Saturday, July 30, 2005


When Lunatics Attack

My postings on the London bombings have received numerous comments on this, and other posts from an anonymous visitor which I have cheerfully deleted.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I support healthy debate. Your arguments are not healthy and suggest blind denial rather than a difference of opinion.

Comments such as "this is one of the most obvious inside jobs I've ever seen" beg the question how many have you actually "seen"? Followup comments referring to "the "official 9-11" fairy tale"answer the question and put you into a special group of human beings. It is a group for which I do not wish, nor am I obliged to provide support for.

Having deleted the first lengthy, poorly punctuated comment, I was accused (rather predictably) by the same person of "censorship" and cowardice. Not at all. Is it censorship when a respectable publication refused to print the letters I have no doubt you have sent them? If you want an (in your world) "uncensored" and completely irresponsible medium, you already have one. Or, you could try the back of the toilet door. I, and many rational people on the other hand have a major problem with it. I am certainly not going to emulate it. My blog, my rules, no, you are no longer welcome.

I hope you get the message and save me having to turn comments off altogether. Try not to ruin it for the other children...

Good for you. These idiots scream 'censorship' so often, and with such little reason, that it's devaluing the word (see also 'torture', 'war crimes', 'genocide'). What they never seem to realize is that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to control what is published in forums you own or control. Otherwise, they could never truly be yours.
Of course it's your decision to keep and delete whatever posts you feel like, but by selectively deleting the posts that bring up questions unanswerable unless the "official" story is bunk you showcase your narrowmindedness, naivete and, yes, moral cowardice for not being willing to even look at the facts right there in front of you.

Let's see... One of the fellows who was apprehended for the 21 July pyrotechnics show was a naturalized British citizen from Eritrea. He had at least one violent felony on his record, yet "somehow" though this was known he was granted citizenship anyway (sound like he is an MI5 asset?). The one in Rome awaiting extradition admits to his part in the 21 July farce and states the painfully obvious, that the 21 July display was meant for psychological effect, not physical damage. They were so transparently designed that way. Consider: 1.The 21 July ones were all at more oulying stations than 7 July; 2.They were at a much less-crowded time of day for the city's transportation network; and 3.They were allegedly "much smaller" explosives that "failed to detonate" [read: blasting caps attached to a lump of clay or some such]. The blasting caps apparently went off, as they themselves have a small explosive charge (ordinarily to set off the main charge). This "event" was meant to scare people, not kill them, and the MI5 operative Hussein Osman or whatever his real name is in Rome just admitted as much. Now why would genuine Islamic fundamentalist terrorists opt for a non-lethal operation like this instead of a destructive one? They wouldn't. MI5 on the other hand, meaning to simply "reinforce" the psychological effect of the 7 July bombings without causing further suffering, would. Look at who benefits, that is, if you have the guts. Oh my, what a "coincidence" that Tony Blair scheduled a meeting with top lawmakers regarding draconian, Nazi-like "anti-terror" laws for the same day he scheduled the fake "attempted bombings" to reinforce his message and quell any hint of dissent regarding it.
Over in the U.S. they have been debating if one wants to call it that about renewing the "controversial" [read: most intrusive police state] provisions of the Patriot Act, which are set to expire at the end of this year if not renewed. For weeks preceding the London bombings they have been jabbering about these Patriot Act provisions, just as Tony Blair and company have been hammering incessantly about a national ID card programme and further police state measures over here. If you have the bollocks(doubtful), I would suggest you ask yourself the one obvious, most important question regarding this matter: WHO BENEFITS?
Wow. That was a lot of words.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? .