Terrorist Attacks

[Guest MattP]

It's even worse when Cameron pleads to everyone he'll sort it out, like he said with tackling the migrant crisis problem and nothing much has changed on that front has it?

 

He can't, impossible when a country cannot control it's own borders.

 

It's the Greeks I feel for (again)

[Dr The Singh]

Don't forget the moon.

Feminists?

[Dr The Singh]

Of course ISIS have sent people here, they did tell us they were going to do it.

From a thread a saw a few months back some people were ok with anyway,

Really, you need to go to ISIStalk, they have a foxestalk equivalent of all of us. There version of Rincy is writing peoms to recruit vagrants to blow themselves while people are pissing on them

[Dr The Singh]

Good theory sir.....may i just point out a slight problem?

If you don't spy on every single citizen....how can you tell who is and isn't suspicious??

Maybe we should have a 'racial stereotype' screening, as the sort of 'entry point' for a suspicious individual???

One reaso n I hate going to the US so often. I'm sick and tired of 'hello sir, please can you follow me, we have a few questions for you to answer'

[Claridge]

Good theory sir.....may i just point out a slight problem?

 

 

If you don't spy on every single citizen....how can you tell who is and isn't suspicious??

 

 

Maybe we should have a 'racial stereotype' screening, as the sort of 'entry point' for a suspicious individual???

Good idea ,its not as if we don,t know where the attacks in Britain are going to come from.

[Steven]

I blamed both.

 

Only cognitive dissonance or ignorance could cause someone to not realise that security services from France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, the USA, the UK and countless more places are involved in terrorism and also in recruiting terrorists. A small group of people in security services are without doubt involved. It's not like there's a lack of evidence of that. I'm sure you could find documents for every year since WW2 that show this.

 

It helps to start new wars, which economies like the US's depend on, it helps to creep in new laws and it helps secure constant and larger budgets for the security services.

 

Instead of showing slight ridicule towards my comments why not explain why you know that security services aren't involved? Maybe you could convince me. 

 

Quite. Who benefits from scare stories like those above? Not ordinary people. Not "terrorists". Who does that leave? If it is not possible to follow the money just follow who would benefit most from a story like this being circulated.

[Webbo]

Quite. Who benefits from scare stories like those above? Not ordinary people. Not "terrorists". Who does that leave? If it is not possible to follow the money just follow who would benefit most from a story like this being circulated.

Why don't terrorists benefit from scare stories?

[Steven]

You made the outrageous claim. You back it up.

9/11.

7/7.

Bali.

Madrid.

All done in cahoots with Security services, eh?

It's not as if you don't have form for tinfoil hattedness within the forum.

Maybe the security service you blame most is Mossad, or perhaps we shouldn't go down THAT road again, as you might expose some of the vile antisemitism you have been guilty of previously to some of our newer posters who missed it the first 3 or 4 times.

I await the inevitable links to some 3 hour long "the lizards did it" YouTube clips....

 

The Americans knew about 9/11 but did nothing.

The Israelis knew about 7/7 and ushered Netanyahu out of the way - http://antiwar.com/blog/2005/07/18/mossad-chief-confirms-netanyahus-warning-of-london-bombing/- http://news.sky.com/story/1513831/questions-over-7-7-bombers-trip-to-israel

Bali - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1451.htm

Madrid - http://911review.org/Wiki/MadridKeysToAConspiracy.shtml

Edited 13 August 2015 by Steven

[Steven]

Why don't terrorists benefit from scare stories?

 

Do these "terrorists" actually exist? How can a none existent group benefit?

[Webbo]

The Americans knew about 9/11 but did nothing.

The Israelis knew about 7/7 and ushered out of the way - http://antiwar.com/blog/2005/07/18/mossad-chief-confirms-netanyahus-warning-of-london-bombing/- http://news.sky.com/story/1513831/questions-over-7-7-bombers-trip-to-israel

Bali - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1451.htm

Madrid - http://911review.org/Wiki/MadridKeysToAConspiracy.shtml

If some bloggers say it was an inside job it must be true.

The Madrid bombing is probably the worse example. The conservative govt which was favourite to win the election in Spain subsequently lost the election soon afterwards. To pretend that the attack helped their govt is laughable.

[Webbo]

Do these "terrorists" actually exist? How can a none existent group benefit?

That tinfoil hat you're wearing really suits you.

[Steven]

If some bloggers say it was an inside job it must be true.

The Madrid bombing is probably the worse example. The conservative govt which was favourite to win the election in Spain subsequently lost the election soon afterwards. To pretend that the attack helped their govt is laughable.

 

Just because some "inquiry" or politician tells you otherwise then that must be true. Perhaps you believe the Warren Commission as well.

 

That tinfoil hat you're wearing really suits you.

 

Burying one's head in the sand like a Pearson's Ostrich is not an option. Questioning an open mind especially from the starting point of believing everything that the "authorities" would have you believe has led many a nation down a dangerous path.

[Webbo]

Just because some "inquiry" or politician tells you otherwise then that must be true. Perhaps you believe the Warren Commission as well.

 

 

Burying one's head in the sand like a Pearson's Ostrich is not an option. Questioning an open mind especially from the starting point of believing everything that the "authorities" would have you believe has led many a nation down a dangerous path.

Believing any bollox no matter how ridiculous just because it suits your prejudice isn't an open mind.

[Steven]

Believing any bollox no matter how ridiculous just because it suits your prejudice isn't an open mind.

 

You misunderstand my thought processes. I was trained as a scientist and I require proof to believe anything. Without that is just an hypothesis; conjecture. 

 

You however seem to be happy believing in hypotheses and conjecture. 

[Sir Fynwy]

You misunderstand my thought processes. I was trained as a scientist and I require proof to believe anything. Without that is just an hypothesis; conjecture. 

 

You however seem to be happy believing in hypotheses and conjecture. 

Isn't that a misinterpretation of the Scientific Method since it relies on confidence in hypothesis rather than absolute proof?

[leicsmac]

Isn't that a misinterpretation of the Scientific Method since it relies on confidence in hypothesis rather than absolute proof?

 

In the strictest sense of the term, yes. The Scientific Method never relies on absolutism (one of the areas where it scores over religion IMO). No theory is ironclad enough that it can't be added to or changed - however, to do so there must still be a pretty overwhelming burden of evidence for it to be done - more so than for the original theory or concept.

[Sir Fynwy]

In the strictest sense of the term, yes. The Scientific Method never relies on absolutism (one of the areas where it scores over religion IMO). No theory is ironclad enough that it can't be added to or changed - however, to do so there must still be a pretty overwhelming burden of evidence for it to be done - more so than for the original theory or concept.

It annoys me when people say 'I'm a scientist and require proof' when actually they should be saying 'I'm a scientist and require a highly tested hypothesis supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence but obviously I'm open to new information that refutes the hypothesis'.

[leicsmac]

It annoys me when people say 'I'm a scientist and require proof' when actually they should be saying 'I'm a scientist and require a highly tested hypothesis supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence but obviously I'm open to new information that refutes the hypothesis'.

 

Yes.

 

Judges and juries need proof. Scientists need evidence to support a working hypothesis.

 

In any case, back on topic...I don't think that every single terrorist group is a shill and that they're all in active cahoots with varying world governments...however I think that having a boogeyman around to frighten people with (even though the risk of actually being hurt or killed in one of these incidents is statistically so small compared to other methods of maiming or death as to be laughable) is a rather useful thing for those in power, and as such these terrorist groups do serve a useful purpose for them in that way. 

[Steven]

It annoys me when people say 'I'm a scientist and require proof' when actually they should be saying 'I'm a scientist and require a highly tested hypothesis supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence but obviously I'm open to new information that refutes the hypothesis'.

 

I am happy to accept this. However my original point still stands. I do need proof or else I am stuck in a questioning, hypothesising, predicting, testing and analysing cycle.

 

Given the discussion above; I want to break out. It means that I do not accept the narrative as propaganda that is pushed by the "authorities" and their media shills.

[fleckneymike]

It annoys me when people say 'I'm a scientist and require proof' when actually they should be saying 'I'm a scientist and require a highly tested hypothesis supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence but obviously I'm open to new information that refutes the hypothesis'.

 

When most people say they want proof they mean 'I want proof which backs my opinion' regardless of 'truth' or 'fact'.

[BoneDog]

You made the outrageous claim. You back it up.

9/11.

7/7.

Bali.

Madrid.

All done in cahoots with Security services, eh?

 

The suspects or perpetrators involved in the first two in that list were well known to intelligence way before and up to the terrorist attacks. I honestly thought everyone knew that. Some were even in contact with one service or another.

 

I don't know anything about the other two, but if it was Al Q then that is all you need to know, because I know for a fact that anybody who watches the news has been told of their top mens (men who give orders to terrorists) involvement with security services.

 

I think it's quite shameful for an adult in this day and age not to have some knowledge of how state's are involved in these activities.

 

It's not as if you don't have form for tinfoil hattedness within the forum.

Maybe the security service you blame most is Mossad, or perhaps we shouldn't go down THAT road again, as you might expose some of the vile antisemitism you have been guilty of previously to some of our newer posters who missed it the first 3 or 4 times.

 

There we go again with the nonsense. For a start, the anti-semite thing is just untrue and totally meaningless, but keep throwing the accusation around if you wish. Secondly, no I don't blame one security service more than another. They all probably have many people working against terrorism, but without doubt they all have rogue elements, which has been well documented throughout recent history.

 

Why not just concentrate on what I'm saying in the present instead of some crap I might have said in the past.

 

I await the inevitable links to some 3 hour long "the lizards did it" YouTube clips....

 

Why would you await such a thing from me? You must be confusing me with someone else.

[BoneDog]

Don't forget the moon.

 

Haha, no I've changed my mind on that. You see, I'd not known about the phone call before, but once I saw this I knew I was wrong and that they did go to the moon.

[Vacamion]

The suspects or perpetrators involved in the first two in that list were well known to intelligence way before and up to the terrorist attacks. I honestly thought everyone knew that. Some were even in contact with one service or another.

I don't know anything about the other two, but if it was Al Q then that is all you need to know, because I know for a fact that anybody who watches the news has been told of their top mens (men who give orders to terrorists) involvement with security services.

I think it's quite shameful for an adult in this day and age not to have some knowledge of how state's are involved in these activities.

There we go again with the nonsense. For a start, the anti-semite thing is just untrue and totally meaningless, but keep throwing the accusation around if you wish. Secondly, no I don't blame one security service more than another. They all probably have many people working against terrorism, but without doubt they all have rogue elements, which has been well documented throughout recent history.

Why not just concentrate on what I'm saying in the present instead of some crap I might have said in the past.

Why would you await such a thing from me? You must be confusing me with someone else.

So, no evidence, then, but you know some stuff "for a fact".

Well, that's all of us convinced.

Lizards 1, the rest of us sheeple nil, eh...

Whether terrorists are known to security services or not, it remains a fact that the person to blame for a terrorist attack is the terrorist, not the security services who might suspect they are iffy, in the same way that the murderer, not their social worker, is to blame for a murder.

Unless, that is, you are not suggesting that security services merely had concerns about these people, but that they were actively in cahoots with them. That's an extraordinary claim which would require some extraordinary evidence.

And there was no "might have" about what you have said in the past. You have repeatedly and unapologetically posted weird, untrue rubbish about "Zionists" and the holocaust in here.

I considered this to be relevant to a discussion on terrorism because many others who hold your views about such things also often propose "less than mainstream" views about the causes of acts of terrorism.

If, by brushing over your previous posts about Zionist conspiracies and the holocaust as "some crap", you are now withdrawing those disgraceful assertions, by all means confirm clearly that this is the case and I, for one, would cheerfully never mention them again.

[Steven]

So, no evidence, then, but you know some stuff "for a fact".

Well, that's all of us convinced.

 

Equally there is no evidence for the scare propaganda pumped out by media shills and yet that seems to get lapped up as fact. 

 

Who benefits by this kind of propaganda being in the public domain? 

[Vacamion]

Equally there is no evidence for the scare propaganda pumped out by media shills and yet that seems to get lapped up as fact. 

 

Who benefits by this kind of propaganda being in the public domain? 

"media shills"

There appears to be a close similarity between "truthers" , who think they are an elite band, privy to amazing secrets about the real nature of things that everyone else can't or won't see, and religious zealots.