Bomb in Boston

[holepuncture]

What's wrong with Woolwich? Eyewitness reports versus pictures from the media. "Something out of a horror movie" versus relative pristine state of the prime suspect's jacket in the videos.

 

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sleeper_cell

 

Stay vigilant people.

[Verbal]

You don't believe in conspiracies. You wait for the corporations or governments that make up the mainstream media to feed you stories before you consider them "true".

 

In the words of Richard Dawkins:

 

We must by all means be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains drop out.

[aintforever]

What's wrong with Woolwich? Eyewitness reports versus pictures from the media. "Something out of a horror movie" versus relative pristine state of the prime suspect's jacket in the videos. The notion that Lee Rigby was decapitated, which you're still stating as fact, rests on the (at the time) urban tweets of boyadee, who talked of "bredas", etc. His post-Woolwich Guardian column ditches the sensationalist street language He has elected not to expand upon his fevered tweets with his new-found English skills, "out of respect for the family".

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/28/woolwich-murder-faith-humanity-boya-dee

 

 

A comment with 148 recommendations:-

 

Put the original tweets and this commentary side by side, and you've got a piece worthy of The Onion.

 

Personally, I think he's reluctant to repeat his tweets in a longer form because they're at odds with so much else on the day. A picture from the top floor of the bus shows a prone figure in the road with a head. There is a video of a woman comforting and stroking the prone figure in the street. Another eyewitness mentions checking a pulse. None of these events are consistent from boyadee then, or your stance now.

 

The coroner did not report decapitation.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/lee-rigby-died-cuts-stab-wounds-autopsy_n_3352738.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10090807/Woolwich-murder-Drummer-Lee-Rigby-had-to-be-identified-by-dental-records.html

 

The broadsheets were reluctant to confirm it at the time:-

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/he-was-always-smiling-lee-rigby-named-as-woolwich-victim-8628583.html

 

Tabloids were a different story.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-live-lee-rigby-1905653

 

You don't believe in conspiracies. You wait for the corporations or governments that make up the mainstream media to feed you stories before you consider them "true". What's clear from your repeated claim of decapitation is that you choose your news from the tabloids and you don't trouble yourself with too much follow-up.

 

That all being the case, I'm not quite sure how you get to call anyone gullible.

 

Newspapers sensationalise stuff, blimey, is it that hard to understand?

[pap]

Newspapers sensationalise stuff, blimey, is it that hard to understand?

 

For CB Fry, yes.

[pap]

In the words of Richard Dawkins:

 

Very rich coming from you, though.

 

What demonstrations of open-mindedness have you displayed? Questioners of atrocities are Neo nazis, anti-Semites or right wing nut jobs to you.

 

You were asked whether you placed any stock in any theory and declined to answer. You ignore evidence of non-nutters when linked and run away from threads when beaten (Madeleine McCann thread still awaiting your attention ).

 

I'm not sure you qualify as open-minded.

[Verbal]

Very rich coming from you, though.

 

What demonstrations of open-mindedness have you displayed? Questioners of atrocities are Neo nazis, anti-Semites or right wing nut jobs to you.

 

You were asked whether you placed any stock in any theory and declined to answer. You ignore evidence of non-nutters when linked and run away from threads when beaten (Madeleine McCann thread still awaiting your attention ).

 

I'm not sure you qualify as open-minded.

 

I've dealt with this many times before, but I'll try and say it in words even you might understand.

 

It is not my OPINION that you share the views of Jew-haters, terrorists and extreme right-wingers. It is a simple FACT.

 

Since you are so keen to identify yourself with the supposed heroism of "questioners of atrocities", let's take Holocaust denial. The Neo-Nazi and Hitler apologist David Irving is a Holocaust denier. By your argument - that "questioners of atrocities" should be lauded - you should praise Irving to the skies for arguing that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were "a hoax". This is EXACTLY the form of argument you so admire. Mainstream media be damned! Irving's got a point! Right? **** those filthy Jews for pretending they were incinerated!

 

Too uncomfortably non-PC for you? Try this. As a 9/11 denier, you will no doubt have read (if you do read) the work of David Ray Griffin, the theology professor who has written a dozen books on the 9/11 "hoax". Griffin is by far the most celebrated of all 9/11 deniers. Clearly someone you should admire. However, Griffin is a disciple and close friend of Holocaust denier Richard Falk. In fact, Falk wrote the foreword to Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbour", praising the author's "courage" and "fortitude". Griffin, by turn, credits Falk for getting the book published.

 

Falk is regular contributor to TruthJihad.com, where he fulminates against the "ethnic Jews" who control the "mainstream media". Again, this is something you should welcome, given your stance on the "mainstream media". Here is someone deeply sceptical of the "mainstream media" - and who is not afraid to make explicit that the mainstream media is a Jewish conspiracy. A round of applause, don't you think?

 

Incidentally, in claiming that 9/11 was committed by "established (meaning Jewish) elites of the American governmental structure", Falk praises that other great questioner of atrocities (the Holocaust), anti-Semite and 9/11 denier, the Iranian tyrant (retired), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

Finally - and to bring this back to the topic - The Tsarnaev brothers were/are celebrated 9/11 deniers. I say celebrated - but that's only because people like you have made them so, with your implications that Boston was another inside job, a hoax, a false flag, etc., and that the Tsarnaevs are innocent "patsies". There's even evidence now that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was radicalised not just by Jihadism in Dagestan and his Chechnyan homeland (where the object of hatred is not America but Russia), but by the fantasies of conspiracy theorists as well.

 

Now, to be clear, I am not accusing YOU of being a neo-Nazi, a Jew-hater, a terrorist, or a right-wing extremist. However, I AM accusing you of sharing the same ideas and ideals as these scumbags. And again, as I say, it is not so much an accusation as a simple statement of fact. Rather pathetically, in your case, you're none of these cartoon monsters; just someone who's accidentally fallen in line with them because you're evidently too stupid to REALLY question the world around you.

 

You have convinced yourself that by regurgitating the crap you glean from your computer screen you are some sort of swordsman of truth. To me, at least (I can't speak for others), your cognitively dysfunctional ramblings are just a bit sad.

 

Do you understand now? Or is this something you will never quite grasp?

 

I'll let you - as is your undeniable impulse - have the last word.

[CB Fry]

For CB Fry, yes.

 

Never said anything remotely resembling anything to suggest that.

 

I'd say "nice try" but really, just classically lame.

 

Meanwhile the Boston bomb was a "false flag" says the most gullible man on the internet. Bush done 911 says the most gullible man on the internet. "Look at his hands" says the most gullible man on the internet. Honest I only believe 10% of this stuff says the most gullible man on the internet.

 

Get some critical faculties Pap, please. You're an embarrassment.

[pap]

I've dealt with this many times before, but I'll try and say it in words even you might understand.

 

 

It is not my OPINION that you share the views of Jew-haters, terrorists and extreme right-wingers. It is a simple FACT.

 

 

I'm sure that's technically true. I have common ground with many people on different topics, as does everyone. Lord D and I have similar views on the monarchy and the EU, but we're close to being irreconcilable on other issues. You probably have some common ground with Jew-haters, terrorists and extreme right wingers, even if it is something as trivial as the number of sugars you have in your tea, yet no-one would suggest those points of commonality made you precisely the same as them.

 

 

The only reason that you continue to mention these subjects is because they are emotive taboos, cultivated and in some cases, legislated into being. We'll discuss further on your follow-up point.

 

 

 

 

Since you are so keen to identify yourself with the supposed heroism of "questioners of atrocities", let's take Holocaust denial. The Neo-Nazi and Hitler apologist David Irving is a Holocaust denier. By your argument - that "questioners of atrocities" should be lauded - you should praise Irving to the skies for arguing that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were "a hoax". This is EXACTLY the form of argument you so admire. Mainstream media be damned! Irving's got a point! Right? **** those filthy Jews for pretending they were incinerated!

 

 

Personally, I have no interest in questioning the holocaust. However, I recognise the wider scale of death of destruction during WW2. Jews were not the only people targeted for genocide and thirty million Soviet citizens died during this conflict. If our residual outrage and taboo-making was based on a mere numbers game, we'd hear that 30 million figure every week, and presumably be five times as offended. You'd be able to sling it into you posts and presumably, be five times more effective with the term "russian-hater".

 

 

Irvine was the chap who was locked up for his views, wasn't he? I've not looked into his work. Would you be good enough to spend one or two sentences repeating his central claims about Auschwitz?

 

 

Too uncomfortably non-PC for you?

 

 

Hardly, but it's telegraphing the sort of thing you're going for.

 

 

Try this. As a 9/11 denier, you will no doubt have read (if you do read) the work of David Ray Griffin, the theology professor who has written a dozen books on the 9/11 "hoax". Griffin is by far the most celebrated of all 9/11 deniers. Clearly someone you should admire. However, Griffin is a disciple and close friend of Holocaust denier Richard Falk. In fact, Falk wrote the foreword to Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbour", praising the author's "courage" and "fortitude". Griffin, by turn, credits Falk for getting the book published.

 

 

So in other words, you're unable to pull any of David Ray Griffin's books apart, so you need to smear the man based on his association with someone who questions the holocaust?

 

 

Jesus, you're a one-trick pony.

 

 

I'll let you- as is your undeniable impulse - have the last word.

 

Shill.

Edited 8 August, 2013 by pap

[pap]

Never said anything remotely resembling anything to suggest that.

 

I'd say "nice try" but really, just classically lame.

 

Meanwhile the Boston bomb was a "false flag" says the most gullible man on the internet. Bush done 911 says the most gullible man on the internet. "Look at his hands" says the most gullible man on the internet. Honest I only believe 10% of this stuff says the most gullible man on the internet.

 

Get some critical faculties Pap, please. You're an embarrassment.

 

So yeah. That one. And the Boston bomb all made up by a cast of two thousand actors. And that Woolwich beheading. Actors and stuff.

 

 

Get a memory.

[ottery st mary]

This is well worth a read....

 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

 

 

 

THESE ARE NOT CONSPIRACY NUTTERS BUT HIGHLY INTELLIGENT PEEPS..

 

Who at various times worked for the USA goverment....

 

My concern at the present time:scared: Should I be scared Verbal?

 

The fact that Israel appear to have taken over the Governments of UK and USA:rolleyes:

 

Did I read that 85% of our Goovernment are part of the Friends of Israel?

 

Apparently even higher within the USA administration..What is this all about:?

 

Who controls MFI and CIA?

 

What is going on in the world today where are two countries are involved?

 

Why is there sooooo much doubt as to the authenticity regarding major incidents....especially in recent times......ie Boston (parts look real to me and sections look as if Hollywood as taken charge:uhoh:)

 

 

Verbal....pleeeese help me out here and shed some light on this mere mortal:p

 

especially all this friends of Israel biz:?

 

Thank you in anticipation xxx:mcinnes:

 

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY..LET US MAKE LOTS MORE MONEY OUT OF WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE....

 

 

 

patriots question 911 is well worth the read:)

Edited 7 August, 2013 by ottery st mary

[CB Fry]

 

Get a memory.

 

Look at his hands.

[CB Fry]

My concern at the present timeShould I be scared Verbal?

 

The fact that Israel appear to have taken over the Governments of UK and USA:rolleyes:

 

Did I read that 85% of our Goovernment are part of the Friends of Israel?

 

Apparently even higher within the USA administration..What is this all about:?

 

Who controls MFI and CIA?

 

What is going on in the world today where are two countries are involved?

 

Why is there sooooo much doubt as to the authenticity regarding major incidents....especially in recent times......ie Boston (parts look real to me and sections look as if Hollywood as taken charge:uhoh:)

 

 

Verbal....pleeeese help me out here and shed some light on this mere mortal:p

 

especially all this friends of Israel biz

 

Thank you in anticipation xxx:mcinnes:

 

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY..LET US MAKE LOTS MORE MONEY OUT OF WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE....

 

 

 

patriots question 911 is well worth the read:)

 

 

The jews:eek:

 

The jews:confused:

 

The jews I tells ya;)

 

The jews:mad:

 

Jews:D

 

 

God bless the conspiroplanks.

 

Obviously not the jew god.

[pap]

Expert opinion provided by semi-regular tabloid reader CB Fry.

[CB Fry]

Expert opinion provided by semi-regular tabloid reader CB Fry.

 

You don't need to be an expert on anything to know the Boston Bomb was not a false flag.

 

You just need to not be a complete plank.

 

Never mind Pap.

Edited 8 August, 2013 by CB Fry

[ottery st mary]

The jews:eek:

 

The jews:confused:

 

The jews I tells ya;)

 

The jews:mad:

 

Jews:D

 

 

God bless the conspiroplanks.

 

Obviously not the jew god.

 

Helloooo Mr Angry:mcinnes:

 

I trust you will put my mind at rest given time?

Edited 8 August, 2013 by ottery st mary

[CB Fry]

Helloooo Mr Angry:mcinnes:

 

I trust you will put my mind at rest given time?

 

I'm not angry.

 

Well, not about anything you've ever posted. :confused:

 

Jews:D

[pap]

I'm not angry.

 

Well, not about anything you've ever posted. :confused:

 

Jews:D

 

I don't honestly know why you care. The only difference between Verbal and yourself at the moment is that he's got a slightly better vocabulary.

 

Are you the same dude using two different stylebooks?

[CB Fry]

I don't honestly know why you care. The only difference between Verbal and yourself at the moment is that he's got a slightly better vocabulary.

 

Are you the same dude using two different stylebooks?

 

 

I don't care. You do.

 

I find it funny that's all.

 

You want to post your 10% approved Pap conspirocontent on here, fill your boots.

 

I will take the pi ss out of it. That's the deal.

[pap]

I don't care. You do.

 

I find it funny that's all.

 

You want to post your 10% approved Pap conspirocontent on here, fill your boots.

 

I will take the pi ss out of it. That's the deal.

 

Well, the deal is you'll take the p!ss out of it before being shown up for being someone who hasn't a clue. That beheading in Woolwich is a prime example. Still believe that, btw?

[buctootim]

Well, the deal is you'll take the p!ss out of it before being shown up for being someone who hasn't a clue. That beheading in Woolwich is a prime example. Still believe that, btw?

 

Pap, I say this in a friendly way - you really aren't showing anybody up over this stuff, you aren't winning converts. Gleefully pointing out when people are marginally out on details, but right on the substance doesn't make you the winner. You are just making yourself look more foolish.

Edited 8 August, 2013 by buctootim

[pap]

Pap, I say this in a friendly way - you really aren't showing anybody up over this stuff, you aren't winning converts. Gleefully pointing out when people are marginally out on details, but right on the substance doesn't make the you the winner. You are just making yourself look more foolish.

 

Nah, that's fine Tim. I'm happy enough with a bit of detente between us.

 

The other side of the coin is that CB's fact-free conclusions and Verbal's continual efforts to place consipiracy theorists into large, anti-semitic buckets aren't especially impressive either.

 

The difference, I suppose, is that I'm simply going after their post content and making conclusions based on that. Hence, CB Fry probably isn't in a position to talk authoritatively on the subject because he is unaware of the basic facts, and has no appetite for any revisionism based on information that is in the public domain. I think that if one man uses "beheading in Woolwich" as an emotive means to shut down debate, it's perfectly reasonable to question that point.

 

As for foolishness - there was always going to be an element of that. Radical views on a mainstream site will do that to you. It's the cost of doing business. I'm not looking to win converts here, but the thread now has 16K views. I'm happy enough with my input on here, and I say that as someone on the public record. I wonder if Verbal would put his name to any of the stuff he's written.

 

People will make up their own minds, as it should be.

Edited 8 August, 2013 by pap

[holepuncture]

That beheading in Woolwich is a prime example. Still believe that, btw?

 

 

I think that if one man uses "beheading in Woolwich" as an emotive means to shut down debate, it's perfectly reasonable to question that point.

 

As for foolishness - there was always going to be an element of that. Radical views on a mainstream site will do that to you. It's the cost of doing business. I'm not looking to win converts here, but the thread now has 16K views. I'm happy enough with my input on here, and I say that as someone on the public record. I wonder if Verbal would put his name to any of the stuff he's written.

 

People will make up their own minds, as it should be.

 

 

Vermin.

[pap]

 

 

 

Vermin.

 

I'm from immigrant stock, holepuncture. My granddad is from Karachi, so I'm probably already qualified under your existing criteria.

 

Good input though.

[CB Fry]

Well, the deal is you'll take the p!ss out of it before being shown up for being someone who hasn't a clue. That beheading in Woolwich is a prime example. Still believe that, btw?

 

Yes, I still believe it wasn't staged by the goverment.

 

Pretty unshakeable on that one, 10% man.

[Special K]

Yes, I still believe it wasn't staged by the goverment.

 

Pretty unshakeable on that one, 10% man.

 

This is pretty much the point behind all the waffle and childish sniping. Pap inferred he thought the whole thing was staged (i.e. there was no killing due to a lack of blood), on the original thread, based upon, presumably, nothing more than sitting at his laptop and feverishly trying to find anything online to justify the pre determined stance that there was some kind of conspiracy cover up by evil government forces. He did this without ever actually saying he thought it was a cover up, merely alluding to it. But in the face of rightful indignation, he didn't have the courage of any conviction to state what he actually thought, instead, later, focusing on the beheading element as a stick to inanely waffle on post after bleeding post about how awful the rest of us are at believing the official Government sponsored side of events and being small minded enough to accept what the papers say, etc, etc. So I guess he now accepts that there was a death and that the perps were actually the perps and that there is no "conspiracy" of any sorts, despite initial posts to the contrary. I seriously hope the end is now in sight, but very much doubt it as Verbal is spot on in his observation about him having to have the last, tedious f**king word.

[pap]

This is pretty much the point behind all the waffle and childish sniping. Pap inferred he thought the whole thing was staged (i.e. there was no killing due to a lack of blood), on the original thread, based upon, presumably, nothing more than sitting at his laptop and feverishly trying to find anything online to justify the pre determined stance that there was some kind of conspiracy cover up by evil government forces. He did this without ever actually saying he thought it was a cover up, merely alluding to it. But in the face of rightful indignation, he didn't have the courage of any conviction to state what he actually thought, instead, later, focusing on the beheading element as a stick to inanely waffle on post after bleeding post about how awful the rest of us are at believing the official Government sponsored side of events and being small minded enough to accept what the papers say, etc, etc. So I guess he now accepts that there was a death and that the perps were actually the perps and that there is no "conspiracy" of any sorts, despite initial posts to the contrary. I seriously hope the end is now in sight, but very much doubt it as Verbal is spot on in his observation about him having to have the last, tedious f**king word.

 

I don't need to provide any theories when so many others are constructing them for me, inexpertly as it goes.

 

Cheers for providing me with the opportunity to ask more questions on Woolwich though.

 

Here are some of the things that don't make sense to me:-

 

1) Reaction time of the OB

2) The fact that the alleged perpetrators milled around for 20 minutes when they could have easily prosecuted their agenda on a wider scale.

3) Video of kids on the top floor of the bus. One of them asks when they're going to eat. Another responds "they've got another little film scene to do yet"

4) Right next to an army barracks, yet no-one comes out and sorts them

5) Eyewitnesses report regular OB nearby, yet none of them do a thing.

6) The general lack of eyewitness on what is a very busy street.

7) The lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators clothing.

Two very different videos, one of which is pixellated to f**k, illustrating signs of manipulation, the other much cleaner - with a lot less blood.

9) The fact that security services tried to recruit one of the alleged perpetrators 6 months prior to the event.

10) The gung-ho pegging it into a hail of gunfire.

11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting.

12) The general vagueness of the big statement. "What we have done here...., etc".

13) The transformational genius of boyadee, going from street tweeter with lots to say about the event to articulate commentator with f**k all to say about it ( his latest piece is about Miley Cyrus entering hip hop )

14) The fuss.

[Verbal]

My concern at the present time:scared: Should I be scared Verbal?

 

The fact that Israel appear to have taken over the Governments of UK and USA:rolleyes:

 

Did I read that 85% of our Goovernment are part of the Friends of Israel?

 

Apparently even higher within the USA administration..What is this all about:?

 

Who controls MFI and CIA?

 

What is going on in the world today where are two countries are involved?

 

Why is there sooooo much doubt as to the authenticity regarding major incidents....especially in recent times......ie Boston (parts look real to me and sections look as if Hollywood as taken charge:uhoh:)

 

 

Verbal....pleeeese help me out here and shed some light on this mere mortal:p

 

especially all this friends of Israel biz:?

 

Thank you in anticipation xxx:mcinnes:

 

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY..LET US MAKE LOTS MORE MONEY OUT OF WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE....

 

 

 

patriots question 911 is well worth the read:)

 

QED.

 

On the one hand, I didn't think anti-Semitic posts, as a form of racism, were tolerated on here. On the other, it just illustrates my point that Jew-hating is written into the DNA of modern conspiracy theories.

 

If you want to consider the company you keep, here's new evidence and testimony that Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev enthusiastically endorsed not only 9/11 conspiracy theories, but also one of the great fabrications perpetrated by conspiracy theorists, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which, among other things, provided Hitler, in Mein Kampf, with the rants that led ultimately to the Final Solution.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/07/unlikely-friendship/xQao9NHjkUvtvhTcK1uwCL/story.html

[ottery st mary]

QED.

 

On the one hand, I didn't think anti-Semitic posts, as a form of racism, were tolerated on here. On the other, it just illustrates my point that Jew-hating is written into the DNA of modern conspiracy theories.

 

If you want to consider the company you keep, here's new evidence and testimony that Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev enthusiastically endorsed not only 9/11 conspiracy theories, but also one of the great fabrications perpetrated by conspiracy theorists, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which, among other things, provided Hitler, in Mein Kampf, with the rants that led ultimately to the Final Solution.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/07/unlikely-friendship/xQao9NHjkUvtvhTcK1uwCL/story.html

 

 

Go you with your big handbag:p

 

ANTI-SEMITIC........LITTLE OLD ME?..Where in my post matey.....pleeeese tell me:mcinnes:

 

You also mentioned the other day about me being libellous?

 

You are a strange little tiger:scared:

 

I continue to look at all these strange goings on and wonder where will it all end up:uhoh:

 

Keep up the good work with your silly little rants:blush:

[pap]

QED.

 

On the one hand, I didn't think anti-Semitic posts, as a form of racism, were tolerated on here. On the other, it just illustrates my point that Jew-hating is written into the DNA of modern conspiracy theories.

 

If you want to consider the company you keep, here's new evidence and testimony that Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev enthusiastically endorsed not only 9/11 conspiracy theories, but also one of the great fabrications perpetrated by conspiracy theorists, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which, among other things, provided Hitler, in Mein Kampf, with the rants that led ultimately to the Final Solution.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/07/unlikely-friendship/xQao9NHjkUvtvhTcK1uwCL/story.html

 

[Cascadia Saint]

Go you with your big handbag:p

 

ANTI-SEMITIC........LITTLE OLD ME?..Where in my post matey.....pleeeese tell me:mcinnes:

 

You also mentioned the other day about me being libellous?

 

You are a strange little tiger:scared:

 

I continue to look at all these strange goings on and wonder where will it all end up:uhoh:

 

Keep up the good work with your silly little rants:blush:

 

Reading through your smilies is like reading a text from my mother in law.

[ottery st mary]

Reading through your smilies is like reading a text from my mother in law.

 

I could be your mother in law:p

 

Shape up you naughty boy;)

 

PS Give me her number pleeeese as CB Fry and Verbal just do not show me the luv anymore:blush:

Edited 8 August, 2013 by ottery st mary
forgot the up

[Cascadia Saint]

I could be your mother in law:p

 

Shape you naughty boy;)

 

PS Give me her number pleeeese as CB Fry and Verbal just do not show me the luv anymore:blush:

 

They showed you love before?

 

This sounds like some kind of conspiracy to me.

[ottery st mary]

They showed you love before?

 

This sounds like some kind of conspiracy to me.

 

Deleted ...............as pathetic of me and not sensible answer..

 

Apologies:blush:

Edited 8 August, 2013 by ottery st mary

[aintforever]

I don't need to provide any theories when so many others are constructing them for me, inexpertly as it goes.

 

Cheers for providing me with the opportunity to ask more questions on Woolwich though.

 

Here are some of the things that don't make sense to me:-

 

1) Reaction time of the OB

2) The fact that the alleged perpetrators milled around for 20 minutes when they could have easily prosecuted their agenda on a wider scale.

3) Video of kids on the top floor of the bus. One of them asks when they're going to eat. Another responds "they've got another little film scene to do yet"

4) Right next to an army barracks, yet no-one comes out and sorts them

5) Eyewitnesses report regular OB nearby, yet none of them do a thing.

6) The general lack of eyewitness on what is a very busy street.

7) The lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators clothing.

Two very different videos, one of which is pixellated to f**k, illustrating signs of manipulation, the other much cleaner - with a lot less blood.

9) The fact that security services tried to recruit one of the alleged perpetrators 6 months prior to the event.

10) The gung-ho pegging it into a hail of gunfire.

11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting.

12) The general vagueness of the big statement. "What we have done here...., etc".

13) The transformational genius of boyadee, going from street tweeter with lots to say about the event to articulate commentator with f**k all to say about it ( his latest piece is about Miley Cyrus entering hip hop )

14) The fuss.

 

I think the problem is that things don't make sense to you because you are thick.

 

Seriously, what is your theory about what happened at woolwich? Listing things you don't understand is not a theory.

 

You won't post your theory - you never do, because you know they won't stack up.

[Cascadia Saint]

I think the problem is that things don't make sense to you because you are thick.

 

Seriously, what is your theory about what happened at woolwich? Listing things you don't understand is not a theory.

 

You won't post your theory - you never do, because you know they won't stack up.

 

And that is what winds me up about conspiracy theorists. You can always list things that don't make sense to you when you don't have / can't have all the facts, doesn't mean anything that happens outside of your own eyes can't be trusted.

[pap]

I think the problem is that things don't make sense to you because you are thick.

 

Well, possibly. As someone who is able to cast intellectual judgment on others, you must have some of the answers. I invite your consideration.

 

Seriously, what is your theory about what happened at woolwich?

 

Same as always. The slow erosion of civil liberties to the point where we have no rights, by sensationalising isolated events and presenting them as representative of the whole, so much so that legislation follows in its wake. After Woolwich, it was announced that 3Bn of funding could be diverted from the welfare bill to give to the police and security services.

 

Irrespective of culpability, the basic pattern is atrocity -> more authoritarian legislation.

 

We of all nations should know that you cannot kill terrorists to death, yet that was the plan we went along with. Woolwich can't be viewed in isolation. It's one in a series of events designed to create a strategy of tension, to use fear of terrorist attack to pursue policies that sensible democracies wouldn't touch with a bargepole, or to marginalise perceived threats to the establishment.

 

One of the best examples of this was Operation Gladio, a far-right terrorist organisation in Italy created and operated by NATO. The objective was to ensure that the two left-wing parties, the PCI and the PSI, never attained power. Both NATO and the Italian state directed acts of state terror on Italian citizens through their Gladio proxies, and Gladio was far from the only operation of its kind. The existence and nature of Gladio was confirmed by Giulio Andreotti, Italian Prime minister in 1990. This isn't a fairy tale. NATO, through stay-behind groups like Gladio, directed terrorist atrocities all over Europe during much of the Cold War. It's a mistake to believe that Western forces don't have this in their locker, or have been blameless of it in the past. This was genuine false-flag terrorism happening over almost forty years. Look it up.

 

Listing things you don't understand is not a theory.

 

Of course it isn't, but those are all legitimate concerns, which is probably why you avoided them.

 

Pointing out that a list of concerns isn't a theory isn't a legitimate response to those concerns.

 

You won't post your theory - you never do, because you know they won't stack up.

 

My theory is that terrorist atrocities are being used to justify a more authoritarian society and actions, such as pre-emptive invasions, spying on one's citizens, detention without trial, torture - that would normally be abhorrent to an upstanding member of democracy. I'm not going to pretend that pre-9/11, we were all one huge melting pot, but the fires have been repeatedly stoked. My theory on Woolwich is that it's just another event to arouse public opinion and reinforce the message that Islamic extremists are dangerous.

 

Here is a picture of a lizard to keep you happy. I'm sure that's what you were expecting:-

 

[aintforever]

I don't need to provide any theories when so many others are constructing them for me, inexpertly as it goes.

 

Cheers for providing me with the opportunity to ask more questions on Woolwich though.

 

Here are some of the things that don't make sense to me:-

 

1) Reaction time of the OB

2) The fact that the alleged perpetrators milled around for 20 minutes when they could have easily prosecuted their agenda on a wider scale.

3) Video of kids on the top floor of the bus. One of them asks when they're going to eat. Another responds "they've got another little film scene to do yet"

4) Right next to an army barracks, yet no-one comes out and sorts them

5) Eyewitnesses report regular OB nearby, yet none of them do a thing.

6) The general lack of eyewitness on what is a very busy street.

7) The lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators clothing.

Two very different videos, one of which is pixellated to f**k, illustrating signs of manipulation, the other much cleaner - with a lot less blood.

9) The fact that security services tried to recruit one of the alleged perpetrators 6 months prior to the event.

10) The gung-ho pegging it into a hail of gunfire.

11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting.

12) The general vagueness of the big statement. "What we have done here...., etc".

13) The transformational genius of boyadee, going from street tweeter with lots to say about the event to articulate commentator with f**k all to say about it ( his latest piece is about Miley Cyrus entering hip hop )

14) The fuss.

 

 

OK then, I will waste 5 mins of my life explaining to you the obvious...

 

1) Reaction time of the OB - It would take time for the armed response unit to get to the loacation, it depends where in London they were at the time.

 

2) The fact that the alleged perpetrators milled around for 20 minutes when they could have easily prosecuted their agenda on a wider scale. - they were waiting for the security services to inflict harm on them.

 

3) Video of kids on the top floor of the bus. One of them asks when they're going to eat. Another responds "they've got another little film scene to do yet" - Cops, shootings, murders just like in the movies.

 

4) Right next to an army barracks, yet no-one comes out and sorts them - I'm no expert but I expect if a crime happens outside of their barracks they go into lockdown. I'm pretty sure they are not allowed out run out and start shooting sh!t up every time a crime is committed nearby.

 

5) Eyewitnesses report regular OB nearby, yet none of them do a thing. - Bloke beheaded by two armed men, they would be waiting for armed response unit.

 

6) The general lack of eyewitness on what is a very busy street. - There were witnesses, some on TV, some on twitter, how many we will find out at the trial.

 

7) The lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators clothing. - Plenty of blood where he got run over, probably already dead when beheaded, blood doesn't spurt out of a dead person.

 

Two very different videos, one of which is pixellated to f**k, illustrating signs of manipulation, the other much cleaner - with a lot less blood.

- video was clear to me, one with orange hands obviously been altered.

 

9) The fact that security services tried to recruit one of the alleged perpetrators 6 months prior to the event. - Had contacts with muslim extremists, if he was approached hardly a surprise.

 

10) The gung-ho pegging it into a hail of gunfire. -I assume you mean the armed response unit, looked like a slick, effective and appropriate response.

 

11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting. - See 7

 

12) The general vagueness of the big statement. "What we have done here...., etc". - They just murdered someone I expect they had other stuff on their minds.

 

13) The transformational genius of boyadee, going from street tweeter with lots to say about the event to articulate commentator with f**k all to say about it ( his latest piece is about Miley Cyrus entering hip hop ) - not sure of relevance but it's not at all unusual for a black londoner to speak gangster style to his homies on twitter, no matter how articulate. Just trying to look cool

 

14) The fuss. - Obvious, anything muslim related is hyped up by the media.

[CB Fry]

I don't need to provide any theories when so many others are constructing them for me, inexpertly as it goes.

 

Cheers for providing me with the opportunity to ask more questions on Woolwich though.

 

Here are some of the things that don't make sense to me:-

 

1) Reaction time of the OB

2) The fact that the alleged perpetrators milled around for 20 minutes when they could have easily prosecuted their agenda on a wider scale.

3) Video of kids on the top floor of the bus. One of them asks when they're going to eat. Another responds "they've got another little film scene to do yet"

4) Right next to an army barracks, yet no-one comes out and sorts them

5) Eyewitnesses report regular OB nearby, yet none of them do a thing.

6) The general lack of eyewitness on what is a very busy street.

7) The lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators clothing.

Two very different videos, one of which is pixellated to f**k, illustrating signs of manipulation, the other much cleaner - with a lot less blood.

9) The fact that security services tried to recruit one of the alleged perpetrators 6 months prior to the event.

10) The gung-ho pegging it into a hail of gunfire.

11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting.

12) The general vagueness of the big statement. "What we have done here...., etc".

13) The transformational genius of boyadee, going from street tweeter with lots to say about the event to articulate commentator with f**k all to say about it ( his latest piece is about Miley Cyrus entering hip hop )

14) The fuss.

 

Funny.

 

In later posts to this one you talk about the erosion of civil liberties, which is a not unreasonable area of debate.

 

But your 1-14 here aren't about that at all. They all obsess about silly little details which you think point to the whole thing being fake/filmed/set up/false.

 

All 14 points. All of them.

 

Which kinda says to me the civil liberties stuff is just a get-out fig leaf for you when challenged on the stupidity of your thoughts. Just a trotted out "stance" to make you feel virtuous.

 

What you actally care about, like all Conspiro-nutcases, is the "he wouldn't bleed like that/that policeman looked like he was reading a script/the lighting is all wrong" guff. All your top 14 is about, and all laughable.

 

Tinkering at the edges of nothingness.

 

Look at his hands!

Edited 8 August, 2013 by CB Fry

[Cascadia Saint]

Funny.

 

In later posts to this one you talk about the erosion of civil liberties, which is a not unreasonable area of debate.

 

But your 1-14 here aren't about that at all. They all obsess about silly little details which you think point to the whole thing being fake/filmed/set up/false.

 

All 14 points. All of them.

 

Which kinda says to me the civil liberties stuff is just a get-out fig leaf for you when challenged on the stupidity of your thoughts. Just a trotted out "stance" to make you feel virtuous.

 

What you actally care about, like all Conspiro-nutcases, is the "he wouldn't bleed like that/that policeman looked like he was reading a script/the lighting is all wrong" guff. All your top 14 is about, and all laughable.

 

Tinkering at the edges of nothingness.

 

Look at his hands!

[pap]

1) It would take time for the armed response unit to get to the loacation, it depends where in London they were at the time.

 

20 minutes, and as already stated, other OB nearby. The armed response unit did not engage the alleged perpetrators when they arrived. The perpetrators simply ran to the armed response unit to get shot.

 

2) they were waiting for the security services to inflict harm on them.

If that's the case, it was the least impressive attempt ever. They were armed with a revolver and cutting implements. Their plan to inflict the harm you suggest involved running several yards in the open toward the waiting guns of the armed response unit.

 

3) Cops, shootings, murders just like in the movies.

 

That's one explanation, but I think kids are cannier than that. None of them seemed alarmed by what they were seeing.

 

4) I'm no expert but I expect if a crime happens outside of their barracks they go into lockdown. I'm pretty sure they are not allowed out run out and start shooting sh!t up every time a crime is committed nearby.

 

One of their own is attacked outside the barracks. No-one went out to help, despite the obvious advantage in capability they had.

 

5) Bloke beheaded by two armed men, they would be waiting for armed response unit.

 

There was no beheading. You're in the same position as CB Fry, arguing on very stale information.

 

Fair's fair; there is just as much chance of the OB believing that at the time. It's a reasonable explanation in isolation.

 

6) There were witnesses, some on TV, some on twitter, how many we will find out at the trial.

 

Have you seen how busy that street on a normal day? It's the sort of place holepuncture might uncharitably describe as "crawling". The eyewitnesses that were there were unreliable, especially boyadee, the chap who originated the beheading news.

 

7) Plenty of blood where he got run over, probably already dead when beheaded, blood doesn't spurt out of a dead person.

 

I've seen different shots from different times; some in which blood is present, others where blood is not present, but the prone figure is. The shot from the top of the bus shows no blood whatsoever. I'm therefore unable to share your confidence about the blood, because I've seen different pictures of the same event that don't back each other up.

 

Not beheaded. There is no blood on the jackets of either of the perpetrators.

 

- video was clear to me, one with orange hands obviously been altered.

 

Yeah, let's skip the pantomime act. We can't do oh yes it is, oh no it isn't. The difference for me is in the consistency of the more orange image. It's discoloured, but the levels are consistent throughout and there is almost zero pixellation or evidence of big frame transitions. Orange hands wins for me.

 

9) Had contacts with muslim extremists, if he was approached hardly a surprise.

 

They wanted to recruit him. To what end? Well, if we're anything like the FBI, who clear up one third of their terrorist cases by creating them in the first place, we may have used him as an asset. Personally, I think there is a fair chance he was working for the intelligence services, whether he knew it or not.

 

His actions made no sense. He waited for 20 minutes for an armed response unit to turn up and then ran at them. His accomplice spoke with passers by. I can understand them wanting to get a message out, so I get why the video happened, but I really don't get why they didn't just scarper off into the anonymity of London if terror was their aim. That would have made sense, and would have caused genuine terror across the capital.

 

10) I assume you mean the armed response unit, looked like a slick, effective and appropriate response.

 

You've probably established that I'm talking about the perpetrators conveniently running into a hail of gunfire. Armed response unit were waiting by their vehicles. The perpetrators ran into range.

 

11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting. - See 7

 

I have to admit, I haven't seen as many shots of the perpetrators as the main scene, but didn't they put eight bullets into two people? My numbers may be wrong.

 

12) They just murdered someone I expect they had other stuff on their minds.

 

"What time will the armed response unit get here? We really fancy running into their bullets".

 

13) Not sure of relevance but it's not at all unusual for a black londoner to speak gangster style to his homies on twitter, no matter how articulate. Just trying to look cool

 

In his new position as articulate Guardian columnist, he could give us a very good account of what happened on the day. He's elected not to expand further on any of it, largely because he is talking out of his arse. He originated the decapitation meme and I don't know if you remember, but the country went apesh!t over it. It didn't happen. Wasn't true. I know you still think it is, you're lagging behind the times in terms of information, and as I demonstrated with the links earlier, you could have only formed that opinion if you'd swallowed the boll*cks in the tabloids on day one. You could have only kept it because you haven't bothered to follow up.

 

14) Obvious, anything muslim related is hyped up by the media.

This isn't happening by accident, as I'm sure you know. We've pre-emptively invaded two Muslim countries in the past 12 years, there was always going to be agenda to soften the reality that our forces would be responsible for the deaths of over a million human beings,

[Cascadia Saint]

3) Cops, shootings, murders just like in the movies.

 

That's one explanation, but I think kids are cannier than that. None of them seemed alarmed by what they were seeing.

 

So not one camera-phone wielding adult on the bus or anywhere else in the area managed to capture this 'dress rehearsal' or 'enactment' or whatever you are suggesting was taking place? Or even talk to any press since? Or have they all been subsequently visited by the men in black?

[pap]

So not one camera-phone wielding adult on the bus or anywhere else in the area managed to capture this 'dress rehearsal' or 'enactment' or whatever you are suggesting was taking place? Or even talk to any press since? Or have they all been subsequently visited by the men in black?

 

I have many qualities, but I can't count omniscience among them, nor am I prepared to concoct an account of footage/pictures I haven't seen.

[Cascadia Saint]

I have many qualities, but I can't count omniscience among them, nor am I prepared to concoct an account of footage/pictures I haven't seen.

 

You conspiracy theorists pick and choose your facts and 'things that don't make sense' more than the sheeple you love to attack.

[pap]

You conspiracy theorists pick and choose your facts and 'things that don't make sense' more than the sheeple you love to attack.

 

You asked whether there were adults who'd taken extra footage. I said I didn't know. That's fair, isn't it?

[Cascadia Saint]

You asked whether there were adults who'd taken extra footage. I said I didn't know. That's fair, isn't it?

 

Do you have an opinion on the probability that a staged event took place, and was visible enough for kids on a bus to identify it as 'filming' - but NOBODY else saw it? Or they saw it and are keeping quiet for some reason?

 

Because to me, that seems pretty unlikely. i.e. bull****.

[pap]

Do you have an opinion on the probability that a staged event took place, and was visible enough for kids on a bus to identify it as 'filming' - but NOBODY else saw it? Or they saw it and are keeping quiet for some reason?

 

Because to me, that seems pretty unlikely. i.e. bull****.

 

I think there are some crossed wires here. The kids are on the bus that was stopped by the perpetrator so that he could get someone to film his statement.

 

I also find it almost incredible that they chose to record this statement in-situ in the first place. There was no guarantee that they'd get their message out when involved in an act like this. Why not pre-record?

 

One possible reason is that the perpetrators wanted to wait until they'd gone past the point of no return. I can buy that, except if that's the plan all along, why not bring a camera? I know that recording devices are more or less ubiquitous, but why take the chance? Surely it's easier to bring a phone that stop a London Transport Vehicle in the hope that someone will film you.

 

So, to return to your point, the kids I'm referring to are on the bus that was stopped by the knife-wielding madman. They'd have every right to be scared out of their wits, but were calm, talked about lunch with one saying "they've got another little film scene to do yet". It's not conclusive by any means, but combined with the baffling "plan" of these master terrorists, it's another thing that doesn't add up.

[Cascadia Saint]

I think there are some crossed wires here. The kids are on the bus that was stopped by the perpetrator so that he could get someone to film his statement.

 

I also find it almost incredible that they chose to record this statement in-situ in the first place. There was no guarantee that they'd get their message out when involved in an act like this. Why not pre-record?

 

One possible reason is that the perpetrators wanted to wait until they'd gone past the point of no return. I can buy that, except if that's the plan all along, why not bring a camera? I know that recording devices are more or less ubiquitous, but why take the chance? Surely it's easier to bring a phone that stop a London Transport Vehicle in the hope that someone will film you.

 

So, to return to your point, the kids I'm referring to are on the bus that was stopped by the knife-wielding madman. They'd have every right to be scared out of their wits, but were calm, talked about lunch with one saying "they've got another little film scene to do yet". It's not conclusive by any means, but combined with the baffling "plan" of these master terrorists, it's another thing that doesn't add up.

 

Or maybe some crazy people did some crazy ****.

[pap]

Or maybe some crazy people did some crazy ****.

 

socal, you weighed into this thread by ribbing ottery's emoticon posting style. Your next contribution was this:-

 

And that is what winds me up about conspiracy theorists. You can always list things that don't make sense to you when you don't have / can't have all the facts, doesn't mean anything that happens outside of your own eyes can't be trusted.

 

Despite saying this, you then ask if I'm aware of any footage taken by adults, laying down a gauntlet for proof based on information that may or may not exist, even though you've correctly said I can't have all the facts

 

It's a ridiculous position in any event. A detective investigating a crime does not start out with all the facts. They're derived through a process of investigation and elimination in which most inconsistencies are resolved. Also, he or she is unlikely to be satisfied of an explanation of "maybe some crazy people did some crazy ****".

[CB Fry]

I think there are some crossed wires here. The kids are on the bus that was stopped by the perpetrator so that he could get someone to film his statement.

 

I also find it almost incredible that they chose to record this statement in-situ in the first place. There was no guarantee that they'd get their message out when involved in an act like this. Why not pre-record?

 

One possible reason is that the perpetrators wanted to wait until they'd gone past the point of no return. I can buy that, except if that's the plan all along, why not bring a camera? I know that recording devices are more or less ubiquitous, but why take the chance? Surely it's easier to bring a phone that stop a London Transport Vehicle in the hope that someone will film you.

 

So, to return to your point, the kids I'm referring to are on the bus that was stopped by the knife-wielding madman. They'd have every right to be scared out of their wits, but were calm, talked about lunch with one saying "they've got another little film scene to do yet". It's not conclusive by any means, but combined with the baffling "plan" of these master terrorists, it's another thing that doesn't add up.

 

Not entirely sure what you are babbling on about here, but I'm sure as hell it isn't about "civil liberties".

 

But then pretty much nothing you ever post is.

 

At least your information isn't "stale", though. It's so fresh, it's steaming.

 

Now wash your hands.

[pap]

Not entirely sure what you are babbling on about here, but I'm sure as hell it isn't about "civil liberties".

 

But then pretty much nothing you ever post is.

 

At least your information isn't "stale", though. It's so fresh, it's steaming.

 

Now wash your hands.

 

Ah, ye olde "have no specific answer so launch an ad hominem attack".

 

Remind me. Is that #2 or #23 in the Junior Book of Internet Debating Tactics?