MP George Galloway Connected to "Bottle Bomb" Terrorists?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah whatever, without even think about it twice or looking into people are automatically willing to blame the "government" because they’re behind it all.

Now gee. Why would people do that, eh?

You don't think its because the government has basically shown itself as lying, dishonest, manipulative of public opinion, and totally untrustworthy, do you?

If the government actually had a decent track record, people just might trust them.

And this sort of political gambit is not unheard of. One of the best ways to dispose of your enemies is to turn them into enemies of the state.

It cant be a news source trying to gain headlines and viewers,

Of course it could. The media is a tool that often has its own political affiliations and agendas as well.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Now gee. Why would people do that, eh?

Gee, thanks loam* but I’ve already had that.

It’s because people are always willing to conform news stories around their held views, even when no evidence supports it, that fact hardly matters. Like I said if you are willing to automatically jump to the conclusion that this is more than just a ridicules sensational news report then you’re no better than the people who think G Galloway is a terrorist because of this. I guess the two extremes have something in common after all.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

I think that our latest terror threat was yet another agent provacatuer scenario...
except this time it didn't backfire...

who cares if these kids were just common grumblers before a MI6 agent educated them on how to make a bomb, and how to set it off, and by the way, MI6 has some contacts with AQ, so make sure to set up a meeting...
and then, when they finally get talked into performing a terrorist act, they get stopped before they could do anything...

Um, now lets see, if the british agent recruited them, trained them, and then introduced them to AQ... then how hard was it to catch them?

and now, they are connected to George Galloway... how quant... MI6 recruited well...
must have started doing this setup way back when George pissed off the mainstream...

lessons being taught here kids... dont argue with your big bro...

Well, he is (almost certainly) not involved with terrorists, but it is always nice to see what kind of people have voted him into parliament and what kind of people have "deep respect" for him.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I think that our latest terror threat was yet another agent provacatuer scenario...
except this time it didn't backfire...

who cares if these kids were just common grumblers before a MI6 agent educated them on how to make a bomb, and how to set it off, and by the way, MI6 has some contacts with AQ, so make sure to set up a meeting...
and then, when they finally get talked into performing a terrorist act, they get stopped before they could do anything...

Um, now lets see, if the british agent recruited them, trained them, and then introduced them to AQ... then how hard was it to catch them?

and now, they are connected to George Galloway... how quant... MI6 recruited well...
must have started doing this setup way back when George pissed off the mainstream...

lessons being taught here kids... dont argue with your big bro...

Yeah, sure. There are no terrorists, all attacks are inside job. And every muslim loves West.

Longbow, for me to suppose that agent provacatuers play an important role, and perhaps the crucial one, is merely meat and potatoes for ATS...

I have proof that the OKC bombing was an agent provacatuer job-gone wrong, and have very good evidence (much stronger than the side saying "terrorists") that shows the british subway job was an agent provacatuer (from ats thread)...

then there are the many pieces of evidence that point to a mossad connection in 9-11, in recruiting the terrorists.

so forgive me if i look at this latest threat with a grain of salt...

these were british born "asian" youths... not AQ idiots right off the boat...
the only evidence we have comes from an undercover british agent... who confirms that these guys did have at least one meeting with an AQ contact
so how do we know that the undercover agent didn't set the whole thing up?
it has happened before, so why not again?
it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck...
so until i see it grow scales, or fur, i will assume it is a duck...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Gee, thanks loam* but I’ve already had that.

Ill relay your gratitude to loam for you.

Loam did bring up a good point though in the other thread. the governments credibility bank account has gone into serious overdraft, and naturally, people are going to suspect them of doing things. And frankly, I don't blame them.

Not only that, but this has the smell of a smear job and enemy discrediting campaign all over it.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In a surprising turn of events related to the "thwarting" of the "Bottle Bomb" plot, outspoken and controversial MP George Galloway has been connected to one of the terrorists. Apparently, the sister of suspect Waheed Zaman, has indicated her brother had a deep respect for Galloway and met with him often.

Deep respect is one thing, but actually knowing the person is another.
I have respect for George Galloway and some of his ideals, but hell, i have never met the guy. Does this make me the same as the terrorists?

I would hazard a guess that Waheed Zaman had never met him either. Nor had his sister who made these absurd remarks. How the hell does having respect for someone's ideals make them connected to the current terrorist threat?

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Bikereddie]

This is nothing less than libel, albeit very clever libel. It casts an air of doubt over George Galloway without really coming out and saying anything. Now throw that bit of doubt into the echo-chamber and George Galloway will forever be considered an is-he/aint-he a terrorist facilitator.

Since the paper didnt come right out and accuse Galloway of being friendly with this man he wont be able to successfully sue for libel as he has done before. But the damage is the same nontheless.

But if you're some one who believes Galloway speaks an air of truth, regardless of his personal drawbacks, then I dont think this spurious allegation will change your opinion on his views. So in essence it was damage control more so than discrediting Galloway.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Well, thats one way of getting rid of unwanted and inconvienent people. Link them to terrorism.

I cant stand George Galloway. I think he represents everything wrong with the left. However, to accuse him of involvement with terrorist plots is friggin absurd. This seems like an attempt by Blair to silence one fo the most outspoken and staunch opponenents of his government.

Skadi

I agree with you up to where you said "However". I don't think it's absurd at all. I think (because I listen to the poo that comes out of his mouth) that he sympathizes with terrorists. Should he hung, skinned, and quartered? No, not unless it can be proven beyond a shodow of a doubt that he has actually aided them. No matter how much I dislike him I do not think he is stupid enough to do that.

Originally posted by War_Monger
Skadi

I agree with you up to where you said "However".

I don't think it's absurd at all. I think (because I listen to the poo that comes out of his mouth) that he sympathizes with terrorists. Should he hung, skinned, and quartered? No, not unless it can be proven beyond a shodow of a doubt that he has actually aided them. No matter how much I dislike him I do not think he is stupid enough to do that.

Sympathizing with terrorists is one thing. I agree, he does sympathize with them. Its his right to do so.

However, that is a far cry from, actually being involved in the plot itself. Thats what Im refering to. Simply liking and rooting for the terrorists does not terrorist plot involvement make.

And thats what hes being accused of here.

Originally posted by neformore
Hey. Best fry Rumsfeld. Theres a video of him shaking hands with that devil incarnate himself, Saddam Hussein. (Just before the US sold him all those nasty weapons)

[edit on 11-8-2006 by neformore]

The United States did not sell Iraq "all those nasty weapons"...period! Samples were provided by the CDC for peaceful scientific purposes, not weaponization.

The claims that the United States willfully armed the Iraqi dictator's military are greatly exaggerated or, in some cases, simply false.

The United States did send some anthrax samples to Iraq, but for veterinary use. On September 29, 1988, the American Type Culture Collection, a commercial firm near Manassas, Virginia, shipped eleven items to Iraq's Ministry of Trade, including several strains of anthrax bacteria. The export was meant to help deal with the animal cases os anthrax. Although the Iraqis revealed after the Persian Gulf War that they had diverted the American anthrax strains to a biological warfare facility, the U.S. government was not intentionally improving Saddam's biological weapons program.

Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta acknowledged that it had supplied Iraq with fourteen agents that could have been used in biological warfare, including West Nile Virus. A spokesman for the center admitted, "We did work with Iraq's scientists along with other scientists on microbiological agents and reagents. That did occur in the mid-'80s but...there were no other shpments that were sent after the incident involving Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." Again, the United States was not trying to improve the Iraqis' biological warfare capabilities. Most of the materials were noninfection diagnostic reagents for detecting infections from mosqguito-born viruses.

Whatever biological weapons capabilities Saddam Hussein had, the United States was not his main supplier. And according to interviews CIA weapons inspectors conducted with Iraqi biological weapons scientists after the 2003 war, as well as documents the inspectors uncovered, the Iraqis ran a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities for devoloping germ warfare throughout the 1990's. The inspectors even found a vial of a biological agent precurser in an Iraqi weapons scientists home refrigerator. Working so hard to develope and refine biological weapons, the Iraqis were clearly not relying on material they had gotten from U.S. sources.
Treachery: How Americ's Friends and Foes are Secretly Arming Our Enemies, By Bill Getz ISBN 1-4000-5315-3

You might also want to read the Charles A. Duelfer Report. Find it here:
Duelfer Report

Maybe they didn't weaponize them in the 90s but they surely did in the Iran-Iraq war with biological and chemicals weapons. So yes the US armed Saddam Hussein when it was convinient to do so for military lobby.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Maybe they didn't weaponize them in the 90s but they surely did in the Iran-Iraq war with biological and chemicals weapons. So yes the US armed Saddam Hussein when it was convinient to do so for military lobby.

I hate do this because it seems like I'm hijacking the thread but I need to respond.

No, the U.S. did not arm Iraq with wmd. The U.S., once again, provided agents that were suppossed to be used for peaceful scientific purposes, not weapons programs designed to kill people. I suppose, by your logic, if we supply aluminum, titanium, and other raw materials to another country and that country turns around and builds with that material missiles that they then fire at someone else and kill hundreds of peole we supplied weapons to them to.

Originally posted by War_Monger
No, the U.S. did not arm Iraq with wmd. The U.S., once again, provided agents that were suppossed to be used for peaceful scientific purposes, not weapons programs designed to kill people.

So the part where the US government removed Iraq from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to give Saddam conventional weapons should be overlooked? We're to believe these specimens were given to a freshly delisted state sponsor of terrorism for "peaceful research"?

Smells like a backdoor biowarfare deal to me. Any one in the US government who believed Saddam would put the specimens to peaceful scientific use would of been naieve to the point of criminally negligent.

Man that is NOT a name worthy of ANY credibility with me. Wow, do some research into Dave Gaubatz and go from there...

To think the Old Money wouldn't male a sacrificial lamb of Galloway (not saying they DID but) is such a naive thought that I have to wonder if those who think it have ANY IDEA what the Federal Reserve, the single MOST powerful financial entity on this planet, is?

Do you think it's Government owned institution?

I look forward to the answer to this one, simple, question...

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
Do you think it's Government owned institution?

According to some its supposed to be a private entity acting on behalf of world banks with links to the UN, that about cover it?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Springer
Do you think it's Government owned institution?

According to some its supposed to be a private entity acting on behalf of world banks with links to the UN, that about cover it?

That's what most people think... It IS a 100% privately owned and controlled institution. Owned by the who's who of the Old Money families... Let's review. The single most powerful financial entity on the planet is owned by the families who have conspired to create the "permanent war economy". That about cover it?

Springer...

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Springer]

Is an MP "connected" to everyone who shakes his hand? No. Do you, if held in high esteem buy some, forge some sort of "connection" with them? No.

This is not a story at all, just a very ropey attempt to use the current situation in the UK as an excuse for more good old George Galloway bashing. Shouldn't this be on PTS?

Is very interesting to see, when a very outspoken known figure like Mr. Galloway becomes too dangerous to be an attempt on his life to silence him, the next option is to get his credibility attacked with propaganda.

It is so calculated and obvious that we should not question the credibility of Mr. Galloway but should get deeper into the motives and the comments about the connection.

The question should be who make the connection and why.