tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post115878906272225180..comments2023-08-13T12:20:53.393+01:00Comments on Anything that defies my sense of reason....: If links back to UK or US sources are revealedThe Antagonisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01459201402366077472noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-67345907070361080492007-10-23T12:41:00.000+01:002007-10-23T12:41:00.000+01:00The link for the Radio 4 Today Programme interview...The link for the Radio 4 Today Programme interview: <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_abu_20060922.ram" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-34550144782880362352007-05-26T15:06:00.000+01:002007-05-26T15:06:00.000+01:00Darcus Howe, writing about Trevor Abu Omar Brooks ...Darcus Howe, <A HREF="http://www.newstatesman.com/200610090025" REL="nofollow">writing about Trevor Abu Omar Brooks Izzadeen in the New Statesman</A>, said that the “<B>clash was staged by Reid and his cohorts at the Home Office. They organised the meeting, Abu Izzadeen was invited in advance - his performance guaranteed - and the press was alerted to film and report the confrontation.</B>”The Antagonisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01459201402366077472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-67384638156940134662007-04-30T21:33:00.000+01:002007-04-30T21:33:00.000+01:00A copy of a comment I left over on athenaeum, whic...A copy of <A HREF="http://athenaeum.wordpress.com" REL="nofollow">a comment I left over on athenaeum</A>, which contains George Galloway's thoughts on the Abu Omar Izzadeen incident in East London....<BR/><BR/>With regard to Omar Brooks and the ‘on cue’ incident with Herr Doktor John Reid at the invite only, secret location in East London, it’s worth noting that even ‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway — he who shall not countenance the notion of any ‘theory’ that doth possess the remotest scent of ‘conspiracy’, wrote an open letter to the Home Secretary about proceedings alleging that, “There are only two conceivable explanations as to how this man, at this sensitive time, was allowed to hijack your Potemkin Village performance today.”<BR/><BR/>It went as follows:<BR/><BR/>———————–<BR/>Dear Home Secretary,<BR/><BR/>I have been watching open-mouthed the altercation you have provoked in East London with your ill-judged, patronising and provocative foray into territory you clearly barely understand. There is much that will be said about the child-like - Patricia Hewittesque! - performance you gave your audience. I want to concentrate on the altercation.<BR/><BR/>The man who harangued you - Abu Izzadine - is a well-known and violent extremist from an organisation your own government has proscribed. Yet he was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary. How ? Why ?<BR/><BR/>This is the same man who led a group of fanatic thugs in the brief “hostage-taking” of myself and my daughter and several innocent members of the public during a general election meeting last year. This is well known to the Special Branch and senior police officers in East London - the very people in charge of your security today.<BR/><BR/>This man has appeared on many occasions on television and in the press as a dangerous extremist who has praised the terrorist attacks on July 7th and 9/11. His comments were amongst those adduced in your own government’s case for the proscription of the Al Ghuraba organisation.<BR/><BR/>There are only two conceivable explanations as to how this man, at this sensitive time, was allowed to hijack your Potemkin Village performance today.<BR/><BR/>Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following.<BR/><BR/>Which is it ?<BR/><BR/>Because, as you know, I am not a believer in conspiracy theories I am leaning towards the first explanation. If I am right then yet again the Metropolitan Police have proved almost comically incompetent. The sight of a small, slight, helmeted police officer being dwarfed by a giant ranting fanatical thug - talk about a thin blue line! - as all that stood between you and a violent attack will certainly have provided food for thought and encouragement to the country’s enemies. Yet again the justification for continuing in office of Sir Ian Blair must be called into question.<BR/><BR/>But if I am wrong, and this all turns out to have been some Nixonian “dirty tricks” operation..then of course the questions raised are much more profound and dangerous<BR/><BR/>I await your response with interest.<BR/><BR/>Yours sincerely<BR/>George Galloway MP<BR/>———————–<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1171" REL="nofollow">Original letter on the Respect web site</A>.The Antagonisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01459201402366077472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160781085444990732006-10-14T00:11:00.000+01:002006-10-14T00:11:00.000+01:00For the record, on September 26th 2006 I asked The...For the record, on September 26th 2006 I asked The Antagonist whether he thought he knew what happened on July 7th 2005. To my straight question, I received a straight answer in less than 24 hours:<BR/><BR/>"I have no idea what happened on 7 July 2005, just rather too many unanswered questions about such a grave event which has had such horrific consequences on so many different levels. Hence J7 and hence floating the occasional alternative interpretation for consideration and discussion."<BR/><BR/>In contrast, I have written three times to the Home Office for an explanation of how the four suspects passed through the ticket barrier at Luton station at 0715, yet appeared on CCTV outside the station at 0721, according to the Official Report. The replies to the first two letters did not answer the question. I am still waiting for a reply to the third letter.<BR/><BR/>As for Rachel North, the Guardian on June 27th 2006 reported:<BR/><BR/>'"Train timetables rarely bear any relation to real life," says North dismissively.'<BR/><BR/>Yet examination of <A HREF="http://prayforrain.com/coxforum/viewtopic.php?t=43&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105" REL="nofollow">the internet</A> reveals that by that date Rachel was well aware that the J7 campaign was referring to actual train running times, not scheduled train timetables. Her statement, if reported accurately by the Guardian, was therefore deliberately misleading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160570087096613702006-10-11T13:34:00.000+01:002006-10-11T13:34:00.000+01:00Rachel states:"The BNP site is created and run by ...Rachel states:<BR/><BR/>"The BNP site is created and run by people who have certain theories. I don't go visiting there or hanging about on their forums because I know what their theories are and I know them to be false and distorted." <BR/><BR/>You make this statement in an attempt to draw a parallel between them and the J7 Truth Campaign.<BR/><BR/>The BNP site is created by a fascist & racist political party whose views are well known. We are not fascists, nor rascists nor are we a political party, so this analogy is another one of your attempts to smear us.<BR/><BR/>More importantly these kinds of statements are distractions from the real issues of the campaign, which is for Truth & Justice.<BR/><BR/>I was thinking about how discourse with you, Rachel, has proceeded and manifested itself over this past year or so.<BR/><BR/>I then had cause to check out an existentialist theory, very relevant at the moment, called Terror Management Theory.<BR/><BR/>"Compliance with cultural values enhances one's feeling of security and self-esteem, provided that the individual is capable of living in accordance with whatever particular cultural standards apply to him or her. The belief in the rightness of the cultural values and standards creates the conviction necessary to live a reasonable and meaningful life. Because of this men and women strive to have their cultural worldview confirmed by others, thereby receiving the community’s esteem. However, when one’s worldview is threatened by the <I>weltanschauungen</I> of another, it often results in one’s self-respect being endangered as well. In such a situation people not only endeavour to deny or devalue the importance of third party weltanschauung, but try to controvert the ideas and opinions of others which may, as a consequence, escalate into a conflict.<BR/><BR/>Research has shown that people, when reminded of their own inevitable death, will cling more strongly to their cultural worldviews. The data appears to show that nations or persons who have experienced traumas (e.g. 9/11) are more attracted to strong leaders who express traditional, pro-establishment, authoritarian viewpoints. They will also be hyper-aware of the possibility of external threats, and may be more hostile to those who threaten them.<BR/><BR/>The theory gained media attention in the aftermath of 9/11, and after the re-election of President George Bush in the USA, Prime Minister Tony Blair in the UK, and John Howard in Australia."<BR/><BR/>This theory strikes me as very dangerous, but explains the thinking behind the War (of) Terror, it also explains the current attacks, dressed up as debate, on Muslim women wearing the Niqab.<BR/><BR/>There is room on this planet for many worldviews, or <I>weltanschauungen</I>, I respect your right to hold yours Rachel whilst not agreeing with you. Can you say the same about mine?Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160563070910108062006-10-11T11:37:00.000+01:002006-10-11T11:37:00.000+01:00Rachel,I can't help noticing also that in the quot...Rachel,I can't help noticing also that in the quote of yours I used in my comment above, you ignored the actual point that truthseeker was making.<BR/><BR/>Truthseeker had stated that they were here because of holes in the official account and not because of any theory or opinion of any member of J7 - you slated this as 'wriggling'. How so is it wriggling? It was a clear statement, that regardless of what other people may say, or what you think they say, and theories aside, there are anomalies enough in the OV for people to be curious on that basis. <BR/><BR/>There is as little logic in your response there as there is in having a go at people for having theories and then having a go for someone <I>not</I> having a theory.Kierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12236507389155398693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160560466840829822006-10-11T10:54:00.000+01:002006-10-11T10:54:00.000+01:00"This is just wriggling. J7 is a conspiracy theory...<I>"This is just wriggling. J7 is a conspiracy theory site run by three people, two of whom think the bombers were innocent and the Govet. was behind it and it was a flase flag operation , and a third who won't come out and say what she thinks apart from she is open to all possibilities, which presumably includes the theory that her co-site authors hold."</I><BR/><BR/>This may well be the most absurd thing I've ever seen you say about the campaign and myself, although I'm not sure; I'll have to check!<BR/><BR/>On the basis that for almost a year of discussing this issue with you I have stated that I have no theory and am waiting for the authorities to provide the answers that I do not think it is my place to speculate on...that's me refusing to come out and say what I think?! What kind of logic are you using here?<BR/><BR/>I can only assume that the concept of objectivity really is alien to you, then Rachel. It must be, if you're still calling our site a 'conspiracy theory site', when it can clearly be seen that we have no theory. The simple act of listing several <I>hypotheses</I> (not the same thing) proposed by <I>other people</I> is not the same as pushing or postulating a theory. <BR/><BR/>I haven't got a theory about July 7th. My own opinions about it will bring me no closer to finding the truth. Equating that with me not saying what I really think would just be obtuse. What I <I>think</I> is not the issue and never has been. Yes, I am open to all possibilities. The way you say that clearly indicates your scorn for anybody not toeing the dogmatic party line you relentlessly come over here to push, and not unquestioningly accepting a version of events that has yet to have many anomalies clarified. I know it makes you angry, Rachel. You've spent the best part of a year being angry at us. You have also stated many times that engaging with us is hindering your recovery process and you will do it no longer, yet you keep coming back, apparently unable to accept that we will not be quiet until we've had our questions answered. Unless you do accept this, you are quite possibly going to spend a long time being angry, which in the long run will not do you much good.<BR/><BR/>Be angry at the conspiracy sites if you want - I can show you plenty, including one that devotes itself to '7/7 truth' without doing any research beyond reading a couple of newspapers and taking hypotheses at face value, utterly convinced of the government's guilt in the same way you are convinced of the guilt of the men. Put our site into perspective - all of us have got up off our @sses and done research for ourselves. Bridget Dunne directly contacted TFL and other official sources for information rather than relying on newspapers. If she was convinced of a government 'conspiracy' would it not make better sense to just sit and speculate over news reports rather than directly sourcing facts, risking being confronted with evidence that does not fit the 'theory'? Instead, we've been faced with information that does not fit the official account. It is not, in the slightest, illogical to then wonder what the hell is going on and ask for the truth.<BR/><BR/>None of us were activists before all this - you have criticised other researchers who were already campaigning about 9/11 and similar because of the possibility that they were not approaching the event with an open mind, but none of us came from that background and have nothing to prove either way.<BR/><BR/>The two researchers who originally approached the Communications manager of Thameslink at Luton would clearly have had a reason for going there which you may not consider objective, since they had been campaigning previously, but that does not change the validity of the information they obtained about the train times. <BR/><BR/>This isn't a process v product debate anyway. The fact that you don't see me all over the internet spreading my 'theories' around does not indicate that I won't say what I think - it indicates that I've got no theories to spread around. For someone who seems to favour the 'occam's razor' approach, you certainly use it very selectively.Kierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12236507389155398693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160555682134693182006-10-11T09:34:00.000+01:002006-10-11T09:34:00.000+01:00“I am reasonably convinced thatthe Government itse...“I am reasonably convinced that<BR/>the Government itself was aware of<BR/>possible terrorist plots beforehand and I<BR/>also believe that the intelligence services<BR/>were as well.” <BR/><BR/>Me too. That does not mean in any way that the Government was RESPONSIBLE for planting the bombs.<BR/><BR/><BR/>' I don't really care what Bridget has previously written, the purpose of J7 has never been to promote one individuals theories, J7 is work in progress, an ongoing investigation. I am not here to defend Bridget or the Antagonist's theories,'<BR/><BR/>But if two out of three of the authors and main contributors to a site have certain publicly stated theories, then you have to expect that the site was and is to a certain extent created to reflect their interests and theories.<BR/><BR/>The BNP site is created and run by people who have certain theories. I don't go visiting there or hanging about on their forums because I know what their theories are and I know them to be false and distorted.<BR/><BR/>'I am here because of the holes in the OV, not because of the cast iron solidness of any other J7's theories'<BR/><BR/> This is just wriggling. J7 is a conspiracy theory site run by three people, two of whom think the bombers were innocent and the Govet. was behind it and it was a flase flag operation , and a third who won't come out and say what she thinks apart from she is open to all possibilities, which presumably includes the theory that her co-site authors hold. <BR/><BR/> I am not going to go into all the details about what I know about the forensics in that carriage, because I do not think it is your business and I think it is distasteful in the extreme to do so, so you will hear no more from me on the subject and I regret raising it at all. I asked you if you understood the concept of forensic evidence. I hope that you understand this may involve DNA and body part investigation as well as investigation as to the nature of tremendous injuries. It is a gruesome subject, and I am not going to go into details on a public forum. I do not think it is appropriate, especially as readers of this blog have no connection with the case other than curiosity. <BR/><BR/><BR/>People can, and I daresay will, attack me for this: but I do not see any merit in talking of these terrible things on an open forum to people who are not survivors or bereaved or involved in the investigation. YOu can take it that I am convinced of the bomber's guilt, having had access to more information than you and I daresay people will sneer and jeer and try to get me to reveal more, but I am not going to, out of respect for the families of people who lost people that day and those who still suffer the effects of 7.7. <BR/><BR/> I am sorry to hear of your connection to one of the dead.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807921540492728422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160506371076553862006-10-10T19:52:00.000+01:002006-10-10T19:52:00.000+01:00The Independent published an apology to Ejaz Fiaz ...The Independent published an apology to Ejaz Fiaz a few months ago, for reporting that he was one of the bombers. I have not seen it onlineNumeralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10524375540498868004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160498508811240322006-10-10T17:41:00.000+01:002006-10-10T17:41:00.000+01:00According to the Official Report:13 July Jermaine ...According to the Official Report:<BR/><BR/><B>13 July Jermaine Lindsay’s wife informs police that he is missing.<BR/><BR/>Police search Lindsay’s home in Aylesbury.<BR/><BR/>15 July Property belonging to Lindsay found at Russell Square.</B><BR/><BR/>I wonder if every wife who phoned to report their husband missing then had their home's searched?<BR/><BR/>Lindsay's property is not found until 8 days after the blast.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-2.html" REL="nofollow">From Mind the Gaps pt 11</A><BR/><BR/>Early reports gave the name of the Piccadilly Line bomber as Ejaz or Eliaz Fiaz, who, like three of the suspects came from Beeston. Fiaz had recently bleached his hair.<BR/><BR/>Once Lindsay was identified as the suspect for the Piccadilly Line blast, Fiaz was never mentioned again and, perhaps more importantly, has not been heard of since.Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160496365349907982006-10-10T17:06:00.000+01:002006-10-10T17:06:00.000+01:00I know of none, but I am new around here, however ...I know of none, but I am new around here, however Grahame Russell father of Philip Russell, killed on the the number 30, did say...<BR/><BR/>“I am reasonably convinced that<BR/>the Government itself was aware of<BR/>possible terrorist plots beforehand and I<BR/>also believe that the intelligence services<BR/>were as well.” <BR/><BR/>Philip was my classmate at school.<BR/><BR/>Okay sit down Rachel and brace your self, I don't really care what Bridget has previously written, the purpose of J7 has never been to promote one individuals theories, J7 is work in progress, an ongoing investigation. I am not here to defend Bridget or the Antagonist's theories, if indeed your post is placing her comments in context, and are a fair reflection of what she meant. I am here because of the holes in the OV, not because of the cast iron solidness of any other J7's theories.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>“The witness saw the headless torso next to them. It was later forensically identified as Lindsays. There was only one black male torso with the DNA of Lindsay on that train, and injuries commesurate with being the bomber.”<BR/><BR/>Truthseeker, have you ever seen a case where someone kills themselves after committing murder? Do you assume they are innocent and have been post-humously framed by the state too? Do you understand that you cannot try the dead? Do you understand what forenics are? </B><BR/><BR/>Oh dear Rachel, you originally raised the torso witness as evidence that Lindsay was there, what you are actually saying is that a torso was seen and the witness was later told the torso he had seen is that of Lindsay, now that would never stand up in a court of law. You used this witnesses statement as evidence that Lindsay was there, but as it hinges on the forensics, him effectively being told it was Lindsay, it is not additional evidence. BTW the narrative states...<BR/><BR/>“Forensic evidence suggests the explosion occurred on or close to<BR/>the floor”<BR/><BR/>Why therefore would Lindsay's injuries differ significantly from those of someone next to him?<BR/><BR/>Where did they get the other DNA sample for Lindsay, the one to match it to? Before you go on, I am not saying it wasn't Lindsay just curious, as it was done quite fast.<BR/><BR/>It is not that rare for someone to kill themselves after a murder, but actually they are not normally branded guilty, merely the police say they are 'not looking for anyone else in relation to the case', their guilt is inferred. No I do not assume them framed nor innocent, though I am sure some cases will have been wrong. However do you really want to treat July 7th like just any other murder case?<BR/><BR/>Do I understand what forensics are, yes, what's your point exactly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160489682740283142006-10-10T15:14:00.000+01:002006-10-10T15:14:00.000+01:00How many survivors have made themselves known to t...How many survivors have made themselves known to the J7 campaign who support your doubts? Apart from Keith M going to the bereaved father of a bomber, I am unaware of any survivors or families who have shown any interest in your campaign. Do you know any? Have you found any? If not, why do you think that is? Given that so many are campaigning quietly for an inquiry?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> The J7 campaign, as I point out by republishing its own material, and the words of its founder and website creator, Bridget Dunne supports the evidence-free claim that 7/7 was a 'false flag operation' and that the bombers need only time to be proved innocent. Bridget does not even seem to understand or accept that Islamic terror or homegrown suicide bombers exist!<BR/><BR/>''It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it.Read the narrative and then you'll know what tasteless fact-free conspiraloonery really looks like'<BR/><BR/>'From the evidence that I've researched so far there is no such thing as home-grown Islamic suicide-bombers'<BR/><BR/>'I also believe that acts of 'terrorism' are carried out by groups pursuing a political agenda ie IRA ETA etc. I do not know what acts would be carried out in the name of 'Islam' or if in fact any ever have been.' <BR/><BR/>That is what she writes, and you only need to read this blog to see Antagonist's wild theories.<BR/><BR/> What I object to is this constant inference that the OV is wrong with NO attempt to bring evidence to bear to back up the assertions that the bombers were innocent or that the operation was conducted by the State. This has got to a point where I have been the subject of venomous personal attacks, and have responded with wearied anger at times. I am sure you can see why.<BR/><BR/>The witness saw the headless torso next to them. It was later forensically identified as Lindsays. There was only one black male torso with the DNA of Lindsay on that train, and injuries commesurate with being the bomber.<BR/><BR/>Truthseeker, have you ever seen a case where someone kills themselves after committing murder? Do you assume they are innocent and have been post-humously framed by the state too? Do you understand that you cannot try the dead? Do you understand what forenics are?Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807921540492728422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160468487309784692006-10-10T09:21:00.001+01:002006-10-10T09:21:00.001+01:00Rachel have you ever sat on a jury? You don't appe...Rachel have you ever sat on a jury? You don't appear to understand the nature of innocence, guilty and not guilty.<BR/><BR/>Rachel do you realise when someone walks free from court, they have not been found 'innocent', though the press often erroneously say so. No, when someone walks free from court, they have generally been found 'not guilty' this does not mean they did not commit the crime, it just means that there is not sufficient evidence that they <I>did</I> commit the crime. <BR/><BR/>It is the same here, no-one is saying the men are innocent, just that faced with the feather-like weight of evidence, that is available to the public, it is not possible to conclude their guilt with certainty. Some of the evidence is more compelling that other bits, but last night I watched the president of the USA's assassination, I witnessed Dick Cheyney discuss this, was it all real? Rachel do you <I>really</I> believe in the veracity of the photographic image?<BR/><BR/>This has been explained to you again and again, and yet still you repeat the same lies and allegations, that we all think the men are 'innocent as newborn lambs' that we are holocaust deniers and that we all think you are a shill, believe in lizardmen, Zionist conspiracies the illuminati etc... <BR/><BR/>As for KCU, I do not think it is designed to control the voice of the survivors, however I do think because of your outspoken and offensive attitude towards anyone that does not support the OV, you are unlikely to attract any survivors that do not support the OV, it stands to reason.<BR/><BR/>As for witnesses statements, as Jim pointed out, no-one is saying they are liars, just that their testimony may not be reliable, this is the nature of memory, in court the first witness statements to be discounted are those that have changed repeatedly, or those that appear to have been formed by later events, such as...<BR/><BR/>'He was wearing brown trousers and a white top,'<BR/>'Oh, can't be him then, he was wearing a kilt,'<BR/>'Yes, sorry that's it, he was wearing a kilt,'<BR/><BR/>...now many people can see issues with certain witness statements, you will not address these issues, either you ignore them or get angry and call people sick. An example of this was a debate you took part in a long time ago, which I read recently, you told of a witness that lay next to the torso of Lindsay in the wreckage. Kier politely asked you repeatedly, how the witness identified the torso of a man he had never seen before, in the dark, in the chaos, amid the carnage and damage. How did the witness know the torso was that of Lindsay?<BR/><BR/>No doubt you will call me sick for asking, but the police would ask it, the newspapers would ask it, the courts would ask it, so I feel no shame in asking it.<BR/><BR/>Now I wonder, can you reply to me, actually address the content of my post without once mentioning Zionists, lizardmen, conspiracy theories, mad, sick, etc...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160468478194510152006-10-10T09:21:00.000+01:002006-10-10T09:21:00.000+01:00This is what Bridget wrote on u75, posting as Prol...This is what Bridget wrote on u75, posting as Prole:<BR/><BR/>'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it.Read the narrative and then you'll know what tasteless fact-free conspiraloonery really looks like'<BR/><BR/>'From the evidence that I've researched so far there is no such thing as home-grown Islamic suicide-bombers'<BR/><BR/>'I also believe that acts of 'terrorism' are carried out by groups pursuing a political agenda ie IRA ETA etc. I do not know what acts would be carried out in the name of 'Islam' or if in fact any ever have been.'Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807921540492728422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160430300131201772006-10-09T22:45:00.000+01:002006-10-09T22:45:00.000+01:00Rachel, it's not a matter of being bold. What I ke...Rachel, it's not a matter of being bold. What I keep stating to you is that the J7 campaign is not a campaign to prove the innocence of those men. It is a campaign for an inquiry into 7/7 which is not conducted under the IA2005 and for the release of the evidence which proves the official account. <BR/><BR/>In a case like this, where there is reasonable doubt, of course we are not going to assume the guilt of the men. And since the law in this country is that people are innocent until proven guilty, it is not unreasonable to not assume this guilt. This is just one of many assumptions about July 7th that we are not making. <BR/><BR/>There is obviously a question over whether they are guilty or not, since so much of what we've been told about them is incongruent and ambiguous. <BR/><BR/>We are told to assume, for instance, that Hasib Hussain bombed the No.30 bus, yet there is no CCTV of him on the bus, the driver didn't see him and nor did any passengers. On this basis, the basis of any proof that he was on the bus being totally absent, would it be foolish or not to accept without question that he was on it? <BR/>It does not follow that by saying this, I am saying Hasib Hussain is innocent; I'm saying his guilt is called into question when there is no proof that he was on the bus. Can you not see this fundamental distinction? Equally, nobody saw Shehzad Tanweer on the Aldgate train. This rather basic detail is more important to me than any video he might have made with the help of some dodgy convert from California, or the acceptance of the existance of Islamic extremists - and I certainly do accept that they exist.<BR/><BR/>All we have been shown are things which make it seem likely that two of the men might have been involved with 7/7. This is not proof of their guilt, and certainly not proof of the guilt of the two others. Yes, there may well be evidence in existence we haven't seen - exactly why I'm campaigning to have it released. About 640 people agree with me, the last time I looked. We're actually not asking for very much, it's a very simple request. I would rather not base my opinions on speculation.<BR/><BR/>By saying we are out to exonerate those men, and ignore any evidence to suggest they actually are guilty, you are missing the point, and misunderstanding our campaign. Like I've said before, I am perfectly ready to believe they did it, if I am shown the proof that they did. I will not dismiss CCTV footage as 'fake' because it fits in with some obstinate idea I have that it was all a lie; I will look at it objectively like I've done all the way through this.<BR/><BR/>You can think of this as 'wriggling' if you like, but I don't know any better way of explaining it to you.Kierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12236507389155398693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160423429853467812006-10-09T20:50:00.000+01:002006-10-09T20:50:00.000+01:00"Bridget meanwhile DOES claim the bombers were inn..."Bridget meanwhile DOES claim the bombers were innocent. She has said so on urban 75."<BR/><BR/>Innocent until PROVEN guilty.Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160421695383478082006-10-09T20:21:00.000+01:002006-10-09T20:21:00.000+01:00' BIRMINGHAM 6: INNOCENT! (17 years before the tru...<B>' BIRMINGHAM 6: INNOCENT! (17 years before the truth emerged)<BR/><BR/>GUILDFORD 4: INNOCENT! (15 years before the truth emerged)<BR/><BR/>TIPTON 3: INNOCENT! (2 years in Guantanamo for 3 innocents)<BR/><BR/>LEEDS 4: HOW LONG? NOT LONG....'</B><BR/><BR/>.... before the truth emerges.<BR/><BR/>Almost as good at this 'reading' lark as you are at the 'writing' thing.The Antagonisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01459201402366077472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160419580568305162006-10-09T19:46:00.000+01:002006-10-09T19:46:00.000+01:00Kier, you *persoanlly* may not be bold enough to s...Kier, you *persoanlly* may not be bold enough to say that the bombers were innocent. However, you are one of three running J7.<BR/> <BR/>Bridget meanwhile DOES claim the bombers were innocent. She has said so on urban 75. She is one of three people who run J7. Antagonist appears to be of the same mind. So the majority view held by the creators of your site is that the bombers were innocent and it was an act of state terror.<BR/><BR/>But let's not just take the opinions of Bridget and Antagonist. Let us look, shall we, at your main leaflet that you hand out? <BR/><BR/> <BR/>From your leaflet:<BR/>' BIRMINGHAM 6: INNOCENT! (17 years before the truth emerged)<BR/><BR/>GUILDFORD 4: INNOCENT! (15 years before the truth emerged) <BR/><BR/>TIPTON 3: INNOCENT! (2 years in Guantanamo for 3 innocents)<BR/><BR/>LEEDS 4: HOW LONG? NOT LONG....'<BR/><BR/>'War OF Terror: 'IslamoFascism' is the mask behind which the real globalist-fascists, scheming for their New World Order, have repeatedly hidden...New York, Madrid, Bali, Jordan and now London. Who and where next?'<BR/><BR/>'How States work: Inside job frame-ups are routine operations when ruling fraternities want another war or more police-state powers. Intelligence services like the SS, CIA, Mossad and MI6 have been internationally recognised for encouraging or directly engin- eering terrorist atrocities ...'<BR/><BR/>It is perfectly clear to memand anyone else lookign at your campaign that your site pushes the line that the bombers were innocent and that this was a flase flag operation of synthetic terror done by a State which you call 'globalist-fascists, scheming for their New World Order'.<BR/><BR/>Can you stop wriggling now please? All of you?<BR/><BR/>Any of you?<BR/><BR/>That is your campaign flyer. It quite clearly says what it says. Evidence *has* been released and you have picked holes in it because it does not fit with your theory. It is quite clear to anyone reading your flyer - your mission statement - what your agenda is. I'd have more respect if you not only admitted it, and more importantly, actually provided some evidence to support the assertions that the bombers were innocent and it was all a false flag State plot.<BR/><BR/>To put it back at you - release the evidence! Oh, you can't.<BR/><BR/> Release the hypothesis then.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807921540492728422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160416761437227572006-10-09T18:59:00.000+01:002006-10-09T18:59:00.000+01:00RachelAs for "Oh Christ, you don't 'do' humour or ...Rachel<BR/><BR/>As for "Oh Christ, you don't 'do' humour or irony, do you.<BR/><BR/>Never mind Bridget. Never mind."<BR/><BR/>Nothing you've ever had to say about 7th July has struck me as either ironic or humorous. 'Taking the piss' doesn't proves that you have a sense of humour Rachel.Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160415882190987482006-10-09T18:44:00.000+01:002006-10-09T18:44:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Kierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12236507389155398693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160416011324116422006-10-09T18:46:00.000+01:002006-10-09T18:46:00.000+01:00Well, I guess I don't do humour or irony, either.....Well, I guess I don't do humour or irony, either...I've had that "Well, why are you still alive, then?" argument flung at me more times this year than I care to remember, like it validly addresses a <I>non-point</I> that we don't even make. <BR/><BR/>But, hey - I never used to do repeating myself over and over again to someone who never listens, although I've had to endure an awful lot of that this year too, Rachel ;)<BR/><BR/>Please rest assured I've got my will ready and a letter with my lawyer for when I get picked off in an 'suspicious suicide' for being a naughty loonspud. <BR/><BR/>Look at the J7 campaign for what it is. Please give it a rest with your non-sequiturs. You cannot predict what reaction there would be to the release of the CCTV footage footage that bizarrely, people like Peregrine Worsthorne believe we've all already seen. How about that for people not needing to be confronted with evidence. Say it often enough and they believe it so. I am concerned that we haven't been shown such footage for the reasons I've given to you numerous times, which are also laid out <A HREF="http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html" REL="nofollow">here.</A><BR/><BR/>To address your itemised points:<BR/><BR/>a)<B>We're not saying the bombers are innocent.</B><BR/><BR/>b)We're not saying there were no bombs.<BR/><BR/>c)We're not saying everyone is lying.<BR/><BR/>d) We don't claim to be in possession of the truth.<BR/><BR/>e) We have never claimed the London bombings were carried out by MI5/MI6/pixies/lizards..or the rest of the nutbar theories you associate our campaign with.<BR/><BR/>We are under no obligation to provide evidence to "support our hypothesis" because...for the hundredth time...drum roll please...<B>we have no hypothesis!</B><BR/><BR/>f)We do not point out that the government were behind the London bombings.<BR/><BR/>g)Invalid comparison<BR/><BR/>h)We do accept a crime happened.<BR/><BR/>i)It is only 7/7 we are specifially campaigning against, but the anomalies associated with it also appear in similar atrocities.<BR/><BR/>Lait's testimony was only given credence in the wider context of its correlation with other witness testimony. Since you wish to make the comparison...Bruce Lait has only given one statement, not many, to many different media sources, with a different version given each time as with Danny Biddle. <BR/>And before the next accusation of equivocation comes flying...No, this does not make Danny Biddle a liar. It just makes his testimony less reliable. John Tulloch initially said he could remember seeing nobody of Khan's description after having been told where he must have been in relation to him on the Edgware train. <BR/><BR/>And thanks for saying we're special and different, what an absolutely lovely thing to say!Kierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12236507389155398693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160409986942550882006-10-09T17:06:00.000+01:002006-10-09T17:06:00.000+01:00RachelYou made an interesting point here:f) Despit...Rachel<BR/><BR/>You made an interesting point here:<BR/><BR/>f) Despite you pointing out that The Government were behind the bombings, the Govt. and security services (which, remember according to you have no compunction about murdering scores on 7/7 and hundreds of thousamds world wide) have bizarrely elected to leave you all alone to reveal the truth on the internet.<BR/><BR/>Apart from the fact that we have never claimed to know who was behind 7/7, why would it be bizarre to be left alone by the security services? Would you expect us to be arrested or something more sinister for 'daring' to question the official version? <BR/><BR/>9/10/06 16:26 <BR/><BR/>Oh Christ, you don't 'do' humour or irony, do you.<BR/><BR/>Never mind Bridget. Never mind.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807921540492728422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160409696719759762006-10-09T17:01:00.000+01:002006-10-09T17:01:00.000+01:00bridget dunne wrote:The July 7th Review Commitee r...bridget dunne wrote:<BR/><I>The July 7th Review Commitee reports contain no evidence from bus passengers</I><BR/><BR/>Actually there is one I have found. It is Gary, p.201 in vol 3 of the report.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160407561237383252006-10-09T16:26:00.000+01:002006-10-09T16:26:00.000+01:00RachelYou made an interesting point here:f) Despit...Rachel<BR/><BR/>You made an interesting point here:<BR/><BR/>f) Despite you pointing out that The Government were behind the bombings, the Govt. and security services (which, remember according to you have no compunction about murdering scores on 7/7 and hundreds of thousamds world wide) have bizarrely elected to leave you all alone to reveal the truth on the internet.<BR/><BR/>Apart from the fact that we have never claimed to know who was behind 7/7, why would it be bizarre to be left alone by the security services? Would you expect us to be arrested or something more sinister for 'daring' to question the official version?Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5892105.post-1160404824357154412006-10-09T15:40:00.000+01:002006-10-09T15:40:00.000+01:00RachelBruce Lait repeated what the policeman told ...Rachel<BR/><BR/>Bruce Lait repeated what the policeman told him and what he saw. Also he was on the Aldgate train which Tanweer is alleged to have exploded a bomb on, not the Edgware Rd train with Khan.<BR/><BR/>As for the Edgware Rd train, John Reid has answered survivors queries about the official report having the position of the bomb wrong with 'forensics are not yet complete' as you well know. <BR/><BR/>The July 7th Review Commitee reports contain no evidence from bus passengers btw.<BR/><BR/>As for releasing further evidence to 'satisfy you as you are special and different' last time I checked 630 people had <A HREF="http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth/petition.html" REL="nofollow">signed the petition to Release the Evidence</A> in just over 6 weeks. All special & different, yes perhaps, these are all people who wish to make up their own minds, based on the evidence rather than just 'believing what they are told'.<BR/><BR/>Have you signed yet?Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.com