I'm not sure why you are using that tired 'conspiracy theory' fall back. It seems to have become an almost Pavlovian response to anyone who doubts official, (but absurd) explanations. I have no problems with official stories that make sense....but here, there are problems. If something looks decidely unkosher, or makes little sense, or is improbable, or unlikely, or out of character, etc etc, then there is a good chance that another explanation is, at the very least, possible, or deserves air. It is a great shame that we are expected to toe the line and digest what we are told, by default, in a faith-based, rather than fact-based standpoint.
The "foreign intelligence" possibility is off-message, I grant you that: it would be most embarassing for the Blair administration if a 'foreign "anti-terrorist" squad' had screwed up and killed an innocent man in cold blood. But a "conspiracy theory", unfortunately, has connotations of "Elvis, UFOs, and the Weekly World News"..and to label something a C.T. has become a fashionable and highly effective tool to link distasteful explanations with "wackoism", and thereby trashing valid lines of inquiry, by inappropriate and often kneejerk-type association.
We always have to be aware that the national media have a history of always tending towards government lapdog status, rather than watchdog, certainly when it comes to 'heavy' types of issue, such as this. On the other hand, as regards trivia, personal scandal, sex, and fluff-stuff etc., the national media are watchdogs, especially here in the USA (and other western style democracies). I would far prefer this upside-down sense of priorities to be reversed....but that is way too much to ever expect.
I don't trust the "official stories" either. Doubt is not the issue here. I make up my mind from things I read in the news, on the internet and learn from my friends. From the first time I heard the story I had suspicions that this was not a clear case, as did others. First it turns out that he was innocent, then we learn he didn't jump the gate, or wore a heavy coat. right? Evidence of Mossad involvement? Can't say I've seen zip of it yet.
BUT, I've seen a lot of bad policing. It's happening every day. From negligence to direct abuse of power. And if you look at our friends in latin america, I think it's fair to say that the more power the police are given, the more likely it is to be abused.
I also know the Mossad and the CIA is doing operations outside of legal "international rules" in Europe at the moment. The case in Italy is pretty embarassing to the US.
One is a hell of a lot more common than the other. That doesn't mean that you have to draw a conclusion, but at least leave part of that in your speculation, ok? The sane thing is to assume the most probable, until other evidence is sufficently strong.
But you are jumping to conclusions, immediately. Crying wolf everytime you feel there is something not right. And this bothers me, up to a point where I normally don't read your post very thorough, because I just can't take them seriously.
And frankly, it also makes it harder to state well fundamentet historical fact, like the CIA involvement in the coup in Chile.
I don't trust the "official stories" either. Doubt is not the issue here. I make up my mind from things I read in the news, on the internet and learn from my friends. From the first time I heard the story I had suspicions that this was not a clear case, as did others. First it turns out that he was innocent, then we learn he didn't jump the gate, or wore a heavy coat. right? Evidence of Mossad involvement? Can't say I've seen zip of it yet.
If you read my original post, I did not state that "Mossad was responsible". I implied that a foreign intelligence unit might have been the culprits as the facts point away from typical UK policing methods. Sure, there are some very bad apples in the Metropolitan Police, as there are in any police force, but this event appeared to be a targeted assassination that went pearshaped. Furthermore, the Blair administration in the late 1990s did give permission for Mossad to conduct covert "anti-terrorist" activity on British soil. Those two facts alone surely allow some leeway into at least posing the question of possible foreign involvement, rather that wimping out for fear of being tarred and feathered with that wretched (damned) "conspiracy theory" label. Incidentally, I did not categorically state that is wasn't the Metropolitan Police who screwed up.
Quote:
BUT, I've seen a lot of bad policing. It's happening every day. From negligence to direct abuse of power. And if you look at our friends in latin america, I think it's fair to say that the more power the police are given, the more likely it is to be abused.
I also know the Mossad and the CIA is doing operations outside of legal "international rules" in Europe at the moment. The case in Italy is pretty embarassing to the US.
One is a hell of a lot more common than the other. That doesn't mean that you have to draw a conclusion, but at least leave part of that in your speculation, ok? The sane thing is to assume the most probable, until other evidence is sufficently strong.
Where does the evidence lead to? If the "officers(?)" in question are charged (manslaughter, murder, culpable homicide?), and publicly identified, with witnesses, scientifically solid proof, etc. etc., that leads to a verdict in a court of law, then I will gladly eat crow, and you can watch too.
Quote:
But you are jumping to conclusions, immediately. Crying wolf everytime you feel there is something not right. And this bothers me, up to a point where I normally don't read your post very thorough, because I just can't take them seriously.
I have come to no conclusions whatsoever. All I made was a suggestion of a possibility, based on the available facts. Perhaps it was the mention of "Mossad" which riled you, knowing full well that it is impossible to level any criticism, no matter how valid, against the policies of the Jewish state, knowing that people will instantly start barking "anti-semite" etc.
I have posted a whole bunch of stuff on 9-11 as well, and similarly I have stated no conclusions on that issue either: All I have done is point out inconsistencies, absurdities, wild coincidences, and impossibilities in the official government story line...and ask questions about wtf actually happened on that day.......but all I get is stupid, kneejerk, blinkered, infantile responses and accusations of being a conspiracy-theory monger.
ok, I accept what your saying. But to me you still come across as pretty convinced in your posts. Your "suggestions" to me are premeditated and find evidence where there is none. The tone of your posts is not one that justs opens for discussion.
ok, I accept what your saying. But to me you still come across as pretty convinced in your posts. Your "suggestions" to me are premeditated and find evidence where there is none. The tone of your posts is not one that justs opens for discussion.
At least to me.
If that is what you wish to, or prefer to, or are more comfortable with, interpreting, then that is your prerogative. What are all these instances where I 'find evidence where there is none'?
OK...conservatives reading this...I know the link is to infowars.com, but the video piece they link to is John Loftus talking on Fox News. Haroon Rashid, the alleged mastermind of the London 7/7 bombings apparently is an asset of MI6, the British foreign intelligence service. They have been protecting him!
Two possibilities spring to mind. Is this a case supreme incompetence combined with a lack of interdepartmental liaison? Or might the whole thing have been pre-engineered by elements within the UK Government, using Mr. Rashid as a stooge or patsy? Any other suggestions, please?
OK...conservatives reading this...I know the link is to infowars.com, but the video piece they link to is John Loftus talking on Fox News. Haroon Rashid, the alleged mastermind of the London 7/7 bombings apparently is an asset of MI6, the British foreign intelligence service. They have been protecting him!
Two possibilities spring to mind. Is this a case supreme incompetence combined with a lack of interdepartmental liaison? Or might the whole thing have been pre-engineered by elements within the UK Government, using Mr. Rashid as a stooge or patsy? Any other suggestions, please?
oooh... juicy conspiracy stuff...
this would be SUPREME MISMANAGEMENT of an asset if true
OK...conservatives reading this...I know the link is to infowars.com, but the video piece they link to is John Loftus talking on Fox News. Haroon Rashid, the alleged mastermind of the London 7/7 bombings apparently is an asset of MI6, the British foreign intelligence service. They have been protecting him!
Two possibilities spring to mind. Is this a case supreme incompetence combined with a lack of interdepartmental liaison? Or might the whole thing have been pre-engineered by elements within the UK Government, using Mr. Rashid as a stooge or patsy? Any other suggestions, please?
To me it looks like a good old case of playing both horses. Like we had double agents back in the cold war. If he is responsible at all.
Italian police seem to think the terrorists were more of a random group of annoyed individuals than a well organized cell, however they must have gotten their explosives from somewhere (or someone).
To me it looks like a good old case of playing both horses. Like we had double agents back in the cold war. If he is responsible at all.
Italian police seem to think the terrorists were more of a random group of annoyed individuals than a well organized cell, however they must have gotten their explosives from somewhere (or someone).
the old adage rings true....
"... you play with fire...."
fucking with the minds of dangerous people is dangerous.
Comments
Originally posted by sammi jo
I'm not sure why you are using that tired 'conspiracy theory' fall back. It seems to have become an almost Pavlovian response to anyone who doubts official, (but absurd) explanations. I have no problems with official stories that make sense....but here, there are problems. If something looks decidely unkosher, or makes little sense, or is improbable, or unlikely, or out of character, etc etc, then there is a good chance that another explanation is, at the very least, possible, or deserves air. It is a great shame that we are expected to toe the line and digest what we are told, by default, in a faith-based, rather than fact-based standpoint.
The "foreign intelligence" possibility is off-message, I grant you that: it would be most embarassing for the Blair administration if a 'foreign "anti-terrorist" squad' had screwed up and killed an innocent man in cold blood. But a "conspiracy theory", unfortunately, has connotations of "Elvis, UFOs, and the Weekly World News"..and to label something a C.T. has become a fashionable and highly effective tool to link distasteful explanations with "wackoism", and thereby trashing valid lines of inquiry, by inappropriate and often kneejerk-type association.
We always have to be aware that the national media have a history of always tending towards government lapdog status, rather than watchdog, certainly when it comes to 'heavy' types of issue, such as this. On the other hand, as regards trivia, personal scandal, sex, and fluff-stuff etc., the national media are watchdogs, especially here in the USA (and other western style democracies). I would far prefer this upside-down sense of priorities to be reversed....but that is way too much to ever expect.
I don't trust the "official stories" either. Doubt is not the issue here. I make up my mind from things I read in the news, on the internet and learn from my friends. From the first time I heard the story I had suspicions that this was not a clear case, as did others. First it turns out that he was innocent, then we learn he didn't jump the gate, or wore a heavy coat. right? Evidence of Mossad involvement? Can't say I've seen zip of it yet.
BUT, I've seen a lot of bad policing. It's happening every day. From negligence to direct abuse of power. And if you look at our friends in latin america, I think it's fair to say that the more power the police are given, the more likely it is to be abused.
I also know the Mossad and the CIA is doing operations outside of legal "international rules" in Europe at the moment. The case in Italy is pretty embarassing to the US.
One is a hell of a lot more common than the other. That doesn't mean that you have to draw a conclusion, but at least leave part of that in your speculation, ok? The sane thing is to assume the most probable, until other evidence is sufficently strong.
But you are jumping to conclusions, immediately. Crying wolf everytime you feel there is something not right. And this bothers me, up to a point where I normally don't read your post very thorough, because I just can't take them seriously.
And frankly, it also makes it harder to state well fundamentet historical fact, like the CIA involvement in the coup in Chile.
Sorry if that came across as offensive.
Originally posted by New
I don't trust the "official stories" either. Doubt is not the issue here. I make up my mind from things I read in the news, on the internet and learn from my friends. From the first time I heard the story I had suspicions that this was not a clear case, as did others. First it turns out that he was innocent, then we learn he didn't jump the gate, or wore a heavy coat. right? Evidence of Mossad involvement? Can't say I've seen zip of it yet.
If you read my original post, I did not state that "Mossad was responsible". I implied that a foreign intelligence unit might have been the culprits as the facts point away from typical UK policing methods. Sure, there are some very bad apples in the Metropolitan Police, as there are in any police force, but this event appeared to be a targeted assassination that went pearshaped. Furthermore, the Blair administration in the late 1990s did give permission for Mossad to conduct covert "anti-terrorist" activity on British soil. Those two facts alone surely allow some leeway into at least posing the question of possible foreign involvement, rather that wimping out for fear of being tarred and feathered with that wretched (damned) "conspiracy theory" label. Incidentally, I did not categorically state that is wasn't the Metropolitan Police who screwed up.
BUT, I've seen a lot of bad policing. It's happening every day. From negligence to direct abuse of power. And if you look at our friends in latin america, I think it's fair to say that the more power the police are given, the more likely it is to be abused.
I also know the Mossad and the CIA is doing operations outside of legal "international rules" in Europe at the moment. The case in Italy is pretty embarassing to the US.
One is a hell of a lot more common than the other. That doesn't mean that you have to draw a conclusion, but at least leave part of that in your speculation, ok? The sane thing is to assume the most probable, until other evidence is sufficently strong.
Where does the evidence lead to? If the "officers(?)" in question are charged (manslaughter, murder, culpable homicide?), and publicly identified, with witnesses, scientifically solid proof, etc. etc., that leads to a verdict in a court of law, then I will gladly eat crow, and you can watch too.
But you are jumping to conclusions, immediately. Crying wolf everytime you feel there is something not right. And this bothers me, up to a point where I normally don't read your post very thorough, because I just can't take them seriously.
I have come to no conclusions whatsoever. All I made was a suggestion of a possibility, based on the available facts. Perhaps it was the mention of "Mossad" which riled you, knowing full well that it is impossible to level any criticism, no matter how valid, against the policies of the Jewish state, knowing that people will instantly start barking "anti-semite" etc.
I have posted a whole bunch of stuff on 9-11 as well, and similarly I have stated no conclusions on that issue either: All I have done is point out inconsistencies, absurdities, wild coincidences, and impossibilities in the official government story line...and ask questions about wtf actually happened on that day.......but all I get is stupid, kneejerk, blinkered, infantile responses and accusations of being a conspiracy-theory monger.
Sigh. Such is the world.
At least to me.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Note to AG Gonzales and GWB... no torture required. All suspected terrorists caught in a week.
Note to you: a lot easier done when they are not burned to death in an airplane 80 stories up.
Congrats to police, a job well done.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/22/top4.htm
Originally posted by New
ok, I accept what your saying. But to me you still come across as pretty convinced in your posts. Your "suggestions" to me are premeditated and find evidence where there is none. The tone of your posts is not one that justs opens for discussion.
At least to me.
If that is what you wish to, or prefer to, or are more comfortable with, interpreting, then that is your prerogative. What are all these instances where I 'find evidence where there is none'?
http://www.infowars.com/articles/Lon..._mi6_asset.htm
OK...conservatives reading this...I know the link is to infowars.com, but the video piece they link to is John Loftus talking on Fox News. Haroon Rashid, the alleged mastermind of the London 7/7 bombings apparently is an asset of MI6, the British foreign intelligence service. They have been protecting him!
Two possibilities spring to mind. Is this a case supreme incompetence combined with a lack of interdepartmental liaison? Or might the whole thing have been pre-engineered by elements within the UK Government, using Mr. Rashid as a stooge or patsy? Any other suggestions, please?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Would you believe this? And on Fox News of all places??
http://www.infowars.com/articles/Lon..._mi6_asset.htm
OK...conservatives reading this...I know the link is to infowars.com, but the video piece they link to is John Loftus talking on Fox News. Haroon Rashid, the alleged mastermind of the London 7/7 bombings apparently is an asset of MI6, the British foreign intelligence service. They have been protecting him!
Two possibilities spring to mind. Is this a case supreme incompetence combined with a lack of interdepartmental liaison? Or might the whole thing have been pre-engineered by elements within the UK Government, using Mr. Rashid as a stooge or patsy? Any other suggestions, please?
oooh... juicy conspiracy stuff...
this would be SUPREME MISMANAGEMENT of an asset if true
Originally posted by sammi jo
Would you believe this? And on Fox News of all places??
http://www.infowars.com/articles/Lon..._mi6_asset.htm
OK...conservatives reading this...I know the link is to infowars.com, but the video piece they link to is John Loftus talking on Fox News. Haroon Rashid, the alleged mastermind of the London 7/7 bombings apparently is an asset of MI6, the British foreign intelligence service. They have been protecting him!
Two possibilities spring to mind. Is this a case supreme incompetence combined with a lack of interdepartmental liaison? Or might the whole thing have been pre-engineered by elements within the UK Government, using Mr. Rashid as a stooge or patsy? Any other suggestions, please?
To me it looks like a good old case of playing both horses. Like we had double agents back in the cold war. If he is responsible at all.
Italian police seem to think the terrorists were more of a random group of annoyed individuals than a well organized cell, however they must have gotten their explosives from somewhere (or someone).
Originally posted by New
To me it looks like a good old case of playing both horses. Like we had double agents back in the cold war. If he is responsible at all.
Italian police seem to think the terrorists were more of a random group of annoyed individuals than a well organized cell, however they must have gotten their explosives from somewhere (or someone).
the old adage rings true....
"... you play with fire...."
fucking with the minds of dangerous people is dangerous.