• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

8/10 Terrorist conspiracy

Dazed said:
That's what the whole Toronto incident was. http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370019

From the early reports I've read, it seems that this latest development is panning out much the same way.
Click to expand...

From the article:
The group appears to have been rather inept, continuing their operations even after it should have been evident that they were under surveillance. More professional terrorists would also have been aware that large orders of ammonium nitrate are routinely reported to police. The three tons of fertilizer was a ridiculous amount that filled three pallets—only one ton was needed to carry out the devastating 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Police switched the fertilizer with a harmless substance in a "controlled delivery," similar to the procedure used in narcotics investigations.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like:
Dazed said:
I didn't say it was odd, I said the latest plot is oddly reminiscent of this one, where intelligence agents infilitrate a group of people, egg them on to commit a crime, supply them with everything they need and then arrest them.
Click to expand...

You can't very well convict a group of people for running around in camoflage. But you can get a very good conviction if you catch the group handing over payment for what they believe to be three tons of ammonium nitrate (or drugs or weapons or smuggled people...) Do you see how this works now? It's very common.
 
chipmunk stew said:
From the article:


Doesn't sound like:


You can't very well convict a group of people for running around in camoflage. But you can get a very good conviction if you catch the group handing over payment for what they believe to be three tons of ammonium nitrate (or drugs or weapons or smuggled people...) Do you see how this works now? It's very common.
Click to expand...

Ugh, another fuel oil/ammonium nitrate bomb?
 
I don't have time to read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but when could terrorists ever execute an attack that would not be blamed on an upcoming election or upcoming legislation or politician with low approvals in the polls or some other stupid government conspiricy? If I were a terrorist, I'd be pissed that every attack I planned or tried to execute got blamed on some government conspiricy.

-David
 
If as many have been banned from the LC forums as you say, I hope it was because of inappropriate comments and disrespect rather than holding an opposing belief. If they ban you simply for not believing in 9/11 conspiracies, that's quite lame. I suspect most of it is due to comments pertaining to tin-foil hats and moon landing hoaxes, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
So far this has been one of the more interesting links

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/the_anatomy_of_.html

More than 20 suspected terrorists were arrested in England by early Thursday morning, in an operation that involved British intelligence, Scotland Yard and assistance by a number of other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including those in Pakistan.

ABC News has learned that two "significant arrests" in Pakistan in recent days may have significantly accelerated the pace of the investigation.

Many of the alleged terror plotters appeared to be of Pakistani descent. It appears that they were probably "homegrown" terrorists with strong links to al Qaeda and Pakistani operatives. This new generation of terrorists have figured significantly in plots in the U.S., London and Canada in recent months.

In this case, the plotters apparently intended to assemble small but powerful bombs in flight and use them to take down flights from England to the United States.

At least nine transcontinental flights from American, United and Continental airlines were targeted in the plot. ABC News has learned that terrorists planned to attack the planes three at a time, waiting an hour between each attack.
 
AK-Dave said:
I don't have time to read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but when could terrorists ever execute an attack that would not be blamed on an upcoming election or upcoming legislation or politician with low approvals in the polls or some other stupid government conspiricy? If I were a terrorist, I'd be pissed that every attack I planned or tried to execute got blamed on some government conspiricy.

-David
Click to expand...

Arch idiot Alex Jones apparently claims the London bombings helped Labour win the last election. That election took place two months before the bombings. Convenient huh?
 
AK-Dave said:
If I were a terrorist, I'd be pissed that every attack I planned or tried to execute got blamed on some government conspiricy.
Click to expand...

I suspect they are now betting on it. Conspiracy theories are a godsent to them. They don't need to do any disinformation propaganda anymore, westerners are now doing it for them.
 
Dazed said:
If as many have been banned from the LC forums as you say, I hope it was because of inappropriate comments and disrespect rather than holding an opposing belief. If they ban you simply for not believing in 9/11 conspiracies, that's quite lame. I suspect most of it is due to comments pertaining to tin-foil hats and moon landing hoaxes, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You know, it's not wanting to see both sides of an issue that makes you a fool.

It's comments like this one.

"I haven't even looked at the threads over there, and I don't know how many of you are banned, or anything else, but I'm sure it was because of something you said."

It's speaking as if you had some authoritive information when you haven't even given the evidence a cursory glance that labels you a fool.

It's advisable to know something about a subject before you pass judgement.
 
Dazed said:
If as many have been banned from the LC forums as you say, I hope it was because of inappropriate comments and disrespect rather than holding an opposing belief. If they ban you simply for not believing in 9/11 conspiracies, that's quite lame. I suspect most of it is due to comments pertaining to tin-foil hats and moon landing hoaxes, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
The bannings are quite real and do not need the "if" qualifier.

I feel quite confident in saying if the mods at LC handed out bannings consistently, there would be few people, if any, left to post - including the mods.

What is tolerated and often encouraged for CTers is cause for bannings for those who disagree.
 
My post was saying, in a nutshell, I hope they had valid reason to ban you, and if not, then I will have lost respect for them. I then offered anyone to provide example of unreasonable banning to facilitate said loss of respect. Instead you attacked me and called me a fool though, causing me to lose all respect for you. Good work.
 
Last edited:
Dazed said:
My post was saying, in a nutshell, I hope they had valid reason to ban you, and if not, then I will have lost respect for them. I then offered anyone to provide example of unreasonable banning to facilitate said loss of respect. Instead you attacked me and called me a fool though, causing me to lose all respect for you. Good work.
Click to expand...

A little tricky to provide evidence, they deleted the skeptic forum and all its threads.
 
I also like how you quoted your convoluted misinterpretation of my post as my own words, too. Is that how you win all your debates?
 
Dazed said:
My post was saying, in a nutshell, I hope they had valid reason to ban you, and if not, then I will have lost respect for them. I then offered anyone to provide example of unreasonable banning to facilitate said loss of respect. Instead you attacked me and called me a fool though, causing me to lose all respect for you. Good work.
Click to expand...

You'll have to wait for one of the few people here who haven't been IP banned to be able to see the banning reasons.
 
Dazed could also read the Loose Change I, II, III, IV threads here, the bannings have been recorded as they happened.
 
I dont need evidence, hearsay is fine, if you say they banned you, I'd believe you, I was just inviting anyone who honestly feels they were /unfairly/ banned, to voice that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom