|
Real0ne -> RE: UK US (3/30/2007 6:41:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
*The video states full public enquiries are not full and they're not public. Since the inquiries act was changed on the 7th June 2005 in the way that any inquiry will be controlled by the relevant government minister and can block public scrutiny, i'll go with that. Seems pointless to have a public inquiry controlled by the minister to me.
So they do not have some kind of foia (freedom of information act) to protect that? Not that it does us much good here because all the gov has to do is say the majic words "national security" and and they can still cover everything up anyway. Of course who are we to say what is and isnt? Many people here think that the government have some kind of inside info that we do not but i find that highly suspect.
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
*Fear for our safety to restrict our liberty. False promises of security to erode our privacy. I personally would rather have my liberty restricted than fear for my safety. As for false promises of security i don't think that can be proved to be false just yet. Only time will tell if the measures the government plan to put in place will work or not.
You might use the us as an example. Every time something happens here the government makes the same claim. "well we were short of this-that-er-the-other and because of this-that-er-the-other we re looking in the wrong direction, if we had more funding we could do it" or there was a communication breakdown between departments so now we need another watch dog and they create another such as we started with the fbi, then cia, then atf, then nsa, now homeland security etc. Its always the same couple lines here and always the same results like a broken record,
So this will be good till people get used to them being around for a while and then something will "coincidentally" slip through the cracks again and that will mean more money, new police, etc till the cycle repeats and because it is done over a long period of time it goes out of the mind of the people and bammm! Something slips through and there we go again with more money more police and we have in the end only lost our freedom with out really gaining any security (since something did slip through again whick of course proves it wasnt enough money or police), and most often these groups tend to be used to abuse our rights and privacy at a minimum on occasion or polititians or corporations against each other for instance. Now that is the way it is here...
So my question is then when this sort of thing happens in the UK do you have this same cycle and do you feel you really are getting more security considering the loss of liberty or freedom? Is it working?
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
*Detention without trial (Terrorism act). We are the only european country to do this. Seems pretty unfair to me that no evidence is needed to detain someone for terrorism.
Yes and i think we are the only republic to that as well! Maybe they plan on making the UK the 51 state? Or the US a second state of the UK or soemthing along those lines? LOL They used the military in combination with the patriot act to do the same here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
*Inconsistencies in the police and governments stories about 7/7, yes there definately are some and yep if the cctv footage exists what would be the harm in the public seeing it?
Do they give you a reason for not showing you? How do you know that what your government is telling you is the truth if you cannot see the tapes? Do you get the impression they are hiding something? The police said that these guys should have been seen all literally all the way to the station, but mysteriously they were not. Does that give you or anyone else cause to suspect soemthing is not quite right? or how would you explain it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
The problem i have with this film is that yes it shows possible inconsistencies, the unfairness of detention without trial, the inquiries act being changed to fit but it also doesnt give any other possible explanations for 7/7. Its ok pulling something apart but you need to back it up too.
Well i think they are trying to argue their point not the other side. It seems to me it is up to the other side to argue their point and actually they did as i am sure you must have seen it on tv over and over again if its anything like the tv here...
i view that like the plaintif arguing the defendants case for them you know... i am sure you heard the governments evidence over and over so i am assuming you know their standing on these issues? So how does what they say stack up?
Not living there and not knowing the intimacies of your countries government you could problably better tell me how it stacks up to "standard procedure"
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
*Al qaeda connected to the bombings. Well i can go with that. Spain had 1300 troops in Iraq at the time and the bombings caused the spanish people to vote a new prime minister in who wouldnt support Bush and promised to pull the troops out.
Not sure what you were hoping to say or prove with that video.
On a side note if you speak to the spanish about the madrid bombings they all have their own little conspiracy theories which have nothing to do with any country but their own.
yeh spain migh be as difficult as the uk is for me to figure out.
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
All the rest really didnt prove much or say much. The last article was just claiming conspiracy theory as has been claimed for a while now but no proof or eveidence backs it up really.
Do you feel that your government adequately backed up their theories? What in those videos do you feel is incorrect of that the gov disproved or?
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
Yeah i can see that the USA and Britain possibly have benefited from the bombings in commercial terms but come on would they really kill so many people just to make money? I do find that a little hard to believe.
The usa as a whole i do not think will benefit from it. oil, arms, banks, defense, gov expansion/intervention will do marvy tho...
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
Tell me what new evidence of a conspiracy theory do you see in the ites you have listed?
Well strange things happen all the time, there are huge investigations and when i review the data in most cases i either agree or for the most part can understand their conclusion to the point i would not directly contest it or call foul play. The points you mention do set yellow flags to flying in that i smell something but i do not know the intricacies of your country and the paterns they set up. Ours has distinct patterns of naughty boys that can be seen repeated literally by the numbers if you will over and over again because it is successful time and time again.
|
|
|
|
