The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
None of the above has anything to do with me though. I can't be 'grouped' in because I contribute to a 7th July thread and attend a book launch, at which I sit quietly. I wanted to hear what was being said. I have since contacted Milan with the questions I would have asked if Maya Evans had allowed us to. (Ironic that she was arrested under new laws that prevent freedom of speech).Badger Kitten said:
All the above is clever BK it is the technique of collective guilt, or guilt by association. I noticed you left a comment from a BNP supporter on your blog for over a week even though you had comment moderator on. Do I call you a fascist? No, you are only responsible for your own words and actions.
Have I ever said anything on U75 to you that is offensive? The fact that I question what we are now officially told were the events in London that day doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist, the opposite I'd have thought. I'm challenging the official conspiracy, questioning everything until i feel I have made some sense of it. If it doesn't make sense it must be wrong. The official report doesn't make sense (we are now told that Hasib brought a 9v battery in WH Smith's at KX, perhaps because the detonator didn't work!)
We all need the truth BK for justice to be seen to be done. If I can't accept one image from Luton as judge and jury that's because a person is innocent until proven guilty. we have had too many miscarriages of justice and government whitewashes. (Guildford 4 Birmingham 6 David Kelly)
The lessons from history, recent and far, should teach us to question everything we are told to believe by any State. Whether that is the Reichstag fire or WMD.
They need to prove to us that what they say is true, as far as I'm concerned, they haven't.
BTW what sort of fundamentalist Islamist is identified by his credit card? I thought paying interest was forbidden.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Badger Kitten said:
Fine, I didn't say there wasn't a reasonable explanation, it was a general comment about the nature of some responses to this and other conspiracy theories which can leave out any critical thought.
By the way well done on your channel 4 interview, you and the two other people came across very well. Did they ask you whether you'd like to ask John Reid some questions during his interview?
Badger Kitten
oof
Prole. Wriggle, wriggle. You are part of a group that hands out leaflets which claim the bombers were innocent.
Credit card was used as ID, he wanted to be identified, he was set upon martydom. Credit cards were also used fraudulently by the bombers to raise money for terrorism and to make the bombs. As you may recall, he died, so he didn't need to pay interest....and defrauding the State was seen as legitimate since the state was the enemy of Muslims.
Do you accept those men - Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey and Hussein - the bombers were on the trains and the bus?
Do you accept that they set off bombs?
Deliberately? Do you accept the fact that London was suicide-bombed by Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey or Hussein?
Yes, or no?
I think no, you do not accept it.
Which makes you an apologist for mass murderers.
Which makes you despicable or deluded, take your pick.
Credit card was used as ID, he wanted to be identified, he was set upon martydom. Credit cards were also used fraudulently by the bombers to raise money for terrorism and to make the bombs. As you may recall, he died, so he didn't need to pay interest....and defrauding the State was seen as legitimate since the state was the enemy of Muslims.
Do you accept those men - Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey and Hussein - the bombers were on the trains and the bus?
Do you accept that they set off bombs?
Deliberately? Do you accept the fact that London was suicide-bombed by Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey or Hussein?
Yes, or no?
I think no, you do not accept it.
Which makes you an apologist for mass murderers.
Which makes you despicable or deluded, take your pick.
Badger Kitten
oof
Barking_Mad said:
Thanks, I haven't seen it yet. Jon Snow asked if we had a message for Reid, so I said public enquiry. WE couldn't hear him, just what Snow was asking him. I hoep to see the programme next week, I can't watch it online.
editor
hiraethified
Please produce your conclusive proof that the CCTV images were nefariously Photoshopped by The Man as you have claimed and please - for the last time of asking - explain the supposed significance and relevance of one of the bombers changing trousers and what the conspiracy-tastic connection is with the plastic bag.Prole said:
Badger Kitten
oof
Prole please canswer the question....
Do you accept those men - Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey and Hussein - the bombers were on the trains and the bus?
Do you accept that they set off bombs?
Deliberately? Do you accept the fact that London was suicide-bombed by Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey or Hussein?
Yes, or no?
Do you accept those men - Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey and Hussein - the bombers were on the trains and the bus?
Do you accept that they set off bombs?
Deliberately? Do you accept the fact that London was suicide-bombed by Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey or Hussein?
Yes, or no?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Prole said:
It's still referred to as a "narrative"...not that it matters, since you've already made up a completely different narrative in your head.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Badger Kitten said:
Shame they didnt give you the chance to put questions to him yourselves, would have made the debate more powerful coming from people involved rather than Jon Snow. Although to be fair he did a decent job. I found myself sat there saying, "Well why don't those three ask him the questions?" Would certainly have put him on the spot.
Badger Kitten said:
Release the evidence! When I have seen the CCTV images from London and Luton then yes I will accept they did it.
History has taught me though that the State must always be questioned. As i've said before, if the 'guilt' of the Communists for the Reichstag fire had not been 'proved' by Hitler and Goering, history would have turned out differently.
Badger Kitten
oof
Well, I and other survivorts are seeing Tessa Jowell on Tuesday, and the meeting set up with Clarke before he left may still be in the new Home Secretary's diary on May 22nd, we shall see. If so , I will attend with other survivors and bang on about a public enquiry some more.
And watch out for the Sunday Times tomorrow.
And the Sun today.
And watch out for the Sunday Times tomorrow.
And the Sun today.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
TAE said:Seconded. Well done indeed.
It was refreshing they looked upon their experience with some and critical thought. Although there can be no excusing what the bombers did all three of the people interviewed pointed out that what ws important was that they wanted to know why they did it. It's entirely understandable when people who have lost loved ones or have been injured themselves are angry and I wouldn't blame them for it, but often important questions get overlooked and lost because of it.
Respect is due.
Badger Kitten
oof
Prole said:
Oh, and I take it you stand outside the Old Bailey questioning the guilt of every murderer, every rapist, do you, or is the CPS good enough for you in those cases? And I ask you again AT THE MOMENT, right now....
Do you accept those men - Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey and Hussein - the bombers were on the trains and the bus?
Do you accept that they set off bombs?
Deliberately? Do you accept the fact that London was suicide-bombed by Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey or Hussein?
Yes, or no?
I think no, you do not accept it.
Which makes you an apologist for mass murderers.
Which makes you despicable or deluded, take your pick.
Barking_Mad said:
Exit Minister, studio right, pursued by badger
As I understand it, ministerial appearances are always the result of negotiation between the programme researchers and the minister's people. If the latter had their wits about them they would have made it a condition of his appearance that he not be asked questions by anyone but Jon Snow - for all I know that may be a standard condition.
Occasionally you can see ministers spluttering while they try to avoid saying live on air "but you agreed not to ask me that".
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Badger Kitten said:
John Reid says in that Sun piece,
More binary thinking. The assumption seems to be that ANY money put into an enquiry will come out of the fund to make sure this doesn't happen again. Is he so stupid as to think we believe that the government can't divert funds from elsewhere and put into this report?
Is it really so short of money that there isn't any available money elsewhere? I mean how important does something have to be before they can hand over the necessary funds?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
laptop said:Exit Minister, studio right, pursued by badger
As I understand it, ministerial appearances are always the result of negotiation between the programme researchers and the minister's people. If the latter had their wits about them they would have made it a condition of his appearance that he not be asked questions by anyone but Jon Snow - for all I know that may be a standard condition.
Occasionally you can see ministers spluttering while they try to avoid saying live on air "but you agreed not to ask me that".
Yeah, I suspected as much. If I hear "We asked the government for comment but they said no one was available" Ill launch the tv through the window.
Freedom, democracy, accountability!
They work for us remember....I was talking about official releases (but so was the poster I was replying to, at least impliciitly). But I think the majority (if not all) can be traced to various vox pops done by media outlets.Bernie Gunther said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
The point I'm making here, is that in the case of both the bombings and their aftermath, there are many things that the public interest requires clarifying.
In the case of Mr De Menezes, if the Guardian is correct and those stories originated with Scotland Yard, it would be in the public interest to have that clarified. Equally, such clarification would not be in the interests of those whose actions and errors of judgment led to Mr De Menezes tragic death, especially if they were indeed involved in spreading disinformation about it.
The same is very possibly true about the bombings themselves, but we'll never know for sure because we clearly aren't going to get a real inquiry into them and one has to wonder what incompetence and criminality besides the obvious stuff like the role of the Iraq war, might motivate the lack of any real inquiry.
In the case of Mr De Menezes, if the Guardian is correct and those stories originated with Scotland Yard, it would be in the public interest to have that clarified. Equally, such clarification would not be in the interests of those whose actions and errors of judgment led to Mr De Menezes tragic death, especially if they were indeed involved in spreading disinformation about it.
The same is very possibly true about the bombings themselves, but we'll never know for sure because we clearly aren't going to get a real inquiry into them and one has to wonder what incompetence and criminality besides the obvious stuff like the role of the Iraq war, might motivate the lack of any real inquiry.
There won't be a court case as far as I can make out though. The offical report says that no other person has been identified in connection with these events. Which if you compare to the no-bombs bombers of the 21/7 where over 20 people were arrested and CCTV images put into the public domain makes little sense.Badger Kitten said:
The thing is BK I believe that we are on the same side, the side of truth and justice. I just prefer to question everything I am told to believe.
Similar threads
- Locked
