Muslim community awareness of 7/7 bombing as possible Blair setup?

What is he going to gain?

He said ID cards wouldnt of prevented this, he said he is not introducing authotarian powers, he isn't going on a bomb campaign in the middle east.

He is meeting with muslim leaders, he has stated he will protect muslims for racist attacks. He said the bombers doesnt represent islam

The bombing has been a major publicity coup fpr Blair and Bush, and as for not introducing authoritarian powers, there are two points: 1) They already have them and this is an opportunity to get the public used to the government using them 2) He is introducing new security measures and just because he says they are not authoritarian doesn't mean that they are not.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
He is introducing new security measures and just because he says they are not authoritarian doesn't mean that they are not.

Thats old, this has nothing to do with the attacks. In the Queens speech when she opened pariliament, one of her things was new terror laws. That would of happened now matter what.

The UK has had terrorism since the 1800s and even before that too, this is nothing new to us Brits at all.

They already have them and this is an opportunity to get the public used to the government using them

Do you understand how "extra power" works in the UK system? it strips pariliament of power and gives more to the Privy council (Queens advisors). Thats why Blair never introduced extra powers under the The Civil Contingencies Act, which has been dubbed our "Patriot Act"


[edit on 17-7-2005 by infinite]

Whaaaat. Your mad. leave it out. those people who died have families. You saying our priminister did it wont help. Get real. Conspiracys get STUPID when everytime something bad happens theres a 'I truelly believe our government did it'. How about there are some F'd up poeple out there who want to blow themselved up because they think its for a good cause? or is it more fun to be paranoid?

Leave it out. Give me proof if you wanna say something like that.

IF ive got what your saying wrong then I do apolagise.

considering the people in power would stand to gain from the event, and make more lives worse by implementing big brother style surveillance technology everywhere, how can you have a problem with people coming up with these theories?

Its a complete joke when people reject the idea of Bush having full knowedge of 9/11, saying "why would he kill his own people?", come on, he's got 2 countries under his belt now, and a hell of a lot more oil than before.

[edit on 17-7-2005 by sal88]

Originally posted by sal88
considering the people in power would stand to gain from the event

yes, but people are claiming Blair is the head of state in the UK, he isnt.

The UK is not a republican system, its a Constitutional monarchy with a King or Queen as head of state. At the moment, the Queen is head of state. Blair is just an advisor to her, he is the only elected member of the privy council(Queen advisors)

[edit on 17-7-2005 by infinite]

Tony Blair actually plots to murder his own people?

Pull the other leg it has bells on it!

This is the truth behind your opposition, unless Agent Smith is your true designation

Tony Blair is a mass murdering, mendacious,integrity-free,empathyless tool of those who tell him what to do
There's absolutely no doubt that the killing of 50 or a 100 of 'his own' cattle would cause him no problem at all

yeh but does that mean he did?
No.

But you can see them here for god's sake:



They didn't just have a bad luck day and just happen to split up and end up on the wrong trains/bus at the wrong time.

These extremists are real and their attacks are real, they happen in the middle east every day. Why is it so hard to accept that they would want to attack us here, especially when there are high profile preacher's of hate like Abu Hamza on the streets?

Back when the IRA was bombing us, did everyone think that was the government to?
At the end of the day we always manage to p*** someone off, so why is it so hard to accept that they might attack us in retailitaion, wherever their motivation is justifiable to us or not?

If this attack was launched by our own government, when is the inevitable one from the extremists going to happen, and why hasn't it already?

[edit on 17-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Obviously they would have had this thread stopped as being too ridiculous to be allowed to continue.

One look at this whole ATS category today, and you'll see that the muslim appeasers and disinformation people are out in force to try and divert the naive and foolish from the facts.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

The point is that they were carrying the bombs and got blown up but thought they were just part of the 1000 person anti terrorism exercise which was going on at the time. They were recruited as members of the terrorism exercise.

So one would expect their body parts to be found.

No! The point is that you just made this idea up with ZERO evidence!!

[edit on 17-7-2005 by Boatphone]

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

The point is that they were carrying the bombs and got blown up but thought they were just part of the 1000 person anti terrorism exercise which was going on at the time. They were recruited as members of the terrorism exercise.

And as I pointed out in one of my threads:

But why would they have pretend bombers? It was not a government excercise and a private company (which it was) would not be able to do this without authoristaion I'm sure.
I also see no need for it as from what I can make out (and maybe I'm wrong), it was an excercise dealing with the effects on part of the private sector and not anything to do with security, prevention or emergency response.
I don't recall them saying anything that actually implies there were pretend bombers and I can't see a need for any in that particular type of excercise.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In essence:

Pretend bombers were not a required part of this type of excercise, they would have served no purpose and were irrelevant to the issues being assessed

[edit on 17-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Abu Hamza shouldnt be given the o2 to to talk, should be locked up and given sheise to eat, dont see why he should be aloud to roam the streets! If i was blair (which suprisingly im...not) I would have had him sent on a stinkin boat all by himself to a deserted island so he can warp the minds of those poor palms!

What a tard.

The only good thing about this is that he'll get what he gave when he leaves this planet...
Amen

Even if these "terrorists" were participating in an "exercise" they are guilty of war crimes. End of story.

No! The point is that you just made this idea up with ZERO evidence!!

[edit on 17-7-2005 by Boatphone]

Even the Daily Mirror gets the story half right but draws the wrong conclusion

Mirror article

Now let's look at the alleged explosive - triacetone triperoxide - this is described as having the devastating ability to blow apart human bodies as if they were made of paper.
Now the supposed terrorists stayed with their backpacks and will have taken the full brunt of the explosives.

So one question - how were the police able to collect their credit cards, driving licenses etc, which ought to have been equally shredded and melted, and also blasted a long distance from the explosions - and so fast to start raiding houses so soon - when they haven't even sorted out some of the identities of other bodies yet

This is the WTC passport story again



[edit on 17-7-2005 by dh]

Well, the explosives don't literally vapourise everthing next to them, if the id was in their wallet in a pocket, it's not attached as such and will just be carried by the explosion. I've seen a video (from Iraq) of a chap taking a pretty much direct hit from a rocket launcher (it must have hit right next to him) and he flew off like superman.
Don't forget there was at least one women in the paper that was standing with a few feet without even a scratch. There is no reason for the ID to have been damaged.
Not all explosions generate a lot of heat and this would have to be sustained heat to do any real damage.
I'm no explosives expert (I only know a little bit as my grandad had to deal with them in the war) so I don't know the properties of that particular explosive, but for instance you can make an explosive called 'Ammonium triiodide' (which doesn't serve any real practical purpose apart from making 'fun snaps') which is highly unstable but generate little or no heat.

It's like a documentry I watched once on how they made a Navy recruitment video, like they said: 'real explosions are pretty boring, no fireballs, etc so we spice it up a bit by using drums of petrol.. etc' you get the drift? If you watch real explosions, not spiced up TV stuff you'll see it isn't as spectacular as James Bond makes out.


[edit on 17-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

hamas would love you to believe it was a setup. live in the middle east for a while and you will see a lot of arabs who are setup.

In essence:

Pretend bombers were not a required part of this type of excercise, they would have served no purpose and were irrelevant to the issues being assessed

Well let's try this one. The odds of two different organisations choosing both bombings and exercises at the same locations, on the same time on the same date, one unbeknownst to to the other have been calculated to be several trillion zillion against, approaching impossibility

There must be a link

The link would be a third party directing the detail of the bombings and the exercise to parties one and two

It's a cop-out for muslims to blame anyone but themselves, their village Imams, wayward youth, and inflexible religion.

Of the three possibilities:
UK Plot
US etc Plot
'Al Quida' etc

The third is the most likley. If this seminar was part of the plot wouldn't they keep it quiet?

The whole thing is a ridiculous notion not supported by any evidence to date

The bare facts about the bombing fit both the 'Blair was involved theory' and the 'Al qaeda were involved' theory.

How do we then choose between the two theories?

In the absence of hard evidence (so far) it basically comes down to a character judgement, or a leap of faith.

Those who bleat that there is no evidence for the 'Blair set it up' theory should realise that there is no more evidence for the 'Al Qaeda did it' theory. . . . .simply saying 'that these guys went to a religious camp' or that they 'Are Muslim extremists' isn't evidence at all.

It's no use posting video frame grabs of the guys entering a building because that evidence fits both theories.

The only reason Agent Smith and co. are able to make it sound like there is more evidence for the Al Qaeda did it theory is because the media have spent so much time winding that theory up and adding 'details'. . . . . these pieces of information which supposedly fill in the details are not evidence but they paint a dirty picture which is bought by the 'faithful'... . . . .it is called propaganda.

So at present, until more information comes to light neither theory can be proven, and both should be investigated further before judgement is passed.

Making a judgement between these two theories, is at present, just a leap of faith. This applies to both theories.

Blair is a proven accessory to Murder

Blair is a proven Liar

The 4 accused Muslims are not.

Thus Blair cannot be ruled out as a suspect.


GET some London Muslims on the line please.

Absolutely agree with you mate
Except that al Qaeda is a phony CIA creation
Saying al-Qaeda did it is just the same as saying CIA/MI5/Mossad did it
I completely agree that it would be good to have some right-thinking Muslims on here
Can't recall seeing one yet