Now if 7/7 was an inside job why would the Met be holding a conference stating how strangely they were acting for bombers? There hasn't been any challenge to their story in MSM; thus no need for a double bluff.

And after all the (thus far baseless) accusations of the Met fabricating 7/7 & 21/7 evidence, are we now being asked to volte-face and believe the Met were/are being duped. By Mossad no doubt...

It could just as well be part of the bombers training to act casually.

Is there some sort statement in tagging on the loony prison planet URL and the Grand Zionist Conspiracy post??? Are you trying to say "I told you so!"?

So it tows the establishment line - that they were suicide bombers.

However, reading between the lines, the authors are saying they are not behaving like suicide bombers, they are not behaving like suicide bombers, they are not behaving like suicide bombers, BUT THE GOVT TOLD US THEY WERE SUICIDE BOMBERS... AND WHO ARE WE TO ARGUE WITH THE ALMIGHTY BLAIR?

I have to side with commenter #2. There has been plenty of speculation from the non-mainstream about these men - the mainstream seems to collect evidence to show how un-suicide bomber profile like these men were, and then conclude - its a shame, you never can tell a person can you (whisper: especially when they are muslim).

Seems to me an appropriate time to recheck the investigations, like, do all the train times, etc match up, what exactly is the evidence against them , apart from the fact they were carrying rucksacks and being muslim and having the misfortune to blow up?

If for no one else, this is owed to the families and friends of these men, who, by all accounts, never suspected either.

Take note also of Britain's track record in finding their man in response to a terrorist act (see IRA) and how often, years down the track, they discover they just picked up any old irishman (replace now with muslim) to fit the bill and please the british public.

Its sometimes worth being a little suspicious. Especially considering in this case, the men charged with the crime can never appeal their sentence.

derek

"New details of the behaviour and last movements of the four suicide bombers, who killed 52 people, were disclosed by a representative of the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch, the magazine Police Review has reported."

My point being: after being told what a bunch of liars the Met are, someone (I wonder who...) posts an article citing... the Met... seemingly (judging by the URLs tagged on) offered as proof of what liars the Met were???

I am casting doubt on the poster's credulity and not endorsing any "story".

What's it to be... are they lairs or not? What happened to the cover up, the fit up, etc???

What are you trying to tell us?

Well "Sid" was on a video talking about how he wanted to blow up stuff to punish the British for the war in Iraq. I'd say that makes him a pretty strong suspect for being a suicide bomber.

As for the others, they were with him. While there are always other explanations, it's a little odd that they all happened to get on the three trains and the bus that blew up. What are the odds on that being a coincidence?

If they weren't acting like "terrorists", then perhaps it was because they were disposable cannon-fodder amateurs. They had never done anything like it before. Their profile and behaviour isn't going to fit in with the kind of hardened IRA bomber that's on his tenth mission, expects to live and hopes not to get caught.

would the investigating officers go public about their puzzlement? This might be a good time for a re-listening to the two statements given by Peter Power of Visor, on the 7th July 05.
Again, a man who said a great deal in a most roundabout fashion, yet managing to drop a couple of names. Mr. Power is a respected ex-Met man himself with an impeccable CV.

b.d.

the independent article and the 'police review' etc
are trying to assert that the bombers were playing to the
cameras in order to appear normal

so you could be just going about your daily business
and the fact that you are 'acting' normal

er

is a 'dead giveaway'

literally

nice living in a police state isn't it?

[RIP de Menezes]

"Now if 7/7 was an inside job why would the Met be holding a conference ..."

This is a thinly-veiled opportunity for them to once again shout "suicide bombers" without providing any evidence.

"There hasn't been any challenge to their story in MSM"

Indeed, and they are quite aware of this fact.

"accusations of the Met fabricating 7/7 & 21/7 evidence"

I never made such accusations. But they did get caught in several lies, and the Conspiracy Theory fed to us by the "Saddam could nuke us in 45 minutes!!" chaps, upon which they justified seizing for themselves unprecedented new powers the courts had denied it for four years, remains unproven or adequately investigated.

"we now being asked to volte-face and believe the Met were/are being duped."

It does beg some investigation, yes.

"By Mossad no doubt..."

Interesting that you should mention them ...

This is a great comment, and I just wanted to thank you:

"However, reading between the lines, the authors are saying they are not behaving like suicide bombers, they are not behaving like suicide bombers, they are not behaving like suicide bombers, BUT THE GOVT TOLD US THEY WERE SUICIDE BOMBERS... AND WHO ARE WE TO ARGUE WITH THE ALMIGHTY BLAIR?"

And also, there is no evidence to support the suicide bombers Theory. In referring to these men as such, instead of the standard (less now than it once was ...) "alleged" or "accused", the media has decided to side with the LIARS at No. 10.

"Seems to me an appropriate time to recheck the investigations, like, do all the train times, etc match up, what exactly is the evidence against them , apart from the fact they were carrying rucksacks and being muslim and having the misfortune to blow up?"

Any "investigation" which begins with a Conclusion is an elaborate Ruse.

"Especially considering in this case, the men charged with the crime can never appeal their sentence."

The media can't be sued for Libel when the victims are dead, and the Government can say whatever they feel about the dead ... Good on you, Derek.

"My point being: after being told what a bunch of liars the Met are, someone (I wonder who...) posts an article citing... the Met"

Actually, I posted the article more for what it reveals about the behaviour of the media, than anything the Met has to say, since I've worked within the MSM for several years, and weep at what's happened to it.

"I am casting doubt ..."

Right, because that is the Plant's job, to Cast Doubt. I've documented this throughout the web since 2000, when the phenomenon of Resident Trolls on non-MSM sites began in earnest.

"Well "Sid" was on a video talking about ..."

The White House has proven a few too many times that well-timed videos are the Modus Operandi of Those Without Evidence. Easy to fake. Easy to spin without context or a back story to the tape's creation. Several of these men were paid to take part in "terrorist excercises" by a "security company" (Intelligence Front). It is plausible that the tape was produced in concert with this "excercise" (set-up).

Perspective:

 http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/nkorea9850.htm

 http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/tunisi9801.htm

 http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/29/bahrai9413.htm

 http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/russia9867.htm

Not that I'm saying things could be improved in the UK.

Videos aren't "easy to fake". I challenge you to produce me a convincing fake! The Met CCTV & the bomber home video have been in the public domain for months now and NO credible professional has challenged their authenticity. Do you deliberately seek to disinform or do you really believe this stuff?

I don't recall the Met being complicit in lying to us about WMD. I do recall an immediate response of incredulity that grew rapidly in MSM regarding the assertion. It was big news in the UK. MAybe the names Gilligan and Kelly ring a vague bell.

"The media can't be sued for Libel when the victims are dead"

But they can be held to account.

"Several of these men were paid to take part in "terrorist excercises" by a "security company" (Intelligence Front). It is plausible that the tape was produced in concert with this "excercise" (set-up)."

Wow! Where's your proof? Oh, I see, just that som guy said something about there being a coincidence. Don't you think a conspiracy would have had the brains not to plan the attack on the same day as the "dummy run"? Oh, I forgot, it's idiots we are dealing with here. People so stupid they can perform technological feats that are unheard of, but they can't organise a piss up in a brewery otherwise.

"Right, because that is the Plant's job, to Cast Doubt. I've documented this throughout the web since 2000, when the phenomenon of Resident Trolls on non-MSM sites began in earnest."

I used to think that your slurs were just a ploy to troll anyone who disagrees with you. But I now think you really are quite seriously ill. You really do believe everything you write! Ask you GP about lithium.

We aren't "[p]lants"; we aren't "[t]rolls". We just think you are talking crap!

Get some new insults please. Your repetoire is getting quite staid.

There is a joke in programming circles that a bug is an undocumented feature- think about it because THAT is what The Independent article is all about. Patsies will, of course, act innocent, so why not call that "proof" of guilt.

A mission goes down. Some parts go right, and some go wrong. Worse, there are details that can NEVER appear understandable under any interpretation. With 911, this was the case with the demolition of building WTC7, in reality the Command and Control centre of the NY side of the FALSE FLAG operation.

Return to the thought at the top. The patsies of 7/7 were not mind-controlled or brainwashed. Such concepts are the fantasies of thriller novels, and do not exist in any useful sense in our real world. Instead, the concept of a patsy works just as you might imagine.

-find or create your patsy. When you are the government, and planning for the mid term, creating patsies makes far more sense. Why? Because your security servicies (for us MI5 and others) will be running many of the so-called extremist organisations to which such people are drawn (even if only on a passing basis). Target young people, because across an early part of their adult life, they will express a near infinite number of political opinions, many of them apparently dangerous, and carelessly thought out. Identify people with a clear reputation with family/friends EVEN if in reality that was a short lived passing phase. REMEMBER, when the story of the patsy's life is published in the newspapers afterwards, even one week of radical behaviour years ago will be made to look like the constant belief system of their whole young adult life!!!

-remember that in our modern age, the innocence of the patsy will be clearly on display. ANSWER- control access to as much of this info as possible. Attempt to retrieve ALL closed-circuit footage as soon as possible to eliminate compromising footage. DO NOT LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT SYSTEMS ALSO RECORD VOICES AS WELL ALL ACROSS LONDON. Delay the dissemination of footage that contradict the official story as long as possible, so that the official story is well inplanted in people's minds.

-hit the families hard after the patsy is used. GET THEM TO EXPRESS DISGUST AT THE "ACTIONS" OF THE PATSY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WARN ALL FAMILY MEMBERS THAT ***THEY*** WILL GO TO JAIL AS TERRORISTS THEMSELVES, IF THEY DO NOT IMMEDIATELY ACCEPT THE OFFICIAL STORY. Ensure that the normal public is left feeling that if the families are happy to call their kids terrorists, THEY MUST BE!!!

-be prepared to carry out follow-up actions, no matter how ludicrous, if the first event is in danger of unravelling. A second wave of patsies can be used in an emergency to reinforce the story of the first wave.

You will gather from the collection of NEW REICHers that immediately jump to defend the official story of 7/7, that the FALSE FLAG is still seen as a prime danger by Blair. However, we already KNOW this to be the case, by the idiot actions of 21/7, when in a panic MI5 was ordered to use a bunch of its assets to REPLICATE as far as possible the events of 7/7 with FAKE BOMBS. This second action had no precedent in the history of political violence ANYWHERE on this planet, at any time in our past. TO ME IT PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENY BEHIND 7/7 KNOWS THAT ITS COVER STORY FOR THE FALSE FLAG CAN BE EASILY TORN APART.

Mind you, I would say to them "Don't Panic". When Putin's men were caught red-handed planting the bombs in the final apartment in Moscow, and the fact became world reknown, Putin's reputation actually grew. Only REAL MEN have the guts to blow up their own people, so that they may get the proper backing to go slaughter JOHNNY FOREIGNER. Terrifying psychology? You better believe it! However, just because we really don't like an idea, does not make it false, and when a population is "squashed" hard, they seem capable of mindsets that one could reasonably call "insane".

"M" and "Zorro" are regular NEW REICH goons on this site. Their trolling exists to attempt to start flamewars, demoralise anti-Blair, anti-war, anti-police-state, anti-atrocity posters, and to push NEW REICH ideas hard. In this case, their job is to protect ONE THING-

QUOTE
The representative from the anti-terrorist branch warned officers at the seminar that terrorists may not necessarily act like people who are about to blow themselves up.
UNQUOTE

or, in other, 1943 Nazi words-
"the jews that you are gassing MAY NOT look like terrorists that live to bring down the German state. However, this is their dirty trick to fool the poor innocents of our beleaguered Nazi state. Their rigorous training is ***designed*** to make us feel guilty, and exploit out inate goodness, so we must steel our hearts, and remember the atrocities that these people will happily commit against us"

The NEW REICH follows exactly the same method as the THIRD REICH, for the same reason, to the same ends. Many normal people in Nazi Germany convinced themselves that the idiot arguments of Hitler MUST be true, because the consequence of disbelieving was to recognise that he was the worst kind of monster, bent on leading Germany and the World into mass atrocity. When the consequences of the truth are unbearable, people will resort to any amount of mental tricks to avoid seeing the truth.

The simple (unbearable) truths.
- Blair worked with Putin on the "apartment bombing" campaign, to give Putin unprecedented power in Russia, partial via the Chechnya war. The alliance with Russia was essential to safely control Russia's response to future US war actions.
- Blair triggered the Kosovo War as an attempt to get the US army to fight on the ground for the first real time since Vietnam. His one and only significant failure, although the perversion of NATO, and the mass bombing of "white" europeans were compensating forward steps.
- Blair worked with Cheney of the 911 False Flag, in order to trigger the US ground war that failed to materialise against the Serbs, and to begin the succession of wars that WILL lead to WW3.
- Blair bombed London public transport of 7/7 to de-power his opponents within the new parliament, and move into law his next batch of police-state dictates.
- Blair will do ANTHING to begin the next war.

Today, when people look back at the History of Hitler, they see the progression more than any other thing, and say "why was the progression not stopped?"

THE PROGRESSION is the thing, but humans are notorious for only seeing the "here-and-now". In maths, this is what we call "seeing the local solution" rather than "finding the global solution". In other words, think of yourself on VERY hilly ground, looking for the highest hill. However, you are blind. Your awareness of height in this circumstance will be based on vicinity.

The Mass Media exists to make the vicinity look like all that matters. Local (recent) events are of "massive" importance. Any progression whose visibility would diminish support for Blair must be disguised. If things are "bad" now, people must feel that they have been "bad" always. "Better" times are ONLY allowed to exist in the future, NEVER the past.

Its funny, isn't it. The patsies of 7/7 did NOTHING to suggest they were going to blow themselves up, thus YOU are told that they PROVE themselves to be bombers. Blair, across the duration of his rule, matches Adolf Hitler to a degree that hardly seems possible, but YOU are told that the perfect pattern match between Blair's New Reich activity, and Hitler's Third Reich is of no consequence whatsoever, and better, proves the total innocence of Blair. Guilt is innocence, and innocence is guilt.

1984 all the way, guys...1984 all the way!!!

- The first rule of Bookclub is that you deconstruct current affairs as a 1st year Eng.Lit. undergraduate would deconstruct Paradise Lost.

- The second rule of Bookclub is that anyone who isn't in Bookclub is either an idiot a spook or a troll.

- The third rule of Bookclub. In the event of proof being lacking, just make stuff up- they're idiots anyway; they'll never notice.

- The fourth rule of Bookclub. Only, unmedicated loons can join.

- The fifth rule of Bookclub. If this is your first night you HAVE rant!

"M and Zorro are regular NEW REICH goons on this site. Their trolling exists to attempt to start flamewars, demoralise anti-Blair, anti-war, anti-police-state, anti-atrocity posters, and to push NEW REICH ideas hard.

Should I feel hurt or insulted I wasn't included? Anyway, Twilight, if M, Zorro and the others are guilt of anything it is their insistence on a reasoned argument and substantive evidento back up your increasingly bizarre assertions (theories?) Time and time again your "facts" are show to be wrong by a whole host of correspondents and you are challenged, yet never once can you respond.

Stop spamming our site; go read prisonplanet or rense.

"Videos aren't "easy to fake".

Really? How do you know? I've worked in the industry. What are your qualifications?

Sure they are. Have you actually watched any CG-based movies over the past ten years? Amazing stuff can be done, simply and cheaply, now that the technology has evolved so much.

Now imagine what you could do with even more advanced technology, like that of the military/intelligence agencies ...

But I also reminded you that this man was most likely a part of a "terror excercise", being run by a "security company", and that this tape could very well have been a part of that excercise (set-up). We'll never know without the context.

And a video does not replace evidence, no matter how much the media likes to act placated.

"I don't recall the Met being complicit in lying to us about WMD."

I was referring to their lies about the silencing of Mr. Menezez, by a still-unidentified man, on 7/21, when "evidence" was conveniently left for investigators to analyze.

"Several of these men were paid to take part in "terrorist excercises" by a "security company" (Intelligence Front). It is plausible that the tape was produced in concert with this "excercise" (set-up)."

"Wow! Where's your proof?"

It was widely reported.

I believe you trolled the threads which spoke about this ...

My credentials. Firstly, I have a eyes in my head. I haven't seen a CGI sequence yet that doesn't look fake/unnatural/weird/trippy. Lord of the Rings'll look like a flick book in 5 years. Final Fantasy just looked dreadful in terms of reality. We are nowhere near true photorealism.

Apart from that, I'm a trained graphical (digital) and fine artist- been doing it ever since I can remember- being born into an art family. I worked a long time in the recording industry and have doing a fair bit of AV work. Dabbled myself 3dMax & digital video editing (very much like audio recording in principal). So, I have a pretty solid understanding of the mechinics and see regularly what is "cutting edge". But since you feel so qualified on the subject, I again challenge you to produce a convincing fake.

What advanced military technology would that be? Give me specific examples of militray spec tech that supercedes the ever growing commercial facilities.
___

You say "the silencing of Mr. Menezez" as though this is some sort of established fact. What did he know that they were silencing him for? Oh, I see. It's a wild assumption. So why are you bringing up WMD? Do you have Tuerrets?
___

" this man was most likely a part of a "terror excercise", being run by a "security company", and that this tape could very well have been a part of that excercise (set-up)."

Quite obviously wild speculation. He could equally have equally been a KGB sleeper who formed a splinter cell... But, no like everything you see, he has to be a tool of the Grand Zionsit Conspiracy. Doesn't it ring any alarm bells that all your theories revolve around the same theme?

"Wow! Where's your proof?"

"It was widely reported."

So widely, I missed it. All I have seen is crap on places like prisonplanet that gets 1000000000000000 miles ahead of itself because some guy working for Visor commented on a coincedence. That's not proof that's tittletattle. Would you like to be sentenced on the basis of such a flimsy case?

Jordan. The only troll here is you. You post and attack viciously anyone who challenges the premise your post. If you bothered to read more than your own threads you realise that everyone of us you call a troll/spook/sheeple conributes to other threads and don't just magically appear when you start dishing up conspiracy tripe & false flag freedom fries.

You aren't fighting a noble battle against MSM and PsyOps you are jus making shit up. If it were otherwise you'd get my backing 100%. The sad truth is that every time you post such rubbish you make anyone who would ever have a valid case about these events even more marginalised.

You *never* have any evidence to back your wild claims. So either get used to being told as much or go away... the infowars yahoo group will be pleased to see you, since they care much about evidence either.

Hello there,

Tempers seem a little heated, but I would just like to repeat what I said:

Its sometimes worth being a little suspicious. Especially considering in this case, the men charged with the crime can never appeal their sentence.

That's all. Rather than (either side's) opinions being formed first and proof sought afterwards, it makes sense to be a little suspicious of [both sides of thought] unfounded claims. This is the challenge for the media, to which unfortunately they continue to fall exceedingly below the goal (objectivism), and it is also the challenge for us (the public).

If we are told the men were suicide bombers, let us ask for specific evidence (forensic, investigative) etc, and reject where possible that which is circumstantial or subjective. There will be no trial for them after all, so it is the job of media and government to be frank with us, and not play coy using the 'national security' card. After all, its our security we must worry about too.

If we are told, for example, in Menezes case (early on) that he was seen pissing on a wall on his way to the station (CCTV) and that Jack Straw wasn't sure if he had a legitimate visa, ask immediately what the relevance of these things is, and don't accept (as many I spoke to did) that these things were proof the man deserved to die.

Finally, if we are all in agreeance the mainstream media is not doing its job (a reason, I am guessing, which would unite people visiting the indymedia sites), then I suspect these points should raise no antagonism.

Kind Regards,

Derek Lane

I couldn't agree more.

To put the thread into its wider context: Jordan regularly spams various IM sites making bold claims and putting forward baseless speculation as fact. His agenda is to interpret everything that happens in the world as part of a Grand Zionist Conspiracy; most deeds are carried out by Mossad, CIA or MI5/6.

When people challenge his assertions he throws a wobbly and start attacking people's integrity.

As had been stated time & time again by myself and others. It isn't the mooting of theories that pisses us off. It is the presentation of speculation as unchallengeable *fact* and the predictable streams of accusations and asperations that follow anyone who challenges his line of reasoning.

What the resident Troll is resorting to is an Ad Hominem Attack. It's Disinformation.

"My credentials. Firstly ..."

So none then. That's what I thought. You are not qualified to comment, yet you do in the negative. That's what raised my suspicions.

A tape can very easily be faked. But that's not the point, because that was only one option, the other I mentioned was that this could have been a requirement of the "Security Excercise" these men took part in. However, without the context, we might never know.

But a tape doesn't replace evidence. If the tape had surfaced, along with the other still-missing pieces of compelling evidence, I would not have a problem.

This miraculous finding of a tape to "prove" everything the guys who LIED their way into a War of Aggression for Profit tell us is true, accompanied by a conspicuous lack of evidence to corroborate their Conspiracy Theories, is becoming a transparent pattern ...

"What advanced military technology would that be?"

Who knows what they've come up with. No, I'm not going to debate the fact that the military typically dabbles in advanced technologies, as if it's some great mystery.

"You say "the silencing of Mr. Menezez" as though this is some sort of established fact."

And?

"It was widely reported."

"So widely, I missed it."

No, it weas reported in the MSM. As I said, I believe you played your Disinfo/Distract game on the threads which spoke of it on this very site. Your focus, you see, also creates a distinct pattern.

Anyhow, the Distraction aside, the main issue here is that we again find ourselves with an attack on innocent people - not too many, just enough to put a real fright into the public - and the supporters of the current Neo-Fascism seize new powers and demand that we unite with them against "Ze Terrorists", even though they've already LIED to us, and sent poor kids to die for their Ideological Madness, only the evidence, the real, compelling evidence, the stuff that should be forthcoming if their Theory is true ... simply never arrives.

Another pattern develops ...

LMFAO: having years of experience in photomontage & digital compositting and lifelong study of visuals counts as *no* qualification to assess how easy video fakery is. You reveal yourself for liar you are once more. You don't even understand the most fundamental principals of image manipulation.

Okay seeing as you have dismissed me out of hand detail: YOUR credentials?

You can't be a CGI artist or you wouldn't be talking as though everything is already possible- like my grandad talks about computers making music... "It's amazing what they can do nowadays!!!" You can't be a video tech or you would understand the myriad of problems. You can't be forensic scientist or you would realise how easy fakery is spot... Come on tell us. I'm dying to know!

I challenge you again to produce a convincing fake. That'll shut me up! But you are just making shit up again in the silly attempt to win an argument for its own sake aren't you.

_______

"What advanced military technology would that be?"

Who knows what they've come up with. No, I'm not going to debate the fact that the military typically dabbles in advanced technologies, as if it's some great mystery.



>How convenient. Go on! I have a higher than average IQ plus I have professional friends who can explain to me in words of *more* then one syllable. Post some exmaples too so that I have a reference point for my dillitante proto-understanding. Because as far as I can tell the Pentagon can't even produce a fake sate satellite image that'll fool a professional (eh Colin?)

Or, do I smell that you have been caught talking out your arse again? Respond or admit to being a liar... again.

The rest of your comment is your usual irrelevant egotistical preaching drivel...which is what you think qualifies as wit & insight. I wasn't argueing the official line Jordon, I was challenging YOUR assertion and all I get is bluster as reponse... as usual.

But that's the only argument you know isn't it?

Q. Jordan, your assertions sound iffy. Back them up please!

Jordan: WMD; AL Qaeda is CIA; Mossad; ze terrorists; spook troll; PsyOps, False Flag

Q. No, I mean YOUR assertions not the governments...

Jordan: WMD; AL Qaeda is CIA; Mossad; ze terrorists; spook troll; PsyOps, False Flag

LOL!

... seriously advise any interested in this issue - and others cojoined - to re-read Twilights words ...

... [] might not be the finest writer, nor have all the facts at [] fingertips ... may even get things wrong ... but the thrust ...

... ah, the thrust, the underlying understanding of the mechanisms by which we are opppressed and blindsided ... second to none.

Hi Jack,

 http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende〈=en&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&relink=on&sectHdr=on&spellToler=std&search=reich

As a trained and practised technical translator, I have always found certain aspects of language fascinating. One of these aspects is the German word 'das Reich'. I have been constantly baffled at how most often the word is never tanslated into English when it refers to Hitler's Third Empire.

My pet theory is that there are two things at play here.

Firstly, the origins of non-translation lie in racist attitudes towards the Germans emniating from WW2.

But being a conscientious linguist, I never take langauge usage at face lexical value or from a prescriptive historical perspective. The ongoing semantics of making a distinction between 'Reich' and 'Empire' is a dehumanisation of the NSDAP's philosophy and action. Avoiding the proper word 'empire' allows English speakers to pretend what happened in the 3rd Empire was somehow seperate and different to the empirialism we have been raised to be proud of. It allows the US to continue to ignore the horrendous acts of genocide that lead to the formation of their nation.

To assert that events as they are playing out can be comfortably interchanged with the events and philosophy of the NSDAP years in Germany & "Germany", I think is a tad hysterical.

Okay, Bush rigged one possibly two elections. Blair's has been involved in electoral fraud... as far as I'm aware there was no vote rigging in Hilter's election to Chancellor. 9/11 wasn't a coup detat. Both US/UK (at this stage) are both at least largely acting under the framework of democracy. There are concerns about new legislation, but so far we do not have death camps (no Gitmo & Abu Ghraib are not a patch on the German KZ Lager... yet), we do not have forced sterilisations, we do not have summary executions (no shooting one wrong bloke doesn't equal); we do not have racial segragiationalist legislation (no, faith school aren't comulsory).

We have the ongoing erosion of democracy by the forces of greed. The manipulation of public perception is nothing new. It goes as far back as recorded history... as does dissent. I doubt we can find a point in history where great paralells could be drawn.

The thing is I can remember back to the Thatcher years, where for me it all started (I'm sure someone ten years my senior would disagree) and things didn't look a whole lot different. Apart from at the start of her reign, workers had more rights, personal debt was a lot lower, housing was more affordable and universities & record comapnies were full of reactionary hippy types and not accountants.

Sure, there is a hideous and obvious agenda being played out but getting ahead of ourselves like some first year SWP twats in the student union calling everything that moves and doesn't have a dog on a rope "facist!" is just silly. We are still a million miles away from the 3rd Empire or any police state.

That isn't complacency that's just a mere statement of fact. I seriously doubt that we are heading to a point where all of us here are going to be disappeared during the night for posting on IndyMedia.

Sure, there are some dubious things being done with the law to trample all over free speech and freedom to assembly. It needs to be resisted. But I can't see that situation lasting the test of time... not in the UK at any rate.

Do I think they government are lying to us? Yes. Do I think the media are 101% in their grip. By no means! Do I think that the government & media are both lackies for the real powerbase? Yes. Do I think that the Gvt, Police, Judiciary, Forces and Security are part of some secret operation to fake terrorism? No. Do I think the real powerbase can easily position people to inflame real terrorism? Yes.

... Hi M ...

... apart from this:

... Do I think that the Gvt, Police, Judiciary, Forces and Security are part of some secret operation to fake terrorism? ...

... I am in complete agreement with you. My answer to the above would be yes, based on their 'previous' (well documented through the ages, and deconstructed in the internet era).

Jack,

as I have said elsewhere on here. I can buy the idea that there may be collusion within said institutions and manipulation of them, but a full-scale conspiracy I think is unlikely due to the logistic impracticality of keeping everyone's mouth shut.

The problem is that if the powerbase were really pulling our dicks, they have literally all the money in the word to beg borrow or steal (pay, dupe or blackmail) the best people and wouldn't be making the silly blunders sites like prisonplanet carp on about: you wouldn't get a half-wit to fake pictures; you wouldn't send to SRR blokes (with standard kit) out to carry out a False Flag; you wouldn't carry out a False Flag on the same day as a practice run (training exercise); you wouldn't warn the Israelis that they should stay at their hotel. Remember, these people can afford professionals. This isn't the Keystone Kops. These asserted blunders are indicating the work of complete morons. It's ludicrous.

But, the trouble is that there just isn't any real evidence. Sure, the Bush resistence to a proper 0/11 inquiry is suspicious. But it only proves they have SOMEthing to hide. We don't really know what. It could be an evidence trail leading to a small cabal with feet in every institution. It could be just a monumental fuck up. There are a lot of iffy factors (and a lot of myths) but nothing conclusive.

The iffiness of 9/11 also doesn't mean that EVERYthing attributed to al qaeda is the direct work of Western agents. 9/11 on its own was a massive recruitment campaign. The action against Afghanistan pushed recruitment further. Iraq: it couldn't get any better for Islamic militant fighters and terrorists.

Why the hell would they need to invent terrorism, when they could easily provoke it wholesale with no direct complicity through foreign policy and all with the convenient battle cry of "9//11!"? Orchestration or opportunism???

I try to keep an open mind on this. Sure there are a lot of people... actually, just a few people that stand to gain greatly from the "War on Terror". But, thus far, I have seen nothing to convince me that they are directly pulling strings through government controlled institutions to the degree that people like Jordan suggest.

If I see evidence, I'll seize it and run. But all I have seen is white noise where other people see patterns. There are too many things that fall apart under cursory scrutiny.

If 9/11 is an inside job, I want to know about it and something to be done about it. But places like prisonplanet, rense and whatreallyhappened are just sausage factories of paranoid bullshit. They have conspiracy hairtriggers and that reduces the topic in the public perception to "a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing loons!"

Something stinks, but we still haven't found who shat under the rug yet or why. Some of the theories are plausible, but none to the point whe can cite irrefutable facts right to the heart of the w-questions.

Well said, M, and about time too.

"Something stinks, but we still haven't found who shat under the rug yet or why"

Exactly. That was kind of my point. Regarding the london bombers, if the media are going to point the finger, a case should be built and tested in a court. The men themselves don't care (they are after all no longer with us), but their families are probably hurting. More so if they believe they have been unfairly accused.

derek

Whole-heartedly agree. But just as much caution should be exercised with people who claim to have found smoking guns. Especially, when all they have as source material is the porrige of spin, PR, media innacurracy and downright lies... as well as the truth in there too. ALL sources should be scrutinised.

I'm all for "hang on a fucking minute! I smell shite!" But we've got to also challenge our own presumptions too. Asking ourselves "What would I WANT belive happened? And how does that influence my observations?" is pretty much a standard way of reducing the tendency to embellish and present that as solid fact. And peer review (places like this) is also a good way of soak testing theories.

We are after all all groping in the dark.

That was my only point in posting this. The media has dropped the ball on journalistic responsibility, and does regularly what even entry-level journalism students are told never to engage in.