Uk threat level from a terrorist attack moves back to severe.

[renegotiation]

Yemen has been a troubled area for years. Simply because it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it isn't the case. My brother was blown up by a rocket in Yemen as far back as 1994/95, and had to be evacuated by boat before getting air-lifted from Djibouti back to Paris (couldn't be airlifted directly from Yemen as the helicopter would have ben shot down).

 

So intelligence may have been anything, but "quick" is one term you can't apply there, sorry. ;-)

 

Yemen being a troubled area doesn't necessarily make it a hotbed for global terrorism. Gordon Brown himself stood up in front of the cameras and banged on about how they had been 'caught unawares' and that this was a 'new threat'. If they didn't know this before the Christmas day 'pants bombing' they wouldn't know this within a week of it happening. Absolutley impossible i'm afraid. It would have taken several weeks at least to send out operatives and gather intelligence for an official report.

 

I am very sorry to hear your brother got injured in Yemen.

 

 

 

it's not being unable to (well, for me anyway), it's more a "can't be bothered". Rehashing ancient conspiracy theories bores me stupid, and it's a waste of time anyway, as CTs never ever believe a word of what one says, as by definition they are sure to have seen the truth and the rest of us are blind or brainwashed.

 

Well, I haven't seen one person come up with an explanation yet and I have asked several people in real life to. They all seem incredibly flummoxed. Therefore, it would seem that everyone is unable to explain it. You are the first person I have encountered that claims you are 'not unable to' explain, but then don't. I would love to hear your explanation. Please, please tell me what it is. Wouldn't you be a little skeptical of someone claiming - yet not being forthcoming of - an explanation that no one else has provided? Moreover, I am mythed how asking a 'common sense question' as to why 2 dangerous suicide bombers sat in front of passengers lighting matches, instead of using the plane toilet to do their dark deed, would require a response of 'Rehashing ancient conspiracy theories'. That is the strangest comment I have read today.

 

 

So I correct what is easily checkable (like the facts about Yemen) and ignore the yawnable.

 

What facts? All you said was your brother, very regrettably, got injured there in the 90's

 

 

 

That's me, can't speak for Tez though.

 

You are not obliged to. She already does a great job in her tin foil hat.

 

 

 

Nail. Head. Hit.

 

Apparently not. Badly damaged hand and a trip to the local A and E...

Edited January 28, 2010 by renegotiation

[JonCris]

Exactly, No smoke without fire.

At least we cant blame Campbell for this spin

 

Wanna bet Who's idea do you think it was to send tanks to Heathrow. Just what they expected tanks could do except frighten ordinary people beats me ....... perhaps that was the plan to make Tone look good

 

Also don't forget the recently enacted civil contingencies bill which if the threat grew (allegedly) they could suspend or even cancel the election

[Bookworm]

Yemen being a troubled area doesn't necessarily make it a hotbed for global terrorism.

Well, it is ruled by sharia law, has had close relationships with Iraq during Saddam's regime, and it is the poorest of the oil-producing countries. Whilst each element by itself is not sufficient, the combination of all those elements means that if secret services everywhere were unaware, they were not doing their jobs properly.

 

Oh, and as regards the oil conspiracy, Yemen is not really worth it, as its supplies are decreasing rapidly (they don't have as many as their neighbours in the first place) and it's highly likely the oil supply will be completely depleted by 2020 latest, so really not the most worthy target.

I am very sorry to hear your brother got injured in Yemen.

Thank you. He survived, that's the main thing, although his scars are impressive and now and them some pieces of shrapnel which were too small or deep to be removed get rejected by the body and work themselves to the top of his skin. Eurgh.

 

Well, I haven't seen one person come up with an explanation yet and I have asked several people in real life to. They all seem incredibly flummoxed. Therefore, it would seem that everyone is unable to explain it. You are the first person I have encountered that claims you are 'not unable to' explain, but then don't. I would love to hear your explanation. Please, please tell me what it is. Wouldn't you be a little skeptical of someone claiming - yet not being forthcoming of - an explanation that no one else has provided? Moreover, I am mythed how asking a 'common sense question' as to why 2 dangerous suicide bombers sat in front of passengers lighting matches, instead of using the plane toilet to do their dark deed, would require a response of 'Rehashing ancient conspiracy theories'. That is the strangest comment I have read today.

You misunderstood me. I have never heard or read anything about playing with matches, then again I never paid much attention to the whole thing tbh. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying I don't know and don't care enough to look into it, that's all. Why the lack of curiosity, you may ask? Well, quite simply, I am well aware of the place of intelligence and media manipulation in our modern times, in particular with very rare exceptions, we get told precisely what "they" want us to know or hear, and they will twist and leak stories to misdirect any which way suits them.

 

Oh, by the way, the toilet thing? Top of my head, I'd say that the difficulties are such: the size of the toilet for starters, not easy to do much in there, least of all detonate oneself. Then you have the fact the suicide bomber is meant to take with him as many people as possible and so, detonating within the toilet means a more contained explosion and more chances of survivors even when the plane crashes. Depending on what's being used, if the bomb is of the type which causes smoke, then the smoke detectors in the toilet will set off very quickly, possibly before he could finish the job? Just suppositions you understand, I am no bomb expert! ;-)

Listen, we're talking of some crackpot who is willing to blow himself up to pieces for the greater glory of his god, I'm not expecting them to be the most rational behaving people on Earth, frankly.

You are not obliged to. She already does a great job in her tin foil hat.

I'm pretty sure Tez is a bloke, actually...

[hilaryfrances]

think these crackpots are even more deluded if they think they are going to have a few dozen virgins......that are not over 70!

[renegotiation]

Well, it is ruled by sharia law, has had close relationships with Iraq during Saddam's regime, and it is the poorest of the oil-producing countries. Whilst each element by itself is not sufficient, the combination of all those elements means that if secret services everywhere were unaware, they were not doing their jobs properly.

 

That doesn't explain the 'unawareness' turning into 'full awareness' within a week. We had quite a cosy relationship with Saddam too if I recall.

 

 

 

Oh, and as regards the oil conspiracy, Yemen is not really worth it, as its supplies are decreasing rapidly (they don't have as many as their neighbours in the first place) and it's highly likely the oil supply will be completely depleted by 2020 latest, so really not the most worthy target. Thank you. He survived, that's the main thing, although his scars are impressive and now and them some pieces of shrapnel which were too small or deep to be removed get rejected by the body and work themselves to the top of his skin. Eurgh.

 

There is still plenty of $ there and it gives us another base in the Middle East. Glad to hear he survived, as I said.

 

 

 

You misunderstood me. I have never heard or read anything about playing with matches, then again I never paid much attention to the whole thing tbh. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying I don't know and don't care enough to look into it, that's all. Why the lack of curiosity, you may ask? Well, quite simply, I am well aware of the place of intelligence and media manipulation in our modern times, in particular with very rare exceptions, we get told precisely what "they" want us to know or hear, and they will twist and leak stories to misdirect any which way suits them.

 

You have too much faith that these people give a toss about us. Not only are they doing deeds on the global stage, they are turning this country into a police state. It's a hard fact that our civil liberties are going down the toilet. I could pick many things, but filming in public - especially of the police - is a good one. It's a public right, but they clamp down on it with anti-terrorist legislation. Why? You 'really' think it is because of terrorist concerns? As they tell us, 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'. Our leaders are just corporate owned dogsbodies. I truly believe they have their own best interests at heart, maybe they don't realise, over that of the nation. Look, why are we all on this site in the first place? Bank charges is why! It's sick, disgusting and everyone knows it. These people you have belief in could sort it quick and you know it. I'm supposed to trust them? You trust them to rule us? I'm stunned.

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, the toilet thing? Top of my head, I'd say that the difficulties are such: the size of the toilet for starters, not easy to do much in there, least of all detonate oneself. Then you have the fact the suicide bomber is meant to take with him as many people as possible and so, detonating within the toilet means a more contained explosion and more chances of survivors even when the plane crashes. Depending on what's being used, if the bomb is of the type which causes smoke, then the smoke detectors in the toilet will set off very quickly, possibly before he could finish the job? Just suppositions you understand, I am no bomb expert! ;-)

 

Size of the toilet? If you can detonate on a plane seat, then you can certainly detonate standing up in a plane toilet. I'd say it was much easier. As for casualties and bringing a plane down, if the explosion was going to rip through the fuselage you think the toilet door was going to make a difference? Smoke detectors going off mid deed and cabin crew/passengers thwarting an attack? Come on.

 

 

 

Listen, we're talking of some crackpot who is willing to blow himself up to pieces for the greater glory of his god, I'm not expecting them to be the most rational behaving people on Earth, frankly.

 

They were certainly disillusioned people, if not crackpots. I don't think they would ever have gotten on a plane, let alone blow it up, if it weren't for other factors. They were obviously picked up by security agents and used. The substances were harmless.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Tez is a bloke, actually...

 

The person with the tin foil hat as I suspected. I think his cat needs liberation. Send in Tony.

[Bookworm]

It's not a question of having too much faith in these people, it is the exact opposite: I do not trust anything that comes out of the media or the government, that's the point I was making. I also believe that especially in theses days of the Internet, information and misinformation are even easier to spread than before. We get to hear what we are meant to hear, and precious else.

 

I was watching Michael Moore's "sicko" the other day, and there was this incredible piece on Canadians. Americans are being told over and over again that yes, Canada may have free healthcare, but it's really bad, and the waiting lists are appalling, etc etc... Then MM goes over to Canada to interview the locals and it's nothing of the kind, far from it... Point is, the Americans still believe it because that's what they've been spoonfed so they don't get funny ideas about what Canada is doing right which the US can't manage...

 

;-)

[renegotiation]

It's not a question of having too much faith in these people, it is the exact opposite: I do not trust anything that comes out of the media or the government, that's the point I was making. I also believe that especially in theses days of the Internet, information and misinformation are even easier to spread than before. We get to hear what we are meant to hear, and precious else.

 

Ok, maybe I didn't make myself completely clear. From the European thread you gave me the impression that, although not trusting them as individual people, you trusted them to do ok by the nation as a whole. A bit of inevitable corruption going down, but their policies and actions were generally for the greater good. Is that correct? I am not of that opinion at all and this bank charges fiasco is just a great example. It's like expenses in reverse. Our parliament has done absolutely sod all about it. It makes one think, do the government control the banks or is it literally vice versa? If our democracy stinks it needs to be addressed by grass roots reform, not by being lumped in to a much greater and less democratic political body. Are you pro NWO or against it? I'm against it and think we are almost screwed. A couple of years opportunity to fight back and that's that. After this time, their control grid will be well and truly in place. All handily aided by the 'War On Terror' of course. I have decided to stand up and speak out.

Edited January 30, 2010 by renegotiation

[Bookworm]

Oh dear gods, what on Earth gave you that idea?

 

There is no question of being pro or against. Cynical ol' me thinks that we are already part of it, whether we like it or not and there's bugger all we can do to stop it. I'd add that there is nothing "new" about it either. we have ALWAYS been part of a system where corruption rules, where the rich get richer and the poor poorer, where people blame other colours, religions, sexual preferences etc to use as scapegoats when they should be looking at them higher up. I am at heart a socialist, except that socialism has been so corrupted too that it is little different to the capitalist option. I am an idealist who would love to see things changed for the better where the little people are given the help they need, an d a cynic who knows that in reality, even the small changes have an ulterior motive.

 

Faced with this, the choice is to overthrow the system and replace it with one which will soon be equally corrupt, or try to work within the least bad of the systems.

 

For example, Europe (and these are very broad views, i'm not going to launch into my own detailed manifesto here): Yes, I think we isolate ourselves in all the wrong places by staying away. (the euro being a perfect example) No, I don't believe that being part of the EU is all one way bad news for the Brits and good for everyone else in Europe. on the other hand, where Britain is allowed to retain control over certain policies, the result is the disastrous fiasco that was and is our intervention in the Iraq war or Afghanistan. And so on, and so forth.

Does that mean I am pro NWO? No, I am pro whatever works the best, and pro-democracy in its true sense: the power of the people. However, when it comes to something like sending our young people to die for a cause without a pause, then it would have been nice to have a higher authority saying "no".

 

As you can see, I am neither one nor the other, I am on the side of common sense, which seems to make me a minority in our modern world.

[renegotiation]

Oh dear gods, what on Earth gave you that idea?

 

There is no question of being pro or against. Cynical ol' me thinks that we are already part of it, whether we like it or not and there's bugger all we can do to stop it. I'd add that there is nothing "new" about it either. we have ALWAYS been part of a system where corruption rules, where the rich get richer and the poor poorer, where people blame other colours, religions, sexual preferences etc to use as scapegoats when they should be looking at them higher up. I am at heart a socialist, except that socialism has been so corrupted too that it is little different to the capitalist option. I am an idealist who would love to see things changed for the better where the little people are given the help they need, an d a cynic who knows that in reality, even the small changes have an ulterior motive.

 

Faced with this, the choice is to overthrow the system and replace it with one which will soon be equally corrupt, or try to work within the least bad of the systems.

 

For example, Europe (and these are very broad views, i'm not going to launch into my own detailed manifesto here): Yes, I think we isolate ourselves in all the wrong places by staying away. (the euro being a perfect example) No, I don't believe that being part of the EU is all one way bad news for the Brits and good for everyone else in Europe. on the other hand, where Britain is allowed to retain control over certain policies, the result is the disastrous fiasco that was and is our intervention in the Iraq war or Afghanistan. And so on, and so forth.

Does that mean I am pro NWO? No, I am pro whatever works the best, and pro-democracy in its true sense: the power of the people. However, when it comes to something like sending our young people to die for a cause without a pause, then it would have been nice to have a higher authority saying "no".

 

As you can see, I am neither one nor the other, I am on the side of common sense, which seems to make me a minority in our modern world.

 

Yes, well at least you have stopped taking the **** out of me. I agree with most of that. The solution is to reform the infrastructure of our democracy. The party political system is a farce. It's like voting for meningitis or malaria. When you vote for your M.P. you would expect them to have a voice on the national stage. Unfortunately, that is largely a load of bollocks. M.P.'s are purely selected as 'yes men'. It is the antithesis of democracy. I am against party political systems and am for voting in independents with individual manifestos. After a general election we can vote for a prime minister, home secretary and foreign secretary. The Prime Minister can then select the rest of his cabinet. Reform can then take place further down the ladder so the vast disconnect between Joe Bloggs and Westminster can be addressed. Votes in parliament will actually mean something and corruption will be greatly reduced. As you say, we are already deep in and I don't have much hope. How UKIP perform at the next general election could be massive. I am only for UKIP on the E.U. membership issue and know they are not a panacea. I don't want to see a U.K. dictatorship again replace a E.U. dictatorship. However, my vote has to go there. Robot citizens makes for a **** society!

[JonCris]

Just WHO are the people we should REALLY be afraid of

 

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian

[renegotiation]

Just WHO are the people we should REALLY be afraid of

 

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian

 

Once you look at how it all works it really is quite something. I haven't got the time to investigate and source everything I hear, no one has. I have heard that Bush story many times before though, and from credible people too, so I would assume there is truth in it. This bank charges fiasco says it all for me. It just exemplifies how completely screwed up everything is. Just how warped are these people? This situation is beyond sick. The government could sort it out, but they don't. That's no conspiracy, it's a fact. Disgusting and obscene. Shame on all of them. Empathy must be an alien concept in their minds. If they actually made an effort to sort this out I might have 'some' faith in them. Elites, you start illegal wars so you can sort out bank charges!

 

I've been mulling the following excerpt from the OFT, yes OFT, press release over in my head. How sick has a society become when it's Office Of Fair Trading releases something like this?

 

 

 

7 October 2009

The OFT has published a follow up to its 2008 report on Personal current accounts in the UK. The follow up report details how banks will be making the costs of current accounts more transparent and how switching between current accounts has been made easier for consumers.

To combat low levels of price transparency most current account providers will:

 

• make charges more prominent on monthly statements
  
• provide information on average credit and average debit balances, and
  
• provide illustrative scenarios showing unarranged overdraft costs.
  

Considering the societal turmoil going on in the background and the sheer level of these charges I find it utterly surreal. It's akin to promoting and sanctioning more open and organised criminality!

Edited February 2, 2010 by renegotiation

[Fred Bassett]

Bomb alert! well that's one way to keep everyones attention off the recession. If they could just blow up the banks and sub-prime lenders first then that'll be a start to amending things.

 

I apologise if this has offended anyone.

 

Couldn't they start with the sub prime minster instead?

[renegotiation]

Couldn't they start with the sub prime minster instead?

 

Brown or Mandelson?

[Bookworm]

Couldn't they start with the sub prime minster instead?

What has York Cathedral ever done to you????