who is responsible for the London attacks?

[Mrs Magpie]

When did banning something ever make it more likely that teenagers would reject it?

I'm making a definite stand here as I think enough people didn't the last time 'the Jews' were scapegoated.

 

[ZWord]

What it says? What do you think it means?

Why did you say -is this cryptic week?-
Is it that you reckon you've got the privilege to ask questions and demand answers but not answer anyone else's.

Just continuing what I was saying to Miss Magpie's post, I posted this thread last night asking how the police identified the people they arrested as the bombers. Which is a reasonable question it?
No-one seemed to know, - the only person who replied was fela who commented that it was fast detective work and then within two posts of the name Bin Laden, it was in the bin (as fela predicted when we started talking, (but I didn't think he said anyting obnoxious) It's still there. Shit if I was one of these gullible teenagers Miss MP's concerned about, on a guest visit to the site, and I'd seen that, I'd have been thinking - WTF? Something very funny going on here if that's getting binned, he could have drawn all manner of bizarre conclusions from that, - precisely the one's you're worried about, and think are lunatic, don't you think, - whereas answering the question - how they the police identified them? - could hardly be difficult, I mean, there must be a good answer mustn't there? And would set any unreasonable speculation to rest.

God I just don't seem to be able to be brief when this gets going, but, whatever.

 

[ZWord]

I'm making a definite stand here as I think enough people didn't the last time 'the Jews' were scapegoated.

Well, I reckon your concern's misplaced, and I'm Jewish, there's no government or mainstream attempt to scapegoat jews.

But the point is, your stand is probably going to be counterproductive, just on the basis of the normal -no smoke without fire- human reasoning.

On the subject of - not allowing discourses which are beyond the fringe- a writer I very much admire had this to say..

"We are certainly dealing with classic Freudian repression, bordering on hysteria in some of our cases. The burning of Dr Reich's books. The distortion of astrological statistics by the committee for scientific investigation of the paranormal. The conspiracy to prevent the publication of Velikovskyu's woks. The destruction of Vallee's UFO records by his superior at the observatory. Rational men and women do not do such things; only repression in the clinical sense-or acute anxiety - drives people to behave in that way."

 

[Mrs Magpie]

So, on your say so I really don't need to worry about it? Yeah, right....

 

[ZWord]

It's not the discussion of alternative theories that depresses me.

It's the endless regurgitating of highly dubious, unchecked, unresearched, wildly speculative unsourced drivel that seems to make up the greater proportion of the 'evidence' of conspiracy theories.

Clearly, some people think that repeating the same thing over and over again without adding anything new or including any credible proof someone makes their flimsy conspirayarn more compelling.

It doesn't. It just makes the thread more binnable.

Well, personally, and of course, I may be wrong, I don't find that to be an accurate account of the way you're acting at all. But having said that, again, thanks for not banning the posters you don't like. A lot of people in your position probably would.

 

[ZWord]

So, on your say so I really don't need to worry about it? Yeah, right....

Well if you do worry about it, then you should do the opposite of what you're doing because it will make people think that there is something to be hidden and something being hidden, when people are not allowed to freely discuss certain issues.

That is obvious.

 

[ZWord]

And in any case even if it were suggested that some but not all jews were responsible, a better way to counter the potential racism is to point out that their jewishness is just irrelevant to the matter in question. Surely?

 

[ZWord]

I agree, absolutely.

Which is why shit like David Icke has to be slapped down as soon as it appears.

But it's OK for you to celebrate violence against some jewish people..and insult them,

"Excellent news, how does it feel to be on the end of those IDF issue boots, eh, you fucking bigoted wankers?".

If posts that might contribute to anti-semitism are the problem, it's odd this one was allowed.

 

[fela fan]

Of course I'm not saying you don't read anything - just that your call to read is funny given what you've said in the past.

Well that's precisely how it looked to me mate, hence my reply to you. No need to dig anything up, i knew what you were referring to.

I've read fucking tonnes on politics (and other subjects), and virtually nothing on philosophy. It's the latter that we were discussing all those months ago.

Ok!

 

[pk]

But it's OK for you to celebrate violence against some jewish people..and insult them

Yes, the settlers (of whom I had bitter personal experience whilst living in Israel) deserve a kicking.

If posts that might contribute to anti-semitism are the problem, it's odd this one was allowed.

You fucking twat, criticising illegal and often violent settlers who stole their land from Arab farmers isn't anti-semitic.

Grow up.

 

[ZWord]

I don't have a problem with them being criticised, I'm glad they're being moved out of Gaza. I think it's just sad you delight in the idea of violence against them, and I think it shows you're pretty unpleasant yourself.

And if it's not racist for you to dislike some jewish people because they're bigoted land-stealers, if they are, why's it racist for David Icke to dislike some a few jewish people who he thinks control the world economic system to the detriment of most of humanity.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm making a definite stand here as I think enough people didn't the last time 'the Jews' were scapegoated.

No-one, well not on these boards anyway, are scapegoating 'the Jews' now. This is a cheap trick Mrs M, by those in power.

However, it was certainly once 'conspiracy theory' that Hitler was building concentration camps. It wasn't the conspiracy theorists that were the problem then; and it isn't now.

you might want to look at these

 

[Loki]

you might want to look at these

A website going on about David Icke, Area 51 and UFOs. How unlike you DrJ!

I love this quote:

Government scientists working at Los Alamos "Nuclear" Laboratory, NM have succeeded in generating a holographic portal. They have used this portal to travel across space-time, and possibly interdimensionally, and have seen into another world.

Wow!

 

[Jazzz]

I didn't look at the site, I just googled up something that had the pictures. And stuff that looks very much like concentration camps are springing up all over the US. Make of it what you will.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Perhaps you should use more reputable sources.

 

[laptop]

Government scientists working at Los Alamos "Nuclear" Laboratory, NM have succeeded in generating a holographic portal. They have used this portal to travel across space-time, and possibly interdimensionally, and have seen into another world.

​

Edited to add: "travel across space-time" here and here and sometimes here.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh look, a tedious thread diversion.

 

[Jazzz]

To get back to Mrs M. point: yes what we are witnessing is exactly what happened in pre-war Germany. The citizens of a democracy were told that they were under attack and they should hand extraordinary reins of power to someone who would stop it. Those who feared what was really going on were dismissed as 'crazy' and we all know what happened. They were told it was the Jews then; it wasn't. This time, we are told it is the Muslims; but it isn't.

Within hours 'our leader' , the war criminal Tony Blair told us the 7/7 bombings were the work of Islamists. He has launched the most unprecedented assault on our civil liberties. Hitler famously staged the burning of books that were UnGerman. Blair has already announced his plan to close Islamist bookshops.

It's going to get worse.

 

[ZWord]

To get back to Mrs M. point: yes what we are witnessing is exactly what happened in pre-war Germany. ...

It's going to get worse.

Well it's not totally unlike it. But when you use such hyperbole - "exactly" -
it doesn't surprise me that people don't listen to you.

I seriously doubt whether anyone in New Labour or Blair's mates actually wants to embark on a policy of mass murder, though I suppose you could point to Iraq and say what about that?

Actually Blair's real stroke of genius was changing the way the Labour party was governed so that it's almost impossible for the party to get rid of him as leader while he's in power.

And of course it has been said by Clare Short among others, that New Labour is a party/system of insiders and outsiders, so...

But.

 

[Jo/Joe]

For fuck's sake DrJ, we are not in pre-war germany for many obvious reasons. There are a whole plethora of measures that any govt will use to varying degrees (e.g. fibbing). Nazi Germany was a more extreme example. There is nothing here of a similar magnitude. Nor are racist attacks a sign that we will be wearing jackboots before the year is out.

As odious as the camps are, they do not resemble Auschwitz. It is an insult to the memory of holocaust victims to start throwing comparisons like that around lightly.

 

[bigfish]

Britain: government lies exposed over de Menezes murder

Working people must draw the most fundamental lessons from the assassination of Jean Charles de Menezes. An entirely innocent man, whose only crime was to live in the wrong block of flats, was summarily executed with no one held to account. Moreover, Metropolitan Police Chief Blair has made clear that the same “code red tactic” implemented in the murder of de Menezes was used on seven other occasions in the recent period, and in each case police came close to opening fire.

The abrogation of democratic rights has reached the point where the type of death squads associated with South American dictatorships or with Britain’s occupation of Northern Ireland are being used on the streets of London. And things will not end there. Measures announced by Blair on August 5 will be used to criminalise all forms of political dissent. The government intends to give itself unprecedented powers to deport and exclude any foreign national or naturalised citizen it deems a potential security threat and to extend the use of virtual house arrest against British citizens. It will be able to ban organisations and publications on the vague pretext that they “condone” terrorism, and close places of worship. It will respond to any legal challenge to these proposals by abrogating the Human Rights Act.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/lies-a18.shtml

 

[exosculate]

I don't have a problem with them being criticised, I'm glad they're being moved out of Gaza. I think it's just sad you delight in the idea of violence against them, and I think it shows you're pretty unpleasant yourself.

And if it's not racist for you to dislike some jewish people because they're bigoted land-stealers, if they are, why's it racist for David Icke to dislike some a few jewish people who he thinks control the world economic system to the detriment of most of humanity.

Because one is tangibly true and one is very dubious - are you for real?

 

[pk]

Oh look, a tedious thread diversion.

Yeah, where did all this shit about Icke and Area 51 and space travel come from?

Oh, yes, that was from your deluded little mind wasn't it...?

 

[Pickman's model]

why is this thread still going? has it anything positive to offer? eh?

 

[ZWord]

I wrote:
"And if it's not racist for you to dislike some jewish people because they're bigoted land-stealers, if they are, why's it racist for David Icke to dislike some a few jewish people who he thinks control the world economic system to the detriment of most of humanity."

Because one is tangibly true and one is very dubious - are you for real?

Idiot. The question of whether it's true or tangibly true is totallly irrelevant to my question to pk, It was a question about the nature of racism, that arose out of the fact that mrs magpie said she was concerned about CT's generating anti-semitism. (try reading the thread again.) The point is if you dislike a group of people because of something you think they do, and they happen to belong to one race, then in fact you're not racist, because racism is disliking them because of their race. If David Icke were correct in what he says about the Rothschilds, then he'd be perfectly justified in disliking them, and so it's not racism. PK accused him of doing just that. PK actually does something very similiar, but in his case he's not promoting racism. He isn't. I don't say PK is promoting racism, but he did celebrate the idea of violence against the settlers, again because they do something he disapproves of. And actually as it happens it's hardly controversial that there are some extremely rich jewish families involved in the banking system, and it's not unlikely that with such a big stake in it, they'd have some influence on the world economy, and the fact that David Icke says something similar doesn't prove it isn't true.

Neither disapproval is racist, whether or not the reasons for the disapproval are grounded in reality. It may well be true that David Icke is an utter fruitloop. I saw a video of him once, and I was not impressed. But then he's a madman, and can be criticised for that, not for being a racist, which he isn't, any more than pk, as far as I know. A pedantic point. But your reply was so beside the point, and so wrong that I felt I had to explain myself at length.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/lies-a18.shtml

Do you have an opinion or are you just C&Ping again?

 

[exosculate]

I wrote:
"And if it's not racist for you to dislike some jewish people because they're bigoted land-stealers, if they are, why's it racist for David Icke to dislike some a few jewish people who he thinks control the world economic system to the detriment of most of humanity."



Idiot. The question of whether it's true or tangibly true is totallly irrelevant to my question to pk, It was a question about the nature of racism, that arose out of the fact that mrs magpie said she was concerned about CT's generating anti-semitism. (try reading the thread again.) The point is if you dislike a group of people because of something you think they do, and they happen to belong to one race, then in fact you're not racist, because racism is disliking them because of their race. If David Icke were correct in what he says about the Rothschilds, then he'd be perfectly justified in disliking them, and so it's not racism. PK accused him of doing just that. PK actually does something very similiar, but in his case he's not promoting racism. He isn't. I don't say PK is promoting racism, but he did celebrate the idea of violence against the settlers, again because they do something he disapproves of. And actually as it happens it's hardly controversial that there are some extremely rich jewish families involved in the banking system, and it's not unlikely that with such a big stake in it, they'd have some influence on the world economy, and the fact that David Icke says something similar doesn't prove it isn't true.

Neither disapproval is racist, whether or not the reasons for the disapproval are grounded in reality. It may well be true that David Icke is an utter fruitloop. I saw a video of him once, and I was not impressed. But then he's a madman, and can be criticised for that, not for being a racist, which he isn't, any more than pk, as far as I know. A pedantic point. But your reply was so beside the point, and so wrong that I felt I had to explain myself at length.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I am finding your ramblings beside the point.

 

[ZWord]

Well that makes two of us, then. Maybe you should try reading the context and thinking a bit before making kneejerk responses.

 

[exosculate]

Well that makes two of us, then.

But only I make sense. You sound like you live in cuckoo land.

 

[ZWord]

So you say. Justify it then. Take a look over the argument.
Do you really want to say
(a) it's racist to criticise a group of people who happen to be of a particular race because of something they do,
(b) But not if your criticism is well grounded in facts:

?

What exactly did I say to make you think I live in cuckoo land?
Or are you just using rhetorical flourishes, because you're incapable of rational argument?