The conspiracy files 7/7

No British or American leader has ever been imprisoned for stealing another countries resources or toppling a democracy. The worst that might happen is that some officials may have to resign.

However when it comes to murdering your own citizen, either on mass with a bomb or in assassinations, the answer to both questions is nearly always no. The media might let you get away with murdering a million people in the Middle East, but they won't let you get away with murdering even a handful on home territory. As per usual with these subjects there are a lot of sanctimonious posts taking place.

People miss-quoting others and taken their views out of context. And as usual with liberal scribes, people going round and round in circles without reaching any useful conclusions about how we move forward from the current situation.

There clearly are issues within 'the Muslim Community' both here and abroad as to their attitudes towards terrorism. The issues behind it are no doubt complex and will no doubt include questions about our own conduct. What concerns me is the lack of ownership 'the Muslim Community' appear to show towards this issue.

They can't keep blaming others, in the same way we can't do towards what we have done. I would be interested to know if there is as much debate within 'the Muslim Community' about this subject. We just seem to be tearing ourselves apart instead of coming to constructive conclusions. Programme producers always have a BUT in their caveats when they intend to run a programme about an atrocity or disaster that is bound to be hurtful to the families of those killed and victims who survived but are maimed.

In this case, it is.. If the offending conspiracy theories are still developing i. It is very easy for programme makers to say some people think or it has been alleged or Muslims feel threatened by x y z. If the BBC knows enough to say that nobody in the Muslim community, outside the group of murderers, knew or suspected anything or withheld information that would be helpful to the security services The feelings of the relatives and surviving victims are way down the list of programme makers priorities.

Everything we know about the bombings much like came from the media following statements from the government. I take what I hear from both parties with a pinch of salt at the best of times to be honest. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I find the motives behind these terrorists actions leaves a lot to be desired really. I mean what exactly did they hope to achieve with it?

Unfortunately, the British government would have stood to gain much more, simply because of the sheer quantity of anti-war sentiment generated by the public prior to it, and the amount of backing they received once it'd happened would lead to the postulate that perhaps it was an elaborate, egg breaking PR stunt. Horrifying for sure, but certainly not implausible. Its worth noting that it doesn't have to be the British Government.

Secret societies within the likes of the Bilderburg Group could have arranged this, if you buy the whole NWO shtick. But any budding general, war gamer or chess player will tell you that sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece to win the game.

Perhaps it was a tactical master plan from terrorists with nothing better to do and nothing further to gain by it, but personally I doubt it. I'm as English as mustard by the way.

Just about clever enough to know that this is a part of a much bigger agenda and that we are not privy to all of the information. I mean any one with an ounce of common sense knows the war in Iraq isn't entirely altruistic on our part, and to this day there hasn't been one single WMD uncovered, which just embarrasses the 'imminent attack' stance that justified the invasion in the first place We are being played by someone that's for sure.

As for the BBC's documentary; well with all due respect, I doubt your capacity for objective journalism at the best of times. No offence Why do I feel like this opinion won't make it through? You can make a hundred programmes. The government could have an inquiry, costing millions of pounds.

The same old people will just change their theory a little and incorporate the programme makers and the people who ran the inquiry into the conspiracy. If the BBC wants to have a programme for entertainment or a government wants to have an inquiry for political reasons, fair enough.

But it won't change anything. On the general subject of Islam I support everything Secratariat has written. My personal experience of Islam does not fit "fundamentalism" at all; indeed it has been quite the opposite and I do not believe that the fanaticism exists in anything like the numbers governments and media like us to believe. On the subject of "conspiracy" I am minded to ask just what some people commenting actually think it is. If our police and secret services knew about a bombing plot in London that affected innocent lives but did not act appropriately is that "conspiracy" or is it poor intelligence?

Was the later killing of an innocent person at a London tube station "deliberate mistaken identity" or an act of poor policing? The fine line that runs between something being acceptable to our minds or just too incredible to be true is not easy to trace or even trustworthy.

We see something in two dimensions and we will swear that what we saw actually happened when in fact it never did. We see sleight of hand in three dimensions close up and still cannot detect what actually happens. That is how trusted our vision and most other senses too should be.

We should ask the same question of every suicide bombing rather than lamely accepting that there are a lot of people for whom life is not very precious at all.

Has the UK learned anything from the terrorism inflicted by the IRA and how it was intended to affect our lives? Did our security personnel have the intensity needed to root out the real villains? Do we really trust our parliamentarians any more? Do we really trust the public army of civil servants who are in a position to do just what their chiefs require? Do we really trust our media for whom black and white are the easiest colours to use?

In accusing 'Kaybraes' of being ignorant and personally offensive to you, you seem unaware of your own incredible ignorance. It was not merely a coincidence as you suggest that the perpetrators simply happened to be Muslims. It was a deliberate attack and it was done in the name of Islam. Your analogy of blaming all Europeans for the Holocaust is nonsense.

If the Holocaust had been carried out in the name of Christianity which it was not , there would be some argument to blame Christians who knew the Holocaust was happening but certainy not 'all Europeans'. The real giveaway in your comments is the last paragraph about the hatred that lies beneath someone's ignorant statement Perhaps you are suggesting something along the lines of another Holocaust!

Something tells me you are not the full shilling. I am also sure that you are aware that Hitler was a "devout" Catholic until he saw his own special light if indeed he ever did. I am sure that you are aware that the west had been lining up Iraq and Saddam Hussein once it appeared he was not going to be easy to manipulate. I am sure that you are aware that Pakistan was full of warring factions with no clear leadership of the Islamic response to Bush and Blair as it still is. I am sure you are aware of the strategic and physical importance of Iran in providing cheap fuel and energy to the west.

There are many other ingredients that I have chosen to leave out for brevity, but my point is the importance of opportunity, appearance, and innovation in the pursuit of desire. If you mix these ingredients up several times you will not get a uniform cake - indeed you may not even get a cake at all - you will get something that looks different and tastes different each and every time.

For you the absence of any other known influence over the four men who carried out the attack on London means it was Islamic and in the name of Islam. That may be fine for you but it doesn't wash for me - so are you two halfpennies short of the full ticket or are you going to call anyone who doesn't agree with you stupid?

Is that what the authorities imagined would happen all along? Much of what happened after WW2 suggests that many Jews did blame "all of Europe" for the Holocaust and most of Europe was indeed Christian. And the battle for Palestine was nothing new to WW2 seeing as it had been going on for a long time before. So do you put two and two together and call those who disagree with you stupid again?

Is that what the Jews would have wanted at the time? Propaganda is a truth discarded by a person who has another belief or truth stronger than that of the propaganda. Your truth is another person's propaganda. What Secratariat may have been alluding to is the entrenched views of the "traditional" European as distinct from those who have less entrenched views.

There is nothing wrong about either camp unless we no longer want a free society. High up in compartments within MI5 and MI6 lies the people who may be responsible for both atrocities.

After world war 2, MI6 took over the Muslim Brotherhood, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there was compartmentalised western intelligence involvement in manipulating Muslim "terrorist cells.

Unfortunately there are many examples of Muslim ideological extremists planting bombs, often intended to kill fellow Muslims. When I lived in London a few years ago there was a nail-bombing campaign by a politically motivated, white British extremist. One bomb exploded a few hundred yards from where I was working.

By its nature extremism attracts only a small minority. Europe has also had its fair share of those that believed that violence could achieve political change; Baader Meinhof, Basque separatists, IRA etc. But they were tiny minorities within Europe's population. How long before the Iranian government begin saying that the videos showing the death of Neda Agha-Soltan are faked, or that she was shot by 'British agents' and not a Basij militia volunteer?

Say it loud enough and someone is bound to believe you. I think it's pretty obvious that the government hasn't told the real story, and tried to lie there way out of doing so, just like the american government in the attacks. Now we need to ask the question why? But sadly i don't think we will ever find out, "officially" anyway, but, many have there own views as do i, i think thats as far as it's going to go to be honest.

If the government was involved we will never find out, they will have made sure to get rid of the evidence that matters. All we can do is find holes in the official story, wich people have done and i welcome them with open arms. Now to the people who say there shouldn't be investigations into these bombings, or are questioning the BBC, or any other news agency for reporting on theories, all i have to say is, what if it was you? Very often I read comments on boards like this and feel an overwhelming sense of despair at the amount of bigotry, ignorance and spite that appears to make up mainstream opinion.

That we are destined to a future of division, tribal thinking and intolerance towards the latest out-group of the day. Thanks sincerely to all of you for going to the trouble to balance out the haters. To those few here who clearly need a reminder: liberal isn't a dirty word.

Can't say I've looked too deeply into it to see whether it's been debunked, but at face value it seems strangely coincidental. My friend works at the Daily Star and he said it's common knowledge that Prince Phillip was involved in all this. Like where did the 2 jet engines from the "plane" that plashed into the pentagon end up? Or how 2 buildings fell down in a way that professional demolition specialists would have been proud of, after a relatively small impact and a couple hours of relatively cold fire.

Or how the next door neighbor just "fell down"? Of course I don't expect that to ever happen, not at least for 50 years when it doesn't matter any more. There is little we can do about this as by definition some of the authorities actions will always be secretive and often mistakes will be made.

That said of course, there is always the possibility that there is an element of truth The blog "Caught up in a conspircay theory' has ove 3, comments and still running. When, BBC and Mr. Rudin, will the questions published on that blog be answered?

Training for a bombing on the underground is not replicating in every single detail. It's like suggesting that the Met Police learning from the Isrealis about dealing with suicide bombers Operation Kratos is evidence that Isreal planned the whole thing.

Which of course isn't the case, it's that Isreal has way more experience dealing with this sort of thing than you'd want in an ideal world. As for the conspiracy theories generally round these Islamic extremist events, I can't figure why people find it so hard to believe that there are no Islamic extremists out there prepared to commit this kind of act. I've travelled in the middle east and various Muslim countries would top my list of favourite tourist destinations.

I don't know if it makes it easier for me to believe or harder, but things to bear in mind: Islam practically invented assassination for most intents and purposes See: Hashshashin,. Islam did invent the suicide bombing. It's not the potential for there being conspiracy, it's the utter disbelief that people could behave that way - I don't care what religion you are or where you grew up, the fact is people are sometimes bad, and other times very very bad.

If there was a conspiracy I'd hope somebody was trying to find it, it's the utter unwillingness to look at the real evidence and accept that the fact that's what's been said did happen that bothers me. It might be that the events are just too tragic to comprehend or accept for some people. It's like the idea that the US invades Iraq for oil, so they have a large supply of it for a while, job done.

Fact is, Iraq was pumping oil and it was relatively peaceful. In the future it'll be selling large amounts of it's oil to china and other Arab states, it doesn't matter any more or less now, in the past or in the future who's buying it. The US will still never import oil from Iraq because it's too damn far away. If the US wanted to control a large supply of oil for themselves they'd invade Venezuela, and I could give you a whole useful list of reasons why you could do that without having to send an army to the other side of the planet.

George bush and the masons and everybody else you might want to accuse knows about Venezuela - Bush of all people made his money in oil, you think he doesn't know about the massive reserves sat practically on his doorstep? So, Streaky 'Islam did invent the suicide bombing'.

I didn't realise Kamikaze pilots were muslims. Conspiracies occur when there is no trust in the powers that be. In this case the British Government and based on resent expenses claims I can see why.

The Government needs to tell the truth on issues such as this when facing the public as their lies will come out eventually. Honesty really is the best policy! In criticising my "throwaway" you come up with one of your own and choose to "believe" in it rather better than you "believe" in my theories.

I paraphrase "It's a nasty regime. They are developing nuclear stuff. They will not cooperate with the west and therefore must be a threat. They do not like Israel.

Our previous plan to scupper them backfired so we owe them another. As a result of political manipulation the US and Allies went to war against an Axis of Evil where , civilians were killed. Only a spoon fed fool could blindly believe the official stories. Could a Government and its Agents ever sanction or allow the murder of it's own people as a false flag incident to justify war.

All so called transparent investigations should include this possibility for proper consideration. Rudin can't penetrate and has his head in the sand about alleged bomb materials found in the debris. Hi LonesomeDayBlues, I tried saying similar to what you said at comment 5. Yawn, Another tiresome hit piece by the BBC. Are there any real journalists left in this institution? Must we suffer another round of selective reporting, character assassination and wilful ignorance of scientific facts by these gutless establishment mouthpieces?

I used to have great respect for the BBC, what the hell happened to it? YNDA20 I'm afraid your post 5 has been censored Watch your back son as they might start deleting your life works. When the media fail to protect sources and acquiesces to "con-characters" in Whitehall to protect an illegal rally call rather than honestly inform the people they are paid to represent then we would be wise not to trust them about anything. What is worse is that we then incur thousands of casualties of wars and "terrorism" and the "suicide" of a good man rather than have just two heads on a pole somewhere close to Downing Street.

Four bombs going off, very close to the actual locations the real bombs went off at almost exactly the same time as the real bombs. Obviously, it's impossible for me to know if these details are correct as I don't have access to that test's plans, but if the BBC can't even begin to approach this question then it just leads to more suspicion. Surely there's a record of the plans for that days test, if so, all the BBC would have to do is get a copy from the emergency services and show if the details do actually match up or if this is just another conspiracy nut putting out disinformation.

I'd like to believe the government aren't capable of committing such atrocities but when we see the atrocities that have been committed by them in other countries it really makes me wonder. BTW The Romans were assassinating people several centuries before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad and I believe they were just copying the Greeks, the Egyptians were also fond of assasinations several centuries earlier than either of them.

Suicide bombings are also nothing new and not something "invented" by Islam either, Dutch fighters were using the technique as early as the 17th Century.

A poll is an ureliable tool, especially when it deals with very controversial issues. A lot of people will answer negatively to the question 'Do you support terrorism? Just imagine a poll asking questions like: Have you participated in torture of other people?

Have you ever thought of abusing children? Have you ever comitted a capital crime of which nobody suspects you? I am sure you will get almost universal denial, even from people who have actually done any of the above things. So, as I said before, I do not know what the predeominat factions is in the Muslim comunity when it comes to supporting terrosrism.

How otherwise would you explain the difference in the proportion of people who support terroism small and the people whos opinions are best represented by Abu Hamza and Omar bakri not so small? After all, Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri are precisly the types of people who openly state that terrorism is justified in the name of Islam, and it seems quite a few Muslims especially young ones subscribe to their views. Given that our government departments can't even look after a disc of records, swindle their finances or run the economy correctly, how the heck can anyone seriously think they could organise a cover up of this magnitude is quite clearly ahem a little bit misguided.

I'll buy the Pearl Harbour theory but other than that, I consider such theories an insult to those that died. Otherwise they wouldn't be digging up their graves or pouring salt into their wounds for their own political ends. Isenhorn: Over a million British people voted for the BNP in the recent European elections, by your logic this means that people can claim they don't know if British people are all racists who want to see the forced deportation of non-whites from our country or not.

Abu Hamza has the support of a few hundred people, his ideas are no more popular amongst Muslims than Nick Griffin's are amongst White British people. The likes of Abu Hamza receive far more publicity than they deserve because certain sections of the press love portraying Muslims in a negative light yet Muslims who are in favour of closer integration and who love this country get no press coverage at all.

Top credits Director Tristan Quinn. See more at IMDbPro. Photos Add photo. Storyline Edit. The programme sees how conspiracy theories suggest four British Muslims were framed by the government, play on the fears of the Muslim community and spread a highly divisive and damaging message. Add content advisory. User reviews Be the first to review.

Details Edit. Release date June 30, United Kingdom. The government doesnt need a beardy weirdy who thinks hes Jesus to bring it into disrepute, its already doing a splendid job by itself. Although disillusioned with the governments recent conduct, I believe in our democracy.

But I can only sympathise with anyone who is suspicious of the governments official line, as its moral credibility is so thin. Instead of what amounted to pro government propaganda, the programme should have asked the really important question- whether true or false, why are such allegations so easy to believe? The fact is that in matters pertaining to the War on Terror, not to mention in other well known areas of misconduct, the government has been seen to behave deceitfully.

This, compounded with a massive civilian death toll to account for, makes it unsurprising that such conspiracy theories flourish. It will take more than official reports, or tabloid TV such as this misguided programme, to change that. Perhaps the effort and money that went into making this programme could have instead been directed towards finding independent verification that the four men in the martyrdom videos were indeed the alleged four attackers, that the CCTV footage of them is accurate beyond doubt, that the still image of bomb making equipment at their flat is accurate.

All this would go much further in disproving the allegations against the government than the flimsy arguments and rhetoric of The Conspiracy Files ever could. If anything Im more sceptical of the governments position than before I witnessed this debunking. If the programme makers were so sure of their argument, why did they resort to such shoddy tricks and claptrap? With truth on ones side, objective language and enquiry will do. Facts need not be concealed.

One can afford to give examination to the strengths as well as weaknesses of the opponents argument. The standard of reportage and objectivity at the BBC is normally exemplary. I am therefore astonished that they have offered us this affront to journalism. Monday, July 06, pm Anonymous said Saturday, September 26, am Anonymous said Please keep the flame alive Friday, March 22, pm.

Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. Current j7 Inquest blog. July 7th Inquests - 'Life Extinct'? Morgan Costello gave evidence via a videolink from Ireland. In his testimony, Dr Morgan Costel