latest, Libya, terrorism
Comments 171

Alleged suicide bomber’s father arrested as he expresses doubts over son’s involvement

According to various outlets, including article in Reuters Ramaramamdan Abedi, the father of Salman Abedi expressed astonishment his son could be responsible for the alleged bomb attack in Manchester on May 22. And while he was voicing his doubts to a reporter, western-backed Libyan security forces arrived to take him away.

Ramadan Abedi

Many mainstream sources have claimed Ramadan Abedi was a member of an anti-Gaddafi terrorist group. Alternative analysis site Voltaire,net goes further and suggests a link between Ramadan and MI6 operations in Libya.

Given that anti-Gaddafi Libyans have long been nurtured by the UK and other western nations, even if we don’t accept direct connections with the UK security apparatus, this seems an odd background for a putative suicide bomber, as even the Guardian noted. And indeed Ramadan Abedi, currently living in Libya, but having been resident in the UK for many years, expressed considerable surprise and consternation that his son would have committed such an act. He denied the suggestion Salman was a member of ISIS,and is quoted by Reuters as saying:

Salman doesn’t belong to any organization…The family is a bit confused because Salman doesn’t have this ideology, he doesn’t hold these beliefs….I didn’t expect that to happen, never…”

Ramadan also allegedly added the claim that there were “hidden hands” behind the attack.

In a truly bizarre development members of the Libyan Rada arrived while this interview was being conducted and escorted Ramadan away, for reasons that were not specified.

Earlier Salman’s brother, Hashem, was also detained by Rada “on suspicion of links to Islamic State.”

The speedy arrests leave open the question – is this a legitimate round up of terror suspects, or, as some have suggested, a means of silencing those who might reveal too much about the Abedi family’s connections with western security agencies?


171 Comments

  1. Admin says

    Hey all. There’s a lot of discussion BTL at the moment about whether some terror events could be faked or hoaxed. OffG operates a free comment policy and all opinions are permitted here unless they are advocating racism or violence against groups or individuals. But this particular topic does call for immense sensitivity, because the potential for offence is enormous. If you happen to be wrong and the events you claim to be fake are real, only think of the hurt you may be causing.

    We won’t censor. But we do ask for delicacy and a degree of respect. Avoid mockery. Be factual not declamatory. That’s all.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sylvie says

    Here is today’s posting from me.

    The gentleman I am talking about today is Eric Whalley. He is the same gentleman who seems to have some moulage over his eye in the first pic I posted

    According to his family’s fundraising page (they all had fundraising pages) , as well as the damage to his eye that looks like moulage, Eric had “part of his right foot blown off”.

    Here is a pic of his right foot.

    Like

  3. The worst crisis acting award goes to Nick Bickerstaff. This is a very, very scary video + text combo. This shows you what utter nonsense the public is expected to swallow – and seemingly does.

    This is what we are expected to believe:

    That Mr Bickerstaff was looking desperately for his daughter, Ellen, by calling her name and kind of wailing in a very unconvincing way.
    That he filmed himself while he was doing it because he feared a second bomb blast would take his life and so he wanted his last moments looking for his daughter recorded for posterity.
    That there are “body parts” visible but the people who are casually walking past him don’t know about these body parts “behind him”. Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t video them himself.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3671647/harrowing-footage-shot-by-dad-searching-for-teen-daughter-in-manchester-arena-moments-after-bomb-blast/

    A little light relief. Commenters on the video say it reminds them of the prairie dog calling Alan.

    Like

  4. Re the father/son connection to intelligence, it is interesting to note that Omar Mateen (the alleged perpetrator at the Orlando shooting) and his father have a similar father/son connection.

    Omar Mateen was working as a security guard for the intelligence and advisory services company, G4S, http://www.g4sriskconsulting.com/en/What-we-do/Services/Intelligence-and-Advisory-Services when he was filmed undercover by the director of The Big Fix, the highly-praised film about the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3643504/Orlando-shooter-Omar-Mateen-appeared-award-winning-documentary-BP-oil-spill-years-committed-massacre.html
    Mateen’s father is Seddique Mateen who had an occasional television show on a US-based Afghan satellite channel for about three years. One might suppose from this article that Mateen senior has intelligence connections.​​ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-father-idUSKCN0YY109

    Like

  5. Sylvie says

    This is a pic of lady called Mery Daniel being taken on a gurney after the bombing. Mery later told a local Boston TV station that she “lost her left leg and much of the back of her right leg was blown away.”

    The original link to that article is here

    It’s obvious in the photo Mery Daniel still has a left leg in one piece after the explosion. Why is it later missing? All I can think is the leg in the pic is a prosthesis because she was already an amputee. I don’t get how else to explain how she could still have a leg that looks totally unharmed after the bombing and later appear without one.

    StAug pointed to this article which is really good
    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/boston-6/

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Sylvie says

    Take a look at the lady in the grey jacket running along with the gurney and her hand resting on it. Her name is Krystara and beside this pic there is video and photos of her that day, standing and running around.

    Krystara’s mum later claimed Krystara had suffered a dislocated ankle and shrapnel wounds “from head to toe,”

    It’s impossible to stand on a dislocated ankle let alone walk – let alone run.

    Do you seen any shrapnel wounds?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Here is a curiosity for StAug and flaxgirl,

    The Boston Marathon was, according to you, an “obvious” hoax. Do explain, then, why the following studies, all co-authored by many medical specialists, and now archived as “medical references,” exist:

    A)

    The Boston Marathon bombing: after-action review of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital emergency radiology response.

    You can read the paper here

    The authors are:

    Brunner J1, Rocha TC, Chudgar AA, Goralnick E, Havens JM, Raja AS, Sodickson A.

    The author(s) information reads as follows:

    From the Department of Radiology, Emergency Radiology Section (J.B., T.C.R., A.A.C., A.S.), Department of Emergency Medicine (E.G., A.S.R.), and Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Burn, and Surgical Critical Care (J.M.H.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115.

    B)

    Blast Injuries: From Improvised Explosive Device Blasts to the Boston Marathon Bombing

    You can read the paper here.

    The authors are:

    Singh AK1, Ditkofsky NG1, York JD1, Abujudeh HH1, Avery LA1, Brunner JF1, Sodickson AD1, Lev MH1.

    The author(s) information reads as follows:

    From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, FND-210, Boston, MA 02114 (A.K.S., H.H.A., L.A.A., M.H.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (N.G.D.); Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Va (J.D.Y.); Department of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif (J.F.B.); and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.D.S.).

    C)

    Terrorist bombings: foreign bodies from the Boston Marathon bombing.

    You can read the paper here — if you pay $35.95 USD (that is, if you buy it)

    The authors are:

    Brunner J1, Singh AK2, Rocha T3, Havens J4, Goralnick E5, Sodickson A3.

    The author(s) information reads as follows:

    1Department of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: jbrunner@med.usc.edu.
    2Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
    3Department of Radiology, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston, MA.
    4Department of Surgery, Brigham and Woman׳s Hospital, Boston, MA.
    5Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Woman׳s Hospital, Boston, MA.

    This is just an example, a small sampling, of what research may entail. It’s not just looking at videos on the internet and forming an opinion about your untutored medical impressions.

    How likely do you think it is that if no one had been injured in Boston, these articles would have been written and published in the medical literature?

    Sure, I know: it’s all planted and fake. Indeed.

    Like

    • Sylvie says

      I notice one of the links only spends one para on the Boston bombing even tho it’s supposed to be all about it. The others I don’t know. Did the authors see the patients or are they working off collated data, in which case we’d have to know about the source and who the people are. The only one that uses images doesn’t stipulate the x-rays are from people at the bombing which is a bit weird. I mean why not?

      Against that there’s the huge amount of photo evidence from Boston that can basically prove fraud in many cases. The best case scenario in these cases is that individual people lied about their injuries for attention or to scam people out of GoFundMe money, because there is photographic proof they did not have the injuries they claim.

      I’ll link them up the top of the thread

      Liked by 2 people

    • Norm, why not just go chill somewhere and wait for “Capitalism to collapse” or something effective like that? Discussing this matter with you is strikingly similar to arguing about 9/11 with someone’s Reagan-loving Auntie. I’m amazed you can even bear to type the words “false flag”.

      As to your sarcasm: noted. The same regime capable of brainwashing hundreds of millions of its citizens into supporting perpetual wars, and also of prosecuting these wars, while blackmailing the member states of the UN into compliance, and running interlocking intelligence agencies directly employing, or subcontracting, over one million employees (with a black budget of billions)… is certainly incapable of pulling off the publishing of bogus papers to support a key hoax event… despite the thousands of medical professionals in the military, and the regime’s control of publishing, and most Media, et al. I mean, forget the fact that the actual function of many of these well-funded and clandestine agencies (of the caliber of, you know, the mom and pop company formerly known as Blackwater, with representatives photographed at the event under discussion) is to, among other things, fool credulous citizens like you.

      You’re on it, Norm. Your analyses these past few days have been fact-filled, elegant and anything but utterly useless… if not borderline schizophrenic.

      Now, I’m sure you’ve got to go call someone a “Twoofer” or something, so…. yeah. Happy hunting.

      To anyone with a Radical bone in their body, who’s genuinely interested in a compelling case against the legitimacy of this particular hoax (“The Boston Marathon Bombing”), again: this is the best point by point refutation of this staged propaganda event (and bear in mind that no “official” source would feasibly contradict the Mainstream narrative):

      http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/bostonmarathon/

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lets play of game of parsing your reply, StAug:

        First paragraph: I’m a Marxist (that’s a bad thing, no doubt) and what is worse, like someone’s Reagan-loving Auntie, a Marxist obviously past his intellectual prime (If ever he had one) and stuck in the past.

        Second paragraph: I’m sarcastic. And the regime is all powerful, like God. Nothing happens that isn’t orchestrated by it, and you can be damn certain that the regime would make sure to cover its tracks and publish something somewhere confirming the existence of victims of the Marathon Bombing, even if only in some obscure medical research publication. So the links I’ve provided are “obviously” to such tainted and planted material.

        Third paragraph: I’m schizophrenic. Well, borderline if not exactly all out schizophrenic. (Yes, and no doubt paranoid, too. Why it’s “obvious” or should be to anyone over the age of 15 and with an IQ higher than 98 — right, Steve?)

        Fourth paragraph: I’m mean. I go around either implicitly or explicitly calling people “Twoofers” or something. (I guess I’m not supposed to signal to anyone possible flaws in his or her reasoning. Only ill intended individuals would do such a rude thing.)

        Fifth paragraph: The Boston Marathon Bombing is a hoax. No “official” source, like a medical research paper, would contradict the official narrative. Please go and read the best point by point refutation ever that there might have been real victims of that bombing.

        So, to sum up: the references to the medical research papers I provide are “utterly useless” because: a) I’m an old demented Marxist; b) I’m sarcastic; c) the “regime” is all powerful; d) I’m a borderline schizophrenic; e) I’m mean; and f) there is “documented” proof of video and image analysis by Dave McGowan that “proves” that the BMB was a hoax.

        Did I get your counter-argument and counter-evidence about right, StAug? I think I did. But maybe my schizophrenia is getting in the way? I do apologize if it is.

        Like

        • Norm, nothing is easier to fake than textual “evidence”… just because you can’t imagine anyone going to the trouble doesn’t mean the Government (or whatever alphabet agency) wouldn’t. Listen, I refuse to believe that you’re a shill, but I think your Normative Programming is so deeply instilled that your behavior is very difficult to distinguish from a shill’s on this. Your vociferous defense of Government Propaganda is bizarre coming out of a Marxist, to say the least. You ignore or refuse to address a stack of hoax-signalling absurdities and latch on to one detail of the Official Narrative with a triumphant sneer at anyone who refuses to swallow the Official Narrative. In a debate in which neither of our points of view can be proven conclusively, I find it genuinely bizarre that you’ve chosen to be The Government’s Mouthpiece. I’ve had to deal with many, many Deeply Brainwashed Government Mouthpieces in my time, I just never would have guessed that you’d end up being one of them. And, yeah, if you have a shred of Reason powerful enough to overpower your indoctrination, McGowan points out more than enough nonsense in the photographic narrative to signal a Faked Event. Being that the same long-ruling Regime faked “Iraq’s WMD” and “The Magic Bullet” and “Three Steel Frame Buildings Collapsed neatly into their own footprints owing to jet-fuel crash-fires and one of them wasn’t even hit by a jet” and “the October Surprise” and many, many more… who would be naive enough to find my position farfetched? Or don’t you agree with this list of Fakes ? What other Big Ass Gov Lies do you swallow hook, line and sinker, Norm? Don’t answer that… it’ll only be depressing.

          “But maybe my schizophrenia is getting in the way?”

          Your Media-Induced Schizophrenia is definitely getting in the way.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I’d like to engage this comment of yours, StAug, but will refrain, for fear that I will have to pay heed to what you actually wrote and thereby lapse into mere and superficial “textual analysis.”

            But if I may venture one remark: although fraud, bribes, and ‘marketing’ do weigh on and distort medical research, not everything that “government” and “medical research” publishes is “propaganda” in the sense of being deliberately misleading. In fact, most of it isn’t propaganda, especially not in sectors like “imaging” and “surgery.” To believe this is to lapse into something akin to psychosis.

            Like

    • Oh, dear, Norm, I’m not sure Off-Guardian is really the place for you any more. You remind me of a certain Mr Fletcher whom I have wasted so much of my time with on Quora (until I just got banned (temporarily?) for posting unsavoury questions about Manchester – blessing in disguise probably as I was spending too much time on it). CF constantly posts links to NIST reports. Yeah, right. The NIST reports are so obviously fraudulent. Please do not post links to documents where we can see a government link without summarising what their points are. Any document that can be connected to government mean ZERO when talking about a topic where government might be involved in criminal activity. For goodness sake. Next you’ll be posting links to the “debunking” sites.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “Oh, dear, Norm, I’m not sure Off-Guardian is really the place for you any more. ”

        Right. Because you are all about “evidence” and I’m all about “jumping to conclusions.”

        So how do you explain the “medical research papers” by accredited medical professionals on injuries they claim were caused by the Boston Marathon Bombing?

        Like

        • Just as I would explain the NIST reports on the collapses of the towers on 9/11. Meaningless in that they’re from a government-backed source. If you have particular points within them you wish to raise, please do, but please, Norm, do not put links to government-backed documents. You must identify the points within them that you want to provide as evidence.

          Liked by 1 person

            • So you think the NIST reports on the tower collapses are scientific documents, do you, Norman? All I’m asking is that you don’t put links to the documents but articulate the information within them you find valuable. That is all.

              Liked by 1 person

              • “So you think the NIST reports on the tower collapses are scientific documents, do you, Norman?”

                Counter-question: is the NIST report bullshit because it’s a government report or because it’s internally inconsistent and doesn’t square with reality?

                “ll I’m asking is that you don’t put links to the documents but articulate the information within them you find valuable. That is all.”

                The point is very much to put links to the documents, flaxgirl.

                For my question to you is: if the Boston Marathon Bombing did not injure or kill anyone, then why is there “medical research” referencing radiologically imaged injuries of bomb blast victims of that bombing?

                If I don’t reference the documents, I don’t provide evidence for my assertion that such documents do in “fact” exist, eh.

                As for the content of the papers, it’s rather accessible to most everyone. They aren’t that long, and the information they present is well organized and referenced, just as you would expect in a document serving as a medical reference for doctors wanting to finesse “imaging protocols” in the advent of having to deal with “bomb blast injuries.”

                But they are government documents, presumably. Consequently, they are probably entirely meaningless.

                Like

                • Sorry, Norm, I didn’t explain myself properly. I didn’t mean to not put links at all but just to say what was inside the document that was pertinent so it could be easily referenced.

                  However, in the case of the Boston Bombing I have done extensive research and know it was a hoax and so see no need to do further research. I have a website on false flag hoaxes with a page on Boston. http://www.laverite.weebly.com.

                  We obviously judge evidence differently. I can judge quickly although I do not think it’s so much that I “jump to conclusions” just that I think some evidence has a high “proof” factor such as children in hospital showing zero signs of being anywhere near a bomb and then a few bits of other evidence showing anomalies and ZERO evidence showing that the event was real. I mean the difference between a real bomb blast and a staged one where they made minimal effort at the faking is just not that hard to pick up in my opinion.

                  Like

                  • Yes, if you are careful to select evidence that confirms what you already believe, by and large what you already believe tends to get confirmed, and there is usually no need to do further research about what one believes. Granted.

                    Like

                • “For my question to you is: if the Boston Marathon Bombing did not injure or kill anyone, then why is there “medical research” referencing radiologically imaged injuries of bomb blast victims of that bombing?”

                  Because The Very Powerful “War Time” Institutions who conceptualized, organized and executed that hoax are at least serious enough to provide cover for it? Guess what, Norm: they actually have the technology to Fake Documents! They can even fake passports! And birth certificates! Wow! Who’d have thought?

                  Liked by 1 person

            • “Dastardly Government” he says with a sneer! This is really getting weird. Uh, the Government isn’t “dastardly”, Norm?

              I’m going with my observation that US GOV is a very powerful, amorally self-interested institutional hierarchy capped with structural psychopathy (ie: in order to reach the top, a psychopath’s skillset is required). The supporting 2/3rds of the pyramid consists of Serfs merely doing their jobs but its overwhelming effect on the world, for most of its existence, has been Evil. Millions upon millions dead, maimed, displaced: victims of Genocide or victims of Looting Wars. Nations fiddled with, famines induced, cultures obliterated. Billions brainwashed with the utterly absurd notion that the venal, greedy, destructive and shallow “American Way of Life” is so Eden-like, so blessed by “God” that anything is worth sacrificing to achieve or simulate it. And anyone with any notoriety who disagrees will be dealt with.

              Yeah: Dastardly. I think that’s fair.

              Liked by 1 person

              • In America — and I’m presuming both you and faxgirl are American — there is a widespread confusion about “government” and “the state.”

                Americans, by and large, don’t discriminate between the two.

                For non- Americans, however, you can talk about “public institutions,” on the one hand, and “the state,” on the other.

                Public institutions (for non-Americans who aren’t completely infected with the liberal-virus (in the economic sens of “liberal”)), provide public and often essential services to the public, i.e., to the working class (to use an old and quaint Marxist category, eh) — and these institutions are any but “dastardly.”

                The state, on the other hand, is the repressive side of the existing form of bourgeois rule that we live under, comprised of things like the police, the courts, the military, the secret services, etc. These things are dastardly.

                I know, for an American, it’s a “weird” distinction to make. But there you have it.

                So my “sneer” is being directed toward that very American attitude and propensity to conflate “public services” and “the state” together.

                Cultural differences, eh.

                I hope that helps to clarify my “sneer” and all of the “weirdness” that came with it.

                Like

                • But – to play Devil’s Advocate – we do know the alphabet agencies infiltrate non-government bodies. And the medical studies would not have to have been written as deliberate fraud. They potentially could have been doing a genuine analysis of questionable data. Fake data about fake casualties would be indistinguishable from the real thing once it was punched into the system.

                  I’m not suggesting this did happen but one has to acknowledge it could without widespread involvement of the healthcare system.

                  Like

                  • Certainly. One’s conclusions are always only “tentative,” that is, if they are “rational.” One tends to go with what one believes is most “probable” under “the circumstances.” What you are suggesting is definitely “possible.”

                    The question then becomes, “which sources are you going to believe.” Is the medical research genuine or is Dave McGowan the source of the more reliable “evidence?”

                    But then if you have to rely on sources – and everyone does — and your reason for dismissing one source is that “it could conceivably be compromised,” then you have to concede that all sources may be conceivably compromised. Maybe the medical research is a prop; maybe Dave McGowan is working for the intelligence community and his job is to become “the turd in the punchbowl from which no one will drink.” And where would that leave us? Well, with what we “know” for sure.

                    So the Boston Marathon Bombing may have been a hoax. But there is evidence to suggest that maybe it wasn’t a hoax. But all sources might have been compromised.

                    So we conclude that we can’t really “know” whether the Boston Marathon Bombing is or isn’t a hoax . On that question, we suspend our judgement, and then attend to what, about that bombing, we can observe to be happening, as for example the manner in which the event is being used to legitimize repression and war. And then we invest our energy in opposing that – to repeat something I think I already said somewhere else.

                    Like

                • Thanks for the pathetic lecture, Norm. I notice, in your trance of pubertal Sophistry, that you were careful not to use the term “US Gov” in your attempted rebuttal… the term I actually used to signify the Prime Actor(s) behind the evils I describe. No, you helpfully define, instead, the term “public institutions”, the specific phrase I have never used as a synonym for “US Gov”. Anyway, that kind of self-serving Lie (we’ll call it a “strawman” to be polite) speaks for itself. But to get precise here: some “public institutions” in a rogue state are quite different from others. Ie: is “The Courthouse” as almost-irrefutably a good thing as “The Library”? Well, not always.But thanks for the idiotic “explanation”. I didn’t really need those 30 seconds for anything more important than being exasperated by you, anyway.

                  I will save myself several hours of time, today, by ignoring you completely. Feel free to run amok all over the threads to defend your hair-splitting sophistries. I mean, how do we really know US GOV doesn’t mean well in all that it does, right, Norm? Where’s the proof….? Their own poorly-done photographic “records” of their various staged events mean nothing, especially when the un-brainwashed see through them. What counts, above all, are history-defyingly naive hypotheticals. Yep.

                  Like

                  • StAug,

                    I note that you spend a lot of time attacking “me.” Are you upset with “me?” Was it something I said? Something I may have pointed to that you did not like? Have I touched a nerve?

                    But maybe I’m misreading you. It’s just that I notice words like “pathetic” and “sophistry” and “self-serving lie” and “strawman” and “idiotic” and . . . well, you get the picture.

                    Do note that I was explaining a “sneer” that you accused me of and that I committed while engaging someone other than yourself. But somehow I’m now guilty of having directed it directly at you or something.

                    I was speaking to flaxgirl. She wrote:

                    “Meaningless in that they’re from a government-backed source.

                    She was referring to the “medical research” to which I provided links.

                    She dismissed them — as Americans are wont to do — as “meaningless” because “government-backed.”

                    To that I wrote:

                    Ah, yes, the dastardly government! The one and only test is: “did the government write it?!” I forgot.

                    As in, “isn’t that sort of dismissal so typically American.”

                    And then you laid into me for “that.” And then I explained it to you.

                    And now you say that I said you said. But I never did say that you said — see.

                    Might I suggest a walk, a moment of joy outdoors, to savor for a moment the fact of your existence, to breathe the morning air or the air of the time of day that it happens to be where you now sit? You really need to relax, StAug. You are coming across as being slightly out of sorts.

                    Like

                    • Nah, Norm. I don’t like shills, but I understand them… what I find worse are the “Progressives” who are so perfectly indoctrinated that they can’t see how so much of what they say and do supports the System they affect to Oppose. To some extent, the theme of the week is Infiltration, and I think you represent a kind of Subliminal Infiltration; “Progressives” smuggling the Empire’s POV to undermine Resistance. Godz forbid a crystal of Epistemological Resistance should grow anywhere other than the ALT RIGHT, eh? There will always be Sophists like you with your ill-placed compulsion to “wait and see”. “Yes, his hands are on her neck and she appears to be screaming but what if she’s singing? Or laughing? How can I tell, through binoculars, what’s really happening? We must wait and see!”

                      To “wait and see” is just and reasonable when one is in possession of nuclear weapons. It’s asinine when one is a Serf among Serfs being stripped of human rights at an accelerating pace. To define US GOV as a malevolent entity which cannot be trusted as a source of Information; whose propaganda can only be parsed/ triangulated/ sifted through for approximate results… risks what? Being inaccurate from time to time, yes. But being Wrong? No.

                      You don’t understand the value of Public Opinion (both as a commodity and as the only target “soft” enough for Serfs to “attack”)… this wasn’t taught to you, at Uni, with your Marx. You’ve been given your limits within which to “rebel” harmlessly and the punishment of going too far is the unthinkable: you might look foolish. That’s how they keep you in line. As good as any Force Field! Noam Chomsky approves.

                      If you can’t even resist Gov Propaganda online, I think your fantasy of “resisting” the bastards in any other form (say, with torches and pitchforks? Or Placards?) is just boyishly sad. I’ve met many such cases online and several IRL and it’s always disheartening. What you think of as “circumspection” I recognize as a crippling fear of going against Consensus.

                      But I don’t need to “go for a walk” now, Norm… I’m going to go grocery shopping with Daughter after I finish a chapter I’m working on. My Life is great (beautiful Wife is performing classical music in Scandinavia but she’ll be back by Sunday)… your concern is touching (laugh) but unnecessary.

                      Like

                    • “Nah, Norm. I don’t like shills, but I understand them… ”

                      See. That’s what I’m talking about. You don’t really expect me to read the rest of your reply, do you? No, I didn’t thinks so . . .

                      Like

                    • Ha ha! You should have read one sentence further, Norm. But: whatever! You won’t like the nuanced version any better.

                      Like

                    • You won’t like the nuanced version any better.

                      Thank you for that precised version of your comment, Steve. You may have saved me a bit of time . . .

                      Like

                    • @Norman & StAug

                      This conversation is descending into unhelpful Punch and Judy theatre. Don’t clog up our comments like this. Discuss the images and links posted by flaxgirl and Sylvie. Or post your own evidence and discuss that. But no more hair-pulling please.

                      Like

  8. Sylvie says

    Right, so I was asked somewhere down the thread (it gets really hard to find specific comments after a while) for some evidence that proves fake events are sometimes passed off as real. To be fair the person asked specifically about Manchester, but as I don’t think there is any hard proof as yet that this was a non-real event I want to leave that to one side for a bit. It may well turn out Manchester had real victims, or some real victims along with some fake ones looking for attention etc.

    But the real point is do the authorities sometimes put over fake attacks or drills as the real thing. Because if they do and we can show good evidence they do then that’s a game changer. So what I have done is put together the best evidence I can find that fake terror attacks have been passed off a as real in the past.

    I’ll put the evidence together as respectfully and factually as I can out of respect for what the site asks at the top of the thread. If the person who asked me reads this I just ask that he takes the time to look at every link before making up his mind.

    First off then this sit about the BBC documentary called Saving Syria’s Children’. This site shows evidence of crisis actors pretending to be victims, fake injuries, fake voice overs, strange contradictions about what happened and where it happened.

    Then this article on OffGuardian about a group arrested for making fake terrorist vids in Egypt.

    WHEN THE BLOOD IS A LIE

    I mean I don’t see how this leaves any doubt that the media is totally prepared to put over fake events. So the only question is how far they will go, right?

    So, what about the Boston supposed bombing in April 2013?

    There’s a long thread I found called Questionable Injury Images. It is a really really amazingly good place to go and just look for yourself. I won’t link to anything graphic or nasty, but please look at this:

    This is supposed to be a man with a swollen and injured eye. But the first time I saw it I thought he was wearing an eye patch, because you can see where there’s something stuck on, right. Believe me he is NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANYTHING ATTACHED TO HIS EYE. What you are seeing there is supposed to be his own eye, just swollen up. You can see more pics of him here and in other places. That is supposed to be his own flesh. See:

    Do you think it looks like his own flesh?

    I’ll leave it there for now. But if its’ ok with OffGuardian I will keep posting the evidence Norman Pilon asked me for. I hope he reads and we can have a friendly discussion.

    [edited by Admin for formatting]

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sylvie,

      There is no disagreement between us as to whether or not the MSM or the establishment and their security enforcement agencies ever concoct “fake” terror events, either as false flags or complete hoaxes. That they in fact have and that such tactics are standard operation procedure does not “prove” that no bomb blast actually occurred in Manchester. The presumption that it does provide, however, is that no one should jump to any conclusions, either in favor of the “official narrative” or any other claim now being made about what did or did not in “fact” occur. One should withhold judgement until such time as a sufficient body of expertly vetted evidence has accumulated to venture a tentative conclusion.

      In the meantime, what can be ascertained in the absence of all or any forensic evidence one way or the other on Manchester is the way in which the alleged incident is being used to justify a variety of policy issues, both domestic and foreign.

      One only has to read or listen to the public declamations of governments whenever they speak of Manchester, directly or indirectly, of terrorism in general, to grasp how the event is being used as a prop and incitement.

      You can have a terror event in which there are real victims, and the event becomes useful for the establishment to push through what otherwise would have been unpopular decisions; likewise, were it but a case of fortuitous tragedy, in which a person had merely acted out of a sense of righteous vengeance; and likewise, too, if the whole thing had been mere theater, involving nothing but ‘crisis actors,’ but that manages to deceive the naive and the unwary.

      Therefore, limiting ourselves only to what we do in ‘fact’ know, the “essence” of the alleged terror before us becomes its usefulness for legitimating police repression in the West and aggressive war in the Middle East, and soon, given the unfolding recent events in the Philippines, in the Far East.
      This we “know” and can confidently “assert.”

      Whether the Manchester bombing if a false flag or a tragic event or a complete hoax doesn’t in the least change the leverage it affords the establishment to commit even greater crimes against humanity, and that’s what needs to countered.

      If we spend all of our time on the details of the event as such, we will end up squandering our energies on what by really is the mere flogging of a dead horse: we already know, by a hundred, if not a thousand. already uncontroversial historical examples that false flags and terror hoaxes are what the military and intelligence agencies are very much about. This thesis has already been proven, time and again.

      What needs to happen is for people not to fall into the trap that is the broader “framing” of the event whatever the event may have been in its material forensic details.

      Like

      • “Whether the Manchester bombing if a false flag or a tragic event or a complete hoax doesn’t in the least change the leverage it affords the establishment to commit even greater crimes against humanity, and that’s what needs to countered.”

        Wrong. Whether the reality of a given event is closer to the first, second or third condition you cite makes a huge difference because in every case, some things are true and some things are not… the Truth of it matters because no specific case can be made against a crime or its perps without the Truth most pertinent to it. No murder case was ever prosecuted by a DA saying, “Well, it doesn’t matter of he killed his uncle with a car, a gun or sock full of horse shit, your honor…”. What is absolutely necessary is to turn up the scrutiny on the contradictions/ improbabilities/ lapses in reality specific to a given event. And this has to be done to whatever extent it can be, to as many of the specific events as possible, because they cross-reference (they even have, eg, characters who were involved in one event “dying” at another, and so forth, just like spin-offs in TV). There are massive amounts of circumstantial evidence on record and it can all be sourced to build a People’s Case against the Regime, if you will. Because, we need to recognize the fact that Public Opinion is King; if it weren’t, the hoaxes would be unnecessary risks and expenses; TFIC wouldn’t other. What slowed BHO (partially) on Syria? Public Opinion (because TFIC plan to use BHO long after his time as POTUS, just like Clinton). This is where the Serfs (that’s Us) have Power. And our leverage is Truth. Not even necessarily a “scientific” standard of Truth… but enough to sway Public Opinion. The standard for achieving that crucial goal is achievable.

        The Truth can be scraped at and poked at and worried and collated and cross-referenced until it’s exposed, if only partially… as in many murder investigations (which are usually pursued with circumstantial evidence); it’s only a question of Will and (Wo)Manpower. If more people stop dodging the responsibility to A) pay attention B) speak up, we might actually get somewhere. These are not abstractions: real criminals are involved in the perpetration of these hoaxes/ false flags/ crimes against humanity. They can’t all be exposed and caught but some of them can and we, through the pressure of Public Opinion, can raise the cost of perpetrating these crimes to the degree that TFIC think twice, at least, before trying.

        There are always weak links in the chains of association in any conspiracy. The people doing these things are not super-beings. In fact they’re often quite sloppy. The “leverage” the event affords the perpetrators evaporates if a tipping-point of Disbelief/ Skepticism is reached in the Audience. This tipping-point is probably closer at hand than we know. The “polls” are as fake as anything else. People who don’t drink the Kool Aid need to continue to Speak Out. Speaking Out will hasten the tipping point at which Public Opinion wobbles on these matters.

        Appeals to sentimentality (and to some improvised notion of “decorum”) are a big part of the blurry curtains protecting hoaxes/ false flags/ stage managed events from serious public scrutiny. That and, of course, Apathy. Ennui. Distraction.

        Is the OffG just a social media site for hanging out and chatting harmlessly with Lefties slightly edgier than Guardian readers? Because my purpose here is to speak frankly about what is, most everywhere else, the “Unsaysable”. Sites like “Above Top Secret” and “Info Wars” and all those of that ilk are clearly run as Controlled Opposition and LH. This is a tiny, useful venue for Frank (and Dangerous) Speech and I think it should be used before it’s slammed shut (if or when it is).

        It’s very late in the day for endless equivocations and appeals to rhetorical caution and quite a few of us have been at this/on this for well over 20 years. Anyone who is genuinely NEW to this branch of Radical Discourse (call it Radical Discourse in the Social Media Control Apparatus Era) might actually learn something from all of the resources, rather than turning away in horror (or “disgust”) and encouraging others to do the same… which is terribly counter-productive (unless one prefers the status quo; does one?)

        Life (as the Germans say) is not a Pony Farm. We are in the shit. We aren’t going to dig our way out of it with pinkies extended.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Well, you go ahead and make your “People’s Case against the Regime,” Steve, and do let us know when the trial will be set to begin. You’ve got it all figured out already. Kudos to you.

          I do notice you don’t have much by way of forensic evidence for the moment, however. So before I accept what you apparently already know, I’ll wait until you are forthcoming with all of the evidence for what you already know.

          And if you want to scoff at people who might in fact be grieving or traumatized, who am I to stop you. Be my guest. It takes a brave and empathetic man to further potentially aggrieve people who may in fact be victims without his knowing that they are in fact not victims.

          Anyway, that’s enough of that for me.

          Like

          • “I do notice you don’t have much by way of forensic evidence for the moment, however.”

            Norman, you can twist your tiny (unwitting? I hope) plastic propaganda tongs as hard as you like. It means nothing to me. If you’re ignorant as to what is going on (and of the abundant record of the crimes and fakes to which we all refer), and you choose to remain so, that’s your affair. Maybe burying yourself in Marx is the best thing for you… and I’m more than happy to leave you to it.

            Like

            • “And if you want to scoff at people who might in fact be grieving or traumatized…”

              Btw: the OffG is not the New York times. I think trying to muffle dissent here by appealing to the notion of “traumatized” people scanning various Lefty/ Radical/Truther blogs until coming cross my Dissenting Opinion hereabouts is a little farfetched…. and cheap… on your part (and where exactly do I “scoff” at these hypothetical people, Norm? It’s certainly an evocative word and I can see why you chose it, but are you being honest in that word-choice, or just trying to be effective?)

              Like

                • Aha! I assumed you were referring to the Manchester event. Well, no: Robbie Parker is clearly part of a hoax. If you’re older than, say, 15, with an IQ greater than, say, 98, that is abundantly obvious. But I understand you’re still offended by people who doubt the Gulf of Tonkin thing, right, Norm…?

                  Like

                  • Aha, I assumed you were drawing a direct parallel between Robbie Parker and Martyn Hett’s parents. Can’t imagine why I would’ve done that.

                    Is my IQ level — obviously a whole lot lower than yours — indicative in any way of the reality or unreality of objective events, I mean apart from being evidence of itself (as a possible mismeassure)? Is yours?

                    More “evidence,” right?

                    Like

                • In case anyone missed it, this is a video of the “traumatized parent” Norm is referring to; if you buy this performance (even without the giveaway of the wolfish grin and the “getting into it” exercise he does before starting the performance) it’s clear that you and the Blatant Fakes Regime are a perfect match:

                  Like

                  • That’s a fake video, Steve. It was concocted by the “Deep State” to confuse people like you, so that you could no longer distinguish between your own “hunches” about things and “evidence.” How do I know? Just put it down to my “never” wrong “hunches” about “anything,” Steve.

                    Like

              • “Ah, more “evidence.” Keep adding to the pile. I’m not quite with you yet.”

                Clearly, you’re responsible for setting your own Ignorance Level. It’s up to you, N. Wherever comfort leads you, really…

                Like

      • Norman,
        As both StAug and I have pointed out in comments below the onus is on the media/government alliance to SHOW US what they tell us. You start with the premise that it is for us to find the evidence showing it was a hoax. I think you start with a false premise. We’ve been told something so the tellers of the story have to SHOW US what they’re claiming. And they haven’t done that. They haven’t done that one little bit. Their effort at faking evidence is truly laughable. There is no evidence WHATSOVER of a bomb blast, a bomb blast scene or people suffering injuries from a bomb blast. NONE WHATSOEVER. So why on earth would anyone in the very first place believe the story of a 22-dead-119-injured bomb blast? Because simply you’ve been told it? That is your reasoning?

        Liked by 2 people

        • “We’ve been told something so the tellers of the story have to SHOW US what they’re claiming.”

          But you and StAug are also equivalent “tellers,” aren’t you? You claim the Manchester bombing is a hoax. You affirm it to be a hoax every bit as much as the British establishment affirms it to be a real terror event.

          Therefore, by your very own stringent and exacting standards of proof, you “have to SHOW US what [you’re] claiming.”

          So far, your effort at presenting evidence is truly laughable. You have no evidence WHATSOEVER of no bomb blast, a nonexistent bomb blast scene or no people suffering no injuries from a non-existent bomb blast. NONE WHATSOVER.

          So why on earth would anyone in the very first place — as you and StAug do — believe the story that there are neither dead nor injured? Simply because you believe it? Simply because you can assert it? Is that your reasoning? Why, yes, that is exactly your reasoning.

          The British establishment says “so.” You say “so,” too. Where is your evidence? Is your evidence what you “imagine” is “normal” and “not normal” under the alleged circumstances?

          Whose standard of a presumed “normalcy” should be taken as “our” objective yardstick? Mine? Yours? StAug’s?

          Well, maybe you feel you can embrace your strongly felt hunches as incontrovertible “proof.”

          My hunches are merely hunches, that is to say, by definition feelings or guesses based on intuition rather than known facts.

          Of course, believe whatever it is you want to believe. Who can prevent you?

          I happen to subscribe to standards of “proof” different from your own. Both your and StAug’s half-baked certitudes aren’t quite enough for me.

          I know what I know. And I also know what I don’t know.

          I’m quite comfortable with asserting only what I know and not a jot more.

          Now you may think you “know” that Manchester is a hoax. But I think that like the people who “automatically” buy into the “official version of all events,” every time there is something like an act of terrorism, you, too, “automatically” buy into the “all such events are hoaxes,” and “there are absolutely never any victims to speak of, because it’s all just so ludicrously, laughably so obvious!”

          Two entirely different versions of but a single kind, eh?

          My preference is to wait and see what in due course will emerge from all of the sifting that must get done by a great diversity of talents before anyone at all will be in a position to “know” anything to a reasonable degree of certitude about what only just transpired in Manchester.

          I also very much agree with Admin:

          “If you happen to be wrong and the events you claim to be fake are real, only think of the hurt you may be causing.”

          Liked by 1 person

          • “But you and StAug are also equivalent “tellers,” aren’t you? You claim the Manchester bombing is a hoax. You affirm it to be a hoax every bit as much as the British establishment affirms it to be a real terror event.”

            The profound sophistry of your position on this being A) as though Flax Girl and I are equal-but-opposite to the British establishment (which lied about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, and so much more, to harmonize with the lies of its American masters) with a motivation to deceive, or B) in our ability to deceive C) or our track-record regarding fooling masses of people similar to you.

            “My preference is to wait and see what in due course will emerge from all of the sifting that must get done by a great diversity of talents…”

            You mean the way you’re still waiting and seeing regarding “Robbie Parker”? Apparently, the “diversity of talents” only counts, for you, when it is backed by the “authority” of the Government and/or Mainstream position… which is precisely the sheepishly credulous attitude the perpetrators of these crimes and hoaxes count on. So, for example, when the people who orchestrated the JFK assassination were also the people who appointed the people to look into the assassination, that was only a joke to some of us; to the rest of us, the authority of the investigators was reassuring; no tinfoil hat wackjobs need bother to demur and, anyway, out of respect for JFK’s family let’s not worry old wounds… (and so on)…

            One thing I saw enough of last fall was the type of Liberal Conservative who pretends to be Progressive but who backed Clinton and idolized BHO and could not be persuaded that anyone questioning the motives, sincerity or track record of either was not just an Alt Right Crank. The long and sinister record of BHO’s and HRC’s corporate advocacy and support of genteel genocide in countries of the brown became cognitively invisible to these people, while remaining stark matters of public record to anyone with eyes and a brain. People somehow capable of seeing right through Nigerian Email Scammers could not see through the patently phony aura of “Goodness” and “Public Service” around either character. Anyone who struggles to understand how “we’ve” been conned into accepting a cluster of perpetual wars, the hair-raising “war time” roll back on Civil Liberties and this unrestrained gallop toward Neo Feudal social conditions need look no further than this self-servingly blind gullibility. As I used to say to people during the Dubya era: “What does he have to do, kill your grandmother on camera during the halftime show at the Super Bowl?” Considering that Dubya is still not persona non grata in the Western World, I guess the answer to that rhetorical question is obvious: no one gives a shit.

            The bar is rightfully rather high when it comes to taking up torches and storming the castle over these evils and it is rightfully lower before one can reasonably be expected to say something about all or any of this. “Free Speech”, yeah… unless you offend (or “disgust”) someone with the refined sensibilities of The Norm.

            The jaw-dropping perversity of your position, Norm, is this: you don’t trust the Government either. You seem to be of the opinion that Manchester was orchestrated by the Government for a whole constellation of reasons. Yet, who do you trust when it comes to “information” about the nature of the event you believe was orchestrated by the Government? Why, the Government, of course! The Government claims an Ebil Moozlim killed a bunch of white kids and, amazingly, you agree (with a few quibbles)… without even seeing a CGI image of the character at the scene. What have you seen? Blurry clips of kids in a panic? Well, that’s good enough for you. Throw in a photo-op or two with the Queen and that’s definitive proof in Norm World.

            No, the burden of proof is not on Skeptics arguing that the event is a hoax; the burden of proof is on the Government which uses its Media to claim that an extraordinary thing happened (which conveniently happened to meet their need for such a thing to happen, exactly when it happened).

            And, oh, yes, the good old “people have died! How can you be so insensitive?” approach. Which reminds me of the fact that David Kelly’s post mortem report and photos of his corpse were initially sealed for 70 years because “Hutton claimed that he had done so to protect Kelly’s wife and daughters from the distress of further media reports about the death…”. How considerate.

            And, again: the OffG is not the New York Times. In the implausible case that there are “grieving relatives”, they will most probably not be trawling through Radical, Lefty, Conspiracy-Theorist blogs looking for things to be upset by. Your reasoning on that is as spurious as it is on the larger matter. Godz only know where your head is at or how you function with this cognitive split, but before you cast aspersions on my refusal to be Duped by authority, ask yourself what (and who) you are supporting.

            Liked by 1 person

            • “The profound sophistry of your position on this being A) as though Flax Girl and I are equal-but-opposite to the British establishment (which lied about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, and so much more, to harmonize with the lies of its American masters) with a motivation to deceive, or B) in our ability to deceive C) or our track-record regarding fooling masses of people similar to you.”

              After reading this paragraph, I simply stopped reading your reply.

              If you are not subtle enough to understand the category of “equivalence” I’m making as being of “a kind,” it’s pointless to even engage you on this issue.

              But since your grasp of English is at least “equivalent” to my own, it’s clear just who it is that’s being sophistical, Steve.

              Like

              • “After reading this paragraph, I simply stopped reading your reply.”

                This is not the devastating news you may imagine it to be, Norm! Laugh. Peace unto you.

                Liked by 1 person

          • I’m afraid I don’t understand your reasoning. If there is no evidence of a bomb blast, a bomb blast scene or people injured by a bomb blast then the COROLLARY is that there was no bombing event. The reason that we say it’s a hoax is that it is told to us that there was one and there are incredibly token efforts to suggest it but ZERO EVIDENCE. It’s pretty straightforward.

            There is nothing to wait for. No one is going to come out in the mainstream and say that this was a hoax just as they haven’t for Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, Orlando, Westminster, Cleveland, La Jolla, Melbourne donut guy, Stockholm, St Petersburg, Champs Elysees and on and on. It’s not going to be PROVEN by anyone.

            What I find annoying in discussing evidence of any kind is the idea that we need to wait for more evidence when the evidence we already have is proof enough. For example, we don’t say because they shipped off all the steel from the towers that tumbled on 9/11 that, “Oh gee, we haven’t got that evidence any more so we can’t call it.” No, we still have a ton of evidence that shows the towers came down by controlled demolition and we don’t need half of that.

            There is no way possible that the children in hospital with the bracelet-bandages were anywhere near a bomb blast and there is no way possible that Martyn Hett’s parents have just lost a child. That is all the evidence we need in my book. But there’s so much more than that anyway.

            Liked by 1 person

            • And just to add. Rather than use the term “hoax” it’s probably best to use “staged event.” This term, I suppose, allows for the possibility of people having died one way or another, however, how they will have died is not how they are said to have died, at least, certainly not in the case of Manchester because there simply was no bomb event.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Not to mention the fact that the “You Conspiritards disgust me! People died! Think of the family!” crowd expresses Moral Outrage if you question the Government Narrative at all… which Norm seems to think is okay to do. So, to recap: if you must violate someone’s sensibilities with your Outré Theories, check with Norm, first… he’s the self-designated authority on how far too far it’s okay to go.

                PS One might also wonder where Norm gets the concrete, irrefutable, certified, scientifically objective and official evidence that the Manchester event was anything other than what the Government is claiming it was. Why doesn’t Norm buy 100% of the Gov Story as long as he’s buying 50% of it? Inside sources he’s personally acquainted with? A “hunch”? Tantalizing.

                Liked by 1 person

            • “I’m afraid I don’t understand your reasoning.”

              The reasoning is not mine. The reasoning is your own. Your reasoning is that the British establishment or anyone can not make assertions without providing evidence for them (in this case, that there was a bomb); by the same token, anyone asserting that there “categorically” was no bombing and, therefore, not a single death or injury in Manchester must do so on the basis of evidence.

              What is your “evidence” for your “categorical” assertion. Why do you insist that someone else provide adequate evidence for their assertions but exempt yourself from that same requirement?

              And if you can’t understand this reasoning, we are at an impasse. Communication is impossible. Let us not further waste each other’s time.

              Like

              • @Norman & StAug

                As frequent and very well-informed contributors here why not consider the evidence being offered rather than meta analyses of one another’s position? A logical and deeply factual examination would seem to be the only way forward here. Some images of alleged moulage were posted. Why not both give your opinions on the virtues of this – based on the images and not on wider theories of probability or importance?

                Just a suggestion from a bystander who is experiencing an increasing bewilderment and frustration at the direction this debate is taking and senses others may share this feeling.

                Like

                • “As frequent and very well-informed contributors here why not consider the evidence being offered rather than meta analyses of one another’s position?”

                  Well, if you trace this debate to its origins, you’ll see that some of us based our initial comments on the video clips from Manchester (and had nothing to do with Norm’s opinions), and subsequently posted and analyzed videos we felt were related (from events of the near-past). The “meta” debate is over Norman’s assertion that calling this a hoax is “disgusting” … and over our assertion that the Burden of Proof is on the Government which (via its Media) asserts that the Manchester event happened as it describes.

                  Like

                  • And, PS: Flaxgirl and Sylvie have done a helluva lot of good and patient work on this issue. Doesn’t that input count? If their work is being gummed up by a barrage of naysaying commentary, are we to be blamed for that?

                    Like

                • I think I’ve made an adequate case for withholding judgement on the question of whether the Manchester bombing didn’t really happen.

                  I’m not going to spend any of my time examining videos purporting to show what is “unusual” grieving behavior and therefore an “obvious” put-on.

                  When I was a kid growing up, my parents had a flower shop. We lived in a small town. Whenever someone died, for obvious reasons, we were a part of the proceedings and, furthermore, knew the people on a personal level. In other words, we frequently interacted with people who were bereaved.

                  Consequently, I know from personal experience that there is no “normal” bereavement behavior, unless the people from my hometown were “not normal.” I also worked for the Ottawa Hospital for more than twenty years. I can confidently assert that there is no “normal” bereavement behavior. You cannot always tell from interacting with or observing someone whether they’ve just experienced a loss. Period.

                  As for the presentation of fake injuries, has anyone presented such injuries from the incident at hand? Do you have a link? People in hospital beds under blankets won’t cut it. Present things akin to what is presented here and here. I might then consider putting in the time.

                  People can rush to conclusions if they want to. I’m going to take my time.

                  Like

                  • Okay, this will not be argumentative so much as cosmically funny, but, re:

                    “When I was a kid growing up, my parents had a flower shop. We lived in a small town. Whenever someone died, for obvious reasons, we were a part of the proceedings…”

                    I’m not trying to one-up, you, Norm, but my paternal grandfather, two maternal great Aunts and two great Uncles by marriage were all Undertakers… and I lived at one of the family Funeral Homes (in Philly) for half the 1970s and part of the 1980s (I refer to this era on my blog; one story called “Tempus Fuggit” and another called “Dead Girl”). I’ve seen, literally, thousands of corpses and worked thousands of funerals and have seen lots of grief. And though I’ve seen joking, quipping, gallows humor, numbness and outrageously drunken behavior… I’ve never seen a near relative (more the less a parent) behave with the Rat Pack-ish cool that Robbie Parker displays in that clip we’ve posted. And Cassidy Stay’s behavior is only explicable if she were the trigger-puller. But maybe Canadians are different…?

                    Anyway: I’m done.

                    Like

                    • You’ve seen people who are bereaved. I’ve seen people who are bereaved. And two different testimonies as to the pattern of what was imagined to have been observed. Why would that be, I wonder.

                      Like

                  • Have to be very clear here – OffG is NOT alleging fake deaths or injuries at Manchester or Boston or any other major terror event. We are just, as per our remit, giving space to a range of views and encouraging the most useful discussion. We certainly aren’t in possession of images we are claiming to be fake.

                    Like

                    • It seemed as if you were assuming we were upholding the fakery position. We have to make it very clear we are NOT doing that.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • No, no, not even close. It’s just that you had written this:

                      Some images of alleged moulage were posted. Why not both give your opinions on the virtues of this – based on the images and not on wider theories of probability or importance?

                      And I’m just saying that unless the images meet my admittedly vaguely stated criteria as exemplified in the works to which I linked, I’m not going to bother, and if I did miss anything “substantive,” maybe someone can point me to it . . .

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • BTW: yes, in those images provided by Sylvie, it does look like moulage. But I’d be interested in what a “doctor” who specializes in “lacerations” might have to say about it more than my personal “impression.”

                      Like

                    • . . . and about the possible moulage pics, lets say a doctor shows up in this thread and confirms that what we have before us is definitely moulage, where does that leave us with respect to Manchester? We have rational grounds for doubting what we are being told about Manchester, but not “proof” of anything about what actually happened in Manchester.

                      I realize that I belabor the point, but if I do, it’s because some people don’t seem to “get” this. Not you, Admin, but others . . .

                      Like

              • “Your reasoning is that the British establishment or anyone can not make assertions without providing evidence for them…”

                Speaking of “reasoning,” Norm, what happened to your faculties in that category?

                Erm, what will it take to help you to see that the burden of proof is on a Government (or its Media ), in announcing a “bombing” with “fatalities” (or anything extraordinary of that nature)… the burden of proof is not on Skeptics who won’t take the Government’s word for it. To doubt an extraordinary claim does not fall under the heading of “extraordinary claims”, Norm.

                At this moment, I can provide more video evidence that Sandy Hook, Boston and 9/11 were stage-managed events than the Government has provided to back up the claim that Manchester wasn’t a stage-managed event. If you have convincing video clips of the bomb blast or its immediate aftermath, please link to it and let
                us decide for ourselves.

                Like

      • “There is no disagreement between us as to whether or not the MSM or the establishment and their security enforcement agencies ever concoct “fake” terror events, either as false flags or complete hoaxes. ”

        Said the guy, a couple of days ago, who went on to cite NIST as a credible official finding…

        Like

      • I think Sylvie’s point is not that eyes can’t swell, but that this swelling looks like an applied moulage rather than genuine swollen flesh.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Aninnymus says

          My point is that it looks very much like a boxing injury, as a quick Google of boxing injuries will confirm.

          Like

          • A good thing to do would be to post an image that you believe makes your point. If you just copy and paste the image URL it should show up. Any problems send it to us and we can post it for you. Otherwise this will likely descend into acrimonious and unhelpful argument.

            Like

        • Oooh: watch out for Fetzer… he’s a fairly dodgy character who was rather effectively outed at Memory Hole a few years back, posting nonsense to discredit research on Sandy Hook and other events. Be wary! Scott Creighton is not always 100% right (who is?) but I haven’t caught him being sleazy yet.

          Like

        • The danger being that the vast majority of “Alt News” sites are either selling snake oil or working as Disinfo. See “Cass Sunstein” and his famous threat to “infiltrate” Online “Conspiracy” Discourse. Some Limited Hangout/ Disinfo/ Controlled Opposition has been around since even before 9/11… the (black) budget TFIC have to work with is enough to pay for 100 sites like “Info Wars”. And, sadly, you can usually tell the Honest researchers by the fact that they’re A) Unknown B) Dead (or “dead”? wink)

          Like

          • Interesting what you say about Fetzer. I have always felt slight misgivings about him as I do Kevin Barrett (even though I think a lot of what he says is actually very good), however, independently of Fetzer I believe that Bauman and Vogt are the same person – as for the person at the games two weeks later, I’m not sure.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Flaxgirl! Totally agree about Fetzer and Barrett; the technique is always mixing good info in with the bad (even, sometimes, a vast majority of good info, tainted with one, or Troja Horsing one, absurdity). And, re: Bauman and Vogt: I don’t necessarily disagree with your finding, I just wanted to insert that warning about Fetzer. The list of Disinfo Specialists (or snake oil salesmen) is so much longer than the list of the Trustworthy!

              Like

      • Gee they do a great job of the moulage (mock injuries) in that video.

        From http://laverite.weebly.com/boston-bombing.html
        Jeff Bauman is the alias of Nick Vogt, a soldier who had his legs blown off in Afghanistan, and who was hired as an amputee actor for the Boston Bombing. He’s one of the stars of the show.

        ​One of the criticisms made by those who claim this event was staged is that Jeff should have more blood pouring out of his legs. In response to that criticism, someone who believes the event is real has posted an extremely distressing video of a man who has just that moment had his legs blown off (please only watch if you’re prepared for a high-level of distress) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHrJ4yZg9cg&t=51s). The believer states that blood is not pouring out of this man’s legs thus the criticism “not enough blood” is mistaken and so proves that the event is, indeed, real. This is a fallacious argument as although the criticism may be mistaken, its falsity does not prove the event was real. Perhaps blood pours out later but regardless, the video is so much more distressing than photos of Jeff-in-Boston and his loss of legs.

        When Nick-in-Afghanistan had his legs blown off, however, it would no doubt have caused a similar level of distress to see it as viewing this video … but you can be sure that photos of Nick-in-Afghanistan would never have made it into the front pages of the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/in-grisly-image-a-father-sees-his-son.html?_r=0 as Jeff-in-Boston has. The government exploiting one of its amputee soldiers, sent to fight a phoney war, to stage yet another big lie. It just goes on and on.

        And what of the psychological damage inflicted on the public of viewing an event that at a conscious level they believe is true but at a deeper level know is not which is why Jeff-in-Boston can appear in the media but Nick-in-Afghanistan cannot. Nick’s survival in Afghanistan was an extremely touch-and-go situation and involved an incredibly heroic effort by both him and his fellow soldiers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/nick-vogt-soldier-double-amputee-recovery_n_2082647.html. It is such a shame that after that heroism, he is involved in a phoney event like this.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. BigBG says

    Being factual, this narrative stinks of Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) stage management from? Well, from when exactly did the pre-planning begin? The Abedi ‘legend’ (father and son) has been built up for years. It seems obvious to me both father and son where SIS assets. At the very least they are being retro-fitted with legends to make it appear that way.
    So when was young Salman recruited, radicalised, or fitted up as a patsy? According to his classmates – and his own mother – he’s always been at risk. So why didn’t the (de)radicalisation programme known as PREVENT kick in? We’ve got all these freedom curtailing mass surveilling anti-terror laws and strategies in place (for private citizens at least) – but when the radical son of a radical father growing up in a radical part of Manchester gets flagged up? Apparently he is free to travel to Europe, Libya and Syria with absolutely no restriction. A failure of intelligence (requiring greater surveillance, manpower, etc.) or a protected SIS asset?
    Who funded his travel expenses? Daesh/AQ? And who funds them?
    Talking of mass surveillance, anyone noticed the similarity between the ‘CCTV’ stills of Abedi on the way to the Arena – and the CCTV shots from the Arndale Centre? Just why was the background in the former (badly) ‘shopped out? And the footage of a nosey neighbour of Abedi in a djellabah putting out the trash. I’m no expert, but it looks HQ to me – shaky phone-camera or was he under surveillance? If so, what for? Prevention or control?
    The way the information is being dripped out is classic SIS – leak and outrage. The ‘leak’ is the information you want placed in the public consciousness – the ‘outrage’ at sensitive information “damaging the investigation” is the fix. The fact that the leaks and sources are US, French, and German seems to indicate a level of confluence of agendas to me.
    The leaked photographs of the backpack ‘bomb’ – the photo of the battery has clearly been wiped to show “yuasa europe(.com.)” Surely that is evidence tampering? Or worse?
    This case bears at least some resemblance to 7/7 – and how for young men (the ‘Stepford Four’ – or should that be the ‘Stepford Three’?) – were retro-actively radicalised and fitted up for the crime – and the whole Muslim community were collectively punished and treated with suspicion. Even more so now. On what evidence? It remains scantily thin to this day. Will we ever get to the bottom of this?
    This narrative, from the start, has been sanitised and theatrically stage managed (since when did the Police start taking media crews to an arrest?) – the common ground question, I feel, is who are the Directors and master manipulators? Who do the collaborative SIS work for? So far, I mainly have questions.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. notinmyname says

    I’ve heard it say that Islam has the concept of “honor” and “dishonor”, where Christianity has the concept of “guilt” and “penitence”.

    Net result seems to be that when a child has “dishonored” the family the head of the family gives an explanation which saves the “honor” of the family. Whether the explanation is truthful is of lesser importance.

    It’s a pattern which you see repeated time after time.

    Like

      • notinmyname says

        Two examples:

        Molenbeek, Belgium. Inès El Khannouss, the daughter of an alderman is arrested for terrorism. The father claims the daughter is innocent; she merely has fallen in love with a young man, who happened to be a terrorist. “She is a blossoming student whose behaviour is beyond reproach. She was the naive victim of a loving relationship for her part”. (The Brussels Times, Jumet terrorist network: daughter of Molenbeek alderman charged)

        Paris, France. Abdullah Reda al-Hamamy attacks a soldier at the Louvre museum with a knife and is shot. The father says his son is not a terrorist. “For them to say in the end that he is a terrorist is nonsense … This is a cover up so they don’t have to apologize or justify the acts of this soldier who used brute force with a poor young man of 29.” (BBC News, Louvre attack: My son is no terrorist, says suspect’s father)

        There’s a wikipedia entry on “Guilt-Shame-Fear spectrum of cultures”.

        Like

  11. A deeply mistaken commenter writes:

    Getting peiople to consider verifiable facts that counter the MSM version of events is difficult enough. is that are verifiable difficult enough. Convincing them that “conspiracy theories” that may or may not be true (and may or may not be a product of lazy thinking) is a waste of time and energy.

    This belief is quite false and generally belongs to the mindset of Center-Left Gatekeepers. The commenter seems to be under the impression that only the types of people who are constitutionally averse to “Conspiracy Theories” are the ones that matter. The fact is that the range of beliefs centered around the window of any “norm” is always shifting. The general outlook of the public was somewhat different during the Vietnam/ Watergate years than it is now and it’s sure to change again, but if one is a “Conspiracy Theorist”, it’s important to signal to the like-minded that they are not alone in the tone or range of their worldview… in this way, the “Conspiratorial” (ie, Clued-In) population will grow as a crystal grows. It may well end up being the dominant mode of thinking in a generation. But we’ll never get there if we’re cowed into submission by the normative impulses of The Dupes. If the “News” looks fraudulent (and it most certainly does), whoever thinks so should comment to that effect (as long as commenting is possible)… you’re not doing it to convince the Sheep, you’re doing it to Confirm Your Fellowship among the Enlightened. Normative Gatekeepers should by all means be ignored, whether or not they appear to keep one foot in the “Radical” or “Dissident” world.

    Ahem.

    Like

  12. The Manchester Police Chief told reporters shortly after the event that names of the deceased would be (to paraphrase) “released in 4 or 5 days in coordination with the coroner”. Thus far, no images of bomb blast damage from the arena’s foyer area have been published, when cropped images excluding gruesome human carnage (or full images with humans blurred) could easily quell the divisive societal aftermath where a great many are questioning the event, asserting it was either a) a hoax (nobody died) or b) state-sponsored Gladio-type operation (people perished).

    Whatever the truth, and considering the historically high stakes, extremely serious nature of recent world events, for the warmongering billionaire class the timing of the Manchester event seems impeccable.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Enrico Fernlie says

    I put ‘salman abadi’ and ‘MI6′ into Google on Friday morning and at the bottom of the page it said, “some of the results have been removed following a legal request”. Now who would make such a request? Dal.an Ababi’s father was recruited by MI6 and part of the team that tried to assassinate Ghadaffi. He was also instrumental in setting up the Free Syrian Army (terrorists). Salamander Abadi’ also seemed free to travel to Lybia at will without attracting the attention of the UK authorities. He seemed not to have a job and live on government handouts. This all points to him being an agent for MI6.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Michael Leigh says

      I believe it is a certifiable fact ENRICOFERNLIE that Mr Ramadan Abedi was, as published by the Libyan Government records, and by MI6’s David Shalor in evidence to the UK courts, was a leading Gaadafi Government intelligence department head, who following the alleged terrorist aeroplane crash in Scotland was assigned to liaise with the UK authorities in the investigation of a Libyan culprit.

      And thereafter was recruited by MI6 as a traitor in their plot to assassinate the Lybian leader for about £100,000 in cash. And even though that plot failed, he continued his employment with MI6 in another failed attempt, and then had to flee for his life from his own country assisted by MI6 who provided him with all of his neccesary funds and identifications to become a member of the Manchester community.

      Thus it is highly likely as suggested elsewhere that Mr Ramadan Abedi future is most uncertain, because if the British Government had really wanted him, he could easily have been arrested by the UK in Libya and flow back to the Uk, without any actual need to comply with normal passport controls, irrespective of either of the three separate central Government administrations in that destroyed and broken state ?

      Like

  14. The key to this will be Ramadan Abedi, his background and connections are more than telling and central to this unfolding investigation.

    As always we are being presented with various pieces of information and being directed to focus on the police investigation. This is true to form – ask no questions follow the presented emerging facts.

    But of course the emerging facts might be as unknown as the security services claim are the oringins of the terrorist threats. Except in this case there is a direct connection worth exploring – Ramadan Abedi.

    We already see in the MSM that the arrest of Ramadan Abedi is not being reported neither is it being connected to the tragedy . Strange don’t you think?

    If this is the line of deception then the facts are getting difficult to hide. More difficult than with the Lockerbie tragedy. For those who are not familiar with this see HERE

    Will the Private Eye take up the cudgel with the Manchester Bomb attack? We will wait and see…with baited breath.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Jen says

    “… The speedy arrests leave open the question – is this a legitimate round up of terror suspects, or, as some have suggested, a means of silencing those who might reveal too much about the Abedi family’s connections with western security agencies?”

    The third possibility is that whoever took the bomb in his backpack to Ariana Grande’s concert was not Salman Abedi. Some time after the suicide bomber died, either by his own act of detonating his bomb or by someone else, Abedi’s stolen ID card was dropped onto the fellow’s body by a third party, to be discovered by the police.

    A little similar to how the Kouachi brothers were framed for the shooting deaths of the Charlie Hebdo journalists back in 2015, no?

    Ramadan Abedi has to be arrested in case he might be able to provide a very credible alibi for his son’s whereabouts on the night of the attack.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It will be interesting to see what his testimony is if it is ever made public, and if he ends up dead by whatever means while captive, that will raise additional questions. But in my opinion, if “they” had wanted to shut him up, they could easily have quietly put a bullet in him some time ago . . . Rather, I think the ‘arrest’ serves to undermine possible claims that the establishment and the ‘extremists’ in our midst are somehow working together, or that the latter are being manipulated and betrayed in ways even unsuspected by them . . .

      AS for revealing “… too much about the Abedi family’s connections with western security agencies,” that’s already a given:

      Ramadan Abedi, the father of bomber Salman Abedi, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a militant group founded in 1995 to pursue the violent overthrow of Gaddafi’s military dictatorship, Abdel-Basit Haroun, a former Libyan security official claimed.

      Source: here

      And see this and this

      By making this arrest, so to speak, front page copy, the effect is to solidify in the public mind the association between the Manchester bombing, Muslims, radical Islam and the Middle East. If we are to protect ourselves, then . . .

      Liked by 1 person

    • And a little similar to how Satam Al-Suqami’s passport was found at the World Trade Centre after surviving the monster crash into a tower. That’s my favourite one.

      Liked by 1 person

      • pywacket says

        All the US news casts were reading from the same script that day. Reporting on the “finding” of the passport they added; “if you can believe that.” Just to tell us; yes, we too are surprised, but must report the facts as they happen. Anyone with a brain saw planted evidence, unfortunately, that organ is in short supply in my country.

        Liked by 1 person

    • “A little similar to how the Kouachi brothers were framed for the shooting deaths of the Charlie Hebdo journalists back in 2015, no?”

      Oh, and speaking of Conspiracies and Charlie Hebdo: Michel Houellebecq’s Islamophobic novel, Submission (a novel about a France of the near-future, under Sharia law), “…drew an unusual amount of attention because, by a macabre coincidence, it was released on the day of the Charlie Hebdo shooting.” Love those macabre coincidences, don’t you? Well, at least it doesn’t indicate foreknowledge of the “attack”, implicating not only Intelligence but Houellebecq’s publisher as well. But wait: there’s more: “The English edition of the book, translated by Lorin Stein, was published on 10 September 2015.”

      Lorin Stein is the editor of the Paris Review. The Paris Review, of course, was recently definitively outed as having been not only funded but founded at the behest of The CIA (via Peter Matthiessen, one of its “witting” agents of influence) with the Agha Khan as the beard supposedly funding it. So, Lorin, now heading The Paris Review, translated an Islamophobic French novel for English consumption, eh? Another one of those macabre coincidences.

      Like

  16. John says

    It may have been an example of “fake” news, but I am sure I remember a tweet or something from the father praising his son being shown on TV. Does anyone else remember this – and, if you do, what was the source?
    Now, his father is claiming his son is innocent.
    So, what is the truth?

    Like

    • paulcarline says

      Have we been shown any concrete evidence that Salman Abedi was responsible and that he is dead? If I remember rightly, we were first told that he had been arrested, then that he had blown himself up – but it seems he remembered to take his ID with him and somehow make sure it wasn’t destroyed. Very considerate of him.
      I remember one witness saying that the front doors of the Arena were blown off by a group of policemen (was this the explosion that caused the panic?), who had then rushed in and taken a man away. If this is true, it could suggest that Abedi is still alive – and that he was in fact working with the agencies (like the man alleged to have carried out the Westminster Bridge ‘attack’, who was allegedly shot and killed by police after allegedly stabbing and killing a policeman. There is a photo of this alleged attacker’s ‘corpse’ on a stretcher (near a couple of knives with not a trace of blood on them). An eye-witness was quite sure the man on the stretcher moved and therefore was not dead. Unless they make a mistake, everything in these events is scripted and controlled so that the official story cannot be easily challenged.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. I tend to stick to what can reasonably be known and avoid the trap of seeing false flags and black ops behind every nefarious act. That way lies madness (and dogmatically defending a suspicion or a hunch like it is a verifiable truth).

    The powers that be are not that good at hiding their agenda. Perusing a variety of sources and interpretations plus leaked classified documents and drawing on historical patterns and ones own experiences provides enough material to piece together a narrative that holds water.

    That said…false flag attacks, fake evidence and “pivotal events” cooked up by PR agencies to justify killing people and destroying nations are a reality and I do not assume the official story is automatically The Truth.

    The timing of the Manchester bombing and the attack in Paris before the French election is very convenient for the interests of those upholding the status quo. And the authorities always seem to know exactly who the perpetrators are/were….sometimes aided by impressively sturdy passports that defy the odds and up being found by investigators at the scene. It’s important to recognize the precarious nature of the official narratives and not jump to conclusions. Ambiguity is a fact of life.

    We do however know that the west trains and arms the very terrorist groups it is claiming to fight and that it uses these as proxy armies. We know Western arms manufacturers do a roaring trade with regimes that directly supply and support the terrorists materially and ideologically.

    We do know the “fall” of Aleppo, to name one event, is fake news and that facts on the ground tell a different tale. Getting peiople to consider verifiable facts that counter the MSM version of events is difficult enough. is that are verifiable difficult enough. Convincing them that “conspiracy theories” that may or may not be true (and may or may not be a product of lazy thinking) is a waste of time and energy.

    Liked by 3 people

    • That Manchester was a false flag hoax is so beyond obvious it’s not funny. I’m vilified on Facebook and Quora but when I ask the simple question, “Can you give me any hard evidence that it was a real event,” no one can supply me with any and I think that simple fact answers the question, “Was it a false flag hoax?” all on its own. If you cannot find hard evidence of a 22-dead-50-injured bomb blast in the middle of Manchester something is very seriously wrong.

      I like this video, Does it Tick Staged Terror Boxes?

      Like

      • Edwige says

        Great posting by you on this topic and you’re right about how obvious the false flag is. Expressions of scepticism usually sound sophisticated but on this occasion they are just a willful denial of what is staring anyone who cares to look in the face.

        The numerology in this case is astounding. The number 22 is stamped all over it. A 22 year old bomber takes a bomb to a location at 22 degrees longtitude that explodes at 22:33 and kills 22 people (noticing how that figure has not changed since Monday). It’s the 6th attack on the 22nd day of a month in the current wave of attacks (Woolwich was exactly 3 years earlier) and, for example, the Nice attack was also first reported at 22:33. The daddy of them all, JFK, was on the 22nd of November.

        The chances of all this being coincidence are unbelievable. I’m not aware that radical Islam involves rampant numerology or attaches great significance to the number 22.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Ah, yes, the numerology and its mind-blowing incontrovertibly. And note the potential for the number 22 going forward: in every month of the year, there is a 22nd day, and in every day, a 22nd hour, as in every minute, too. Coincidence? Everywhere, contrivance by number, one or many. And none of it would have been possible without the ‘invention’ of numbers and settling upon the decimal or the number 10 as the ‘base,’ well, settling upon some number as a basis of the place value of the system.These ‘elites’ are cleverer than we think. It’s right there, in our faces, hiding in plain sight. Surely, they are laughing and scoffing at us . . . although I couldn’t imagine why . . .

          Like

          • I didn’t pay any attention to the numbers when I first started looking at false flag hoaxes and I still don’t really because they are of so little interest to me, however, I think the evidence shows clearly that the numbers and symbology in general are extremely important to the global power elite and when you start to look there are simply too many “numerological coincidences” and too many other symbols that keep cropping up, for example, shoes on and off (Westminster was an extreme example). Westminster and Brussels occurred on the same day of the year – 22/3 – 223 is the Skull & Crossbones number (Yale secret society that the Bush presidents and John Kerry were members of).

            There is a wealth of information that shows that the global power elite are Satanists who conduct rituals involving child sacrifices. They’re into child trafficking, torture, sexual abuse and so on. Symbolism is hugely important to them and that, to me, makes sense because essentially what they’re doing is really completely senseless so they have to “dress it up” somehow in their numbers and symbols to make it make sense.

            • Ronald Bernard, a Dutch former high-finance operative, talks about the depravity he encountered in his work.

            • Australian, Fiona Barnett, talks about being hired out by her Lithuanian Nazi step-grandfather to VIP pedophiles including Richard Nixon, three former Australian prime ministers and her main abuser, Antony Kidman, respected academic and psychologist, and father of Nicole Kidman, who died, according to Singapore authorities, from “unnatural causes,” several weeks after Fiona filed a complaint to the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse.

            Like

            • What Eric Blair said . . . that would be the crux of my reply to you. . . but I wouldn’t be able to lay it out as well as he (or she) did . . .

              Whether it’s a hoax or a false flag or just Salman having completely lost his mind doesn’t change the propaganda value of the “alleged incident” one iota, in the way that it is being disseminated and used in the MSM. And that is what needs to countered, flaxgirl.

              You waste your time and anyone else’s whose interest you might manage to captivate.

              Do your videos and your analysis help your intended “audience” see or understand that the West wants its citizens in sufficient numbers to get behind its murderous efforts to subjugate the Middle East and in due course all of Asia and eventually the entire world? That citizen’s imbued with fear and hate of an “other” are far more willing to offer themselves up as cannon fodder and to be complicit in the murder and rape and pillage of that “other?” Is this plainly the crux of your message? If not, then what are you driving at?

              The schema to understand is roughly this: “alleged terror event” + “a Muslim (or Arab) did it” + “ISIS is somehow connected” + “the Middle East” = “we have to wage war on the Middle East” while “repressing dissent at home, both in the streets and in all channels where information can be disseminated.”

              It doesn’t matter that the alleged terror might be a complete hoax. What matters is that through the corporate media, the event, its simulacrum, becomes real in the minds of the majority and that the majority is then primed for the rest of the equation being laid out for it. It’s not that there was or was no “real” terror, it’s rather that a concatenated series of “terror images,” of which there have already been many, facilitates widespread enthusiasm for war abroad and mass compliance to totalitarian rule at home.

              Do your videos make any of that explicit? What of your analysis? Might you be missing a forest for its trees?

              [edited by Admin to correct formatting]

              Like

              • Sylvie says

                Does it matter if it was a hoax or not? Yes! It’s not all that matters but it does matter. I agree with all you said about the message being the same to an extent, but getting to the truth also matters. And if we can show some of these events are hoaxes it completely destroys all the media stories about terrorism in one fell swoop. And don’t we just want to expose it if it’s going on? Does it matter if 9/11 was an inside job? Yes it does

                The videos make it so obvious some of this stuff is bad fakery it’s the fastest way to wake people up wake if they see it

                Liked by 1 person

                • ” . . . it’s the fastest way to wake people up . . . if they see it . . .”

                  Show me an “obvious” video that the Manchester bombing is a hoax!

                  Like

                  • Norman, I can see from your comments below that you are disgusted by those who mock the crisis actor parents. There’s nothing I can say in response to that. To me, it is incredibly obvious that Martyn Bett’s parents are not showing any credible signs of grief and I don’t buy as a quasher of that argument the good old “everyone shows grief in different ways.” I mean, their behaviour is just ludicrous. However, if you don’t think so then we have to agree to disagree. I’d call their “testimony”, so to speak, anti-evidence.

                    I’d also call anti-evidence the pictures of smiling children in hospital who show zero signs of being anywhere near a bomb blast. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4541026/The-Queen-visits-Royal-Manchester-Children-s-Hospital.html

                    If you want to see real victims of a bomb blast – and the hoax analyst who posted emphasises that he did not choose the worst-affected victims he’d seen – then look at this video and see how it compares. Please, let’s get a bit real here.

                    Like

                    • But just to add Norman. Shouldn’t it be the government and media SHOWING US the proof. I shouldn’t be having to show you where the evidence shows it’s a hoax they should be showing us the evidence that shows it’s a real event. And they’re not.

                      Liked by 1 person

              • “You waste your time and anyone else’s whose interest you might manage to captivate.”

                No one was ever transformed from Gullible Dupe to Clued-In Initiate by being exposed to cautiously diluted information. Pandering to conservatives and the brainwashed only increases the total amount of conservative propaganda.

                “The schema to understand is roughly this: “alleged terror event” + “a Muslim (or Arab) did it” + “ISIS is somehow connected” + “the Middle East” = “we have to wage war on the Middle East” while>/b> “repressing dissent at home, both in the streets and in all channels where information can be disseminated.”

                Which explains perfectly why your default support for the Official Narrative (“Mooozlim Suicide Bomber Killed Some White Kids”) is baffling. On the one hand, you appear to identify the function of the propaganda, on the other, you confirm the gist of it: huh? The Media are the social-engineering tools of the TPTB; they are rich with lies, illusions, half-truths and confusions. The burden of proof is on anything the Media presents as Reality. If you can’t get that straight, you’re in the hopeless position of depending on your Oppressors for Truth…. a common enough Hell. Your only way out is Reason. Use it.

                [Edited by Admin to correct typo]

                Liked by 1 person

          • Numerology as a Metaphysical method for divination is clearly nonsense. As a surreptitious signature popular among certain crime syndicates, however? I wouldn’t rule it out. After all, the number “33” is significant, for whatever reasons trivial or historical, for Masons (as is “420” for pot-heads, or “18” for Nazis and “420” for… erm… Nazis). For the Yakuza, certain numbers are considered lucky or significant; ditto for the founders of the convenience store “711”, apparently. Humans have their primitive signs and symbols (their pomp and circumstance, too: will you be mocking the next royal wedding or coronation for the bizarre symbols and rituals, too? And well you should, but don’t mock anyone for noting them) and nothing would surprise me.

            “It’s right there, in our faces, hiding in plain sight. Surely, they are laughing and scoffing at us . . . although I couldn’t imagine why . . .”

            Indeed, Norman. They really are laughing and you really can’t imagine why. You just keep swallowing your daily rations and everything will be fine.

            Like

            • Edwige says

              Some attempts to work out what are the chances of the numerological convergences in these dates occurring by mere coincidence here:

              https://www.ureka.org/thoughts/view/100243/are-the-dates-of-terror-events-predictable-by-analysing-numerology-used-by-secret-societies

              The issue (obviously) isn’t whether I – or you, or anyone here – believes in numerology (I don’t) but whether those, on some level, orchestrating this believe in it. Denying this involves a willingness to accept coincidences that are in the billions of random probability.

              There’s nothing particularly new in any of this evident numerology. To give one example, the Apollo 13 “disaster” occurred on the 13th at 13:13. And yet only a few “nuts” doubt the official story of the Apollo missions!

              Flaxgirl has indicated above some of the directions all this points in as regards the belief-systems of the elite.

              Like

              • Edwige! As I said, yes, I believe some secretive, ritual-obsessed organizations (like the royal family) are into the signs and symbols, but the probabilistic argument against the likelihood of any two or three events (or numbers) connecting to a common event (eg, a fake Apollo event) are quite misleading; the probability against any two or three events occurring “simultaneously” or in tangent to a common event are both “astronomical” and mundane. For example, if anyone were tracking you, I and Flaxgirl from birth, the odds against the three of all (eg) one reading the same comments, from a fourth commenter, as appear on this page, at the same time, would also appear to billions to one! Even the odds against any one of us existing (let alone three of us having a virtual conversation) is astronomical. The problem with the numerology probability argument is that we pass through an informational sea so full of numbers at any given moment that any numbers we notice are filtered out of billions of numbers we ignore. Time/ temp/ latitude/ longitude/ atomic weight/ price/ age/ address/ phone number/ date/ Gematria of names and words/ Jewish Calendar… with so many numbers to choose from, you can create almost any numerological narrative you care to from ambient conditions.

                Again, having said that: I’ve noticed what stock a relatively powerful person like, say, Yoko Ono puts in numerology, so I wouldn’t pooh-pooh the notion that George Bush Sr and his fellow Skull-and-Bones psychopaths think that way, too. I personally leave the numerology out of my takes on Fake Events because Numbers and Apophenia go together like eggs and bacon and I can never quite tell, even when I detect recurrent number-related patterns (like the greatest hits of “September 11” as a date), what they’re meant to mean. And I don’t like arguing with crypto-Conservative Reactionaries in defense of things I barely understand! Laugh

                PS The big question re: Numerology and “The Elites” is similar to the one about “Satanism” and “The Elites”: do They really believe or is it a put-on to pull our chains…?

                Like

    • bill says

      thankfully the late Mark Lane who couldnt find a US publisher for his Rush to Judgment( to our credit a London publisher went with it) or Dr Woods who had to use a Chinese publisher or Shane OSullivan who made his own film company or Oliver Stone who slept for years with a revolver under his pillow or Doug Horne who self-published had the courage and perserverance to research and explore events which changed US and world history…… did they expect to be thanked and hailed as heros? No they acted from a sense of civic responsibility and genuine patriotism and for some simply from a sense of injustice…. To hold up ones hands and say “No one will believe me;i will be vilified as a conspiracy theorist ( poor thing) so im shutting up shop and moving back into the painless mainstream “is defeatism disguised as realism . Nor however do i say rush in with both feet especially into Manchester at al because as matters stand there simply arent enough clear facts over M to reach any conclusion at all and there is certainly an unpredictability/ a volatility about terrorism which defies logical analysis e.g Ambassador Chris Stevens who oversaw a weapons supply chain from Benghazi to Syria which armed his own murderers-it could be simply MI6 blowback.It could be mind control.It could be that the killer expected the time-fuse to allow him the chance to escape which again begs the question of motive -no suicide belt;it could be he wasnt even there-patsy as part of Gladio-type operation;it could be theres an innocent explanation why the firefighters were kept away from the scene for long enough to provoke an outcry and possibly a Burnham -proposed inquiry;it could be that a bank card could survive an explosion and its heat adequately for forensics to make something from it,that there was a reason they looked hard at the bank card before much else (other peoples effects etc) – this could explain the swiftness of identifying the alleged killer….it could be other scenarios-the facts are as yet insufficient and will be harder and harder to obtain without interviewing ist responders who will probably be under orders not to talk; to sift weigh and corroborate all this and much much more takes time and patience so when independent researchers do this and do not give way to defeatism and accept the inevitable ridicule and persecution i for one hold them high and salute their determination and their courage…..

      Like

      • I do have a bit of a problem with this “clear facts” issue. Manchester happened 6 days ago. No one can provide a single piece of clear evidence that a 22-dead-50-injured bomb blast took place. If the event had really occurred we should have absolutely no doubt by now and, in fact, from day one we should have had clear evidence that there was a bomb blast and known the number killed and injured.

        We need to be able to match what we are told with what we are shown and if we cannot that is a very, very serious problem. That is not a situation we should tolerate.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Aninnymus says

          And so, the once great Offguardian became a bog standard conspiracy site.

          Like

          • ?

            The report is from Reuters and we also quote the Guardian. Hardly “conspiracy.”

            And if you hadn’t noticed we also did a lengthy season on 9/11 last September which actually did involve giving space to “conspiracy theory.”

            FYI – the use of “conspiracy” as an a priori denigrator betrays a want of rational/critical thinking on your part we advise you to remedy at your own convenience.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Aninnymus says

              The words conspiracy theory couldn’t really be used more appropriately than in this instance, in reference to the majority of comments BTL. QED. Whether the events the theorists refer to were reported in the Mail or the Guardian isn’t really the point.

              Like

              • Clearly you are referring to the comments and not to the article. But you surely don’t hold us responsible for the opinions of our readers. The principle of free speech requires giving space to a range of opinions. Rather than sneering and carping why not offer rebuttal and debate?

                Like

                • Aninnymus says

                  I was certainly referring to the comments and the inferences drawn from the article. I would happily rebut and debate, but suggest the facts speak for themselves. If you are happy to host conspiracy theorists on Off guardian – and I happily respect your right to do so, it’s your website, after all – perhaps you need to be a little more thick-skinned.

                  Like

                  • Aninnymus says

                    I was certainly referring to the comments and the inferences drawn from the article. I would happily rebut and debate, but suggest the facts speak for themselves. If you are happy to host conspiracy theorists on Off guardian – and I happily respect your right to do so, it’s your website, after all – perhaps you need to be a little more thick-skinned. And by the way, I ‘sneer and carp’ not only because there’s really no other rational engagement to be made with people who claim the Manchester bombing was a hoax, but because I care about this site. But what do I know? I used to believe what the Guardian had to say occasionally.

                    Like

          • Please just give me a piece of hard evidence that a 22-dead-50-injured bomb blast occurred. I am vilified all over the place for my offensive claim that this is a hoax, however, none of my vilifiers can provide me with any hard evidence.

            If you call the photos and video below evidence rather than, in fact, anti-evidence, I’d say your indoctrination by the power elite has been 110% successful.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4541026/The-Queen-visits-Royal-Manchester-Children-s-Hospital.html

            If you do not respond to this comment, I’ll know what inference to make, won’t I?

            Like

            • The interesting detail this points to (a detail which comes up time and time again when you study these events): the big ones are planned sometimes years in advance. Perhaps the timing of the moment they go “live” is contingent… but the elements seem to be put in place well in advance. Remember: the Military very carefully plans its invasions/ its troop deployments; the way it marshals its hierarchies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and contractors. So, too, the Invisible army (the various intelligence agencies and their sub-contractors) of the Black Budget. The main difference being that, for the Invisible Army, WE are The Enemy.

              If you study, for example, the careers of BHO (the former POTUS) and Deval Patrick, you can see that there’s a good chance that Patrick was in place as Obama’s alternate in case, for whatever reason, BHO didn’t work out as the Manchurian Candidate for Potus they had been grooming him for. These people think in terms of the Long Term Big Picture. Sadly, too many of Serfs can only see a few hours in either direction along the Timeline. But Institutional Psychopathy in our civilization thinks on the scale of centuries; look up “The Great Game” + “Prince Andrew” to get an idea of the general outline of one of the grander subliminal narratives affecting our lives…

              Like

              • Well, this one seems to have been thought out more than a year in advance. There was the anti-terrorist drill at the Trafford Centre last year. Presciently, someone put in the comments, a year ago, “Preparing for the real fake event.”

                Liked by 1 person

            • Aninnymus says

              Flaxgirl, when or if you find yourself part of a separate false flag/hoax, be a dear and tweet what it was, false flag or hoax, unless, that is, you’re no longer able to make your mind up, in the eventuality it was a real event, with real bombs packed with real bolts and nails, in which case you’re forgiven; in fact you may even be forgiven by some, if not all, if you find yourself smiling at royalty from your hospital bed.

              Like

  18. In hoax events, there’s almost always a connection between the perpetrator and intelligence agencies.

    This is just all concocted bullshit. Seriously, I’m supposed to be a false flag hoax researcher but I don’t really have a very good stomach for all the bullshit. I do take my hat off to the hoax analysts on YouTube who wade through it.

    The parents of Martyn Hett pulling the usual “crisis actor parents” line of “we don’t hold anything against the perpetrator”.

    Like

      • Joe says

        I don’t dabble in the fake event idea myself, but my first 2 impressions were 1. it is an odd article as you say and 2. what are the odds of someone featured in a major newspaper going on to die in a high profile terrorist attack two years later? They have to be small.

        Doesn’t mean anything. Don’t read anything in. Just my unstructured thoughts.

        Like

    • Joe says

      Holy Shit. I am really shocked. The mother actually says her boy would be happy to be dead to get all this media attention. OK, I know grief can be strange, but – really? saying your kid would be happy to be dead and famous is beyond anything I can easily accept as normal. At best it’s sociopathic. At worst…I don’t know! I just do not know what to think.

      These two seem utterly unmoved, smiling, calm. Not bravely smiling through the pain. Just regular smiling and unmoved. WTF is that?

      And why is she sitting there with an arm full of the dolls she makes like some sort of freakish product placement? And as I said what are the odds this “son of the year” who was all over the media a couple of years ago for what seems like quite odd reasons of itself, is now in the media again for being a victim of terror?

      I am genuinely shaken and genuinely confused. I have never bothered to look at any of this alleged fakery before. I have to have a long think about this and ask some trusted friends to view the video.

      It’s insane.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Sylvie Svensson says

          The vid of Robbie Parker coming out smiling and laughing and asking “do you want me to read from the card?” before prepping himself to look sad like an actor preparing for a scene was the second vid I saw that really convinced me the PTB use actors sometimes to simulate victims and families. There is no other way to see this but as someone setting his face to look sad for the cameras, and it is very revealing that the major networks all left out the telling first part and only showed the part where he had got himself into character and was looking grief-stricken.

          Anyone who thinks we are disgusting just please watch this vid! Ask yourself how much this has to do with a real bereaved dad.

          Liked by 2 people

          • “Anyone who thinks we are disgusting just please watch this vid! Ask yourself how much this has to do with a real bereaved dad.”

            The people I know who thought Parker was legit looked at that video and continued to do so… which taught me that the psychos who orchestrate these things know more about Human Psychology than I once did. There is a very powerful mental barrier, in some (quite common) personality types, against seeing the Truth in these things. You and I judge Human Psychology with our own specific psychologies as the standard and don’t get how people can be so bizarrely blind. But TFIC (the fuckers in charge) have run tests and studies for how many decades? They seem to know what works against the apparent majority, though, of course, being in charge of Media, one of their tricks is probably making Us (a possible majority) feel like a minority.

            If you YouTube-search “Obama” + “Fainting”, you’ll see the obvious fakery behind the meme: they wanted to project an image of BHO as so charismatic… as so much The One… that at dozens of his speaking events, they staged women “fainting”! The zenith occurred when they were trying to sell Obamacare and a pretty, pregnant lady with an extremely unusual hairstyle, standing behind BHO, was “about to faint” when BHO… with eyes in the back of his head… seemed to detect her distress. You can see that the woman has a handler, who is watching signals from off-camera, and nudging the “fainter”! (I believe BHO was meant to physically catch her but the fucked up the timing). Anyway, to make a long story short: I sent the clip of this to an old college friend… and he just could not see the fakery! He spent the entire duration of our argunent on the matter mocking the “right wing” channel the video clip was posted on! I reminded him the channel was irrelevant: focus on the vid! He couldn’t see anything amiss. But, also: he watches hours of TV every and is on anti-depressants… so….

            Liked by 1 person

            • Joe says

              I saw those, and yes they look completely fake. I don’t think the meme was ‘Obama makes women faint’ though, I think it was ‘Obama is so cool and down with the street he can handle minor emergencies without breaking stride.’ The reason I think that is they tried the same trick with Clinton. She was terrible, of course. Obama is all kinds of crap but he’s a grade A showman. Clinton is really not.

              Like

              • However we interpret the subtexts: clumsily transparent fakes betraying a total contempt for the audience… which is a part of what drives “The Anti-Coincidence Theorist” crowd: a perpetual sense of insult at being treated like unobservant Dupes.

                Like

        • Hadn’t even heard of this one. Geez, it’s an epidemic.
          Your link doesn’t work in Australia but I easily looked it up on youtube (in case anyone else can’t see it).

          Liked by 1 person

            • It says “The uploader has not made this video available in your country,” however, as I said, I found another version no problem. It could be the uploader has accidentally set their settings to exclude Oz, or, of course, for some reason deliberately set them to exclude Oz.

              Liked by 1 person

          • Btw, Flaxgirl, there are many different examples of victims of the various crises… parents of “slaughtered” children or people who “lost limbs” at the Boston Event… being insanely cheerful, perky and showing no symptoms of what humans commonly call Grief… the meme-word they invariable used was “resilient”. The Sandy Hook Event was a treasure trove of perky parents giving press conferences two or three days after “the unthinkable” and hitting all the talking points on their scripts… the most egregious examples being Grace McConnell’s supposed parents (not that that “Grace McConnell” ever existed) describing how dead Grace’s white casket was decorated by her siblings and parents wielding “sharpies”!!! Oh and Vera Pozner, “mother” of the notorious Noah Pozner (and wife of the litigious Lenny), giving a green-screened interview to Anderson Cooper and cramming so many talking points into her canned speech that it’s amazing that both she and Cooper didn’t break out into hysterical laughter over the absurdity of it all. Had any of this happened during the Watergate era, these people would have been seen through before the first tear-free interview was in the can. But the contemporary viewer is the most passive, gullible, obedient and malleable media target since the invention of the newspaper. You can almost understand the blatant contempt that the bastards behind these hoaxes feel for the Serfs who fall for it. When “Cassidy Stay” “survived” the event that “wiped out” her “family”, she supposedly did so by clasping her hands around her head as she was “shot” in the back of it… her little finger deflected the bullet! No, I shit you not… that was the legend peculiar to that one! Is that narrative nugget not a token of profound contempt….?

            Like

            • (please forgive all typos in advance… whenever I respond to an OffG comment from my blog’s dashboard, the response box is so tiny I don’t get an overview of the paragraph and the errors are consequently many)

              Like

            • Yes, I put a link below to the McDonnells (considered the gold standard of parent crisis acting by the hoax analysts). I hadn’t seen the Veronique Pozner interview and just watched it now. These things are so abominable and nauseating – it’s cleansing to be able to read the derisive comments below. I noticed that one woman said that it was this interview that first convinced her that Sandy Hook was a hoax because VP had attired herself too matchingly to be a woman who’d just lost her child! The sharpies, oh yes, the sharpies.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Yes, the derisive/ angry comments of Genuine Skeptics, under these vids, always give me hope to counterbalance the vertigo I experience when I consider the millions of Dupes who fall for these transparent social-engineering scams.

                Liked by 1 person

      • I think the dolls is the global power elite having a really big lend of us. The dolls really do make me laugh.

        A prolific hoax analyst, Peekay, has a video of this couple up with the title, “It doesn’t get worse than this,” although truth be told he says that about a few things. It’s pretty bad, isn’t it? Among the hoax analysts the gold standard, apparently, is the McDonnells of Sandy Hook fame. This video is pure CNN, it’s not mediated through a hoax analyst even by a different title. However, I think the Hetts’ video is a pretty good rival.

        I have created a website on false flag hoaxes though it’s ludicrously out of date – simply can’t keep up – that explains these events and gives some context. http://laverite.weebly.com/

        Liked by 1 person

    • You people disgust me. Passing judgment on the manner in which people behave in a state of bereavement? As if there could only be a certain limited range of expressions, of words uttered, of gestures made.

      So they are not behaving in those moments of edited footage according to your preconceived stereotypes of how bereaved individuals should behave, and that somehow “proves” something?

      How many of your children have died? How many of your brothers and sisters? As if grief wasn’t a process of psychological and emotional adjustment, punctuations alternating between responses appropriate to the situation that was only of yesterday, so to speak, when the deceased was still very much alive, in this moment as though the deceased were still alive, and emergent responses of grief deriving from entering into the slow and full realization of the enormity of what has happened.

      And you flatter yourselves with your astuteness? Well, of course, you do. You can all see around corners and then some . . .

      Like

      • “You people disgust me. Passing judgment on the manner in which people behave in a state of bereavement?”

        Norm, has someone hijacked your avatar? Because the precipitous drop in the apparent intelligence of your commentary, of late, is sort of… dizzying. “Disgust”….? That’s exactly the idiotic value judgment against clear-minded skepticism The Herd used against anyone who questioned the Official Fairytale of 9/11. “People died! You Twoofers are disgusting!”

        Anyone, who watches either of the two videos I posted up-thread, who comes to the conclusion that either character is suffering any kind of bereavement, is under the influence of an intellect-diminishing drug (TV or psychoactive pharmaceuticals).

        “So they are not behaving in those moments of edited footage according to your preconceived stereotypes of how bereaved individuals should behave, and that somehow “proves” something?”

        Funny: when Homicide Detectives consider suspects, non-standard emotions are usually considered a red flag… does that make wary detectives “disgusting”, Norm? Here’s a passage about some of the behavior that put Amanda Knox under suspicion of being Meredith Kercher’s (co)-killer:

        “Her apartment had been secured as crime scene, and except for the few things she was able to grab on the way out, she had only the clothes on her back. But instead of somberly going in to buy the items she needed, she is shown on closed-circuit TV footage kissing Raffaele and laughing with him as they hold up various G-strings. In one still shot taken from the footage, Raffaele is standing behind Amanda with his hands on her hips and his groin pressed into her. A few days after their arrest, the store owner, Carlo Maria Scotto di Rinaldi, remembered their odd behavior and turned over the tape.”

        So, yeah: there is definitely a range of typical behavior associated with the impact of violent death on the psyches of friends, acquaintances and loved ones of the deceased (or “deceased”). Go too far outside that range and one falls under suspicion. When a teen has just had her family supposedly slaughtered by her uncle and she supposedly barely escaped the same fate, to then see this teen on TV three days later laughing and chatty and generally not much bothered… something is amiss, Norm. But, just about anyone with a functioning brain and more than 15 years of experience on Earth knows that. Likewise with Robbie Parker, who looks quite casual and fun-loving when he thinks he’s off-camera; then can be seen “getting into character” and conducts the remainder of the interview displaying horrifically inferior acting skills.

        What the Hell happened to you, Norm? Are you going to start peppering your comments with the term “Conspiritard”, now, too? If you’re anybody’s idea of a “Radical” I now see why the Rightwing Bastards have been kicking our asses for centuries.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe Staten says

        @Norman Pilon

        I do know what you mean. I feel the same. It’s a very very weird and dangerous place to go. But have you watched the video I was talking about? I don’t know what to say about it. As I said below, yes, people do grieve in strange ways. But that is shocking. I showed it to my wife last night, who, like me has no interest in the fakery subdomain of conspiracy, but she was as gobsmacked as I was. I am not going to say they are fake. I am not making that step. I am just extremely concerned something is not right.

        Like

        • Joe,
          If you go to YouTube and enter “manchester” “hoax” you can find all kinds of videos about the various aspects of the Manchester bombing hoaxery. But even if you don’t want to go there, if you’d rather not investigate whether it’s a hoax or not, shouldn’t you be concerned that the government and media are not showing us what they’re telling us? It is a very wrong situation to accept being told something that doesn’t look anything like what you’re told. That’s the path to a fascist state.

          People take great offence when I say it’s a hoax but when I ask them to provide me with some clear evidence of a 22-dead-50-injured bomb blast they can’t find any – absolutely nothing at all. That is ridiculous! Such an event should be right in your face, shouldn’t it?

          Liked by 1 person

    • For all you experts in how people who “are sane” and “not play acting” normally behave:

      “For parents, the death of a child means coming to terms with emptiness and deep emotional hurt that they cannot even express. Immediately after the death, some parents may even find it impossible to express grief at all as they experience a period of shock and numbness.” page 4 or 13. (.pdf pagenation) source (.pdf): here (my emphasis)

      Like

      • That quote says nothing about “grieving parents” acting like cocky young Sinatras on stage in Vegas. “Numbness” is one thing… looking as though one has not a care in the world and a pocket full of freshly paid cash (which is exactly what many of these crisis actors with crowd-funded payoffs got) is quite another. Again: intelligent, rational adults know this.

        Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s