| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
 Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| kbo234 wrote: | Mm....it is peculiar, isn't it, that the 'voices' of 7/7 survivors and their families are so clear about the bandwith inside which their concerns fall.....
...i.e. that individuals within the system may have failed in their duties and so we 'must' know about these failures but that all the circumstantial and physical evidence related to possible security service involvement is 'ridiculous' and only of interest to lunatics like ourselves.
The photo published in the Daily Mail showing the hole in a train floor with all the metal round the edges bent UP into the carriage would be something I would be making loads of noise about if the TV cameras were being pointed at me.
Athough this comment contradicts an earlier post of mine on this thread, there is surely a high probability that the leadership of the visible 7/7 victims group is, like so many other parties, controlled by the security services (wasn't Haroon Ashwat, an MI6 agent according to the Americans, a contact of and, therefore, likely co-ordinator of all the 7/7 'bombers').
Like many on this site I believe it most likely that the 7/7 'bombers' were patsies being paid to play a game during something they understood to be an exercise (they could easily have been conned into making the videos as part of this 'game')......and that they had no idea that they were carrying real explosives at the beginning of this game anyway.......
....who were the two asian men shot outside Canary Wharf on the morning of 7/7 (reported in the New Zealand press only, it would seem)?
There are so many more serious questions about 7/7 that yes,.......the furious determination of Rachel North to exclude consideration of such information is indeed more than puzzling.
....and let us not forget that her manner of disagreeing with us was not to engage with the evidence that is the substance of our concerns but to resort to vicious ad hominem abuse. The fact that some of this group retaliated in kind was understandable....but did play into her rather unpleasant hands. |
Its funny how the pieces start to fit together, North ignores the serious anomolies, a couple you mention from hundreds of others, she appears on media everwhere, with loaded inferences, she ridicules a new 9/11 inquiry, appears on here for a while, spews bile at people asking her serious questions, promotes her conspiracy book for profit, and makes her feeble excuses and leaves with her imaginary higher moral ground.
All in time for the back stabbing of 9/11 truth, hmm what a coincidence. 
perhaps she will be 'honoured' with some 'official memento/honour/diploma' in the not too distant future from what seems like her official partners in crime'?
i still wait for one, just one single image from the tens of thousands of images out there on CCTV to corrolate her conspiracy theory she is peddling for profit.
Houdini would stand in bewilderment at her constant wriggling out of the serious questions put to her over time. And Alastair Cambell, the lie doctor would be applauding ferverantly at her stories. So why is she being given so much media time? the last piece of the 'puzzle' has been inserted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | Which is exactly my point. |
I know. So we are both making the same point. She is rude to some here and some here are rude to her. Do you thing she visits her local Tory party offices and calls them rude names for being Tories? What would you expect to happen if she did. |
Basically, it wouldn't get her anywhere. She doesn't care if she gets anywhere here because she thinks it's all 'conspiriloons' and I assume feels there is nothing we can offer.
I just think slagging her off is pointless. What's to be gained? Do you stop and listen to someone hurling abuse at you or insinuating you're 'controlled'? Like it or not, some of the reaction she's got here will simply serve (irrespective of whether it's justified) to confirm her extant belief that this place is full of nutters - if that's not a problem, then fine, but it cannot be expected she'll suddenly decide she 'sees the light'.
I agree with other posters that there are a wealth of very strange 7/7 anomalies, but as soon as a slanging match happens people stop listening to each other. As I have posted in this section on previous threads, I am mystified as to why some of the anomalies having been allowed to stand so blatantly. It beggars belief that it took 'wild-eyed conspiracy theorists' to bother to check what trains were actually running from Luton on the day. Nevertheless, I don't think it at all strange that she doesn't take 'our side'. If (God forbid) a member of this forum, a critic and a 'regular Joe' were caught in such an event, it stands to reason that they way they would frame the event would be very different. What they would 'see' happened would be guided by their pre-existing beliefs. What they would want investigated, see as relevant or even possible would be shaped by their extant worldview. Interestingly, kbo says
| Quote: | The photo published in the Daily Mail showing the hole in a train floor with all the metal round the edges bent UP into the carriage would be something I would be making loads of noise about if the TV cameras were being pointed at me.
|
and I agree that picture gives to me the impression of metal bent up. However, I had a lengthy discussion with JohnDoe about it where he 'saw' evidence of a downward blast. Not being an expert on explosions, I can't be too dogmatic about it. Hwever, if you believe the govt may well do such a thing, you are open to suggestions that it might. You may also jump the gun and assume something that actually was the work of a 'lone nut' was a false flag. If you think the government 'would never do such a thing, it's ridiculous', you won't even go there. In any case, all 'sides' will be guided in terms of what they 'see', what they accept as possible/plausible or what they look at/for by what their worldview finds acceptable. Plenty of people think its unthinkable that 'our' govt could ever kill their own for political gain. Only foreigners do that. Those very foreigners may think the same thing about their government. Whatever the 'truth', I'm really not surprised the 'MI5didit' option often doesn't go down well.
I tend to be a bit dismissive of NPT because I find it implausible. I may be wrong, but my already formed conclusion will make me more resistant to ever accepting it even if overwhelming evidence were presented (something I don't count the current 'evidence' as being). If people start shouting at me cos I 'don't get it', I'll be even less likely to be convinced (shouting and hurling wild accusations has been a common NPT tactic of late and it's clear for all to see it's not winning any converts).
Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". I regard this statement as contradicting the scientific method and am bemused it gets used without criticism at JREF. However, I digress - I think it's better to say "You need more convincing of ideas you don't like than ones you do".
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: Cause & effect and non-violent campaigning |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | Rachel has every right to believe the official theory |
And we have every right to disbelieve it. She says
| Quote: | | Do carry on speculating about 9/11 and indulging your morbid little hobby if you must |
and
| Quote: | | Toodle pip lads, and watch out for the alien reptile overlords! And don't forget the tin foil hats. |
which makes her fair game for us to retort in similar vein. If she believes that those of us who question the blatant inside-job that was 9/11 makes us deserving of her brilliant conclusion that
| Quote: | | that's all this site ever does. Loop, loop, fruitloop loop. Same old same old fact-free, evidence-free speculations based on imaginings and unprovable, unproven hypotheses. *Yawn* |
then she deserves all she gets. |
I think we need to grow beyond saying that if someone is rude we have a right to be rude back. The important question is whether it is helpful to our campaign to be rude back.
I have met Rachel on three occasions:
1
when she incognito attended a London 911 Truth Group meeting which she virtually took over, continually interrupting the proceedings to tell us what ridiculous conspiraloons, fruitbats, and fruitloops we all are;
2
at Milan Rai's book-launch when she lambasted us conspiraloons in the audience with similar vitriol;
3
In the House of Lords, where she shared a platform with Nafeez Ahmed among others, and read from a prepared text in moderate tones to all present about the 7/7 survivors' group and their demand for an inquiry.
I have no proof that she is anything other than she says she is. The change of tone at the House of Lords meeting could be explained by the fact that what she read to us had had input from others in her group and that she may well have been wisely advised to leave out the vitriol.
She may deserve what she gets, but if we deliver insults and vitriol to a victim of a terrorist bombing, do we not also deserve what we get in terms of being characterised as crazy or unfeeling?
There is a law of cause and effect which has been understood and used wisely by great leaders of political movements, such as Martin Luther King and Mohandas K Ghandi. In the East it is known as the law of karma. In the West it is characterised by such sayings as, "As you sow, so shall you reap" and "Judge not, that ye be not judged". Those who judge people harshly are indeed judged harshly by others. This altercation with Rachel is a fine illustration of that principle.
But King and Ghandi among others were wise enough to rise above it, to meet violence with non-violence. This is the principle of turning the other cheek. Why? Because it works. 
They could have used violence, saying the authorities deserve all they get, but would that have achieved their political objectives? Moreover, would their political objectives, however incompletely reached, have been achieved with so little bloodshed?
If we meet insults with insults we shall not make our task any easier, though it is human to lose our temper and to give as good as we get. I lost my temper with Rachel at the Milan Rai meeting, but that was a failure on my part. I do not try to justify it but wish I had managed to be more controlled.
I have used illustrations from the Western & Christian traditions to describe this law, but it is a universal principle described in all spiritual traditions. Others will probably be able to describe it in the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist traditions.
The road to all-out war is that of either side incrementally upping the anti each time they are attacked. As Nikita Khrushchev once said, there is an old Russian proverb: if you put a hedgehog under me, I shall put two porcupines under you. Thank God he didn't apply that principle or we'd all now be dead.
The authorities have overwhelming military might at their disposal. The only way to challenge that effectively is through non-violence.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
9/11 was the greatest slap on the cheek. Turn the other cheek if you think that is what is required. Good luck.
An eye for an eye may make everyone blind but if evil people blind everyone else without response then evil people are the only ones left who can see. Is that a good result? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | 9/11 was the greatest slap on the cheek. Turn the other cheek if you think that is what is required. Good luck.
An eye for an eye may make everyone blind but if evil people blind everyone else without response then evil people are the only ones left who can see. Is that a good result? |
Then just how do you propose retaliating, and what good do you think will come of it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Did they both die of old age? As Bernard Bresslaw used to say, "I only asked!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wokeman wrote: | | Did they both die of old age? As Bernard Bresslaw used to say, "I only asked!" |
They both put the good of their cause above their personal safety and they were both assassinated eventually as a result. But what results they got in terms of political achievement!
Non-violence does produce casualties, but not half as many as violence does.
Moreover, if you seek to use violence to achieve political ends you have to use violence to maintain your power once you have seized it. So it is not a question of the ends justifying the means, but rather of violent means resulting in oppressive ends. There are numerous examples of this.
In the British revolution (civil war) an oppressive monarch was challenged violently. The result was rule by a general, Oliver Cromwell, who had to use violence to maintain his power, thus exerting oppressive rule over the people and becoming unpopular.
In the French Revolution the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity were fine but the violent means employed in an attempt to realise admirable ends created chaos which could only be resolved by military rule with the result that Robespierre gave way to the "terror" and ultimately to Napoleon, who decided to spread liberty throughout Europe by military means, which became oppressive and resented by the people.
The same is true of the Russian revolution which started with high ideals but required oppressive military means to maintain power. Lenin gave way to Stalin and some of the most brutal political purges in history. According to Russian sources 50 million lost their lives in the oppression.
For these kinds of reasons I prefer the limited successes brought about by the non-violent struggles in which Martin Luther King and Ghandi played leading roles, also of those of Cory Aquino in the Philipines and Solidarity in Poland.
But I am no historian and would welcome the views of others on the conundrum of how to achieve positive political change.
For me non-violent means is the way to achieve non-oppressive ends.
Contrast Bush and Blair who, officially at least, seek to spread freedom and democracy around the world through violent means. What sickening hypocrites! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: |
Like many on this site I believe it most likely that the 7/7 'bombers' were patsies being paid to play a game during something they understood to be an exercise (they could easily have been conned into making the videos as part of this 'game')......and that they had no idea that they were carrying real explosives at the beginning of this game anyway.......
|
I personally believe they responded to the many M15 recruitment adverts targeting ethnic minority groups and this was part of their training.
Do u remember that show on BBC3 training people to be spooks?
Little did they know they would be set up as patsies.
Having said that there is no proof they were in london on the trains that day 7/7 because no evidence has been released or manufactured yet
| Quote: |
....and let us not forget that her manner of disagreeing with us was not to engage with the evidence that is the substance of our concerns but to resort to vicious ad hominem abuse. The fact that some of this group retaliated in kind was understandable....but did play into her rather unpleasant hands. |
yes she gave the impression of being an absolute bunny boiler but one must hand it to her she has got further than we have. Maybe that is what we need to do to become a little bit loco.[[/quote]
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
*DELETED* JW
had a look at this it appears rachel north is really *DELETED JW*and filed a complaint to the police against this woman blogger
so beware!!!
if you write anything against her she will prosecute you
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: Re: Cause & effect and non-violent campaigning |
|
|
| xmasdale wrote: | | blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | Rachel has every right to believe the official theory |
And we have every right to disbelieve it. She says
| Quote: | | Do carry on speculating about 9/11 and indulging your morbid little hobby if you must |
and
| Quote: | | Toodle pip lads, and watch out for the alien reptile overlords! And don't forget the tin foil hats. |
which makes her fair game for us to retort in similar vein. If she believes that those of us who question the blatant inside-job that was 9/11 makes us deserving of her brilliant conclusion that
| Quote: | | that's all this site ever does. Loop, loop, fruitloop loop. Same old same old fact-free, evidence-free speculations based on imaginings and unprovable, unproven hypotheses. *Yawn* |
then she deserves all she gets. |
I think we need to grow beyond saying that if someone is rude we have a right to be rude back. The important question is whether it is helpful to our campaign to be rude back.
I have met Rachel on three occasions:
1
when she incognito attended a London 911 Truth Group meeting which she virtually took over, continually interrupting the proceedings to tell us what ridiculous conspiraloons, fruitbats, and fruitloops we all are;
2
at Milan Rai's book-launch when she lambasted us conspiraloons in the audience with similar vitriol;
3
In the House of Lords, where she shared a platform with Nafeez Ahmed among others, and read from a prepared text in moderate tones to all present about the 7/7 survivors' group and their demand for an inquiry.
I have no proof that she is anything other than she says she is. The change of tone at the House of Lords meeting could be explained by the fact that what she read to us had had input from others in her group and that she may well have been wisely advised to leave out the vitriol.
She may deserve what she gets, but if we deliver insults and vitriol to a victim of a terrorist bombing, do we not also deserve what we get in terms of being characterised as crazy or unfeeling?
There is a law of cause and effect which has been understood and used wisely by great leaders of political movements, such as Martin Luther King and Mohandas K Ghandi. In the East it is known as the law of karma. In the West it is characterised by such sayings as, "As you sow, so shall you reap" and "Judge not, that ye be not judged". Those who judge people harshly are indeed judged harshly by others. This altercation with Rachel is a fine illustration of that principle.
But King and Ghandi among others were wise enough to rise above it, to meet violence with non-violence. This is the principle of turning the other cheek. Why? Because it works.
They could have used violence, saying the authorities deserve all they get, but would that have achieved their political objectives? Moreover, would their political objectives, however incompletely reached, have been achieved with so little bloodshed?
If we meet insults with insults we shall not make our task any easier, though it is human to lose our temper and to give as good as we get. I lost my temper with Rachel at the Milan Rai meeting, but that was a failure on my part. I do not try to justify it but wish I had managed to be more controlled.
I have used illustrations from the Western & Christian traditions to describe this law, but it is a universal principle described in all spiritual traditions. Others will probably be able to describe it in the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist traditions.
The road to all-out war is that of either side incrementally upping the anti each time they are attacked. As Nikita Khrushchev once said, there is an old Russian proverb: if you put a hedgehog under me, I shall put two porcupines under you. Thank God he didn't apply that principle or we'd all now be dead.
The authorities have overwhelming military might at their disposal. The only way to challenge that effectively is through non-violence.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. |
It would appear we have different takes on past history, you suggest india gained its independence from a peaceful front, also the black civil rights movement went down the same path, to me thats the official rewritten history version, i remember the street riots in the usa, it was apparant to the usa authorities that a civil war would insue and as such the government capitulated, as more people joined in the looting and burning. As for india violience against the british was rife, it just wasant fully reported.
i can give hundreds of examples were turning your other cheeks would have got nowhere, remeber the mau mau, east africa, if the africans had turned there cheecks the british would still be doing a japanese, how long must we endure the bridge over the river kwai where british were used as slaves? yet not one single sentance in official history of the british in Kenya doing the same to the indiginious poeples, theres hundreds of bridges of 'kwais' out there, same brutal methods.
The british could never hold India, as the pockets of violence were taking hold, the british cut their losses as they didant want a public lynching of british colonialism to spread.
i do not know of anything changing without violence, should the Viet Namese have just turned their other cheeks at the yanks? where would that have got them?
While you are correct in your Karma anaology, i know from that statement you have never lived in the east for any lenght of time, take the thais, very very calm on the outside, do them a wrong and they turn into the most hate filled raging people i know, meeting non violence with extreme violence.
As for the judge not or be judged, well its sounds like bibliology doublespeak, taken froma religious book of myths, thats where most of these qotes come from, the sowing etc, take them with heaps of salt.
Perhaps we should have turned our cheeks when Hitler came a knocking at our door too?
Perhaps we should all turn our cheeks to 9/11 false flag, 7/7 etc, human chip implanting.
Whats my suggestion? well i cannot advocate any violence, theres new laws out now which can see you whisked to guantanamo bay and hooked up to the electrical genital machine for years for inciting terrorism.
You have to wake up and get in the game. Why has authority continued to hold such a powerful grip on its official fairy stories? look at the strategy they use, when someone is percieved as a threat, publicy they ridicule you, it works, thats why they do it so succesfully. How many times have serious questions been ridiculed? you must employ the same tactics.
When i am attacked and ridiculed, i reply with facts, and then ridicule there theories, it soon quietens em down.
If you want to reach the masses, the saop watchers, you need some spice and heated debates, thats what grabs their attention. I would prefer a serious debate, but from experience i know thats not enough. Time for another of those quotes, fight fire with fire? or one for you, do unto others as they do unto you, not that i put much credence to bible myths or sayings, just pointing out the chery picking from such religious myths.
from thousands of examples of things through history changing, where citizens rose up against government violence to change things, you list two, King and Ghandi as using non violence, thats a different view from me, my understanding is the governments could see the increase in violence in the usa, incread riots, looting etc. India was the same, its just kept very well hidden the violence against the british, you cannot publicise these, for citizens joining the (insurgency) thats freedom fighters to any logical thinking person would mushroom.
perhaps you need a diffrent strategy to confront the Rachael Norths of this world? its seems pretty obvious to me that rational and calmness will get you nowhere with people of this Ilk, a vociferious and equally ridiculing of North would have cut of the bud at the truth conferences.
Remember the ridicule card, it works thats why they use it. By all means confront these people with calm rationale debating techniques, but put in the ridicule card with passion when and where its needed, you wouldant use your bow without posinious arrows where needed to take out a venemous opponent would you? or would you turn your other cheeks also?, where conventional arrows are not adequate, use a venemous one.
Perhaps its better to live like a lion for a day, rather than a lifetime as a sheep? for some people it seems living like a sheep for a lifetime is prefrable, thats their choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rachel XXXXXXXX, XX, of XXXXXXX, north London, said: "It was so dark and we were using light from people's mobile phones.
"I was in the first carriage and the driver emerged and told us he was going to try to get us out. We were all telling everybody to shut up so we could hear what he was saying.
"He told us he was trying to have the track turned off so we could walk to the next station. We were passing the information back along the carriages. Everyone was just scrambling to their feet and trying to help one another.
"It was about 25 or 30 minutes before we could get off. People were crying and sobbing and one woman was just screaming her head off.
"We started filing off the train through the driver's carriage and we made our way cautiously along the tunnel. The driver was telling us not to touch the track because he didn't know if it had been turned off.
"All the way we kept reassuring each other, saying 'We're going to be fine.' It took about 15 minutes to get to Russell Square.
"When we got out I noticed my wrist was bleeding. All our faces were black. Everyone was looking really shocked.
"I immediately phoned my partner then my parents, who live in Norfolk, to tell them I was OK. I said to my parents 'I've just got off the train; I've escaped the bomb.' They hadn't even heard what had happened."
Link removed by Ian Neal
http://www.urban75.org/london/bombs.html
her complete account - she did not see the bomber of the bomb but was told it was at the end of the first carraige
--------------------------------------
Hi
I hope you don't mind but I have editted your post to remove Rachel's surname. Whilst it is possible to find out Rachel's full name on the internet, I know she prefers not to publicise this, hence the use of a pseudonym Rachel North. I respect her right to maintain her privacy and so have taken the liberty to this edit. If you have a problem with this email me and we can discuss
Ian Neal
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ooops, I just realised it's mentioned in the Telegraph that you link to so I guess she's not bothered. As you were. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Watcher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 200
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: Rachel Namesake |
|
|
just as Reg Dwight gets a bit miffed if the media don't address or refer to him by his stage name, Rachel seems to throw tantrums if she is not referred to by her chosen nom de plume. A reaction most likely driven by the desire to capitalize upon her carefully crafted post-7/7 celebrity. The claims of protecting privacy are rather facile, when it took just a few seconds to locate a webpost, written by Rachel herself, where she confirms her given name and even includes a mobile telephone number (hopefully changed by now!). Neither did it take too much longer to be advised (unsolicited) of Rachel's wedding on April 28th, to her self-professed long suffering fiance, in a certain East Anglian Cathedral.
I'm sure there are many who would wish to join The Watcher in wishing Rachel a long, healthy, happy & productive marriage. I wonder if Ally, Bridget, Al K Myst or anyone else from the July 7th Truth Campaign were invited? Probably not.
By some strange quirk of cosmic humor, the web throws up the co-incidence that a certain Dr. Rachel *DELETED* is a world renowned expert on weed management, biocontrol techniques and is also '... one of the nation's scientific leaders in the field of controlling pest species!'
You couldn't make it up!
LOL
The Watcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: TO MODs relating to the publication of my name - important |
|
|
double post
Last edited by Rachel on Sun May 06, 2007 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: TO MODs relating to the publication of my name - important |
|
|
The Telegraph piece was published the day after the bombings, before I had written about PTSD, after being raped and PTSD after being blown up. At this point I was simply a shocked survivor, too traumatised to think of the danger of giving my details, unaware that the story would be used to attack me later on. No photo was published.
Several months later, I wrote about being raped and bombed, in a Sunday Times article about PTSD and forgiveness. There is nothing in that article to link me with the woman Rachel who briefly spoke to a Telegraph reporter outside the hospital. That woman could have been one of a hundred travelling in carriage one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article597033.ece
Why did I write the Rachel North -ptsd article? Explaining to people about PTSD is very important to me. When I had it, after being raped and nearly killed, there was little info about it. PTSD can kill. The suicide rate of those with it is high. People without info on it are at risk. Eventually I found a few first person accounts and it helped immeasurably. I have gone on to write a book on the subject of PTSD,
( based on my experiences after the rape and bombing.) This is the book, Out of the Tunnel, out end July, to which some thread contributors refer.
After this article,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article597033.ece
I was always referred to as Rachel North since rape victims have an entitlement to life long anonymity.And I will always use that name when I identify myself as someone talking about 7/7 or the rape.
As my media visibility grew through my voluntary work with survivor support groups, it became increasingly important to use the pseudonym since it was becoming likely that my rapist( who had links to organised crime in Jamaica) could see me on TV or in the news and recognise me. I did not want him or his associates coming after me and finding out where I lived. The man who raped me in 2002 is doing 12 years of a 15 year sentence which probably means he will be out in 2009. I am afraid of him finding me. Nonetheless, I will not let it stop me campaigning about things I beelive in - PTSD awareness and a 7/7 inquiry.
Felicity Jane Lowde, whose blog you link to, is a woman ( with apparent mental health issues) who has been convicted of harassment in a court and gone on the run to avoid sentencing. One of the ways she sought to attack me was by publishing my real name, getting it to appear on google searches - knowing that it could put me in danger from the rapist, as well as publishing mad lies about me to apparently try to trash my reputation ( though it is clear to anyone finding her site that she is disturbed).
She has, I repeat, been found guilty of harassment by a Judge. She will be sentenced when she is caught; there is a bench warrant out for her immediate arrest.
I therefore request that you urgently break the link to her blog and delete the mentions of my name for the reasons I have explained.
This is the only reason I am writing here, and it is because one of my readers has alerted me to the fact that you are publishing my name.
Since I married, I have a new name. But Rachel North is the name I use when talking about 7/7 and I hope that you see why I need my privacy respected. Actually, by publishing the name of a rape victim you are in contempt of court. But let's not go there, and please just take it down.
I am absolutely not going to get into a debate here about 7/7 or 9/11, or to pick you up on some of the things that have inaccurately been said about me here or on this forum generally. I am on honeymoon and I have not got the time or the interest. I am however sufficiently concerned to check my emails once a day and having been alerted, come over to set you straight about the name thing, and I would be obliged if you could stick to referring to me as Rachel North when you are '"discussing" me
( or "researching "me or whatever you want to call it)
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Watcher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 200
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: Rachel vs fjl |
|
|
Rachel wrote:
| Quote: | | I therefore request that you urgently break the link to her (fjl) blog and delete the mentions of my name for the reasons I have explained. |
Until such time as there is a legal injunction regarding linking to fjl's blogspot, I trust that the mods will ignore this request. The fjl material may not be particularly flattering towards Rachel but it is still an integral part of post 7/7 history. I do not give particular credence to anything fjl has posted but to request that no mention be made of a potentially relevent blog is nothing more than censorship. After just a couple of hours exploring the spat between Rachel & Felicity Jane Lowde, I am fascinated at how blog, forum or Email exchanges can descend to such depths. There are some remarkable exchanges, with neither party exactly covering themselves in glory. As for the reporting restrictions, what's that all about? The only accounts that anyone gets to read are written by either Rachel or fjl; not particularly objective, is it?
I am grateful to Rachel for drawing attention to fjl. Had she not posted, I would not have been so inquisitive about her feud with FJL. BTW, WTF is she doing looking at this forum when she's supposed to be on honeymoon? Rhetorical question.
The Watcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Long Tooth
Thanks for this eloquent reply to my points. I was hoping to use the Rachel situation to stimulate some serious debate about what tactics we should be using to deal with 9/11 and false flag terrorism in general. The over all principles involved here are difficult ones which I’ve been struggling with most of my adult life and I don’t claim to have any definitive answers. The best I can do is to report how I have responded to these issues and, if that strikes a chord in others: good! If not: no matter. We agree to differ.
I’ll try to respond to each of your many points.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
It would appear we have different takes on past history, |
Doubtless, but maybe not as different as you suppose.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
you suggest india gained its independence from a peaceful front, also the black civil rights movement went down the same path, to me thats the official rewritten history version, i remember the street riots in the usa, it was apparant to the usa authorities that a civil war would insue and as such the government capitulated, as more people joined in the looting and burning. As for india violience against the british was rife, it just wasant fully reported. |
Where there are those who use non-violent means, there are also those who use violent means and the authorities worry that the violence will spread and become unmanageable. That often leads them to strike deals with the non-violent people. Of course people have a right to use violence in self-defence if violence is done to them, but the question facing us in general is whether violence is going to be helpful in achieving our objectives, even the mild form of violence which is responding to rudeness and ridicule in like manner.
And yes I’m aware of the differences between the US Black Civil Rights movement and the Black Power movement associated especially with Malcolm X, and of political violence in the US and in India, and of the Indian National Liberation army which allied itself with Japan during WW2. Appalling intercommunal violence also occurred at independence with the split from Pakistan, but did any of this violence do any good?
I’m not in a position to judge which was the greater factor in determining the outcome. It would be an almost impossible task to evaluate it statistically. Therefore we are left with our hunches only. Your hunches and mine would appear to differ here and I’m certainly not going to be dogmatic about mine.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
i can give hundreds of examples were turning your other cheeks would have got nowhere, remeber the mau mau, east africa, |
Yes, I’m long enough in the tooth too to remember that But I also remember that in Ghana, where violent struggle was much less of a factor so far as I can make out, independence was achieved earlier than in Kenya, in 1957 as opposed to 1963. So I don't find your example convincing that violence was the best course to take.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
if the africans had turned there cheecks the british would still be doing a japanese, how long must we endure the bridge over the river kwai where british were used as slaves? yet not one single sentance in official history of the british in Kenya doing the same to the indiginious poeples, theres hundreds of bridges of 'kwais' out there, same brutal methods. |
I don’t doubt the British were brutal, but I do doubt that a violent course was the only effective way to counter that brutality.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | The british could never hold India, as the pockets of violence were taking hold, the british cut their losses as they didant want a public lynching of british colonialism to spread. |
I agree that visions of the chaos which was likely to ensue if independence was postponed for any longer led to the sudden departure of the British. Chaos ensued anyway and I suspect that the divide and rule attitude of the British during the Raj had much to do with it.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | i do not know of anything changing without violence, |
Don’t you? You’re not aware of Poland’s Solidarity movement’s campaign for democracy in which only one person was killed? Nor of the Glorious Revolution in Britain where also only one person was killed? Nor of the non-violent movement in the Philipines which deposed the dictator Marcos and brought Cory Aquino to power as president? nor of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia? Nor of the fall of Communism in the USSR and the ending of apartheid in South Africa, both of which were largely non-violent struggles? Nor of the non-violent people’s protests which brought the elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, back to power after he had been deposed in a US sponsored coup? Nor of the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? I’m sure you must have heard of them.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | should the Viet Namese have just turned their other cheeks at the yanks? where would that have got them? |
I don’t know nearly enough about the situation in Vietnam to judge whether a non-violent solution would have been possible.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | While you are correct in your Karma anaology, i know from that statement you have never lived in the east for any lenght of time, take the thais, very very calm on the outside, do them a wrong and they turn into the most hate filled raging people i know, meeting non violence with extreme violence. |
No! I have never lived in the East, but I have for over a quarter century been working with refugees from most parts of the world. That has given me some degree of insight into many cultures and many political situations, though admittedly second-hand. But I try to avoid making generalisations about nationalities; it so often causes offence.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | As for the judge not or be judged, well its sounds like bibliology doublespeak, taken froma religious book of myths, thats where most of these qotes come from, the sowing etc, take them with heaps of salt. |
Of course the Bible and scriptures of other religions are full of myths, but I was not quoting myths, rather sayings which are deeply embedded in western culture, no doubt as a result of Judao-Christian influence. You’ve used one yourself : "take them with heaps of salt."
I believe what I believe as a result of my own experiences, not because it is written in some ancient book which people revere. But, as a result of a Christian education, I am very familiar with biblical quotations. In my youth they were generally just words which had little meaning for me but today, after an experience which gives me insight into something, I frequently find an old biblical quotation suddenly comes to life and for the first time I feel I understand it. That leads me to the realisation that within scripture there is much wisdom, as well as undoubted dross.
Take this quotation for biblical dross:
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - 1 Samuel 15, 3
Here, according to the writer, we have the Almighty, urging the Israelites to commit genocide on the Amalekites. And why? What had the luckless Amalekites done wrong? They had resisted the Israelites’ coming into their land and taking it over. They were like the Palestinians of today.
IMO this is aggressive Israelite nationalism - not God's word at all. Why some people take the view that Scripture is infallible truth beats me. I think it’s just lazy thinking and an insatiable desire to have some certainty in life.
But I like myths. For me Carl Gustav Jung has shed a lot of light on the value of myths. They endure in our culture because each generation finds something to learn from them. They’re not only from ancient scriptures but also from fairy tales: Beauty and the Beast for example; and Hans Christian Anderson’s Ugly Duckling and his King’s New Clothes. I find lessons in these just as I find lessons in biblical myths such as Moses and the Burning Bush. But I don’t imagine these myths teach us historical truths, rather spiritual truths.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Perhaps we should have turned our cheeks when Hitler came a knocking at our door too? |
I find that the most difficult moral dilemma and if I had been born a few years earlier and had to have faced the choice for real I don’t know what I would have done. I think I would have supported the war effort in one way or another. But we shouldn’t have got into the situation of facing Hitler had the victorious powers not imposed vengeful levels of war reparations on Germany after WW1. This led to poverty in Germany and a determination to restore injured national pride.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Perhaps we should all turn our cheeks to 9/11 false flag, 7/7 etc, human chip implanting. |
No way! Resist it non-violently.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Whats my suggestion? well i cannot advocate any violence, theres new laws out now which can see you whisked to guantanamo bay and hooked up to the electrical genital machine for years for inciting terrorism. |
And that’s the only reason you don’t advocate violence - fear of having your balls electrocuted?
| Long Tooth wrote: | You have to wake up and get in the game. Why has authority continued to hold such a powerful grip on its official fairy stories? look at the strategy they use, when someone is percieved as a threat, publicy they ridicule you, it works, thats why they do it so succesfully. How many times have serious questions been ridiculed? you must employ the same tactics.
When i am attacked and ridiculed, i reply with facts, and then ridicule there theories, it soon quietens em down. |
I think it’s fine to ridicule the theory, but to ridicule the person is to stoop to their level. To win we need to hold the moral high-ground conspicuously. I will ridicule what Rachel says if and when she says something stupid or aggressive, but not make personal attacks on her.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | If you want to reach the masses, the saop watchers, you need some spice and heated debates, thats what grabs their attention. I would prefer a serious debate, but from experience i know thats not enough. Time for another of those quotes, fight fire with fire? |
No! We must fight it with water. To fight it with fire will only make matters worse. That’s the whole point of what I’m trying to get across here: we must find better tactics than those the Powers That Be use.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | or one for you, do unto others as they do unto you, not that i put much credence to bible myths or sayings, just pointing out the chery picking from such religious myths. |
I’m not sure why that one’s for me - unless you have me stereotyped as a religious nut-case. 
But was that a deliberate mistake? The Golden Rule is not as you say: "Do unto others as they do unto you," but "Do unto others as you would like them to do to you." And anyway it’s not Biblical but comes from the Rabbi Hillel, a first century BC Jewish scholar, I believe.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | from thousands of examples of things through history changing, where citizens rose up against government violence to change things, |
and you don’t cherry pick examples which support your case? 
| Long Tooth wrote: | you list two, King and Ghandi as using non violence, thats a different view from me, my understanding is the governments could see the increase in violence in the usa, incread riots, looting etc. India was the same, its just kept very well hidden the violence against the british, you cannot publicise these, for citizens joining the (insurgency) thats freedom fighters to any logical thinking person would mushroom.
perhaps you need a diffrent strategy to confront the Rachael Norths of this world? its seems pretty obvious to me that rational and calmness will get you nowhere with people of this Ilk, a vociferious and equally ridiculing of North would have cut of the bud at the truth conferences. |
I think not.
Remember the ridicule card, it works thats why they use it. By all means confront these people with calm rationale debating techniques, but put in the ridicule card with passion when and where its needed, you wouldant use your bow without posinious arrows where needed to take out a venemous opponent would you? or would you turn your other cheeks also?, where conventional arrows are not adequate, use a venemous one.
Perhaps its better to live like a lion for a day, rather than a lifetime as a sheep? for some people it seems living like a sheep for a lifetime is prefrable, thats their choice.[/quote]
It appears we disagree on what tactics are most effective. You posture that you think violence is the way to win, but you shrink from actually saying what kind of violence you think would be successful and worry that if you did use violence you might end up being tortured in Guantanamo Bay. So why not give serious consideration to an alternative to violence, since the neocons seem to have got you intimidated by their violence? By contrast I want to break the tit-for-tat cycle of violence which ultimately leads to war. Why not wholeheartedly embrace the alternative to violence: truth-power? You have nothing to lose.
Throughout this thread I have used the English expression "non-violence". Traditionally it is used to translate two Sanskrit words with distinctly different meanings. One of those words is ahimsa and the other, more relevant to us, is satyagraha. Satya = truth, graha = power. So the meaning of satyagraha is not so much "non-violence" as "the power of truth" or "truth-power". This is what I believe we should be using.
They commit appalling acts of violence and they blind us with lies. We cannot beat them at the game of violence and deceit. They control most of the weapons in the world, but non-violence and truth are powerful weapons which they lack. Let’s use them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
londonsound
Minor Poster
Joined: 24 Jan 2006
Posts: 66
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I admire MLk and Mahatma Gandhi and their peaceful philosophies deeply.
but every now and again i think, "hmmmm they both go shot! what does that tell me?"
m |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: Re: TO MODs relating to the publication of my name - importa |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: |
Felicity Jane Lowde, whose blog you link to, is a woman ( with apparent mental health issues) who has been convicted of harassment in a court and gone on the run to avoid sentencing. One of the ways she sought to attack me was by publishing my real name, getting it to appear on google searches - knowing that it could put me in danger from the rapist, as well as publishing mad lies about me to apparently try to trash my reputation ( though it is clear to anyone finding her site that she is disturbed).
|
Rachel,
Is there anyone who disagrees with you whom you do not consider disturbed? Over and over again you imply mental disturbance motivates anyone who doubts the veracity of either the UK government's version of what happened on 7/7 or the US government's version of what happened on 9/11. You do it by endlessly repeating your mantra of "conspiraloon, fruitloop, fruitbat," to describe us. You have cried "Wolf!" too often to be taken seriously.
Maybe this woman is mentally disturbed, but after making the same accusation about the 9/11 truth movement which involves hundreds of thousands all over the world, can you really expect us to take your word for it? By your own reckoning you are asking a favour of other disturbed people: us. Would you expect mentally disturbed people to oblige you, even though you have expended an enormous amount of your time and energy insulting them?
Or is there now some new psychiatric therapy: if people are disturbed, insult them?
Enjoy your honeymoon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| londonsound wrote: | I admire MLk and Mahatma Gandhi and their peaceful philosophies deeply.
but every now and again i think, "hmmmm they both go shot! what does that tell me?"
m |
Perhaps that non-violent action can generate casualties, but not half as many as violent action does? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Watcher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 200
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's ironic that fjl seems to share Rachel's disdain of the July 7th Truth Campaign! The spat seems to have arisen oven fjl's allegation that Rachel's motives for fronting the 7/7 survivors groups and campaigning for an independent inquiry may not be quite so altruistic as she claims.
Having reviewed many forum exchanges involving Rachel (a.k.a. Badger Kitten), my perception is that the only major disagreement between Rachel and the July 7th Truth Campaign is whether or not an independent inquiry should consider the possibility that the perpetrators of the London Bombings might have been person(s) unknown; i.e. person(s) other than those alleged by British Government, as expounded in the 7/7 Narrative.
Any objective observer examining these exchanges would (IMHO) conclude that Rachel has consistently adopted an excessively aggressive writing style in her defence of the OCT. The ferocity of her stance and her refusal to respond to specific questions is an interesting phenomenon ... but I readily acknowledge that this may be a symptom of PTSD. Another symptom could be the inability to perceive the possibility that there might be any other explanation for events, other than that which she maintains as her 'truth'; i.e. all else is delusion. A situation that can be exacerbated by many pharmaceuticals commonly prescribed for treating PTSD.
Anyone undertaking a web search for Felicity Jane Lowde, will find that she has been seriously stitched up on all the major search engines... all on the basis of being found guilty, on evidence presented by the CPS but without either the defendent or defence counsel being present. Call it a hunch but I'd hazzard a guess that there's way more to this saga than is currently in the public domain!
The Watcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| xmasdale wrote: | Hi Long Tooth
Thanks for this eloquent reply to my points. I was hoping to use the Rachel situation to stimulate some serious debate about what tactics we should be using to deal with 9/11 and false flag terrorism in general. The over all principles involved here are difficult ones which I’ve been struggling with most of my adult life and I don’t claim to have any definitive answers. The best I can do is to report how I have responded to these issues and, if that strikes a chord in others: good! If not: no matter. We agree to differ.
I’ll try to respond to each of your many points.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
It would appear we have different takes on past history, |
Doubtless, but maybe not as different as you suppose.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
you suggest india gained its independence from a peaceful front, also the black civil rights movement went down the same path, to me thats the official rewritten history version, i remember the street riots in the usa, it was apparant to the usa authorities that a civil war would insue and as such the government capitulated, as more people joined in the looting and burning. As for india violience against the british was rife, it just wasant fully reported. |
Where there are those who use non-violent means, there are also those who use violent means and the authorities worry that the violence will spread and become unmanageable. That often leads them to strike deals with the non-violent people. Of course people have a right to use violence in self-defence if violence is done to them, but the question facing us in general is whether violence is going to be helpful in achieving our objectives, even the mild form of violence which is responding to rudeness and ridicule in like manner.
And yes I’m aware of the differences between the US Black Civil Rights movement and the Black Power movement associated especially with Malcolm X, and of political violence in the US and in India, and of the Indian National Liberation army which allied itself with Japan during WW2. Appalling intercommunal violence also occurred at independence with the split from Pakistan, but did any of this violence do any good?
I’m not in a position to judge which was the greater factor in determining the outcome. It would be an almost impossible task to evaluate it statistically. Therefore we are left with our hunches only. Your hunches and mine would appear to differ here and I’m certainly not going to be dogmatic about mine.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
i can give hundreds of examples were turning your other cheeks would have got nowhere, remeber the mau mau, east africa, |
Yes, I’m long enough in the tooth too to remember that But I also remember that in Ghana, where violent struggle was much less of a factor so far as I can make out, independence was achieved earlier than in Kenya, in 1957 as opposed to 1963. So I don't find your example convincing that violence was the best course to take.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
if the africans had turned there cheecks the british would still be doing a japanese, how long must we endure the bridge over the river kwai where british were used as slaves? yet not one single sentance in official history of the british in Kenya doing the same to the indiginious poeples, theres hundreds of bridges of 'kwais' out there, same brutal methods. |
I don’t doubt the British were brutal, but I do doubt that a violent course was the only effective way to counter that brutality.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | The british could never hold India, as the pockets of violence were taking hold, the british cut their losses as they didant want a public lynching of british colonialism to spread. |
I agree that visions of the chaos which was likely to ensue if independence was postponed for any longer led to the sudden departure of the British. Chaos ensued anyway and I suspect that the divide and rule attitude of the British during the Raj had much to do with it.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | i do not know of anything changing without violence, |
Don’t you? You’re not aware of Poland’s Solidarity movement’s campaign for democracy in which only one person was killed? Nor of the Glorious Revolution in Britain where also only one person was killed? Nor of the non-violent movement in the Philipines which deposed the dictator Marcos and brought Cory Aquino to power as president? nor of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia? Nor of the fall of Communism in the USSR and the ending of apartheid in South Africa, both of which were largely non-violent struggles? Nor of the non-violent people’s protests which brought the elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, back to power after he had been deposed in a US sponsored coup? Nor of the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? I’m sure you must have heard of them.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | should the Viet Namese have just turned their other cheeks at the yanks? where would that have got them? |
I don’t know nearly enough about the situation in Vietnam to judge whether a non-violent solution would have been possible.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | While you are correct in your Karma anaology, i know from that statement you have never lived in the east for any lenght of time, take the thais, very very calm on the outside, do them a wrong and they turn into the most hate filled raging people i know, meeting non violence with extreme violence. |
No! I have never lived in the East, but I have for over a quarter century been working with refugees from most parts of the world. That has given me some degree of insight into many cultures and many political situations, though admittedly second-hand. But I try to avoid making generalisations about nationalities; it so often causes offence.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | As for the judge not or be judged, well its sounds like bibliology doublespeak, taken froma religious book of myths, thats where most of these qotes come from, the sowing etc, take them with heaps of salt. |
Of course the Bible and scriptures of other religions are full of myths, but I was not quoting myths, rather sayings which are deeply embedded in western culture, no doubt as a result of Judao-Christian influence. You’ve used one yourself : "take them with heaps of salt."
I believe what I believe as a result of my own experiences, not because it is written in some ancient book which people revere. But, as a result of a Christian education, I am very familiar with biblical quotations. In my youth they were generally just words which had little meaning for me but today, after an experience which gives me insight into something, I frequently find an old biblical quotation suddenly comes to life and for the first time I feel I understand it. That leads me to the realisation that within scripture there is much wisdom, as well as undoubted dross.
Take this quotation for biblical dross:
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - 1 Samuel 15, 3
Here, according to the writer, we have the Almighty, urging the Israelites to commit genocide on the Amalekites. And why? What had the luckless Amalekites done wrong? They had resisted the Israelites’ coming into their land and taking it over. They were like the Palestinians of today.
IMO this is aggressive Israelite nationalism - not God's word at all. Why some people take the view that Scripture is infallible truth beats me. I think it’s just lazy thinking and an insatiable desire to have some certainty in life.
But I like myths. For me Carl Gustav Jung has shed a lot of light on the value of myths. They endure in our culture because each generation finds something to learn from them. They’re not only from ancient scriptures but also from fairy tales: Beauty and the Beast for example; and Hans Christian Anderson’s Ugly Duckling and his King’s New Clothes. I find lessons in these just as I find lessons in biblical myths such as Moses and the Burning Bush. But I don’t imagine these myths teach us historical truths, rather spiritual truths.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Perhaps we should have turned our cheeks when Hitler came a knocking at our door too? |
I find that the most difficult moral dilemma and if I had been born a few years earlier and had to have faced the choice for real I don’t know what I would have done. I think I would have supported the war effort in one way or another. But we shouldn’t have got into the situation of facing Hitler had the victorious powers not imposed vengeful levels of war reparations on Germany after WW1. This led to poverty in Germany and a determination to restore injured national pride.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Perhaps we should all turn our cheeks to 9/11 false flag, 7/7 etc, human chip implanting. |
No way! Resist it non-violently.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Whats my suggestion? well i cannot advocate any violence, theres new laws out now which can see you whisked to guantanamo bay and hooked up to the electrical genital machine for years for inciting terrorism. |
And that’s the only reason you don’t advocate violence - fear of having your balls electrocuted?
| Long Tooth wrote: | You have to wake up and get in the game. Why has authority continued to hold such a powerful grip on its official fairy stories? look at the strategy they use, when someone is percieved as a threat, publicy they ridicule you, it works, thats why they do it so succesfully. How many times have serious questions been ridiculed? you must employ the same tactics.
When i am attacked and ridiculed, i reply with facts, and then ridicule there theories, it soon quietens em down. |
I think it’s fine to ridicule the theory, but to ridicule the person is to stoop to their level. To win we need to hold the moral high-ground conspicuously. I will ridicule what Rachel says if and when she says something stupid or aggressive, but not make personal attacks on her.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | If you want to reach the masses, the saop watchers, you need some spice and heated debates, thats what grabs their attention. I would prefer a serious debate, but from experience i know thats not enough. Time for another of those quotes, fight fire with fire? |
No! We must fight it with water. To fight it with fire will only make matters worse. That’s the whole point of what I’m trying to get across here: we must find better tactics than those the Powers That Be use.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | or one for you, do unto others as they do unto you, not that i put much credence to bible myths or sayings, just pointing out the chery picking from such religious myths. |
I’m not sure why that one’s for me - unless you have me stereotyped as a religious nut-case.
But was that a deliberate mistake? The Golden Rule is not as you say: "Do unto others as they do unto you," but "Do unto others as you would like them to do to you." And anyway it’s not Biblical but comes from the Rabbi Hillel, a first century BC Jewish scholar, I believe.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | from thousands of examples of things through history changing, where citizens rose up against government violence to change things, |
and you don’t cherry pick examples which support your case?
| Long Tooth wrote: | you list two, King and Ghandi as using non violence, thats a different view from me, my understanding is the governments could see the increase in violence in the usa, incread riots, looting etc. India was the same, its just kept very well hidden the violence against the british, you cannot publicise these, for citizens joining the (insurgency) thats freedom fighters to any logical thinking person would mushroom.
perhaps you need a diffrent strategy to confront the Rachael Norths of this world? its seems pretty obvious to me that rational and calmness will get you nowhere with people of this Ilk, a vociferious and equally ridiculing of North would have cut of the bud at the truth conferences. |
I think not.
Remember the ridicule card, it works thats why they use it. By all means confront these people with calm rationale debating techniques, but put in the ridicule card with passion when and where its needed, you wouldant use your bow without posinious arrows where needed to take out a venemous opponent would you? or would you turn your other cheeks also?, where conventional arrows are not adequate, use a venemous one.
Perhaps its better to live like a lion for a day, rather than a lifetime as a sheep? for some people it seems living like a sheep for a lifetime is prefrable, thats their choice. |
It appears we disagree on what tactics are most effective. You posture that you think violence is the way to win, but you shrink from actually saying what kind of violence you think would be successful and worry that if you did use violence you might end up being tortured in Guantanamo Bay. So why not give serious consideration to an alternative to violence, since the neocons seem to have got you intimidated by their violence? By contrast I want to break the tit-for-tat cycle of violence which ultimately leads to war. Why not wholeheartedly embrace the alternative to violence: truth-power? You have nothing to lose.
Throughout this thread I have used the English expression "non-violence". Traditionally it is used to translate two Sanskrit words with distinctly different meanings. One of those words is ahimsa and the other, more relevant to us, is satyagraha. Satya = truth, graha = power. So the meaning of satyagraha is not so much "non-violence" as "the power of truth" or "truth-power". This is what I believe we should be using.
They commit appalling acts of violence and they blind us with lies. We cannot beat them at the game of violence and deceit. They control most of the weapons in the world, but non-violence and truth are powerful weapons which they lack. Let’s use them.[/quote]
hi xmasdale, you make such excellent points in your reply, i must confess i am totally ignornant on the history of ghana, and would like to do some reading on that subject.
The muslim an hindu violence towards each other was abhorrent, i suspect that a few false flags were staged to ratchet up tensions between the communites, much the same in iraq today, and i agree that the violence between the two communites was misdirected, it should have been against the foreign occupational powers, ( the old tried and tested divide and rule), so i think we are agreeing there?
I must also confess to my lack of any real indepth knowledge about the solidarity movement in poland, or the other struggles in most of the countries you mention, however with Venezuela and the Phillipines my understanding of the situation is that the people had a large support of the military backing them. Did you see the documentary filmed during the Venezuela coup? almost the whole population of the city outside the parliment building, the atmosphere was people willing to lynch the coup leaders and all the generals inside if Chavez wasant brought back? although it was peaceful the threat of overwhelming violence was in the air, soldiers and generals loyal to chavez told the people of their support and this was relayed to the coup leaders inside the building, who duly surrendered and fled. The Phillipines also had a large backing of the military which i am led to believe helped the demonstrators reach there objectives.
I agree that non violent means can achieve something if there is enough people, (with violence as a back up, either with segments of the military as in venezuela and the Phillipines, or with groups such as those mentioned in India and the usa), but what happens when there's not enough of the masses to engage in a peaceful change in brutalistic ways?
I have just become so disillusioned with religion in general, to the point where i am a super cynic when i hear the bible,koran, torah etc, used, and i hope i did not, or have not offended you in my glib remarks, i do apologise if you have taken offense and will bite my tonge in future 
Be as flexible as bamboo in the wind, there is another saying in the East, which sadly i cannot remember, but the gist of it is be like bamboo, bending gracfully to resist violent forces to overcome and survive. I lived in south east asia for 6 years, and as another saying goes, the West can teach the East how to make a living, but the East must ultimatly teach the West how to live . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Watcher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 200
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Long Tooth & Xmasdale,
may I politely suggest that you start another thread if you wish to continue this particular discussion. An important debate for sure but not exactly relevant to the thread, eh?
Thank You for your consideration.
The Watcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Congratulations on your wedding Rachel.
I do apologise for shaking the tree somewhat but unfortunately i joined this forum after you had left and i feel we did not get a chance to debate the issues.
I must say as u know i have said in my previous posts that i think you have done really well and achieved alot despite the many hardships. Your campaign to have a proper and thorough investigation of the events surrounding 7/7 as well as the acts of mass murder that occured on the day is FULLY supported and welcomed by all on this forum.
However, Rachel, you must realise that it was not just 4 muslim guys who blew themselves and the innocent victims up. Many hands were involved. Over the last few months you must have had a chance to look at the evidence. I know you have suffered greatly and sometimes that makes it difficult to look objectively past all the rhetoric.
Please consider:
In 2004 an Israeli company called Verint was given the contract to manage the security of London underground although no tendering process appears to have been followed. This company has been found guilty of fraud in the USA and 3 of its directors have been charged with fraud offences. The parent company's shares have been suspended from NASDAQ. Why on the 7/7 did this company engage all it's staff in London on a drill and various exercises that involved exactly the same scenario of four bombers at the same four stations. It has over 1000 staff in London and why were they kept busy on this particular day? What are the odds on it being just a coincidence?
Why is there no cctv of any of the 4 bombers on the tube. You know they must have been photographed hundreds of times that day so where is this footage. There are alot of other problems with the conduct of the Israeli security company but many people in London like myself did not even realise that London Underground's security is handed by a foreign company and one that has such a bad reputation.
To keep this brief i will also simply ask you to consider the bus bomb. why was that bus the only bus diverted? What are the odds on that. Why does none of the passengers on the bus identify the bus bomber. Who was headband man and where did he appear from already bandaged BEFORE any ambulance had arrived and why did he not go to hospital instead he walked off with his collegues. Why did the bus cctv not work?
There are too many obvious holes in the official story and i know it is painful for you to consider that you have been lied to by the government. But you must also by now have realised that this Tony Blair government is the most crooked and evil administration in British history. Blair has declared war against all muslims. But all the evidence i have seen which is in the public domain points to 7/7 having been carried out by Mossad.
Rachel you were very impressive on newsnight and i know you are brave enough to ask those difficult questions. I just hope you allow yourself to look at the evidence with an open mind.
Good Luck
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
stelios69 said: | Quote: | | To keep this brief i will also simply ask you to consider the bus bomb. why was that bus the only bus diverted? What are the odds on that. Why does none of the passengers on the bus identify the bus bomber. Who was headband man and where did he appear from already bandaged BEFORE any ambulance had arrived and why did he not go to hospital instead he walked off with his collegues. Why did the bus cctv not work? |
The number 30 was not the only bus diverted. There are photos of a no.205 and a 390 ahead of it.
The headband man was covered in dust and most likely came from Russell Square. Ambulances were very late arriving at Russell Square.
The police said the CCTV did not work. It is not known if that is true or not.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Watcher wrote: | Hey Long Tooth & Xmasdale,
may I politely suggest that you start another thread if you wish to continue this particular discussion. An important debate for sure but not exactly relevant to the thread, eh?
Thank You for your consideration.
The Watcher |
Well the central point was that I disagreed with some posters who were advocating that we should be rude to Rachel because she has been rude to us. I disagreed with that argument because I feel to do so is simply to indulge in revenge - something which has no place in a peace movement. I believe this is the path that ups the anti and ultimately leads to war and that therefore as peace activists we should learn to behave in peace-promoting ways. Therefore I would be sorry if this discussion about how to deal with Rachel, lost the posts on the wider issue of what tactics are best for achieving our ends of 9/11 and 7/7 truth of which the Rachel issue is a relevant topical illustration.
You're not obliged to read our posts, Watcher, if they don't interest you. Perhaps the moderators could advise on how best to handle it, but I don't want to go off into a corner and have a one to one discussion with Long Tooth. I want our discussion to be public, educational and related to a particular issue which people are interested in. It surely can't be too much effort on your part to skip our posts on how violence, non-violence and truth-power within the 9/11 Truth Campaign relate to dealing with Rachel, if you don't want to read them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alkmyst
Moderate Poster
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 177
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stelios asked of Rachel:
| Quote: | | I just hope you allow yourself to look at the evidence with an open mind. |
Stelios, if you take some time time read through previous exchanges with Rachel you may begin to appreciate the magnitude of your request. Most of us are really quite relaxed that Rachel has her particular perspective of what actually transpired London on 7/7. That is not the issue.
The issue is more about the fact that she has adopted such an aggressive stance to the suggestion that every aspect of 7/7 should be reviewed by an Independent Public Enquiry; including the allegations that the bombs were carried onto the three trains and a bus by four disaffected British Muslims.
Every member of the July 7th Truth Campaign accepts and acknowledges the possibility that the official account (as per the Government Narrative - notwithstanding John Reid's admission that it contained a least one fundamental error!) is an accurate reflection of what occurred on that fateful day. Of course, we contest that the Narrative is not supported by the physical evidence; or at least not the physical evidence currently available in the public domain, which is why we strive to demand for a 'no holds barred' public Enquiry. The debate with Rachel really revolves around her call for an Enquiry which already accepts, de facto, the guilt of the four alleged perpetrators.
Meanwhile, Rachel's 'campaign' to solicit signatures for the on-line petition to Demand a Public Enquiry into the July 7th London Bombings must rank as one of the most pathetic, half-***ed efforts in the history of poltical campaigning. Despite Rachel's media profile and leadership of the Kings Cross united, the on-line campaign, which is linked from Rachel's blog, has amassed the staggering total of 1337 signatures. This ridiculously low number needs some explaining! Without a few zeros tagged on the back, its not exactly going to have either TB or GB sweating over public opinion, is it? There's something incongruous about a prolific, high profile campaigner seemingly accepting the fact that 1337 signatures is acceptable after almost two years of daily posts! I suspect more signatures could have been obtained from a single Saturday morning campaigning in Camden High Street!
I too wish Rachel every happiness in her marriage and would strenuously encourage her to stay away from her PC or the local internet cafe for the duration of her honeymoon. Otherwise, her first book Out of the Tunnel, which apparently addresses the challenges of dealing with PTSD, may be followed by Into the Void, a personal account of managing a debilitating addiction to cyberspace.
Al K Myst |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alkmyst wrote: | Stelios asked of Rachel:
| Quote: | | I just hope you allow yourself to look at the evidence with an open mind. |
Stelios, if you take some time time read through previous exchanges with Rachel you may begin to appreciate the magnitude of your request. Most of us are really quite relaxed that Rachel has her particular perspective of what actually transpired London on 7/7. That is not the issue. |
I don't think any harm is done by Stelios giving Rachel another chance to look at the evidence dispassionately. Some people in this campaign have been rude to her and have made unsubstantiated allegations about her in public. Such behaviour is bound to provoke.
But I agree with you, Alkmyst, that Rachel is a difficult person to deal with and there is a history to that which Stelios, as a relative newcomer, won't be aware of. But I'm meeting up with him tomorrow so we'll have a chance to chat about it.
| alkmyst wrote: | The issue is more about the fact that she has adopted such an aggressive stance to the suggestion that every aspect of 7/7 should be reviewed by an Independent Public Enquiry; including the allegations that the bombs were carried onto the three trains and a bus by four disaffected British Muslims.
Every member of the July 7th Truth Campaign accepts and acknowledges the possibility that the official account (as per the Government Narrative - notwithstanding John Reid's admission that it contained a least one fundamental error!) is an accurate reflection of what occurred on that fateful day. Of course, we contest that the Narrative is not supported by the physical evidence; or at least not the physical evidence currently available in the public domain, which is why we strive to demand for a 'no holds barred' public Enquiry. The debate with Rachel really revolves around her call for an Enquiry which already accepts, de facto, the guilt of the four alleged perpetrators. |
Yes, and she never explains why she accepts the official government line: that four men, are presumed guilty, without them or their families ever having a chance to prove their innocence. Why does Rachel support this travesty of justice? Instead of explaining, she simply sneers "conspiraloon, fruitbat, fruitloop" at anyone who argues that normal principles of British justice should apply in this case.
Nevertheless, we should remember that the "Jersey Girls" in the States found the process of demanding a 9/11 inquiry to be an extremely radicalising experience. We shall wait to see what effect it has on Rachel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: |
hi xmasdale, you make such excellent points in your reply, i must confess i am totally ignornant on the history of ghana, and would like to do some reading on that subject.
The muslim an hindu violence towards each other was abhorrent, i suspect that a few false flags were staged to ratchet up tensions between the communites, much the same in iraq today, and i agree that the violence between the two communites was misdirected, it should have been against the foreign occupational powers, ( the old tried and tested divide and rule), so i think we are agreeing there?
I must also confess to my lack of any real indepth knowledge about the solidarity movement in poland, or the other struggles in most of the countries you mention, however with Venezuela and the Phillipines my understanding of the situation is that the people had a large support of the military backing them. Did you see the documentary filmed during the Venezuela coup? |
No.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | almost the whole population of the city outside the parliment building, the atmosphere was people willing to lynch the coup leaders and all the generals inside if Chavez wasant brought back? although it was peaceful the threat of overwhelming violence was in the air, soldiers and generals loyal to chavez told the people of their support and this was relayed to the coup leaders inside the building, who duly surrendered and fled. The Phillipines also had a large backing of the military which i am led to believe helped the demonstrators reach there objectives. |
Well I did write in an earlier response to you:
"Where there are those who use non-violent means, there are also those who use violent means and the authorities worry that the violence will spread and become unmanageable. That often leads them to strike deals with the non-violent people."
'Those who use violent means' includes the military. I believe Aquino did a deal with a general (Ramos?) which neutralised the army from interfering, but essentially it was a people's democratic movement which brought her to power. I don't know too much about how Chavez got back into power, but again I believe it was primarily through people's non-violent action.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
I agree that non violent means can achieve something if there is enough people, (with violence as a back up, either with segments of the military as in venezuela and the Phillipines, or with groups such as those mentioned in India and the usa), but what happens when there's not enough of the masses to engage in a peaceful change in brutalistic ways? |
When there are not enough they don't succeed. Another way of looking at it is that they don't succeed until there are enough.
| Long Tooth wrote: | | I have just become so disillusioned with religion in general, to the point where i am a super cynic when i hear the bible,koran, torah etc, used, and i hope i did not, or have not offended you in my glib remarks, i do apologise if you have taken offense and will bite my tonge in future |
You haven't offended me in the least.
If you think religion is a load of nonsense, you should say so. Some time ago I would have agreed with you. Since I had a dramatic spiritual experience over 30 years ago now, I have changed my mind. And yet it is no so much "religion" as "sprirituality" I have come to respect. The word "religion" is so often used to mean dogma and telling people what to believe - as if anyone could believe something just because they were instructed to do so. I find the very concept absurd. I also find the concept of infallibility absurd, whether people apply it to the Pope, the Church, gurus, priests, scripture or to personal experience of the Universal Spirit. You will never find me saying something must be true because it is in the Bible/Q'ran/Talmud/Gita/Dhammapada etc.
| Long Tooth wrote: |
Be as flexible as bamboo in the wind, there is another saying in the East, which sadly i cannot remember, but the gist of it is be like bamboo, bending gracfully to resist violent forces to overcome and survive. I lived in south east asia for 6 years, and as another saying goes, the West can teach the East how to make a living, but the East must ultimatly teach the West how to live . |
An excellent little parable! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: TO MODs relating to the publication of my name - importa |
|
|
| xmasdale wrote: | | Rachel wrote: |
Felicity Jane Lowde, whose blog you link to, is a woman ( with apparent mental health issues) who has been convicted of harassment in a court and gone on the run to avoid sentencing. One of the ways she sought to attack me was by publishing my real name, getting it to appear on google searches - knowing that it could put me in danger from the rapist, as well as publishing mad lies about me to apparently try to trash my reputation ( though it is clear to anyone finding her site that she is disturbed).
|
Rachel,
Is there anyone who disagrees with you whom you do not consider disturbed? Over and over again you imply mental disturbance motivates anyone who doubts the veracity of either the UK government's version of what happened on 7/7 or the US government's version of what happened on 9/11. You do it by endlessly repeating your mantra of "conspiraloon, fruitloop, fruitbat," to describe us. You have cried "Wolf!" too often to be taken seriously.
Maybe this woman is mentally disturbed, but after making the same accusation about the 9/11 truth movement which involves hundreds of thousands all over the world, can you really expect us to take your word for it? By your own reckoning you are asking a favour of other disturbed people: us. Would you expect mentally disturbed people to oblige you, even though you have expended an enormous amount of your time and energy insulting them?
Or is there now some new psychiatric therapy: if people are disturbed, insult them?
Enjoy your honeymoon. |
FJL is now in prison, after being captured by police following her conviction for harassment and her going on the run to escape sentencing.
The Judge has ordered full psychiatric reports to be prepared before she is sentenced at the end of June. She is not to be bailed.
You will therefore soon be able to see whether she is disturbed or not for yourselves. The Judge certainly seems to think there is a strong possibility of it.
Perhaps you will think the Judge part of a conspiracy. It wouldn't surprise me. However, legally proven convictions are legally proven convictions and prison is prison and psychiatric evaluations should present incontrovertible evidence of whether Lowde is ill, or just malicious. I hope if she is ill that she gets treatement. After a year of harassment I just want her to be banned from ever contacting me or her other numerous victims, again.
Perhaps your site mods will now remove the link which breaks my anonymity, as previously explained and requested, out of common decency and in order that this site does not continue one of the ways the harasser sought to harass me, now she is in jail? Breaching my anonymity is illegal under the Sexual Offences Act. It was, as I said, one of the ways Lowde sought to harass me.
I've made my point, I've asked you to help, and I will leave it to you as to whether you think you are able to . Your response will be interesting. Your call. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
