Westminster / Manchester / London Bridge / Parsons Green attacks

[Kevin Mcleod]

I believe that every isis attack is by a dreanged muslim and not the governement or the queen and who are taught by the koran to take over our country and implement sharia law and kill the kaffir.
Havent read that in any media.

[Hubble]

I believe that every isis attack is by a dreanged muslim and not the governement or the queen and who are taught by the koran to take over our country and implement sharia law and kill the kaffir.
Havent read that in any media.

So the fact that in in every single case the assailants have been previously known to the security services has no relevance at all? The fact that - in the case of the Manchester bomber - for example - MI5 tracked the radical Islamist cell the attacker was part of all the way to Libya, knew they were terrorists, but still allowed them back in the country, has no relevance at all? The fact that in several cases the security forces have actually 'groomed' the assailants for different reasons has no relevance at all?

You seem to make the mistake/assumption that by pointing these out I am some kind of apologist for Islamic-sponsored terror. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am trying to point out is that the picture is not as black and white as you paint it, but that in fact it is very murky. That is all.

[Kevin Mcleod]

They let them back in cos they have to due to mad human rights laws from the eu, they let them go cos they are inept and are scared of being accused of racism.

[Stanley]

they let them go...

Part of this is because latest official figures reveal that 26,000 radicalised British-born jihadists are currently on MI5's danger watch-list, whilst they only have the resources to monitor 3000 of those. So the remaining 23,000 can easily evade detection and continue their nefarious activities. Figures like this demonstrate that the problem has now reached insurgency proportions in the UK.

[Itsonlyagame]

Hubs, its one thing having these people in their sights, it's another being able to take them off the streets and lock them up.
If, up until the actual bombing, the 'terrorist' hasn't done anything illegal, what is the point in pulling him into custody.
He'll be out again within hours thanks to, as Kev says, the lame laws we have in this country in no small part due to the wishy washy liberals.
I also agree with Stan, there are far more of these €unts around than resources can monitor.

What I don't understand is in one breath you're complaining about the authorities not doing enough but at the same time complaining about proposed new bills and laws which will make it easier for the authorities to clamp down on their activities.

[72bus]

just looking at statistics for unproductive muslims in this country , an eye opener

[brightonr]

Hubs, quite clearly one would be naive to assume that everything reported in the mainstream media is true. Even if in the case of the broadcast media people are prone to mistakes and as we all know, the written press is almost always biased to a degree.

But wouldn't logic overwhelmingly suggest that it is far easier to spout tripe if you are an individual claiming to be "exposing the truth"? From a position where you are not required to be a so called "respected journalist" or working on behalf of a huge/well regarded source of news?

It's a bit like taking "remain" voters seriously when they claim Brexit isn't going as well as the government hoped as not much progress has been made, when it's obvious to those that aren't scared at the merest hint of change that the reason is that we haven't given in to the EU's demands for a massive divorce payment. A last ditch attempt by them to wangle some more funds out of us before the heads of the other 27 countries start to face the reality of what will happen to them once we leave, should the EU force them into imposing actions that will damage them considerably.

[Hubble]

Hubs, quite clearly one would be naive to assume that everything reported in the mainstream media is true. Even if in the case of the broadcast media people are prone to mistakes and as we all know, the written press is almost always biased to a degree.

But wouldn't logic overwhelmingly suggest that it is far easier to spout tripe if you are an individual claiming to be "exposing the truth"? From a position where you are not required to be a so called "respected journalist" or working on behalf of a huge/well regarded source of news?

It's a bit like taking "remain" voters seriously when they claim Brexit isn't going as well as the government hoped as not much progress has been made, when it's obvious to those that aren't scared at the merest hint of change that the reason is that we haven't given in to the EU's demands for a massive divorce payment. A last ditch attempt by them to wangle some more funds out of us before the heads of the other 27 countries start to face the reality of what will happen to them once we leave, should the EU force them into imposing actions that will damage them considerably.

Brights, I think the contrary is true - you're far more likely to get a reliable picture from a variety of individual sources than you are from the large news organisations. Why? Well firstly because those news organisations always have an agenda. Don't forget they're all owned by individuals themselves, mostly billionaires, all of whom have very strong agendas of their own - Murdoch being a prime example. Whilst the BBC is not specifically owned by anyone, it's an establishment mouthpiece.

When I hear about a news story that interests me, I look at a wide variety of sources to build a picture - so I read the MSM versions, the local and national media of the countries involved, non-European sources that usually have very different perspectives - such as RT and AL Jazeera - and then I go to a variety of trusted (by me) alternative and independent news sources, such as Media Lens (which is brilliant by the way) and Zero Hedge. I also look at the picture from people actually involved on the ground (if possible) via blogs and twitter. This is the only way - IMO - to build an accurate picture of what actually happened, why, how, who was involved and so on.

There is a famous saying - Cui Bono - who benefits? Follow the money is another way of saying this. And that is often the most reliable way of getting at the truth.

In regard to Brexit, most of you wiil be aware that the BBC is against Brexit editorially, and publishes stories with an anti-Brexit bias, or it will spin a particular Brexit news story to look a certain way - either pro-Remain or anti-Brexit. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it shows how the BBC operates. In other words (IMO), it cannot be trusted as a news source. Furthermore there are reams of evidence that show the BBC has used fake news stories, actors, unreliable or downright deceptive sources, and so on. The same applies to all the major news organisations.

Take Trump as another example you may all be familiar with. The BBC and most of the US media (apart from Fox) and much of the UK media, is anti-Trump. They publish stories that cast him in a bad light, they spin and wilfully misinterpret what he says (i.e. disinformation), so on and on. This is not just an agenda that comes from the MSM, but from a deeper and more pernicious source, which you all should be aware of: there is a social-engineering agenda that has continued apace, and it's about defining the 'cultural narrative'. So it serves this agenda to have black v white issues, where whites are seen as the problem, male v female stories where men are seen to be the problem, and so on and on. Political correctness is part of this agenda. It is designed to close down free speech and always to divide and rule.


Itso - the person in question absolutely committed something illegal, and these days suspicion is more than enough to detain someone - he committed enough to be arrested, which he was, and detained, which he wasn't. The same applies to the murderous jihadists who were behind the Manchester bomb. MI5 and the other agencies do have the resources to and the ability to prevent or restrict these people. That is why I question it very strongly when they don't. Don't forget not only was Lee Rigby's attacker known to MI5, they had tried to 'turn' him, and had worked closely with him. Am I the only person on here who finds all this, when you put it together and look at the bigger picture suspicious? Apparently so.

I have been studying all this and more in detail for over 15 years, so whilst all these are my opinions, they are at least well-researched opinions.

[Kevin Mcleod]

Police try to turn so many criminals into informants.
They then pay them money for info, the criminal gives them bits of info , gets paid and then goes about commiting their own crime virtually scott free.
What is suspicious about human nature that is centuries old.


"We cant go on together, with suspicious minds."


P.S agree with you on the 'cultural narrative/political correctness' paragraph whole heartedly though.

[QPR71]

Utter muggy people of islam are used for these attacks. It serves the purposes of zionnists/islamic elites and our goverments to create an argument of radical and moderate islam. When the true danger is the demographic change that WILL come through islamic immigration. Hijrah is jihad through mass immigration and is far more dangerous than terrorist jihad. Hijrah will lead though to military jihad from within..

[QPR71]

Brights, I think the contrary is true - you're far more likely to get a reliable picture from a variety of individual sources than you are from the large news organisations. Why? Well firstly because those news organisations always have an agenda. Don't forget they're all owned by individuals themselves, mostly billionaires, all of whom have very strong agendas of their own - Murdoch being a prime example. Whilst the BBC is not specifically owned by anyone, it's an establishment mouthpiece.

When I hear about a news story that interests me, I look at a wide variety of sources to build a picture - so I read the MSM versions, the local and national media of the countries involved, non-European sources that usually have very different perspectives - such as RT and AL Jazeera - and then I go to a variety of trusted (by me) alternative and independent news sources, such as Media Lens (which is brilliant by the way) and Zero Hedge. I also look at the picture from people actually involved on the ground (if possible) via blogs and twitter. This is the only way - IMO - to build an accurate picture of what actually happened, why, how, who was involved and so on.

There is a famous saying - Cui Bono - who benefits? Follow the money is another way of saying this. And that is often the most reliable way of getting at the truth.

In regard to Brexit, most of you wiil be aware that the BBC is against Brexit editorially, and publishes stories with an anti-Brexit bias, or it will spin a particular Brexit news story to look a certain way - either pro-Remain or anti-Brexit. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it shows how the BBC operates. In other words (IMO), it cannot be trusted as a news source. Furthermore there are reams of evidence that show the BBC has used fake news stories, actors, unreliable or downright deceptive sources, and so on. The same applies to all the major news organisations.

Take Trump as another example you may all be familiar with. The BBC and most of the US media (apart from Fox) and much of the UK media, is anti-Trump. They publish stories that cast him in a bad light, they spin and wilfully misinterpret what he says (i.e. disinformation), so on and on. This is not just an agenda that comes from the MSM, but from a deeper and more pernicious source, which you all should be aware of: there is a social-engineering agenda that has continued apace, and it's about defining the 'cultural narrative'. So it serves this agenda to have black v white issues, where whites are seen as the problem, male v female stories where men are seen to be the problem, and so on and on. Political correctness is part of this agenda. It is designed to close down free speech and always to divide and rule.


Itso - the person in question absolutely committed something illegal, and these days suspicion is more than enough to detain someone - he committed enough to be arrested, which he was, and detained, which he wasn't. The same applies to the murderous jihadists who were behind the Manchester bomb. MI5 and the other agencies do have the resources to and the ability to prevent or restrict these people. That is why I question it very strongly when they don't. Don't forget not only was Lee Rigby's attacker known to MI5, they had tried to 'turn' him, and had worked closely with him. Am I the only person on here who finds all this, when you put it together and look at the bigger picture suspicious? Apparently so.

I have been studying all this and more in detail for over 15 years, so whilst all these are my opinions, they are at least well-researched opinions.

In other words cultural marxism. Pure frankfurt school. Pure alinsky. Pure fabian society

[Itsonlyagame]

Hubs, as you well know, it's one thing arresting someone and something else completely to be able to charge/successfully prosecute them.
Are you saying he'd committed a crime before the bombing which the police courts could have locked him up for.
Actually, why are we even discussing the bomber, by all accounts a bomb didn't go off and he's an actor

[Hubble]

If we assume that scenario is correct (which it might be), then he's not an actor, he's an unwitting dupe. 71 has pointed this out above. That's one point worth considering in all this; the deluded and/or brainwashed fools who carry out these acts are usually doing them for what they believe are ideological reasons, or for holy martyrdom, yet often they are merely pawns in a bigger game, of which they know nothing.

[Itsonlyagame]

What about the burns victims, are they actors ?
Or the people who say they saw burns victims, are they ?
In the first clip you posted, the crack pot presenting it is trying to say there was no fireball because of the lack of damage to the area surrounding the bucket. So basically what he and you are saying is there's a possibility anyone with burns injuries are part of the conspiracy, or if they are pretending to have fake burns injuries, as in wearing make up, then the people who treat them at hospital are in on it as well ?
If you don't agree that that's possible why post such a ridiculous video.

[Kevin Mcleod]

Think you are the only person assuming that scenario is correct hubs. (And it might be)
I wish i believed it, it would be easier to live with, and im not just saying that either.