7/7 Opinions

[iCraig]

Wheres the test results?

At a guess, filed away with other health and safety test reports for the airline.

Why are you questioning it? You're told why you shouldn't use a mobile phone during flights, why are you trying to pick holes in it?

When your Mum told you to never eat broken glass, did you say, 'Where's the test results saying glass can hurt me, Mum!?'

 

[Teki187]

At a guess, filed away with other health and safety test reports for the airline.

Why are you questioning it? You're told why you shouldn't use a mobile phone during flights, why are you trying to pick holes in it?

When your Mum told you to never eat broken glass, did you say, 'Where's the test results saying glass can hurt me, Mum!?'

Why not question it? Why take everything at face value? Why accept everything your told is true?

Common sense kicks in when you look at broken glass.

 

[jas72]

You forgot to mention that Tupac is dead too and NOT in jamaica or Africa.


This is gonna get intresting...

Tupac is DEAD?

How does he keep releasing what are in my opinion awful songs?

 

[iCraig]

Why not question it? Why take everything at face value? Why accept everything your told is true?

Because you'll spend your life asking questions that will never be answered.

Common sense kicks in when you look at broken glass.

Common sense also kicks in when you research a bit on how mobile phones work.

 

[alexakasloth]

Tupac is DEAD?

How does he keep releasing what are in my opinion awful songs?

Conspiracy theory:

He really is dead, his mother is making the songs.

 

[Teki187]

Carrying on from post #60

Detainee Law in america

A defendant would be selected for prosecution and assigned a military defense counsel. The defendant could retain civilian counsel if the counsel is eligible to have access classified information.

Statements obtained using interrogation methods that violate a 2005 ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" would be admissible as evidence if they were taken before the ban went into effect and a judge found the statements to be reliable and would serve the "interests of justice."

A defendant would be allowed to examine and respond to any evidence given to a jury. If classified information were needed for prosecution, an unclassified summary would be provided.

When the government wanted to protect classified information and an unclassified substitute was not available, the government could decide to drop the charges. Under the laws of war, the president would not be required to release the combatant.

Defendants would be barred from protesting their detention or treatment in civilian courts.

http://www.starttherevolution.org/archives/2006/i - september/TheDetaineeLawExplained.htm

Long-term US residents are subject to unlimited detainment/imprisonment without the need for any indictment, trial or conviction. No 'crime' is required. Having enemies in high places perfectly sufficient. We have started the detainment camps and joined in the fascist expansion without consent. The traitors in the Congress work hand in hand with the devils in the White House and Supreme Court that put them there.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15143.htm

I cant produce more, but it'll take time to dig through my bookmarks

 

[scorza]

Why not question it? Why take everything at face value? Why accept everything your told is true?

In the case of mobile phones on airplanes, because if you're wrong and they're right you could kill hundreds of people.

 

[Teki187]

A recent New York gubernatorial debate at Bailey Hall on the Cornell campus in Ithaca NY has provided some unexpectedly ugly facts. An intentional censorship by Time-Warner and the League of New York Women's Voters of anything that mentions the un-prosecuted crimes of 911 brought on more than the governor hopefuls had expected in demanding this censorship. The people are MAD AND READY TO STRIKE THE ROOT!

http://www.nyctv.com/ny_gubernatorial_debates_censor_questions.htm

If you don't support Bush you could be a terrorist. In the torture bill...Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 Crimes triable by military commissions includes the following definition. "Any person subject to this chapter who, in BREACH OF AN ALLEGIANCE OR DUTY TO THE U.S., knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the U.S. SHALL BE PUNISHED AS A MILITARY COMMISSION under this chapter may direct."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6166:

 

[robmiller]

bush going around congress to introduce laws that he sees fit.

FYI this is one of the President's constitutional roles and responsibilities Article II, section 3, clause one.

 

[alexakasloth]

This one's funny:

If you don't support Bush you could be a terrorist.

In the torture bill...Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 Crimes triable by military commissions includes the following definition. "Any person subject to this chapter who, in BREACH OF AN ALLEGIANCE OR DUTY TO THE U.S., knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the U.S. SHALL BE PUNISHED AS A MILITARY COMMISSION under this chapter may direct."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6166:

Knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the U.S, like terrorists. They have said that terrorists will be punished, not 'anyone who doesn't support Bush' will be punished, so half of the voters who voted Kerry are terrorists?

 

[chimaera]

In the case of mobile phones on airplanes, because if you're wrong and they're right you could kill hundreds of people.

If i was on a plane next to the OP and he tried to use his phone during the landing procedure i would give him such a good kicking.

No offense to the OP, but if there's any risk at all, i'm not gonna to allow it. I remember when i was in a hospital room once and my phone went off and the equipment went haywire, i refuse to believe with all the signals going on throughout a plane that mobiles 100% do not interfere.

And as for the 7/7 9/11 bombings, why is it so hard to just believe that theres a group of people who want to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. Its so easy for you to believe all these conspiracy theories, but not the most obvious reasons why, its always got to be something sinister.

 

[Will]

Carrying on from post #60

Detainee Law in america

A defendant would be selected for prosecution and assigned a military defense counsel. The defendant could retain civilian counsel if the counsel is eligible to have access classified information.

Statements obtained using interrogation methods that violate a 2005 ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" would be admissible as evidence if they were taken before the ban went into effect and a judge found the statements to be reliable and would serve the "interests of justice."

A defendant would be allowed to examine and respond to any evidence given to a jury. If classified information were needed for prosecution, an unclassified summary would be provided.

When the government wanted to protect classified information and an unclassified substitute was not available, the government could decide to drop the charges. Under the laws of war, the president would not be required to release the combatant.

Defendants would be barred from protesting their detention or treatment in civilian courts.

http://www.starttherevolution.org/archives/2006/i - september/TheDetaineeLawExplained.htm

Long-term US residents are subject to unlimited detainment/imprisonment without the need for any indictment, trial or conviction. No 'crime' is required. Having enemies in high places perfectly sufficient. We have started the detainment camps and joined in the fascist expansion without consent. The traitors in the Congress work hand in hand with the devils in the White House and Supreme Court that put them there.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15143.htm

I cant produce more, but it'll take time to dig through my bookmarks

What does this have to do with 7/7?

Or is presenting a coherent and focussed argument on a specific issue that you've raised too much, so instead you'll just jump from one vague theme of conspiracy to another with information that draws questions on each area, but doesn't actually provide quite enough solid enough evidence of any conspiracy, instead relying on allegation and hearsay?

 

[Teki187]

The Lincoln Park (Mich.) School District passed a controversial dress code which prohibits school students from wearing T-shirts with any images, writing or political statements on them, including 9/11 commemorative T-shirts and copies of the First Amendment.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/26/first-amendment-banned-in-lincoln-park-schools

Britain's basic benevolence in foreign policy is largely in the realms of myth making. A frightening picture of cruelty, venality and hypocrisy of the British elite in pursuit of its imperial agenda.

http://desicritics.org/2006/09/19/044048.php

 

[Al Vallario]

I only checked the link to make sure it wasn't more Alex Jones / Loose Change tripe. I have no intention of watching the video, so feel free to skip right past this post and denounce all my comments with a big fat "watch t3h video thirst omgz lols!" if you so please.

This is just another load of rubbish. A terrorist attack took place, hundreds of eyewitnesses saw it take place (i.e. saw the bombers, saw them detonate their explosives). The bombers were caught on CCTV (which wasn't photoshopped, before you pull that rubbish out), and a number of them have since been seen in videos released by international terrorist organisations. There are a million and one reasons why the government don't release certain information. Number one: Why do the general public need such information? Number two: Such information could compromise national security. Number three: Likewise such information could compromise ongoing inquiries or expose intelligence sources. Number four: Releasing such information will just cause more distress to the families of those who died on that day. The list goes on, and on and on. What reasons can you provide for the government and intelligence services to release such information? So a few easily manipulated conspiracy theorists who buy into rubbish they see on Google Video/Youtube/Beyondtopsecret/Prison planet can sleep safe at night, only to wake up the next morning and claim half of the information was fake?

On the matter of civil liberties, have we seen any abuses of these new laws yet? Why are you so apprehensive to give up certain liberties to remain safe; I know I don't see a problem with it. Do you have something to hide?

If the US and UK governments had failed to bring such things as the Patriot Act in, two things would likely have happened:

1. More terrorist attacks.
2. People like you would be moaning that the government are not doing enough to protect us.

Face the facts; there was no conspiracy. Those of us who believe the official story are not "sheep" and it is not "cool" to believe everything is a conspiracy. Far from it, you don't see us falling over sideways to support amateur conspiracy theorists who slap together rubbish videos based on disjointed, plain ludicrous theories and throw them up on the Internet.

av.

Edit: Pardon the disjointed nature of this post

 

[iCraig]

What are you doing? You're digging up crap from all over the place and slapping it on here.

What are you talking about? What point are you trying to make?

 

[Teki187]

What does this have to do with 7/7?

Or is presenting a coherent and focussed argument on a specific issue that you've raised too much, so instead you'll just jump from one vague theme of conspiracy to another with information that draws questions on each area, but doesn't actually provide quite enough solid enough evidence of any conspiracy, instead relying on allegation and hearsay?

Icraig

What do you mean 'bush has just decided to deny anyone over there any human rights' ?

just answering his question

 

[Teki187]

I only checked the link to make sure it wasn't more Alex Jones / Loose Change tripe. I have no intention of watching the video, so feel free to skip right past this post and denounce all my comments with a big fat "watch t3h video thirst omgz lols!" if you so please.

Your choice

This is just another load of rubbish. A terrorist attack took place, hundreds of eyewitnesses saw it take place (i.e. saw the bombers, saw them detonate their explosives).

Oh so someone saying 6 months after the event they saw someone messing around in there bag is proof of them blowing it up? So when my girlfriend goes to Uni i should tell her not to do anything with her bag incase shes going to blow it up?

The bombers were caught on CCTV (which wasn't photoshopped, before you pull that rubbish out),

Well if your going by what the CCTV and the offical story said, they caught a train that was never there, yet they arrived x amounts of minutes later in london?

Number one: Why do the general public need such information?

Closeur (cant spell that word)

Number two: Such information could compromise national security.

So releasing CCTV full footage will compromise our nations security?

Number three: Likewise such information could compromise ongoing inquiries or expose intelligence sources.

Ok i agree with this one

What reasons can you provide for the government and intelligence services to release such information?

Because there official story has inconsistancies.

 

[iCraig]

Oh so someone saying 6 months after the event they saw someone messing around in there bag is proof of them blowing it up? So when my girlfriend goes to Uni i should tell her not to do anything with her bag incase shes going to blow it up?

So what are you saying happened then? Maybe the delayed eyewitness isn't 100% positive she identified the terrorist. Yet it's irrelevant because we know a terrorist on there blew up the bus, eye witnesses saw the bus explode, forensic evidence off the bus. Dead bodies etc etc etc

Well if your going by what the CCTV and the offical story said, they caught a train that was never there, yet they arrived x amounts of minutes later in london?

Don't misquote the information. Originally the BBC report was incorrect, they highlighted the wrong train. This mistake was omitted later.

So releasing CCTV full footage will compromise our nations security?

Not directly no. But the government have to be careful on how much information they disclose on how they conduct investigations, especially forensic and technological investigations. If the police exposed everything into the public domain on exactly what they're doing and how they're doing it, they would be giving potential terrorists a lot of information, and even a way to adapt to it. What the terrorists don't know, they can't fight.

Number three: Likewise such information could compromise ongoing inquiries or expose intelligence sources.

But for the sake of arguement, let's say the police decided to release the irrelevant and academic CCTV footage. What would that do? How would that change anything? Are you expecting to see Tony Blair on CCTV giving them instructions or something?

 

[Teki187]

And as for the 7/7 9/11 bombings, why is it so hard to just believe that theres a group of people who want to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. Its so easy for you to believe all these conspiracy theories, but not the most obvious reasons why, its always got to be something sinister.

I also do believe there are people like that, but can those people organise something on the scale of 7/7 and 9/11?

 

[iCraig]

I also do believe there are people like that, but can those people organise something on the scale of 7/7 and 9/11?

Yes. Do you suggest they can't? What image of the terrorists do you have?

Some asian looking blokes in a dusty cave jotting down anti-west sketches on the back of fag packets?