may ultimately be able to negotiate with terrorists.

"You cannot negotiate with them. These are not people —

 

[JHE]

They are not people - they're pixies!

 

[A Dashing Blade]

I was reminded of a quote by Giuliani, who happened to be on the spot on both 11/9 & 7/7 where he says . . .

"You cannot negotiate with them. These are not people — they have demonstrated to us that they despise us. They hate us. They want to kill us." is the full sentence

Hmmm, "on the spot" . . . "I was one block away from where the first bomb went off " . . . so was I Prole. In fact, so were . . .oh . . . what . . .10,000 other people?

You can find the transcript here . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207934,00.html

The Mayor of New York is interviewed by Fox News at Heathrow the context being . . . "you're looking live at Heathrow Airport outside of London, where officials have raised security to its highest level and over 500 flights have been canceled today. Huge backups were back at the security checkpoints all day long as officials searching for explosives in every form of liquid outside of baby formula and medicine.

Joining us now, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is with us" . . .

Your point is what caller?

 

[Prole]

"You cannot negotiate with them. These are not people — they have demonstrated to us that they despise us. They hate us. They want to kill us." is the full sentence

Hmmm, "on the spot" . . . "I was one block away from where the first bomb went off " . . . so was I Prole. In fact, so were . . .oh . . . what . . .10,000 other people?

You can find the transcript here . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207934,00.html

The Mayor of New York is interviewed by Fox News at Heathrow the context being . . . "you're looking live at Heathrow Airport outside of London, where officials have raised security to its highest level and over 500 flights have been canceled today. Huge backups were back at the security checkpoints all day long as officials searching for explosives in every form of liquid outside of baby formula and medicine.

Joining us now, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is with us" . . .

Your point is what caller?

Thanks for the whole quote which I hadn't bothered with as it didn't change what he said, these are not people is what he said, agreed? Being on the scene on 7/7 was quite a coincidence IMO.

And your point is?

 

[laptop]

on the scene on 7/7 was quite a coincidence IMO.

No.

This exemplifies your paranoid thinking.

Do you have any idea of the geography and distribution of people-whose-names-you-recognise in Lower Manhattan?

Thought not.

 

[Prole]

No.

This exemplifies your paranoid thinking.

Do you have any idea of the geography and distribution of people-whose-names-you-recognise in Lower Manhattan?

Thought not.

To be in NY on 11/9 and in a hotel in Liverpool St on 7/7 is an amazing coincidence IMO

(Oops didn't spot it was you laptop, after your grotesque fantasy I have even more reason to ignore you)

 

[laptop]

To be in NY on 11/9 and in a hotel in Liverpool St on 7/7 is an amazing coincidence IMO

The thing about coincidences is, it's when they're not happening sufficiently often that one needs to worry

Are you accusing Mr Juliani of lizardhood?

(Oops didn't spot it was you laptop, after your grotesque fantasy I have even more reason to ignore you)

You can get your life back from conspiraloonery. You just have to listen to well-meant advice.

 

[Lock&Light]

Banning Nafeez is just a symptom of this IMO.

It's true, you know, Prole. You simply don't bother to read other people's posts. You have been told often enough why Nafeez was banned. The reasons are totally justifiable, yet you continue to act as if nothing has been said. A head in the sand, comes to mind.

 

[Prole]

It's true, you know, Prole. You simply don't bother to read other people's posts. You have been told often enough why Nafeez was banned. The reasons are totally justifiable, yet you continue to act as if nothing has been said. A head in the sand, comes to mind.

Reading and believing are two different things. It was perhaps the content that so disturbed whoever banned him. I think this authoritarian application of the FAQ's against a new poster is unnecessary and unjustified (unless the content is something totally outrageous). FAQ's are guidelines surely, not hard and fast rules that must be obeyed at all times, sorry slipped into authoritarian mode for a second there. Boards should be friendly and welcoming, and as for reading FAQ's, be honest, did you?

 

[laptop]

I think this authoritarian application of the FAQ's against a new poster is unnecessary and unjustified

What you are saying is that new posters who share your delusions should be allowed to ignore the very clear rules against advertising, spamming, and cut-and-pastes (whovever be the author).

Is that not so?

(unless the content is something totally outrageous).

And posting text that could land these boards in no end of legal shit - including but not limited to lawsuits from the most agressive proponent of corporate copyright in the world, the New York Times Company, and from the Attorney-General of the UK for contempt of court - is by your lights not "outrageous"?

Sorry - I've included information from the real world. Clearly this is exploiting an unfair advantage in arguing with you.

 

[editor]

Boards should be friendly and welcoming, and as for reading FAQ's, be honest, did you?

So the mods should "welcome" new posters whose first post not only breaks the FAQ into tiny little pieces, but it contains legally dubious material that could potentially jeopardise the entire site, yes?

Sounds like you're not thinking ahead here because if that happened, you'd be left with no high-profile, busy boards to post up your bonkers nonsense.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

And your point is?

You see, you can't answer a direct question can you?

I asked first. Any danger of the courtesy of an answer?

 

[Jazzz]

So the mods should "welcome" new posters whose first post not only breaks the FAQ into tiny little pieces, but it contains legally dubious material that could potentially jeopardise the entire site, yes?

Sounds like you're not thinking ahead here because if that happened, you'd be left with no high-profile, busy boards to post up your bonkers nonsense.

It really doesn't bother you at all that you stuck two fingers up to a respected academic, does it? God urban75 can be so up its own arse sometimes.

Yes, you should welcome new posters, certainly ones like Nafeez, and if they don't quite know how things work around here you tell them.

For god's sake it wasn't as if he was selling penis enlargement devices or some TV person looking for volunteers, yet that's the treatment he got.

 

[Jazzz]

I suppose it comes down to what urban75 aspires to. If the pinnacle is going to be jizzing all over a Blair petition, then great, it's there. But if wants to attract the highest calibre of posters, outside respect and a reputation for free discussion (!) then this episode must be considered a disaster.

I am stunned by this 'if someone doesn't read the FAQ they can FAQ off' inanity.

 

[Prole]

So the mods should "welcome" new posters whose first post not only breaks the FAQ into tiny little pieces, but it contains legally dubious material that could potentially jeopardise the entire site, yes?

Sounds like you're not thinking ahead here because if that happened, you'd be left with no high-profile, busy boards to post up your bonkers nonsense.

The point is he took down the 'offending' stuff and replaced it with a link to where it was written on his blog, which sounds like cooperation to me.

That piece lasted a minute!

Admit it you made a mistake, and if you think you didn't and that the FAQ's are the be all and end all of U75's purpose, state that.

I suspect part of Nafeez's motivation in posting it here was on the basis that you might actually care about censorship and what is happening to British Muslims. Was he wrong?

 

[Prole]

You see, you can't answer a direct question can you?

I asked first. Any danger of the courtesy of an answer?

I had made my point, my point being that Rudi 'on the spot at 2 major 'terrorist scenes' Giuliani' claimed that terrorists were 'not people'.

That I find scary.

Much as I found BK's comment about CT's being responsible for creating terrorism scary, and how CT's had to be held at arms length from 'people who want a public inquiry', as if CT's aren't people. This seperation enabled by the use of a label 'CT' leads to a dehumanising of a group because of their political beliefs or differing opinions on the causes of terrorism.

I don't believe that people here are unaware of state terrorism and false-flag ops, whether that was what lay behind 11/9 or 7/7 or Madrid. It is not valid to state that a person has to be a 'complete nutter' to believe that is what really lies behinds these events.

The use of the word 'terrorist' only obfuscates and dehumanises, terrorism is not a political strategy I agree with as it leads to state repression, but people have the right to self-determination and to use any means to fight occupation and repression.

That is why the acts of 7/7 being blamed on 4 young British Muslim suicide-bombers is difficult to fathom. Suicide-bombing is not a strategy that serves any purpose unless there is no other way at hitting the 'enemy', as in occupied terrotories such as Israel or Iraq. Suicide-bombing requires concealing explosives, either next to the body or in a vehicle, not carrying strange mixtures of unstable TATP (forensics not certain to date whether this was the explosive used) in back packs that can easily be left on trains.

It is a scenario that benefits those that want to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria because they have systems of governments or people in power that the US can't do business with or where their previously violently installed puppet regimes were long otherthrown. It helps to create a new enemy to replace the bogey man of Communism, 'Islamo-fascism' is the new catch word. A term invented to conceal who the real fascists are IMO.

In my view of history, especially since the supposed defeat of the Nazis, is one that is endorsed by Harold Pinter, the US are the true enemy to fear. Giuliani is amongst the most right-wing of the neo-cons, read his speech that you lnked to. He thinks you can decide who 'people' are.

So have I made my point? What was yours btw?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I can see a comment over on the guys site from fridgemagnet stating very clearly that he'd be quite welcome here if he agreed to abide by the rules.

Seems to me that if he's actually interested in communicating here, that'd be the logical thing for him to do. If he prefers the tragic grandeur of being an oppressed truth-seeker, unfairly denied access by the mods, then he won't.

We'll see.

 

[Badger Kitten]

I had made my point, my point being that Rudi 'on the spot at 2 major 'terrorist scenes' Giuliani' claimed that terrorists were 'not people'.

That I find scary.

Much as I found BK's comment about CT's being responsible for creating terrorism scary, and how CT's had to be held at arms length from 'people who want a public inquiry', as if CT's aren't people. This seperation enabled by the use of a label 'CT' leads to a dehumanising of a group because of their political beliefs or differing opinions on the causes of terrorism.

I don't believe that people here are unaware of state terrorism and false-flag ops, whether that was what lay behind 11/9 or 7/7 or Madrid. It is not valid to state that a person has to be a 'complete nutter' to believe that is what really lies behinds these events.

The use of the word 'terrorist' only obfuscates and dehumanises, terrorism is not a political strategy I agree with as it leads to state repression, but people have the right to self-determination and to use any means to fight occupation and repression.

That is why the acts of 7/7 being blamed on 4 young British Muslim suicide-bombers is difficult to fathom. Suicide-bombing is not a strategy that serves any purpose unless there is no other way at hitting the 'enemy', as in occupied terrotories such as Israel or Iraq. Suicide-bombing requires concealing explosives, either next to the body or in a vehicle, not carrying strange mixtures of unstable TATP (forensics not certain to date whether this was the explosive used) in back packs that can easily be left on trains.

It is a scenario that benefits those that want to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria because they have systems of governments or people in power that the US can't do business with or where their previously violently installed puppet regimes were long otherthrown. It helps to create a new enemy to replace the bogey man of Communism, 'Islamo-fascism' is the new catch word. A term invented to conceal who the real fascists are IMO.

In my view of history, especially since the supposed defeat of the Nazis, is one that is endorsed by Harold Pinter, the US are the true enemy to fear. Giuliani is amongst the most right-wing of the neo-cons, read his speech that you lnked to. He thinks you can decide who 'people' are.

So have I made my point? What was yours btw?

Oh stop acting the burning martyr. Since when did I say you were non-people? I didn't. Grow up.

Since when did I say you were terrorists? I didn't, grow up.

Since when did I say you should be locked up? I didn't. Grow up.

There is freedom of speech here for those who obey site rules, I don't see you and your murderer-exonerating, reality-denying crap being banned.

Can I make a suggestion? Go and have a read of some of the more unavoury extremist boards. There you will find opinions espoused such as

Kuffrs are subhuman
Britain deserved 7/7
Those killedon 7/7 will burn in hell
The lads were martyrs
Jews were behind it
The lads were innocent
along with some lovely homophobic, racist, misogynistic stuff, and a call for brothers to go and fight the crusaders abroad.

And lots of lashings of paranoia. Then go and look at some of the regular, Islam talk boards where young Muslims are discussing their faith, and the issues of extemist hotheads, disconnection, paranioa and conspiracy theory.

Then come back and tell me whether you think there might be a problem.

To deal with extremist and the virus of suicide bombing deathcults you need to accept the problem exists in the first place. You also need to look at terrorism as the messenger, not the message, and the causes of terrorism and the information/situations in which it thrives.

Because it is real. I am dead set against dealing with it by clamping down on civil liberties. As you know. But your way, your head in the sand way of denying it and blaming PTB, is hopeless and foolish.

And ( unwittingly) part of the problem.

 

[editor]

The point is he took down the 'offending' stuff and replaced it with a link to where it was written on his blog, which sounds like cooperation to me.

Err, no he didn't. A mod had to remove it.

Next!

 

[editor]

I am stunned by this 'if someone doesn't read the FAQ they can FAQ off' inanity.

So you've no problem with new posters rocking up and posting up copyright-busting, legally contentious material that might endanger the entire site, YES/NO?

And are you really pretending that Nafeez had no idea that the republishing of such material might cause serious problems for urban? YES/NO?

And you don't think that a more appropriate way forward would have been for Nafeez to contact the mods to:

(a) apologise for endangering the site
(b) apologise for breaking the rules with an enormous cut and paste
(c) apologise for breaking the rules by posting up adverts
(d) apologise for not bothering to read the rules in the first place

oh and then

(e) apologise for posting up his wildly spun version of events banging on about a "Muslim" being "censored"
(f) apologise for his hypocritical censorship of no less that three mods who went out of their way to try and put the record straight