Increase in security

seannash

Okay so I know there are always posts about how were being watched but I want to know what sort of utopian society people who are against extra security envisinge.

Will they conceed that a decrese in security will make it easier for people intent on doing harm to the public(and dont even dispute that there aren't groups out there who are looking to do harm) and if so where will they place the blame if someone manages to slip through the ,what will be if security decreases,very loose net?

Jonny7

seannash wrote: »

Okay so I know there are always posts about how were being watched but I want to know what sort of utopian society people who are against extra security envisinge.

Will they conceed that a decrese in security will make it easier for people intent on doing harm to the public(and dont even dispute that there aren't groups out there who are looking to do harm) and if so where will they place the blame if someone manages to slip through the ,what will be if security decreases,very loose net?

What's the conspiracy theory here though?

blatantrereg

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's the conspiracy theory here though?

Well if you like respect for privacy, and dislike indefinite detainment without charge and torture, then you must wear a tinfoil hat and read conspriacy issue forums. So he probably thought that this was the best place to reach his taget audience.

Jonny7

blatantrereg wrote: »

Well if you like respect for privacy, and dislike indefinite detainment without charge and torture, then you must wear a tinfoil hat and read conspriacy issue forums.

Three posts in and a ridiculous analogy.

seannash

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's the conspiracy theory here though?

Well theres no conspiracy,its more me trying to find out what CTer's want and if they agree that easing security will result in more attacks

blatantrereg

Jonny7 wrote: »

Three posts in and a ridiculous analogy.

It's not an analogy. Intrusions on privacy, torture, indefinite detainment without charge - all these are justified as being necessary security measures.

Jonny7

blatantrereg wrote: »

It's not an analogy. Intrusions on privacy, torture, indefinite detainment without charge - all these are justified as being necessary security measures.

.. to which you implied someone must be a conspiracy theorist if they don't agree with the above.. which is absolute ridiculous.. have you heard of operation Demierius in Northern Ireland? widely seen and condemned as disasterous.

I think the OP is referring to baggage inspections as mentioned in another thread, something not quite on the level of internment.

enno99

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think the OP is referring to baggage inspections as mentioned in another thread, something not quite on the level of internment.

How the fu*K was blatantrereg supposed to know what you or anyone else was thinking they can only go by whats in the post

blatantrereg

Jonny7 wrote: »

.. to which you implied someone must be a conspiracy theorist if they don't agree with the above.. which is absolute ridiculous.. have you heard of operation Demierius in Northern Ireland? widely seen and condemned as disasterous.

I think the OP is referring to baggage inspections as mentioned in another thread, something not quite on the level of internment.

That's still not an analogy - and you missed the irony in my post. My point was regarding the OP's choice of forum - I was suggesting that was their attitude, in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner.

Operation Demierius is not something I recall hearing about, yet that is a complete non-sequitor.

nyarlothothep

wow, I'm getting a serious sense of deja vu like I've read this thread before with the exact same replies about 2/3 years ago?

Jonny7

enno99 wrote: »

How the fu*K was blatantrereg supposed to know what you or anyone else was thinking they can only go by whats in the post

Calm down, read it again, it's an aside.

Jonny7

blatantrereg wrote: »

That's still not an analogy - and you missed the irony in my post. My point was regarding the OP's choice of forum - I was suggesting that was their attitude, in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner.

Operation Demierius is not something I recall hearing about, yet that is a complete non-sequitor.

I've just been reading very serious posts about the government spraying us with chemicals, the government about to spy on everyone and some Irish nurse, my irony meter is not even registering

enno99

Jonny7 wrote: »

Calm down, read it again, it's an aside.

Yea sorry .

Torakx

seannash wrote: »

Okay so I know there are always posts about how were being watched but I want to know what sort of utopian society people who are against extra security envisinge.

Will they conceed that a decrese in security will make it easier for people intent on doing harm to the public(and dont even dispute that there aren't groups out there who are looking to do harm) and if so where will they place the blame if someone manages to slip through the ,what will be if security decreases,very loose net?

Your gonna hate me.......but the whole crux of the arguement about security is all about who is looking to harm large numbers of people.

Some would say that the very ones beefing up security are creating a need for it.A very common business tactic.

There of course are individuals and the odd small group that fall into the category of dangerous to the public.
However i would argue the risk and amount of deaths caused by groups/individuals not originating from government and the security business, is not to scale with the security measures being put in place.

I do agree as technology advances there are more ways to do harm as well as good.
But the incentives in my view to do harm would be insanity,disgruntlment to the point of insanity etc.And mostly if not all being very small groups or individuals.

If a ruling organisation has issues from its members its not because said org were doing a good job.

So the increase of security and terrorism(some would argue, may be from the same origins) could well be just a lash back from austerity measures now and in the future, as a pre-emptive move to secure rule.

If i didnt know better i would think its a misguided way to treat the symptoms of a disgruntled society.
But i dont see the obvious answer being that hard to surmise so im thinking its not misguided at all.

But i do understand there might be people here who believe the governments of the world and its bussiness interests are trying to do good for the majority of citizens.
This is probably the source of where heads will butt, relating to this topic.

seannash

Torakx wrote: »

Your gonna hate me.......but the whole crux of the arguement about security is all about who is looking to harm large numbers of people.

Some would say that the very ones beefing up security are creating a need for it.A very common business tactic.

There of course are individuals and the odd small group that fall into the category of dangerous to the public.
However i would argue the risk and amount of deaths caused by groups/individuals not originating from government and the security business, is not to scale with the security measures being put in place.

I do agree as technology advances there are more ways to do harm as well as good.
But the incentives in my view to do harm would be insanity,disgruntlment to the point of insanity etc.And mostly if not all being very small groups or individuals.

If a ruling organisation has issues from its members its not because said org were doing a good job.

So the increase of security and terrorism(some would argue, may be from the same origins) could well be just a lash back from austerity measures now and in the future, as a pre-emptive move to secure rule.

If i didnt know better i would think its a misguided way to treat the symptoms of a disgruntled society.
But i dont see the obvious answer being that hard to surmise so im thinking its not misguided at all.

But i do understand there might be people here who believe the governments of the world and its bussiness interests are trying to do good for the majority of citizens.
This is probably the source of where heads will butt, relating to this topic.

I understand some people believe its the very same people imposing these extra security measures that are causing harm however noone can deny that there are genuine terrorists that want to harm other countries.

Its these cases that I'm talking about,can people not see that if they ease up on security it'll make it easier for those people to do harm.

Run_to_da_hills

Those that are causing all this boogeyman terrorism are those that are making up all the rules simple as that.

Problem - reaction - solution.

One of the oldest tricks in the book.

seannash

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Those that are causing all this boogeyman terrorism are those that are making up all the rules simple as that.

Problem - reaction - solution.

One of the oldest tricks in the book.

So in your opinion there are absolutely no genuine terrorists in the world?

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Those that are causing all this boogeyman terrorism are those that are making up all the rules simple as that.

Problem - reaction - solution.

One of the oldest tricks in the book.

Yes but when did it start exactly..

1. what date? when did the real terrorism stop and this "boogeyman" terrorism begin?

2. which countries were included or excluded from it?

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes but when did it start exactly..

1. what date? when did the real terrorism stop and this "boogeyman" terrorism begin?

Terrorism has being going on since the beginning of time however successive governments have been hijacking and even inventing terrorist groups to pull their evil agendas. The classic example is 9/11 which gave birth to chipped identity and the shredding of the US bill of rights. .

Jonny7 wrote: »

2. which countries were included or excluded from it?

It is an ongoing Global agenda and all countries are in on it. Name any country that is currently excluded from the micro chipped passport programme. Basically if you don't conform you are an ostracised nation.

Perhaps the greatest example in modern false flagging would have been the burning of the reichstag and the follow up state of emergencies which led to the Reisepass across occupied Germany. (Something that will soon be repeated under the guise of preventing migration from collapsed economy countries.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Terrorism has being going on since the beginning of time

Can you give some early examples please?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The classic example is 9/11 which gave birth to chipped identity and the shredding of the US bill of rights.

Would I be right in saying that the total number of chipped US citizens (excluding pets) is zero? If 9/11 gave birth to it, then it's taking a hell of a long time to get out of the delivery ward.

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you give some early examples please?

Taken from Wiki.

"This practice was considered acceptable in naval warfare, provided the false flag was lowered and the national flag raised before engaging in battle. Auxiliary cruisers operated in such a fashion in both World Wars, as did Q-ships, while merchant vessels were encouraged to use false flags for protection. The 1914 Battle of Trindade was between the auxiliary cruisers RMS Carmania and SMS Cap Trafalgar, which had previously disguised themselves as each other.".

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that the total number of chipped US citizens (excluding pets) is zero? If 9/11 gave birth to it, then it's taking a hell of a long time to get out of the delivery ward.

Did I mention anything about human microchip plants? NO.

Most passport issued after 2006 have embedded microchips, :rolleyes:

I think you are deliberately trying to badger bait this thread into a rant. .

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Taken from Wiki.

"This practice was considered acceptable in naval warfare, provided the false flag was lowered and the national flag raised before engaging in battle. Auxiliary cruisers operated in such a fashion in both World Wars, as did Q-ships, while merchant vessels were encouraged to use false flags for protection. The 1914 Battle of Trindade was between the auxiliary cruisers RMS Carmania and SMS Cap Trafalgar, which had previously disguised themselves as each other.".

I'm well aware of the practice of false flag attacks, being a fan of the work of Patrick O'Brian and company. We have even discussed that very subject before. But you were talking about terrorism, not false flags. You said that:

Terrorism has being going on since the beginning of time

I asked for some early examples - ideally from the beginning of time.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Did I mention anything about human microchip plants? NO.

The classic example is 9/11 which gave birth to chipped identity and the shredding of the US bill of rights.

What do you mean by 'chipped identity' then?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Most passport issued after 2006 have embedded microchips, :rolleyes:

I think you are deliberately trying to badger bait this thread into a rant. .

Ah, passports, I see - but how many Americans carry passports day-to-day? How many Americans even have a passport*? It's not exactly a huge imposition on people, is it? I mean, a passport should pretty well identify who you are anyway - chips just make it a bit harder to forge them.

*I checked - apparently about 1 in 3, which is honestly more than I expected.

Torakx

Im not sure which terrorists you mean and im being sincere.

Nearly any group you might mention i would at least suspect they were either created by a government/business syndicate or comandeered.

That just leaves the much smaller groups who arent enough of an issue to warrant such measures i think.
I suppose there is a chance of branch of groups arising from the suspected gov lead groups which might target police, army and banks,stock markets, power grids.
But that really hasnt happened yet and it wont until their is a real rebellion.

Usually the victims imo of gov lead terrorist attacks, are everyday citizens who will then be used to influence voting on key legislation.

Thats how it appears to me when i look at the overall picture anyway.
How it really is in reality not many will know.

When i heard about the Omagh bombing, i was suprised it was a hotel and not a barracks.Seemed like the worst possible target ever to pick, not only senseless, but tactically retarded overall.

seannash

Torakx wrote: »

Im not sure which terrorists you mean and im being sincere.

Nearly any group you might mention i would at least suspect they were either created by a government/business syndicate or comandeered.

That just leaves the much smaller groups who arent enough of an issue to warrant such measures i think.
I suppose there is a chance of branch of groups arising from the suspected gov lead groups which might target police, army and banks,stock markets, power grids.
But that really hasnt happened yet and it wont until their is a real rebellion.

Usually the victims imo of gov lead terrorist attacks, are everyday citizens who will then be used to influence voting on key legislation.

Thats how it appears to me when i look at the overall picture anyway.
How it really is in reality not many will know.

When i heard about the Omagh bombing, i was suprised it was a hotel and not a barracks.Seemed like the worst possible target ever to pick, not only senseless, but tactically retarded overall.

Just as a matter of interest but what category do you believe the IRA are in

Torakx

Gov lead.most likely the british government now, as there are not many split groups afaik.
Micheal Tsarion has alot of interesting things to say on this too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSWUgMx2FE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSWUgMx2FE

seannash

Torakx wrote: »

Gov lead.most likely the british government now, as there are not many split groups afaik.
Micheal Tsarion has alot of interesting things to say on this too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSWUgMx2FE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSWUgMx2FE

God the pace of his delivery forced me to stop watching that video but to honestly say that the british goverment was behind the IRA at the height of the troubles is a very big stretch of the imagination(I know you didn't directly say this directly so maybe you could clear that up)

I honestly dont think you can say that you genuinely believe the british goverment is behind the present day IRA.

Torakx

Well if your interested enough you will watch the video stating the information as posted.
It does come across a bit deadpan and some other narators aswell, but as information goes, its quite detailed and i would say very interesting.

Im no expert on this topic at all, so its better to hear it from people who have spent years researching properly.

The problem is its all too clear once you really look into it, same for many other terrorist attacks.
Just watched another docu on the 7/7 bombings tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwyzpzEgUWE

Not sure who the person is that brought this video out, but the pictures,videos,news footage etc combined with the analysis makes for a compelling arguement.
One i personally could not argue against, the evidence seemed to be overwhelming.

I can honestly say i believe the chances are just as high if not more that the british gov or some other agency were influencing the IRA and other factions in Ireland over many decades.
How could it not be so,when they are very capable organisations/businesses?

This is not beyond their means by any stretch of the imagination.
If you actually accept the information put before you or even entertain it by viewing it, i cant see how you would not have similar suspicions at the least.Maybe not convictions,but at least think twice about the official stances of the mainstream media/gov.