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.

 

Fun and games with UK's big brother

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Hmm,so now we have direct evidence that the authorites knew exactly what was going on before 77,and yet they still did nothing to prevent it.
Is it any wonder that the government wishes to prevent an independent inquiry...
Well guess what government-as the inquiry will be independent,you have absolutely NO SAY in weather or not it will take place.
But WHEN the inquiry takes place,the government will obviously do anything to stop the truth getting out,withhold evidence,D notice,etc.
There is far too much evidence in the public domain to stop an inquiry.
Mr Khan features in Alex jones latest film,in that now famous fox news clip.He is described as being "on the payroll"of UK intel agencies!He is spirited out of America,avoiding terrorist charges,sent back to britain,under the wing of M16...
Surely this fact alone is more than enough of a reason for a proper inquiry.

The inquiry will happen.Fact.




posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Synapse,

I agree wholeheartedly that there is more than enough by way of omission and inconsistency in the official report to warrant an independant enquiry. In yet another parallel to the events of 9/11, elements of the Government (chief among them Tony Blair himself) have blocked such an enquiry - with the frankly ridiculous (and highly suspicious) reasoning that such an investigation would somehow detract from the effectiveness of the security services in their ongoing efforts against terrorism in the UK.

The mounting evidence that the security services had foreknowledge of the attacks, together with the continued leaking of classified documents by MI5/6 insiders to newspapers such as the Times, would in a more sane atmosphere here in the UK strengthen the case for such an enquiry. Unfortunately the climate at the moment with respect to the general public's perception of the incident is anything but sane.

It is my own opinion that a truly independant enquiry would be short-circuited, even in the unlikely event that it were allowed to take place with no intervention from the government, and that this would be all too easy given the MSM's bias in this case and their repeated parrotting of the official story.

Until we can engineer some means of getting these points across unedited into the mainstream, we stand little chance of such an enquiry being permitted without being immediately whitewashed and its proponents being character assassinated and anathematised accordingly. I dearly wish that I could see a way around this obstacle, but for the life of me I cannot.

There must be some other line of attack we can use here. Perhaps by presenting a detailed analysis of the events and our reasons for suspicion to, for example, celebrities in the mainstream by an organised campaign, or to those who have perhaps expressed opinions parallel to these, we can drive a wedge into the mainstream media which we could then exploit to push the message out there further, as was attempted by Charlie Sheen regarding the events of 9/11, although there are also obvious problems with this strategy too.

The increasing and accelerating erosion of the rights of the citizens of the UK to express dissent since 7/7 imposes something of a time constraint on us, as with each passing day the propaganda builds in the MSM and makes dissenting voices even less likely to be heard.

Any thoughts?


Fulcanelli



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulcanelli
Strangerous,

If I've been remiss in responding to your post for a while it's because I hit the ignore button waaaay back for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has read the first four pages of this thread, and judging by the impotent and circular nature of your continued arguments, I was correct to do so.



You really are something aren't you?

You accused me of being a racist purely because I attacked your attitude. You got warned, I didn't; if I'd made a racist statement I would have been warned QED.

For you to hide behind the 'he'a a racist' shield is truly pathetic and demonstrates your inability to defend your inexcusable actions on the Tube when I and others questioned your willingness to be part of society.

You still haven't apologised for your outrageous accusation

'I was correct to do so' - doen't that strike you as just a teeny bit self-righteous if not completely pompous?

As I detailed in my previous post it's perfectly possible for the 4 to be on camera at Luton and at KK at the time stated. It took me just 10 minutes to work this out. I'm surprised that someone as intelligent as you believe yourself to be hasn't thought to look further into this rather than just re-parroting the weak claims of others - look back and you'll see.

So your now saying it wasn't MI4 - that was almost an apology for the falsehood you posted. Where's your evidence / link for your revised claim?

Again you're posting what a dance instructor said (and what he says others said to him - hersay) where's the evidence he had any previous experience / training in explosives & expolosive effects?

I have given a possible explanation for the minor flash / burn effects seen which would invalidate the certainty of your claim it wasn't TATP.

Again you're long on stating that your suppositions are facts and very short on actual evidence.

Use this fantastic insightful mind you claim to have to approach the 'evidence' from another viewpoint and you should be able to see it's all hersay and wild assumption.

I'm beginning to see why your college wouldn't let you spout this toss at college - not because they're all party to the conspiracy / evil arms investors - more likely you presented the same hotchpotch of assumption, misinformation and outright lies and stamped your little foot when they questioned the validity of your presentation.

But I bet they're all 'racists' too eh?



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Strangerous............
With all due respect, don't you think that it is time to stop demanding an apology from Fulcanelli?

He doesn't think you deserve one, you're quite evidently not going to get one

Unless you both just get together and sort it out with fisticuffs, we are in for a very long, repetitive thread



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Ah, Strangerous, how I've missed you!


Originally posted by StrangerousYou accused me of being a racist purely because I attacked your attitude. You got warned, I didn't; if I'd made a racist statement I would have been warned QED.


You did more than attack my attitude matey - you cast aspersions at my family among other things I've already taken some pains to point out to you. And you did so before I made any comment about you.

My comment to the effect that you are prejudiced I made AFTER you had slipped up by making the assertion to the effect that I was "pretending to be a suicide bomber" simply because I was brown, wore a beard and had a bag on the train - I MADE NO REFERENCE AT ALL TO ANY OTHER ACTIVITY - and this was enough for you to label me as pretending to be a suicide bomber. I invite you once again to show me how this is NOT a case of prejudice on your part. So far you have avoided this point.

Since you seem unable as of yet to effectively SPEAK TO ANY OF THE FACTS I have presented and keep trying to derail this thread into a slanging match on the "racism" issue, here are a few examples of other occasions where you have revealed your prejudice for all to see:


Originally posted by strangerous

our country offered your parents santuary. Presumably they had the choice of numerous other countries that were so welcoming and generous


Here you have made the ASSUMPTION that my parents came to this country as asylum seekers - on what did you base this on? NOWHERE did I give any indication to you as to the status of my parents when they came to this country before you posted this. Perhaps then you would like to explain for the benefit of all here how you came to this assumption about my parents? Here AGAIN is my rebuttal - and this is what I got warned for, I believe:


originally posted by fulcanelli

My parents, *snip*, for that is what you have now DEFINED yourself as, with that one comment as with all the other mistaken assumptions I have deconstructed so embarrasingly for you, my parents came here with CONFIRMED JOBS as high level academicians in major universities. They NEVER claimed political asylum, they came here after being HEADHUNTED by our universities.


Oh, and the mod's comment when editing the word "racist" from the above? Here it is for you, and it should be instructive for you as to the status of the discussion at that point:

Mod Edit: Quit While You're Ahead.

[edit on 19/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Next.... You posted this as your next response I believe, completely ignoring what I had written (a skill that seems to define your mode of "debate"):


Originally posted by Strangerous

How many other countries offered your family sanctuary?


Again with the assumption that my family came here as asylum seekers ! If you need proof that I'm not the only one here who finds your arguments and attitude repellant, here is one comment (there are others - look for yourself, people):


originally posted by rich23

I quite agree that this country is going down the tube straight towards totalitarianism and I am APPALLED that people like Strangerous would deny you your right to make these arguments. I'm used to seeing this kind of thing from Americans but I'm a bit shocked, frankly, that there are Brits who would resort to that kind of absurd response.

They embarrass me for being a white Briton, frankly.


Get that?

Here's another example of where you have demonstrated your ignorance and prejudice:


Originally posted by Strangerous

Ever heard of a white muslim?


That ALONE would be enough to define you as prejudiced. And as for this....


Originally posted by strangerous

I was correct to do so' - doen't that strike you as just a teeny bit self-righteous if not completely pompous?


Nope. See above for my reasons.

cont...



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by strangerous
As I detailed in my previous post it's perfectly possible for the 4 to be on camera at Luton and at KK at the time stated. It took me just 10 minutes to work this out. I'm surprised that someone as intelligent as you believe yourself to be hasn't thought to look further into this rather than just re-parroting the weak claims of others - look back and you'll see.


Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all with your reasoning? I'd love to hear it. I wait with bated breath.


Originally posted by strangerous
Again you're posting what a dance instructor said (and what he says others said to him - hersay) where's the evidence he had any previous experience / training in explosives & expolosive effects?


Oh dear - you make this far too easy for me, strangerous.

Here it is again in big, bright crayon letters for you; His testimony (as with many others) contains details to the effect that the metal of the floor was bent upwards and that there was nobody standing where the explosion went off and no bag - other testimony contains observations to the effect that tiles and floor panels flew upwards when the explosion happened, and various other indications that the bomb was under the train (such as the train crashing into another oncoming train as a result of being derailed by the explosion). I make no other assertion concerning this but have referenced these testimonies with abundant links to the sources.

Now, tell me strangerous, are you serious in discounting his testimony because he has had no training or experience in explosives and as you keep saying, is a mere dance instructor? What has that to do with the price of tea in China?!?!!

By this rather flawed logic, you can discount ANY testimony from ANY of the witnesses who were in or near the carriages when they exploded purely from the perspective that NONE of them had formal training in explosives.

You can also throw away ALL the witness testimonies on 9/11 to the effect that they saw planes fly into the buildings because the vast majority of them had no formal training in aircraft engineering or piloting.

This is yet another example of your weak and self defeating attempts at rebuttal. I've said it before and here it is again: WEAK, UTTERLY PATHETIC. Try harder.

And finally:


Originally posted by strangerous
I have given a possible explanation for the minor flash / burn effects seen which would invalidate the certainty of your claim it wasn't TATP.

Again you're long on stating that your suppositions are facts and very short on actual evidence.

Use this fantastic insightful mind you claim to have to approach the 'evidence' from another viewpoint and you should be able to see it's all hersay and wild assumption.

I'm beginning to see why your college wouldn't let you spout this toss at college - not because they're all party to the conspiracy / evil arms investors - more likely you presented the same hotchpotch of assumption, misinformation and outright lies and stamped your little foot when they questioned the validity of your presentation.

But I bet they're all 'racists' too eh?


Here you go, strangerous:

1 - Where is your explanation of the "minor" (are you SERIOUS?) burns on passengers and the carriages? As I recall, it didn't carry much weight the first time since it was SPECULATION on your part (secondary accelerants - even the ones you suggested such as perfumes and aftershaves on the passengers - which in any case would be unlikely to be present on the skin in sufficient concentrations to have caused MAJOR AND DISFIGURING BURNS ON THE FACES AND BODIES of the passengers, let alone to the carriages - require some mode of IGNITION, ie. fire) but perhaps you'd like to have another go.

cont...



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
2 - Perhaps you'd like to use the quote button to show some examples where I have stated that my "suppositions are facts"? Your use of the quote button to bolster you arguments has been incredibly sporadic thus far - why is that? To illustrate, so far you have made around 25 posts on this thread, almost every one of them being a rather weak and quickly dispelled attack on my viewpoints, and would you like to know how many times you have actually QUOTED me? ONCE. Just once. Pathetic.

My suspicion is that if you COULD find real fault with my arguments, you WOULD use the quote button and THEN argue against what you have quoted. You have not done so. Instead you keep circulating back again and again to the only issue you feel you have a viable argument on, and continue making vague statements about my writing style, my lack of references for my statements (WTF? Are you being serious? Can you not SEE the white boxes and red links I have peppered my posts with? Can you not SEE the sources quoted by others here that make the same arguments? Or are you having another one of your bouts of selective vision?).

3 - WHERE did I "claim" to have a fantastic, insightful mind? WHERE, strangerous? USE THE QUOTE BUTTON. It's on the top left corner of every post and says "quote" on it. If you need any further help finding it, do let me know.

4 - WHERE did I say my college was involved in a conspiracy with arms dealers? USE THE QUOTE BUTTON, if you can, for I have made NO SUCH assertion, and I invite you to back up that statement by pointing us all to the relevant section of my posts. You do this an awful lot strangerous - you make statements about things I have said WITHOUT quoting the statement to which you refer. WEAK.


If you think I'm the only one here who sees through your specious and baseless arguments, please disillusion yourself. With every post you make you further define yourself as someone incapable of real debate.

You have misrepresented my character, my family and made allusions to my "taking advantage" of the benefits system here LONG before I made any response to the comments you made that DEFINED YOU as prejudiced. Go whistle for your apology sweetheart, you won't find it here.

I have disagreed with others here that I have conducted civil arguments with and have made no mention of race with them - it was only YOU and a couple of others (one of which, nefermore, I have already apologised to for good reason - I included him in my response to you, which was uncalled for), and at least ISJ and ignorant_ape had the cojones to quote me when they argued with me. You can't even do THAT, can you?

Oh and by the way, even if it is true that you have a Pakistani Muslim girlfriend (a fact you made known suspiciously late in the game - your 11th post, I believe - given the context) this in no way demonstrates that you are NOT prejudiced - think about that one carefully before you reply.

And I LOVE the way you've changed your signature to show "10 ways to fight hate".

You're not fooling me, sunshine. Not for a second.

I think you'll find on closer inspection of this thread that I am far from being in the minority when I say that there is every indication to show that this event has far more to it than is revealed in the offical report. YOU are in the minority in this respect.

Now, and for the last time, if you insist on embarrassing yourself further by conducting your pathetic excuse of an "argument" with me, how about YOU show us YOUR proof that the official story is true? So far you've done nothing of the sort. Until you do, consider your ass ignored. Only this time I won't use the ignore button - I'll just read your posts and derive as much pleasure laughing at them as I have had in utterly dissecting them so far. Your move.


Fulcanelli



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
To answer your further personal attacks on me:


I have not changed my sig, ATS changed the policy and it took me time to update the URL.

When and if I choose to bring elements of my private life into the debate is up to me - are you calling me a liar?

I said you'd had a subsidised education (as have I) from the UK. I at least am grateful for that opportunity.
I never mentioned handouts; you just assumed I did as you obviously have a very large chip on your shoulder. Quote my words to prove I mentioned handouts, back up your accusations with quotes.

I used the word sanctuary as you yourself stated that your parents came from a place that isn't actually a country. Moving from a disputed land to a stable peaceful country is what I would consider sanctuary.

The mere fact that there was damage to the bottom of the train does not equate with your assertion the bomb was under the train. Anyone with a basic knowledge of explosive forces knows this.
I never used the word 'mere' in relation to the dance instructor - your implying that I did is just another example of you twisting words

Again I never said they were minor burns I said there were relatively minor burn effects seen ie hundreds of casualties and just 4 people in the major burns unit. You argue that burns = non TATP devices. If there were hundreds of burn victims you might have a point but instead you jumped to conclusions that fit your agenda.

I never said it could be due to perfume on the skin (again you're twisting words to suit your little hobby horse). I said it could be due to the presence of accelerants (such as perfume, deodorant etc) in the vicinity of the bomb.

The 'white muslim' comment was in reference to the general air of suspicion that followed 7/7 and the fact that it affected all Londoners. Taking my comments out of context to fit your accusations is misleading in the extreme.

You cried 'racist' and people took your word for it rather than reading what I actually said.

Suppositions = 'facts'? Well your statement that it's impossible to be at Luton and KK at the times stated is just plain wrong. There is an alternative explanation - a possibility you choose to ignore - again as it disturbs your certainties.

Where did you link the 'suppression' of your wonderful theory and arms investing well here it is from your very first post

quote from page 1 of this thread
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was to give a presentation on the 7/7 bombings at my university last year, intending to summarise the evidence kept out of the mainstream regarding the events but was cut short by members of my faculty's administration who felt that, after demanding to see the script in advance, the University did not deem it fitting to associate themselves with such "speculation". Despite my arguing that all that was presented was simply an alternative chronology of the events incorporating nothing but verified and fully documented information with care taken to make engage in no speculation WHATSOEVER, they flat refused permission.
This made a lot more sense to me when I did a little digging and found that many of the member universities of the University Of London invest in the international arms industry, UCL (my university) being one of the heaviest investors.

quote ends

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for what you enjoyed doing to spread fear on the tube again here it is in your own words

quote from page 1 of this thread
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until recently, purely for my own personal entertainment, I had taken to growing a beard and fumbling with my bag while on the train, taking special care to be sitting in amongst and make eye contact with the pinstriped yuppies, reading yet another story in the Metro with a headline title such as "Fanatics A Threat To Us All", until the novelty of finally securing my own seat with BOTH armrests had worn off and the frightened looks on the faces of these sleepwalking, gibbering automatons lost its mirth value. Not to mention that after repeated and highly entertaining conversations with the jack-booted monkeys being employed these days by the Metropolitan Transport Police,
quote ends

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all from me - I'll leave you to your little fantasy world of a country that picks on you, a system that blows up its own citizens, ruins its own tourist industry, and risks wholesale devaluing of its currency and equities just to sway public opinion.

No doubt you'll wriggle out of your own statements / twist and take mine out of context to suit your agenda.

I'd urge all reading this to revisit the whole thread, not just accept fulcanelli's version of what he thought was said - they're not the same thing.

I'll leave you with just one question that you seem to have overlooked (surprisingly) - given that Blair & co went to war in the teeth of 2 million marching in opposition why bother to blow up their own people?
If something was needed to bolster public opinion (and it's clearly not) why wait 'til 2005 and don't you think the shadowy forces with all their skill and resources could have come up with something more effective / less costly than major disruption to our most-important transport system?



MODS - My apologies for not using the correct quote protocol but I'm cutting and pasting from the thread open in another window



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Strangerous,

Thank you finally for using at least Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V to quote me if not the quote button. I’ll respond to your quotations (and commentary on them) shortly.

However, may I begin by saying that finally, in this infantile and unnecessary exchange we seem to have found agreement on at least one point:


IOriginally posted by strangerous

I'd urge all reading this to revisit the whole thread.


I have repeated this many times myself in my responses to you previously, and I wholeheartedly agree. Please, dear reader, if you are still for some baffling reason interested in our little tussle, read back through this thread (you poor b*****ds!) after you have read this post if you feel you need any further clarification. Please.

And, wonder of wonders, we find ourselves in parity on yet another point! - you rightly deem it worthwhile at this point to conclude our little dance with a closing statement, and so allow me to retort in kind



Let me begin by saying that I sincerely apologise in advance for the necessity to have to do this to all here who (for reasons I cannot, to be honest, fathom) may be interested enough in this little exchange between strangerous and myself to want to read this, for I believe it is incumbent upon me to adequately finalise my own argument against strangerous and this may of necessity therefore be a bit lengthy. But since he has so graciously decided to make his own exit from the fray I cannot, in all good conscience after the spectacular efforts of my detractor, do less.

Point by point one last time, then strangerous:


IOriginally posted by strangerous
I have not changed my sig, ATS changed the policy and it took me time to update the URL.


Funny – I don’t remember seeing a signature before that one appeared, strangerous.


IOriginally posted by strangerous
When and if I choose to bring elements of my private life into the debate is up to me - are you calling me a liar?


Touchy touchy!
Yes, you are of course correct that this is your prerogative, and I invite the reader and yourself to find where I have said or intimated otherwise, for clearly I have not – but then YOU brought that up while I was ignoring you way back all those posts ago, didn’t you? I question the timing. It stinks. As does the change of signature. But then these are the LEAST of your problems here, strangerous. Here’s one of your MAJOR fumbles, my friend:


IOriginally posted by strangerous
I said you'd had a subsidised education (as have I) from the UK. I at least am grateful for that opportunity.
I never mentioned handouts; you just assumed I did as you obviously have a very large chip on your shoulder. Quote my words to prove I mentioned handouts, back up your accusations with quotes.


Allow me to congratulate you, strangerous – that is your best attempt at an Orwellian attack in this argument yet, and even for a moment had me scratching my head wondering “did I mention handouts?” But then it struck me, this is another slightly cleverer but ultimately baseless variant of what you have kept trying to do with so little success throughout this thread – MISREPRESENT, MALIGN ME AND MISLEAD OTHERS INTO A FALSE VIEW OF ME. This I shall PROVE on this one point as I have on all the others you have presented similarly:

Continued.....



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I have made bold the relevant word and phrase in the above paragraph I have quoted from your last post, strangerous, and I hope at least that gives you some indication of where I’m going but if not, I’ll spell out, again, in BIG non-cursive letters the gaping hole in your challenge for you – NOWHERE DID I SAY YOU HAD MENTIONED “HANDOUTS”. These were my EXACT words:


IOriginally posted by fulcanelli

You have misrepresented my character, my family and made allusions to my "taking advantage" of the benefits system here LONG before I made any response to the comments you made that DEFINED YOU as prejudiced. Go whistle for your apology sweetheart, you won't find it here.


See? No mention of handouts. If you must play semantic games with people at least fence a little less obviously – you leave yourself less open to attack, strangerous. Just a piece of friendly advice for the future


I’ll rub a little well deserved salt into that wound, too. “Taking advantage of the benefits system”, a sentence the words of which are in fact almost indistinguishable in their meaning from the words of your very first post, were my words, strangerous, and they contain no mention of handouts. However, they cannot compare to your original FIRST words on this thread, which I WILL quote for you, since again they show your prejudice in this context. Bear in mind strangerous (and all) that in my very first post I made it clear that I have lived 25 of my 28 years in the UK, am a British citizen and am therefore ENTITLED every bit as much as you to any benefits the state offers if I am deemed deserving of them. These are among your first words to me:




IOriginally posted by strangerous

I notice you've taken full advantage of our subsidised further education system.



Again, the items I have indicated in bold speak for themselves but here it is so as not to be misunderstood, intentionally or otherwise –

IF I AM A UK CITIZEN WHO HAS SPENT 25 YEARS OF MY LIFE HERE AND HAVE DILIGENTLY PAID ALL DUE TAXES AND REPAID ALL MY STUDENT LOANS, WHAT IS THE VALIDITY OR WORTH OF THIS STATEMENT TO YOUR POSITION? WHAT DOES IT SHOW OTHER THAN YOUR UNDERLYING BELIEF, DESPITE THE FACT THAT I AM NO LESS ENTITLED TO THESE THINGS THAN YOU OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN BY LAW, THAT BECAUSE I WAS BORN OVERSEAS, MY “TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE” OF THIS STATE BENEFIT CONSTITUTES A BAD THING? IS THAT NOT PREJUDICE BY ITS VERY DEFINITION? Case closed, checkmate, and goodnight, matey.



I feel almost deflated – that argument alone if not the countless others I have presented against you thus far should be cause enough for me to hang up my spurs and go roll one right now, but something tells me that I haven’t been brutal enough with you yet strangerous. You have had the gall to demand an APOLOGY of me. You have cynically used my inexperience and clear status as a newbie to lure me into emotional, circular and infantile exchanges during which my perfectly justified and emotionally charged accusations of prejudice on the basis of your own statements were interpreted as worthy of a warning (a decision that I partially dispute but of course fully respect). I’m not done with you yet, my son.

Continued...

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
In answer to your next point, which was…


IOriginally posted by strangerous
I used the word sanctuary as you yourself stated that your parents came from a place that isn't actually a country. Moving from a disputed land to a stable peaceful country is what I would consider sanctuary
.

I say that this is completely irrelevant, (a) because you have been demonstrated in your first and subsequent statements to be prejudiced whether knowingly or unknowingly and therefore we cannot assume you were making an UNBIASED use of the word sactuary, and (b) how can you post the above with a straight face AFTER you have seen what I posted shortly afterwards:


IOriginally posted by fulcanelli
parents came here with CONFIRMED JOBS as high level academicians in major universities. They NEVER claimed political asylum, they came here after being HEADHUNTED by our universities.


Get that? THEY WERE OFFERED JOBS HERE, NOT SANCTUARY. They had little need of sanctuary. They were living in the most secure part of the “country that does not exist” called Kurdistan, Suleimanyah, where Saddam’s regime had little reach (which has been all but self governed until recent times) and had worked all over the middle east as academicians in varying capacities, during a period where the Iraqi Dinar was VERY strong as a currency. My father had already worked in Europe AND in the UK as a visiting lecturer at several universities, so this was by no means his first experience of this country. Your continued efforts here will be self defeating I’m afraid.

Oh, and about the “place that isn’t actually a country?” The (at least) 20 million Kurds, who have been resident in the same region as a distinct culture with a specific cultural identity for over two millennia, may well disagree with you as to how significant that fact is to THEM.


In fact, I wouldn’t say that too loudly if you happen to find yourself among any Kurdish people; take a look at the history of the region all the way back as far as the memory of man goes and see what has befallen those who have had the stupidity to support such assertions by military strength (pick your empire – they’ve all tried and had serious troubles!
). There you’ll see the Kurdish national identity made abundantly clear.
You will see all too clearly also that it was in fact British colonial aspirants who redrew the map of the region (several times) such that it became a “place that is not a country”, despite the protest of those who lived there. You will also see that Winston Churchill, like Saddam Hussein, used the RAF to drop chemical weapons (mustard gas, etc.) on Kurdish villages, describing the Kurds in typical arrogant ignorance as merely “recalcitrant Arab tribesmen” whom he saw as just targets for the RAF’s experimentation with new weapons. If you wish me to provide references to this please U2U me and I shall be only too happy to do so.

So my advice to you is no, don’t EVER say that it’s not a real country around a Kurdish person – it may be true in the literal, legal sense but in no other, and the REAL truth of the Kurdish situation, its causes, and those in the west who have been the profiteers from and abettors to the atrocities committed against the Kurds, has rarely been mentioned in the mainstream in the West except to use as emotional capital in the arguments for so-called “humanitarian intervention”. I’ll debate you on this any time you want, strangerous. But it has no place here.

Continued...

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Your next point:


IOriginally posted by strangerous
The mere fact that there was damage to the bottom of the train does not equate with your assertion the bomb was under the train. Anyone with a basic knowledge of explosive forces knows this.

I never used the word 'mere' in relation to the dance instructor - your implying that I did is just another example of you twisting words


Brilliant, strangerous! You excel yourself! Not only did I NEVER QUOTE you as using the word mere to describe Bruce Lait’s status as a dance instructor (check back and see for yourself – I didn’t even use inverted comma’s), but you start this pathetic attempt to again use doublespeak by YOURSELF using the word “mere” to indicate that I have somehow based my assertion that the bomb was most likely under the train purely on a single fact – that of damage to the bottom of the train – which I NEVER CITED! Genius!

No, strangerous, noooooooooo. I cited eyewitness testimonies to the effect that the sudden, upward movement of tiles and floor panels at the instant of the explosion, nobody standing where the bomb went off and no bag, and metal bent upwards around the edges of the hole blasted through the floor, all support the assertion that the bomb was beneath the train. Period. No mention of damage to the bottom of the train, and certainly no reliance upon that as my SINGLE supporting piece of evidence. Hehe. Nice try though.


Next….


IOriginally posted by strangerous
Again I never said they were minor burns I said there were relatively minor burn effects seen ie hundreds of casualties and just 4 people in the major burns unit. You argue that burns = non TATP devices. If there were hundreds of burn victims you might have a point but instead you jumped to conclusions that fit your agenda.

I never said it could be due to perfume on the skin (again you're twisting words to suit your little hobby horse). I said it could be due to the presence of accelerants (such as perfume, deodorant etc) in the vicinity of the bomb.


Oooh, strangerous I can hear the squeaking as you backpedal faster and faster here!

Allow me to illustrate again for you but in somewhat condensed form, as this has been addressed in my previous posts and in the posts of others here (which is why no doubt you again haven’t quoted my ACTUAL words on this topic and those of others, nor have you answered my TWO requests from you so far to speak to the fact that burns are not the only indication here) – fireballs reported seen on the exposion by multiple witnesses and on numerous broadcasts on the day of the events, as well as footage shown of the blasts in documentaries such as Alex Jones’ latest “Terror Storm”, Light flashes reported equally abundantly as having happened on the explosion by eyewitnesses, all of these attest to the fact that TATP was not the substance used. Added to which, many of the initial reports (before any possible cover-up was likely to be in evidence) from police and security services said in certain terms that it had been explosives of military grade that were used.

Check back, all the references are there, never mind the other reasons we have listed as to why the TATP hypothesis is likely to be invalid. And your theory on secondary accelerants is, frankly, highly unlikely not least because of the aspects to the MASSIVE explosions (not perfume bottles and deodorant cans catching fire in handbags or rucksacks or whatever it was you postulated as your, *ahem*, “explanation” as to why the TATP hypothesis retains validity).

Continued...



[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Ok ok, its a link to Alex Jones' prisonplanet.com but it references a audio clip from the BBC Radio's Newshour program which makes it respectable.

Terror Expert: London Bomber [May Have Been] Working For MI5


Shoebridge told the BBC Newshour program that from the evidence little else can be assumed other than that Khan was working for British intelligence.

"The amount of information coming out and the quality of information coming out. The fact that that has been so consistently overlooked it would appear by the security service MI5, to me suggests really only one of two options."

"Either, a) we've got a level of incompetence that would be unusual even for the security services. But b) possibly, and this is a possibility, that this man Khan may even have been working as an informant for the security service."

"It is difficult otherwise to see how it can be that they've so covered his tracks in the interim."


Here's the link to the actual audio clip.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Next…


IOriginally posted by strangerous
The 'white muslim' comment was in reference to the general air of suspicion that followed 7/7 and the fact that it affected all Londoners. Taking my comments out of context to fit your accusations is misleading in the extreme.


Oh really?  So you honestly think that no white Muslims LIVE in London? There are many people of many nations who have Caucasian appearance and are yet Muslims. Please do not allow me to embarrass you further by requiring me to list the countries. It’s almost too painfully pleasant just pointing out how absurdly, obviously prejudiced this comment would have been in ANY context, let alone the one you used it in. Allow me to enlighten you. They DO live in London, and WILL. And as for your comment that you only mentioned this in reference to the general air of suspicion that affected all Londoners, allow me to remind you of this little contribution from ANOK (there are other similar ones from others, but truth be told by this point I’m getting tired of having to reiterate what’s already been available for all to read way back in this thread, so go look up the others yourself), which sums up my attitude to your view of the ‘generality’ of this suspicion on ‘all’ Londoners:



IOriginally posted by ANOK

You are trying to tell me white people were looked at just as suspicously as Middle Eastern looking people? C'mon what world do you live in?


Well said, that man. Next.





IOriginally posted by strangerous
Suppositions = 'facts'? Well your statement that it's impossible to be at Luton and KK at the times stated is just plain wrong. There is an alternative explanation - a possibility you choose to ignore - again as it disturbs your certainties.


I ask you AGAIN, as I have asked once already, to U2U me or otherwise EXPLAIN your theory and why you feel it is valid. To my knowledge and IMHO, you have yet to do this. I’ll look back over this thread and see if I can find it, but I’ve seen nothing even remotely conclusive presented by way of argument by you to support this statement. And as I have made abundantly clear again and again – I have and offer very few CERTAINTIES to this discussion (I have been very careful to demarcate my certainties from my opinions, I believe – not least because people such as yourself consistently NEED this demarcation to be spelled out for them in short, easy words), many indications and opinions, but quite obviously opinions that many others here share.


As for the two quotes from the bottom of your last posts - well, I was going to write a response to each but, looking back over all I’ve written in this one post, I honestly don’t think it’s necessary, do you? But here goes anyway…

The first of the paragraphs you quote comes from my very first post, and you have presented it with the preface “Where did you link the 'suppression' of your wonderful theory and arms investing well here it is from your very first post” - by that gobbledegook I can only assume you mean “what link do I draw between the financial interest of my University in international arms investments (that I have given references for) to their decision to disallow my presentation?” Well, that should be obvious, now, shouldn’t it? You’re a grown man I assume, strangerous – THE WORLD IS ROUND, D’YOU HEAR? IT’S ROUND!


As for the second quote, Oh joy, again the tiny article from my rather wordy first-post-on any-forum-ever which seems to have caused such raised heckles.

Here, I must conclude my reply to strangerous’ supposedly last post (his last post, if of course, if his ego can resist coming back once more) by once again making something abundantly clear that, despite my reiteration of it, you refuse to grasp, strangerous…

Continued...

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
This, I remind all here, is pretty much the first thread I have written anywhere – I have been a long time lurker on forums but have never really had the time to do anything other than read. It has been highly instructive for me to have seen such a wide range of views expressed in this discussion and has furthered my own education enormously.

However something I have also learned here that is equally fascinating to me is that the manifestations of (the opposite ends of) a spectrum of consciousness other than those of beliefs and world-views has been in evidence here and of equal impact on this thread – that of the sense of humour.
This, I believe, has been the cause of far more of the contention between myself and the likes of strangerous than their respective prejudices and other foibles. The prejudice may have kicked it off, egotism and stubbornness in the face of obvious flaws in argument allowed them to keep it going, but most certainly a lack of humour is what has resulted in the ludicrously, needlessly prolonged (and itself more than a little humorous) episode I am attempting to put a stop to here.

After reading my original 4-part post, far more respondents here expressed mirth at its content and gave positive feedback than otherwise, which was gratefully received, and made many humorous comments in kind. The minority, shall we say, placed themselves on the opposite end of the “sense of humour” spectrum.

The positive feedback was gratefully received because, as I have mentioned this SEVERAL times already throughout this thread (see for yourselves) my initial post was INTENDED TO AMUSE as much as spark intelligent debate on these subjects, as should be ABUNDANTLY clear to the reader from the initial style and subtended mood of the writing, the title, the tone of comic sarcasm in the opening statement (as well as the completely obvious “musings” caveat) and throughout, the use of “colourful” metaphors, (now deleted) and numerous other obvious qualities of the text. Forgive me, but that should be obvious to you by now (I assume that you are of adult age).

I cannot describe my surprise (and eventual mirth) when strangerous and ISJ in particular failed to see this where so many others had, since to me this is obvious. This was very educational for me on the types of responses to expect from people whose paradigm has been so conditioned that even as fundamental a response as humour is stifled when it is challenged by a contrary idea.

However, as they revealed their ignorance and prejudice in their continued “arguments”, in the face of many a comment from other respondents to the effect of the above to try and steer them back onto the course of rational discussion (the second purpose of my starting this thread ), it became clear to me that their inability to see the sarcasm and satirical aspect of the original post was being bolstered by their prejudice, which by that point they had revealed for all to see.

And if it wasn’t obvious to you that amusement was my aim to begin with, strangerous, by now (in light of my spelling this out on several posts throughout this thread in clear terms, and the mirth expressed by many others here) you have NOOOOOO excuse to be so ignorant. NONE.

Continued...

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
And to the issue you have seemed to delight in coming back to ad nauseum, the paragraph you quoted and ALL SUBSEQUENT POSTS BY YOU AND OTHERS ATTACKING ME ON THAT ONE OBVIOUSLY SPECIOUS POINT HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN BLISSFULLY, WANTONLY IGNORANT OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE POST THAT STARTED YOU ALL OFF ON YOUR CRUSADE AGAINST ME;



Originally posted by fulcanelli

Anyway, sorry for the length of this, my first post(s?), I guess its more cathartic ranting here than I expected. Ooh, I feel so much better now


MY GOD, man, can you really, truly, honestly say that after a concluding sentence like that, never mind all the other cues I’ve listed, you considered EVERY WORD I WROTE IN MY POST TO BE COMPLETELY SERIOUS AND FULLY INTENDED TO BE AS SUCH? Please give us all a break!

And for the “question” you have left me with:


Originally posted by strangerous
I'll leave you with just one question that you seem to have overlooked (surprisingly) - given that Blair & co went to war in the teeth of 2 million marching in opposition why bother to blow up their own people?
If something was needed to bolster public opinion (and it's clearly not) why wait 'til 2005 and don't you think the shadowy forces with all their skill and resources could have come up with something more effective / less costly than major disruption to our most-important transport system?


Blair and co. DIDN’t go to war – they ordered it and profited handsomely from it, no doubt monetarily as well as by the increased power it has given them in the UK to crush all dissent, but they knew that neither they nor anyone in their families or circles would actually have to FIGHT - thousands of innocent soldiers were sent to fight and kill (among the two million starved, malnourished, under-equipped, motivationless and terrified members of the Iraqi military (most of whom were forced on pain of torture and execution to fight by a regime that the heads of the current US administration among others put in power and supported for decades) hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis whose only crime was to act upon their right under the UN charter to defend themselves from naked aggression, the GRAVEST of international crimes, by an invading army and cowardly bombardment of civilian areas from the air in addition to forever poisoning the earth of Iraq with depleted uranium for the next 4.5 billion years and already causing a logarithmic and horrifying increase in the incidence of severe birth defects, carcinomas and infant and adult deaths.


Continued...

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
“Why bother to blow up their own people ?” You should by now know that my position (as it has been clearly stated countless times) is that at LEAST Blair and others were guilty of negligence on this event, AT MOST in complicity. Perhaps now that you have decided to end our exchange we shall see if myself and others can contribute to and discuss this and other issues to the point where we may actually start to gain certainty.
But if you need reasons, you need only look to the overwhelming historical precedent for such false flag operations here and overseas if not to the content of my previous posts referencing these to obtain ample reasons.

Do I think they could have “come up with something more effective / less costly” than this operation in order to achieve their ends? LOOK AROUND YOU AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE ACHIEVED ALREADY TOWARDS TURNING THIS ISLAND INTO A POLICE STATE!!!
I submit that, like 9/11, this very likely psy-op cost peanuts in comparison to the fortunes made on it and is a trifling cost in comparison with the clear reward of the dictatorial new legal powers gained by those in the know (culpable or not) as a result of this event.
You are truly, embarrassingly naive if you believe that “major disruption to our most-important transport system” would be enough to discourage these people from such prizes as they clearly have already gained – DAVID CAMERON IS ALL BUT ALLUDING TO REWRITING THE MAGNA CARTA FOR HEAVEN”S SAKE! WAKE UP!!!!



So, in closing strangerous – please, as you say, leave me to my “little fantasy world”, and go back to your own, wherever that may be. I hope for your sake and mine the world you live in is indeed the real one, where the government spies on us ONLY for our own protection, lies to us to involve us in illegal wars ONLY for our own protection, takes away our rights to free speech, assembly and dissent ONLY for our own protection, harbours and funds terrorists and protects the supposed mastermind of one of the worst terrorist attacks in London’s history ONLY for our own protection, and insists on obfuscating the facts and denying an independent enquiry again ONLY for our own protection.

I hope I suddenly come to my senses and realize that I’ve been being paranoid all along. Truly I do. Your world sounds wonderful.

Unfortunately for me, I have not trained this doublethink ability to the degree you seem to have honed it to, and I consequently follow the evidence and indications where they lead me regardless of what I’ve been TOLD is true.

Clearly you do not wish to or are not yet ready to recognise let alone drop your blind and unthinking trust in authority in the face of all discussed here so far. This is of course your prerogative. But it is my prerogative to DENY YOUR IGNORANCE. Especially here.

Thank you for finally allowing us to conclude this needless pushing and shoving, and allowing those of us with interests here beyond nursing a wounded ego to achieve the purpose most of us come to forums like these for – to learn, spread information, and to derive some amusement from what is otherwise rather dark subject matter. I hold out the sincere for the sake of all who read them that your further contributions to this forum will not be so flawed as your “contributions” on this thread have been.

Goodbye.



Fulcanelli


(Note - all edits of this multi-part post were for spelling, grammatical errors and BBcode errors accumulated while writing)



[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Oops - it seems I killed this thread!


Didn't mean to do that but I guess it's finally all over and we can get back to the discussion.

We haven't mentioned the indications of prior knowledge on the part of individuals in the government and security services yet. Here is one among several:


Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.

www.israelnationalnews.com...


This is not to mention the obvious prior known links between intelligence services like MI6 and the suspects (ASWAT being the prime example) constituting reason enough to suspect that somebody somewhere in government knew something.

And how about the extremely suspicious insider trading during the period leading upto 7/7? This could be just as easily profiteering on the part of persons within our authorities as that on the part of Al Qaeda.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Please let's get this discussion going again, we were actually getting somewhere for a while there before the trolls crawled back in


Fulcanelli



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
1. Note the clothing of the 'terrorists' and the fact they are ALL wearing rucksacks.


What is peculiar about these ALLEGED terrorists' clothing? If I go on a long journey to a distant place by train, I wear a rucksack. It allows me to carry extra clothing, wallet, provides a way of carrying any books or newspapers I may read, and provides a receptacle for any shopping I may pick up.

It's not necessarily filled with explosives. I also have several friends with the same habit. Some of them are dark skinned. I would suggest that in today's climate they are the ones who'd be seen as a threat.



2. This picture is not as clear but shows each of the 'terrorist' boarding the various types of transport. Note the bus camera.


No, it doesn't. Look at the date and time stamp on the pictures.




3. The train clearly looks as if it has been blown from the interior, I do not see any evidence of any exterior explosions.


This is not a picture that would be admissible in a court of law. As David Shayler put it, the crime scene was not "forensicated" (his rather ugly word, not mine). There is no way of telling what has been done to this carriage in the name of rescuing people. It looks as if part of the outer skin has been stripped away by the emergency services the better to extract the wounded. This will not do as evidence, I'm afraid.

As for ignorant_ape:



at the risk of sounding calous -- the aleged soldier was a dumbass , there are 1001 ways to get off a plane IF you really think it is at risk :


As I understand it - not coming from a heavily militarised society such as the USA - one of the most prized attributes of a soldier is obedience. This guy, I would assume, was caught between disobeying orders - and not going home on time as a result - and the possibility that there was indeed a bomb on the plane. He made the wrong call. But you took the risk merely of sounding callous - and sound callous you did.

If you knew people who were at the scene as quickly as the Scottish police and emergency services, then I might have time for your other argument. But it seems as if you didn't. All the relevant testimony can be found in back editions of Private Eye. which also published a special edition on the subject. Unfortunately I was out of the country at the time and never got a copy. However they followed the story very closely and were quick to pick up on the inconsistencies in the official version and their exegesis in the subsequent show trial.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   


TerrorStorm (Alex Jones on Google Video)

"Alex Jones' latest film covers in detail the proven history of government sponsored terrorism, and focuses on the 7/7 London bombings and 9/11"

I haven't watched it all yet but it has a summary of 7/7 and the De Mendes shooting that may be of interest


[edit on 1/7/2006 by alienanderson]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join