TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bomb goes off in UK restaurant
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
You know what I see folks? I see shitload of money (yours or government (eg. your tax dollars) invested into college education (or school education) to deliver all kinds of win in this thread.
Critical thinking, conspiracy theories, not to mention all the keen debate, let alone typing skills - all of them weighed, measured, and applied as rigorously as slicktops to the tarmac in F1 races. Not a nanometer of surface is unused, not a ****hair of gap - full contact, full bore, all 10 cyllinders, redlined, FULL SPEED AHEAD!
Wroom wrooooooooooom!!! Godspeed, pilots of thought! 
I'm off to refresh my margarita pitcher. Cheers!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z There's not much need to push in new legislation |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z I gave you "evidence" or reasons rather as to why I'm skeptical... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z if you choose to ignore or obfuscate it... oh well, that's just too bad then. Part of critical thinking is not restricting yourself to any paradigms, suspending biases and assumptions (especially ones that directly contradict the lessons of history), and avoiding limitations any framework (wheather real or conttrived) imposes on thought. So it's illogical or irrational of me to be skeptical of claims coming from instituions and / or organizations that have a track record of lack of transparency, deception, coersion of domestic populations, unprovoked military agression, and false flag terrorism? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z There's a word of a difference between accusations and suspecion. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Oddly enough, expressing that predictabley generates a juvenile reponse from you. Q was actually trying to have a discussion with me, as opposed to you who trolls "anti-establishment" positions everywhere. It's really beggining to get old... and it doesn't exactly boost your credibility eigther. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z There, I answered all your questions. Oddly enough you didn't address a thing I said or answer any of my questions. Obfuscating the points I made by failing to address them and twist the rest ridiculously out of context to me sounds like that special list of "ten commandments" you have is infact your bible  . Try addressing what I say for once, the entire argument preferably if you wish to point out flaws in it or my reasoning. Not selective tid bits you can misrepresent. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Make a list of different perspectives I have on various issues and then please show me how much of it falls in the category of "constant attraction to ideas that have no evidence to support them." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z And for God's sake, learn how to differentiate between evidence and proof. You say you've studied logic formally in college, you must have been a terrible at it as you don't know the difference between the two terms. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Sounds like an MI5 job to me |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z You acknowledged how these instituions have historically operated, yet that's not reason enough to suspect them of displaying similar behaviour? LOL, alright. I guess next time you know someone's a rapist and murderer, you should be comfortable with them taking your friend on a date. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Sounds like an MI5 job to me, to fucking ridiculous for anyone else to pull off. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Last time I checked not all Muslims are Arab. And that's a ridiculous over simplification of (only part) of what I said. Did you miss the part about "desert tales" ? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Jesus Christ I post a thread that I think will become dominated by anti-Muslim rants from Laz and Firestarter and I come back after a few days to discover that I was wrong, and this has somehow turned into a conspiraloon thread!! Why would Mi5 need to do this? What would they achieve? The only reasons they would do this are to get more funding or to get more of a free reign to do their job. Following 9/11 and the July 7th bombings in London, they pretty much were given all the funding they needed and new laws introduced to allow them to act more freely. There is nothing else for them to achieve that they don't have already so why they would set a bomb off in the most insignificant town in the country is beyond me... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Sounds like a Islamic terrorist attack gone wrong (the only person injured was the bomber himself) Scary thing is that this guy is white, British born, but appears to have been brainwashed into converting to some warped version of Islam... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7417349.stm |
@ PKC: I didn't claim to have any evidence to begin with, so your incoherent rant doesn't dignify a proper response. I gave you my reasons why, unlike yourself, I don't buy everything I read and for everything else I've said thus far.
I think the most likely senerio here is that we have one unstable, depressed, confused, marginalized kid who was desperate to be part of something larger then himself... to have purpose. His mental instability allowed him to believe that blowing something up in the name of Allah would give his life purpose. He's neither an islamic terrorist or a government stooge... he's a psychologically damaged kid.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Jesus Christ I post a thread that I think will become dominated by anti-Muslim rants from Laz and Firestarter and I come back after a few days to discover that I was wrong, and this has somehow turned into a conspiraloon thread!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think the most likely senerio here is that we have one unstable, depressed, confused, marginalized kid who was desperate to be part of something larger then himself... to have purpose. His mental instability allowed him to believe that blowing something up in the name of Allah would give his life purpose. He's neither an islamic terrorist or a government stooge... he's a psychologically damaged kid. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i know some people hate to realise it, but islamic extremists generate enough fear and distrust of muslims all by themselves. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yeah, that's possible too. Although it would depend on the disorder as most nuerological disorders don't drive people to do anything that extreme (not to mention bombing requires at least research on explosives, a little to much effort and probably too complicated for someone with a nuerological disorder)... and if he did have some kind of nuerological disorder, I think the likelyhood of "belonging" for a sense of purpose is low to non-existant. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z And why the fuck would any Islamic terrorist want to set a bomb off in "the most insignificant town in the country" ? To "promote fear" ? You know that's pretty fucking retarded for an answer, and you also know most people are fucking retarded (when it comes to anything to do with politics or power structures)... so, the logic of "why" was in your initial post in this thread. |
| quote: |
| With more rational peole like yourself, it's only going to propagate the fear of "Islamism" and with less rational people, which is a much larger group, it's going to go beyond that. And it adds to their paranoid perception of "radical Islam" having tentacles reaching all over society. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Jesus Christ I post a thread that I think will become dominated by anti-Muslim rants from Laz and Firestarter and I come back after a few days to discover that I was wrong, and this has somehow turned into a conspiraloon thread!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Mi5 get nothing out of mounting an "attack" like this, in fact, I feel pretty silly continuing to discuss this at all! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Nah, I think all the bombs that went off in London and killed all those people are what people look to when they want evidence of whether or not there is a real threat from "radical Islam"... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Jesus Christ I post a thread that I think will become dominated by anti-Muslim rants from Laz and Firestarter and I come back after a few days to discover that I was wrong, and this has somehow turned into a conspiraloon thread!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Bullshit, much of the Middle East and South Asia has been subjected to it for a while. I don't see a Muslim phobia rampant over there. And most people with any fucking brains there also know that much of it is Western sponsored and created. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, must be why russia and jordan and singapore have such draconian anti-terrorism laws, because they've never ever had problems with militant islam. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in your world shaolin, is there such a thing as islamic terrorism? or are entire sections of political islam just willing patsies for western domination and false flag operations? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Interesting, I don't remember that being specfic to any one brand of religious fanatics. Last time I checked, the evil, violent and descructive influence of organized religion was dwarfed by the state in conjuction with intelligence agencies. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what about iraq? Is there a real struggle occurring there or is it just america making trouble for itself so it can force itself to stay in the country, because the US is getting oh so much out of the war in iraq at the moment? For example, what benefit does the US get from tying its army down (and killing it off) in terms of extending its regional hegemony? what long term economic-elite-driven false-flag-instituting goals are being achieved right now in iraq and/or afghanistan? |
| quote: | ||||
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z So I orginally posted this here, but yesterday ended up deleting a whole bunch of my post and threads. Don't ask why. All I'm going to say is that I'm seriosuly considering leaving this place for good. Luckily, there's still a copy of this in a thread by Opus. So I'm posting it here once again: What I find interesting is the fact that all this sectarian violence didn't really start or atleast escalate (and was close to non-existant) before the burial site of Imam Hussein, his family, tribe, and companions was supposedly blown up by some crazy Sunnis according to the mainstream media (after the Iraq invasion began). It makes absolutely no sense for any sect, regardless of how fanatical and insane, to do that. Let me explain why by giving you a brief history of the Shia Sunni divide. When Muhammad was near his dead, he expressed his wish and will of Ali, the first young male converts to Islam, a close campanion, cousin, and son-in-law, to be his successor (Caliph i.e spiritual leader of the Muslim world). Now Umar ibn al-Khattāb, who was a prominent and powerful tribe leader before he converted to Islam (and also an important leitenant), didn't want this. He claimed that Muhammad was too old and ill for his decision (and will), of Ali being his succesor, to be taken seriously. [Backround knowledge: Muhammad's father died six months after his birth and his mother when he was only six years old. He was taken in and looked after by his uncle Abu Talib, the leader of the Hashim clan of the Quraish tribe, the most powerful in Mecca. He started preaching Islam while he was still alive but was left alone becuase of who his Uncle was, a feared and respeceted tribe leader of the most powerful clan of the Quraish tribe. Muhammad and early convert to Islam had to migrate from Mekkah to Medina in the early days of Islam due to ever increasing and severe presecution. It got to the point where torture, muredering new converts to Islam (who were mostly slaves and the poor), and assanination attempts on Muhammad by the pagan tribes of Mekkah became common place. What you have to know to make sense of this is the fact that paganism, tribal conflict (which usually didn't end for generations once started), slavery, burial of new born daughters, the status of women as mere property, theft, murder, and hedonistic excess was common in pre-Islamic Arabia. Mekkah, before Islam, was a center of pagan worship, as it contained the sacred well of Zamzam and a small ancient temple, the Ka'aba. The Ka'aba was filled with pagan idols at that point. All sorts of pagan ritutals, worship, sex orgies, sacrafice, and other pagan activity took place there. A hand full of few power tribes known as Banu Quraish owned the Kabbah, which at that point was a center of paganism. Pagan pilgirims from all over the Arab world came there to worship who payed large sums of money to them to be able to gain access to the Ka'aba. Their wealth, status, and power largely depended on the status quo, which was total paganism. Muhammad's preaching of the belief in one God and Islamic values was a threat to all of it. Muslims were heavily persecuted in early Islamic history and basically had to constantly be on the run from persecution and annihalation in order to practice their religion freely. ...skip a bunch... Later when Islam spread and Muhammad returned to Mekkah, he destroyed all of the idols in the Ka'aba and it became the most holy mosque in Islam, in the direction of which Muslims face when they pray. And it became the center of Muslim pilgramidge. In order to make things a little easier to follow for late and reference, these are some subclans of Banu Quraish:
After Muhammad's death, the differences that had previously lain dormant amongst the Meccan immigrants (the Muhajirun) and the Medinan converts (the Ansar), threatened to break out and split the Ummah (Muslim Nation). This sparked great controversy over who should be Muhammad's successor. Umar apparently lost it (wheater genuine or disingenuos) and became hysterical when Muhammad passed away, delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Calioh. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot) returned from some business trip or something. There was a huge controversy over who should become Caliph. Umar apparently lost it when Muhammad died and refused to allow his barial. He became hysterical (wheater genuine or disingenuos), delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Caliph. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot before converting to Islam) returned from some business trip or something. The Ansar met in Medina to discuss whom they would support as their new leader. When Abu Bakr was informed of the meeting, he, Umar and a few others rushed to prevent the Ansar from making a "premature decision." During the meeting Umar declared that Abu Bakr should be the new leader, and declared his allegiance to Abu Bakr. After the meeting at Saqifah, the Muslims who were not present had to be informed of the decision taken by the group. Many of them refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, as did Ali, as they (rightly) believed (in accordance with the Prophet's will) that Ali, was the obvious choice for leader. They became to be known as the Shi'at Ali (the party of Ali) by their enemies. It took six months of threat and pressure to force the refusers to submit to Abu Bakr. Umar roamed the streets of Medina with his warriors to coerce people into submission. Being a hothead, he even threatened to burn down Fatima's house (the Prophet's daughter and Ali's wife) unless Ali came out and submitted to Abu Bakr. Ali refused and requested his privacy to be respected. Umar pushed his way into the house. Fatima, who was heavily pregnant, and trying to prevent Umar from breaking in, was crushed behind the door. She miscarried her unborn son. At one point, there was even a civil war. Eventually Ali reluctantly gave in to prevent Muslims loyal to him and the Prophets will from being persecuted, and to not detroy the unity of the Ummah right after the Prophet passed away, pretty messed up state of affairs. So Abu Bakr became first Caliph, succeeded by Umar as second Caliph, Uthman as third, and finally Ali as forth. But Ali's caliphate only lasted five years, ended with his assasination and then the assaination of his eldest son, Hasan ibn Ali. So basically, this is what lead to the Shiia Sunni divide, although they didn't call themselves Shiia and Sunni at the time. Mu�āwīyah ibn Abī Sufyān, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs, engaged in a civil war against Ali and met with considerable military success, including the seizure of Egypt. He assumed the caliphate after Ali's assassination in 661 and reigned until 680. ...skip some more... His son Yazid succeded him in the line of the Umayyads dynasty of caliphs, who was also fairly tyranical and corrupt. The persecution of Shi'iat al Ali continued. At one point, it became so severe that they were basically being denied water (and it's pretty damn hard to survive in a desert without any). The divide between the two groups was intesified when he was opposed and criticized by the Ali's son, the Prophets grandson, Imam Husayn bin Ali. Yazid responded to criticism with force, killing many of his campanion, family members, and Muslims loyal to him. This started the battle of Karbala (which is in Iraq), where he Imam Husayn was martered, including lots of his friends, followers, and family. Him and his followers were burried there. The terms Shiia and Sunni as sectarian labels came in to use much later. The Shiias believe Ali to be the rightful successor of Muhammad and Yazid to an illegitimate tyrant responsible for murdering Imam Husayn. The Sunnis, on the other hand, are the passive masses submitting to power and accepting status quo. Sunnis condemn the killing of Imam Husayn, being the Prophets grandson and all, but still recoznige Yazid as a legitimate Caliph and make excuses like "he wasn't responsible for it, his generals were." ... Anyways, now that you know all that and understand the nature of the Shiia Sunni divide, which is basically political and not really religious, since Islam as a religion was already complete and fully revealed before Muhammad died, it makes absolutely no sense for any Sunni group or splinter sect, no matter how fanatical and crazy, to go desecrate the burial site of the Prophet's grandson. That's fairly sacreligious for them too. I guess it's analagous to Christians, Jews, or Muslims blowing up Jerusalem; not going to happen, it's a holy site to all of them. So my money on whoever was responsible for it are on the CIA/MI-5/6/other intel agency payroll, if not one of the groups themselves; a false flag opertaion to fuel endless sectarian violence, which is what's taking place rightnow. That gives an excuse to keep troops there and build permanent military bases. And it's not like false flag ops are anything new when it comes to how modern states such as Russia/former Soviet Union, the US etc. and their intelligence agencies. Before the Iraq war, no one cared if you were Shiia or Sunni. But now Shiia and Sunnis are getting shot and blown up at check point by militia men for belonging to the wrong sect, given away by their last name (which makes their tribal origin obvious, and hence if they're Shiia or Sunni). So, I hope that helped shed some light on the issue. But in case some of you don't know what a flase flag op is:
You can read more about those there. But here's just a few examples of false flag ops in recent history: 1953, Opertaion Ajax (CIA coupe in Iran workring in tandem with MI6): Overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadeq via multiple staged terrorist attacks on mosques (bombimg) & gunning down civilians, demonstrations, propaganda, and provocations branding Mossadeq as a communist, including a false flag op which where the home of a prominent Sheiks was bombed. The weirdest propanganda operation included handing out phony bills during while the choas ensued which read "Up with Mossadeq, Up with communism, Down with Allah." This ofcourse happened after Mossadeq attempted nationalized Iran's oil which British pertoleum wanted to monopolize. Then ofcourse we all know who came into power... that's right, the Shah, who was a brutal dictator with his secret police (SAVAK, again thanks to CIA) and torture chambers etc. 1943 - 1983, Operation Gladio, NATO's "stay behing operation" (funded mostly by CIA, a key figure being in Operation Gladio being the CIA founder Allen Dulles): This is really an umbrella name for multiple false flag ops in non just Italy, but around the world, including Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia, which was blamed on the communists during the 'Red Scare.' The target where mostly civilian and public areas, including trains, bubes, schools, school buses etc. A particularly bloody incident was the Bologna Massacre in Italy on August 2nd, 1980 after which some Italian official broke their silence about it. I'm sure many of you already know about he Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 where an American destroyer was attacked. Well, phone conversation tapes between President Lyndon Johnson and Defence Secretary Robert McNamara realeased by LBJ Presidential Library in 2001 reveal how they were openly discussing using it to expand the War in Vietman after which congress authorized the Tonkin Resolution. In 2005 the NSA declassified it's official history on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which revealed how CIA and intelligence agency officers deliberately falsified intel blaming Vietnamese partol boats for attacking the ship when in reality the didn't eventhough they where being fired on by US forces. October 6th, 1976 Cuban Flight 455 (passanger airliner planted with C4): Declassified CIA document reveal that the bombers of the flight were given US visas days before the bombing and were employed by guess who. Luis Posada Carriles, who was involved in the bombing, was a CIA agent. Those are the only ones that come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure you guys can dig up numerous more examples. Anyways, point is, false flag ops are standard procedure so I seriously doubt it wasn't a false flag op, as it makes absolutely no sense for any group, no matter how fanatical and extereme, to decesrate the Prophets grandson's and companions graves and bomb the mosque. No, I obviously can't prove this. Neigther were any of those examples known or proveable until years (more like decades) after when internal documents were declassified. EDIT: One decalssified document that some of you should be familiar with by now, Operation Northwoods discusses in great detail of conducting false flag ops in order to go to was with Cuba. Here's some of the content listed on wikipedia:
Guess why this didn't take place or go through, Kennedy objected and didn't allow it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Hmmm, let's see... the reason for war was a complete fabrication from the beggining... except state apologist are naive enough to defend that action with "no, you see... they actually believed their own bullshit!" The reason in order:
So, since none of those reason was legitimate enough... there needed to be enough chaos to justify US military presence in Iraq, which is achieved by a contrived civil war. Ironically enough, you'd have to be an complete dolt to believe the same war mongering hypocritical pack of pathological liars would maintain military presence to help establish order... when the US has a history of the quite the opposite... you know, like toppling goverment and undermining democracy... all this while they undermine democratic values at home as well, with authoritarian unconstitutional legislation. So back to our bullshit contrived civil war now: Yes, I find your reasons for trusting the system to degree you do very compelling indeed. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i have no idea what sent you on that tangent or what weird inner meaning you think was hidden in my words, but i basically just wanted to know whether or not you believed that violent islam existed, independently and autonomously from the US. but to be honest, i dont see what the government has gotten out of iraq but thousands of casualties, a bogged down military, higher oil prices, trillion dollar pricetags, and no way of getting the fuck out. i think if you offered bush et al the perfect solution to get themselves out of iraq and afghanistan, they'd be overjoyed to take it. the idea that they are deliberately trying to prolong their stay just doesn't make any sense. what benefit is the US currently getting from being tied down in iraq? |
You brought up Iraq, not me.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i have no idea what sent you on that tangent or what weird inner meaning you think was hidden in my words, but i basically just wanted to know whether or not you believed that violent islam existed, independently and autonomously from the US. but to be honest, i dont see what the government has gotten out of iraq but thousands of casualties, a bogged down military, higher oil prices, trillion dollar pricetags, and no way of getting the fuck out. i think if you offered bush et al the perfect solution to get themselves out of iraq and afghanistan, they'd be overjoyed to take it. the idea that they are deliberately trying to prolong their stay just doesn't make any sense. what benefit is the US currently getting from being tied down in iraq? |
PNAC was a private think tank, not a government document. And it certainly wasn't a mandated policy, though aspects of their agenda did permeate the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. But PNAC is more or less defunct today (unless you count Freedom's Watch as a continuation of sorts).
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov PNAC was a private think tank, not a government document. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And it certainly wasn't a mandated policy, though aspects of their agenda did permeate the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. But PNAC is more or less defunct today (unless you count Freedom's Watch as a continuation of sorts). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z ... and? It's actually even more blatantly pro-Zionist than the NeoCon's PNAC. EDIT: Thanks for being civil and not attacking me instead btw Leb, appreciate that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 it is interesting, though, how you deflect the conversations so you don't have to answer direct questions. a simple question such as, how does the US benefit from the continuing war in iraq, remains unanswered. instead of answering the question, you post initial government justificiations. hmmmm..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 in addition, you answered around the muslim terrorist question. It's rather simple, you either believe there are muslim terrorists or you don't. As a christian, i believe there are christian terrorists. those fucks who blow up abortion centers and such. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.