Physically, it is easy to be a terrorist. Killing unarmed people is never frightfully difficult. It is impossible physically to stop terrorism. I commented years ago that the theatre of security at airports just created a new target; the people densely packed queueing for security at airports. It will always be simple to kill individuals, and if you wish to kill a lot of people at once, there are just so many places where people are crowded together. Planes, trains, buses and coaches, metros, ferries and the associated boarding places of all of those. Cinemas, theatres, supermarkets, concerts, bars, pubs, restaurants, cafes, shopping malls, public squares. Lectures, meetings, ceilidhs, churches, mosques, schools, workplaces, tourist attractions. Football matches, firework displays, the boat race, racecourses, carnivals, festivals, beaches, fun fairs, amusement arcades. Commemorations, demonstrations, marches. Cabarets, swimming pools, museums, canteens.
It is impossible physically to prevent all determined terrorist attacks without imposing a level of security which would fundamentally change the very experience of being a human being and the very foundations of human society. The uselessness of it was demonstrated fatuously by Tony Blair sending tanks to Heathrow airport.
But if we cannot physically defend against determined terrorists, what can we do?
Well, the most important thing is, don’t panic. Given how easy it is to kill people physically, the important thing is how extremely difficult it is to do it mentally. In fact terrorism is vanishingly rare. It is so rare there has only been one person killed by terrorists in the mainland United Kingdom in the last decade.
An event like that in Brussels today horrifies and terrifies. But remember, that the same number of people murdered today are killed in Belgium less than every three weeks in traffic accidents, and have been killed at that rate or greater in traffic accidents for over four decades. Over 700 people a year die in traffic accidents in Belgium; twenty times more than have just been killed by terrorists. Of course, the terrorist incident is a big single death toll and more stark because it is a deliberate act of evil. But if you’ve just been mown down by a car, that also is not pretty and you are just as dead.
So panic must be avoided. There is no sense in which the tiny threat of terrorism is a genuine threat to western civilisation – unless we grossly overreact. Old fashioned intelligence work is the best way to counter active intelligence cells. This would be much more effective if it were targeted. The pool of intelligence is far too contaminated with tens of millions of intercepts of harmless people from mass surveillance, and all kinds of dross intelligence fed to us from torture chambers around the world.
Western policy in the Middle East in the last decade has been a grotesque failure by any possible measure. If western states simply stopped inflicting violence and death abroad themselves, it would do much to end the cycle. People are less likely to turn terrorist if they feel they have a worthwhile role in society and something more to live for. It is a truism that alienation of young Muslim men from the societies they live in has motivated several terrorists. That same alienation affects young non-Muslims too, as a generation faces crippling debt, unfulfilling, unprotected and low paid work and an unconsidered life in a society skewed to support the extravagant lifestyles of a tiny minority of the ultra-wealthy. I fear that if society continues the way we are going, political violence of a nihilistic nature will become a more common reaction.
Any response that tries simply to increase physical security and surveillance will entirely miss the point.
Orban’s historic speech puts Hungary on war footing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbINrdyAXlE&app=desktop
I am sure that all decent people find the events in Brussels to be both reprehensible and indefensible. Additionally I am sure that everyone will have empathy for the victims of this tragedy.
There are elements in the supranational government that is the EU that classify events such as those in Brussels as constituting a “beneficial crisis.” Is such terminology likely to be considered as representative of the views of the wider population?
Would you like to give us a source (other than RT etc) and a context for that assertion?
Yeah, that sounds like the kind of thing that should be backed up with a source. Cite or it didn’t happen, etc.
I am surprised that you request a source for something that is so obvious. Take a look at the utterances of one Jean Monnet dating from at least 1957 who was quite clear as to how the, then embryonic EU, should exploit crises in order to advance the agenda of aggregating more power to central European institutions.. Although 1957 was a long time ago the theme remain intact and unbroken throughout the intervening years.
Take a look at one Jo Moore and see how she was able to exploit the events of 9/11 even before the WTC had collapsed. Do you really think she was acting on her own initiative and relying solely on her own speed of thought? Or do you think that she was responding in the way she had been trained to respond.
These things, and many similar, are all in the public record and there is no dispute as to their accuracy.
So no source, then.
I am not your research assistant. I have provided examples, you can look up sources or your own examples for yourself, they will not be hard to find.
@Loony: Trust me, there’s a good reason why you’re not my research assistant…
Neither Jean Monnet nor Jo Moore is an ” element(s) in the supranational government that is the EU”. Monnet was never elected to public office, and has been dead for 37 years, and Moore was an advisor to a UK minister. Your generalisation is unsustainable unless backed by supporting data. Supply it, please, and stop wriggling.
It is not a generalization. I have provided 2 specific examples. Monnet was clearly an element of a supranational government and the fact that he was never elected and is dead does not invalidate this point.
Jo Moore was provided as an example of the type of thinking I sought to describe. She is relevant if you consider that her actions were governed by her training and experiences. She is not relevant if you consider that she was acting as a “loose cannon” and that there is no institutional hinterland of this kind of thinking.
As Bob Dylan said “I can;t think for you, you have decide…”
Monnet’s “utterances” – anything in writing or were you around when he just said it?
Martinned and Ba’al called you rather well, didn’t they, you lunatic Cnut 🙂
The word “utterances” is ordinarily understood to relate to verbal speech – there is no axiomatic reason why verbal speech would necessarily be committed to writing. However, and as I am sure you know quite well,, there is a wide body of literature relating to Monnet, and his ideas continue to influence EU policy. As a specific example you may wish to consider the introduction of the Euro – introduced in the full knowledge that it would result in various crises in economically weaker national states.
Perhaps your pejorative tone is a consequence of how they teach the “educated classes” to dissemble and misdirect. Do you have any actual argument based in reason, or is your only argument inanity and profanity?
There is a debate as to whether Jean Monnet said the quote attributed to him about union through stealth and it seems to be accepted by Brexit campaigners that a third party summary of what is said to have been his position has conflated into a quote when it was never a quote.
“There are elements in the supranational government that is the EU that classify events such as those in Brussels as constituting a “beneficial crisis.””
I’m surprised that anyone should find that this statement is controversial. Is there any doubt that it is true of, for example, those in US ruling circles who saw 9/11 as a ‘beneficial crisis’?
The notion that crises can also contain opportunities is proverbial. It is to confess ignorance to demand that ideas as commonplace as that stated by Loony should be ‘sourced’.
Except that the aptly-named “Loony” specifically cited Jean Monnet.
Bevin, can you provide the sources Loony can’t?
If not, shut up.
And don’t answer a question about the EU by making an assertion about 9/11.
Why should I, or anyone else, provide you with sources? If you are offering money then we can discuss business. Otherwise research your own sources, they are not hard to find.
Why is it inappropriate to link the EU with the US? There are many who believe the EU to be a mere vassal of the US, and this belief conditions part of Russian foreign policy. – You can also look up your own sources for that contention.
Because that’s how burden of proof works. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Martinned. You misunderstand me. I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. Think what you want I do not care.
Everything I have said is readily verifiable. Whether you want to verify it or not is up to you. I am just surprised that some people seemingly have no interest in actually seeking a rational understanding but have every interest in responding in pejorative terms and seek to curtail inquiry through a combination of misdirection and instant resort to ad-hominem attack.
If you’re not interested in convincing anyone of anything, why are you still talking?
Martinned. I wrote that I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. I did not write that I am not interested in convincing people.
Do you recognize the difference as to what I actually wrote and what you claim I wrote?
You provide a perfect example as to how the request to “send 4 and 6 pence, we’re going to a dance” becomes ultimately transformed into “send reinforcements we’re going to advance.”
I would hope that people think about things, and through a process of reason reach their own considered conclusions. Conclusions which may or may not conform with my own
Loony
Martinned, Ba’al and I have got the better of you.
But here’s a last chance to recover some credibility.
“Utterances” are indeed mostly speech and therefore one should not ask you for a quote from Monnet’s own writings to back up your claim.
But his utterances must have been made to someone. Who is that someone and please indicate the work in which that someone reported M. Monnet’s “utterances”.
Thank you in advance.
Habbakik – Do you have a problem with English? I have no intention of evidencing things to you or to anyone else. If you are interested you can look these things up for yourself. If you are not not interested then don’t look them up. It is up to you. I cannot think for you.
I do not care who has or who has not “got the better” of me.
There is no need to thank me for anything, as I have no intention of doing anything at all that would cause you need to thank me. However if you show any evidence of thinking for yourself then I will thank you.
I think that what Looney refers to is “Les hommes n’acceptent le changement que dans la nécessité et ils ne voient la nécessité que dans la crise.”
Sorry to spoil the fun.
But he didn’t say that crises should be generated to order. As Macmillan said you just have to wait for events.
Why Be Ordinary
Yes, that must be the quotation – well done for finding it.
It is now incumbent on our friend “Loony” (perhaps he should change his moniker to “Liar” or “Lesser”?) tp
1/. thank you for doing his work for him
2/. admit he got it wrong and aplogise to the board.
Will he have the grace to do so?
Can anyone believe that security camera footage of the three Isis bombers going along in Brussels
on their mission!
The two showing their faces, and hirdng their left hand with a glove might well be the suicide bombers, but the third man is obviously wearing a face mask to hide what he really looks like, and the security people have fallen for the ruse hook, line, and sinker.
I really loved that sniper on the helicopter, hoping to catch him under that spot light for a deadly shot..
Reminded me when the FBI hoped to catch me similarly unawares when it raided my apartment unannounced in the middle of June 2013 nights.
These spools are more interested in doing convenient killings rather than just doing their job.
Comedian Steve Hughes on the ‘War on Terror’: “So, you’re having a war against the consequence of the actions you’re involved in?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6uZgYdFeqU#t=16
Can’t posters get the idea that deadly hits on residents and citizens of friend and foe alike are most effective of all as they show that their governments cannot even protect their own!
Doesn’t work that way. The Blitz didn’t break British morale. The bombing of Germany didn’t break German morale.
Although that eminent Irish-American, Ambassador Joseph Kennedy (US ambassador to the UK), thought it would and reported so to the President.
And so did “Bomber Harris” who like a quack doctor when the medicine did not work simply increased the dose. I had not previously thought of the comparison, but terrorists like alternative healers aren’t bothered about whether what they recommend actually works. They regard this as self evident and just keep on trying in the face of all the evidence.
You are mistaking then for now.
The failure of bombing you are talking about was in the middle of a declared, devastating war in which both sides knew who the enemy was while now there is no declared war, only governments stating that they are securing their populations from any attacks, and failing.
This is why the Pentagon is so involved in making earthquakes to suit its strategic agenda, like turning Turkey from a nationalist enemy state to a Mediterranean doormat, thanks to the earthquakes at Izmit and Lake Van.
There have only been a handful of “declared” wars since WWII. The concept of declaring war has simply fallen into desuetude.
That aside, I’m not sure what the difference is between the (civil) war in Syria and any other legit war in history, except that the former has three sides instead of just two. We know exactly who our enemies are; until recently we dropped bombs on them on a daily basis.
“Can’t posters get the idea that deadly hits on residents and citizens of friend and foe alike are most effective of all as they show that their governments cannot even protect their own!”
Gladio was designed to frighten citizens that leftists were trying to take over their country by force.
They weren’t.
It was extreme rightists acting on behalf of the deep state.
All well documented.
But, these citizens were prepared to give up civil liberties, to enable the govt to better fight these terrorists, who were actually controlled by govt agencies.
Strategy of Tension, it’s called.
You’ll be aware that General Sir Frank Kitson GBE, KCB, MC & Bar, DL, wrote several books outlining the strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kitson
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2212963.Gangs_and_Counter_gangs
Nothing new, by the way.
Such deception has been going on for thousands and thousands of years.
Kitson not only wrote the books, but also the Anglo-Americans frightened the Swedish population into believing that the Soviets were involved in taking over which was actually made to look like what was happening when they assassinated its Prime Minister Olof Palme for not going along with Iran-Contra
Why did it matter that Sweden not go along with Iran/Contra?
I don’t see the necessary connection.
Is this just more of your blather.
Oh I see.
You’ve covered it, at length, in a Swedish newspaper discussion forum.
Other inhabitants of that forum were of course delighted:
http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=39625
Constantly comparing terrorist atrocities to road fatalities is utterly moronic.
I’m sure that you actually think these guys are anti-colonialists and you silently support them, you just don’t have the guts to say it.
I too am disturbed by that comparison with road deaths. Why not go a little further and say that thousands of people in the West elect to kill themselves by smoking?
Two other comments
1/. I love the use of the notion of “young Muslim alienation” – and the way the politically correct Mr Murray immediately balances that by mentioning the alienation of young non-Muslims. If “alienation” was a factor in the Paris and Brussels killings, should we assume that at least some of the posters on here – who have also been described as “alienated” just the other day – will shortly have recourse to the bomb? And if not , why not?
2/ I also love the way Mr Murray manages to get a kick in against increased surveillance powers. If there is one thing that the Brussels killings reveal it is that surveillance powers in Belgium – which are light (and lax) compared to those on the UK – need to be increased substantially. Is it a coincidence that , as Mr Murray has pointed out, there has only been one terrorist-related death in the UK in the last 10 years?
That would depend on how and for what purposes the comparison is made.
Saying, without explanation that it is “moronic” is, well, just moronic.
What a sad, dispirited joint this place has become. Certainly we were off to a fine start with ROS and Herbie mentioning Gladio but Hasbarakuk stuck his half-witted head in with a properly worthless attempt at a strawman and everyone was struck dumb. Abysmal.
Here’s the simple and unavoidable logic: Gladio was real. At least half of the terror of Europe of the 80’s and 90’s was committed by the state (or more exactly the ‘deep state’). Given that, how we can we discuss any terror events without at least conceding the possibility of the involvement of the state as perpetrator. That the state was the perpetrator of earlier numerous and bloody terror attacks is an indisputable historical fact with any number of trials and public inquiries, along with sundry agents of the state (right up to ministerial level) telling us precisely what they’d done and why.
And yet here we are (or rather here Craig is) discussing terror attacks whilst absurdly ignoring the cold hard FACT that it’s as likely to be the authorities as anyone else. And then that worthless git Hasbarakuk bangs the table demanding to know if the aforementioned are saying for a fact that this particular event was Gladio, whilst simultaneously suggesting that discussing such obvious history is apologia for terrorism. Pathetic.
Once more for the dummies: this attack is as likely to be committed by the state as it is by those the state points its collective finger at. Whilst finding out which of the two entities is more likely to have committed a given attack is no simple matter, it’s true that cui bono is a good starting point. And so! Who benefits? Muslims? Or the deep state ever keen to gain greater control of the masses?
‘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, the Italian public to turn to the State to ask for greater security.’
Hasbarakuk – I fucking dare you to ask me if this is what happened. And I double dare you to make out that I’m an apologist for terrorism. Be warned, you’re on the breakfast menu and I’m your man. Let’s do it.
Yes, I certainly believe that people like you are objective apologists for today’s terrorism. How else to interpret your attempts to “discuss” IS terrorism in Europe in terms of Gladio?
And now fcuk off, you sicko.
************************
PS – when this poster first appeared on here, someone – I can’t remember who – identified him as some nut who either has his own website or then posts nutty stuff somewhere else.
Can we be reminded who this nut is?
Ha ha ha hasbarakuk,
You still have your mad double apostrophe fetish I see. But for the word discuss? Really? Why? Wait, perhaps it does make sense given that you’re keen to close the conversation down. “It can only be IS,” says you. You would sneer at those attempting to “discuss”, discuss possibilities other than your own.
As for IS, you know this do you? No trial, no nothing, but you’re there already. And this in the face of most of the previous terror attacks in Belgium having been committed by the deep state. The thing is, you could be right. Or I could be. But only one of us is insisting terms be excluded from the inquiry.
All that the punters here asked for is that the possibility that false flag terror committed by the state be acknowledged as a possibility. And there’s you demanding that it be excised from the Newspeak dictionary. What a fine Parsons you’d make. Or Parsons worthless inner party boss perhaps. This on account of you always insisting others jump to your commands.
Wait a minute! Did you say ‘objective’? Objective apologist? What the fuck does that mean? An apologist without bias? Hmmm… I just put it into google and it got a pathetic 81 hits with half of those involving commas, full stops, and the word ‘non-‘ in front. The rest account for as precisely as many illiterates as you’d expect to find there, ha ha ha ha. You and them buddy – good company.
Anyway Hasbarakuk, clearly you’ve gotten yourself a bit flustered. You didn’t really think about your first sentence at all did you? Would you like me to relimn it slightly so as to make the circularity of your logic clearer? Thus: “Yes, I certainly believe that people like you are wicked. How else to interpret your attempts to “discuss” things wickedly?”. Um… what are we to make of such nonsense? Perhaps we could declare it that variety of syllogistic fallacy that you can’t even laugh at?
I think you are wicked.
I think you say wicked things.
Therefore I think you are wicked.
I don’t know… Honestly, it’s just gibberish. Or as the scientists would say, it’s not even wrong.
And finally, the taking of names! Bravo. I said this before, and I’ll say it again: how much you tell us about yourself Hasbarakuk. You’d make a terrific Schutzstaffel. Did I say Parsons before? Parsons’ children, more like. I demand you rename yourself Hasbarakuk Schutzstaffel (Parson’s Children).
I don’t know Hasb… I always look forward to a bit of argy bargy with you but you always disappoint. You’re just too dim-witted to be any fun… unintelligent, unironic, unfunny. And there I was taking all the other punters to task for not laying into you. Sorry boys and girls, it was poor of me. I commiserate with you for having to put up with such a tedious git. He can’t even swear properly. Honestly.
Off I go now…
…unless you’ve something interesting to say Hasb? Have you? That might be fun! But properly interesting this time, not fatheaded and stupid. I’m all yours, he said waiting brightly.
“unless you’ve something interesting to say Hasb? Have you?”
_____________________
I most certainly have, Wren. It is : seek psychiatric advice urgently . Alternatively, fix an appointment with Spencer-Davis, he will help you come to terms with your inner demons. 🙂
Pissweak Hasb. Like I’m one of your 2800 slaves to do all your running around for you. Why don’t you get off your arse, don your Schutzstaffel hat and take my name, and then (neocon style) switch hats to that of your old Cheka grandpa and have me sent to the Psikhushka. You know you want to. And besides, think of the satisfaction you’ll gain from doing a thing yourself.
Mods – errant italics corrected
What a sad, dispirited joint this place has become. Certainly we were off to a fine start with ROS and Herbie mentioning Gladio but Hasbarakuk stuck his half-witted head in with a properly worthless attempt at a strawman and everyone was struck dumb. Abysmal.
Here’s the simple and unavoidable logic: Gladio was real. At least half of the terror of Europe of the 80’s and 90’s was committed by the state (or more exactly the ‘deep state’). Given that, how we can we discuss any terror events without at least conceding the possibility of the involvement of the state as perpetrator. That the state was the perpetrator of earlier numerous and bloody terror attacks is an indisputable historical fact with any number of trials and public inquiries, along with sundry agents of the state (right up to ministerial level) telling us precisely what they’d done and why.
And yet here we are (or rather here Craig is) discussing terror attacks whilst absurdly ignoring the cold hard FACT that it’s as likely to be the authorities as anyone else. And then that worthless git Hasbarakuk bangs the table demanding to know if the aforementioned are saying for a fact that this particular event was Gladio, whilst simultaneously suggesting that discussing such obvious history is apologia for terrorism. Pathetic.
Once more for the dummies: this attack is as likely to be committed by the state as it is by those the state points its collective finger at. Whilst finding out which of the two entities is more likely to have committed a given attack is no simple matter, it’s true that cui bono is a good starting point. And so! Who benefits? Muslims? Or the deep state ever keen to gain greater control of the masses?
‘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, the Italian public to turn to the State to ask for greater security.’
Hasbarakuk – I fucking dare you to ask me if this is what happened. And I double dare you to make out that I’m an apologist for terrorism. Be warned, you’re on the breakfast menu and I’m your man. Let’s do it.
Mayeaux Wren,
I have so far, found very little evidence re The Brussels attack, to come to any conclusions. I think it is very important to analyse every such terrorist attack independently, in much the same way as the police should and normally do investigate every murder, independently and objectively. Just because there is a sequence of murders, that look very similar from all aspects of analysis does not necessarily mean that a single serial murderer is responsible for them all, though of course it is easy to jump to that conclusion, which may in fact be correct.
I agree with most of what you have written. Personally, I think the individual under discussion is revealing, more about himself, than the culture he is attempting to defend. It’s as if he was in the school playground leading a very small gang of bullies, and there is a kid lying unconscious, beaten and bloodied on the ground. No one else admits to witnessing the attack, and no one yet blames anyone, and he is screaming that “We didn’t do it – they did it”.
Tony
Mayeaux Wren : Once more for the dummies: this attack is as likely to be committed by the state as it is by those the state points its collective finger at.
…. and who do the state point at? Isis, which they created. That raises the odds of state involvement to well above 50%
It is notable that the state defenders do not actually deny the extent of Gladio’s involvement in European terrorism. They can’t, so rather than face the logical repercussions, they simulate moral outrage at the very mention of the subject.
BTW, I see you’ve given up parody and gone for full frontal attack 🙂
And not just Gladio either. The gradual realisation that the mayhem in The Troubles was often choreographed by Britain’s security forces, on whose payroll both “Protestant’ and ‘Nationalist’ assassins and bombers were to be discovered, confirms the prevalence of these tactics.
It is more than likely that the 1938 Palestinian uprising- put down with considerable brutality- and the Mau Mau insurgency both fall into the same category.
It is as foolish to disregard this evidence of the propensities of states as it would be to attribute every terrorist action to ‘false flag’ actions.
Only those whose mission it is to prevent popular discussion of security matters benefit from the degeneration of debate into vulgar and mysoginistic slanging matches. It is lamentable that those initiating them should be in receipt of public funds.
Bevin
You forgot to mention the Malaya emergency, the confriontation with Indonesia over Borneo and the Falklands crisis as further examples of the culpability of the British security services.
Personally I believe that Bismarck, WW1, the Bolshevik revolution, Trotsky’s ouster, the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust were all the results of cunningly-laid plans by the security services. Or perhaps some of them never happened (the photos are fake) – what do you think, Bevin?
I forgort to mention the Emergency in Malaya because I have no evidence that the British were running the “terrorists” as well. The relevance of Indonesia’s Konfrontation escapes me. As to the Falkland crisis you are the first person who has suggested that the Argentinians were acting as agents of the British state.
Your second paragraph is unworthy of rep[ly.
The facts remain however that there is an abundance of evidence that (a) The security forces had active agents at all levels of the Provisional IRA and (b) British agents including many within the ranks of the “Loyalist” armed cells assassinated targets chosen by the security forces and set off bombs in “Nationalist” pubs and in other public places.
Do you dispute either of my assertions?
As to the Mau Mau “rebellion” do you dispute the fact that the British employed most of Kikuyu ‘terrorist’ gangs which carried out actions to order?
I suspect that you know all these things to be true and, in your usual fashion, are just attempting to divert attention at a time when the public deserves a full and sincere discussion.
In playing this role you are aiding and abetting the terrorists. You would understand this were you not so contemptuous, and fearful of democracy and Free Speech.
“Your second paragraph is unworthy of rep[ly”
__________________
How come, Bevin? It’s full of the sort of conspiracy theories Loons like you love. I was rather hoping for your whole-hearted endorsement! 🙂
I am in complete agreement with Craig. Sadly, our strategy for defeating terrorism goes little deeper than illuminating the Eiffel Tower with the colours of the Belgian flag.
The mainstream media also ignores the fact that Middle Easterners are daily victims of terrorist attacks. That is because our elite opinion-formers prefer not to draw the connexion between Western interventionism and the bloody chaos that it has spawned.
Somewhere along we the road we forgot that actions have consequences.
ahem….somewhere along THE road, not WE road!!
Are you really sad about it?
The rest of your sick comment doesn’t give me that impression at all.
Piss off troll.
and you fcuk yourself, you prize Cnut.
“and you fcuk yourself, you prize Cnut.”
Such a sensitive little troll…..
Fwl
I was not arguing anything, I was stating the opinion of the majority of historians (and my own – which is less important).
BTW, where is the “long-standing conspiracy” you mention under A) towards the end of your post? Your extract could be interpreted as showing a very rapid, opportunistic reaction by the Nazis set against a long-standing aim to bring down any anti-Nazi elements, but I do not see how it shows a long-standing “conspiracy”.
Anyway, I look forward to you continuing the discussion with our Transatlantic Friend and wish you good luck with that! 🙂
Habbs, who is our transatlantic friend? The long standing conspiracy would be the work of Wilhelm Frick and others to undermine the German parliament, seize power and implement a Nazi strategy and ideology. Whether the conspiracy included a false flag Reichstag is unknown or perhaps unlikely or unprovable but. I’m not well versed in this as when I was in School modern European history ended with Versailles. One point I was thinking about and which I should thank Craig, Clarke and the Jewish Virtual Library for is that one doesn’t have to get bogged down in the world of Gladio 9/11 the Reichstag fire etc because you may lose sight of events. Perhaps our Friend Brian Fujisan will appreciate a Kendo metaphor. The kendo practitioner or Samurai has a slow 20 year conspiracy of his body emotions mind and spirit. He then brings the results of those 20 years to the fight with his opponent. Either he strikes first but usually after a feint or he makes use of something his opponent does in which case he has usually brought his opponent there. What counts is the long long set up through discipline and then the speed of reaction when the opportunity arises. It does not matter how the opportunity arises because it surely will (especially with some light meddling etc). Of course it is not difficult to see why people get obsessed because they are questioning what society and life is all about. In doing that they may become unstable and lose credibility (rightly or wrongly so and no doubt there are usually other factors at work). When I read the Shock Doctrine I thought Naomi Klein was copping out and thought she should say more ie as per your call to Craig yesterday, but I see now I was mistaken and Klein and Murray were right not to be draw In, and that perhaps it a tad mischievous to try and provoke Craig into either immediately naming and denouncing or else to assert false flag. Perhaps we should just assume that people are capable of evil as well as goodness, not be surprised by events but watch for reactions wherever there is a Shock sort of event. Enough for now.
Our Transatlantic Friend is “Lysias”.
He has told us a lot about himself over the last year or so and one should believe every word of it.
One should also feel honoured that such a polymath mover and shaker spends so much time posting on this blog (Reichstag fire and so on – nothing more recent that the President Kennedy conspiracy theory) 🙂
Ad hominem tu quoque
Not a surprise to hear that two of the suspected Belgian terrorists ‘ were known to the security services.’ This is becoming a regular post script to these events. Your paragraph asking for old fashioned intelligence work hits the nail on the head. All this mass surveillance wastes untold hours and diverts focus away from the real bad guys. Alienation of a whole religion is not the way to encourage followers to snitch on the extremists either.
Our security is in the hands of idiots and fools.
Compare and contrast to the operation of the spy catchers of WW2.
Sorry to correct your rant but the two suicide bombers were not known to the security services. They were known to the police for various criminal offences which were not terrorism-related (car-jackings, armed robbery…).
So, far from being correct, your post in fact makes the case for (1) much better liaison between the police and the security services – every criminal should also be made known to the security services, especially if violence was involved and (2) much more mass surveillance , primarily of electronic communications but also of social media, etc. and also of those whom one might call “objective sympathisers”. Plus – in the Belgian case – far more use of CCTV (lamentably under-used at present).
If the usual liberal-lefties complain, they can complain to IS Central Command.
You mean the same IS terrorists who are being armed by Turkey. You know, Turkey – an ally in our bombing campaign in Syria. Or is that too ‘ranty’ for you.
Shelter inside your surveillance state and enjoy a lifetime of peace, tranquility and ignorance.
Have you seen ‘Brazil’ the film by Terry Gilliam?
Have they found the slightly singed passports or Korans yet?
And was an identical and simultaneous security drill taking place? And what about all the CTTV footage from the scene? The blast should have captured from several angles.
First, let me be absolutely clear that I condemn the latest Belgian terrorist outrage – their can be no ‘moral’ excuses whatsoever for the killing of innocents by anyone.
Secondly, anyone who is shocked that Belgium has joined a growing list of nations targeted by Jihadis needs their heads examined – it was an incident waiting to happen, despite any and all security measures adopted by numerous Western nations.
I’m not getting into a flame war, CM makes valid points, and despite the continual threat of IRA outrages on mainland UK, life went on and we as citizens enjoyed greater civil rights than we do today – strange that!
Suffice to say much of the West has blood on its hands for activities of a dubious nature in many foreign lands, as such perhaps a more introvert approach to foreign policy is called for given the huge economic issues confronting many first world nations.
For the benefit of readers, Sic Semper Tyrannis highlighted more than a year ago the potential for Jihadist outrages in Belgium believing it to be a case of not ‘if’ but ‘when’. And so it comes to pass.
Here’s the SST post one is referring too and I’m confident that not even the resident dissidents can argue with this analysis in the wake of yesterdays attacks.
Further, lets not make any excuses, I’m quick enough to attack Israel for its outrages and as such will attack the mad Jihadists for the current attacks – lets just hope the Russians obliterate ISIS in Syria in coalition with the R+6 forces and that the West, instead of condemning Russia for its actions, actually join the coalition to remove this scourge from the Earth.
SST Link (Comment Encouraged):http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/03/the-belgian-syndrome-from-rear-base-to-front-line-state-for-european-jihadis.html
I have to say that I’m a little sceptical about the notion that if we just stopped dropping bombs on Daesh, people would stop blowing things up over here. Not to mention that, even if that were true, I still don’t think that that is very good reason not to pick up arms and by opposing end them. Remember Ex Parte Quirin, about the Nazi saboteurs (=terrorists) sent to the United States? That wasn’t exactly a reason for the US to stop fighting against the Germans.
“I’m a little sceptical about the notion that if we just stopped dropping bombs on Daesh, people would stop blowing things up over here”
I think you’re wise to be sceptical. After all, only the Russians have been bombing “ISIS” since around October and Russia doesn’t appear to be bearing the brunt of recent attacks.
Your skepticism works if you believe that the world is shaped by what has happened in the last 6 months. I suspect the repeated invasions and interferences over centuries should be not simply forgotten in an assessment of how foreign policy might drive terrorism.
In fact in Craig’s defence even he didn’t reduce it to bombing Daesh. You did that. Although the authors timeline of the last tens years is also hilariously stupid. And his use of the judgement success/failure a distraction.
Even assuming that is true – across those same centuries many more Muslims were killed by other Muslims than by anyone else – that does not mean that a policy of strict non-intervention would improve things. Then we’d simply get blamed, quite possibly by people like you and Craig, for looking away and not caring about the suffering of people in Aleppo and other places.
Sorry Martinned but the “damned if we do, damned if we don’t argument” is dead in the water. I don’t know of any country that was targetted by a terrorist attack specifically for not intervening in another country’s affairs.
The evidence is quite clear liberal military interventionism is a feelgood philosophy that has caused far more damage than good. Only its sweet rhetoric distinguishes it from its deranged twin brother neoconservatism.
You say “feelgood” I say getting rid of Daesh helps everyone. If you want a simple answer, it would probably be that muddling around without either really intervening or staying out is what gets you in trouble. Daesh couldn’t organise any terrorist attacks if they were all dead or on trial.
That’s how you respond to a reference to centruies of interference and invasion? You assume it might be true.
Not intrigued enough to find out? Not really interested? Too busy using terror murders for cheap political point scoring on twitter?
Hilariously stupid. Even for an EU lovin’ “econ guy” blogger.
If only things were so simple. Maybe in addition to not bombing Daesh it would also be helpful to stop supporting them, and to compel various Gulf state allies to stop supporting them. As you are so keen on sources try and get hold of a copy of the Chicago Post dated November 6 2015.
Am I supposed to go to my local library and consult the Chicago Post on microfiche? If you have an article in mind, link it. Otherwise, I’m going to take the liberty to assume that you’re, once again, spinning ridiculous conspiracy theories.
I am told that the internet works for most people, but you are at liberty to proceed how you wish. You are also free to assume whatever you wish.
There is however no evidence to support your assertion that I am “spinning ridiculous conspiracy theories” for the simple reason that I am not. Everything I have written is supported by evidence. That you are either too lazy or too stupid to verify that for yourself is your problem.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you consider it more worthwhile to resort to puerile ad-hominem responses rather then seek to develop an understanding of reality for yourself
Why? Cost/benefit analysis… (Or, to be more precise, Von Neumann/Morgenstern expected utility optimisation in the presence of uncertainty.)
Just to help improve Martinned’s optimisation and cost/benefit analysis…is this what you are on about? What on earth is this doing in what I assume is an American major Newspaper? Is the editor still O.K.??
http://chicagopost.net/world-news/alarming-evidence-suggests-isis-is-now-a-us-israel-proxy-army/
http://chicagopost.net/world-news/alarming-evidence-suggests-isis-is-now-a-us-israel-proxy-army/
I like that the article comes with a detailed set of sources. That’s how you’re supposed to use the internet. And clearly the point about Gulf States supporting loonies is well made. About the US, the main conclusion still seems to be that “That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course”, so not that crazy. Just a case of changing priorities. Ousting Assad seems less of a priority now than it was a couple of years ago.
Here, I’ve done the work for you:
http://chicagopost.net/world-news/alarming-evidence-suggests-isis-is-now-a-us-israel-proxy-army/
Yes, you and two other people. That still doesn’t answer the question of what, exactly (the) Chicago Post is.
Just curious, but what exactly ‘is’ the chicago post? It doesn’t seem to be a newspaper although the site clearly is supposed to look like one and there is a claim of it being such. There is no news more recent than last November, mostly all by the same writer and showing a far higher proportion of Russian information than I would expect from a local Chicago news source.
The story linked was reported by many web sites. It concerns an Al Jazeera inteview in which the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (U.S. Army intelligence) confirmed that the U.S. government had knowledge of ISIS fighting against Assad in Syria in 2012 and supported what they were doing.
Geoff, You are not supposed to notice that – and I didn’t even bother looking, to see if it was a “real” American newspaper, rather some a one man band “Russian” website pretending to look like one. I trust your analysis is correct. I don’t watch the telly, but occasionally watch Youtube videos…
This looks pretty professional to me – in fact the guy with the tinfoil hat (Ben Swann) even interviews Obama…but maybe he faked it all, using the very latest technology.
“The Origins of ISIS. Created by “Direct” Action of the United States Government ”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-origins-of-isis-created-by-direct-action-of-the-united-states-government/5445312?print=1
Tony
Habba- your correction made at 09.50 to Stuart Graham’s comment about the Belgian security service’s ‘knowledge’ of the 2 alleged suicide bombers is most welcome.
As Craig has declared this blog a Cybernat blog I’m somewhat surprised that the red meat of Viktor Orban’s speech in defence of the Hungarian nation, posted by Fredi at 23.49 last night, has not been picked up by other commenters, whether pro or anti. One part of his speech I would have thought could be interpreted as equally relevant to both Scotland and Hungary, namely his opposition to EU imposed refugee quotas. He said Hungary would not accept these as he wanted ‘no immigrant riots, and no gangs hunting down our wives and daughters’ in his country.
Of course England has experienced both these phenomena in recent years, but Scotland, where non European immigration has been historically low, and where no urban centres have been captured politically by this demographic, has not. If Sturgeon were a real genuine nationalist she would see the logic of Orban’s position, but instead her party ignores him and his Fidesz party like a bad smell.
I saw the Hungarian PM Victor Orban’s forthright speech on line, but don’t know what to make of it.
Today we had two Belgian Ministers talked out of resigning by their PM ‘because of the security failings in their departments.’
Open your mind and let some facts in.
Stuart Graham- that is true, but neither you Habba or I knew on wednesday morning about the deportation by the Turks of one of the Brussels bombers, and the failure by the Belgian state subsequently to surveil him.
Jim Stone is a “nutty” conspiracy theorist who currently claims..”Brussels bombings
I am back. I am, at present, working via a spook’s remote desktop, a fact I can see as plain as day but have no choice but to do it.”
He then wrote the following which is interesting (though inconclusive).
“Here is a major screw up in the story line:
OK, here is one hole I found – PressTV reported that three suicide vests had been found in the Brussels air port. A calling card you know, like all those passports that miraculously show up everywhere. QUESTION: What idiot would leave suicide vests laying around to be discovered? I was going to wait for their final screw up with this before I nailed them, but they paused the Western media with the suicide vest lie, but the third world has this in abundance. And there is a problem with the suicide vest story that cannot be resolved –
Whenever a suspected explosive device is found, they blow it up on the spot because it is considered too dangerous to touch, and they accept the damage. But with these “suicide vests”, which have now been found for over four hours, nothing of the sort happened, no more blasts were reported, blasts which would have had to happen if they really did find these vests. No such story would have permeated the third world media, INCLUDING PRESSTV if someone in Brussels had not said it, which means this is a false flag with fakery being puffed, just like all those passports and ID cards they miraculously find when needed to prop up a story line.
OK, THEY ARE IRREVOCABLY BUSTED: Here is the cookie! All media outlets are reporting that “other explosive devices have been found” which would include the “suicide vests” yet nothing has been done to deal with them. TIME IS UP, ALL OF THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BLOWN UP ON THE SPOT BY NOW, and the fact no more blasts were reported as police blew the additional explosive devices up where they sat, without touching them, for safety reasons, AS HAPPENS EVERYWERE ANY BOMB IS FOUND VERY QUICKLY EVERY TIME proves they never existed and were used to seed this story line, which is probably entirely false. I’ll go with mine – Unwitting package carriers were unknowingly carrying bombs rather than Pizza and sushi, and when they got to the right place, the bombs were called via the cell network and set off.
No subsequent “safety” blasts reported within 4 hours of the additional explosive devices being found proves this is yet another hoaked up false flag story line.”
I think he may be barking (up the wrong tree that is) on this occasion but I did once read Jim Stone’s work on Fukishima and thought it contained some useful observations.
I think it is Craig who misses the point.
Do you really think those at the top do not realise that their anti-terror measures have no meaningful impact upon terrorism? Of course they realise that.
It is not about terrorism; it is about surveiling us. When I saw a plane fly into a tower on September the 11th 2001, my first thought was: “they’ll use this for everything they can screw out of it.” And, before you could blink we had the USAPATRIOT Act. One of the most pernicious pieces of legislation in the western world.
Since then the same excuse (occasionally enjoined by prevention of child abuse and money laundering) has been used to justify watching our bank accounts; our internet activity; our travel arrangements; and how often we fart.
It is all bullshit. Those in power want more and more and more power over us. They always do.
Bert.
Well, that or they think that security theatre calms people down and wins votes. Occam’s razor, etc.
Indeed and lets them keep the airlines in business
And, before you could blink we had the USAPATRIOT
…. and the UK Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Never let civilian terror go to waste. Our government managed to pass all the clauses which were rejected from the Terrorism Act 2000 for being too extreme.
“And, before you could blink we had the USAPATRIOT Act. One of the most pernicious pieces of legislation in the western world”
It was so long and complex it had to have been drafted before 9/11. It was pushed through the Senate so quickly that senators did not have time to read it. This is largely thanks to the efforts of Tom Daschle, then leader of the Senate, who a few days earlier had been sent anthrax.
A lot of the provisions of the USAPATRIOT Act were already in a bill that Bill Clinton presented to Congress during his presidency that the then Republican Congress rejected at the time. It was just a big wish list of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. After 9/11 occurred, the wish list that had been prepared years before was just resurrected.
Thank you for knocking on the head that the Patriot Act was a conspiracy.
The fact that the wish list already existed neither proves nor disproves that 9/11 was a conspiracy. The lists used by the Nazi government to round up Communists and other undesirables (in the view of the Nazis) the very evening of the Reichstag Fire were a modified version of lists that had been prepared by the Prussian political police under Rudolf Diels the previous year, 1932, when Papen was Chancellor. The lists were modified in that Nazis were eliminated from them and Socialists and liberals were added. The modification was done by the same Rudolf Diels, now head of the new Gestapo, which was just the same old Prussian political police, now with increased powers and with civil servants deemed too loyal to the Weimar institutions eliminated. The fact that the lists already existed does not prove that the Reichstag Fire was not a conspiracy. As readers of this forum know, I believe that it was a conspiracy of the Nazi government (actually coalition government led by a Nazi Chancellor) and that historians have now proved that fact.
No theory-53 admitted false flag attacks:
http://tapnewswire.com/2016/03/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/
Jim Stone has just about everything wrong about the Tohoku earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the resulting Fukushima disaster.
And the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress and signed by GW to hide the counterterrorist screwup in mistaking the 19 suicide bombers on 9/11 for just hijackers.
Yep, that makes perfect sense. It was rushed through because they wanted to hide their mistake in confusing suicide bombers who hijacked the plane with hijackers who hijacked the plane – seven of whom were miraculously found to be still alive in various countries afterwards. Did they also rush the Patriot act and others like it through because the two towers disappeared into dust and buidling 7 miraculously fell on its own, and no real investigation has taken place and Bin laden has never even been on the FBI’s most wanted list? Yep,that definately would make perfect sense
How does suggesting that a terrorist incident might in fact be a false flag amount to an apology for terrorism? After all, whoever is responsible for the terrorist incident, the people who suggest it might be a false flag are disapproving of the terrorism, not approving it. It’s just that, if they’re right, the blame belongs to other parties besides the Islamist apparent perpetrators.
Saying that the Paris and Brussels terrorist attacks are false flags is a way of denying that Islamic terrorism exists and is directed against Western states. In that sense it is an apology for terrorism.
How is it a denial that Islamic terrorism exists? Mightn’t Islamic terrorism exist and be used as an instrument of power by Western governments (with the perpetrators being useful idiots and only the heads of the terrorist organizations aware of who is really calling the shots)?
If one persists in saying that Islamic terrorism is really directed by the West one is in effect denying that there is such a thing as authentic Islamic terrorism.
Anyway, that’s all the attention you’re going to get from me today, I wouldn’t wish to distract you from your work in your Washington lawyer’s office (or whatever) 🙂
Operation Gladio, CIA Fethullah Gulen schools, CIA training of ISIS in Jordan, Israel patching up ISIS in Israel, Turkey murdering journalists who reported WFP trucks feeding ISIS in Syria, No drones taking out ISIS. Roland Dumas and MI6? The burden of proof is on the breast feeders of MSM to prove this is not a state engineered attack. PS. Google Dancing Israelis and verify everything you can unless the truth offends you.
@Habbakuk
“If one persists in saying that Islamic terrorism is really directed by the West one is in effect denying that there is such a thing as authentic Islamic terrorism”
Cognitive dissonance much? Both exist, both are bad – they are mutually beneficial for each other at this point, This shouldn’t be a difficult concept to grasp.
Your point lacks logic. It is like saying if one accepts that the operations of the Shell Oil Company is directed by its management then one is in effect denying that there is such a thing as authentic Shell workers.
Habbabkuk,
Are you O.K. ? “that’s all the attention you’re going to get from me today”
You’ve been on fine form since the very start of the Terrorist attack yesterday…in fact I think you wrote about it – here – before it was even on the Telly.
You must be totally exhausted. Yes, I know you’ve slagged almost everyone off here, but you did it with such style – we really appreciated it.
Tony
It’s notorious how bin Laden was in the pay of the CIA in the years leading up to 9/11. According to Sibel Edmonds, those payments continued until the very day of 9/11. Bombshell: Bin Laden Worked for US Until 9/11: Sibel Edmonds on the Mike Malloy radio show.
Why couldn’t something similar be true of ISIS?
“I have to say that I’m a little sceptical about the notion that if we just stopped dropping bombs on Daesh, people would stop blowing things up over here..”
Are you equally sceptical of the idea that if we simply stopped supplying terrorists with training, arms and munitions they might find it harder to blow things up ‘over here’?
Of course the problem that would arise is that it would also make it tougher for them to blow things up ‘over there.’
And ‘over there’ in Syria, Libya and Iraq, for example, is where the analogy between traffic casualties and terrorist victims really stops working: there are bombings in Iraq every day in which dozens are killed.
There are tens of thousands of terrorists, armed to the teeth, trained and paid by our own governments, roaming around the middle east and committing crimes in countries such as Russia and China.
There are mosques in every country in Europe, financed and staffed by agents of Saudi Arabia which are not merely tolerated by our governments but welcomed for the work they do in combating secular nationalists, socialists and-the real ‘moderates’ -anti-wahhabi muslims.
Yet another person who suddenly doesn’t care about the inhabitants of Syria anymore. Assad less of a priority now that a few bombs exploded near white people? Noted…
What nonsense! The problem lies in the strategy of using terrorism and suicide bombers to as a substitute for politics.
It was the “west” which introduced the bombers and the armed militias, the snipers and the sword wielding executioners into Syria. And now some of them- for they have nothing but contempt for the people who they understand are manipulating them- have returned to Europe.
As to Assad’s political future I have no more interest in it than Obama’s, Hollande’s or yours: I am very much opposed to the use of suicide bombers to determine any of theirs.
Like your mentor Habbbkuk you are becoming expert in changing the subject and instantly resorting to ad hominems: grow up.
Agreed. Martinned is somehow trying to shame us for not being do-gooder liberal interventionists. I’ve seen better emotional blackmail in third rate soap operas.
Actually, I don’t have very strong views about whether we should intervene in Syria, and how and when. But then I’m probably well to the right from most commenters here.
The things I was trying to highlight were a) hypocrisy and b) cowardice disguised as hypocrisy.
It is not my government’s job to be obsessed with Assad or the Syrian people. My government’s job is to look after the welfare of the British people and pursue policies that do not endanger its security. The blowback from the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Gaddafi, the supply of weapons to jihadists in the Syria conflict are all examples of how American and British leaders have consistently worked against the interests of its citizens (and those of Iraqis, Syrian and Libyans as it happens).
Incidentally, the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad has long been a foreign policy objective of the US:
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath
and it was reaffirmed by Hillary Clinton:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328#efmADMAFf
On that theme, there was some resistance to the Patriot act, Senator Leah was objecting and holding it up, Well he was until his secretary received an Anthrax letter, the media then went bat $h1t crazy declaring that the dreaded ‘terrorists’ had gotten their hands on weapons grade Anthrax . The Patriot act, written years before the ‘catalysing event’ then passed without been even read by that poor joke called the US congress.
The VERY important thing to remember about this fiasco was the absolutely verified, undeniable FACT that the Anthrax attacks latter proved to be the very definition of…read carefully…. ‘an inside job’, ‘false flag terrorism’, ‘ a psychological operation’ .
The weapons grade anthrax came from a US government biological warfare laboratory in Maryland if I remember correctly. So those statist boot lickers who howl with indignation at the mention of false flag terrorism can, frankly, go f*** themselves.
The weapons grade anthrax came from a US government biological warfare laboratory in Maryland if I remember correctly.
You do remember correctly, it was Fort Derrick, Maryland. From 2001 to 2008, the deed was blamed on a bio-weapons expert named Steven Hatfill. “In March 2008 authorities exonerated Hatfill and settled the lawsuit he initiated for $5.8 million.” The blame was then switched to Bruce Ivins, a Fort Derrick laboratory worker with psychiatric problems. Shortly after, he was found dead and it was declared a suicide without an autopsy being carried out. 8 days after his death “federal prosecutors declared Ivins to be the sole culprit of the crime.” “No formal charges were ever actually filed against him for the crime, and no direct evidence of his involvement has been uncovered.”
[All quotes from Wikipedia]
Lessons have been learned. Next time anthrax is used in a terrorism incident, it will not be so straightforward to trace it back to it’s source. By “accidentally” sending live anthrax to 194 labs all over the world over several years, Dugdale Proving Ground in Utah have ensured that there’s enough non-attributable bacteriological agent out there to cover all future rogue senator disciplining requirements.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-army-anthrax-review-20160115-story.html
. It was pushed through the Senate so quickly that senators did not have time to read it. This is largely thanks to the efforts of Tom Daschle, then leader of the Senate, who a few days earlier had been sent anthrax.
MJ, if this is correct , my apologies for the mistake.
They didn’t read the Affordable Care Act either. Is not reading the bill only a problem when it’s something you disagree with?
Craig
“It is a truism that alienation of young Muslim men from the societies they live in has motivated several terrorists. That same alienation affects young non-Muslims too, as a generation faces crippling debt, unfulfilling, unprotected and low paid work and an unconsidered life in a society skewed to support the extravagant lifestyles of a tiny minority of the ultra-wealthy.”
______________________
So both young Muslims and young non-Muslims are alienated.
Do you have any ideas why only the alienated young Muslims should be blowing people up to kingdom come.
Is it because their relatives have been blown up by a drone?
Not in Morocco or Algeria, they haven’t.
So perhaps it’s a reaction to a Western “attack on their religion”?
If it’s that, then it’s a religious war as far as they’re concerned?
And if it’s that, then does the attitude of those leaders who won’t accept Muslim asylum-seekers become more understandable?
Wait, so something becomes a religious war because some people successfully managed to spin it that way? Don’t we get a say in what is or isn’t a religious war?
Well, that’s how it’s spun – especially by those trying to justify Islamic terrorism without making it look like it.
Are you in padded cell?
You ought to be!!
Talking to yourself and answering your own questions most certainly is the signs of; it is time for your vacation in the padded cell!
Twaddle abound can only conclude in twaddle and nothing else.
The VERY important thing to remember about this fiasco was the absolutely verified, undeniable FACT that the Anthrax attacks latter proved to be the very definition of…read carefully…. ‘an inside job’, ‘false flag terrorism’, ‘ a psychological operation’ .
However this statement (above) is irrefutable.
Very good book on the anthrax attacks is The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy by Graeme MacQueen.
Highly impressive real time video fakery. I honestly didn’t think this was yet possible in Real Time….but look at the source. This has all kinds of implications with regards to the topic under discussion. In fact this is so impressive, that it makes me wonder why – some of the recent releases from the likes of SITE – have been so amateurish. How come Rita Katz hasn’t got this yet?
“Face2Face: Real-time Face Capture and Reenactment of RGB Videos”
http://www.graphics.stanford.edu/~niessner/thies2016face.html
Oh come come. The burden of proof is on the state to show this is not another Gladio styled social engineering attack.
Chris Jones, you are as bad a troll as Dr. Jim Fetzer et al.
You are just using surprises like the collapses of the building, and the appearance of seven people who had the same names or were using false identities as seven on the four planes to imply that the suicide bombings never occurred.
Do you really think that there were no planes, no passengers, and only lying survivors and the Pentagon about what never happened?
If so, you are simply nuts or are even worse than a big troll.
Trowbridge H Ford – I have to inform you that you’re not making any sense at all and sound derranged. “You are just using surprises like the collapses of the building” ??? I’m just using ‘surprises’ like the collapses of the building?? I think the never before seen nattural demolition collapse of giant structures that disappear in to thin air in front of our eyes and the resulting unfounded illegal invasion of sovereign countries and unconstitutional acts at home is a bit more than a suprise. This has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be an inside job. The only question is are there enough people in authority in America and elsewhere to demand true justice for the victims and expose poorly trained, tired co intel pros such as yourself
There was no disappearance of the three buildings into thin air.
They were carried away in 106,000 truck loads, carrying 1.6 million tons of debris, to the landfill in Staten Island.
What caused it after the two planes from Boston hit the WTC is anyone’s guess, but it seems like a stockpile of some combustable in them triggered it.
And I am just a retired politics college teacher, no co intel pro.
And it hasn’t been proven an inside job, though the liberties that the Bush administration, especially Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tenet, took over the surprises is beyond dispute.
I think you should take a look at Dr Judy Wood’s work regarding the disappearing twin towers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML8CJp9Ha14 Evidence is the truth that theory must mimic
I think you should also ask why some of the surviving steel beams and plane parts were immediately taken away from a crime scene and melted down before any investigation and how was the US Army Corps immediately able to start loading the evidence in to trucks to take ways from the crime scene.
This was an inside job
Dr. Judy Wood just fantasizes about about the collapsing buildings, just like you.
Don’t know about the claims you are making without any evidence or links about what happened after the WTC came down, but it still doesn’t prove that it was an inside job.
And what about crashing that plane into the Pentagon which killed plot leader Barbara Olson for rounding up the hijackers at LA, and the plane which was shot down in Pennsylvania when the seven unarmed agents finally were regaining control of it.
And who were the other eight agents, all on the passenger lists, who the government refuses to identify?
Just too messy to be any inside job.
Trowbridge H Ford – You’ve hardly got the energy to even try and sound convincing anymore have you?
Hard to work up enough energy to sound convincing at this late date to a poster who knows hardly anything about the 9/11 attacks, especially since I wrote a double article for Issue Eight of Eye Spy magazine in 2002 which spelled out the whole cockup.
Go read.
Have you a link to that article, Trowbridge.
Sorry Herbie, but I don’t, though I have looked for it many times. Never thought it would be necessary because apparently 750,000 copies of it were printed.
Editor Mark Ian Birdsall is a real bastard, victimizing his contributors by sitting on their efforts, and getting away with paying them nothing.
I tried to get him to cough up 3,000 pounds he owed me, but he provided nothing, explaining I would have to make it worth 5,000 if I took him to court to even break even.
I am willing to post it on here if the mods can give me space and to type it up or am willing to fax you a copy or even email you a copy if you send your email to [email protected]
Please share it Trowbridge, really. I’m always open to see any evidence that refutes the 911 attacks as being an inside job. In fact I would personally call anyone that denies that it was an inside job a conspiracy theorist but I would still listen to any points they had to make with an open mind. Could you perhaps summarise what you think happened on 911 as well whilst we’re at it?
It seems likely that this now has a momentum of its own. Our unending (since the 1973 oil embargo) support for Saudi Arabia et al, prime exporters of toxic clerical fascism, combined with Iran’s clerical fascist regime’s regional ambitions, with NATO supporting one side and Russia, the other, and the deliberate destruction by the USA/UK et al of of Iraq, Libya and Syria… and here we are. Let’s not forget that right now, we – NATO – are supporting Jihadists in Syria. That will not stop them from attacking European cities when they get the chance.
The ideological problem wrt the recent attacks in Europe/Asia/Africa/North America/Australia resides in what Salafism has become (supremacist, postmodern) and its power – paid for by billions of petrodollars over four decades – over the public discourse in Muslim societies.
And for those of you who would prefer their ‘natives’ to be always Nativist, and who view everyone who does not conform to that British colonialist model, I would say this. You are propounding the narrative of the Great White Saviour and this attitude is just as racist as those who openly attack Muslim people.
Finally, a little reminder, perhaps, that there are decent people everywhere, even at AIPAC meetings:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hundreds-rabbis-walk-out-donald-trumps-pro-israel-speech-protest-hate-bigotry-1550882
This supports your view.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160323/1036837234/europe-brussels-radical-islamism.html
It also suggests that the alleged bombers were indeed known to the Belgian Security agencies, not as petty criminals but as members of the NATO offensive in Syria against the government.
Piss off with your line;
Pathetic attempt in genuflecting to “prevent”!!!!
Do you really think before you start clattering on that keyboard?
You just like throwing labels “fascist” my arse! If a fascist got up and slapped you silly you would probably think it was a “salafist” wet kipper mate.
What the fuck has Nato got anything to do in that neighbourhood? Take a look at the goolge maps and see that Russia is keeping it’s neighbourhood clean of the neocon “ambitions”!!!!
I’ve been wondering about that, actually. Who ever put Russia in charge of its “neighbourhood”?
To the extent that Putin is trying to reassert Russian control over the former Tsarist dominions, is he not a “neo-conservative” himself?
Fedup
Your repeated raging use of the word “genuflecting” makes me laugh. Not sure why. Just does. Please continue.
The Saudi Air Force, which committed this crime, is advised, supplied and, to an extent, manned by agents of the British and US governments.
Needless to say it also benefits from the compliance of our media in whitewashing campaigns against civilians which use far more than ‘barrel bombs.’
For this, as for the military assistance they receive, the Sauds pay large amounts of money, including the making of substantial donations to corrupt politicians.
“”Around midday on March 15, fighter jets from a Saudi-led coalition bombed a market in Mastaba, in Yemen’s northern province of Hajjah. The latest count indicates that about 120 people were killed, including more than 20 children, and 80 were wounded in the strikes — perhaps the deadliest attack yet in a war that has killed more than 6,000 civilians.” “While the horrific terrorist attacks against civilians in Europe receive extensive media coverage, the U.S.-supported bombings of civilians in Yemen get scant attention.”
https://theintercept.com/