Rachel from N.London on Alex Cox's Forum

[brian]

My right to reply.

Rachel, you now not only accuse me of attacking you, you also put me as a potential suspect of abusing and threatening you. That is completely out of order.

You use quotes of mine to illustrate my supposed attacks -

brian wrote:
Is Rachel more to be pitied than pilloried?

Is she a perhaps too emotionally disturbed by her experience to face the facts and also driven by a desire for the limelight?

It seem to me that she may be emotionally disturbed and unable to face the clear possibility that her trauma was not the result of muslim extremist ...
-----

You may not like what I say there, it may even be well off the mark, but it is a hell of a lot kinder and more rational way of attempting to explain your inexplicable behaviour than your blanket classification of anyone questioning the official line as conspiraloons etc.

Your second quote -

brian wrote:
Any objective person reading the recent posts could only conclude that Rachel, whatever her motive, is the one behaving in the manner she attributes to others. Her posts are nothing more than vitriol, obfuscation and downright malice.
She has no interest whatsoever in the facts of the matter, her tiresome repetition of some accusations made against her from other sources is all she repeatedly offers - this ad nauseum.
Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of your contibutions.
----------

I stand by every word of it.

Rachel, you have set yourself up as one leading the call for an inquiry yet your attitude towards those with what should be a common objective is astounding. I am not familiar with what you have had to put up with elsewhere so perhaps your feeling persecuted is understandable, I dont know, but what I gather from this thread is that the main thrust has been the need for the truth to come out. Your apparent aversion to that has led to frustration and tension which you choose to perceive as hostility and personal abuse.

Why pretend the huge questions surrounding the bombings do not exist or are of no significance. You say you have addressed some of them, can you show me where?

Do you still want a 911 type inquiry after reading? Dr Griffins 571 page lie?

[Rachel]

Brian, I do not know who has been leaving anonymous abuse and threats.

I note that there have been 25 pages of personal attacks on me here, and I quoted some of them in my last post.

I note the anonymous attacks started the same time as this thread, and the attackers describe themselves as interested in ''7/7 and 9/11 truth''. The attacks and comments have got progressively worse. They call me liar, as do people on this thread. They call me shill, as do people on this thread. They say the bombers are innocent, as so people on this thread. They say they wish I would die, or kill myself, be poisoned, wish I had been blown up, that I deserve to die. Nobody on this thread has publicly said that. But these are anonymous threats and go much further.

I have not found anywhere else but here and Alex cox's forum where allegations of liar and shill and worse are made. Therefore I am concerned, and I pass the matter to the authorities. I've also made people here aware of my concerns and hoped they do something to disassociate themselves from such behaviour, which they have done, and I think that is fair on both parts.

I do not think we will get anywhere asking for a Bloody Sunday style lengthy and expensive enquiry ( seven years and many billions of pounds). I personally think the 4 bombers did it; what I am interested in is learnings and I've explained all this already, many times, here and on my blog, so will not write it out again. I think the 9/11 report is quite good, and so do other survivors who have spoken about it.

20 of us went to see the Home Secretary, a meeting I set up at which everyone had the opportunity to speak. I am trying to pass on all the media contacts I have had over the last year via my blog to many more survivors and bereaved so as many voices as possible can be heard. I always pass on media contacts, but most peple are watry of speaking out - and after my expoeriences I can see why. Personally, I am fed up and disturbed by the abuse and the attacks on me. It is not MY campaign, it is many people's vioces speaking out and I am one of them. If the consensus is a 9/11 style report, I'll back it. Most people do not think 9/11 or 7/7 was an inside job, remember. I daresay the things you raise such as which train etc will be raised in the enquiry. But I am fed up of the personal abuse I get here for holding a perfectly reasonable view which is that I think I was suicide bombed, and I think the police are not lying to me when they tell me by whom.

I trust them far more than a bunch of strangers who have attacked me on a personal basis for pages and pages , who have no evidence to support their claims and nothing to do with the investigation.

[Rachel]

[brian]

Rachel, fair enough, I accept that there have been personal attacks on you but my "you choose to perceive " was in relation to the general, not the particular.

An example of you "choosing" in the particular would be you pointing out I called you disturbed. If it was accompanied by "emotionally" as it was in context, referring to a victim of a bombing, it can be seen in another light. It was also accompanied by my pointing to your obvious intelligence making it difficult to understand your aversion to some of the blatant facts if not emotional.

There are those here with much more information and knowledge of the anomolies surrounding the bombings than myself so I am not surprised at a degree of frustration with yourself when you treat them in the manner you do. Your being in a postion to raise these very serious questions yet showing little more than contempt for them is also understandably troubling.

All this gets us nowhere. If you are serious about getting a meaningful inquiry then there are those here better equipped than myself that could help achieve that so why not call a truce and ask for their input?

Conspiracy theory only arises when questions that need answering are not and there are questions aplenty that have not been answered or have been inadequately answered. A 911 type inquiry would give few here little hope they ever will.

You are in a position now to make a meaningful contribution to having these questions highlighted if not addressed (The Jersey Girls). My hope, and most here I imagine will agree, is that you make the best of this opportunity - it wont come again.

[ian neal]

Rachel

You need to clearly distinquish between the comments on this thread (some of which have been regretable) and the alleged death threats you speak of.

I could go to places on the web where you have posted comments about 'us' (all of 'us' colllectively) which have been abusive and hostile. What it has not been is personal, since until recently you prefer to attack us collectively as 'you' and 'them' rather than specific individuals. I object to being called delusional, a conspiraloon and associated with anti-semiticism, just as much as you object to labels such as shill and spook.

We understand what you have to say. If you are going to write an exciting story about this subject for your media buddies, be sure to get your facts straight and to point them in my direction if they want an alternative perspective. In particular take care not to repeat your evidence free accusations that this website and the people behind it are in anyway connected to the alleged death threats you say you have received.

So let's draw a line on this circular debate.

Unless you are willing to engage in the substance of what we disagree about, such as the nature and terms of reference of the inquiry and questions like this

"Do you no longer consider it a possibility that MI5 may be in some way connected to July 7 and that this is of relevence to any inquiry?"

then you have nothing add and both 'sides' should consider the line well and truly drawn. Bye

[Rachel]

Brian, I do not know who has been leaving anonymous abuse and threats.

[Pikey]

I hope that the Police identify those responsible for the serious allegations you have made on this website forum Rachel and that they find the content on these 25 pages of interest and useful in their investigation.

If it is a crime subject to imprisonment to be abusive, make slanderous and defamatory remarks against fellow humans then if I were you Rachel I would be worried! Just read many of your blogs on these 25 pages they are absolute poison!

On the 26/5/ Rachel states:-

[kbo234]

[Prole]

Sorry to have to do this folks as it is too tedious for words, but there are at least three sides to every story :

Rachel, I stand by every word I have ever written. I have never been abusive towards you, nor made threats of violence, nor questioned your mental health, merely stated facts and asked questions. Whereas you on the other hand have posted as Badger Kitten (BK) on Urban75 the following abusive, threatening amd defamatory statements aimed at me, 9/11ers and J7ers.

[Abandoned Ego]

Is exactly WHY anyone within this movement would wish to attack you ?

You have been a victim of a horrendous crime. There isnt a single person on this forum who would suggest otherwise.

So how can you suggest that anyone here would intend you harm ?

What, in your opinion would be their motive ?

[paul wright]

[Belinda]

Thanks Prole for doing the donkey-work and yes DH, there's no way forward with this so let's cut it here.

OK everybody?

[numeral]

On Wed May 24, 2006 6:24 pm on page 22 of this thread Rachel posted:

[prole art threat]

http://www.lonelantern.org/london_terror_drills.html

[ian neal]

I've decided to lock this thread, because it serves no one's purpose to keep repeating these accusations and counter accusations and the same circular arguments.

If anyone feels strongly about this please PM

Thanks