Woolwich attack: MI5 'offered job to suspect

Originally posted by marky1
oh god the conspiracy nuts will jump over all this and claim it was mind control

You know little of mind control to say you need to be a "nut" to believe in it. People sleep walk, do complex tasks with no knowledge of doing them..and this is a natural phenomena. Don't kid yourself, the same results can be achieved through hypnosis and similar techniques.

These guys were brainwashed either by radical Islam or by some other agency...there is no question they were indeed brainwashed. because maniacs do not go and calmly do a piece straight to camera after they decapitate someone...

Also people under the influence of mind control techniques, would remain calm after the fact and wait for the police and try to engage the police in order for the police to kill them and there by remove the evidence. Yes you can achieve these results, even Derren Brown has proven that much.

It is in fact a myth, propagated by the mainstream media, that you can only hypnotize someone to do things that they would normally do...that lie is told to reassure the public that they cant be manipulated and brainwashed..but the truth is very different..For an example look no further than the Milgram experiment...or the stanford prison experiment. An estimated 70 percent of people are highly susceptible to hypnosis.

The knee jerk reaction to 9/11 was an example of using a dramatic and emotionally charged event to ensure public opinion will back a government, 100% with virtually no questions asked. In order to invade two countries that had zero links to 9/11. This is a hypnotic technique. Before 9/11 public opinion would have resisted attacking Iraq, but after the fact it hardly mattered about fake WMD's, because even after it turned out there were none, Iraq was simply another MUSLIM enemy, then Afghanistan. the trigger word being Muslim=9/11. It's an irrational but highly effective technique. Something akin to Germans=Nazis, yet nobody believes that because its not reinforced all the time in the media.

So now in the UK..the government did not block that terrorist manifesto, supposedly done on the fly, to some regular guy off a bus, with either balls of steel or a lobotomy...because normal people do not video tape mad butchers in the street, up close and personal. So that tape was aired on all mainstream news outlets...leading to an obvious knee jerk public reaction..which is the following.

1. Hate muslims.
2. Want to rid country of all muslims.
3. Back our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. and our boys, our heroes. (formerly known as our invading army and unpopular wars)
3. Back the tory government, or back the BNP or back UKIP. But back a hard right wing agenda, whatever the party. Defiantly a massive surge to the right. AKA same as straight after 9/11.

So if this was really muslim extremists, they certainly did everything they could to screw up their cause...how likely is that?????

Originally posted by Rocker2013

So h explicitly mentions the English Defence League in his OWN MANIFESTO and we're supposed to believe there was no link?

(1) What did Anders Behring Breivik say about the EDL in his manifesto?

He called them naive fools.

"naive fools... that still believe the democratic system can solve Britain's problems".

BBC

(2) Anders Behring Breivik also criticized the EDL for being non violent.

"The EDL is an anti-violent organisation supporting democracy and [opposing] Sharia"

The Guardian

There is no doubt that Anders Behring Breivik supported the EDL's opposition to radical Islam. He however thought then naive fools for rejecting violence.

(3) The Norway police have stated that there is no link between Anders Behring Breivik and the EDL.

Police: No link found to Breivik

"There is no evidence of links between mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik and the English far-right, according to Norway's domestic intelligence chief.Janne Kristiansen, director of the Norwegian Police Security Service, said no proof has yet been found to link the 32-year-old gunman to right-wing extremists in the UK."

So what do we have?

• Anders Behring Breivik criticed the EDL for being non violent.

• Anders Behring Breivik called the EDL naive fools for believing that the democratic process can solve the Islamic problem

• The Norway police have stated that they have found no link between the EDL and Anders Behring Breivik

Obviously the inflence which the killers worked under was brainwashing.
You do not have to hypnotize people to brainwash them....
Though it makes thing easier.
Just who has brainwashed them into comitting this act is unclear at this time...
Que Bono?
Who benefits from this attack?
Perhaps the planners and instigators have made a mistake....we will have to watch it play out some first....

I wonder what the going rate is for someone to visit Kenya twice to have their faith challenged by being abused by extortioners in the name of religious loyalty testing. Maybe if he is lucky he will be able to return twice before he loses a kidney to a market somewhere. But the twist is that his covert employers could just be engineering a scheme to get him out of their country, and when he arrives for his covert job, his marks have been tipped off and he never comes back to pick up his paycheck.

All religions have to watch out for those con artists who invite people over for retreats and then take all their devotees' money and use it to buy vacation homes and luxury cars while their devotees are struggling. It is enough to make someone go mad when they see how they have been fooled. And, this guy went mad.

Maybe in a hundred years the planet will look back on his acts and have an adjusted perspective that maybe he was not so depraved as was initially reported.

reply to post by Rocker2013


By that definition (which is clearly incorrect in my view) of 'terrorism' a bloke who beats up another in a pub because he was chatting his girlfriend up fits the legal definition too.

So does myriad other, everyday crimes and happenings.

Which is my point.

These two murderers are clearly mentally troubled, and more than a little pathetic.

Perhaps in their delusions, they had a political motive for what they did to their victim, but that doesn't make a terrorist...it does make a crazed, pathetic murderer though.

The UK legal definition is too broad and can include both genuine, political or religeous / idealogical acts of deliberate terrorism to achieve certain aims, but it also very clearly can include everyday crimes and situations which while sometimes barbaric and shocking, are not terrorism at all.

Another example of this could be interpreted as a guy or gal stealing an earth mover from a building site and going on a rampage of destruction, crushing cars and bus stops etc...terrifying for those of the sharp end i'm sure, but not terrorism.

IMO, the broadness of the legislation is deliberately ambiguous. It is so anyone can at any time, for almost any crime be targeted and classed as a terrorist resulting in the application of the ever burgeoning anti-terrorist resources in most countries today.

Like most things budgeted in the UK...if you don't use the budget or demonstrate you require a higher budget next fiscal year...you get cut.

Food for thought, when we hear random murderers and lunatics routinely being called 'terrorists' i think.

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

By that definition (which is clearly incorrect in my view) of 'terrorism' a bloke who beats up another in a pub because he was chatting his girlfriend up fits the legal definition too.

No, it doesn't. You're not understanding the definition.

You missed out the part where there is political motivation and a desire to influence the policy of a government or organization

Any physical violence from one person to another is considered assault (with varying degrees), but in order for something to be a terrorist incident it also has to have a political motive. In this case, there is clear political motive, one of the men responsible clearly states their political motive on the video. He is also trying to influence the policy of the government overseas, and trying to cause fear in the public.

If you cannot understand what makes this a terrorist incident even with the definition of it right there in front of you, there is no point in debating it.

reply to post by Rocker2013

If you cannot understand what makes this a terrorist incident even with the definition of it right there in front of you, there is no point in debating it.

Oh i understand that is how the Government views it...i don't happen to agree with their definition.

Since you do, and i do not, then we're at an impass and you're right when you say there is little point to further discussion.

just for anyone who is interested by Abu Nusaybah has been formally charged with three charges relating to terrorism.

www.bbc.co.uk...