conspiracy theorists target 7/7 victims

[brian]

johnyvoid states

"and i add again theres is no evidence whatsoever that 7/7 was anything other than as it was reported,"

As it was reported with so many conflicting stories that seems odd to say the least.

The eyewitness evidence contradicts the suicide bomber scenario for starters.

Like September 11 there is little of the official story of 7/7 that hangs together and ONLY a genuinely independent inquiry could satisy those who want the truth and not some wishy washy narrative.

[johnnyvoid]

one short statement by an eye witness quoted without context in a local paper and never repeated, who actually says that he 'can't remember' seeing a bomber and doesnt appear to know what actually happened which is understandable given the trauma of such an event

your right mate case closed ... get a grip

[insidejob]

Is this the Left that supports the MI5 explanation of 7/7? The Left think they're being radical because Rai's anger-about-Iraq theory rubs Blair up the wrong way but it doesn't for the Joint Intelligence Committee. Seems MI5 are ahead of the Left because they're now claiming no Al Qaida involvement.

But it's an explanation that makes no sense unless you believe there are thousands of potentially mad suicide bombers among UK Muslims? But that's cool for the MI5 who want more power to oppress UK Muslims and then, through sleight of hand, bully the rest of the population.

The whole Left/Milan Rai/Rachel North/MI5 theory rests on the idea that devout Muslims are mad and that the 'four bombers' were mad, well-trained, intelligent, resourceful and stupid. That one adds up, doesn't it?

As I've said elsewhere on this site, people believe that suicide bombing in the UK makes sense not because ‘Muslims do it in Palestine and Iraq’ but because they unthinkingly accept silly propaganda. When last did Cherie Blair say that she’s not surprised that Muslims in Yorkshire become suicide bombers? She hasn't, but she did after visiting Palestine. That’s because Palestine is not only thousands of miles from Leeds and Bradford but also because it’s different from Leeds and Bradford.

For Palestinians, suicide bombing is a military tactic used against a well-armed and protected enemy not a religious duty – unless Palestinians have all become Wahabbis without anyone noticing. So, what defences were there on the London Underground that forced the four to become suicide bombers in order to ensure success for the operation? Do travellers get frisked by Mossad-trained ticket collectors armed with Uzis?

Whereas Iraq is simply more evidence of how silly is the Left/Milan Rai/Rachel North/MI5 explanation of the motivation of the bombers. We're meant to believe Umma turned them into bombers - Umma being loyalty to the suffering, global Muslim community, particularly because of the West in Iraq and Chechnia, Bosnia etc. Yet, the four didn’t think it may not be worth blowing themselves up for Iraqi Muslims who were, according to conventional wisdom, mad people busy trying to murder one another because they are not Sunni Muslim or not Shia Muslim or not Kurdish Muslim. And while their hero, Osama - the Umma is so sacred - Bin Laden was encouraging Muslim Iraqis to destroy their own country through civil war. But perhaps the bombers were both mad and stupid.

If people don’t except the MI5 conspiracy theory, it is far more rational to believe that Pakistan secret service did it. The bombers behaved as if they had extensive training. And, three bombers had re-orientation and training at extremist Madrassas, all of which are run by Pakistan intelligence (ISI). And there is an example of the LSE-educated, UK Muslim Al Qaida extremist in Siad Sheik, who is in jail for killing the journalist Daniel Pearl. Except Indian intelligence regard him as an ISI agent because when they had him in jail it was ISI agents who represented him. ISI, of course, works with the CIA, which makes 7/7 a CIA-ISI operation. But that would be paranoid thinking, wouldn’t it?

But it’s not paranoid to believe that thousands of UK Muslims you live next door to, work with and buy from have suddenly become potential, well-trained, mad suicide bombers because they ‘hate Western freedoms’ and don’t like the Western invasion of a country thousands of miles away, is it?

The Left thinks if the public believes that 7/7 happened because of the Iraqi invasion then the scared public will force Blair out of Iraq. 7/7 becomes a useful political stick to beat the Government with. But the public already believes 7/7 happened because of Iraq. And they also believe that devout Muslims are mad and will side with MI5 attempts to oppress UK Muslims. So, now the Left are as paranoid about UK Muslims as MI5.


insidejob

[johnnyvoid]

inside job, i ignored your pm and im largely ignoring that

except to say you appear to be in no position to pass judgement on the sanity of anyone

[John White]

"whats this?" says Johnny Void,

(looking though his info scope with the lens cap still on)

"I see no ships!"

Dont mind me, I'm just laughing my ass off!

Im not sure you could find evidance of your own shoelaces fella

though Im sure you think you have perfected the technique of looking for cracks in an argument

The error, surely, is in believing THAT consitutes proof of anything on your part

And the usual problem of assuming no-one else could be as perceptive as you

[johnnyvoid]

im not the one claiming to have proof of anything

[Annie]

Hi johnnyvoid

I'm wary of getting bogged down, but....

I agree with you that finger pointing about who might be a spook is counter-productive. It's a demotivating activity which plays into the spies' hands, as they adhere to the principle of "divide and conquer". However, it's only natural for people to be concerned and protective.

As far as revealing the names of the old leftwing agents - well I'm afraid I can't help you. It’s all a long time ago and the people who handled them were in a discrete section. And anyway, I'm sure the individuals concerned thought they were doing their duty to their country. However misguided that might now appear with the benefit of hindsight, I've never been in the game of ruining someone's life. Unless, of course, it’s someone who might now be in the position to ruin many other lives. But that’s another story….

As far as your point about the Illuminati issue is concerned, David and I are two amongst many within this movement. We have not sought to assume any leadership role, just to bring our own area of expertise to the table. We would certainly not try to inhibit debate.

People have come to this movement from a wide variety of perspectives and experiences, and that is what makes it so vibrant and rich and questioning. Freedom of expression is supposed to be a fundamental right, provided it doesn't hurt anyone. Having watched, with excruciating frustration, the process of my partner being gagged and slandered, it's the last thing I would ever do to anyone else. And that goes for Icke and Jones and Rai too. If people have issues with their views, they should be able to engage in open debate with them. This is the lifeblood of a functioning democracy.

You say you took up this particular baton after the treatment meted out to Rachel North. As I said, I see no gain to the search for truth in name calling. However, there is a bit of history attached to her. Before the Rai launch, the London 911 Truth Campaign had a social evening, to which all were welcome (as I think you know!). Rachel arrived with her friend Kirsty, but didn't announce her interest in the subject. David did a short speech about his personal knowledge of false flag terrorism, and about 3/4 of the way through, Rachel started butting in. She continued in an increasingly hectoring tone, and ended up standing in front of David, shouting at the rest of us.

The evening was supposed to be about 911, but she took it over with her opinions about 7/7. So it's understandable that a number of supporters were angry about this, and decided to try the same tactics at a meeting where she was giving a speech. And it was interesting that she had briefed the organisers of the Rai launch that we were a bunch of frothing loonies before we arrived.

This is why there is so much concern about her within the 911 Truth Campaign. Of course, I understand that she went through a horrific experience and that she wants to make sense of it if she can. If she had introduced herself properly that night we would all have extended any support we could to her. In fact, I did extend the hand of friendship on this forum after the meeting, but she turned it down at the time. However, if she's willing now, I'm still up for it. I’ve personally gone through something where I’ve almost died, and afterwards you search and search for the whys and hows.

For the record, I agree that the evidence about 7/7 is far less conclusive. 911 is what we need to focus on.

One final point from your posting. Yes, why not a big protest outside Thames House? I think that's a great idea. By the way, an interesting use of the official name of MI5's HQ. I presume that comes from moving in activist circles.

Regards

Annie

[John White]

[kookomula]

1. Conspiracy Theorists target[i] [b]9-11[/b][/i] victims?

The post then goes on to talk about 'Rachel' who was on (correct me if I am wrong) a train that was bombed on 7/7.

I don't post or read about 7/7 but I am pretty sure 'Rachel' came to a 9-11 meeting in London. If it is the same person, she talked quite happily with David Shayler and others and there didn't seem to be any animosity there at all. Where all this has come from I do not know. If it is the same person, she said she had done alot of personal research into 7/7 and didn't believe that there was a conspiracy and that she agreed with the official account. So, she doesn't believe and......

Having been to several meetings and events and met the core group, I find it hard to believe that 'the group' have been harassing her. Whatever is going on needs to stop she has her opinion and she is free to express it.

Not having read any of the blogs etc. I probably shouldn't be writing anything regarding this but it strikes me as been incredibly immature and unnecessary.

Was this posted as 9-11 to get more exposure? (Initially, thanks for altering heading)

[John White]

Good point: correct the title mods?

And absolutely agreed that harresment of anybody is offensive:we all must strive to be better than what we oppose

[Andrew Johnson]

I like this one myself (even though it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone or any threads on this forum, as far as I am aware.)

The crafty clergyman crept into the crypt, crapped and crept out again!

Soz folks, but we need to lighten up here!

[kookomula]

"we all must strive to be better than what we oppose"

you're talking my language Mr White

[John White]

And you mine!

[insidejob]

Apologies for being a bit sarky, Johnnyvoid, I was letting off steam on those ‘I’m no conspiracy nut, I believe the official gobbledygook’ people and you got in the way, so to speak.

But what I want to do is to point out the logic of the official 7/7 explanation. People who believe the explanation may not state the logic but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. The logical consequence of believing the official explanation is that UK Muslims constitute a potential fifth column. We can’t get away from the main 7/7 point: EITHER YOU ARE PARANOID ABOUT MI5 OR YOU ARE PARANOID ABOUT THOUSANDS OF FIFTH COLUMN UK MUSLIMS. There is no ‘I’m level-headed on 7/7’ place from which you can view it.

To date, no one has come up with a sensible explanation as to why the four Muslims became suicide bombers and why thousands of Muslims have not. Both are angry about Western foreign policy. The only difference, we are supposed to believe, is that the four had a dash of mad, fundamentalist Islam. Milan Rai tells us that a mad fundamentalist preacher went up North for a few days and three of the bombers could have heard him speak. He also tells us that three of the bombers watched a couple of Al Qaida videos. Then he comes up with psychobabble gobbledygook to explain that the four ‘self-brainwashed themselves’ and took a stairway to suicide bombing.

We have all kinds of tortuous psychobabble to explain Muslim suicide bombers: they’re upset about the suffering of the Umma, they want to get rid of their humiliation, they want to have it away with 24 vestal virgins. No one comes up with any of these kinds of psychobable to explain why some white people carry out suicide missions or engage in neo-colonial, pathological murder.

Marxist theory was one of the models I used to look at the world (others came from black politics). I then started asking who was the ruling class, what are the leading companies in finance capital, how did those who owned the means of production influence politicians. I wanted names. As a result, I got into a world dominated by conspiracy theorists and deep politics analysts –a world Marxist writers were not involved with. I discovered that Marxists are missing the big story.

insidejob

[brian]

[xmasdale]

[xmasdale]

[dry kleaner]

[ian neal]

[johnnyvoid]

[Annie]

Hi JohnnyVoid

For the record, I saw what I saw at the London social event which Rachel attended (BTW I'd never heard of Rachel North before that evening) and I stick by it as well.

If you won't give us any more details of the alleged "Illuminati meeting" on a public forum, why not send a message to me privately? I'm sure that such a thing would not have gone unchallenged. I remember the issue being raised at the same social event, and Dave saying that it wasn't the time and the place to raise such topics.

Regards

Annie

[ian neal]

I'm surprised given Jonny's posting that he is not consider a critic and asked to post in critics corner

[PaulStott]

[John White]

[kbo234]

Yes, these recent posts are puzzling stuff.

[Mark Gobell]

Ian?