The False Flag that is the Manchester Bombing

a reply to: Kali74

I can appreciate your stance. I can also see the above post where the user states that they simply don't have the manpower to actively keep watch on everyone suspected with extremism.

To that (and them), I ask this. Why do we, time after time, get fairly incriminating photos/documents/connections that draw us a clear picture of what happened.

I get hindsight being 20/20, but how many times are we going to repeat the same exact narrative?

a reply to: Tempter

I see your point I think and yeah I kind of agree. If a false flag involves more than say 20 people keeping a secret it's not going to happen. The number of people required to pull off something like this would be just about pusing it.

You have to get family and friends to agree find someone who wants to die. Give them enough support to pull it off. Highly unlikely given the circumstances. Then there's the fact what's the benefit you could pull it off with much less casualties and still have the same results.

a reply to: JinMI

I think omissions are sometimes necessary. The public don't need to know every detail and in some cases it could be very detrimental to release such details. We don't have the God given right to know all the ins and outs of the Intelligence Service's operations. We do have the right to be safe however, but if there isn't the manpower and time what can be done? Every security force in the world practically are combatting this bs and mistakes will be made, things will happen that will make us wonder why, steps will be taken we know nothing about etc.

a reply to: JinMI

Often the incriminating evidence only becomes incriminating in hindsight, when the damage is done. I'm sure MI5 are seriously hacked off at missing this guy but if he was being watched and there was nothing to report what else could they do? They can't watch all 3000 current suspects its an impossible task.

They could however have barred the 400 ex Isis fighters that returned to the UK but I suppose they thought these people could be useful in leading the Intelligence community to others

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Again, I'm in agreement with you. I really don't think that it is. But I am keeping an open mind and ear. However, I do take exception to your thinking that a political party, or operative, is above this. If a fairly powerless son of immigrants is capable of it, then power hungry, corrupt, lying politicians certainly are as well. At least in theory.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

The public don't need to know every detail and in some cases it could be very detrimental to release such details. We don't have the God given right to know all the ins and outs of the Intelligence Service's operations.

Fair point. To that I ask: Why did we see the remnants of the implements used?
Why are they telling us who he is and where he comes from and who his family is?
What is the point of having victims families on morning news shows reading words that aren't their own instead of their own account?

How does that keep us safe or promote caution?

What would help with safety and some measure of security is:
How he got through.
Where he got his resources.
Why he was able to cause that much injury and death.

a reply to: JinMI

I thought we weren't allowed to call anything a false flag anymore?

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
a reply to: JinMI

I thought we weren't allowed to call anything a false flag anymore?

If this gets taken down (I highly doubt), I will agree.

Knowing and applying the differences between a false flag and a staged event are important.

a reply to: JinMI

I don't know. How long before we let terrorists strip us of our compassion? Maybe too late on that.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: JinMI

I don't know. How long before we let terrorists strip us of our compassion? Maybe too late on that.

Apparently at the same rate as our freedoms.....?

a reply to: JinMI

That too.

a reply to: JinMI

well that didnt take long

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I was hardly the first.

However there is evidence to make the proposal.

Care to add any or argue against?

a reply to: JinMI

Do you find it strange that they were able to ID the remains of a suicide bomber?

a reply to: Mousygretchen

Not necessarily. At first, I heard reports that they were looking for a finger. Then there is something about a bank card.

I've not yet seen info on how they actually identified him.

ETA: Found.

Rescue workers sifting through the carnage outside the arena on Monday night discovered Mr. Abedi’s identification card. That clue led the police to the home he shared with his family on Elsmore Road, in the Fallowfield district. The police blew the house’s door off its frame, to safeguard against booby traps, as shocked neighbors watched.

www.nytimes.com...

Over the weekend Corbyn was polling at his highest level so far. This is a story from six days ago:

Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour has reached its highest poll rating in the General Election campaign so far after the party launched its radical manifesto.

While the Conservatives still enjoy a commanding lead Labour were up two points on 32 per cent, with the Tories down one on 45, a YouGov poll for The Times found

Made me pause a little.

Corbyn is an A HOLE and is trying to blame us for the terrorist attack

I don't think this is false flag. There's plausibility. Youa re asking all these "why" questions when no one knows the answers yet. Absence of information does not infer a sinister plot.

originally posted by: JinMIFair point. To that I ask: Why did we see the remnants of the implements used?

Because some dick leaked forensic photos to the press. It caused a diplomatic tiff between the UK and the USA.

Why are they telling us who he is and where he comes from and who his family is?

Because that's a basic bit of information that is in the public interest to know and it won't compromise the criminal investigation. In face publicising his name may aid the investigation as people may come forward.

What is the point of having victims families on morning news shows reading words that aren't their own instead of their own account?

Is that really what is happening? Are bereaved parents now part of the plot? These are terrible human stories and there is a public appetite to hear the stories.

What would help with safety and some measure of security is:
How he got through.
Where he got his resources.
Why he was able to cause that much injury and death.

That is all part of the criminal investigation. It'll all end up in the public domain. As to the "why he was anle to cause...", well he was able to cause so much injury and death because he detonated a bomb in a crowd. Think about it.

a reply to: paraphi

I don't think this is false flag. There's plausibility. Youa re asking all these "why" questions when no one knows the answers yet. Absence of information does not infer a sinister plot.

The sinister plot as you put it is the obvious narrative taking place in an attempt to either justify or cause a more authoritarian environment. See martial law and police state.

Because some dick leaked forensic photos to the press. It caused a diplomatic tiff between the UK and the USA.

So someone leaked. Why publish it? To cause a rift as you say. It accomplished nothing but put a space between the UK and the US in a time where likely allies stand to gain.

Because that's a basic bit of information that is in the public interest to know and it won't compromise the criminal investigation. In face publicising his name may aid the investigation as people may come forward.

If investigators were facing an unknown person(s) and motive, this statement may have cause. Given the fact that he was identified and knew what he has been up to and all of that information has been plastered around the world, I would argue that it sets up the narrative nicely and is easily trademarked by now.

Is that really what is happening? Are bereaved parents now part of the plot? These are terrible human stories and there is a public appetite to hear the stories.

Part of the plot? More than likely not directly. If we are hearing their words, their personal account, that would be one thing. Reading a script, no matter the accuracy, is not their own words.

That is all part of the criminal investigation. It'll all end up in the public domain. As to the "why he was anle to cause...", well he was able to cause so much injury and death because he detonated a bomb in a crowd. Think about it.

Yes, it is an ongoing investigation and I've refrained from delving too deep in this OP as a result. I'm sure the authorities have plenty of surveillance footage that is not yet available that could fill in lots of gaps. I am thinking and why I made a post and am reading every dissenting comment.

Why was he stopped and who stopped him? Where is their report or why were they not among the deceased?

You think about that.

originally posted by: JinMI
The sinister plot as you put it is the obvious narrative taking place in an attempt to either justify or cause a more authoritarian environment. See martial law and police state.

I do not accept that. The UK is so far from being a police state than it can be! The question as to whether the government will be able to implement new rules on e.g. radicalisation, monitoring et al is no doubt someting that will pop out of all of this, but there is no march towards authoritarianism.

Why was he stopped and who stopped him? Where is their report or why were they not among the deceased?

We are day four after the atrocity. Perhaps the police should set up a website and put all their raw work in the public domain so everyone can try to answer these questions. Bugger due legal process, coroners, sensitivity to the victims, and criminal investigation. However, in the real world...