It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

London Bombings

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I have just been reading that the G8 summit isn't going to focus on the African aid crisis and climate control anymore. They are just going to concentrate on the war on terrorism. Do you think these bombings were an inside job in order to keep up the war on terror and so that Bush does not have to send money to Africa and can keep polluting like crazy?

When MSNBC pulled away they showed the time in london and it was exactly 9:11, a kind or weird feeling. This is very convenient for Bush and Blair because they can now get rid of all the crap they don't want to do and Rove can get out of the light from the investigation.

I felt they wanted an escape from this African business for a while, looks like they managed to get one. What are some of your viewpoints and ideas? I am just theorizing here so no need to get crazy. We should have known that the whole business about helping Africa and the environment was bull. I do agree that they should talk about the terror issues but putting everything else aside is a shame. We have been concentrating on terrorism for many years now, lets try and focus on other issues as well.




posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
good point.
something i hadn't thought about. it would make for a nice way to shift focus to what they may realy want to accomplish.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
If the government can keep aliens a secret in Area 51 for 50 years then surely they can keep what they talked about in a meeting a secret. All they needed to do was tell people they talked about debt relief but really talk about the war on terror.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Look I don't like the Bush administration, but I highly doubt that they organized terror attacks in the UK. If they were going to do it, why so small?

I they were capable, as people say, of pulling off 9-11, then why wouldn't they organize an attack that killed thousands, or tens of thousands.

I understand that people don't like George Bush, but blaiming every terrorist attack on him is a little far fetched.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Maybe this means that they get to keep their bases in Central Asia?
At least for a longer time....

ATS: SCO Demands US And Its Allies To Name A Date To Leave Central Asia



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Interesting. Over the last couple of hours I have been engaged in a conversation with others about the events of today where we postulated that the crux of this G8 will now veer from the Kyoto protocol and the African aid to Bush's favourite topic; the war on his terror. Then I read the post of this thread.

There is much in today's events that stands out for me after switching between the BBC, and various U.S and Canadian news stations:

They, all like dominoes, declared the purpose of the bombings not to be for the purpose of inflicting mass damage. Now why would an operation like Al Qaeda care about little damage? The worse the damage such a non-national can inflict upon a mighty nation, the higher the regard they will receive.

They all launched into increased security, either alerts or monitoring.

They all started touting national identification as though a concerted effort of a campaign was launched.

But last, and most definitely not least, when Blair stood in front of the other G8 members and made his speach, Bush stood behind him to his right in a position that sent chills up my spine. The man stood with legs apart, hands in a semi-fist position, head back, face clenched, face stern, his eyes darting left and right as if he were pondering of the audience: what do they know?

Prior to this I watched our very shaken prime minister deliver a statement to Canadians, with body language as though he was caught by surprise, either actually unnerved or issuing a statement with a gun to his head.

It is at this present time that I realise and acquiesce that Canada must now exponentially increase its commitment to military development, not for the purpose of complementing our neighbour to the south, but to provide defence against it.





[edit on 7/7/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   


But last, and most definitely not least, when Blair stood in front of the other G8 members and made his speech, Bush stood behind him to his right in a position that sent chills up my spine. The man stood with legs apart, hands in a semi-fist position, head back, face clenched, face stern, his eyes darting left and right as if he were pondering of the audience: what do they know?


What position would you prefer the leader of the free world to assume? The fetal position?

You really shouldn't put thoughts into the mind of the President of the United States. If the world now knows anything, it is that GW Bush is not to be trifled with. I like that.

[edit on 2005/7/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpottWhat position would you prefer the leader of the free world to assume? The fetal position?
I would prefer him to presume of one respect; support; understanding, not one that reminds me of the SS, which is obviously for you the fetal position.


You really shouldn't put thoughts into the mind of the President of the United States. If the world now know anything, it is that GW Bush is not to be trifled with. I like that.
Silly boy! how is it possible for me to put a thought into the mind of a man who has not the ability to absorb a thought? And frankly do I care about your president of your united states? The answer is emphatically; No!



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

What position would you prefer the leader of the free world to assume? The fetal position?
One other thing...Did the free world vote on a leader at some point, and I missed same?



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Silly boy!


You may refer to your drag queen friends as "silly boy," but in this context you are way off base. To avoid the wrath of the moderators, I will refrain from calling you what you are here on the board. Let us just say, SomewhereinBetween, that if you were to get to within arms length of me, you'd be somewhere in the middle of next week. It's easy to be "cute" on a bulletin board. Perhaps you should learn to assume a position of respect before you go spouting off about the President or other board members.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Silly boy!


You may refer to your drag queen friends as "silly boy," but in this context you are way off base.
Good Lord! muster up something more than a sophomoric response.


To avoid the wrath of the moderators, I will refrain from calling you what you are here on the board. Let us just say, SomewhereinBetween, that if you were to get to within arms length of me, you'd be somewhere in the middle of next week.
First things first. I care not one wit what offends the moderators, so as far as I am concerned, feel free to speak your mind and call me whatever insipid and off-colour name comes to your mind, I get a kick out of how easy it is set my opponent off balance.


It's easy to be "cute" on a bulletin board. Perhaps you should learn to assume a position of respect before you go spouting off about the President or other board members.
A threat? you will do what exactly, punch my fonts out as you hide behind a monitor? This is manly no? Just state what it is you would like to do in order to feel as though you can exact revenge for your inability to respond to my initial post with any semblance of credulity, philpott.





[edit on 7/7/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Why we will never win the war on terror


In the wake of the London attacks today, somebody started a thread on another MB.

I posted there. There's an unconfirmed report that some of those involved were recently released from Guantanamo Bay.

Well, that went over like a lead balloon.

It was met by a bunch of posts from pacifist types who say that torture of any kind is unacceptable.

While I agree with this- IN GENERAL- these people continue to miss the point.

While we are getting all worked up as the liberals, Amnesty International and human rights groups all over the world- and even some senators from right here at home- complain that we are "mistreating" the terrorists at Guantanamo (and Abu Ghraib- remember that bullsheet?), the TERRORISTS continue to wreak havoc and take innocent lives.

We make them sleep naked. They capture innocents and behead them on the Internet.

We toss the Koran in the toilet. They kill and maim women and children without hesitation.

We deprive them of sleep. The deprive us of our lives.

What was posted on that other MB is an accurate microcosm of the mainstream liberal society. That we can't "torture" them. Torture? Making them stay awake for 24 hours is torture? Well, then, I get tortured every fourth night. I don't get any sleep when I'm on call.

What is "torture?" How does it differ from "mistreatment?" I don't pretend to know, but I don't consider torture to be sleep deprivation. I don't consider it to be photographed naked. I don't consider it not getting three square meals a day. That might be "mistreatment", but it is certainly not torture.

Want to see torture? Watch people jump from the top of a 107 story building when they realize there is no way out. Watch them stumble out of subways with their arms and legs hanging off. Imagine a horrifeid group of passengers on a jet as it careens towards a skyscraper at some 600 miles per hour. Watch how people suffer after a dirty bomb is detonated. THAT'S torture.

If the Muslims tossed the Bible into the garbage and pissed all over it, would any American scream that they were tortured? I think not.

Here's the point- these people are SWORN TO KILL US. By any means necessary. Including torture of the most heinous kind. But we continue to tie the hands of our interrogators, of our troops, all the while the terrorists strike without fear of retribution from thier own ranks. In fact, they are martyred if they give their lives killing the "infidels." Women, children, no one is off limits to them. Not Americans, not Brits, not Aussies, not Spaniards, no one. We're all fair game.

But God forbid if we make them sleep naked. We go to jail for that. God forbid we desecrate the Koran. We get tossed in jail for that, too.

For God's sake, WAKE UP! What's it gonna take for the pacifists to understand? 1000 lives? 3000 lives? 1,000,000 lives? An unihabitable city? Country? WHAT DOES IT TAKE?

WE should not torture them. We should not mistreat them.

We should KILL THEM. ALL OF THEM. BEFORE THEY KILL OR ENSLVAE ALL OF US!

Righteousness gets you nothing. If we lose this war- and we're well on our way to taking a butt thumping of the worst possible kind- will they show mercy on us? Will they spare us? Will they respect our way of life?

NO, NO and NO.

Finally, I relate the story of General John "Black Jack" Pershing during World War I. It is an interesting tale.

During WWI, in the Phillipine Islands, there was an outbreak of terror attacks by Muslim extremists.

Pershing rounded up 50 terrorists and put them in front of a firing squad.

But before the troops fired on them, he had them butcher two pigs in front of them. Swine are the unholiest of animals in Islam. They are considered filthy animals, and contact with them supposedly gets you sent to Muslim Hell. No virgins, nor martyrdom, nothing.

Pershing then had his troops soak thier bullets in the pig blood. He then executed 49 of the 50 terrorists, tossed their bodies in a community grave, and had his troops toss the pig remains upon them.

He made one terrorist watch all this. He then let him go free.

There was not another Muslim extremist attack IN THE WORLD for another 42 years.

Draw your own conclusions. Then, maybe you will WAKE UP!





[edit on 8-7-2005 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
SomewhereinBetween

Right now, the hearts of the American people are at one with Britain in your tragedy. If I were you, I wouldn't try to undertake a one-man (if that's the right word) campaign to end that. Get a grip. Everything will be alright. GW and America had nothing to do with today's bombing and we'll be there to help out your nation just as we did throughout the 20th century.

Here's a man with the right idea. Take note.



news.com.com...


[edit on 2005/7/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
gee whiz.

affective vs effective.

who cares?

if you want results, you need action.

in my mind, london bombings are mis-direction in simplest form.

anyone can get what they want.

the powers that be, may just use a little c-4 once and a while.

lets wait for the forensics of those unexploded ornamints.


ps. bush has no spine.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Just state what it is you would like to do in order to feel as though you can exact revenge for your inability to respond to my initial post with any semblance of credulity, philpott.



Credulity?

Definition: [n] tendency to believe readily


Sounds like the new motto here should be, Deny Credulity!!!


Both of you need to lay off the rhetoric and come back on topic.

I think it's ridiculous to blame Bush and Blair for this. It seems obvious that this was an attack by terrorists.

If Bush and Blair had the power you think they do, they wouldn't even bother with pretense. They would just take over.


Anyway not sure what you're getting at there avenger, what exactly did that have to do with the london bombings?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by baaronhaile

ps. bush has no spine.



Ask Saddam and the Taliban about that. They might say it, but they know better. The 9/11 attacks happened because bin Laden and al-Qaeda thought America had no spine. George W. Bush, for the first time in too long, demonstrated otherwise.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
The post and story by TheAvenger is an urban legend with absolutely no proof to back it up.




There are no documented accounts of these events ever happening in the Philippines or anywhere else in 1911 or at any other time. Even experts who have studied "Black Jack" have no record of it. Pershing biographer, Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, told Urban Legends expert, David Emery, that he has found no historical account of such a strategy and feels that such actions would run counter to what is know of Pershing's character.


Source 1


Several more sources with either say its undetermined if any of the events happened at all, if they were blown out of context or if they never happened at all.


Its a popular chain email.





posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
SomewhereinBetween

Right now, the hearts of the American people are one with Britain in their tragedy. If I were you, I wouldn't try to undertake a one-man (if that's the right word) campaign to end that.
Typical testosterone induced response; incite puglisim first, then on second response consider the possibility that machismo was overdoing it a bit. If I were me? Another threat? What exactly do you think you can do to silence me? I have untold number of platforms within which to make my statements. Well I am me philpott, and I have made a statement to which I see nothing but boyish bravado and hollow threats in response, so I await a somewhat plausible intelligent rebuttal from you. How much time do you need to formulate one, a month, year, never?


GW and America had nothing to do with today's bombing and we'll be there to help out your nation just as we did throughout the 20th century.
Help us from whom GW?


Here's a man with the right idea.
Now that is an oxymoron if I ever read one. I leave it up to you to figure out what I mean.

When you ar eready to set aside your bruised ego and have a real dialogue, let me know.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I saw this over and over when it happened, the news pounding the idea that this was surely a "terrorist act." Is this some sort of scare tactic.

"We must ban together to stop terrorism. Good now, we've got to make some more changes to the laws to keep us all 'safe'. Ha ha, now we got you, you are under our controll now." Is this what is happening?

Troy



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Well I am me philpott, and I have made a statement to which I see nothing but boyish bravado and hollow threats in response, so I await a somewhat plausible intelligent rebuttal from you. How much time do you need to formulate one, a month, year, never?



I don't think I owe you a rebuttal, intelligent or otherwise. You haven't made one coherent remark, yet. You're just a troll. People like you are a dime a dozen. Take a Midol and get some sleep. Tomorrow's a new day.







 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join