4 More blasts in London

[sidekick]

^read her post. she never said that they didn't happen or that the guy pulls stuff out of nowhere. she said that you look too deep into things and make connections where there probably aren't any. he pulls connections out of nowhere and ties things together that probably shouldn't be related.

[wum]

Here's a question: If Scotland Yard has admitted that they knew a terrorist attack was about to go down, and curiously only warn Benjamin Netanyahu, why were they saying that it was power surges for an hour and a half after the incident??

[wum]

hold on... PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF A TERRORIST ATTACK IS A VAGUE CONNECTION??

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by wum

hold on... PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF A TERRORIST ATTACK IS A VAGUE CONNECTION??

ugh, looooord. i never mentioned any specific connections that he has tied together vaguely. automatic pointed most of them out in a post that DJ Franco has conveniently chosen to ignore.

i'm not saying the situation isn't sketchy and i'm not saying i know everything about what happened. but just because the government doesn't inform the public that there is a threat of a terrorist attack or that they know one is going to happen doesn't mean that they are the ones that orchestrated it. the government usually doesn't inform the public about those matters because it would cause mass panic...whether that is the best decision or not i have no idea.

i think we have all seen Men In Black.

[wum]

Question: is the war in Iraq really about liberating people and spreading democracy, or consolidating oil?

[sidekick]

Question: why can't it be about all three?

Question #2: why do you usually respond to peoples posts by posing questions that didn't really have that much connection to their original post instead of actually answering them?

[stephen_c]

this is quite nerve-racking, i have family in london.

[Kraig]

I'm going to London dammit! Sheeeeiiit.

[Dj Franco]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

ugh, looooord. i never mentioned any specific connections that he has tied together vaguely. automatic pointed most of them out in a post that DJ Franco has conveniently chosen to ignore.

i'm not saying the situation isn't sketchy and i'm not saying i know everything about what happened. but just because the government doesn't inform the public that there is a threat of a terrorist attack or that they know one is going to happen doesn't mean that they are the ones that orchestrated it. the government usually doesn't inform the public about those matters because it would cause mass panic...whether that is the best decision or not i have no idea.

i think we have all seen Men In Black.

Well i guess its pretty sad that Benjamin Netanyahu was warned ahead of time off this attack but not the 56 people who died. Why weren't they warned. Question, if he was warned why didn't they stop it, why didnt they close down the stations, evacuate everyone. Im sure they could have stopped it, after all they practice these same situations. Why did they say for an hour that it was power surges if they knew ahead of time before it even happened that it was a terrorist attack. But the biggest question is, HOW did they know there was gonna be a terrorist attack that day. Do they communicate with the terrorists, do the terrorists tip off goverment officials, or is the government the terrorists. I'd vote for the the last one but I really care less what sidekick,automatic or Miss Myra thinks, Im just here to inform people of whats happening whether they believe me right now or not. But one thing i know is for sure, you guys will believe it one day. A one World goverment, cashless society, national id cards, implanted microships, 80% population deduction, thats all coming i can guarentee you. Im done with this thread, have fun with them Wum

[sidekick]

^haha. i thought you were ignorant before, but now i think you're insane and ignorant.

you think you know everything and you think you have all the answers, but you don't. i don't, wum doesn't, your saviours on their internet blogs don't either. what you have is speculative answers and you're taking those for fact.

maybe the government heard about the terrorist attack because they have upped security in the last little while. it's possible. maybe they didn't close down the train stations because they didn't know for sure what and where and when the terrorists were going to bomb london and so they didn't want to cause a mass panic (which is what would have happened if the government shut down transit because of terrorists...people would have freaked out). the government isn't perfect, obviously, but just because they failed to protect their people from this attack doesn't mean that they conducted it themselves.

i know you said you were done with this thread, but i figure you'll read this even if you don't respond. i'm glad you don't care what anyone else thinks that has a different opinion than you, i'm sure you'll learn things that way. good on you.

[Dj Franco]

maybe they didn't close down the train stations because they didn't know for sure what and where and when the terrorists were going to bomb london and so they didn't want to cause a mass panic

haha I have to post again, its like watching a car wreck. You are the one that is ignorant my friend. If they were so clueless of how, where and when the attack was gonna happen, how would they conduct a drill on the SAME day, at the SAME stations, at the SAME time. 365 days in a year, 24 hours in a day, god know how many stations there is in London. I bet theres better chances of you winning the lottery. I feel like i am talking to children, i have never to repeat something to someone so many times for them to understand that the odds of that are not coincedence. And if you look at the bigger picture, of how they did the same drills on 911 on the same day, same time, same place, the odds get even worse, were talking numbers we can't even post on here.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

Question: why can't it be about all three?

Question #2: why do you usually respond to peoples posts by posing questions that didn't really have that much connection to their original post instead of actually answering them?

Because there's a very strong thread of denial that runs through most people, i.e. "how could a country attack its own people just for financial or political gain???"

How can they kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on bogus evidence?

There's nothing they won't do.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Dj Franco

haha I have to post again, its like watching a car wreck. You are the one that is ignorant my friend. If they were so clueless of how, where and when the attack was gonna happen, how would they conduct a drill on the SAME day, at the SAME stations, at the SAME time. 365 days in a year, 24 hours in a day, god know how many stations there is in London. I bet theres better chances of you winning the lottery. I feel like i am talking to children, i have never to repeat something to someone so many times for them to understand that the odds of that are not coincedence. And if you look at the bigger picture, of how they did the same drills on 911 on the same day, same time, same place, the odds get even worse, were talking numbers we can't even post on here.

well, if the government knew about the terrorist attacks just like you said they did, then isn't it possible that they had those drills set up so they would be more prepared if their information was right and the terrorists DID attack as they said they would. maybe they thought that would be better than alerting the public and shutting down london when they didn't really know what was going to happen.

and for the last time, i'm not saying you're wrong about everything. i'm just saying that you seem to be so deep in these theories that you are unwilling to look at things from another angle.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by wum

How can they kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on bogus evidence?

i agree, they had no evidence that there was WMD's in Iraq...that was blatanly fabricated so Bush could go in because he more than likely wanted control of Iraq's oil. i completely believe that. but now that they're there i think the war has also turned into a war for the freedom of the general iraqi population and the instalment of democracy. so yes, i think it can be a greedy war about oil, but also a war about democracy at the same time.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

i agree, they had no evidence that there was WMD's in Iraq...that was blatanly fabricated so Bush could go in because he more than likely wanted control of Iraq's oil. i completely believe that. but now that they're there i think the war has also turned into a war for the freedom of the general iraqi population and the instalment of democracy. so yes, i think it can be a greedy war about oil, but also a war about democracy at the same time.

c'mon man. "Democracy" is a pretext. If anything, it'll be a puppet american government. But my main point is, if these people have no compunction with MAKING UP EVIDENCE and killing hundreds of thousands, and salting the earth with depleted uranium to secure resources for their capitalist owners, why is it inconcievable that they'd take out 55+ Britons in London?

[sidekick]

^because it is WAY riskier for the government to have an operation like that than to make up lies about things happening in Iraq just so they can get their grubby hands on some oil.

edit: it's also way more unbelievable that the US and British government would attack and terrorize their own citizens just so they could gain some more Orwellian type control over them and have more power. there are much easier ways this could be done without attacking their own citizens. just look how much bush did after 9/11 without any more attacks on U.S. soil. why would they risk attacking their own countries when they can attack other countries and go on the television and make it sound like the States and Britain are going to be attacked and achieve the same fear effect?

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

^because it is WAY riskier for the government to have an operation like that than to make up lies about things happening in Iraq just so they can get their grubby hands on some oil.

Risk is no obstacle.

What say you to Downing street memos? phony Nigerian aluminum tubes? etc. Even when Hans Blix and every weapons inspection team before him said that they found no WMD's they still went with it. Does it look like they give a shit about public sentiment?

Being in denial about government duplicity only gives them a longer leash.

[sidekick]

ps. wouldn't it be easier to pretend to have a terrorist attack as well...instead of actually killing people.

think about it. if the whole reason behind those attacks was so they could show that the patriot act needs to be reinstated and such wouldn't it be a better show if they STOPPED the attack before it happened and then claimed that the patriot act and all the new security features they had installed since 9/11 had worked? why would they stage a real attack that shows all their new security features haven't worked at all? they could pretend that they stopped a fake attack and people would be rallying behind things like the patriot act and crying out about how it saved their lives.

that makes more sense than actually risking killing your own citizens doesn't it?

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

edit: it's also way more unbelievable that the US and British government would attack and terrorize their own citizens just so they could gain some more Orwellian type control over them and have more power. there are much easier ways this could be done without attacking their own citizens. just look how much bush did after 9/11 without any more attacks on U.S. soil. why would they risk attacking their own countries when they can attack other countries and go on the television and make it sound like the States and Britain are going to be attacked and achieve the same fear effect?

Is it really a risk when most people refuse to believe that their government is capable of such a thing? You're looking at this through rose colored lenses.

[wum]

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people
harder than a fear of sudden death."


- Adolf Hitler

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by wum

Is it really a risk when most people refuse to believe that their government is capable of such a thing? You're looking at this through rose colored lenses.

yes it's a risk because these kind of government and corporate scandals have a way of being found out usually. there have to be a certain ammount of people in 'the know' and the more people in 'the know' the more of a chance that it would leak out to the public somehow.

please read my other post about the fake attack, i want to see what you think. it makes more sense than a real attack.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by wum

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people
harder than a fear of sudden death."


- Adolf Hitler

exactly! so why not fake a terrorist attack that the U.S. could say they stopped just in time. that would make more people rally behind the new security laws and give up more of their freedoms because it shows that these things are working. instead of showing that they're not working by actually having explosions and people killed. in the fake attack they still get the fear in people, but they also get none of their citizens killed and they get the citizens thinking that their government saved them with things like the patriot act.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

that makes more sense than actually risking killing your own citizens doesn't it?

The bigger the fireworks, the better.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by wum

The bigger the fireworks, the better.

not in this case.

if the government wants to add more security and invade more personal space then they should show that their current security is doing something. if they showed that it stopped an 'attack' before it happened then people would believe that the security is doing something.

if people actually died in a staged attacked by the government it would show that the new security measures DON'T do anything, which is the opposite of what the government wants, isn't it?

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

not in this case.

if the government wants to add more security and invade more personal space then they should show that their current security is doing something. if they showed that it stopped an 'attack' before it happened then people would believe that the security is doing something.

if people actually died in a staged attacked by the government it would show that the new security measures DON'T do anything, which is the opposite of what the government wants, isn't it?

That's simply not how a protection racket works.

You have to incurr some damage for emotional effect.