who is responsible for the London attacks?

[squeegee]

I can see you are trying to say that there are some redeeming features and interesting ideas, but you have to recognise the context of this: here on u75 many people are completely fed up with Icke-alike garbage dripping into serious political debate, usually in the context of 9/11 CTs, and more recently in the context of the "lizard-controlled" 7/7 and 21/7 attacks.

I know that which is why I don't post on these things that often. I now just read posts, which I still find interesting and leave the heavy work to Dr Jazzz, Fela Fan etc.

But occasionally I get fired up to answer blatantly false accusations, such as those that suggest that Icke is anti-semitic and that his views are similar to those of the BNP etc.

It's simply wrong and defamatory to say so. That does not mean I agree with what he says. But this witch-hunt is tiresome. How many pages now, when this thread should be about the London bombings, but let's face it, no one can post about the discrepancies of the incidents on 7/7, eye-witness reports of bombs exploding upwards, statements about prior warnings, CCTV footage disappearing then reappearing, without someone mentioning fruitloops, conspiraloons, evidence-untroubled and David Icke.

It becomes a barrier to stop any serious debate, the same type of barrier than came up after 911.

Most of the theories are speculation. What I don't understand is, if the theories are so weak, why not just take them apart in a balanced way? Why the need to jump and shout and make accusations undermining a theorists state of mind? Why if not for the reason that some of these theories seem very plausible.

These things will not be brushed under the carpet. As I mentioned before there are some noted writers coming forward with solid information about 911 and 7/7. It'll be interesting to see how they are treated. Many people on the streets of London are doubting the official story. Are they all dope-smoking bipolars?

AS for Sitchin, we are not just talking about him being brilliant or creative, we are talking about his translations of ancient Hebrew and Sumerian texts and inscriptions. You simply have no right to suggest that he has any mental problems just because his conclusions are so outrageous. That is the way of the witchfinder. It's just plain wrong.

 

[squeegee]

By the way I have nothing against dope smoking. In fact it has a great tradition of being used in rituals and to aid psychic connection. What modern medicine considers paranoid or delusional thinking, other ancient civilisations considered spiritwalking. Cultural shifts. Modern medicine is too ready to attribute such things as human mental illness. I'm not so sure.

 

[squeegee]

By the way, Happy Birthday Dr Jazzz!!!

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

i still say it was Rev. Green with The Candlestick in The Library

 

[TeeJay]

Most of the theories are speculation. What I don't understand is, if the theories are so weak, why not just take them apart in a balanced way? Why the need to jump and shout and make accusations undermining a theorists state of mind? Why if not for the reason that some of these theories seem very plausible.

The first few times I was willing to have a rational debate about some of the claims. After trying to engage someone in rational debate and just getting them repeating again and again the same old crock of shite - ofetn in different guises in new threads - I just stopped taking them seriously, I lost respect for them, I got annoyed that they were treating me like a fucking idiot - then I finally realise that they have something wrong with their head - with their logical and rational abilities, with their definition of things like "proof" and "evidence". It became painful to go over and over the reasons why they are talking shite, and far more worthwhile just telling them to fuck off and shut up.

The second phase was to realise what their threads and their interjections was doing to the wider discourse and debate on this site, so it became a wider issue - not just that I didn't care about what they said, but that I realised that their contributions were actually having a negative impact on other things, and in effect sabotaging valid and important debate.

It is worth noting that if some of these people actually phrased things differently then they would be putting forward "theories" - suggestions, ideas to ponder. But in fact they more often make claims, insist things are true, focus their whole arguments on very spurious points, and link everything into grand lizard-loving conspiracies.

Ultimately it just pisses a lot of people off - not least the people who set up and run this website and others who value decent quality of political and current affairs debate.

Look - I have just "wasted" however long its been talking about Icke and co. Yes it was my choice, but I suppose it was because you seem like you are willing to engage in rational debate: I really won't have bothered going thorugh all this to talk to some of the regular lizard-lovers, as it has been proved next to useless so many times in the past.

 

[TeeJay]

...Many people on the streets of London are doubting the official story. Are they all dope-smoking bipolars?

Yeah well thank you for that comment. I can see that actually being honest about my experiences and medical problems in an effort to try and explore what makes people have wierd ideas and experiences just ends up with people throwing casual comments back in my face.

Fuck it. I don't feel like talking to you any more. In fact that is a very cuntish comment - maybe you don't realise how so, or intended it to be, but it is.

edit: also, I haven't said anything about Sitchin, have I? I'm trying to talk generally, about myself and about Icke.

 

[squeegee]

I didn't intend it to be Teejay. Apologies.

But the fact remains that you cannot accuse others of any kind of mental imablance simply because their views go against the accepted norm. And as I said in my subsequent comment, I think that modern science's understanding of the mind is very different (and I would say inferior) to other civilisations which seem to have better maps to decribe these leaps of reasoning.

 

[TeeJay]

By the way I have nothing against dope smoking. In fact it has a great tradition of being used in rituals and to aid psychic connection. What modern medicine considers paranoid or delusional thinking, other ancient civilisations considered spiritwalking. Cultural shifts. Modern medicine is too ready to attribute such things as human mental illness. I'm not so sure.

Go and start a thread about 'how wonderful mental illnesses are' over in the 'health and sexuality' and see what people say...

...atypical psychological experiences can bring a lot of wonder, 'insight', colour, excitement, inspiration and creativity to someone's life, they may well form a 'valued' part of someone's personality - but they also bring a lot of misery, fear, suffering, poverty, violence, wasted and barren lives and even death...

...there are a whole load of issues worth discussing, but after your last comment I am really not in the mood to discuss them here or now, nor is it the main point of the thread. Maybe you'd like to share details of your own personal experiences, but I'd expect that it would be more worthwhile doing this on an appropriate thread over in 'sobbing and shagging', that's if you feel you can even...

 

[squeegee]

I haven't said anything about Sitchin, have I?

But Sitchin is crucial to this. Since Icke bases alot of his research (then makes other speculative leaps) on this man.

And much of the accusations levelled at "conspiraloons" is that they believe in extra-terrestrials. Well, here is someone who has translated ancient Hebrew texts and Sumerian inscriptions who talk of the Annunaki (those who from Heaven to Earth came)

That's the translation. You can't suggest this is delusional thinking, since it is a translation which no one disputes as far as I know (there are only a handful who could dispute it anyway)

It leads to a shocking conclusion. I'm not accepting it. But I don't reject it and I certainly think it should give others pause for thought when discarding any theories of extra-terrestrials.

But yes you're right, it's way off topic. But what you mentioned about how discussions have led you to lose your cool, repeating yourself often etc. you have to understand that those of us who follow these speculations also feel about the way we are treated. It seems we are jumped on, harangued and have our sanity doubted simply for wishing to uncover the truth.

I agree that specualtion should never be dressed up as fact. But where someone does it shoould be enough to point this out and certainly others should not be lumped into the same bracket.

 

[TeeJay]

I didn't intend it to be Teejay. Apologies.

OK fair enough - but it seemed that you were making a very personal reference to me and implying that I am unreliable and delusional.

But the fact remains that you cannot accuse others of any kind of mental imablance simply because their views go against the accepted norm. And as I said in my subsequent comment, I think that modern science's understanding of the mind is very different (and I would say inferior) to other civilisations which seem to have better maps to decribe these leaps of reasoning.

"Accuse"? You make it sound like a crime!

I think it is valid to say that ideas are incoherent, irrational, deluded, informed by paranoia, contain cognative bias and so forth. It is valid if you can show *how* these things are true. I wouldn't criticise any idea merely because it "goes against the norm". Many of my ideas are outside "the norm" - I am always banging on about how "races" don't exist, how genders/men/women don't exist, about how psychiatric medicine is a pseudo-science - probably other things as well.

I am not trying to demonise or write off 'mad' people - of which I am one. I am not trying to say that creative, wierd and wonderful thinking doesn't have any value. I am however asking for people to recognise when their ideas are incoherent, when they are being selective with their facts, when they make sweeping claims which cut right across other things that they claim to believe and then insist that both things can be true at once. I am asking for people to recognise certain patterns of thinking and behaviour that are linked to emotions as well as rationality. When you say that Icke make swild leaps etc and was effected by being on Wogan - what I see are lots of other clues and features of his thinking and behaviour that fit into various patterns. I might well dispute the label 'mental illness' and won't use this to dismiss his writing, but in effect he does fit into the patten of paranoid delusional thinking. This kind of thinking doesn't have to be unsophisticated - it can be complex. In fact many of the great thinkers, writers, musicians and so forth have had 'mindsets' or personalities that are 'atypical'. This doesn't devalue what they produce - if it is valuable. But in Ickes case he seems to have used his fantastic imagination and monomanic souped up leaps of logic to produce an utter load of drivel - and a load of drivel that is actually objectionable and negative in its impacts. It may have a certain beauty within it at the same time. My pointing to his 'madness' doesn't really change what he has produced, but I feel it helps explain how we should approach it.

Fuck it - I am just rambling now....

...maybe I should come back to this another time.

 

[squeegee]

I've smoked weed for years and have always liked psychedelics. I've suffered depression and paranoid leaps as well Teejay, that's part of the process. I've not smoked for a few months now and I often take a break from it. But the highs and the lows of altered states of perception are better mapped, in my opinion, by ancient cultures talking of angels and demons and how to negotiate your way past both when they arise.

Modern medicines solution, to drug you up with pharmaceuticals, i don't agree with. Cognitive therapy and modern approaches to consciousness which takes account of personal meta models, I have more time for.

But I recognise that in some individuals these conditions can become so severe that the person can seriously injure themselves. I still don't think established medicine understands the nature of consciousness enough to properly diagnose and help sufferers. How can it when established science will not even deal with the glaring issue of consciousness.

Teejay, I didn't mean that comment to sound so harsh. But you were using your personal example as justifying your view by saying because you have suffered this you can recognise it in others. And I was merely trying to show that these views ie suspicions of a cover-up in the London attacks is a coomon theme in many conversations in London. You cannot be saying that all these people are suffering from delusional thinking, that;s all I meant.

But again, I'm sorry you took it personally. I'm am trying to keep up with this thread and you must realise I'm not sitting and reading over everything I have written. It was a thoughtless and insensitive remark.

 

[squeegee]

OK fair enough - but it seemed that you were making a very personal reference to me and implying that I am unreliable and delusional.
"Accuse"? You make it sound like a crime!

I think it is valid to say that ideas are incoherent, irrational, deluded, informed by paranoia, contain cognitive bias and so forth. It is valid if you can show *how* these things are true. I wouldn't criticise any idea merely because it "goes against the norm". Many of my ideas are outside "the norm" - I am always banging on about how "races" don't exist, how genders/men/women don't exist, about how psychiatric medicine is a pseudo-science - probably other things as well.

I am not trying to demonise or write off 'mad' people - of which I am one. I am not trying to say that creative, wierd and wonderful thinking doesn't have any value. I am however asking for people to recognise when their ideas are incoherent, when they are being selective with their facts, when they make sweeping claims which cut right across other things that they claim to believe and then insist that both things can be true at once. I am asking for people to recognise certain patterns of thinking and behaviour that are linked to emotions as well as rationality. When you say that Icke make swild leaps etc and was effected by being on Wogan - what I see are lots of other clues and features of his thinking and behaviour that fit into various patterns. I might well dispute the label 'mental illness' and won't use this to dismiss his writing, but in effect he does fit into the patten of paranoid delusional thinking. This kind of thinking doesn't have to be unsophisticated - it can be complex. In fact many of the great thinkers, writers, musicians and so forth have had 'mindsets' or personalities that are 'atypical'. This doesn't devalue what they produce - if it is valuable. But in Ickes case he seems to have used his fantastic imagination and monomanic souped up leaps of logic to produce an utter load of drivel - and a load of drivel that is actually objectionable and negative in its impacts. It may have a certain beauty within it at the same time. My pointing to his 'madness' doesn't really change what he has produced, but I feel it helps explain how we should approach it.

Fuck it - I am just rambling now....

...maybe I should come back to this another time.

No teejay, you make alot of sense. And by the way I'm being facetious when I'm referring to "mad" etc. As I said my understanding is very different from the modern one. The shaman of ancient cultures, if seen today, would be considered "mad". the shaman was often prone to wild and irrational behaviour but was also the most valued of members of a clan, because that very irrational process allowed "out of the box" thinking which often helped the clan in crisis situations.

I agree with your conclusions about Icke. I have thought much teh same myself. But I get mad when his name is used to stifle any debate about cover-ups etc. It becomes a barrier, where the mere mention of his name halts proceedings and has the person who mentions him decribed as mad etc. Witness the editor's comments to me suggesting I am not all there.

I just think we should be balanced in all we say. I've enjoyed this discussion and think you've been quite fair, even if we do disagree somewhat.

And hopefully this thread gets back to the real issues of the London attacks and some real soild information comes to light, which will hopefully be treated in a blanced way by all.

 

[TeeJay]

But Sitchin is crucial to this. Since Icke bases alot of his research (then makes other speculative leaps) on this man.

And much of the accusations levelled at "conspiraloons" is that they believe in extra-terrestrials. Well, here is someone who has translated ancient Hebrew texts and Sumerian inscriptions who talk of the Annunaki (those who from Heaven to Earth came)

That's the translation. You can't suggest this is delusional thinking, since it is a translation which no one disputes as far as I know (there are only a handful who could dispute it anyway)

It leads to a shocking conclusion. I'm not accepting it. But I don't reject it and I certainly think it should give others pause for thought when discarding any theories of extra-terrestrials.

There is a difference between translating a text (Sitchin?) and buying into its contents (Icke?). One of them is simply moving words around. The other is adapting your mental model of the universe. When Icke takes on board his "lizards" he must logically throw away great chunks of the world model that most rational people believe in, and that presumably he at one time believed in. It is this kind of "logical leap" - rushing to grab one thing that seems to fit with a wierd and compelling 'story', throwing away vast chunks of 'common sense', observations, science and so forth as if they are worthless and meaningless, and yet still insisting that people should listen to your 'logical' arguments based on 'evidence'.

It is this utterly incoherent way of thinking and the total inconsistencies involved in the discourse that suggest someone who has lost the plot.

I don't have a massive problem with people who make the effort to come up with *coherent* theories - of extra-terrestrials or whatever. By coherent I mean that they don't go around randomly throwing away anything that doesn't fit with whatever pet idea has popped into their heads. They make an effort to make their theory tie in with all the observations and evidence of millions of other people in the world, with all the science, the other branches of study. Of course some things might not fit, but at least try and make them coherent. If using evidence then be consistent about that counts as evidence. If using logic then be consistent about what counts as logic - and so forth. Don't treat everyone like fuckwits. If you are guessing or speculating then admit that it is a guess or speculation. Don't claim facts are true if you don't know. Don't turn "maybes" into "ares".

If someone does all this then by all means offer up some theories and ideas about UFOs or whatever. But if you behave like an arse you will be treated like one.

[edit: by *you* I mean people in general - not you as in squeegee , sorry on re-reading it sounded a bit accusatory]

 

[Loki]

And much of the accusations levelled at "conspiraloons" is that they believe in extra-terrestrials. Well, here is someone who has translated ancient Hebrew texts and Sumerian inscriptions who talk of the Annunaki (those who from Heaven to Earth came)

I just googled "Annunaki" and

You're quite, quite hatstand.

 

[squeegee]

I think anyone on these boards who mentions extra-terrestrials is treated automatically as a nutter. And that's not a word I believe in or like to use, but it's been bandied about often.

Sitchin himself translates and then suggests that these are true things. He is the guy who speaks of the planet Nibiru and the Nefilim and the mining of gold etc all gleaned from ancient Sumerian tablets. I doubt anyone would take that seriously here. But he is a world-famous scholar.

Icke makes the assumption that these extra-terrestrials are for the most part malefic or of evil intent. That is a leap and speculation as to these possible extra-terrestrials' (if they even exist) intentions.

I am in total agreement with you here. there is no evidence to suggest any intentions whatsoever. This is Icke's speculation.

But the fact that this planet is supposed to exist and this race know as the Nefilim exist seems to be attested to by the inspriptions on these ancient tablets. And that in itself throws 2,000 years of archaeology into the wilderness.

And you can see why no one is in a rush to accept it. That's not paranoid thinking, it is reasoning borne out by history. Eg the flat earth vs round earth, the sun the centre of the solar system vs earth the centre of the solar system. Groundbreaking theories always encounter virulent resistance.

And this is one of THE most groundbreaking theories.

 

[squeegee]

I just googled "Annunaki" and

You're quite, quite hatstand.

You see what I mean Teejay?

Tell me Loki, are you saying Zecharia Sitchin is hatstand as well? Don't google and jump to what others have speculated from his translations of ancient Sumerian texts. Just read his words.

 

[squeegee]

In the interests of balance.

Skeptics Dictionary on Sitchin

 

[TeeJay]

there is no evidence to suggest any intentions whatsoever

Sorry can you run this by me again...

...what evidence is there that aliens landed in ancient Sumeria?

 

[Loki]

You see what I mean Teejay?

Tell me Loki, are you saying Zecharia Sitchin is hatstand as well? Don't google and jump to what others have speculated from his translations of ancient Sumerian texts. Just read his words.

When it comes to conspiraloonacy, Sitchin is right up there with Icke. And jesus, what a shit website.

 

[squeegee]

Sorry can you run this by me again...

...what evidence is there that aliens landed in ancient Sumeria?

The stone tablets and their inscriptions. But again I agree it is not evidence. There is a suggestion that for example the translation of Annunaki (this is on the tablets) is actually "the fallen ones" and not "those who to Earth from heaven came".

But anyway, I see where this is going to go now. I better get out before the editor awakes. An boy when he sees this will he be in a bad mood

 

[squeegee]

When it comes to conspiraloonacy, Sitchin is right up there with Icke. And jesus, what a shit website.

Bad website. Must be a nutter

 

[squeegee]

This posted on Skeptics' links

Sitchin's Sumerian Astronomy Refuted
by Chris Siren


"Here's a repost of my take on Sitchin from reading Genesis Revisited. I send this out to people who ask me about Sitchin through my Sumerian or Assyro-Babylonian Mythology FAQs. I don't include it in the FAQ because I don't want to lend legitimacy to his writings. Now my interest in Mesopotamian mythology is purely amateur....."

So I won't bother reading your amateur garbage

 

[Loki]

Bad website. Must be a nutter

Have you read some of those articles? The guy's a bloody nutter.

But very keen on selling his books. I imagine you're one of his best customers.

 

[squeegee]

No I've only ever read his books in bookshops. Never been pushed to buy one. I don't accept or reject his views. I find them interesting that's all. I realise he is attributing fact to ancient myth and also seems to make speculative leaps. But he is a world-famous translator of ancient texts. He is one of the few people able to translate ancient Sumerian. His critics seem to be people who cannot. So how can they make an accurate criticism?

If he says "Annunaki" shouod be translated as "those who to earth from Heaven came" who are we to disagree. But maybe he has his own agenda. But that too is speculation.

 

[fela fan]

...

It becomes a barrier to stop any serious debate, the same type of barrier than came up after 911.

Most of the theories are speculation. What I don't understand is, if the theories are so weak, why not just take them apart in a balanced way? Why the need to jump and shout and make accusations undermining a theorists state of mind? Why if not for the reason that some of these theories seem very plausible.

These things will not be brushed under the carpet. As I mentioned before there are some noted writers coming forward with solid information about 911 and 7/7. It'll be interesting to see how they are treated. Many people on the streets of London are doubting the official story. Are they all dope-smoking bipolars?

Nicely put squeegee. However if i add any more, then the thread will be in danger of getting binned, and maybe posters want to say more. Please carry on with your considered postings.

 

[james_walsh]

Maybe they could finance English teachers to teach you how to read and write properly as well. Do you pat yourself on the back when you make a useless, pointless comment that doesn't add to the thread other than it takes up a bit more space?

Read the links numbskull. Try and learn something new every day. Maybe one day you might actually be able to debate serious issues like the London bombings and the fake media reports that ciculated afterwards.

Or the recent reports saying the Brazilian police have given the British police the all clear. "Nothing to see here...move along"

I suppose you believe everything your masters tell you. David Icke bad...bah...bah..bah

Stay in the pen amoeba brain

I have to agree, the state of the school system 20 years ago/now is terrible though luckly my reading is fine, but thanx for the concern.
squeegee, for you to complain about me taking up a bit space/pointless comment is more than a tad hypercrital, and suggests you have the ego the size of a planet and the grasp of reality of an ant.
i've got better things to do than to read your dumb links. I said the day after the shooting (on this site ) that the police where incompetent, and i think all the evidence suggests im right.
I've heard david icke interviewed a few times and he's mad,mad, fucking stark raving fucking MAD!

 

[Loki]

Please carry on with your considered postings.

Yep squeegee, please do carry on. This stuff about "Annunaki" is pure dynamite.

 

[editor]

Just in case you've all forgotten, MrsM said she will quit if conspiraloons keep posting up their nonsense. And guess what? That's not going to happen.

This thread will be binned shortly, as will any other similar threads.

Posters are at liberty to start their own site to promote the fruitloop Icke if they simply can't stop themselves discussing the Bob Hope lizard-man and comparing his drivel with the words of world religions.

I feel urban75's given the nutjob too much publicity already and I've certainly had enough of this relentless bollocks.

Moreover, this thread has veered so far off topic, that it no longer bears any relevance to its title.