Arming the Police

darkhairedlord

this explains the twonky chainline I suppose!

veronese68

The tin foil helmet in the instructions looks like a cycle helmet. Will it pretect me from all injuries if I were to wear one? Even to my knees?

bompington

Veronese68 wrote:

The tin foil helmet in the instructions looks like a cycle helmet. Will it pretect me from all injuries if I were to wear one? Even to my knees?

If you don't wear one next time you go out, and you end up hurting your knee, we'll know the answer to that one.

Manc33

Does counter-terrorism expert John Loftus need a tin foil hat?

If he does, why? :shock:

What about Tony Farrell?

12 years working in intelligence and he took a step back to see what's really going on... does he need a tinfoil hat?

What about Danny Jowenko? Dr. Kelly?

All nutters - when they are saying something you can't personally agree with.

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

Does counter-terrorism expert John Loftus need a tin foil hat?

If he does, why? :shock:

What about Tony Farrell?

12 years working in intelligence and he took a step back to see what's really going on... does he need a tinfoil hat?

What about Danny Jowenko? Dr. Kelly?

All nutters - when they are saying something you can't personally agree with.

"On August 7, 2005, he provided the United States address of an alleged terrorist named Iyad K. Hilal on Fox News. Only afterwards was it revealed that Hilal had left the address three years previously and the home was now owned by a family, which was then subjected to threats and vandalism and required police protection as a result of Loftus' words.[5] Fox terminated Loftus's contract to commentate after the event.[6] Loftus said "I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist," but he did not say why he did not contact police in a more direct manner. Loftus apologized for the mistake and expressed frustration about "one federal [agency's]" inaction on an earlier tip he had given them years ago due to the same address"
This John Loftus?

finchy

A false flag attack on the London transport system using gullible Muslims who were lead to believe that they were taking part in a training exercise would be highly risky. All it would it take is for one of the bombs to fail to explode and then you would have someone who would surely tell all.

Manc33

johnfinch wrote:

A false flag attack on the London transport system using gullible Muslims who were lead to believe that they were taking part in a training exercise would be highly risky. All it would it take is for one of the bombs to fail to explode and then you would have someone who would surely tell all.

There's another theory (not that I believe it or dismiss it out of hand either) that says the Muslims were shot around Canary Wharf and it was hushed up. Like ninja shooters that dart out of an alley way then a van pulls up and throws them all in. If the area was evacuated (or partially), its possible.

Arming the police to me is more to do with us copying the US like we always do, its dumb having tasers, they are lethal weapons, but so are guns and cops need guns under certain circumstances. Why can't they just shoot a dart at you that knocks you out? Tasers are a "deterrent" but you'll always get certain odd cops abusing the fact that they have one.

In fact cops having guns makes more sense than them having tasers, because tasers would more likely get used! In the US though, cops will taser absolutely anyone and well, I can't see UK cops ever being like that. Here we probably have enough good cops that will keep each other in check, in the US they have bully cops on roids that are corrupt as hell and boss other cops around lol.

Ever seen that video of the US marine yelling at US cops?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys

shortcuts

ALALLAPOOPALALLA :roll:

Manc33

To me its not about arming the police, its about whether the reason to do so is a racist excuse, or a real reason.

For example they say stuff like "Islamic extremism" is a threat, but the people saying that are the extremists when there's no Islamic extremism taking place in the UK. In fact for the amount of demonization Muslims have to endure, it surprises me how reserved they do stay.

We go to a country, kill innocent people, then call them terrorists if they try to defend their own land.

Never has and never will make sense to me. About the best answer I ever hear is something like "Well cultures do have to be wiped out from time to time, like Red Indians or whatever" and you finally get some admission that yes, we do just take over places - you can't hide it. What annoys me is when people act all moral about it as if we're doing good. For example "liberating" Iraq. Holy jumping sh*tballs, are they actually serious? Illegally taking over and killing over a million people is liberating them?

In Iraq, people supported Saddam Hussein. Iraq was the only Arab nation where women could vote. Iraq was on the up, had a proper education system, nice roads... I think what really happened was Saddam just stopped going along with the program and really thought he was the leader of Iraq, kinda how JFK thought he was the President, but he was sure as hell the last President to think that.

Illegally taking over places is not something a true "winning" side would do. There are no "sides", just a great big massive hammer.

rc856

"For example they say stuff like "Islamic extremism" is a threat, but the people saying that are the extremists when there's no Islamic extremism taking place in the UK"

Yeah....because the likes of Abu Hamza are totally ok!!

Top trolling!!! Great comments!!!

MisterMuncher

The funny bit.

This shadowy force that's organising wars and assassinations, orchestrating the economies of the world and playing people like chess pieces will apparently kill in great numbers without compunction. They're watching all of us, all the time.

Manc and his fellow travellers have apparently got their number, so they broadcast their knowledge on the internet. This they do with no apparent fear for their own lives.

So:
a: The conspiracy theorists don't actually, really, deep down believe any of it?
b: The conspiracy theorists are demonstrating consistency with the rest of their "logic" and haven't really thought it through.
or
c: "That's just what THEY want you to think"

meanredspider

MisterMuncher wrote:

This they do with no apparent fear for their own lives.

Did you not see the foil helmets??? Tsk - you're afflicted with the same myopia as the rest of them!!! :roll:

MisterMuncher

Of course. There was me thinking it was just a marginally more modern variation of "God moves in mysterious ways" for the Internet paranoiac, when everything could be explained by recourse to the man behind the curtain, and it gave you comfort to know you were smarter and better prepared to face the world than all the fearful fools surrounding you. A comfort blanket woven of faulty logic to shut out personal inadequacy, if you will.

How foolish of me.

ballysmate

MisterMuncher wrote:

The funny bit.



Manc and his fellow travellers have apparently got their number, so they broadcast their knowledge on the internet. This they do with no apparent fear for their own lives.

We thank them for their service.

Manc33

RC856 wrote:

"For example they say stuff like "Islamic extremism" is a threat, but the people saying that are the extremists when there's no Islamic extremism taking place in the UK"

Yeah....because the likes of Abu Hamza are totally ok!!

Top trolling!!! Great comments!!!

You're not doing much research are you... don't forget his buddy Haroon Rashid Aswat whom was working with British intelligence - whilst being on a terrorist watch list.

SAS guys were caught dressed as Arabs to make it look like Arabs were causing terrorism. The Mossad guys on 9/11 (dancing Israeli's) again dressed as Arabs. This is what I mean when I say Muslims are being demonized.

If people want to carry on lapping this stuff up and going along with it, that's up to them, but Islamic people aren't extremists. There's no proof for it. Once you remove all the inside jobs like 9/11, 7/7 and so on, there isn't any actual terrorism going on apart from the IRA every 10 years or whatever, even then its probably "advantageous" to just let the bombing go ahead, like when the Japanese were "allowed" to attack Pearl Harbor, its the same thing just like with intelligence agents posing as Arabs. If these things were isolated I wouldn't mention them. Its par for the course to me by now that this is the way the world works.

ben@31

Manc33 wrote:

The odds of running one drill at one place at the same time an actual terrorist attack is taking place are millions to one, but in three places (New York, London, Madrid) it pretty much can't happen unless it is setup that way. You're talking a 1 with 41 zero's after it.

1 with 41 zeros in it? How did you get this figure, whats the calculations ?

As for conspiracy theories... from my experiences working in the public sector the govt couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery. So no way could it organise something as complex as you make out, it would be decades late and over budget.

vinnymarsden

As a fully time served retired police officer let me, for what it's worth give my opinion, and remember folks this is MY opinion, and that only!
Arming patrol cops might curry some favour with some elements of society, however, the vast majority of the cops themselves would be reluctant to carry firearms as a routine thing.
For one, the sheer cost of training to anything approaching an adequate level would cripple most forces in the current economic climate, plus and this is the one I think makes most sense to me.
You are NEVER EVER going to stop the " lone wolf" type attacks we have seen recently, no amount of police firepower will stop some marginalised mad person of WHATEVER persuasion, let's not hang this on one group of people , there are nut jobs EVERYWHERE, let's stop focusing on one group!
The main weapon against these people is intelligence, early intervention/monitoring would assist FAR more than PC Smith driving around with a firearm because it looks hard!!
Time and again these atrocities happen and the aftermath always appears to throw up the fact that the perpetrator/s were there on somebody's watch list etc, but the intelligence was never developed to the extent of being able to stop the incident. Recent history in the UK alone has shown us, the mad lone gunman can be anyone, and they generally become famous AFTER the event and no amount of cops with guns can stop them.

shortcuts

VinnyMarsden wrote:

As a fully time served retired police officer let me, for what it's worth give my opinion, and remember folks this is MY opinion, and that only!
Arming patrol cops might curry some favour with some elements of society, however, the vast majority of the cops themselves would be reluctant to carry firearms as a routine thing.
For one, the sheer cost of training to anything approaching an adequate level would cripple most forces in the current economic climate, plus and this is the one I think makes most sense to me.
You are NEVER EVER going to stop the " lone wolf" type attacks we have seen recently, no amount of police firepower will stop some marginalised mad person of WHATEVER persuasion, let's not hang this on one group of people , there are nut jobs EVERYWHERE, let's stop focusing on one group!
The main weapon against these people is intelligence, early intervention/monitoring would assist FAR more than PC Smith driving around with a firearm because it looks hard!!
Time and again these atrocities happen and the aftermath always appears to throw up the fact that the perpetrator/s were there on somebody's watch list etc, but the intelligence was never developed to the extent of being able to stop the incident. Recent history in the UK alone has shown us, the mad lone gunman can be anyone, and they generally become famous AFTER the event and no amount of cops with guns can stop them.

Same position as you (ex job and retired). Agree with your statement.

MisterMuncher

ben@31 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

The odds of running one drill at one place at the same time an actual terrorist attack is taking place are millions to one, but in three places (New York, London, Madrid) it pretty much can't happen unless it is setup that way. You're talking a 1 with 41 zero's after it.

1 with 41 zeros in it? How did you get this figure, whats the calculations ?

As for conspiracy theories... from my experiences working in the public sector the govt couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery. So no way could it organise something as complex as you make out, it would be decades late and over budget.

Can't get an IT system for the health service organised, or root out fraud in the system, but can organise mass murder with perfect foresight of the consequences and total secrecy. Because apparently their manifest incompetence in all their visible work is just an act or something.

Remember: Conspiracy Theorists reckon they've got it all sorted out, and everyone else is stupid.

rick_chasey

MisterMuncher wrote:

Can't get an IT system for the health service organised, or root out fraud in the system, but can organise mass murder with perfect foresight of the consequences and total secrecy. Because apparently their manifest incompetence in all their visible work is just an act or something.

That's all part of the conspiracy obvs .

MisterMuncher

Natch. Just a shame these theories don't work like scientific theories where one could make predictions. At the moment, one could easily make the mistake that they're just post facto rationalising of events to fit in with the theory, which of course isn't true at all.

ballysmate

Just checked and Manc has posted on here today, so he hasn't been picked up yet, er, unless it only looks like the security services haven't grabbed him. :?

ben@31

MisterMuncher wrote:

Because apparently their manifest incompetence in all their visible work is just an act or something.

They're very competent at being incompetent Give that manager an Oscar.

Manc33

"They can't organise a p*ss up in a brewery"

The guys cocking things up aren't the ones at the top. Having a Government under them like that benefits the ones at the top because for starters the Government then "needs" more funding all the time. Oh look we've messed up again, just can't get it right! People are hired that can't do the job properly for that exact reason, they cannot do the job properly. Nothing will ever change with them there, they won't ever have any ideas etc.

People are hired on their personality, not their talent. No one with actual talent is in any leadership position. The only talent they have is lying.

"Someone would say something"

People do like Tony Farrell and John Loftus but it just gets laughed at.

Even Ezra Pound ended up being put in a mental home, yeah because he was telling the truth about who runs things - the same people that can easily see to it that you get put in a mental home. Its all rigged, schools, hospitals, the media, banking and the Government along with any other spheres of influence I forgot to mention, its all tied together.

Think about it this way:

A. Why do we trust these politicians?
B. Why wouldn't people in Government decide to just basically steal everything?

No one is going to stop them and they know anyone mentioning these things gets laughed at, of course they will steal everything and end up running it all, no one is stopping them, its a joke to people.

There are people so naive they would be denying anything is wrong if they were being frogmarched into a work camp "for your safety". Get in the work camp quick before the bogey man gets you.

Everybody dies that tells the truth to millions of people. Name me one person that has done that and got away with it and I will list ten that have died shortly after speaking out. John Lennon, Diana, JFK, MLK, Ghandi, Bill Hicks, Danny Jowenko, Robin Cook, David Kelly. No one that is corrupt ever dies before their time - funny that. Look how old Henry Kissinger is, one of the most evil men of the last 50 years. He is still alive even now.

Only in America can a war criminal win the Nobel Peace Prize. You can award him that crap but some people can see past it and know his past. This is a guy that needs a team of lawyers to check before he travels anywhere to make sure he isn't wanted for war crimes in that country because he would never get released if they got hold of him. These guys aren't who you think they are. Smooth operators... but at the same time, 100% evil.

Now he has been replaced by Arsene Wenger / Neil Patrick Harris lookalike "Zbigniew Brzezinski". :roll: This is the guy that handed billions over to Afghanistani rebels during the 1980s to fight the Russians - the same group that we are now supposed to believe are terrorists! Well who funded them? We're being treated like idiots.

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

A. Why do we trust these politicians?
B. Why wouldn't people in Government decide to just basically steal everything?

A. We don't.
B. They do.

As for the rest, please continue. It is most entertaining.

ballysmate

@Manc

John Lennon, Diana, JFK, MLK, Ghandi, Bill Hicks, Danny Jowenko, Robin Cook, David Kelly

Quite an eclectic list there. The Kennedy family - what an upstanding family that was. :roll:

Oh btw The Nobel prize isn't awarded by Americans. Or is that just what they want us to believe?

imposter2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Everybody dies that tells the truth to millions of people. Name me one person that has done that and got away with it and I will list ten that have died shortly after speaking out. John Lennon, Diana, JFK, MLK, Ghandi, Bill Hicks, Danny Jowenko, Robin Cook, David Kelly. No one that is corrupt ever dies before their time - funny that. Look how old Henry Kissinger is, one of the most evil men of the last 50 years. He is still alive even now.

David Icke and Alex Jones are both still alive, I believe. So the deal is, you now have to name 20 more people (10 each for David Icke and Alex Jones) who have since died.

meanredspider

Manc33 wrote:

No one that is corrupt ever dies before their time - funny that.

Saddam Hussain, his son, Gaddafi, Ceaușescu - they all lived long and happy lives. I could mention an infamous 20th century leader with a toothbrush moustache but this is the internet so I'm not allowed. There are literally hundreds more - but why let the facts get in the way of a great conspiracy theory

pblakeney

meanredspider wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

No one that is corrupt ever dies before their time - funny that.

Saddam Hussain, his son, Gaddafi, Ceaușescu - they all lived long and happy lives. I could mention an infamous 20th century leader with a toothbrush moustache but this is the internet so I'm not allowed. There are literally hundreds more - but why let the facts get in the way of a great conspiracy theory

A pedant could say that everyone dies when it is their time.

Manc33

David Icke and Alex Jones aren't doing any investigative journalism, why would they get killed?

They both just collect info thats already been investigated (often without giving credit) and publicize stuff that is already in the public.

Alex Jones hasn't come up with any workable solutions to anything he complains about in more than 15 years broadcasting, so he ain't getting killed. Same with David Icke, no solutions. As long as they don't offer up any rational alternatives, they never would get bumped off, they are more useful telling people this stuff, why not, it creates whole slews of "activists" that can be watched.

What is a rational alternative then? I have no idea, I'm not at the level of the evil eggheads that run everything. You think you can catch these guys out when they have been at it for centuries? Even the symbol used today for medicine goes back thousands of years. Notice how they call it "practicing" medicine as well, yes because they aren't actually curing anyone, there's no money in curing people but there's a lot of repeat sales possible if you can have them coming back with a "side effect". Check out Gwen Olsen's testimony.