Revised wording 17th Apr:
On the straw-man creator, non-sequiter sower Rachel North in her excessive slurrs about one-size-fits-all ‘conspiraloons’, I feel like saying a bit more. It’s doubtful thick skulled R will understand any such comment but so what… long live blogs.
Rachel, If a fully independent enquiry (outside the jail of the Inquiries Act 2005) about 7-7, an enquiry that examined ALL aspects, actually found that 4 Muslims did bomb London on 7-7, then fine – 4 Muslim suicide bombers killed 52 people. If other honest court cases find that there are networks of Muslims in the UK trying to do the same thing then great.
So don’t cast you idiotic aspersions willy nilly in the way that you do, as if nobody will ever accept it could possibly have been the case, and that nobody could ever accept there isn’t a group of Muslims plotting to inflict pain and misery.
You see, your rebuttals are as unstable as your emotional state. Your never answer points of contention in fact you do exactly what you accuse skeptics of (skeptics or fruitloop loons as you like to name call – reminds me of the nasty bully element in school) and that is, you get the teeny weensiest bit of a something (which may or may not be true) and you say its definite proof that the skeptics are wrong. Well YOUR wrong. There isn’t one thing you have ever “rebutted” from which a handful or so of other strong queries spring forth. While you swallow the most meagre bit of illogical ill reasonsed propaganda and outright crapola even before the proverbial drop of a hat, you just can’t comprehend why people don’t believe everything the government say. Unlike in your world, one government statement doesn’t dismiss all other consequential lines of questioning.
Just one example is this… If as you harp on about “the CCTV times were wrong” something about mobile phones/watches/clocks or whatever it was you said, but then, HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU ASSERT ANY TIME LINE (OR DISPROVE ALTERNATIVE TIME LINES) THAT YOU ARE NOW CLINGING TO AND REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE LATEST 7/7 TRIAL? You have taken it upon yourself to disbelieve the time on the CCTV that raised serious questions about the whole 7-7 narrative. You dismiss it becasue it doesn’t feed into your perception. All other times are correct except the ones that bring about suspicion of alternative explanations to the narrative of what happened that day. Magic!
You just don’t get it do you?
You post about ‘day one of the trial’ verges on racism and islamophobia – certainly some of your contributors let the mask slip. You seem to think ‘truthers’ (and I’m not embarrassed to use the word despite your best attempts to ridicule people who actually do want the truth, and you too claim to want the truth in your called for a non-independent enquiry, but of course its only your preconcieved truth that doesn’t deserve your unfounded and mean ridicule) have a crush of these for men and Muslims in general. I wonder if you consider yourself to be living in Londonistan?
With regards as to your ‘lunch with a truther’ (Friday, April 11, 2008), being a personal victim of your bizarre imagination, I’d like to say thanks for reporting it. ‘cos it seems I am now likely to know what DIDN’T happen.
–
–
–
–
Recent Comments