http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4653949.stm

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4015917.stm


The police don't go anywhere near places where they can get shoot or killed right?

I know policemen who have been shot at in the past so add that to you're fucking poem.

You forgot to mention 52 dead and 700 injured and the likelihood of similar numbers that would have been killed in the second attacks had the bombs gone off. We've got at least four suicide bombers on the run who may well be armed and prepared to attack again, plus and unknown number of other people supporting them, supplying them and quite possibly planning further attacks. Or were those all irrelevant details too dull for your song?

"I know policemen who have been shot at in the past so add that to you're fucking poem."

So you are a cop................

"You forgot to mention 52 dead and 700 injured ..."

That has nothing to do with an innocent man being shot eight times, seven shots to the head at close range. It was an appalling act, seemingly designed to silence a potential, undesired witness. There is no other need to empty a pistol into someone's head.

"and the likelihood of similar numbers that would have been killed in the second attacks had the bombs gone off."

But the second day's devices weren't designed to explode, just to leave investigators with "evidence", to gently guide the towards a specific culprit, presumably one of the PNAC military destinations.

"We've got at least four suicide bombers"

No, we don't. That Theory is unproven, and fed to us by the people who brought us "Saddam has WMD!!" ...

"plus and unknown number of other people supporting them"

It's a right Conspiracy!

"Or were those all irrelevant details too dull for your song?"

Irrelevant, yes, and quite incorrect - ar at least, unproven.

We got...

truth which they can't swallow.
See, they always gotta follow
up with words as sharp as knives,
gotta get in all them jibes.
Cos its easier that way.
It's the hardest thing to say
people die on EVERY side -
black boys, white girls,
genocide.
Cops and soldiers dying too
jus boys and girls like me and you.
People gotta stand together
see the leaders in their tower.
While there's brother fighting brother
Keeps them wealthy, safe, in power.

If you KNOW a policeman, it means you ARE a policeman? That's certainly an interesting take on things.

As for: "That Theory is unproven, and fed to us by the people who brought us Saddam has WMD!! ..." — I don't think it was the Met that ever said Saddam had WMDs.

Back to the poem, and can someone explain the contradiction between:

"We've got coppers trialing kids
No matter what they did "

and

"We got black on black shootings
Armed muggings, thefts and lootings
Try getting an armed copper out to that"

So the police are trailing everyone, but you can't get them to follow criminals? Add to that the fact them police regularly use armed officers when raiding suspected gangsters, and that they are always accused of heavy-handedness by professional police-haters on Indymedia when they do, and the whole little poem starts to collapse under the weight of its own hypocrisy.

Ah, Mr/s PsyOPs. Is that your name or is that your anti-left methodology, hm?

>>That has nothing to do with an innocent man being shot eight times, seven shots to the
>>head at close range.

Unfortunately it seems to have had everything to do with it. Under 'normal' circumstances, someone running away from the police (if that's what he was doing, and we don't know that for sure yet) would not be shot eight times (which is not to say unjustified shootings don't happen, we know they do) in this manner, would they?

>>It was an appalling act, seemingly designed to silence a potential, undesired witness.

It was certainly appalling, but "seemingly designed"? Based on what? Nothing, so far as I can see. Looks like a tragedy to me, perhaps an avoidable one, perhaps one where the police acted unreasonably or lost control and are culpable, perhaps not.

>>There is no other need to empty a pistol into someone's head.

There is if you think they're going to blow up a train.

The questions for the left are whether the police acted reasonably in this case or not. We can't *assume* they did, of course. I wonder in whose interests it would be for the left to concentrate instead on PsyOps red herrings?

>>But the second day's devices weren't designed to explode

They *didn't* explode, for reasons as yet unknown, but that doesn't mean they were designed not to. If you have actual reasons for thinking this, let's hear them. But of course you don't.

>>just to leave investigators with "evidence", to gently guide the towards a specific culprit, >>presumably one of the PNAC military destinations.

Which is where I get confused, since the bombers so far seem to be (mainly) British born, of Pakistani, Caribbean or Somali origin. None of those countries are PNAC targets, so far as I know.

>>No, we don't. That Theory is unproven, and fed to us by the people who brought >>us "Saddam has WMD!!" ...

It is? There was of course something of a crisis in the state over the Blair government's desire to promote the WMD issue beyond what the actual evidence justified. The secret services and the police were not necessarily driving that. So again, if you have evidence that the Blair administration is directing the Police investigation, let's see it.

"That has nothing to do with an innocent man being shot eight times, seven shots to the head at close range. It was an appalling act, seemingly designed to silence a potential, undesired witness. There is no other need to empty a pistol into someone's head."

If you don't think that the fact that someone tried to set off a bomb on a train that was one station away from Stockwell on the day before the Stockwell shooting isn't a relevant part of the context I really can't help you.

I'd be interested to know what you think De Menezes was an "undesired witness" to.

This debate over the police's motives has got more ridiculous than ever. It started off with the basic assumption that it was a gratuitous killing. Now it's moved onto a sinister attempt by the police to silence "witnesses". What next?

I think you could at least contemplate the possibility that they just made a mistake, whether their suspicion was reasonable or unreasonable under the circumstances.

"But the second day's devices weren't designed to explode, just to leave investigators with "evidence", to gently guide the towards a specific culprit, presumably one of the PNAC military destinations."

I welcome your first contribution of any fact that supports that argument. I haven't seen one yet. Like everything, it's possible and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. But what we currently know doesn't lead there and nothing else does.

"No, we don't. That Theory is unproven, and fed to us by the people who brought us "Saddam has WMD!!" ..."

It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis, which by definition is unproven. It appears to be the most credible hypothesis based on what we know, but it remains to be credibly verified or falsified.

As for the WMD lie, I echo the point that it wasn't the police who lied to us about WMD. But if you want to talk about the government, I think just about everyone acknowleges that WMD was the most obvious, blatant political lie of our age. I know people with a very broad range of political perspectives and not a single one of them believed it for a second. If this was a shady attempt at manipulating public opinion, it was a terriffically incompetent one.

It's also a fundamental fallacy to assume that because a person has been unreliable about one thing, they're going to be unreliable about everything. Just as the reverse is a fallacy. It's one you seem very keen on making.

"It's a right Conspiracy!"

Well you seem to think it's a conspiracy of the government. I seem to think (though I'm prepared to change my mind if there's evidence to the contrary) that it's a conspiracy of Islamist terrorists.

By definition, a group of people planning something together is a conspiracy. By the way, common nouns don't require capitalisation.

"Irrelevant, yes, and quite incorrect - ar at least, unproven."

I hope my argument has demonstrated that the points I made were entirely pertinent and by their hypothetical nature don't require "proof". But I'm sure you won't agree and will shift the subject to a trivial issue or attack me personally as a liar, a cop or a spook.

Well they (foreigners) killed 57 of us so it's only justice if we kill one of them!

woweee zoweee


such educated opinion.......

"That has nothing to do with an innocent man being shot eight times, seven shots to the head at close range. It was an appalling act, seemingly designed to silence a potential, undesired witness. There is no other need to empty a pistol into someone's head."

[If you don't think that the fact that someone tried to set off a bomb on a train that was one station away from Stockwell on the day before the Stockwell shooting isn't a relevant part of the context I really can't help you.]

No, the shooting of an innocent man has nothing to do with 7/7, and that is what you referenced in your earlier comment. No need to backpeddle now ... If they had, as claimed, been tailing him, then why did witnesses report that these unidentified, armed men were looking for him on the train? Wouldn't they already know where he was?

The bombs that didn't go off seem to have been planted in order to provide investigators with the "evidence" they need to support the Offical Conspiracy Theory, since the Government that brought us "Iraq has WMD" has been unable to support its version of events with compelling evidence.

The proven circumstances surrounding the shooting, in contrast to the many LIES that have already been exposed about the official account, suggest that he was silenced, because he witnessed something he wasn't supposed to see.

To discount this context without reason or investigation is simply irresponsible.

[I'd be interested to know what you think De Menezes was an "undesired witness" to.]

The planting of the devices, perhaps? I'd like to know where this electrician was working that morning.

[This debate over the police's motives has got more ridiculous than ever.]

The identity of the shooter is still in question. We still don't have any proof of the Government's story.

[I think you could at least contemplate the possibility that they just made a mistake, whether their suspicion was reasonable or unreasonable under the circumstances.]

It is a possibility, indeed, however if this were the case, I think we'd have seen a bit more willingness to prove these allegations, with readily-available evidence like security cameras.

"But the second day's devices weren't designed to explode, just to leave investigators with "evidence", to gently guide the towards a specific culprit, presumably one of the PNAC military destinations."

[I welcome your first contribution of any fact that supports that argument.]

Four devices miraculously detonated, but the explosives didn't explode. The lack of other hard evidence proving the Government's Conspiracy Theory thus far, and the Blair Government's statements about using these devices to track down the culprits.

The current crisis, events thus far, the stated agenda of the Extremists in power in the US, UK, and Israel, and players involved.

[it's possible and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. But what we currently know doesn't lead there and nothing else does.]

No, it most certainly should not be dismissed out of hand, but it has been. What we currently know isn't a lot. Much of what the Gov't/media claims that we "know" has not been supported by hard evidence.

That is glaringly absent, leading me to ask these questions in the first place.

"No, we don't. That Theory is unproven, and fed to us by the people who brought us "Saddam has WMD!!" ..."

[It's not a theory.]

Yes, it is.

[It's a hypothesis]

Same thing.

And again, what we know is not a lot, and much of what is claimed that we "know" remains unsupported.

[As for the WMD lie, I echo the point that it wasn't the police who lied to us about WMD.]

This position came directly from the Government.

[It's also a fundamental fallacy to assume that because a person has been unreliable about one thing, they're going to be unreliable about everything.]

Not "unreliable", criminally malicious. There is a huuuge difference here.

"It's a right Conspiracy!"

[Well you seem to think it's a conspiracy of the government.]

Right. But we weren't talking about me or my ideas. I was addressing your statement, which is an unsupported, empty statement of fearmongering from the Gov't/Media.

"Irrelevant, yes, and quite incorrect - ar at least, unproven."

[I hope my argument has demonstrated that the points I made were entirely pertinent and by their hypothetical nature don't require "proof".]

No, you most certainly did not. If anything, you supported my statement, that the people criticizing people like myself with demands of Impossible Proofs (Disinformation) do not seem to demand the same from the criminal LIARS in the Blair Gov't., from which this Conspiracy Theory originated just a bit too quickly without evidence to support it.

[But I'm sure you won't agree and will shift the subject to a trivial issue or attack me personally as a liar, a cop or a spook.]

That's often how positively ID'ed Spooks ended their comments ...

Well zorro, if you're arguing with conspiracy theorists, you're not going to get anywhere, so I don't know why you bother.

I think the majority of people here don't believe it was an attempt by the police to 'silence witnesses'. It was, however, a gratuitous murder. And an act of the most complete incompetence.

The politicians have got us so worked up into a paranoid frenzy, that there are even people trying to justify this murder. More people die every day in traffic accidents than at the hands of terrorists, yet there's no shoot to kill policy of drivers who might possibly be drunk.

I don't find the police breaking into the offices of tobacco companies and shooting the executives.

But we've been worked up into a frenzy of hatred and paranoia by a 'conspiracy' of politicians who want to further there own aims in the middle-east, and deflect attention away from their deficiencies and foreign policy hypocrisy. These people have been painted as fanatical murderers, with no reason to do what they did. Well, there is a good reason. Iraq. Everyone knows it. This would not have happened without that pathetic and useless 'war' against a helpless third world country.

If this had simply come out of the blue, without the background of Iraq, and Bush's 'War on Terror', I doubt the reaction of the police would have been so aggressive. But the politicians have done their best to scare us, to paint this terrifying conspiracy of Islamic hordes poised to murder us all, simply because we're unbelievers, to convince us we have to murder thousands and thousands of muslims in order to bring them democracy and ourselves security. The police were so psyched, they were willing to see an innocent man as a suicide bomber, and they were willing to fire 8 bullets into his head and neck at point-blank range.

What a masterful illusion, to be able to turn probably what was probably once a decent man into a murderer. All to hide the real facts, of colonial occupation, of imperialistic foreign policy, and of the resistance against it.

There are two conspiracies. One is the conspiracy of politicians, who want control over the middle-east and it's resources, and who are willing to lie and cheat, murder and torture in order to gain this control. And the other is the conspiracy of those people trying to resist this, who are willing to murder and torture to get rid of us.

But just ask yourself, what the fuck are we doing in the middle-east? It's nowhere near us!!! Why do these people hate us, and not, for example, the Swiss? And if you bother to look into history, you'll see that in the beginning of the last century, we Brits had a racist and imperialist colonial policy. We divided up Arab lands into countries that never existed before, imposed on them puppet regimes, and gave the land of Palestine away to the Jews without asking the indigenous Palestinians about it, in order to create 'a little Ulster in the middle-east'.

History from that moment has been a story of US trying to control THEM, and THEM trying to resist US. But we always paint the situation of them as the aggressors, even though their armies aren't occupying our lands, they don't have militiary bases in Europe and the US, they aren't stealing our oil, and we kill far more of them than they kill of us. Wow, 50 people!!!! That's about as many as die every day in Iraq.

For Christ's sake people, wake up.

There's also a Conspiracy of men of a criminal mindset who want crises like these to occur, because they cannot gain what they want through legitimate means. Their complete inability to support their Cover Stories about certain events damns their Conspiracy Theories, casting suspicion upon their own involvement in acts which have been attributed to "ze terrorists".

Indeed, it sounds absurd, but that's becaise most people are not Socio/Psychopaths, with a desire to see Fascism rise to frightening relevance on the world stage. Slag these ideas all you wish, the fact remains that there is a long and documented history of such things occuring, and many of the culprits from the past few decades are running the show at this very moment.

It's interesting how many times the same Disinfo appears, subtly defending the Official Conspiracy Theory ...

Your story is an unproven Conspiracy Theory too.

Well, suffice to say, I've visited the middle-east enough times to realise that the people there are very pissed off at us, and wouldn't mind striking back at us in any way they can.

Seriously, I think your theory that everything is planned by our western politicians, our wars and the 'supposed' attacks of them against us, gives too much credit to these people. If THEY control everything so absolutely, then there'd be no need for them to do all these things.

But the global forces our much more complicated than that, and the US and Europe are much weaker than they would have us believe. All around the world, you can see their grip slipping. Latin America has turned against the US, China is the new rising power in the east, and the middle-east is up in flames as the people try to throw off the chains of foreign domination. Yes, there are Psy-Ops, the media, and the Psy-Ops are trying to convince you that everything is under control, that there is this terrible, evil external threat to our 'freedom', but that our all-powerful leaders will protect us, as long as we accept certain limitations to our freedom.

What they don't want us to see is that things are not under control, they are powerless to stop the shift of power away from them to another centre, they are powerless to protect us from possible environmental catastrophe due to global warming, and that this external 'threat' to our freedom only exists because of our neo-colonial policies.

"I've visited the middle-east enough times to realise that the people there are very pissed off at us, and wouldn't mind striking back at us in any way they can."

I'll have to take your word for that, I suppose ... Those I've spoken to mostly want the "West" to stop killing their bretheren, so that they can live healthy, peaceful, and fulfilling lives, just like the other 99% of the people on this floating rock.

"Seriously, I think your theory that everything is planned by our western politicians, our wars and the 'supposed' attacks of them against us, gives too much credit to these people."

These illegal Wars of Aggression for Profit were pre-planned - for a very long time.

And re-visit the Conspiracy Theory you're here defending, then re-read your comment, and look for possible signs of hypocrisy. You're suggesting that a rag-tag bunch of "miscreants" would have an easier time than Government-supported agencies which do this for a living.

See what I'm sayin' ... ?

"If THEY control everything so absolutely, then there'd be no need for them to do all these things."

Sure there would. These reasons are the subject of the most rivetting and lasting literature, drama, film, history lectures. It ain't rocket science. It's Money, Power, and Fascism.

"the US and Europe are much weaker than they would have us believe."

Indeed, furthering the motives behind what I'm saying.

"Yes, there are Psy-Ops, the media, and the Psy-Ops are trying to convince you that everything is under control, that there is this terrible, evil external threat to our 'freedom', but that our all-powerful leaders will protect us, as long as we accept certain limitations to our freedom."

Indeed. So what's your beef with me?

All I'm saying is that unless certain avenues are investigated, we may be directing our anger and military action against the wrong people.

"What they don't want us to see is that things are not under control, they are powerless to stop the shift of power away from them to another centre, they are powerless to protect us from"

Who are they to protect us? Does the cat protect the mice?

It is they who have created these crises. Their absolute corruption is what has endangered this "balance" of power.

Back to the subject at hand: Given the evidence we still don't have, that we should if the Government's Conspiracy Theory is true, and the suspicious activity of certain security personnel surrounding these events, that to leave these questions unanswered, and marry ourselves prematurely to the Official Theory, without pursuing other possibilities, is simply irresponsible, whether intentional or not.

"These illegal Wars of Aggression for Profit were pre-planned - for a very long time. "


...but Psyops will never provide enough credible links or real evidence to prove it! Just use capitals like BLIAR and ILLEGAL.

These facts are well-known, and supported by Documentary Evidence, so there is no need.

If you are so ignorant of these facts, do some research, SPOOK.

"These facts are well-known, and supported by Documentary Evidence, so there is no need.
If you are so ignorant of these facts, do some research, SPOOK"

Well if they're "well-known", and from credible sources, then you wouldn't have to keep defending the position - would you?

Come on then, give us links to the "documentary evidence". And none of that prisonplanet or whatdidnaehappen.com crap. Proper evidence.

Please read the Downing Street Minutes, Spook.

Then, do a search for "Leaked British Documents" (These were sent to me directly by a source, so I can't link mine for you), or "Bush Planned Iraq Invasion Before Taking Office".

Then, do your homework before posting here. That'll keep you from making such an ass of yourself. (Don't worry, I know you're simply trying to Distract ... Nobody's THAT ignorant!)