Saturday, April 04, 2009

Falsifiability

"Wonderboy has left a new comment on your post "Don't hold your breath but...":

Question to all:

In the interests of tackling non-falsifiability, what would this footage have to show you to convince you that events of 7/7 were, pretty much, as narrative?"


That's a damn good question and one I always try and remember to ask myself whenever discussing alternative accounts of how the world works

-

I was fingerprinted for the first time in my life last week, as a transit passenger flying through the US on the way back to Britain.

Get off plane. Stand in a queue for 90 minutes. Get fingerprinted. Get back on plane.

The parallels with the imagery of people waiting to be processed into camps did not escape me

I'm still fuming about it

All in the name of that Bullshit War on Terror and those Bullshit Official Narratives

My intuition tells me with all its might that this entire business is a wicked, manufactured lie but that's no excuse to put my brain into neutral and accept any old crap just because it fits in with my gut feelings

-

First off, my own doubts about the Official 7/7 Narrative are not based on any one fact, or absence of fact

So, on its own, there's nothing that 7/7 footage could show which would convince me that Official Narrative is totally truthful

The withheld 7/7 footage might support that part of the Official Narrative to which it directly relates, but no more

One thing I am pretty sure of is that footage has been held back for more than three years

Which is strange

The authorities are so keen to advocate the benefits of CCTV surveillance that they usually fall over themselves in their haste to publish CCTV footage

So, there's something about that 7/7 video which has given the Establishment reason to hold it back

The reason which has been given, as I understand it, is that the footage is part of an ongoing investigation

Which is more than likely bollocks

All the (alleged) perpetrators are dead and even if there are any still left alive there's a pretty good chance they don't need to consult CCTV tapes to recall what they did or where they were that day

No, there's a very good possibility that the withheld 7/7 footage includes material that the Establishment doesn't want us mugs to see

I don't have an alternative 7/7 narrative and I don't claim to have unpublished material which supports any alternative narrative.

The burden should be on those who are using an Official Narrative (backed by unreleased alleged evidence) to support shit like this...



and this..


...to prove their story beyond reasonable doubt

They absolutely have not

though they have employed every slimy trick in the book to give the illusion that they have.

There's been no 7/7 inquiry or trial and there has been repeated and systematic misrepresentation of 7/7 related 'evidence' in the corporate media

The release of all relevant CCTV material from 7/7 held by the authorities would go some some way to rectifying the lack of evidence which supports the Official Narrative, but only a little way

And to fellow Loons who might feel the temptation to argue that 3 years is plenty long enough to fabricate 7/7 footage using the latest CGI technology I suggest checking out any recent Hollywood blockbuster to see just how shite CGI still is - why else do you reckon high def OBL videos are in such short supply?


118 comments:

The Antagonist said...

Having received an email from someone whom I believe to be the very same Wonderboy earlier this evening, and seeing as he's left a comment on your blog, two birds, one stone and all that so I'll reply here.

The question was:

Put simply: if you suspect that 7/7 was a false-flag, what would this now promised footage have to show to convince you otherwise?

Of course, the issue is not convincing me of one thing or another but instead that the burden of proof lies with the government (which itself lies). The government, or rather some anonymous individual(s) working for the State and published by the Home Office, have alleged that four British Muslim men are responsible for whatever happened on 7/7.

Having learned their lessons with prosecutions of "IRA terrorists", although it took anywhere between 10 and 20 or so years for it to become publicly admitted that the accused were all innocent, the State has conveniently thrown the allegations for 7/7 at people who, if the official narrative is to be believed, are now dead and therefore cannot be prosecuted.

This is a rather slick, and hugely pernicious, way of:

- avoiding a trial,
- having to produce evidence that would stand up in a court of law,
- and then being found out some time later to have lied, fabricated evidence, obtained confessions through violence and all the rest of the nasty stuff that the State and its paid thugs are very, very good at.

The reality of the situation is that every single bit of CCTV footage from 7/7 could be released, from the alleged moment the accused left their homes right up until 10am on the morning of 7th July 2005 and it would still prove nothing.

So, the release of CCTV footage -- which J7 has been endeavouring to have released for almost four years -- is, at best, an effort to support the flawed and entirely free of evidence narrative and, at worst, nothing more than a diversionary distraction from anything that might resemble real evidence.

Let them release the footage, it will prove nothing other than that the footage exists. Oh, and the unforgivable incompetence and/or mendacity of those individuals that put the narrative together, but who didn't have the wit or intelligence to be able to read and interpret timestamps correctly and correlate information.

I'll leave the last words to William Melvin Hicks: It's all in how you look it.

"Oh, that Rodney King beating tape, it's all in how you look at it."

The courtroom murmurs: "Jesus, what balls. I've never seen balls of this magnitude. He must have a specially fitted uniform in which to place these large testicles." "

That's incredible. All in how you look at it, Officer Coon?"
"That's right. It's how you look at the tape."
"Well would you care to tell the court how you're looking at that?"
"Yeah, okay, sure. It's how you look at it. For instance, well, if you play it backwards, you see us help King up and send him on his way."
"Mmm . . . not guilty."
"'Scuse me, 'scuse me. Man with big balls has just been acquitted."

paul said...

ditto ant

There is no proof of anything, only an assertion.
Drip feeding the assertion with selective material will not make any definitive case, but will provide nourishment to the foie gras opinionist geese such as aaronovitch and nick korsakoff.
It allows endless 'what if' bollocks on the level of poor maud'ib.
Something generally extraordinary happened that day, but it has never evinced the feverish activity that descends on 'celebrities' lives.
But then, what are narratives for?

The Underdoug said...

I save myself a lot of pondering by using Craig Murray's razor quoted from the end of: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/04/want_to_earn_te.html

"As a rule of thumb, if the government wants you to know it, it probably isn't true."

I'm sure that the inverse also holds. The inordinate length of time denying the release usually indicates that there is something to hide.

Speaking of nothing to hide:

"I was fingerprinted for the first time in my life last week, as a transit passenger flying through the US on the way back to Britain."

is why I will never visit the US again - I refuse to be treated like a criminal for wanting to travel. I have nothing to hide (let's face it, if I did have anything worth hiding, I'd have been able to leave the UK by now) but have everything to fear from a state that hasn't a clue about the difference between identification and authentication:

http://www.jepoirrier.net/blog/2005/12/identification-vs-authentication/

Stef said...


Sensational 7/7 bomber footage to be released
Friday, April 3, 2009


Police have been ordered to release dramatic footage of the July 7 bombers after a three-year freedom of information battle by the Press Association.

The images show the terrorists chatting, putting on rucksacks and buying snacks on their way to blow up Tube trains.

In chilling scenes, Hasib Hussain is also seen shopping for a battery and stopping at McDonald's as he struggles to make his device work after the other bombs have been detonated.

The images cannot be released immediately because of the process of appeal.

The footage was described in detail in the Home Office's Narrative report, which was published the year after the devastating 2005 attacks.

But very little of the material has so far been made available to the public.

The Information Commissioner overruled objections from Scotland Yard that disclosure could disrupt its investigations, and ordered that seven pieces of footage should be released.

The force has 35 days to either appeal or disclose the material.

The images are all from July 7, the day of the suicide bombings that killed 52 innocent people in London.

In chronological order, they are:

:: 0454 Shehzad Tanweer at Woodall Services on the M1, buying snacks, arguing over his change and looking straight at the camera;

:: 0507 Jermaine Lindsay arriving at Luton railway station, waiting for 90 minutes and examining departure board;

:: 0649 All four bombers putting on "large and full" rucksacks outside Luton station;

:: 0826 All four bombers at King's Cross, hugging on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform, heading towards the Underground;

:: 0855 Hussain walking out of King's Cross on to Euston Road, demeanour appearing "relaxed" and trying to make a call on mobile phone;

:: 0900 Hussain back in King's Cross, walking through Boots into WH Smith on station concourse, and buying a 9-volt battery;

:: 0906 Hussain going into McDonald's on Euston Road, leaving 10 minutes later.

Three of the bombers detonated their devices almost simultaneously at 8.50am, Lindsay under King's Cross, Mohammad Sidique Khan at Edgware Road, and Shehzad Tanweer at Aldgate.

Hussain set off his bomb on a bus in Tavistock Square at 9.47am.

The Commissioner ruled that the faces of anyone other than the bombers should be pixelated in the footage.

Stef said...

In chilling scenes, Hasib Hussain is also seen shopping for a battery and stopping at McDonald's

for fuck's sake

Stef said...

unless, of course, the Met use the Requiem for a Dream soundtrack on the footage

In which case it would be double chilling with extra frosty sprinkles

paul said...

Is there any footage of what he does with the battery of evil?
Its a bit odd that that you plan and execute a major terrorist operation but leave it till the last moment to assemble a bomb.
Unless of course, the battery was for something else.

The Antagonist said...

In chilling scenes, Hasib Hussain is also seen shopping for a battery and stopping at McDonald's

Yeah, well, stopping at McDonalds for something to eat just isn't the done thing any more.

And as for requiring a battery in these times of rampant climate change and energy shortage, chilling is the right word.

What utter tosh.

Like Jackanory, only less believable.

Wonderboy said...

Stef,

Thanks for your reply to my comment.

Ant,

You're indeed right: I am the very same Wonderboy. Nothing underhand was intended in posting the same question twice - I have followed both yours and Stef's blogs for a good while and was genuinely interested in both your takes.

Both,

Personally, I am not at all convinced at all about the merit of 7/7 activism. While the official narrative of 9/11 has been demolished at a scientific level this is not the case for 7/7. Sure there are inconsistencies, incredulities, absurdities even - but no one has ever been able to convince me that 'the official narrative of 7/7 is demonstrably/provably false because..."

Yes, the official narrative is weak – and it should not have been swallowed whole by the MSM – but that does not mean that it is not, in most respects, true.

I know that Mohammed Sidique Khan was a real person – we shared colleagues and other acquaintances; and while I don't claim to know much more about him, I know that he was alive in Leeds before 7/7 and has not been seen since.

If the 'soon to be released' footage shows MSK in London on the day, carrying a rucksack and boarding the train I will take this, coupled with his 'suicide' video, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was involved in the events.

Of course, he and his accomplices could very well have been someone elses' useful idiots – be it al-Qaeda, CIA or whatever – but that does not deny their personal involvement and, while there are a compelling number of reasons to suspect an 'inside job' theory with regard to 9/11, I have yet to see one with regard to 7/7.

This could, of course, just be because the 7/7 Truth Movement has not been as successful as the 9/11 Truth Movement in uncovering these holes in the narrative. Perhaps J7 and others lack the funding, skills or expertise of those in America. Or maybe it is because the holes aren't there.

From what I have read on both your sites, I understand that you both believe that 7/7 fits into a false-flag, Gladio-esque, pattern of state sponsored terrorism. I just don't see it. Yes, the work of Daniele Gasner and others shows that false-flag terrorism (in various forms) is a reality, but it does not follow from this that all acts of terrorism are state-sponsored – sometimes stupid people just do horrible things for their own misguided reasons.

Yes, I will have suspicions about the involvement about Peter Power after his remarks about the 'coincidences of the day' but until such time as someone can produce evidence linking him to one or more of the alleged perps this is precisely what they will remain - suspicions: nothing strong enough to perform activism about or to campaign around.

Ant,

You say “the reality of the situation is that every single bit of CCTV footage from 7/7 could be released, from the alleged moment the accused left their homes right up until 10am on the morning of 7th July 2005 and it would still prove nothing.”

Hyperbole granted, but it could prove many things:

1.MSK and the others were there on the day.
2.They each individually boarded the trains (and bus) that subsequently exploded.
3.They were each carrying rucksacks which could have had explosives in them.

Yes, even the totality of these facts do not constitutes an 'ultimate proof' but added to the fact that they made 'suicide videos' it could (to my mind at least ) add up to 'a strong indication of what happened'.

So my question to you remains, what could ever be shown to you to think the Official Narrative is true? Since you have indicated that CCTV footage would be inconclusive for you, what would you require?

Stef,

Regarding the use of the Official Narrative to implement draconian laws, infringe liberties, etc.

I think this is an entirely separate issue as even if they had proved their story beyond a reasonable doubt this still would not justify some of the recent actions which violate the UDHR

Both,

Finally, on a personal note, both of your excellent blogs have inspired me to create my own – (wonderboyinmonsterland.wordpress.com) which I hope to be able to dedicate some time to in the next few months.

My personal view is that – whether it was due false flag or genuine home-grown terrorists (and my opinion at the moment leans towards the later)- 7/7 has it's origins in the War on Terrorism, and, of course, 9/11.

9/11 Truth is then not just a problem for those overseas to figure out - as is sometimes stated in your work Ant - but instead constitutes the entire stage on which all of the dramas of the last eight years - both contrived and real - have played out. I think a one-size fits all analysis of terrorism is, in the end, counter-productive.

All the best for now.

Tom said...

Wonderboy, what exactly constitutes a 'suicide video'?

Would it include -

a) you record yourself opposing and intending to oppose the policy of one or more governments

b) someone points a gun and a camera at you and says 'read this'

?

wv: repectio

Stef said...

I think this is an entirely separate issue as even if they had proved their story beyond a reasonable doubt this still would not justify some of the recent actions which violate the UDHR

So do I, which is I mentioned that I always try and not let my revulsion at what is being done cloud my judgment

Stef said...

re. 7/7 vs 9/11

7/7 largely took place underground and on a much smaller scale than 9/11

it was much easier for the authorities to lock down the sites of the 7/7 atrocity and control the information flow out of them

there has been an official inquiry, of sorts, into 9/11

9/11 also happened 4 years before 7/7

consequently I'd be surprised if there hadn't been more progress made in researching 9/11 vs 7/7

Stef said...

as you know the 'suicide videos' you refer to make no reference to an attack on London or, um, suicide

besides that the videos' provenance is dodgy and their appearance coincided rather nicely with even the mainstream media asking sceptical questions about the official narrative

I could rattle of a list of reasons why I have doubts about the official narrative - the bomb laden car left in Luton, the reluctance of the authorities to identify the nature ad the composition of the devices used, the train times, the involvement of various shady IslaMI5t masterminds and so on but you're probably up to speed with all of that and still broadly accept the Official 7/7 Narrative

So, putting all that aside, ask yourself one question...

Last year in the course of a 7/7 related (sic.) trial a forensic expert took the stand and explained that the bombers were physically separated from both the bombs and their ID when the bombs exploded

The question to ask yourself is 'Does that even start to make sense?'

Would the bombers really push their way through crowded tube carriages to scatter bank cards and photo IDs around the carriage so that they could be easily identified after the explosion? (In one case, ID from one person was found at two site)

Would suicide bombers really separate themselves from their bombs? And if they did so. what was the point of sticking around at all? Supposedly, they had a car full of more bombs and a return ticket back to Luton

paul said...

I think a one-size fits all analysis of terrorism is, in the end, counter-productive.

I think a one-size fits all analysis of terrorism is, at the start, perfectly reasonable.
The one size i'd choose is that terrorism is the product of state actors.
I reckon I'll be right more than I'm wrong.

numeral said...

What is remarkable about the 7/7 CCTV footage is how little there is given the "CCTV rich environment" of the Underground. There is no hint that any CCTV exists from KXSP, Russell Square, Aldgate or Edgware Road. What happened to it?

Wonderboy said...

Stef,

Thanks for the reply.

re. 7/7 vs 9/11

All valid points. But this year will be the 4th anniversary of 7/7 and, I dare say, the 9/11 Truth Movement had much more to show for its first four years.

re The question to ask yourself is 'Does that even start to make sense?'

I took that testimony to mean that the bombers had left their rucksacks on some part of the train, (presumably some kinds of baggage rack bit) and sat down elsewhere. Their ids (which would have been on their persons and in their bags) would have been distributed during the explosion.

But, as I say, this is only my interpretation, if you can show me why this is wrong, please do.

re, ID at two sites.

Well you'd have to know what the ID was. I have one of my brother's bank cards in my wallet right now for example.

re Would suicide bombers really separate themselves from their bombs? And if they did so. what was the point of sticking around at all? Supposedly, they had a car full of more bombs and a return ticket back to Luton

Obviously, I don't know. But then I also don't know why anyone would want to kill innocent people to make a political point.

So if you concede for a moment it could have been the four perps, then you would have to say something like:

"these were four young men, planning to commint a terrible act with an uncertain outcome and willing to destroy themselves in the process".

Given this, does it then make sense to question the reason/rationale behind some of their decisions on the day?

I'm fairly convinced one could dissect post hoc the last few hours in the lives of many Palestinian suicide bombers and find many such examples of such inconsistencies - I don't think the human mind rationalises it's impending doom all that well.

re General

Obviously I am being Devils' Advocate to some extent as I have no firm conviction about the events of 7/7 either way. My 'hunch', if you will, is that it was by and large, as Official Narrative. In context, my initial hunch of 9/11 was that there was much more too it and this was confirmed to me not long after the event.

Stef said...

"It is, in the opinion of Mr Todd, noteworthy that at each scene, some personal materials and documents, such as ID cards, were found relating to the bombers.

"Although they were damaged to some extent, they did not show the damage that would be expected if they were on the body of the bomber or in the rucksack, suggesting that in each case they had been deliberately separated by some distance from the actual explosion."

Stef said...

I'm fairly convinced one could dissect post hoc the last few hours in the lives of many Palestinian suicide bombers and find many such examples of such inconsistencies - I don't think the human mind rationalises it's impending doom all that well.

My understanding of suicide bombing is that it evolved as a tactic used by desperate people to attack 'hard' targets protected by otherwise unbeatable forces

Palestine being a good example

The last time I looked, and in spite of 3 years of fascist bullshit, tube trains are still not protected by unbeatable security

There was no need for anyone who chose to bomb London transport on 7/7 to die in the process

and the 'but suicide bombers are plain bonkers' response doesn't stack up

Stef said...

the 9/11 Truth Movement had much more to show for its first four years

after about the first three or four years after 9/11 the 9/11 Truth movement had virtually imploded under a suffocating weight of infighting, personality clashes, shilling and bullshit about space beams, holograms and bigotry

it's been tried here as well

and all credit to J7T for avoiding the cack that various characters have tried to chuck in their way

but, yes, it would have been good if more progress had been made but that's the point, the lockdown on evidence that has been allowed into the public domain has been wide-ranging

and, I believe, unsustainable in the long term

Wonderboy said...

Stef,

Cheers for the link. You're right, it's weird - but it's not enough mount a campaign around (imo).

re "There was no need for anyone who chose to bomb London transport on 7/7 to die in the process".

True, but that's a circular arguement - there is 'no need' to kill oneself to make a political point.

You're right, suicide bombing has historically evolved as a tactic used by desperate people to attack 'hard' targets protected.

But again, it doesn't follow that 'the only people who can choose suicide bombing are desperate people, nor that they can only be used against hard targets'.

Maybe a more generic statement could be that 'suicide bombing is a tactic used by people who have (for different reasons) lost the value in their own human life.'
Once the decision has been taken to go through with the intended action it wouldn't suprise me that things are also done that don't 'stack up'.

People are can be irrational, their behaviours are, by and large, dictated far more by habit that reasoned thought. This especially applies to people in highly stressful situations and (I would suspect)people about to take 'abnormal' actions.

You can characature this as 'suicide bombers are plain bonkers' but I don't think this deals with the issue.

No, I don't understand how a suicide bomber thinks, but (as a qualified psychologist) I have an understanding of how people think and can try to reason.

The book link looks interesting though so thanks.

re the 9/11 Truth movement

Still going strong 8 years after the event, attracting a broader range of adherents from a wide spectrum of professions and competencies.

re "the lockdown on evidence that has been allowed into the public domain"

Okay, this comes back to the original question then. What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Stef said...

Okay, this comes back to the original question then. What kind of evidence are you looking for?

The kind of evidence that would be required to secure a conviction in a court of law

by a decent, honest jury

after being subject to critical scrutiny by an honest, competent defense counsel

Stef said...

from what we've heard thus far the withheld CCTV material may fix the alleged four bombers in London with rucksacks on 7/7

but so were lots of other people

Stef said...

Cheers for the link. You're right, it's weird - but it's not enough mount a campaign around (imo).

Arguably not

but, at present, the 'campaign' is for the release of the evidence which allegedly supports the official 7/7 narrative, probably via some form of public inquiry

My suspicion is that the 7/7 CCTV footage has not been held back because it contains material which is embarrassing for the authorities. If that were the case it would have simply been destroyed

It has been sat on because of either

a) sheer bureaucratic stupidity

or

b) it does a very lame job of supporting the official narrative

Stef said...

...but, hey, do you know what?, I don't particularly enjoy guessing about the nature of things which are being used to justify the imposition of fascism on my homeland

the fuckers should either put up or shut up

on the other hand, maybe I should just give up on a country where 99.99% of the population have let this hateful totalitarian nonsense go down, without subjecting the justifications to anything like critical scrutiny, mostly because they were too busy watching the 'value' of their houses go up or spanking their credit cards

S said...

"What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Rudimentary evidence, like the proof of the identities of the alleged bombers - a request that has been refused.

lwtc247 said...

You will of course remember the platform/walking-cops/smoke video last year. the same question of "assurance against fakery" was relevant then too. You and I were ready to made a fudamental shift in our beliefs before watching those videos. I was actually nervous before clicking 'play' and when the images statred appearing before my eyes.

Personally I'm not really sure if I can say what it would have taken for me to accept the '4 bombers theory'. I think I would have to see it first before I could identify 'there, that's it, that's the clincher - I now need to change my stance'. The more I think about this, the more I'm confident that it would be a retrospective thing. I don't think I am able to say in words exactly what would have my 'threshold into acceptance' crossed.

The "confession videos" had at one point leaning towards thinking that it was sufficient too make the allegations against them seem credible (when MSK possibly was saying a final goodbye to his little girl), however it wasn't long before sense kicked back in and I began thinking about a number of other contextually credible explanations. The video wasn't enough.

For non-loons however, I guess the 'confessions' sealed it. Worse than that it seems many people believed they did it simply because filthy elements of the establishment said they did!

If but in the end, I think if the majority of major questions of 7-7 did have sensible answers and are backed by degrees of evidence, all of which pointed to them doing it, then I would, as a logical and thoughtful(?) human accept it until something stronger came along.

Trouble is, NONE of the major questions have been answered. I need to repeat that: NONE. ZERO. ZIP SQUILSH. The governments narrative is more concocted than what are unkindly dismissed as 'common conspiracy theories'


Second to the train times (which I currently understand to prove the 7-7 narrative is false), I would look at the scientific aspects of the bombs i.e. composition/aquisition/formulation/synthesis/processing/assembly/energetics/detonation physics and analysis. From what I've come across so far, NONE of those points are explainable by what I've seen of the narrative.

Clearly, once again the grubbyment is lying to us. There would be absolutely no need to do so if the '4 bombers theory was true' In fact it would be in the governments interests if it were true for the sheer propaganda it would give them. {even when you consider 'deep' conspiracies).

And of course the fact it is to be released meant they were lying in claiming it was a matter of national security. If it did show anything barely suggesting MSK and all did it, the Grubbyment has shot itself in the foot as it will be met with serious claims that it is a fake which needed time to create.


Next point:

I'm still fuming about it. - a very important sub-point there.

I guess you, like me, and I suspect the great deal of admirers of your blog, oppose fingerprinting. biometrics and RFID etc... more fiercely than the overwhelming number of people on the planet. Yet we cannot stop our bio-ID from somehow making an appearance on a government database, and what's worse... the (shared)database of a network of governments that are PROVEN to be wholly corrupt and a bunch of freakish blood letters. What's more, over time those details will only accumulated, never be take away from.

I can see the time when a DNA profile will end up on that database too and we will be swabbed occasionally for various purposes. and I have absolutely NO DOUBT that this info will end up in the hands of genetic engineering institutions commercial as well as obligatory state bodies. New PATENTED gene therapy and "therapy - see PNAC;RAD" will be offered and insurance companies will strangely restructure their packages.

For what it's worth, David Icke is known to speak out against all this but of course he too has been databased already {please - that's the limit of Ikean input here}. The point is all of will. No dissenter (real or otherwise) can stop it. God knows what they are doing in schools. The database is the 'mark of the beast' theologically and/or metaphorically.

It is growing increasingly clear, the strengthening of fascism will only be met by a revolution on multiple fronts. We are caught in step one of 'revolution' We really need to be thinking more beyond the 'verbal/keyboard dissent and protestations'.

I refused to take a BA flight to the UK last year because they would force me to have biometric details taken. It's not something you can convince them to drop. Luckily, at the time there was an alternative airline that didn't require such a thing. But if there wasn't alternative, i'd have been databased (if I'm not already) or I'd be exiled from the UK. But far dar worse, would be if a biometric issue was to occur in daily life, e.g. thumb print to open your office door etc, all of which is slowly but surely happening. The other day I say a van boasting FRID and biometric 'solutions' (the Real 'final solution' no doubt) and this was in some 'backwater'.

I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that information on a database which could be used as 'evidence' in a court of law, WILL be used to plant evidence against innocent people (or even smear them) who oppose the rotten government despotic and that litish kween Elizarbeth.

We really must start discussions amongst trusted friends and family about step two - financial dissent, and beyond!, akin to the 'scary' picture you posted the other day.


ver word: lises (whats NeoLabourses gots in its mouthses?)

paul said...

Tanweer was identified using dna from a parking ticket, but matching that to the crime scene would have been problematic at the time,and perhaps even now.

While wonderboy may be sceptical about the worth of j7, and belittle it by comparing it to 9/11 efforts, that is no compelling reason for them to pack it in.

Apart from the large gaps and the various inconsistencies which so little trouble him, can he see no second order advantages to their work?
A demonstration of healthy enquiry by members of the public?
Highlighting that preferring narratives over a case is a rather disturbing precedent?
Drawing attention to neglected parts of modern history?
All admirable stuff.
(I don't see ganser's work turning up on the modern curriculum and we'll see a thousand documentaries about hitler, queen bess and dinosaurs before timewatch returns to gladio).

Stef said...

@lwtc247

I'm with that last comment of yours 100%

Anonymous said...

"I don't see ganser's work turning up on the modern curriculum"

I know people who put it in when appropriate.

Further to that point, does anyone know where I can get a copy of the recent US election presidential ballot paper?

I'd heard that there were more than two names on the paper.

Stef said...

I voted today

paul said...

here's an absentee ballot paper

6 candidates

Stef said...

snap!

paul said...

Scientific evidence disproving 7/7 narrative (paraphrasing the original link is no longer valid, surprise surprise)

"And the policeman said mind the hole, and I looked down and SAW THE METAL PUSHED UPWARD, as if the bomb was under the train" (emphasis mine, delete the "as if" and youre there!)

QED, entire suicide bomber fabrication a complete non starter.

PS why is a guy who knows he will be dead in 5 hours arguing about his change, does he owe the devil money or do the 72 virgins/whores require exact change?

Stef said...

in a similar vein of niggling little factoids upon which you couldn't hang an entire campaign, have you seen the McDonald's breakfast menu - it's not what you would call Halal is it?

Wonderboy said...

All,

Thanks for the replies. To reemphasise, I am on the same page with as you all with regard to police state, biometrics, etc. I just think that the role 7/7 Truth should play in all this is should be a minor one until such time as the case against the Official Narrative is more compelling. This is a tactical issue though, nothing more.

Paul,

re "wonderboy may be sceptical about the worth of j7, and belittle it by comparing it to 9/11 efforts"

It was not my intention to 'belittle' anything. I was trying to make the point that the 911 Truth campaigners have alot more to work with because the Official Narrative there is so glaringly at odds with scientific truth. That the J7 campaigners don't have this is not their 'fault' or anything.

paul said...

To people who can concoct a stable,portable form of tatp at first attempt, I think a device that converts food to halal form would be a mere trifle.
Probably powered by a 9v battery.
This is purely speculative, but I would be grateful if someone could spend their life disproving it.

Stef said...

Thanks for the replies. To reemphasise, I am on the same page with as you all with regard to police state, biometrics, etc. I just think that the role 7/7 Truth should play in all this is should be a minor one until such time as the case against the Official Narrative is more compelling. This is a tactical issue though, nothing more.

Most of the people who have commented here are UK based. If we lived in the US we would more than likely concentrate on 9/11, in Spain, the Madrid bombings, in India, the attack on Mumbai

There are at least a couple of UK-based 9/11 boards which do a solid job of contributing little, if anything, to 9/11 research and what a car crash they are most of the time

Stef said...

@paul

Maybe the secret to formulating stable TATP is to stick a couple of Sausage McMuffins into the mix

In which case, even if there's only the tiniest risk of this being possible, all branches of Boots and McDonalds should be separated by some kind of checkpoint controlled Peace Wall

paul said...

Perhaps J7 and others lack the funding, skills or expertise of those in America. Or maybe it is because the holes aren't there.


...I just think that the role 7/7 Truth should play in all this is should be a minor one until such time as the case against the Official Narrative is more compelling.


Well it certainly comes across as belittling to me.
You're quite welcome to your opinion, and you have made it clear several times.
You are happy to accept the narrative and speculate on why it might be true.
Please get on with the important work which is, (as ever)in your opinion, waiting to be done at the expense of the minor unexplained circumstances of the 7th of july.

Also, how is the case against going to become more compelling if people aren't monitoring what does emerge?

Stef said...

The McDonalds breakfast menu

Hmmm, porky

paul said...

Maybe the secret to formulating stable TATP is to stick a couple of Sausage McMuffins into the mix

That would sit nicely with the available information.

paul said...

Porky, but then he could have gone for the toasted bagel

Stef said...

You're quite welcome to your opinion, and you have made it clear several times.
You are happy to accept the narrative and speculate on why it might be true.


Personally, I don't have a problem with someone challenging the basis for my own scepticism. In fact, I welcome it

But the case 'against' J7T has not been made IMHO

There is plenty of scope for both 9/11 and 7/7 scepticism and, thanks to higher US production values, 9/11 attracts the vast bulk of attention already anyway

Stef said...

Porky, but then he could have gone for the toasted bagel

well, yes

I suppose scarfing down a Jewish bread product in an outlet of a vast, evil US multinational would be any suicidal jihadist's first choice for his last brekker on Earth

Stef said...

still, that thing about the bombs and IDs being deliberately separated by some distance from the alleged bombers

a bit weird, eh?

paul said...

I suppose scarfing down a Jewish bread product in an outlet of a vast, evil US multinational would be any suicidal jihadist's first choice for his last brekker on Earth


easily explained:

"these were four young men, planning to commint a terrible act with an uncertain outcome and willing to destroy themselves in the process".

Given this, does it then make sense to question the reason/rationale behind some of their decisions on the day?

I'm fairly convinced one could dissect post hoc the last few hours in the lives of many Palestinian suicide bombers and find many such examples of such inconsistencies - I don't think the human mind rationalises it's impending doom all that well.

Stef said...

alternatively...

A major element of Takfir religious practice is subterfuge. The threat of Takfir is that its cold, heartless killers could easily be the boy or girl next door. Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies.

In other words, Takfirs can have sex with loose women, drink alcohol, eat pork and do whatever else they feel is appropriate to advance their mission..


see also...

"If he runs he's VC. If he stands still he's well-disciplined VC"

paul said...

I love the idea of takfir

Anti_NWO said...

There goes the "Islamic fundamentalist\Islamofascist" phrase then. Morons.

Anonymous said...

thanks for the ballot paper links. Will be useful in teaching pupils about democracy.

Wonderboy said...

Paul,

re "You are happy to accept the narrative and speculate on why it might be true."

I never claimed to be 'happy' with the official narrative, I just stated that, though problematic in areas, I did not think a strong enough case has been made against it.

My 'speculations on it's truth' were mearly intended to highlight the unsubstantial nature of the holes in it (as compared to those of 911).

re "Also, how is the case against going to become more compelling if people aren't monitoring what does emerge?"

I never claimed people should not monitored what does emerge - in fact that is what I am doing myself. My question was of the nature "what are you monitoring for?" rather than "why are you monitoring?"

re general tone

Your posts have a confrontational tone which does your arguments no justice.

Stef,

re "If we lived in the US we would more than likely concentrate on 9/11, in Spain, the Madrid bombings, in India, the attack on Mumbai"

I understand that, I just don't agree with the tactics that this localised approach leads to.

All of these events have their genesis in 9/11 and the post-911 climate. This should be the bedrock on which all of these campaigns are ultimately based - if for no other reason than a much stronger case has already been built.

re There are at least a couple of UK-based 9/11 boards which do a solid job of contributing little, if anything, to 9/11 research and what a car crash they are most of the time

This may very well be true (I generally don't visit them) but there are active, committed 9/11 Truth activists in this country who, I believe are doing far more too stem a totalitarian agenda than any purely 7/7 approach could hope to do.

I offer:

londontruthaction.blogspot.com

as an example.

Stef said...

@wb

All I can do I repeat myself, there is plenty of scope for both 9/11 and 7/7 scepticism and 9/11 attracts the vast bulk of attention already anyway

The fact is that some of us, at least, take 7/7 more personally than 9/11 and for very sound reasons the people behind J7T have chosen not to subsume their work into the 9/11 behemoth

Three plus years on may seem like a long time to you but the victims of, say, the Bologna State Sponsored Slaughter had to wait for much longer than that for anything like the truth about that atrocity to be teased out

Quicker would be better. However, those who would hide the truth currently hold most of the cards.

But that is no reason to give in

J7T has come in for all sorts of flak, for all sorts or reasons, from both 'conspiracy theorists' and 'official narrative theorists' and has held up pretty well thus far.

Your hypothecation that J7T might either be a) irrelevant or b) ineffective could be, whether it is intended or not, seen as an extension/ refinement of past attacks and provoke a confrontational response from those who believe that it is neither

The Official 7/7 Narrative is poorly supported and, so far, nothing like the kind of evidence that would secure a conviction in a honest trial has been released into the public domain

If that were ever to happen I, and I suspect others, would reconsider our position

But I'm not seeing any signs that that day is ever going to come

paul said...

I never claimed to be 'happy' with the official narrative, I just stated that, though problematic in areas, I did not think a strong enough case has been made against it.

Happy, content, I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with the synonym I choose to reflect your often repeated satisfaction with the O.N.

My 'speculations on it's truth' were mearly intended to highlight the unsubstantial nature of the holes in it (as compared to those of 911).

Intended to perhaps, but hardly proving them to have no substance.

A person's id is found at two crime scenes, having separately survived two large explosions. Very unusual, but then you have your brother's card on your person.
Narrative closed, I presume.

I never claimed people should not monitored what does emerge - in fact that is what I am doing myself. My question was of the nature "what are you monitoring for?" rather than "why are you monitoring?"

The answer is in the blog title - Release the evidence - The evidence is what they request and it is puzzling that it is not available.

re general tone

Your posts have a confrontational tone which does your arguments no justice.


I love the smell of condescension in the evening.

If we are going to get personal, your posts have the whiff of uriah heap about them, and your arguments, vague as they are, do your original question no justice.

That question,has been answered several times now, prosecution level evidence regarding means, motive, identity and implementation.

Despite being supplied a perfectly honest answer, you argue about what goes on in people's minds, how the narrative could be true if you look at it as you do, all the while implying that others are unwilling and misguided in their own view.

That evidence is not forthcoming, so it is reasonable to assume it is not as conclusive as some might hope.

Bridget said...

I think Conspiraloons hold more sway than some people would like to admit. As well as the lack of an Independent Public Inquiry, the other reason given in favour of disclosure of these 7 items of CCTV:

57. The 7 July 2005 attacks have been the subject of conspiracy theories and the official account of the attacks has also been questioned in other ways. Such questioning of what have been presented as the facts of the events of 7 July 2005 established through the investigation carried out by the public authority, is not in the public interest. Further this is more likely to occur in a situation where there is a perceived lack of transparency about how the official account was formed. That disclosure would presumably support the official account of the time line and basic facts of the attacks and reduce any perceived lack of transparency about how this account was formed, along with removing any suspicion of ‘spin’ or ‘cover up’, is a valid public interest factor in favour of disclosure.

Information Commissioner's Office decision notice

Stef said...

@b

that is one very choice quote

Wonderboy said...

Paul,

"I love the smell of condescension in the evening."

Take it how you will. You obviously entered this discussion looking for a confrontation and I am confident anyone reading through will see this.

re "prosecution level evidence regarding means, motive, identity and implementation."

Fair enough. But you're never going to get that under this form of state capitalism for 'security reasons'. So, from my perspective, your position is therefore an entirely negative one.

Either

You are 'pro-State' yet deny the State the right to secrecy with regard to security

or

You are 'anti-State' and think the best tactic to express this is to criticise the State for keeping secrets.

I don't think either position is a strong one.

Being 'anti-State' the best arguement one could make is "Because the State kills its own people" - 9/11 offers compelling evidence of this, 7/7 does not.

re "all the while implying that others are unwilling and misguided in their own view."

That was not my intention, and I apologies if that's how anyone has taken it. Like I said, these are essentially 'tactical' issues we are discussing.

rob said...

welcome back Stef!
reezat

rob said...

Study: 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)."

They claim their analysis has uncovered "active thermitic material": a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in a form of thermite known as "nanostructured super-thermite."

Stef said...

re "prosecution level evidence regarding means, motive, identity and implementation."

Fair enough. But you're never going to get that under this form of state capitalism for 'security reasons'. So, from my perspective, your position is therefore an entirely negative one.


Entirely?

If state control was that total I wouldn't be sitting here typing this, J7T wouldn't exist and that quote Bridget posted earlier would never have been made

@rob

hello

thx

not for long though ;

Stef said...

'nanostructured super-thermite'

do you get fries with that?

Wonderboy said...

Stef,

"If state control was that total I wouldn't be sitting here typing this, J7T wouldn't exist"

I think you misunderstood, or I wasn't clear enough.

I didn't mean that the State's role was entirely negative - I meant that Paul's position was, i.e. as opposed to a 'solution orientated position'.

Perhaps, the whole point needs remaking - but it's pub time!

Tom said...

@wb

You come across as a facile yet pompous, ignorant, presumptious character.

This is neither an anti state position

NOR

is it a pro-state position

it is merely

BECAUSE

you completely avoided my reasonable question

Anonymous said...

@wb: read this: http://www.amazon.com/Programmed-Kill-Politics-Serial-Murder/dp/0595326404/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239075383&sr=8-1

consider that potentially BBC4,3,2,1 doesnt report it all.
Not hard to do really. (btw, I dont even pretend to speak for stef)

paul said...

Take it how you will. You obviously entered this discussion looking for a confrontation and I am confident anyone reading through will see this.

I envy your confidence but suspect it is misplaced, and I think you confuse robustness with confrontation

re "prosecution level evidence regarding means, motive, identity and implementation."

Fair enough. But you're never going to get that under this form of state capitalism for 'security reasons'. So, from my perspective, your position is therefore an entirely negative one.

So I make a fair point.
I know a fair few mental health professionals and they have a casual term of art called the 'yes, but' problem. When trying to communicate with their client, The client tends to concede and move on to another tangential point.I am assured this is a wearying process.
You do this by conceding I make a fair point,
but
You assert this is impossible and therefore take the position that my attitude is negative, which is your opinion and your right, but no more than that.

Either

You are 'pro-State' yet deny the State the right to secrecy with regard to security

or

You are 'anti-State' and think the best tactic to express this is to criticise the State for keeping secrets.

I don't think either position is a strong one.

This may be a failing in your remote psychological viewing facilities, but you diagnose me with a false dichotomy, each with a falsely dichotomous qualifier.

I could well be pro state (whatever that means) and believe the state has no right to secrecy with regard to security (what ever that means)
or
I could be anti state (whatever that means) and think criticising the all powerful state is pointless.

As I believe there is a need for a state of some kind, but that state security concerns itself with the security of the state rather than its subjects/citizens, my first formulation would be closer to the mark, even if you do not permit it.

As you assign to me two positions which you deem equally weak, I conclude you are begging the question here.


Being 'anti-State' the best arguement one could make is "Because the State kills its own people" - 9/11 offers compelling evidence of this, 7/7 does not.

I keep reading this, but I'm not sure I can make any sense of it.
Is this the best argument?
Is this the only argument?
Does the best argument trump all others?
How do you divine the best argument?
In support you assert that 9/11 offers compelling evidence but 7/7 does not.
Without any hard evidence, it is perhaps too early to insist others dismiss the latter.
Though you, of course, are free to do so.

re "all the while implying that others are unwilling and misguided in their own view."

That was not my intention, and I apologies if that's how anyone has taken it. Like I said, these are essentially 'tactical' issues we are discussing.


Well, you invite me to take your words as I will, and that is how it comes across to me.
Before tactics, you should perhaps explain your goal, which to me is quite opaque.

The Antagonist said...

All text in italics courtesy of Wonderboy....

Personally, I am not at all convinced at all about the merit of 7/7 activism.

As is your perogative in a notionally free society. The statement prompts the question: What are you doing instead?


While the official narrative of 9/11 has been demolished at a scientific level this is not the case for 7/7.

Following blogs, but perhaps not paying the requisite amount of attention. The Home Office report has been demolished on various scientific levels including the advanced science of train times, the science of mythical explosives, and the science of countless historical precedents set by the State, States in general, the Secret State and all its corporate, fascist offshoots.

The lack of attention to detail is also demonstrated by the hackneyed references to alleged 'suicide videos' which, if one were to evaluate and judge them on their content rather than the handy populist terror tags ascribed to them, contain no mentions of suicide, rucksacks, nor any references to attacks on London, trains, or a bus.

As a qualified psychologist, perhaps you could endeavour to explain the psychology behind why the accused, with what were referred to by the Home Office report as "perceived injustices" with regard to the actions instigated by various world 'leaders', would abandon their political sentiments to attack innocent commuters in London while the very world 'leaders' responsible for their "perceived injustices" were congregating up at a long planned conspiracy meeting in Gleneagles? Perhaps it was the 50-odd miles extra driving required.


Ant,

You say “the reality of the situation is that every single bit of CCTV footage from 7/7 could be released, from the alleged moment the accused left their homes right up until 10am on the morning of 7th July 2005 and it would still prove nothing.”

Hyperbole granted, but it could prove many things:

1.MSK and the others were there on the day.
2.They each individually boarded the trains (and bus) that subsequently exploded.
3.They were each carrying rucksacks which could have had explosives in them.


1. Presence at the scene of a crime is no proof of guilt, nor even involvement in the crime.
2. Thousands of people boarded trains that morning.
3. Many of the thousands of people that boarded trains that morning could have been "each carrying rucksacks which could have had explosives in them."

So what? What does any of the above prove? Does adding Muslims into the mix make for a slightly more compelling case? Before anyone gets too carried away with arguing the toss, neither the Home Office narrative nor any of the CCTV that is now mooted for release, places the accused at the scenes of the crimes in any concrete, much less conclusive, terms.


Regarding the use of the Official Narrative to implement draconian laws, infringe liberties, etc. I think this is an entirely separate issue as even if they had proved their story beyond a reasonable doubt this still would not justify some of the recent actions which violate the UDHR

Pretending that 7/7 is somehow unconnected to everything that has happened since, or indeed everything that went before it, is at best naive and at worst wilfully ignorant.

Arguably, regressive and repressive legislation would still have been passed, for that is the raison d'etre of government, particularly government in the time of "the long war" of the "war on terror", the purpose of which is the self-preservation of archaic, anachronistic class interests, class power, systems of operation, and methods of existence. The events that occurred in London on 7th July 2005 are a rather more convenient and localised anchor than 9/11 on which to hang the justifications for their Draconian legislative efforts, even if it relies on nothing more than still photos, pointless CCTV loops, misrepresentations, lies, liars, hyperbole and false smemory syndrome.

Until the events of 7/7, mass murderer in chief, Tony Blair, had to rely on repeated references to 9/11 which, even though lots of people had seen it on TV, was a long way from home. Sensible also to entirely ignore considerable and growing anti-war sentiment and all the lies, fabrications and political contortions required to make the second false case for genocides and holocausts in the middle-east in two years.


Perhaps J7 and others lack the funding, skills or expertise of those in America. Or maybe it is because the holes aren't there.

Perhaps your "qualified psychologist" skills might suggest or, perish the thought, do something a little more constructive than snipe from the sidelines. Give us £700 billion with no strings and we'll be in with a chance. Or you may prefer the comfort of projection, denial and confirmation bias loops.


Okay, this comes back to the original question then. What kind of evidence are you looking for?

"As a qualified psychologist", what kind of evidence are you looking for on this particular fishing expedition?

Stef said...

Given that there's no shortage of qualified psychologists and psychiatrists willing to appear on the corporate media to explain that, Stalin-style, denial of official narratives is a form of mental illness, I'm not entirely surprised by the tone of Ant's response

paul said...

...while the very world 'leaders' responsible for their "perceived injustices" were congregating up at a long planned conspiracy meeting in Gleneagles? Perhaps it was the 50-odd miles extra driving required.

Remember, half the nation's bogies were up there pushing marchers around.
It would have been suicide to attempt that.

lwtc247 said...

:) @ paul

Anti_NWO said...

As Stef said, commuters are easier targets.

The Antagonist said...

Anti_NWO said...

As Stef said, commuters are easier targets.


Also counter-productive and illogical targets, especially when factoring in that one of the "perceived injustices" of the accused, if the content of the videos is anything to go by, was the slaughter of innocent civilians.

However, innocent civilians are counter-productive and illogical targets unless the view is from the perspective of the prospective gains to be made by the State and its extended apparatus.

Taking the lead from one historical precedent about which much, although far from all, information exists in the public domain:

"You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people.... to turn to the State to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the State cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened." -- Vincenzo Vinciguerra, Fascist, member of the extremist Ordine Nuovo (The New Order) linked to the Gladio end of NATO's secret armies.

For anyone that labours under the misapprehension that such things only happen in other countries, to name but a few, there are the cases of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, Judith Ward and Danny McNamee, all convicted of "massacres and the bombings" which to this day "remain unpunished".

Wonderboy said...

Tom,

I apologies for overlooking your question and that this appears to have made you view me in rather ungenerous terms: nothing malicious, a genuine oversight on my part.

re "what exactly constitutes a 'suicide video'?"

I put 'suicide video' in speech marks as I am aware that no explicit reference are made to suicide in the videos but rather that is how the videos were presented by the MSM (a distinction some on here seem to have missed). Regardless of their specific content though, would could say that while they do not completely encriminate the accused they certainly don't support claims of their innocence.

Imagine they were alive today and on trial for the bombing - how would their lawyer explain the videos?

You say:

"you record yourself opposing and intending to oppose the policy of one or more governments"

Well I oppose the policies of one or more governments - but I have yet to make a video which makes reference to me 'being a soldier' or 'at war'.

"someone points a gun and a camera at you and says 'read this'"

So you're implying they were under duress when they made them. It's possible I guess, but from my own personal take (and proffesional (to sneers) ) is that MSK at least does not appear to be beinf forced.

Anonymous,

Thanks for the link. I know the author but not the book.

I am not for one second suggesting the MSM is not pathetic.

Paul,

re "I envy your confidence but suspect it is misplaced, and I think you confuse robustness with confrontation"

We will have to agree to disagree on this then.

re "So I make a fair point.”

Without wishing for this to descend into semantics there is a distinction to be made here between "I can understand why you think that" and "I agree with what you think". My 'fair enough' refered to the former, not the later.

re "This may be a failing in your remote psychological viewing facilities, but you diagnose me with a false dichotomy, each with a falsely dichotomous qualifier."

I wasn't trying to push you into a 'false dichotomy' merely trying benefit you with not holding either a position that is either absurd or demonstratably untrue.
"I could well be pro state (whatever that means) and believe the state has no right to secrecy with regard to security (what ever that means)"

Yes, you could. But I believe that would be an absurd position to hold.

re 7/7 it would imply the State must:

- explain how the perps made the explosives - how they sourced their material, how they developed their experties.
- explain how the were able to get said explosives onto a commuter train and detonate them.

Is this reasonable information for the State to put into the public realm?

"I could be anti state (whatever that means) and think criticising the all powerful state is pointless".

You could, but 1. you are commenting on this blog, 2. you have a similar blog of your own, - both or which imply you don't think "criticising the all powerful state is pointless".

re "As I believe there is a need for a state of some kind, but that state security concerns itself with the security of the state rather than its subjects/citizens, my first formulation would be closer to the mark, even if you do not permit it."

Personally, I think your position is meaningless as it relies on a disinction between "the state rather than its subjects/citizens" implying that that the State should have no responsibilty for its citizens. Which 'begs the question' what should it have responsiblity for then?

re "As you assign to me two positions which you deem equally weak, I conclude you are begging the question here."

And I conclude you are determined to claim an even weaker position.

re "Is this the best argument?"

That's what I said - just my opinion though.

re "Is this the only argument?

No, just the best one in my opinion.

re "Does the best argument trump all others?"

In my opinion, yes - hence 'best'

"How do you divine the best argument?"

Probably the same way most people do. Something along the lines of "The most difficult to argue against and maintain credibility".

re "In support you assert that 9/11 offers compelling evidence but 7/7 does not."

I think it does. Documented scientific evidence (of the sort Rob has supplied here), credible professionals offering detailed analysis, etc.

"Without any hard evidence, it is perhaps too early to insist others dismiss the latter."

I'm not saying anyone should 'dismiss' 7/7, let alone 'insisting' upon it. But yes, there is a lack of 'hard evidence' both supporting the official narrative and refuting it.

Ant,

re "What are you doing instead?"

Not entirely revelevant for this discussion, but for the record: 9/11 activism, human-rights activism, environmental activism, economic activism.

re "The Home Office report has been demolished on various scientific levels including the advanced science of train times, the science of mythical explosives, and the science of countless historical precedents set by the State"

Perhaps we disagree on what constitues 'science' then. Please reference me the work of one or more journal papers that cite problems in the official 7/7 narrative or the names and qualifications of scientist intending to do so.

re The lack of attention to detail is also demonstrated by the hackneyed references to alleged 'suicide videos'

Or maybe it is a 'lack of attention to detail' that causes you to overlook that I tried to qualify 'suicide videos' by putting the phrase in quotations.

re "one were to evaluate and judge them on their content rather than the handy populist terror tags ascribed to them, contain no mentions of suicide, rucksacks, nor any references to attacks on London, trains, or a bus."

Yes, but one could also mention what they do contain references to:

"Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. "
"And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters."
"We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation"

And, if the reports of the 'goodbye video' are to be believed

"I don't know what else to say. I just wish I could have been part of your life, especially these growing up - these next months, they're really special with you learning to walk and things."

re "why attack innocent commuters in London while the very world 'leaders' responsible for their "perceived injustices" were congregating up at a long planned conspiracy meeting in Gleneagles? Perhaps it was the 50-odd miles extra driving required."

As I have already tried to make clear: I do not know. But you saying "Their actions on the day don't make sense" is just building a very weak to defend them.

re "So what? What does any of the above prove?"

As I already said "Yes, even the totality of these facts do not constitutes an 'ultimate proof' but added to the fact that they made 'suicide videos' it could (to my mind at least ) add up to 'a strong indication of what happened'."

re "Does adding Muslims into the mix make for a slightly more compelling case?"

No, never said it did.

re "neither the Home Office narrative nor any of the CCTV that is now mooted for release, places the accused at the scenes of the crimes in any concrete, much less conclusive, terms."

But this just comes back to my original question: What (for you) would constitue the accused being placed at the scenes of the crimes in any concrete, or conclusive, terms?

For me, if I see video evidence of them boarding the relevant trains in London at the relevant times I will find it hard to maintain by skepticism in light of this new information. Granted, it's a big 'if' though.

re “Pretending that 7/7 is somehow unconnected to everything that has happened since, or indeed everything that went before it, is at best naive and at worst wilfully ignorant.”

I never said it was unconnected. I just don't believe it is crucial in the way that 9/11 is.

re "Until the events of 7/7, mass murderer in chief, Tony Blair, had to rely on repeated references to 9/11 which, even though lots of people had seen it on TV"

True, but he was also able to rely on the credibility of a 'it was the Muslims wot done it' which, weak as it was then, is prepostorous now..

re "the lies, fabrications and political contortions required to make the second false case for genocides and holocausts in the middle-east in two years."

True, but even if there was no 7/7 he would still be guilty of these war crimes.

re "Perhaps your "qualified psychologist" skills might suggest or, perish the thought, do something a little more constructive than snipe from the sidelines."

I regret thet line "perhaps J7 and others lack the funding, skills or expertise of those in America" because it appears to have been misinterpreted as a snipe - which I assure you was not intended. What I meant was it could be due to that but I don't think it is but rather due to the fact that there are not the same glaring holes in the narrative. How else to explain the relative differences in their successes of J7T and 911T without getting into the terriitory of “Americans care more about these thing than Brits do”?

"As a qualified psychologist", what kind of evidence are you looking for on this particular fishing expedition?

My status as a qualifed psychologist has no bearing on the evidence I am looking for and the information was offered in regard to something rather specific – something you no doubt realise.
I think I have made it clear above what evidence I will be looking for.

Stef,

re “I'm not entirely surprised by the tone of Ant's response”

Personally, I am. That a self-styled antagonist whose remit is to “To confront ideas that radically alter our perception of the world is one of life's most unsettling yet liberating experiences.” finds it difficult to react in a civil way when his own views are questioned by an interested (and broadly sympathetic) observer is, I think, a real shame.

But, no doubt this will be viewed as a condesending response – you're damned if you do....

Stef said...

My experience of The Antagonist is that he is more than up for having his views challenged.

He,and the other people commenting on this thread, have answered your questions clearly and directly

The uncivil tone which has crept in on occasions is due in large part I think because of the apparent contradiction of you claiming to be broadly sympathetic to our point of view but at the same time suggesting that to focus on and research 7/7 may somehow be a waste of everyone's time

This is, of course, exactly what the people behind the 7/7 slaughter would want people to believe

Personally, I don't think you've made the case strongly at all

or, rather, I think the case is inherently weak

As it happens, I'd already thought about the point you're trying to make a little while ago, last year sometime. For all the reasons littering the thread above, and more, I binned it

paul said...


re "This may be a failing in your remote psychological viewing facilities, but you diagnose me with a false dichotomy, each with a falsely dichotomous qualifier."

I wasn't trying to push you into a 'false dichotomy' merely trying benefit you with not holding either a position that is either absurd or demonstratably untrue.


You offered two classifications, neither of which were applicable, so that looks like arguing from a false dichotomy to me.
I offered other options as evidence of this.

"I could well be pro state (whatever that means) and believe the state has no right to secrecy with regard to security (what ever that means)"

Yes, you could. But I believe that would be an absurd position to hold.

I have said you are welcome to your opinion, but just stating that you think my position is absurd does not make it absurd.
In a world where governments routinely spy on their allies as well as their foes (cf Katharine Gunn, the only secrecy that seems to remain is between the state and its citizens/subjects.
I don't see why we should be excluded.

re 7/7 it would imply the State must:

- explain how the perps made the explosives - how they sourced their material, how they developed their experties.
- explain how the were able to get said explosives onto a commuter train and detonate them.

Is this reasonable information for the State to put into the public realm?


Given the breathless coverage and description of Tang Bombs which accompanied the as yet unproven airline liquid bombers plot and the relatively availability of the CIA Kubark manual, states seem happy to disseminate this sort of information when it suits them.


"I could be anti state (whatever that means) and think criticising the all powerful state is pointless".

You could, but 1. you are commenting on this blog, 2. you have a similar blog of your own, - both or which imply you don't think "criticising the all powerful state is pointless".

I use the word 'could' as I was illustrating the limitations of your classification of my positions.
However my frequent encounters with people who hold the 'shit happens - what are you going to do?' outlook informs me that this is a fairly widely held response.
My actual positions are not really relevant to my criticism of your debating style, or tactics if your prefer.

re "As I believe there is a need for a state of some kind, but that state security concerns itself with the security of the state rather than its subjects/citizens, my first formulation would be closer to the mark, even if you do not permit it."

Personally, I think your position is meaningless as it relies on a disinction between "the state rather than its subjects/citizens" implying that that the State should have no responsibilty for its citizens. Which 'begs the question' what should it have responsiblity for then?

Big deal if you personally disagree. I have repeatedly told you are welcome to your opinion, god knows I don't want to share them.
If you see the state and it its subjects/citizens as having no differences in permissions and power, then we are unlikely to agree.
I personally do not know anyone who feels they have a strong role in the shaping of state policy.
I was simply stating that the state, which I see as quite distinct from its subjects/citizens as more concerned with state members security and that of the institution itself.
Not too hard to grasp.
The implication that a state should have no responsibility for its subjects/citizens is not there. You infer it through an act of will.
I think the state's only responsibility is the welfare of its citizens, and its frequent disregard for this is one of the roots of our shared woes.


re "As you assign to me two positions which you deem equally weak, I conclude you are begging the question here."

And I conclude you are determined to claim an even weaker position.

Only on the basis of your own partial inferences, not what I have said.

re "Is this the best argument?"

That's what I said - just my opinion though.

re "Is this the only argument?

No, just the best one in my opinion.

re "Does the best argument trump all others?"

In my opinion, yes - hence 'best'

"How do you divine the best argument?"

Probably the same way most people do. Something along the lines of "The most difficult to argue against and maintain credibility".

I did say you were welcome to your opinion. Though in my opinion the fact that the state kills people (whether here or abroad) is symptomatic of the imbalances between it and its subjects/citizens and this decadent relationship is at the heart of the problem.
People are killed because the state decides they should be, whether by starvation or guns.
I have no say in the matter.
Though you seem to choose to separate the state and people here, when before you declare something meaningless because of its reliance on this distinction.

re "In support you assert that 9/11 offers compelling evidence but 7/7 does not."

I think it does. Documented scientific evidence (of the sort Rob has supplied here), credible professionals offering detailed analysis, etc.

"Without any hard evidence, it is perhaps too early to insist others dismiss the latter."

I'm not saying anyone should 'dismiss' 7/7, let alone 'insisting' upon it. But yes, there is a lack of 'hard evidence' both supporting the official narrative and refuting it.

Which brings us back to your original question - hard evidence to support the O.N. is what is sought and has been refused.
Until it is, we are at liberty ,surely, to view the matter as we choose.

Wonderboy said...

Stef,

re "The uncivil tone which has crept in on occasions is due in large part I think because of the apparent contradiction of you claiming to be broadly sympathetic to our point of view but at the same time suggesting that to focus on and research 7/7 may somehow be a waste of everyone's time"

I am symaphetic to your point of view : I realise that false-flag operations occur and possibility that 7/7 is the an example should not be dismissed out of hand.

However, if I do not think that particular case has been made yet - and I strongly suspect that it does not need to be in order to a)achieve a more democratic, equal society and b) ensure it does not happen again.

While both yours and Ant's blogs could be said to work from the beliefs that:

1. We are losing our rights because of 7/7.

2. There is no point focusing on 9/11 as we have our own example of false-flag.

Whereas I believe we would have been losing our rights (maybe not as quickly) even if 7/7 had not happened and that the status of 9/11 as false-flag has been made and 7/7 has not. So the emphasis on the later at the exclusion of the former is a fundamental tactical mistake by those wishing to oppose the centralisation of power.

What is to be gained by choosing to stage the fight on the weakest ground purely because it 'happened closer to home'?

The bottom line is that if you want to see Blair et al brought to justice it seems to me to be much more likely to happen via 9/11 or (possibly) Iraq than 7/7.


Paul,

re "I was simply stating that the state, which I see as quite distinct from its subjects/citizens as more concerned with state members security and that of the institution itself. Not too hard to grasp. The implication that a state should have no responsibility for its subjects/citizens is not there. You infer it through an act of will."

No, I believe I infered it from this sentence:

"As I believe there is a need for a state of some kind, but that state security concerns itself with the security of the state rather than its subjects/citizens , my first formulation would be closer to the mark, even if you do not permit it" (italics mine)

I took that line to refer to "what you thought was needed", but see now I see it refers to "what you believe is currently the case". My misunderstanding or the clumsiness of your sentence? Either way, if you had have meant that I believe it would have been an absurd position to take - but you don't, so let's move on.

re "I think the state's only responsibility is the welfare of its citizens, and its frequent disregard for this is one of the roots of our shared woes."

I agree that is what should be the case - but that's in an ideal world. The State has always been an instrument for protecting the rights/priviledges of the few against those of the mases - your point then relies on vitriol at the State for not being what it never was.

re "Though in my opinion the fact that the state kills people (whether here or abroad) is symptomatic of the imbalances between it and its subjects/citizens and this decadent relationship is at the heart of the problem."

Agreed. So how does one go about tackling these 'imbalances of power'?

I believe:

- extending democracy
- strengthening alternative media
- education on human-rights
- economic equality
- disseminating information about 'the gangster nature of the state'

If you chose to focus on one of these at the expense of all the other (for reasons of specialisation, or niche, or whatever) I think you should do the best with the information that is available rather than continually emphasising what is not available (which, we agree I think, is going to be inevitable in such a State). 9/11 makes a much stronger case for 'the gangster nature of the state' than 7/7 does (which does of course make a good case for the secrecy and obfuscation of the State) and so, I believe, it is what should be used. And no, this does not mean accepting that the State should be able to keep such secrets - and pressure should be put on to get them to release whatever evidence you think necessary - but if this is all you do, then you are just highlighting a problem rather than working on a solution: I define this as a 'negative approach'.

paul said...

re "I think the state's only responsibility is the welfare of its citizens, and its frequent disregard for this is one of the roots of our shared woes."

I agree that is what should be the case - but that's in an ideal world. The State has always been an instrument for protecting the rights/priviledges of the few against those of the mases - your point then relies on vitriol at the State for not being what it never was.

Nothing wrong with positing an ideal world. The best view from beneath the iron heel is up.

And its important to have goals.

My point does not rely on vitriol at the state not being what it never was (talk about clumsy sentences). My point rests on the knowledge that state activity can, has and in some places (Western Europe, Parts of South America for instance) does good.
Though it will require itself (or be required by its citizens/subjects) to defuse from corporate/aristocratic powers to fully achieve its proper role.

re "Though in my opinion the fact that the state kills people (whether here or abroad) is symptomatic of the imbalances between it and its subjects/citizens and this decadent relationship is at the heart of the problem."

Agreed. So how does one go about tackling these 'imbalances of power'?

I believe:

- extending democracy
- strengthening alternative media
- education on human-rights
- economic equality
- disseminating information about 'the gangster nature of the state'

Nothing to carp about there

If you chose to focus on one of these at the expense of all the other (for reasons of specialisation, or niche, or whatever) I think you should do the best with the information that is available rather than continually emphasising what is not available (which, we agree I think, is going to be inevitable in such a State).

I would say its important to complain , moan and bitch about what is not there.
If you live in a state which entertains slavery, it is important to highlight what is not there, the limitations on freedom therein.
Noam Chomsky has spoken of a gradualist approach;
'expanding the floors of the cage'
, but that still requires an idea of space both permissible and possible to expand in. Wittgenstein said something I can't remember offhand about exercising vision beyond your immediate experience (might have been hegel though)

9/11 makes a much stronger case for 'the gangster nature of the state' than 7/7 does (which does of course make a good case for the secrecy and obfuscation of the State) and so, I believe, it is what should be used.

Perhaps it does, but its successes have yet to secure one indictment. If you pursuing an argument of atrocity focus efficacy, I would say its nil nil at half time.

And no, this does not mean accepting that the State should be able to keep such secrets - and pressure should be put on to get them to release whatever evidence you think necessary - but if this is all you do, then you are just highlighting a problem rather than working on a solution: I define this as a 'negative approach'.

Well perhaps I am negative, but right now all I can practically do is stop believing and keep arguing with people.
I leave the floor open to a more positive approach.

Tom said...

wb, I notice you weren't so "professionally" certain about Tanweer's not being coerced into his video appearance, appearing as he did to be reading a "script".

If in your opinion 9/11 has already been proved ["the status has been made"] as a false flag, what has been proved with regard to the role of Blair or the interests he represents? Could Bush and his interests have had a role in 7/7 likewise?

I'm not interested in to and fro about the absence-of-evidence that is the CCTV in its current "status". Your next false dichotomy is that of everyone having to commit to a guess about "innocence" or "guilt", before such a question has ever reached a jury. You cannot be suggesting that is proper in any state that it could be "credible" to argue for.

Most of your other "points" were irrelevant.

Stef said...

While both yours and Ant's blogs could be said to work from the beliefs that:

1. We are losing our rights because of 7/7.

2. There is no point focusing on 9/11 as we have our own example of false-flag.


It could be said

but it wouldn't be true

I've made reference to 9/11 in this blog on numerous occasions

As has The Antagonist

Usually when either of us have had something constructive to add in the context of some kind of British connection or angle

The idea being that we might be able to add some original material or thinking rather than repeating material that several thousands Americans are already all over

I've never argued that one event should be discussed to the exclusion of the other.

TBH that seems to be where you are coming from

The level of coverage given to 9/11 already far outweighs the attention given to 7/7

On top of that 7/7 is different to 9/11 in that it gave credibility to the 'home-grown, enemy within' bullshit on which much of the worst excesses of our establishment over the last three years have been based

And now that you've started to make straw men arguments about what I and this blog are about *I'm* starting to get suspicious about your motivations

Anti_NWO said...

Oooh, 77 comments. :p

Antagonist said:
However, innocent civilians are counter-productive and illogical targets unless the view is from the perspective of the prospective gains to be made by the State and its extended apparatus.

To further your point, children in particular have been singled out before as targets (Gladio being one example) in order to upset\appall the populace more and persuade them to give up rights for "security".

While I strongly suspect 7/7 of being a state op, I don't think we have definitive evidence yet - there are some agency links, but little on how the explosives got on the trains or who exactly put the ID documents there.

numeral said...

Stef said:
And to fellow Loons who might feel the temptation to argue that 3 years is plenty long enough to fabricate 7/7 footage using the latest CGI technology I suggest checking out any recent Hollywood blockbuster to see just how shite CGI still is - why else do you reckon high def OBL videos are in such short supply?

The 7/7 footage at Luton and King's Cross ThamesLink is of atrocious quality. The London footage, except that of HH alone, is by far the worst. By way of contrast, the 28/6 CCTV is good.

CCTV fakery plus suppression of CCTV that should be there is still a possibility.

Stef said...

a fair qualification to my statement

suppression of CCTV material is practically a certainty

crude buggering around with low res footage is a distinct possibility

but I've seen a few folk speculating that some real high-end, high-res fakery might be introduced at some point...

ain't seen none yet

in fact, the establishment-sanctioned material (CCTV and 'evil doer' home-movies) that gets published has, thus far, been characterised by its poor quality

as if a shadowy, pan global, super-capable terrorist crime network can only afford to knock up its videos on cheap cameraphones

Wonderboy said...

Paul,

re "Well perhaps I am negative, but right now all I can practically do is stop believing and keep arguing with people."

Seems as good a place to leave the debate as any. I have always tried to be a 'better to light a candle'-kind of guy.

Tom

re "I notice you weren't so "professionally" certain about Tanweer's not being coerced into his video appearance, appearing as he did to be reading a "script"."

I really don't know enough about him.

re "If in your opinion 9/11 has already been proved ["the status has been made"] as a false flag, what has been proved with regard to the role of Blair or the interests he represents?"

Well Blair accept the dossier linking OBL/AQ to 9/11 - so I'd say he is in it pretty deep.

re "Could Bush and his interests have had a role in 7/7 likewise?"

It's possible, but I have seen no evidence making a strong case for it.

re "Your next false dichotomy is that of everyone having to commit to a guess about "innocence" or "guilt", before such a question has ever reached a jury."

Well I personally haven't 'commited' to anything, I am at the moment inclined toward 'guilty' with respect to the four alleged.

re "You cannot be suggesting that is proper in any state that it could be "credible" to argue for."

I don't understand what this means. I am not suggesting it is credible to argue for any state.

Stef,

re "And now that you've started to make straw men arguments about what I and this blog are about *I'm* starting to get suspicious about your motivations"

Very well. I'm thought I remember reading something about 9/11 being 'their issue' on either yours or Ant's blog, but I may be mistake and, since I don't have the inclination to check back through, I withdraw all comments and apologies for any offence caused.

General,

Despite what may be thought I am not looking to make enemies here!

I think you are all intelligent people who do a good job disecting the b/s of the MSM.

I just happen to think that 7/7 is a currently unfertile ground with regard to campaigning for the future that I think we all want (but that is not to imply that it will always be so). If, in trying to point this out, I have been abrupt or discourtious I apologies.

In these days when the police can assault a man on the street in plain view of hundreds of eye- witnesses and still hope to lie their way out of it, I think, in the final analysis, its probably best to acknowledge that we have a lot in common and not we shouldn't be divided by what (I again emphasise) are essentially tactical issues.

Barney said...

Anti_NWO said:
"Oooh, 77 comments. :p"

And without Daniel Hoffmann-Gill, that's impressive (I'll get me coat).

To add something vaguely contributory, I would say that 'the state' is not run by the people anymore in the west. Its run by monied interests, which provide us showbiz (essentially mind/perception control). I blame the people as much as the the so-called elites.

The events of 7/7 & 9/11 are clearly suspect (blatantly so) for anyone not drinking the kool aid anymore.
Looking at the sociopathic greed and criminality of the ruling elites during the current financial crisis which is wiping out the future for literally billions of people, makes 9/11 and 7/7 seem like trivialities for these a-holes.

Dr. S. Jones recently released a paper which shows that there is evidence of unreacted 'superthermite' in collected dust.
I mean, reading that paper it confirms exactly what common sense says, that very solid 47 story buildings like WTC7 dont just collapse like a sack of sh*t due to some fires and i-beams hitting it.
The fact that the story, posted on a popular alternative news site (raw story) generated such heated debate, leading to some people suggesting that maybe Doc. Jones planted the evidence is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. 'Skeptics' are willing to put aside Occam's Razor when it suits them.
I'm not saying I know what happened on 9-11, or 7-7, or even pretend to know, but that the onus is on the 'state' to prove their story, and they've done a piss-poor job so far. I dont think its due to negligence. Its just showbiz to keep joe-blow comfortable and not participating in anything meaningful, whilst they smirk at 'conspiracy theorists'.

Anti_NWO said...

Hmm....

http://nodeinthenoosphere.blogspot.com/2009/04/admissibility-of-expert-opinion.html

Interesting. This could cut both ways.

Stef said...

And without Daniel Hoffmann-Gill, that's impressive (I'll get me coat).

ah, the DHG thread

*sigh*

there was more swearing on that one

Stef said...

"Oooh, 77 comments. :p"

only 834 more to go and the numerologists will have a field day

Anti_NWO said...

On a somewhat related topic, I noticed an unusually large number of police vehicles around a West London tube station today...

Anti_NWO said...

Well, technically its yesterday as we're past midnight now...

Tom said...

I am at the moment inclined toward 'guilty' with respect to the four alleged.

Bully for you. I don't know exactly what happened despite spending much time trying to find out.

lwtc247 said...

This should be said:

Palestinian martyrs have apparently attacked civilians in response to the Israyhelli pseudo-state causing the Palestinians immeasurable suffering, It seems like Palestinian s.bombers hold many Israeli 'citizens' guilty (granted there are significant differnces w.r.t. the UK, but there is some commonality too)

Can it be said then that the alleged '4 bombers' attack on british civilians is a myth because it seems in opposition to their supposed video statements? I don't think it can.

I myself hold those who in may 05 voted for the pro-lie/war, pro-Israyhell parties and MP's, having blood on their hands and guilty of accessory to mass murder. Sadly, family will be in that group.

BUT

I wouldn't attempt a civilian bombing. It would be useless (I don't think bombing civilians has ever helped fulfil any resistance cause) but most significantly because it's immoral due to the fact that such a bomb is likely to kill many innocent people. There is also a fairly good chance it would kill Muslims too.

Even if there was a room exclusively full of people who were guilty of voting for blood, I don't think I'd have the right (or the ability) to kill them. It is possible their minds were influenced by some authoritative 'preacher' figure but that road departs even further from analysis of the FACTS (and by practical necessity, the 'next step' suppositions).

In all, from what was supposedly said on the videos and that 52(56) civilians were killed on 7/7 has little analytical meaning to the supposed 4b's, but if they had thought about the indiscriminate nature of the bombs, then it leans away from the theory that they did it.

Bridget said...

On the point of the so-called 'martyrdom videos' (if these are so important to the case against these 4 men) where are the videos and last will & testimonies of Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain?

gyges said...

"where are the ... last will & testimonies of Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain?"

If they exist, like all wills, they should be in the public domain and available for scrutiny.

paul said...

I have always tried to be a 'better to light a candle'-kind of guy.

That's it?

I was expecting a full roadmap of activisationism, strategy, the all important tactics, covered in sprinkles of a compelling teleology.

While telling people your personally honest opinion about what they should not be doing,

blaming your poor reading skills on my clumsy self expression (while others have tactfully ignored the atrocious spelling and windy nature of your own offerings),

snidely suggesting ant isn't the liberated thinker he presents ( agreeing with something you have decided to disagree with is hardly a definition of open mindedness)

and condemning myself as a 'negative no solution type',

you repeatedly avoid sharing the light from your candle to show us the true path.

A shopping list of activisms doesn't really help much.

Having had my own negativity savagely revealed, I can only turn to Hegel's theory of madness. As Daniel Berthold Bond explains:

"Despair and madness are states which in principle contain the seeds of their own self overcoming and point beyond themselves towards the possibility of recovery"

Maybe I'm on the right track after all.

Anti_NWO said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault

And to think there are people defending these state thugs...:(

I think it may even merit another post, what do you think Stef? After all, I don't recall seeing that much discussion of police brutality on this blog (JCdM aside).

Wonderboy said...

Paul,

re "I was expecting a full roadmap of activisationism, strategy, the all important tactics, covered in sprinkles of a compelling teleology."

Sorry to disappoint.

re "while others have tactfully ignored the atrocious spelling and windy nature of your own offerings"

The former probably due to my speed typing and not having the time to proof read, the later cos, well, that's just me. I thank you for accomodating me on both counts.

re "snidely suggesting ant isn't the liberated thinker he presents"

I don't belive I "snidely suggested" anything, but rather plainly expressed my disappointment in the tone of his post.

re "agreeing with something you have decided to disagree with is hardly a definition of open mindedness"

Well I think there is plenty of ground between 'agreeing' and 'not agreeing but remaining respectful'.

re "and condemning myself as a 'negative no solution type'"

I don't believe I 'condemned' you as anything. You yourself said:

"Well perhaps I am negative, but right now all I can practically do is stop believing and keep arguing with people. "

re "Having had my own negativity savagely revealed,"

Your facetiousness aside, I have obviously touched a nerve on this point and this was not my intention; I suggest we leave this discussion here. Nice quote though.

paul said...

Sorry to disappoint.
I think I've got used to it

I didn't mean that the State's role was entirely negative - I meant that Paul's position was, i.e. as opposed to a 'solution orientated position'.


And that was before I broke down and confessed.

I don't belive I "snidely suggested" anything, but rather plainly expressed my disappointment in the tone of his post.

Well it's hard to believe that a single 'plainly expressed' sentence could contain such olympian condescension and prim hurt:

Personally, I am. That a self-styled antagonist whose remit is to “To confront ideas that radically alter our perception of the world is one of life's most unsettling yet liberating experiences.” finds it difficult to react in a civil way when his own views are questioned by an interested (and broadly sympathetic) observer is, I think, a real shame.

The poor lad, fancies himself as a free thinker, but loses it when faced with the laser intensity of wonderboy's questioning. <hangs head at the tragedy of it all>a real shame</>

Your facetiousness aside, I have obviously touched a nerve on this point and this was not my intention; I suggest we leave this discussion here.

Don't knock yourself over patting your own back. My negativity nerve remains untouched.

We should stop though, as you are never going to reveal the secrets to success.

Use them well.
With great power comes great responsibility.

Stef said...

@Anti_NWO


I think it may even merit another post, what do you think Stef?


I'd love to but my hands are currently full with putting the finishing touches to my airlift out of Airstrip One

Alienation of the police from the people they serve is, of course, an essential prerequisite for what is to come and I've no doubt some right cunts have been deliberately recruited into the Met to help that process on its way

Anyway, Craig Murray is doing an excellent job on laying into the police for their latest killing

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Craig appears to have gone berko in recent days and has laid into the Met, the British Government, the Israeli Government, the US Government, the EU, Nato and Tory bloggers. He also also raised the issue of agent provocateurs posing as Muslim and anti Capitalist protesters

I think someone must have upset him

The Antagonist said...

I think it may even merit another post, what do you think Stef?

I'd love to but my hands are currently full with putting the finishing touches to my airlift out of Airstrip One


Here you go:

Anything that defies my sense of reason....: Rioting Police Physician, Heal Thy Self

Wonderboy said...

Paul,

re "as you are never going to reveal the secrets to success."

I'm plan on posting some on my blog in the next few weeks. Though we have obviously gotten off on two wrong feet, I welcome any contribution you have to make there. Stay tuned!

Take care for now all.

Stef said...

Here you go:

The Conspiraloon Collective Consciousness is a wondrous thing

Stef said...

Veterans of the legendary DHG comment thread will be fully aware that it only started to get really interesting after the key protagonists tried to disengage

paul said...

Where is the DHG thread, not sure I was in on that one

Stef said...

It was a God/ Religion exchange

I'm still too traumatised to even think about digging out the link

paul said...

It was a God/ Religion exchange

Don't see much cause for controversy there

rob said...

The fucks were certainly flying on that one,Mr Hoffman Gill took the brunt of the abuse.
I note that Google automatically logs me in now without having to log in.Neat.Google gears I believe.

Stef said...

In fairness to DHG, he did take his lumps

rob said...

One in 20 £1 coins is fake, claims expert

Stef said...

I'm shocked to discover than only 1 in 20 £1 coins are made from essentially worthless base metal

I thought it was all of them

going forward, the real challenge for HM's Mint is going to be finding a substance to make the coins out of that's as worthless as £1

toenail clipping might fit the bill

Anti_NWO said...

Well for the time being, £1 buys me an (up to) 12 mile bus journey, with 10 pence left over.

Of course, my point becomes invalid when you consider how heavily subsidised the bus company is...so 90 pence might be the cost to me but the true cost would likely be a lot higher.

Stef said...

Well for the time being, £1 buys me an (up to) 12 mile bus journey, with 10 pence left over.

...or 25% of a one stop journey in Zone 1 of The Underground

Much money is being created out of nowhere and handed over to the banksters to cover their alleged losses. When they get round to spending it there's a very good chance that the price of anything worth owning will go through the roof

Anti_NWO said...

You can tell I don't use the tube much ;-)

By the way, £4.00 is the cash single fare isn't it? I was quoting an Oyster price (yes I know its a terrible system, but I didn't give any details of mine to purchase the card).

Stef said...

yup, cash single

it's cheaper with an oyster

and not traceable on a pay as you go card

The Antagonist said...

^ The card still builds up a usage profile. CCTV and alerts do the rest.

Anti_NWO said...

While its true that the card transactions are tracked, I would be on CCTV regardless. If I was able to afford a car traffic cameras can take care of that.

Does it look like I have much option?

Stef said...

in a moment of weakness I topped mine up with a debit card once

/ game over

The Antagonist said...

While its true that the card transactions are tracked, I would be on CCTV regardless. If I was able to afford a car traffic cameras can take care of that.

Does it look like I have much option?


That's fascism for you! And everyone else.

Anti_NWO said...

Debit card? But that means you had the balance available Stef..

Antagonist: Yes, and the populace is largely apathetic or apologist so the real solution would be to leave.

But as I said, I am a person of little means - I put together what I am using to post here now, suprisingly robust hardware for its age...

Speaking of leaving, where would I go anyway?

Become a homeless bum in Europe?

The Antagonist said...

New World Order states and implies a World Order so, if their words are anything to go by, potentially nowhere is safe.

That's what resistance is for and about and that's what's going to have to be organised to build the sort of world we want to live in.

Anti_NWO said...

Indeed, which doesn't seem to be happening here in the UK. Even the "truth movement" has maybe a few thousand active members out on the street (if the numbers in Grovesnor Square events are accurate).

While ~110 countries have ID card schemes, that's still only about half of the planet (granted, in population terms its larger), so clearly some regions aren't falling under the agenda as quickly as others.

Stef's post about inflation and taxation further down on this blog shows that trying to survive here on even the "average" wage is a futile exercise ultimately.