"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that The State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied." - Arthur Miller
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
London Truthers to demonstrate on 9/11
- Thread starter sophia8
- Start date
-
- Tags
- london truthers we are change
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that The State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied." - Arthur Miller
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
So, let's see if I've missed anything.
* After the terrorist attacks on the USA on 9/11, the American President said that terrorism was bad.
* After the terrorist attacks on the UK on 7/7, the British Prime Minister said that terrorism was bad.
* The similarities between these two events leads you to believe that 9/11 was not in fact the work of terrorists.
I really crave some insight into your mental processes right now.
For starters, I should like to know what you think they would have said in the event of real terrorist attacks. "Terrorists are lovely people, so I guess we were asking for this"? "So a few people died, let's not get all worked up"? "My only regret is that I didn't get to finish My Pet Goat"?
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
They normally report things that are news worthy. I guess the silent vigil didn't fall into this category.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
The only time I have seen a silent truther is when they have been asked a question they don't know the answer too. Even then it's usually only for about 10-15 second before they either change the topic or start "9/11 was an inside Job"ing.
In Hermann Göring famous words, all leaders have to do to to convince people that the country needs to go to war is tell them they are being attacked.
The 7/7 bombings were used to reinforce the ongoing, fraudulent "War on Terror" narrative and cemented the demonisation of Muslims in the UK, as evidenced by sharp rise is racist harassment after the attacks, e.g.
http://www.blacknet.co.uk/Stop_Press/Stop_Press/Huge_increase_in_Merseyside_racist_attacks.html
On political discussion forums 7/7 is often presented as clinching evidence of the danger we all face from al Qaeda and why the UK needs to kill lots of Muslims to make the UK safe.
Concealing the long and intimate relationship** between British and other Intelligence agencies and Islamic Fundamentalism is also made easier by major atrocity horror. Who can believe that those charged with protecting us would could enable such atrocity?
It is a version of the 'Big Lie' technique.
** documented here:
'Inside the Crevice.
Islamist terror networks and the 7/7 intelligence failure.
Parliamentary Briefing Paper, 2007':
http://www.globalcrisis.org.uk/main/PDF/Inside the Crevice.pdf
Violence, royalty and sex are the most deserving reasons! The combination of all three would guarantee national if not international coverage. Otherwise creative publicity stunts are normally required. I was surprised that Comsat Angel (#14) considered media silence an indication that the protest hadn't gone ahead.
Last edited:
You missed the "We are good" bit.
Probably not much, but I would expect the rhetoric to appear less rehearsed and stereotyped and for declarations of war/more war to wait until there was conclusive evidence identifying the perpetrators.
I admit this may be a somewhat naive expectation! At the time it was the crude, "We are good/They are evil" warmongering that roused my suspicions. It sounded very tired by 2005 after so many lies and so much pointless bloody slaughter in the Middle East, perpetrated by the "We are Good" side. There were 7/7s happening there every week.
If military wrath were proportional to provocation then the US, the UK and Israel would be smouldering piles of rubble by now.
Last edited:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
You think, perhaps, that in the event of a real terrorist attack Bush would have a better speechwriter?
No, that's probably not what you're thinking.
What are you thinking?
Can you give us, perhaps, a sample paragraph of the sort of rhetoric that we should have heard in the event of a real terrorist attack?
Well, let's look at the two speeches you cited.
Bush says:
The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice.
Now, obviously he can pledge to search for "those responsible" without knowing who they are, and we should surely expect him to do so in the event of a real terrorist attack, wouldn't we?
Note that the speech does not lay blame on anyone except "terrorists", which the perpetrators were simply by definition.
In Blair's case, he did know who the perpetrators were, hence his reference to West Yorkshire. It is not in the least surprising that he should blame Muslim terrorists when the police had established that the culprits were, in fact, Muslim terrorists. What else would you expect him to do?
In neither speech is war declared.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I think Jihad Jane just stated in a roundabout way that the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were justified.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
I think Jihad Jane just stated in a roundabout way that the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were justified.
And, apparently, much less than we deserve...
Eye-for-eye, right, JihadJane? That's how they did things in the old days over in Middle East, isn't it?
Last edited:
Why do truthers always use the biggest losers to quote!
The entire terrorist loyalist truther mentality can be summed up by the best minds, not NAZI losers who are mentally ill killers.
... quoting goose-stepping NAZI dolts, indicative of your entire movements stupid statements and lack of evidence.
Last edited:
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Deep South?
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
This may be an interesting exercise, there has been no shortage of terrorist attacks in the UK over the past half century, presuming that JJ feels that any of those were real it should be possible to analyse the political rhetoric after one of the "real" ones to compare and contrast with Blair's reaction to 7/7. One could even start with the terrorist attacks which took place during Blair's premiership. I'm not sure what one would look for though.
liverleef
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 137
or accuse you of being a sheeple, that tends to be the last resort of a truther
I'll probably get back to this thread before too long.
Meanwhile, I'd suggest that conscientious posters take time to calmly ponder my actual words** rather than being tempted into making up their own meanings as they go along to suit their own preconceptions.
Unconscientious posters, though, are welcome to carry on discussing their independent versions of my words. I'll watch. It's very entertaining and enlightening. That includes you, dudalb!
**"It was the similarity between post 7/7 and post 9/11 government propaganda that first raised my suspicions about 9/11."
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
I'll probably get back to this thread before too long.
Meanwhile, I'd suggest that conscientious posters take time to calmly ponder my actual words** rather than being tempted into making up their own meanings as they go along to suit their own preconceptions.
Unconscientious posters, though, are welcome to carry on discussing their independent versions of my words. I'll watch. It's very entertaining and enlightening. That includes you, dudalb!
**"It was the similarity between post 7/7 and post 9/11 government propaganda that first raised my suspicions about 9/11."
The question you fail to ask yourself is was the "propaganda" prompted by the engineering of the events by the said Governments or was the propaganda a political reaction to dreadful terrorist’s atrocities?
Was the fall out from these actions really a long term plan designed to stimulate war or was they a knee jerk reaction to events that were beyond their control?
Was the "propaganda” already there? Waiting in the wings, a predetermined course of action or is it simply catering to public demand for action to be taken against terrorism on this scale?
Any idea?
Last edited:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
As you seem to be the only person on this thread who can't see the joke, I suggest, that you should calmly ponder your actual words.
As you read them over, you should pay particular attention to the question you've been asked about a zillion times: what would they have said in the event of real terrorist attacks?
---
And it was this line of reasoning that led you into Truthism? Really?
Won't be long now...