Pages: 1
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Leaked Whitehall inquest says London bombers not linked to Al-Qaeda
If it's true, then it's interesting. But remember this is the Mirror we're talking about here.
(for non-UK residents, the Mirror is a trash/tabloid paper, often purchased more for the pictures of naked women rather than factual news content)
(for non-UK residents, the Mirror is a trash/tabloid paper, often purchased more for the pictures of naked women rather than factual news content)
Actually, that's the Sun. And the leak is everywhere, I just picked the mirror as it was the top of google news. Try this link then:AnarkyXtra wrote:
If it's true, then it's interesting. But remember this is the Mirror we're talking about here.
(for non-UK residents, the Mirror is a trash/tabloid paper, often purchased more for the pictures of naked women rather than factual news content)
http://news.google.co.uk/news?ncl=http: … _page.html
Did you think He would have his al Qaeda ID card in his wallet ?
How long till Mofo and johnykill show up ?
How long till Mofo and johnykill show up ?
Ah, conspiracy theories. Where would the world be without them?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16926179&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=bombers-did-7-7-blasts-on-their-own-name_page.html
What do you think?
In a much better place, I would think.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Possibly its true, but in my opinion, maybe its just they havent found the link to Al-Qaeda, but its there, somewhere.
The Spanish investigation into the Madrid bombings concluded that they were not the work of Al-Qaeda, but were only inspired by Al-Qaeda bomb attacks.
Who ever said Al-Qaeda is the only one allowed to bomb stuff? Just because its not Al-Qaeda doesn't mean its not terrorists.
Hmm, hadn't considered the conspiracy theory idea yet, unless you mean the official conspiracy theory I'd heard about the place that it was an Al Qaeda attack in the first place. But since you mentioned it I put "7/7 bombing faked" into google, and came up with some interesting reading. Since I only saw the conspiracy sites this evening and haven't had time to give it much thought or research, I'll just ask if anyone else had read about the training ops that morning?:Spark wrote:
Ah, conspiracy theories. Where would the world be without them?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16926179&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=bombers-did-7-7-blasts-on-their-own-name_page.html
What do you think?
In a much better place, I would think.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/londo … video.html
I am not sure what the relivance of it being Al Qaeda or not is but..........I think I would NOT be reading this from you IF the topic was "UK bombers confirmed backing by Al Qaeda".UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16926179&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=bombers-did-7-7-blasts-on-their-own-name_page.html
What do you think?
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-13 18:12:56)
I think that I would. And here's one opinion on the relevance:lowing wrote:
I am not sure what the relivance of it being Al Qaeda or not is but..........I think I would NOT be reading this from you IF the topic was "UK bombers confirmed backing by Al Qaeda".UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16926179&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=bombers-did-7-7-blasts-on-their-own-name_page.html
What do you think?
The relevance of it not being Al Qaeda is that this was not an incident of international terrorism, and not something which could have been prevented by 'attacking the problem at the source' in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever else they decide is harbouring terrorists next week. If it wasn't Al Qaeda, that is.
Ok, I will buy that as relevant. Then it just reemphasizes the fact that this is indeed WW3 and the whole world needs to start taking this seriously and stand up to the problem like the coalition is trying to do. Every country is involved and every country needs to take an active roll in combating it. Being in Iraq now and trying to get it stablized has as much to do with NOT allowing a terrorist group a country from which to operate as trying to help iraqis live without tyranny.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
I think that I would. And here's one opinion on the relevance:lowing wrote:
I am not sure what the relivance of it being Al Qaeda or not is but..........I think I would NOT be reading this from you IF the topic was "UK bombers confirmed backing by Al Qaeda".UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16926179&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=bombers-did-7-7-blasts-on-their-own-name_page.html
What do you think?
The relevance of it not being Al Qaeda is that this was not an incident of international terrorism, and not something which could have been prevented by 'attacking the problem at the source' in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever else they decide is harbouring terrorists next week. If it wasn't Al Qaeda, that is.
How could terrorist operate on a scale such as they did without a safe harbor? Once all countries take a stand and pick a side the world will then know who is truly against the coalition and who is for it. Then the battle lines have been drawn. I think this is a war that even the most neutral of countries should not stay out of.
The only thing that I would question you on is this: If it wasn't Al Qaeda, why does it mean that it wasn't "international terrorism"
QFTKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Who ever said Al-Qaeda is the only one allowed to bomb stuff? Just because its not Al-Qaeda doesn't mean its not terrorists.
So what if its not the al-qaeda... theyre work was inspired by the al-qaeda, they may be just a few guys... but they still killed ppl
Pray for Omarion.
Because the culprits were all UK citizens allegedly acting because their government was at war. That would be classed as domestic terrorism.lowing wrote:
The only thing that I would question you on is this: If it wasn't Al Qaeda, why does it mean that it wasn't "international terrorism"
got it now.........but their names sure didn't sound English, lol.......And what the hell kinda response is that from this group? To protest war, they are gunna blow up people and property??!!......I think I used the word insane before to describe people like this. If it doesn't apply in this case it applies nowhereUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Because the culprits were all UK citizens allegedly acting because their government was at war. That would be classed as domestic terrorism.lowing wrote:
The only thing that I would question you on is this: If it wasn't Al Qaeda, why does it mean that it wasn't "international terrorism"
Pages: 1
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Leaked Whitehall inquest says London bombers not linked to Al-Qaeda