Stop blaming Al-Qaeda on the London Bombings!

Have any of the people who were quick to negate this post actually watched the documentary. If you did you would probably see things a little diffrent. Were not goign to win a war on terro if we are fighting a group that dosn't exist. I do admit that the extremist do exist but why don't we go after them instead of an an orgnization that dosn't exist. I'm really pissed how bin laden saw how the west gave him an orgnization and ran with it. After watching this video i am really disgusted with this whole process. Terrorism has been around since the dawn of man and it's not going to go anywhere no matter how many couintries we invade. All were goig nto do is piss of the wrong country like Iran or N.Korea. With all the lies this is really starting to mirro WWII

Originally posted by eudaimonia
When are we going to start asking serious questions? If you're tuning to CNN, MSNBC, FOX for these types of questions, I suggest you turn off your TV now.

Brain dead masses being led by brain dead whores.

Qui Bono?

Who benefits?

Considering the fact that Bush's poll numbers have been tanking, the war in Iraq is utter chaos, the Brits were planning to pull out of Iraq, that pesky Downing Street memo just won't seem to go away and his main man Karl Rove is about to be indicted for perjery and/or treason, this gutless attack only benefits BushCo. WAKE UP PEOPLE! See this for what it is. Sheer desperation!

Originally posted by Netchicken
The best chances seem to come from 3 they found that hadn't exploded, as they may have prints and dna on them.

ONly luck will see a breakthrough soon.

Do any of these 3 unexploded devices still exist? Yesterday the news was talking about controlled explosions, so I assumed all devices were already detonated. It's difficult to keep track of everything.

I watched Ian Blair talk at a press conference this AM and got no indicatiion of unexploded devices. It was pointed out that the devices were approximately 10 pounds in weight.

If they do exist, then they could hold a wealth of information.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Brain dead masses being led by brain dead whores.

Qui Bono?

Who benefits?

Considering the fact that Bush's poll numbers have been tanking, the war in Iraq is utter chaos, the Brits were planning to pull out of Iraq, that pesky Downing Street memo just won't seem to go away and his main man Karl Rove is about to be indicted for perjery and/or treason, this gutless attack only benefits BushCo. WAKE UP PEOPLE! See this for what it is. Sheer desperation!

So the hundreds of terrorists attacks before people even knew about Geroge W......those were also set planned and carried out by BushCo.?

by ECK
Considering the fact that Bush's poll numbers have been tanking,

Totally untrue. You want to see poor ratings, look at Chirac's.

President Bush Job Approval
Friday July 08, 2005--Fifty-one percent (51%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. This is just the third time his Approval Rating has topped 50% since June 10. It remains to be seen whether this improvement reflects lasting change or is merely statistical noise.
www.rasmussenreports.com...

this gutless attack only benefits BushCo. WAKE UP PEOPLE! See this for what it is. Sheer desperation!

So you're accusing Bush of pulling the London bombings off? Here's your least favorite two words, ECK:
PROVE IT.


EDIT to add link

[edit on 8-7-2005 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
So you're accusing Bush of pulling the London bombings off? Here's your least favorite two words, ECK:
PROVE IT.

Prove that he didnt.

Ring a ring a roses...

Controlled explosions = suspect packages. No reliable reports of any unexploded bombs at all. Maybe on Fox but not in the real world!

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Prove that he didnt.

Ring a ring a roses...

You ever been to court? I doubt it. Else you'd see the flaw in your "logic".

Originally posted by CTID56092
Controlled explosions = suspect packages. No reliable reports of any unexploded bombs at all. Maybe on Fox but not in the real world!

Well, maybe that's where Netchicken got his info. You'll have to ask him.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Prove that he didnt.

Ring a ring a roses...

You ever been to court? I doubt it. Else you'd see the flaw in your "logic".

Interestingly, in the current climate, certain elements wish to shift the burden of proof to the defendant, hence my statement may be valid, I don't know.

Well, in that case, your statement would be correct. But that would be illogical, since you can't prove a negative.

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Well, in a few days here I'll be in Iraq, and ya'll can call me the "Great Satan" for actually helping out with reality, and not just sit behind my computer in my comfortable middle-class American home criticizing the world. Seriously, get out and get into the sun a little - it might help.

As for me, I'll be out there dealing with the real threat. The threat of terrorism, the threat of hatred, and the threat of fundamentalists. As for ya'll here, rest assured that there are those of us willing to make the sacrifices necessary so that ya'll can sit back and criticize.

In conclusion, "You're Welcome".

Need I remind you that some of us have already been there and done that?

So, you're welcome.

1st Lieutenant David M. O'Connor, USMC. aka wD

Hope you get through it safe, David

Sorry Becky, should have added that my main point is that both sides scream at the other for proof, but neither can produce said proof, so it ends up being more a question of faith (or instinct in my case) as to which side you land on.

Al Qaeda or not, here's what we can understand about the London Bombings:

-> They were relatively synchronized, requiring a high degree of coordination
-> They required at a minimum 6 people, 5 for each blast and 1 for the synchronization, control
-> They required radios, or cellphones to coordinate
-> They required personnel who wouldn't draw much attention, so a careful study of the 'accepted' appearance of individuals would have been done
-> They would have been rehearsing this on a daily basis for several weeks
-> They would require access to chemicals for the explosive making
-> They would have required a centralized location for assembling all of the bombs (distributed locations would be bad: no way to coordinate quality, what if 1 is compromised, etc)

With all of this analysis, I can say that:

(1) It may (or may not be) A.Q.
(2) It could be the IRA (Irish Republican Army).
(3) It could be a British anti-war faction pissed over the Downing Street Memo.

How we can tell who it was is going to be a factor of understanding the chemical signature of the explosives, as crude explosives lead us to believe that this was an unorganized effort. Yet, combined with the data concerning the attack logistics: how effectively placed, where, when and how, we can develop a picture and begin to narrow out the candidates who wouldn't have had the experience, materials or abilities to pull of this attack.

Not the same at all. When someone says something like "Bush did it", then thay have make an accusation, a charge. Bush is then the defendant, and it is up to those who made the claim (ECK) to prove Bush's guilt.

Making wild-ass assertations based on disconnected facts is disinfo.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not the same at all. When someone says something like "Bush did it", then thay have make an accusation, a charge. Bush is then the defendant, and it is up to those who made the claim (ECK) to prove Bush's guilt.

Making wild-ass assertations based on disconnected facts is disinfo.

I agree with you about saying "Bush did it" etc.. I do not believe the official line at all, but that does not mean one can get away with pointing fingers at individuals, because to say that so-and-so did it, is speculation of which there is an awful lot at the moment.
However, people have the right to say to someone, I don't believe you. I say this based purely on my instinct. I have no proof, but that does not mean I am to be dissuaded by people telling me my feelings are absurd or less valid because I cannot produce said proof. It's what I believe.

another from the other side:

so what that our government might have given the group a name by which to focus it's energies?

from what i can gather, Osama never named the group himself, nor did i ever hear of his followers naming the group, but in order to keep things nice and documented, maybe those seeking them went ahead and categorized Osama's men by association with a name. maybe not much different than the news media naming a killer by his MO?

it does not necessarily follow that the organization does not exist or that it is not everything it is described to be or that the man is not everything he is described to be, just because someone else gave them the name they are most widely known by.

Originally posted by eudaimonia
The Al-Qaeda Organization does not exist, it's all a big lie.

Oh gaaaaaawd!

Hey folks, the simple fact is that radical muslim terrorists DO exhist.
They are VERY dangerous (9/11, Bali, Spain rail hits, London yesterday,
etc.). I pity the youth who refuse to see the truth of the matter.
I hope you live long enough, (that the terrorists don't cut your life
short) so you will see the error of this belief and be able to help rid the
world of these terrorists.

Read up on Wahabbism. That's a good start.
Then move on to the quotes from UBL himself
and the Pakistan president on Al-Qaeda. The
people of Afghanastan and Hamid Karzi also
have made very strong statements about the
reality of Al-Qaeda and what they were doing
in Afghanastan.


[edit on 7/8/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by jsobecky

by ECK
Considering the fact that Bush's poll numbers have been tanking,

Totally untrue. You want to see poor ratings, look at Chirac's.

gindy.blogspot.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.scoop.agonist.org...

YEP. Chirac is VERY unpopular. Hey .. and didn't he just dis'
Britain?? Complain about their food and everything? Say they were
'the worst next to Denmark (or whatever)'. And he is very upset that
Paris didn't get the Olympics, but London did. That interrupts his plan
to try to make France the center of the world and relevant. Yep ...
musta' been Chirac. Heck, why not? The anti-bush folks use that
kind of logic to 'make a case' against Bush all the time.

For those who just looooooooove to say 'Bush did it' ... they guy is
a lame duck president who no longer cares if he is 'popular' or not.
He can't run again. To claim that he had the bombs set off in London ...
well ... that is just silly.

Here is a novel idea ... place the blame where it belongs .. on the
radical muslim terrorists.

In today's (London) Guardian, Robin Cook MP has a column in which he says:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.