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.
Exactly. Just because something sounds plausible it doesn't mean it's true. And just because something sounds implausible it doesn't mean it's not true. It's all about keeping an open mind. What Paul Watson is doing is theorising which is what any police/intellingence agency/investigative journalist/anyone else would do. It's all you can do when you don't know the facts. You look at the evidence - or what you're told is the evidence - and you try to work out what happened.
Clearly these guys don't fit the general terrorist profile. Two of them were married with kids, two had pregnant wives (one just a few days/weeks away from giving birth), one of them worked with disabled children, they liked cricket and football; all their friends and family seem to be in utter disbelief that they would or could ever do anything like this. They were all carrying ID and they all congregated together in front of CCTV cameras wearing rucksacks seemingly blissfully unaware that it might be better to hide there identification as best they can at least to make it as hard as possible for the authorities to find out who the 'guiding hand' behind these attacks really was. They all also bought return train tickets and 'Pay and Display' tickets for their cars all of which suggests they had no idea what was about to happen.
The fact that their was a drill excercise running at the same time as the attacks is is another puzzling piece of information. The fact that the drill mirrored the attacks exactly (terrorist bombings on the London Underground) is an erie 'coincidence'. On 9/11 the US government was running several drills that also mirrored that attacks that happened that day. Coincidence? The odds have to be enormous.
Paul Watson writes for the Propaganda Matrix website which covers the so called 'New World Order' and therefore sees this as a 'problem-reaction-solution' scenario. 'PRS' works like this: You have an agenda you know the public won't support (ie increased surveilance, removal of our freedoms, invading and taking over countries) but you need their support to push it through. So you create a problem. In this case that problem is terrorism. Bear in mind that the CIA created, funded and armed the men who bacame Al-Qaeda. In fact Al-Qaeda translates as 'the database' and was the name the US govenrment gave to the mujahideen they trained, funded and armed during the Russian/Afghan war. Some of those men went on to become the Taliban. The madrassa schools in Pakistan which are now under the spotlight after the attacks were also funded by the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan intelligence). The ISI is very closely linked to the CIA eg when the Pakistani goverenment want the change the head of the ISI they have to get their choice approved by the CIA. On September 10th 2001 Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad (then head of the ISI and at that time in the US) wired 'lead hijacker' Muhammad Atta $100,000. This has been admitted by the FBI and in fact Mahmud Ahmad lost his job as a result of this information becoming public knowledge. The 9/11 Commission ignored this piece of disturbing information though.
There's much more too this. We know that MI5 carried out terrorist attacks and blamed them on the IRA (this was a big but quickly forgotten news story in the UK a few years ago). The same is true for Mossad and Hamas. So the idea that the British government could be behind this isn't as riciulous as it sounds.
After the 'problem' you have the 'reaction'. In this case it's the inevitable horror of people in the UK and around the world. Then you provide the 'solution' which is the increased surveilance, removal of freedoms, taking over countries or whatever you originally had planned.
In situations like this you have to ask the question 'Who benefits?' Who benefits from this attack? Who benefits from people believing the very one sided official version of this attack? If you look at 9/11 then it's pretty clear that the Bush administration along with the oil industry and the arms industry (which they're coincidentally closely linked to) benefited most from the attacks. Does that prove they were beind the attacks? No of course not. But it puts them high up on the list of suspects.
As I said the important thing is to keep an open mind. We'll never find out the truth unless we can do that.
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.
THIS JUST IN:
Suicide theory thrown in doubt[/b]
18jul05
War on terror[/b] BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper has reported.
"We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers," a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph. "It is possible that they did not intend to die."
War on terror[/b] BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper has reported.
"We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers," a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph. "It is possible that they did not intend to die."
"None were reported to have cried "Allah Akbar" (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge -- something most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do. "
Is this for real? Sounds like a parody, onion-style.
Clearly these guys don't fit the general terrorist profile. Two of them were married with kids, two had pregnant wives (one just a few days/weeks away from giving birth), one of them worked with disabled children, they liked cricket and football...
This is a myth. The whole "general terrorist profile" is a total myth and went ou the window years ago. Many suicide terrorists are well-off, educated, have families, are female, etc.
Comments
Exactly. Just because something sounds plausible it doesn't mean it's true. And just because something sounds implausible it doesn't mean it's not true. It's all about keeping an open mind. What Paul Watson is doing is theorising which is what any police/intellingence agency/investigative journalist/anyone else would do. It's all you can do when you don't know the facts. You look at the evidence - or what you're told is the evidence - and you try to work out what happened.
Clearly these guys don't fit the general terrorist profile. Two of them were married with kids, two had pregnant wives (one just a few days/weeks away from giving birth), one of them worked with disabled children, they liked cricket and football; all their friends and family seem to be in utter disbelief that they would or could ever do anything like this. They were all carrying ID and they all congregated together in front of CCTV cameras wearing rucksacks seemingly blissfully unaware that it might be better to hide there identification as best they can at least to make it as hard as possible for the authorities to find out who the 'guiding hand' behind these attacks really was. They all also bought return train tickets and 'Pay and Display' tickets for their cars all of which suggests they had no idea what was about to happen.
The fact that their was a drill excercise running at the same time as the attacks is is another puzzling piece of information. The fact that the drill mirrored the attacks exactly (terrorist bombings on the London Underground) is an erie 'coincidence'. On 9/11 the US government was running several drills that also mirrored that attacks that happened that day. Coincidence? The odds have to be enormous.
Paul Watson writes for the Propaganda Matrix website which covers the so called 'New World Order' and therefore sees this as a 'problem-reaction-solution' scenario. 'PRS' works like this: You have an agenda you know the public won't support (ie increased surveilance, removal of our freedoms, invading and taking over countries) but you need their support to push it through. So you create a problem. In this case that problem is terrorism. Bear in mind that the CIA created, funded and armed the men who bacame Al-Qaeda. In fact Al-Qaeda translates as 'the database' and was the name the US govenrment gave to the mujahideen they trained, funded and armed during the Russian/Afghan war. Some of those men went on to become the Taliban. The madrassa schools in Pakistan which are now under the spotlight after the attacks were also funded by the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan intelligence). The ISI is very closely linked to the CIA eg when the Pakistani goverenment want the change the head of the ISI they have to get their choice approved by the CIA. On September 10th 2001 Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad (then head of the ISI and at that time in the US) wired 'lead hijacker' Muhammad Atta $100,000. This has been admitted by the FBI and in fact Mahmud Ahmad lost his job as a result of this information becoming public knowledge. The 9/11 Commission ignored this piece of disturbing information though.
There's much more too this. We know that MI5 carried out terrorist attacks and blamed them on the IRA (this was a big but quickly forgotten news story in the UK a few years ago). The same is true for Mossad and Hamas. So the idea that the British government could be behind this isn't as riciulous as it sounds.
After the 'problem' you have the 'reaction'. In this case it's the inevitable horror of people in the UK and around the world. Then you provide the 'solution' which is the increased surveilance, removal of freedoms, taking over countries or whatever you originally had planned.
In situations like this you have to ask the question 'Who benefits?' Who benefits from this attack? Who benefits from people believing the very one sided official version of this attack? If you look at 9/11 then it's pretty clear that the Bush administration along with the oil industry and the arms industry (which they're coincidentally closely linked to) benefited most from the attacks. Does that prove they were beind the attacks? No of course not. But it puts them high up on the list of suspects.
As I said the important thing is to keep an open mind. We'll never find out the truth unless we can do that.
THIS JUST IN:
Suicide theory thrown in doubt[/b]
18jul05
War on terror[/b]
BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper has reported.
"We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers," a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph.
"It is possible that they did not intend to die."
web page
sayin'
"None were reported to have cried "Allah Akbar" (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge -- something most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do. "
Is this for real? Sounds like a parody, onion-style.
cosign
This is a myth. The whole "general terrorist profile" is a total myth and went ou the window years ago. Many suicide terrorists are well-off, educated, have families, are female, etc.
just sayin'. carry on.