And anyway, I was just pointing out the fact that Iranians and Pakistanis are technically NOT[/b] considered "Arab."
Does that make sense? I drank too much coffee today.
Yes.
Please compare the following two quotes.
To me, using the term "Arab" to describe the thought process/methodology of suicide bombers is akin to using the term "African American" or "Black" to describe the process/methodology of gang bangers.
Last week's London explosions carry the characteristic features of a state-sponsored, false flag, synthetic terror provocation by networks within the British intelligence services MI-5, MI-6, the Home Office, and the Metropolitan Police Special Branch[/b] who are favorable to a wider Anglo-American aggressive war in the Middle East, featuring especially an early pre-emptive attack on Iran, with a separate option on North Korea also included.
(note items in bold[/b])
Please believe that it's not the suicide bomber's thought process which is being described. Does that make sense? I'm off my medication today
And anyway, I was just pointing out the fact that Iranians and Pakistanis are technically NOT[/b] considered "Arab."
Does that make sense? I drank too much coffee today.
Yes.
Please compare the following two quotes.
To me, using the term "Arab" to describe the thought process/methodology of suicide bombers is akin to using the term "African American" or "Black" to describe the process/methodology of gang bangers.
Last week's London explosions carry the characteristic features of a state-sponsored, false flag, synthetic terror provocation by networks within the British intelligence services MI-5, MI-6, the Home Office, and the Metropolitan Police Special Branch[/b] who are favorable to a wider Anglo-American aggressive war in the Middle East, featuring especially an early pre-emptive attack on Iran, with a separate option on North Korea also included.
(note items in bold[/b])
Please believe that it's not the suicide bomber's thought process which is being described. Does that make sense? I'm off my medication today
"Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows: It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.
"However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences [??]. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.
"In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
"Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).
Peter Power"
Anyways...
I'm so tired of the media from all points of view.
Prison planet uses fear just as much as any crazed up right wing slag.
It's an endless sick cycle. All I wanna watch the news for is the weather. WEATHER CHANNEL WUT!!!
Even if this is true. The writer using a sort of comedy to make his point where people were killed, does not imopress me much.
I usually believe in a simple answer to a lot of questions. And I always try to take in all sides of discussions. But seriously... Articles (The top 10) like that do just as much harm as Rove telling you who the bad guy is. Do I think governments are the good guy? Hell no. Nor would I want them to be. I'm telling you.. the only ones not messing with you is the weather people. And even they fuck you over once in a blue moon.
I'm also not saying there's no truth to what is being brought out. I just really didn't like the way the top 10 list made such light of people dying in a sort of comedy sense,
But whatever... The world we live in.
What I wouldn't give for a huge shot of positivity in the new. There's not enough dogs saving the day stories in the world!
Doesn't it make sense that a bombing could happen at the same time as a bombing exercise? Wouldn't they conduct these exercises @ times like rush hour when terrorists are most likely to strike? Why would you run an exercise like this at 2 pm? These articles are trying to breed hysteria, and not the good def leppard kind of hysteria...
Doesn't it make sense that a bombing could happen at the same time as a bombing exercise? Wouldn't they conduct these exercises @ times like rush hour when terrorists are most likely to strike? Why would you run an exercise like this at 2 pm? These articles are trying to breed hysteria, and not the good def leppard kind of hysteria...
Dude, you should play the lotto... I hear the Jackpot is the biggest evar!... you could win
I'm also not saying there's no truth to what is being brought out. I just really didn't like the way the top 10 list made such light of people dying in a sort of comedy sense,
It's not a Top Ten List... it's a 10-step illustration of how "simply" such an operation could be carried out by *someone* behind the scenes (ie, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain).
I have failed to see even an ounce of humor in this. I admit it is a very cynical method of illutration, but I'm positive no light is being made of those who died. I guess it all depend on in you're in that cynical frame-of-mind.
Doesn't it make sense that a bombing could happen at the same time as a bombing exercise? Wouldn't they conduct these exercises @ times like rush hour when terrorists are most likely to strike? Why would you run an exercise like this at 2 pm? These articles are trying to breed hysteria, and not the good def leppard kind of hysteria...
Dude, you should play the lotto... I hear the Jackpot is the biggest evar!... you could win
I know what you mean, but I don't think I'm being naive; there are exercises like this being run all the time unbeknownst to the general public. We only hear about them when the shit hits the fan.
you guys are missing the bigger picture of the articles!!!
for fuck's sake, realize that the term Arabs, as used in the 10 steps article, is not a description of the "actual" people currently suspected of carrying out the bombings. The term is used as a catch-all way of describing the thought process/ methodology used by the people *actually* behind the bombings.
I guess everyone just wants to argue for the sake of arguing??
I'm done with this thread, until someone responds with a genuine response about the arguments of the linked articles.
The overwhelming response to the articles is that they are stupid.
I can't understand why people construct wild scenirios to prove that the goverment is currupt when the most basic facts printed in the right wing corprate press already prove that.
The overwhelming response to the articles is that they are stupid.
I can't understand why people construct wild scenirios to prove that the goverment is currupt when the most basic facts printed in the right wing corprate press already prove that.
Dan
In which way are you trying to make sense?
A stupid response, in my opinion would be to imply that someone "manufactured" the scenario, instead of merely pointing out facts supporting the actual existence of the scenario.
The overwhelming response to the articles is that they are stupid.
I can't understand why people construct wild scenirios to prove that the goverment is currupt when the most basic facts printed in the right wing corprate press already prove that.
Dan
In which way are you trying to make sense?
A stupid response, in my opinion would be to imply that someone "manufactured" the scenario, instead of merely pointing out facts supporting the actual existence of the scenario.
What facts are we talking about? There were bombings in the London underground. That is a fact.
2) Hire four Arabs and tell them they're taking part in an important exercise to help defend London from terrorist attacks. Strap them with rucksacks filled with deadly explosives. Tell the Arabs the rucksacks are dummy explosives and wouldn't harm a fly.
This is not any kind of a fact. It is a great plot for a novel. It is not based on any kind of fact.
If your goal is to discredit Blair, why not go with the fact that he fixed the intellegence to fit the policy. This is a proven fact.
What do you think is the motivation? According to step ten it is to get more funding and better pay for civil servants.
You call other countries fascist when we have fasces, the root word and symbol of fascism, on either side of the senate floor. Yet you deride others for not knowing what words mean. Nothing worse than an educated fool.
I'm sorry, but that's spurious logic.
How is it spurious to connect the symbol from which a term is derived to countries who choose to feature it prominently in their government facilites and seals? Why else would they utilize this particular symbol except for its connotations as representative of ruling by force?
You call other countries fascist when we have fasces, the root word and symbol of fascism, on either side of the senate floor. Yet you deride others for not knowing what words mean. Nothing worse than an educated fool.
I'm sorry, but that's spurious logic.
How is it spurious to connect the symbol from which a term is derived to countries who choose to feature it prominently in their government facilites and seals? Why else would they utilize this particular symbol except for its connotations as representative of ruling by force?
Why? While 'fasces' is the the root of the word 'fascism', a fasce does not necessarily imply fascism. As you know, fasces are a bundle of rods with an ax carried before Roman magistrates as a symbol of authority. It is the authority of the law that I imagine the US Senate intends their fasces to convey, not support of fascism. Your error is in assuming their is a direct and inviolate connection between fasces and the political philosophy of fascism. This is not the case. Put differently, 'oligarchy' is derived from the Greek word for 'arch' but it would be foolish to claim the presence of arches indicates an oligarchic regime.
I see what you're saying. Besides, there are many other symbols used by the U.S. government with more ominous connotations that the fasces. You admit that you are merely theorizing that it has other meanings to them. How is your leap of logic any less of a failure than mine? We are both making assumptions based on an incomplete set of facts. Barring a concrete "statement of intent" regarding their placement in the U.S. Senate, neither of us can be certain what they mean by it. I just found it amusing considering his willingness to ascribe fascist leanings to others. If I were to prepare a list of reasons why I believe our government to be fascist, the senate decorations wouldn't be on the first page.
I know that "fascism" was first coined by Mussolini in 1919. Therefore, because the display of fasces in the Senate predates the 20th century, it also predates the existence of fascism. Thus fasces could not be an allusion to the political philosophy of fascism. It seems most reasonable that they used fasces according to the symbol's classical meaning. (In fact, the fascists interpeted the symbol in the same way; fasces' symbolism contains nothing inherently curropting or nefarious).
I know that "fascism" was first coined by Mussolini in 1919. Therefore, because the display of fasces in the Senate predates the 20th century, it also predates the existence of fascism. Thus fasces could not be an allusion to the political philosophy of fascism. It seems most reasonable that they used fasces according to the symbol's classical meaning. (In fact, the fascists interpeted the symbol in the same way; fasces' symbolism contains nothing inherently curropting or nefarious).
What you're forgetting is that the Lizard People were responsible for both the fasces on the Senate and Italian fascism!
I know that "fascism" was first coined by Mussolini in 1919. Therefore, because the display of fasces in the Senate predates the 20th century, it also predates the existence of fascism. Thus fasces could not be an allusion to the political philosophy of fascism. It seems most reasonable that they used fasces according to the symbol's classical meaning. (In fact, the fascists interpeted the symbol in the same way; fasces' symbolism contains nothing inherently curropting or nefarious).
What you're forgetting is that the Lizard People were responsible for both the fasces on the Senate and Italian fascism!
Ugh! You're right!
Hey motown, where do I sign up to become one of those lizard people? As long as it doesn't involve too much cutting, I'm game.
"We cannot remain in one state and launch an offensive to the other states and the hinterlands and expect to have the desired result. Besides, we need to expand the scope of coverage in view of the fact that the problem of drug abuse and illicit trafficking is becoming more extensive and intensive, especially the locally produced drugs like Cannabis and other additive substances such as rubber solution and lizard faeces[/b]."
A bunch of Islamofascists just blew up a bus and three tube stations in downtown london. And you have to ask what war. Do you know what words mean?
Islamofascist is a stupid word. But then you generally don't get much knowledge from RNC talking points.
Vitamin, you are a tool, in many senses of the word.
But, there's a few issues you haven't quite grasped about the Iraq war... isn't it a bit hasty to start dropping science about the "Islamofacists"?
What word would you prefer? I use Islamofascist because two states that have been consistent with the ideology of the terrorists--Sudan and Taliban Afghanistan--obliterated the rights of individuals and minorities and vested absolute power into the hands of religious factions. Are these regimes mirror images of Musolini's Italy? No, which is why I have added Islamo to qualify it. But I would also be content calling them nihilist murderers, caliphists or enemies of tolerance. As for the special knowledge you claim regarding the Iraq war, please enlighten us Spliff. Perhaps you believe that the "insurgency" in Iraq has nothing to do with al-Qaeda, which would be news to both their victims and their perpetrators. But don't insult our intelligence by echoing received academic wisdom and then accuse me of deriving my thoughts from RNC talking points. You are the one who is flirting with ambivalence in our war.
As for the comment from Rod regarding Fasces and Fascism, this observation is the equivalent of noticing your neighbors have snakes in their yard and then saying they are no different than Yasidi snake worshipers.
And as for the original challenge about the theory that perhaps MI5 or someone else staged the attack, I skimmed the article. Every time there is a major attack like this the usual suspects trot out an explanation that absolves the actual murderers. I don't think we should dignify them by taking their allegations seriously.
A bunch of Islamofascists just blew up a bus and three tube stations in downtown london. And you have to ask what war. Do you know what words mean?
Islamofascist is a stupid word. But then you generally don't get much knowledge from RNC talking points.
Vitamin, you are a tool, in many senses of the word.
But, there's a few issues you haven't quite grasped about the Iraq war... isn't it a bit hasty to start dropping science about the "Islamofacists"?
What word would you prefer? I use Islamofascist because two states that have been consistent with the ideology of the terrorists--Sudan and Taliban Afghanistan--obliterated the rights of individuals and minorities and vested absolute power into the hands of religious factions. Are these regimes mirror images of Musolini's Italy? No, which is why I have added Islamo to qualify it. But I would also be content calling them nihilist murderers, caliphists or enemies of tolerance. As for the special knowledge you claim regarding the Iraq war, please enlighten us Spliff. Perhaps you believe that the "insurgency" in Iraq has nothing to do with al-Qaeda, which would be news to both their victims and their perpetrators. But don't insult our intelligence by echoing received academic wisdom and then accuse me of deriving my thoughts from RNC talking points. You are the one who is flirting with ambivalence in our war.
As for the comment from Rod regarding Fasces and Fascism, this observation is the equivalent of noticing your neighbors have snakes in their yard and then saying they are no different than Yasidi snake worshipers.
And as for the original challenge about the theory that perhaps MI5 or someone else staged the attack, I skimmed the article. Every time there is a major attack like this the usual suspects trot out an explanation that absolves the actual murderers. I don't think we should dignify them by taking their allegations seriously.
"Islamofascists" is a bad look. Neither of us would like it if folls called us "yidofascists". C'mon, guy. You sound like an intelligent guy. Don't undermind your opinions with hate speak. I'm not beefing & I'm saying this with respect to you and your views.
No beef taken. Islamofascist is not hate speech. If there was a world wide movement of devout and violent Jews who attacked innocent civilians and sought to change governments in "Jewish lands" to adhere to Halachic law and those Jewish states that had given over to their ideology treated women and minorities like Turabi's Sudan or Mullah Omar's Afghanistan, then it would be appropriate to call said sect, Judeofascists. As it is, if someone wants to call those west bank and Gaza settlers who have in the past gone into mosques and shot up praying congregations Judeofascists, I would join them and not take offense. The utility of the term, Islamofascist, is that it distinguishes between the vast majority of Muslims and the virulent and lunatic strain of Islam that inspires the senseless murder of 7/7, 3/11 and 9/11. If I was using hate speech, then I would refer to these bombers in the imprecise and hateful "towel head," or "camel fucker." Those sorts of epithets are disgusting and betray in their user the kind of intolerance I so disdain in the Wahabists or Salafi literalists. So I call them what they are: Islamofascists.
No beef taken. Islamofascist is not hate speech. If there was a world wide movement of devout and violent Jews who attacked innocent civilians and sought to change governments in "Jewish lands" to adhere to Halachic law and those Jewish states that had given over to their ideology treated women and minorities like Turabi's Sudan or Mullah Omar's Afghanistan, then it would be appropriate to call said sect, Judeofascists. As it is, if someone wants to call those west bank and Gaza settlers who have in the past gone into mosques and shot up praying congregations Judeofascists, I would join them and not take offense. The utility of the term, Islamofascist, is that it distinguishes between the vast majority of Muslims and the virulent and lunatic strain of Islam that inspires the senseless murder of 7/7, 3/11 and 9/11. If I was using hate speech, then I would refer to these bombers in the imprecise and hateful "towel head," or "camel fucker." Those sorts of epithets are disgusting and betray in their user the kind of intolerance I so disdain in the Wahabists or Salafi literalists. So I call them what they are: Islamofascists.
I think I understand your line of reasoning, but I wonder about the usefulness of a term like Islamofascist & I wouldn't be impressed if there were crazy jewish folks running around that were branded Judeofascists. I figure that using a word like "Islamofascist" doesn't show the appropriate respect to the tens of thouands of MILLIONS of people that practice Islam around the world in a very peaceful way. Does a term like this build bridges or just alienate people? Is it even valid? Are the fascists representative of Islam? Hardly, I imagine. Could it be possible that these governments & terrorists have appropriated Islam as a means of justifying their ends? This seems more likely. Couldn't terrorists just be called "fascists"? Isn't that word powerful enough?
What do you think, Vitamin? Holler back, if you like.
To me, using the term "Arab" to describe the thought process/methodology of suicide bombers is akin to using the term "African American" or "Black" to describe the process/methodology of gang bangers.
There are Arab suicide bombers.
There are Black gang bangers.
However it does not work in reverse
Gang bangers does not equal Black.
Suicide bombers does not equal Arab.
And so that kind of throws that theory out the window.
I thought the whole purpose of the original article was in a way to be the thought process of those perpitrating it. You know very well that the "Arab" perception is there and that's what they'd be playing on, just like people have the black/latino gang stereotype. Yes, in actuality there are many different people bombings things and many different people in gangs.
But they (would?) give the public what they expect. Bombs = Arabs/Middle Easterners. It doesn't matter what country they're from. Just like gangs = blacks/latinos. That's just how it is, perception-wise.
I have failed to see even an ounce of humor in this. I admit it is a very cynical method of illutration, but I'm positive no light is being made of those who died. I guess it all depend on in you're in that cynical frame-of-mind.
I took it as a sort of real possibility with cynical humorous undertones. I mean, if it wasn't semi-tongue-in-cheek, dude should really brush up on his writing skills.
2) Hire four Arabs and tell them they're taking part in an important exercise to help defend London from terrorist attacks. Strap them with rucksacks filled with deadly explosives. Tell the Arabs the rucksacks are dummy explosives and wouldn't harm a fly.
This is not any kind of a fact. It is a great plot for a novel. It is not based on any kind of fact.
That may be true, but you don't know if it's a fact or not. It COULD be a fact. Probably - maybe - not, but unless you were in on the planning of the bombing, you can make no judgment as to what is fact and what is fiction in regards to the planning of it, any more than you can quote as fact what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. You may know what sounds plausible and implausible, you you do not know for certain. Even things given as fact and reported by all the world's major media may or may not be fact. We never really know for certain.
Why? While 'fasces' is the the root of the word 'fascism', a fasce does not necessarily imply fascism. As you know, fasces are a bundle of rods with an ax carried before Roman magistrates as a symbol of authority. It is the authority of the law that I imagine the US Senate intends their fasces to convey, not support of fascism. Your error is in assuming their is a direct and inviolate connection between fasces and the political philosophy of fascism.
fasces
n : bundle of rods containing an axe with the blade protruding; in ancient Rome it was a symbol of a magistrate's power; in modern Italy it is a symbol of Fascism
Source: WordNet ?? 2.0, ?? 2003 Princeton University
Comments
Yes.
Please compare the following two quotes.
(note items in bold[/b])
Please believe that it's not the suicide bomber's thought process which is being described. Does that make sense? I'm off my medication today
Yeah I can dig it, dude.
"However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences [??]. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.
"In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
"Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).
Peter Power"
Anyways...
I'm so tired of the media from all points of view.
Prison planet uses fear just as much as any crazed up right wing slag.
It's an endless sick cycle. All I wanna watch the news for is the weather. WEATHER CHANNEL WUT!!!
Even if this is true. The writer using a sort of comedy to make his point where people were killed, does not imopress me much.
I agree that watching the news can be a total downer. It's hard to get unprocessed information these days.
I'm really interested in this story though, so I'll take whatever info I can get.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=17586
I usually believe in a simple answer to a lot of questions. And I always try to take in all sides of discussions. But seriously... Articles (The top 10) like that do just as much harm as Rove telling you who the bad guy is. Do I think governments are the good guy? Hell no. Nor would I want them to be. I'm telling you.. the only ones not messing with you is the weather people. And even they fuck you over once in a blue moon.
I'm also not saying there's no truth to what is being brought out. I just really didn't like the way the top 10 list made such light of people dying in a sort of comedy sense,
But whatever... The world we live in.
What I wouldn't give for a huge shot of positivity in the new. There's not enough dogs saving the day stories in the world!
Dude, you should play the lotto... I hear the Jackpot is the biggest evar!... you could win
It's not a Top Ten List... it's a 10-step illustration of how "simply" such an operation could be carried out by *someone* behind the scenes (ie, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain).
I have failed to see even an ounce of humor in this. I admit it is a very cynical method of illutration, but I'm positive no light is being made of those who died. I guess it all depend on in you're in that cynical frame-of-mind.
I know what you mean, but I don't think I'm being naive; there are exercises like this being run all the time unbeknownst to the general public. We only hear about them when the shit hits the fan.
h
The overwhelming response to the articles is that they are stupid.
I can't understand why people construct wild scenirios to prove that the goverment is currupt when the most basic facts printed in the right wing corprate press already prove that.
Dan
But the whole thing reeks with someone tryin to be a smart ass...
Cynical maybe... It just rubs me the wrong way.. But whatever floats ur boat.
In which way are you trying to make sense?
A stupid response, in my opinion would be to imply that someone "manufactured" the scenario, instead of merely pointing out facts supporting the actual existence of the scenario.
What facts are we talking about? There were bombings in the London underground. That is a fact.
This is not any kind of a fact. It is a great plot for a novel. It is not based on any kind of fact.
If your goal is to discredit Blair, why not go with the fact that he fixed the intellegence to fit the policy. This is a proven fact.
What do you think is the motivation? According to step ten it is to get more funding and better pay for civil servants.
Dan
How is it spurious to connect the symbol from which a term is derived to countries who choose to feature it prominently in their government facilites and seals? Why else would they utilize this particular symbol except for its connotations as representative of ruling by force?
its just wrong even to post it.
Why? While 'fasces' is the the root of the word 'fascism', a fasce does not necessarily imply fascism. As you know, fasces are a bundle of rods with an ax carried before Roman magistrates as a symbol of authority. It is the authority of the law that I imagine the US Senate intends their fasces to convey, not support of fascism. Your error is in assuming their is a direct and inviolate connection between fasces and the political philosophy of fascism. This is not the case. Put differently, 'oligarchy' is derived from the Greek word for 'arch' but it would be foolish to claim the presence of arches indicates an oligarchic regime.
I know that "fascism" was first coined by Mussolini in 1919. Therefore, because the display of fasces in the Senate predates the 20th century, it also predates the existence of fascism. Thus fasces could not be an allusion to the political philosophy of fascism. It seems most reasonable that they used fasces according to the symbol's classical meaning. (In fact, the fascists interpeted the symbol in the same way; fasces' symbolism contains nothing inherently curropting or nefarious).
What you're forgetting is that the Lizard People were responsible for both the fasces on the Senate and Italian fascism!
Ugh! You're right!
Hey motown, where do I sign up to become one of those lizard people? As long as it doesn't involve too much cutting, I'm game.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1330.a08.html
What word would you prefer? I use Islamofascist because two states that have been consistent with the ideology of the terrorists--Sudan and Taliban Afghanistan--obliterated the rights of individuals and minorities and vested absolute power into the hands of religious factions. Are these regimes mirror images of Musolini's Italy? No, which is why I have added Islamo to qualify it. But I would also be content calling them nihilist murderers, caliphists or enemies of tolerance. As for the special knowledge you claim regarding the Iraq war, please enlighten us Spliff. Perhaps you believe that the "insurgency" in Iraq has nothing to do with al-Qaeda, which would be news to both their victims and their perpetrators. But don't insult our intelligence by echoing received academic wisdom and then accuse me of deriving my thoughts from RNC talking points. You are the one who is flirting with ambivalence in our war.
As for the comment from Rod regarding Fasces and Fascism, this observation is the equivalent of noticing your neighbors have snakes in their yard and then saying they are no different than Yasidi snake worshipers.
And as for the original challenge about the theory that perhaps MI5 or someone else staged the attack, I skimmed the article. Every time there is a major attack like this the usual suspects trot out an explanation that absolves the actual murderers. I don't think we should dignify them by taking their allegations seriously.
"Islamofascists" is a bad look. Neither of us would like it if folls called us "yidofascists". C'mon, guy. You sound like an intelligent guy. Don't undermind your opinions with hate speak. I'm not beefing & I'm saying this with respect to you and your views.
Peace
h
I think I understand your line of reasoning, but I wonder about the usefulness of a term like Islamofascist & I wouldn't be impressed if there were crazy jewish folks running around that were branded Judeofascists. I figure that using a word like "Islamofascist" doesn't show the appropriate respect to the tens of thouands of MILLIONS of people that practice Islam around the world in a very peaceful way. Does a term like this build bridges or just alienate people? Is it even valid? Are the fascists representative of Islam? Hardly, I imagine. Could it be possible that these governments & terrorists have appropriated Islam as a means of justifying their ends? This seems more likely. Couldn't terrorists just be called "fascists"? Isn't that word powerful enough?
What do you think, Vitamin? Holler back, if you like.
peace
h
I thought the whole purpose of the original article was in a way to be the thought process of those perpitrating it. You know very well that the "Arab" perception is there and that's what they'd be playing on, just like people have the black/latino gang stereotype. Yes, in actuality there are many different people bombings things and many different people in gangs.
But they (would?) give the public what they expect. Bombs = Arabs/Middle Easterners. It doesn't matter what country they're from. Just like gangs = blacks/latinos. That's just how it is, perception-wise.
I took it as a sort of real possibility with cynical humorous undertones. I mean, if it wasn't semi-tongue-in-cheek, dude should really brush up on his writing skills.
That may be true, but you don't know if it's a fact or not. It COULD be a fact. Probably - maybe - not, but unless you were in on the planning of the bombing, you can make no judgment as to what is fact and what is fiction in regards to the planning of it, any more than you can quote as fact what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. You may know what sounds plausible and implausible, you you do not know for certain. Even things given as fact and reported by all the world's major media may or may not be fact. We never really know for certain.
fasces
n : bundle of rods containing an axe with the blade protruding; in ancient Rome it was a symbol of a magistrate's power; in modern Italy it is a symbol of Fascism
Source: WordNet ?? 2.0, ?? 2003 Princeton University