Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Westminster / Manchester / London Bridge / Parsons Green attacks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I've read the article Tarbie.

    What I found most interesting was the fact that the word Libya doesn't appear once in the entire article. You know, the place where his family came from. Where he recently went. Where his younger brother is now. Where his father is now.

    He uses the phrase "elephant in the room". I doubt if he would notice if one was sat on his desk.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
      No need for the election. Only called it cos there is no way ever ever ever they can lose. So really not neccesary to murder little girls. Thats mad talk it really is. If you said Labour asked him to do it as a desperate act to gain votes, youd still be nuts to me, but a bit less nuts

      Oh and on that article, only got through the first paragraph and farked it off when he said lone men cant make bombs like that. Hes part of a libyan army and course he didnt make it at home on his own. So why would i read any more of the fairy tales.

      Oh and could you do all of us a favour and tell all them muslims that you know that we didnt get to vote on whether we bombed their countries, if we had of we would of voted no....people even mrched to try and stop them doing it
      So hopefully they could they spread the word to each other and bomb one of blairs gaffs and not our kids please.
      Oh deary me, there's no hope with you Kev, is there? If ONLY you'd read the whole article, you might just discover that former UK ambassador Craig Murray actually does know what he's talking about - dare I say he might be better informed than you? And yet you call it fairy tales. Sometimes I think you don't actually want to know the truth Kev, like you're sticking your fingers in your ears and going nananananaana.......... which is a bloody shame. No harm in finding out what someone who was on the inside has to say, is there? You don't have to agree with him, but at least if you read the whole argument you can have an informed opinion about it....

      Comment


      • Im still reeling from climate change mate.

        I dont agree with you so i dont want to listen and believe anything . Deary deary deary me.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
          Im still reeling from climate change mate.

          I dont agree with you so i dont want to listen and believe anything . Deary deary deary me.
          You've lost me on the climate change bit Kev! Something I said? you said? Someone else? Deary me I'm confused. Anyway, as I'm about to reply to Brights, I think the article makes a lot of sense and I will explain why.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by brightonr View Post
            I've read the article Tarbie.

            What I found most interesting was the fact that the word Libya doesn't appear once in the entire article. You know, the place where his family came from. Where he recently went. Where his younger brother is now. Where his father is now.

            He uses the phrase "elephant in the room". I doubt if he would notice if one was sat on his desk.
            How does not mentioning Libya doesn't undermine the case he puts forward? Please explain why you think it's relevant to mention it.

            Do you disagree that the Saudi's sponsor terrorism? It's been stated by the US authorities that the Saudis were behind 9/11. It's a well known fact that the Saudis funded the terrorist forces in Syria such as Al Nusra front. It's a well known fact that the Saudis promote Wahhabism - the radical form of Islam that is behind all Islamic terrorism in recent times, including ISIS. Why then, is it so far fetched to conclude that they might be behind this attack too?

            Gaddafi was overthrown by the West partly at the behest of the Saudis. Since his death Libya has disintegrated into a mess of warring Islamic factions. Such a mess you wonder why the West didn't think of this before they intervened. A significant part of the refugee crisis comes directly from this. Many Libyans have subsequently been radicalised, and the Saudis are at the bottom of it. Not at all hard to imagine this character who exploded the bomb was radicalised here through Saudi sponsored Wahhabist mosques and was then trained in Libya. I think the article makes a huge amount of sense.

            Why do the US and UK support the Saudi regime? Oil and the petrodollar.

            Comment


            • First paragraph he says that he cant of made the bomb alone to imply that theresa helped him make it.
              As if anyone believes he did it alone, his father is al queda and was thrown out of libya by gaddafi, and the scum has just come back from there from a training mission. So nobody thinks he was working alone so why try and say that tuey do to further a point .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
                So they didnt make him do it they just told him when to do it?

                Credible in what way? A credible conspiracy theorist?
                Mate, you could have read the article in the time you've spent asking me daft questions!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tarbie View Post
                  Mate, you could have read the article in the time you've spent asking me daft questions!
                  Ive read it mate.
                  Bloody hell. I cant believe it, how wrong was i. Thank you for making me read it. Im woke son im woke.
                  The bloody government did actually do it didnt they.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
                    First paragraph he says that he cant of made the bomb alone to imply that theresa helped him make it.
                    No, it doesn't say either of those things. It says for such a powerful bomb, it is unlikely it was home made. It does not in any way say or even imply Theresa May helped him make it. He actually says "In fact, nothing I wrote can in any way be construed as indicating I thought that the British state was implicated in the attack. For the record, I do not think it is remotely likely the British state was implicated in the attack."



                    Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
                    As if anyone believes he did it alone, his father is al queda and was thrown out of libya by gaddafi, and the scum has just come back from there from a training mission. So nobody thinks he was working alone so why try and say that tuey do to further a point .
                    If you re-read the article a bit more carefully, you'll also realise that in the first part is Craig Murray referring to a post he made in the immediate aftermath, when the speculation was that he was working alone. In his own words, from the article:

                    "In my two posts in the immediate aftermath of the Manchester bombing, I concluded:

                    If it was a home made bomb, it was a remarkably powerful one. It would be very unusual for a lone terrorist to be able to make a bomb this powerful. It is hard to think of any incident where an individual acting entirely alone has successfully done that."

                    In the article he goes on to elaborate upon his original assumption that he was not working alone. It now looks like he was right, since the authorities also now think he was not working alone.

                    I hope that makes it clearer.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hubble View Post
                      How does not mentioning Libya doesn't undermine the case he puts forward? Please explain why you think it's relevant to mention it.

                      Do you disagree that the Saudi's sponsor terrorism? It's been stated by the US authorities that the Saudis were behind 9/11. It's a well known fact that the Saudis funded the terrorist forces in Syria such as Al Nusra front. It's a well known fact that the Saudis promote Wahhabism - the radical form of Islam that is behind all Islamic terrorism in recent times, including ISIS. Why then, is it so far fetched to conclude that they might be behind this attack too?

                      Gaddafi was overthrown by the West partly at the behest of the Saudis. Since his death Libya has disintegrated into a mess of warring Islamic factions. Such a mess you wonder why the West didn't think of this before they intervened. A significant part of the refugee crisis comes directly from this. Many Libyans have subsequently been radicalised, and the Saudis are at the bottom of it. Not at all hard to imagine this character who exploded the bomb was radicalised here through Saudi sponsored Wahhabist mosques and was then trained in Libya. I think the article makes a huge amount of sense.

                      Why do the US and UK support the Saudi regime? Oil and the petrodollar.
                      Exactly how I read it too mate. And it's undeniable that Saudi as a regime, and prominent Saudi figures have funded pretty much every extreme Islamic organisation there has ever been, including ISIS.

                      How anyone on here took that article to mean that our government are behind the attack is beyond me. It's not implied anywhere!

                      Comment


                      • Craig Murray is the ex British ambassador for Uzbekistan (or one of the countries in that region), so to dismiss him as not credible is a bit ignorant

                        Comment


                        • Tommys take on it all.

                          https://youtu.be/Rket4xvu_ac

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hove Ranger View Post
                            Craig Murray is the ex British ambassador for Uzbekistan (or one of the countries in that region), so to dismiss him as not credible is a bit ignorant
                            I asked is he credible, cos i dont know who he is. Is that ignorance yeah?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hove Ranger View Post
                              Craig Murray is the ex British ambassador for Uzbekistan (or one of the countries in that region), so to dismiss him as not credible is a bit ignorant
                              The guy probably knows more about Islamic terrorism than 99% of the people in this country having followed the Islamic movement in Uzbekistan for a number of years. And of course walking the corridors he walked and rubbing shoulders with other foreign ambassadors.

                              But no........obviously just a crack pot conspiracy theorist!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
                                Tommys take on it all.

                                https://youtu.be/Rket4xvu_ac
                                You know, I actually agree with a good percentage of what he says. I've watched a lot of what he's had to say across the years, from his time with the EDL through to his time with Quilian. I've always thought he has had valid points, even if I haven't always agreed with the way he's gone about his business.

                                At the same time, how do you take a bloke seriously who has changed his name to be the same as a Luton football hooligan? Loses him a bit of credibility as a proper politician or activist doesn't it?
                                Last edited by Tarbie; 25-05-2017, 06:40 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X