Westminster / Manchester / London Bridge / Parsons Green attacks

[Hubble]

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.

I personally have not said the people were actors. I have suggested the attack was a false flag. There is a large difference in what I've said and what you are implying I've said. In false flag attacks people are killed and wounded just the same as any other attack. But at the same time, there are simulations of attacks, involving actors. A prime example of this is what happened in Syria, where the BBC and many other news agencies showed pictures and footage that was either faked or involved actors. There's plenty of evidence of this.

Read this:

"In 2013, it was remarkable to see the BBC reporting claims from Syria on a daily basis in a way that almost always blamed the Syrian government, and President Assad personally, for horrendous war crimes. But as the New York Times reportedlast month, the picture was rather less black and white. The US was embroiled in a dirty war that was 'one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A', running to 'more than $1 billion over the life of the program'. Its aim was to support a vast 'rebel' army created and armed by the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to overthrow the Syrian government.The BBC's relentless headline stories were mostly supplied by 'activists' and 'rebels' who, in fact, were militants attempting to overthrow Assad, and whose claims could not be verified. Veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn described the problem afflicting virtually all 'mainstream' reporting on Syria:

'All wars always produce phony atrocity stories – along with real atrocities. But in the Syrian case fabricated news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news agenda to a degree probably not seen since the First World War... The real reason that reporting of the Syrian conflict has been so inadequate is that Western news organisations have almost entirely outsourced their coverage to the rebel side.'

There was a simple reason why 'rebel' claims were uncontested: they originated from 'areas controlled by people so dangerous no foreign journalist dare set foot among them'. The additional point being that 'it has never been plausible that unaffiliated local citizens would be allowed to report freely'.
This was obvious to everyone, doubtless including the BBC, which nevertheless produced a tsunami of 'rebel'-sourced propaganda. Crucially, these stories were not balanced attempts to explore the various claims; they sought to establish a version of events justifying regime change: 'rebels' and 'activists' were 'good', Assad was 'bad' and had to go. Journalist Robert Parry explains:

'The job of the media is not to provide as much meaningful information as possible to the people so they can exercise their free judgment; it is to package certain information in a way to guide the people to a preferred conclusion.'

The BBC campaign was clearly inspired – whether consciously or otherwise - by a high-level decision to engineer regime change in Syria.
The key moment arrived in August 2013 when the US came very close to launching a major attack against Syrian government forces, supposedly in response to Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons in Ghouta, Damascus. Only the UK parliament's rejection of the case for war and warnings from US generals on doubts about the claims, and likely fallout from regime change, prevented Obama from attacking.
Particularly disturbing was the fact that, as the possibility of a direct US regime change effort faded, so too did the steady flow of BBC atrocity claims. It was as if, with the goal temporarily unattainable, the propaganda tap was simply closed. It was later re-opened ahead of an anticipated, pro-war Clinton presidency, and then as part of an attempt to push president-elect Trump to intensify the Syrian war."

From this article: http://medialens.org/index.php?optio...017&Itemid=249

Now the fact is that neither you, not I, nor anyone else in this thread knows for a fact what exactly happened in Parsons Green. But my question to you is, what are your sources of information? How have you come to your conclusions? If your sources are purely from the mainstream media, then I'm afraid I have to say they are not reliable. That has been my point throughout this particular segment of a wider debate. The fact that the MSM are unreliable sources. And that other agencies fake events. It happens.

Now, discussing that particular video - she is correct - there is no evidence from the photos or the video footage that there was a fireball. Is there? You've also not taken into account the presence of one Richard Aymer-Hall at the event. If you dig into who this man is and what he's involved with, it adds credence to the possiblity that this was in fact a false flag. Listen to what she says about him in the video. She explains that his company is involved with creating demonstration scenarios of events exactly such as this. If you add up all the other elements she points out, I would say, at the very least, the jury has to be out on this.

Now I'm not interested in converting anyone, or being right, what I'm interested in is uncovering the true picture. And after years of research into this subject, I have come to conclusion that there are some very, very dodgy things going on that are - surprise surprise - never reported in the media. Would you disagree with that conclusion, based on what you know about geopolitics? Have you watched any of the Adam Curtis documentaries on this? (Produced, interestingly, by the BBC). I have suggested them before. If you haven't, maybe it might be worth you watching Hypernormalization, for example. Or Bitter Lake. The very worst that could happen is that you will have some interesting insights into how the world of geopolitics operates.

[Kevin Mcleod]

What does false flag mean mate?

And if its not a real bombing, how can the players not be actors?

Oh and its a lot easier to stage shite in syria etc than it is on a train in london.
Like the un bombed out dusty kid being dusted up and the moving of the dead refugee baby ner the sea for press shots.

[Itsonlyagame]

We've been down this road before Hubs and I think we both agreed to disagree without actually saying words to that effect.
As I said before, I don't believe everything I see in the msm. I also acknowledge the vast majority of media outlets are biase and have a vested interest in what they do and don't report.
That also applies to the alternative media. Dig deep enough and you'll find they all stand to gain financially, even the ones who want us to believe these attacks are home orchestrated.
I wholeheartedly agree none of us know 100% what happened at Parsons Green, Grenfell or Manchester.
But you could apply that to a lot of things in life. People used to believe you'd fall off the edge of the earth if you travelled far enough. What tangible proof do we have that that isn't the truth.

I'm still not quite sure where your coming from in all this.
You post a video which claims there was no fireball, a point you repeated in your last post, yet there are local hospitals who received injured victims, some with burns. Proof of that would be easily obtained.
If you don't believe there was a fireball then clearly there are a lot of people lying.

[Hubble]

What does false flag mean mate?

And if its not a real bombing, how can the players not be actors?

Oh and its a lot easier to stage shite in syria etc than it is on a train in london.
Like the un bombed out dusty kid being dusted up and the moving of the dead refugee baby ner the sea for press shots.

False flag attacks generally use real bombs/weapons etc. so people are wounded and killed just the same. Yes, granted, they're easier to stage in the theatre of war, but then again, many false flags use people who are unaware that what they're doing isn't for the cause they believe in. So they're not actors, they are stooges.

A prime example of a false flag carried out by US and other agencies against people in the West are the 'Operation Gladio' attacks in Italy, Belgium and Germany, where scores of innocent people were killed and wounded and the bombings blamed on left wing activists. In fact, they were carried out by right wing cells who had been planted and funded by the CIA/Western agencies ever since the 2nd world war. I've posted a link to the BBC documentary about this several times before.

Here's the wiki definition Kev: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

A classic false flag that most people know about is the Reichstag Fire. From the wiki on it:

The Reichstag Fire was an arson attack on the Reichstag building in Berlin on 27 February 1933. The fire started in the Session Chamber,^[19] and, by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was engulfed in flames. Police searched the building and found Marinus van der Lubbe, a young Dutch council communist and unemployed bricklayer, who had recently arrived in Germany to carry out political activities.
The fire was used as evidence by the Nazis that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and four Communist leaders were subsequently arrested. Adolf Hitler, who was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany four weeks before, on 30 January, urged President Paul von Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany".^[20] With civil liberties suspended, the government instituted mass arrests of Communists, including all of the Communist parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival Communists gone and their seats empty, the National Socialist German Workers Party went from being a plurality party to the majority; subsequent elections confirmed this position and thus allowed Hitler to consolidate his power.<sup>[c

"</sup>THE first documentary evidence has emerged to support the view that the Nazis started the 1933 Reichstag fire that Hitler used as a pretext to establish a dictatorship."

From this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Reichstag.html

[Kevin Mcleod]

Strange one here, but would anyone here just sit or stand there if you saw a refugee bloke on the train with a plastic bag with a bucket in it?
Have we been that pushed into a corner with the fear of going to prison for racism if we dared say 'what the fark are you doing on the rattler with that big bucket in a lidl bag for life you little carnt'????

[Itsonlyagame]

It was only a matter of time until flat earth popped up

Happy to oblige

[QPR71]

Good to see you back QPR71. Haven't seen you post in a while. well at least not on philosophical/political matters.

thanks hove. occasionally they are foolish enough to let me out of my cage

[Itsonlyagame]

Strange one here, but would anyone here just sit or stand there if you saw a refugee bloke on the train with a plastic bag with a bucket in it?
Have we been that pushed into a corner with the fear of going to prison for racism if we dared say 'what the fark are you doing on the rattler with that big bucket in a lidl bag for life you little carnt'????

I'd be asking more questions if a refugee was on a train with a Marks and Spencer bag, like how can you afford to shop there you little €unt.

[Johnnykc]

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.

You are not alone Hubs

[Hubble]

You are not alone Hubs

That's good to hear Johnny.

[Shania]

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.

This is how the media operates. Well said, and just to add, we have the similar situation here in Norway. In fact: You could also have used Hillary Clinton and the spin on her new book as an excample. She is the protagonist unchalenged!

[Hubble]

This is how the media operates. Well said, and just to add, we have the similar situation here in Norway. In fact: You could also have used Hillary Clinton and the spin on her new book as an excample. She is the protagonist unchalenged!

Absolutely - another good example Shania.

[Itsonlyagame]

I love this assumption that the msm have an agenda but the alternative outlets don't.

[Hubble]

I love this assumption that the msm have an agenda but the alternative outlets don't.

It's not an assumption that the MSM has an agenda Itsy - it's a fact. Of course the alternative outlets have an agenda too - but often their agenda is simply to try and get to the truth and expose the MSM lies. That's the difference. And in my experience, they are usually far more reliable and trustworthy sources than the MSM (assuming you know which ones to read of course - there's a hell of a lot of BS out there too - knowing the difference - being able to discern the difference, is key).

Anyway, at least I know I'm no longer in an echo chamber of one!

[Itsonlyagame]

It's not an assumption that the MSM has an agenda Itsy - it's a fact. Of course the alternative outlets have an agenda too - but often their agenda is simply to try and get to the truth and expose the MSM lies. That's the difference. And in my experience, they are usually far more reliable and trustworthy sources than the MSM (assuming you know which ones to read of course - there's a hell of a lot of BS out there too - knowing the difference - being able to discern the difference, is key).

Anyway, at least I know I'm no longer in an echo chamber of one!

I think my post across wrong Hubs. I accept most msm outlets are biase, the assumption I was referring to was that they are but the rest aren't.
The main problem I have is who to believe as let's face it, unless you are able to dig deep into these organisations you're never really going to know whether they are impartial and that applies to the alternative sources too.
Totally respect your point of view though and people like your good self will always ensure there are thought provoking discussions to be had and that can only be a good thing