Bomb for Brown

[Guest]

The great lesson history teaches us is that we should start from the assumption that the terrorist activity has state sponsorship

If you actually wish to investigate rather than recite your preferred fantasies ad nauseum you should start by examining the evidence.

Unfortunately it is painfully apparent that you have never experienced a "great" or even an effective history lesson.

Finally, when you quote someone's post in a reply it is very poor practice indeed to edit the text you are quoting to suit your own argument. I have therefore restored my quoted text to my actual words. The fact that you did this is disappointing but not terribly surprising.

[Sid Walker]

Here then is a picture of someone parking their car at Glasgow airport?

Maybe we can summon up enough speculative and critical thought to conclude that the similar devices found in London were also intended to have targets. Or maybe its just more fun to blame the spooks.

Your facile attempts at abuse make you look weak and foolish Mr Rigby..

I admire your steadfast refusal to consider the rich history of agent provocateur and false flag ops. Er, why? Why the disposition to see it from the establishment's point of view? The great lesson history teaches us is that we should start from the assumption that the terrorist activity has state sponsorship - until proven otherwise.

Relatedly, what the rubes think they are doing, and what their masters really intend, have a tendency to be poles apart. In the case of 9/11, for example, the FBI early went on record as believing that the hijackers in among the passengers thought they were taking part in an old fashioned skyjacking, not a suicide mission.

And of the men in the cockpit, was Mohammad Atta, for example, really a devout Muslim, with a head full of virgins? Or just not in nightclubs when knocking back the vodka?

A final thought: Given that every time a bomb explodes the spooks' budgets increase significantly, what countervailing incentives are there for them to do better? After all, whoever heard of a spook sacked or disciplined for failing to prevent a bombing?

Andy

I'm no photographic expert, but I'd say the photo you have posted on this thread depicts a few people staring at a burning car. Location? Couldn't say. It looks a little like my local shopping precinct.

Significance? Pass.

I think the sentences I bolded in Paul's latest reply deserve an answer. I'll call it the Rigby Theorem of Spook Self-Interest. I hope the author isn't upset by that.

I paraphrase. Exactly what accountability controls apply to these people?

Are there any?

How would we ever know?

Regarding my pursuit of an exact Dawkins citation from you, I am merely calling you on a rather boorish assertion that you made earlier on in this thread. Brushing aside my quote from a scientist who made more than one significant contribution during his long career, you said that in your "considered opinion" Hoyle's work had been "blown out of the water" by Richard Dawkins.

You happen to touch on a subject of interest to me, so I'm not merely probing to see whether anything actually underlies your "considered opinion" other than huff and puff.

Believe it or not, I'm actually interested to hear your answer - if you have one.

[Paul Rigby]

If you actually wish to investigate rather than recite your preferred fantasies ad nauseum you should start by examining the evidence.

Well, go on then, pick a relevant example and discuss "the evidence." And while you're at it, perhaps you'd deign to tell us who determines what is "evidence" and how it is presented.

In cases of terrorism, could it be the intelligence services? And you trust them to give you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? Why? Is your seeming trust in the spooks based on personal experience, the product of extensive examination, or an article of faith?

Unfortunately it is painfully apparent that you have never experienced a "great" or even an effective history lesson.

If you did, it isn't obvious.

Finally, when you quote someone's post in a reply it is very poor practice indeed to edit the text you are quoting to suit your own argument. I have therefore restored my quoted text to my actual words. The fact that you did this is disappointing but not terribly surprising.

Good grief! The pomposity is magnificent.

[Paul Rigby]

I think the sentences I bolded in Paul's latest reply deserve an answer. I'll call it the Rigby Theorem of Spook Self-Interest. I hope the author isn't upset by that.

I can live with it, Sid.

I paraphrase. Exactly what accountability controls apply to these people?

Are there any?

How would we ever know?

The most serious questions facing the Anglosphere today. And yet not a single politician of stature - at least, none that I'm aware - is asking any of them. It is a catastrophe; and will, if current trends are not reversed quickly and decisively, destroy our societies far more effectively than any external threats.

Paul

[Guest]

Good grief! The pomposity is magnificent.

The point is fairly important also (though not magnificent ). You are self evidently capable of deliberately misrepresenting the views of a debating opponent. This casts a cloud (though perhaps not a "shadow" ) over any point you make.

Sidney's post is ridiculous and again highlights his profound intellectual laziness. If, Sidney, you summon up enough energy to investigate the book I flagged up for you you may just discover that it is exactly the thing you have been asking for.

[Sid Walker]

I think the sentences I bolded in Paul's latest reply deserve an answer. I'll call it the Rigby Theorem of Spook Self-Interest. I hope the author isn't upset by that.

I can live with it, Sid.

I paraphrase. Exactly what accountability controls apply to these people?

Are there any?

How would we ever know?

The most serious questions facing the Anglosphere today. And yet not a single politician of stature - at least, none that I'm aware - is asking any of them. It is a catastrophe; and will, if current trends are not reversed quickly and decisively, destroy our societies far more effectively than any external threats.

Paul

Well said!

[Mark Stapleton]

I think the sentences I bolded in Paul's latest reply deserve an answer. I'll call it the Rigby Theorem of Spook Self-Interest. I hope the author isn't upset by that.

I can live with it, Sid.

I paraphrase. Exactly what accountability controls apply to these people?

Are there any?

How would we ever know?

The most serious questions facing the Anglosphere today. And yet not a single politician of stature - at least, none that I'm aware - is asking any of them. It is a catastrophe; and will, if current trends are not reversed quickly and decisively, destroy our societies far more effectively than any external threats.

Paul

Well said!

Thirded.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Speaking of flase flags operations, someone very naughtily once sent me a copy of a military manual about false flag terrorist operations with the instruction to read and destroy it. I can't therefore post copies. And since this person shoots peole for a living, I wouldn't do so anyway.

The point being that "pseudo terrorist ops" are well established principles of war fighting overseas in the same way that a "strategy of tension" is a well established way of war fighting at home. The difference being that overseas wars involve foreigners whereas at home we are the enemy designated by our government.

Now that's just not fair, is it.

What ever happened to fair play (spelled "democracy")?

David