Rachel Prepares For Action
In the post below I spoke about the new ways of networking and communicating. One shining example is Rachel from North London, whose words touch a great many people. After the 7/7 bombing she discovered that she had a voice, thanks to the internet. Then we all discovered she had something to say; about truth, about forgiveness and about the human spirit.
Now she's preparing to go a step further and will shortly reveal her discoveries about the July bombings. These aren't conspiracy theories but the result of hard research and sheer dedication.
We're going to stand shoulder to shoulder with Rachel and we're proud to do so, for she is a remarkable person.
Go and read this post of hers and offer her your support.
... But what I found out was devastating. First, whispers, rumours. Then, facts, and I checked, and followed up, and I sat with what I knew, and sometimes I cried. And I bit my lip and waited.
I wish that I did not know what I found out.
But I had to know, because I still hear the screaming, and it will haunt me til I die.
Now the waiting is almost over
Comment Deleted
Comment Deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted - again.Â
Comment deleted - again. HInt - stop replying to yourself...
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment Deleted
Comment Deleted
Comment Deleted
Comment Deleted
Why can't you
Why can't you let TonysAKiller say something? He's made some insightful points at times.
And good for Rachel, for holding her nerve!
Tony's a killer - It wasn't
Tony's a killer - It wasn't Quarsan, it was me.
If Blairwatch is trashed by deleting your comments - we will just have to live with it. Might I suggest you get a weblog of your own, where you can post what you want when you want.
Oh, and 3 out of the 4 of us spoke this morning, and all agreed we had had enough, so whilst you would obviously like to belive this is a personal vendetta from Q, I'm afraid it isn't.
WE have had enough.
Deleting what you personally
Deleting what you personally don't like insn't becoming of your role in Blairwatch. Why are you putting your personal emotions before all else?
Had enough of what? I
Had enough of what? I started coming here partly because Blairwatch states:
"but we can offer a space to interesting people who can add something extra." and that it stands for "open accountable government, electoral reform" and also "ie we check sources, research items"
Well, I dont think I'd fall into the 'me too' category, I believe people have been interested in what I have to say. Electoral reform and accountable government are very dear to my heart and I have slapped your face once or twice when you have reported UNsourced, UNreferenced material e.g. 'Israel didn't use depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Lebanon'.
Then you say ‘no Nazi stuff’ (I am no nazi sympathiser as I’ve made clear at least twice), no 9-11 / 7-7 conspiracy stuff (I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories) and no anti-semitism (I’m not an anti-semite) stuff. You made those positions clear, but then I criticise the lady of the smokey Lake (Rachel) and boom, bring on the blog tribulation. Deleted posts and deleted account for nothing logical?
Which morning-set boundry did I happen to cross this time? Please, I sincerely want to know.
P.S. I support Rachel in
P.S. I support Rachel in her calls for a full and Independent enquiry. I think the vast majority of us do. You could have at least not censored that uncritical bit?
Countary to what you say
Countary to what you say i.e. "you would obviously like to belive this is a personal vendetta from Q", in that absence of any scrap of information as to what was happening, it was a reasonable conclusion that qursan was reasonable for what was happening.
Why are you trying to make it seem as if it's just me thats the problem? It rather insults the intelligence of all to use such tactics. For heavens sake man/men, slap me for the content of what I say not because it is I who say it. You know yourselves that what I have posted and contributed here is characteristic of a reasonalble person. Becasue you are not addressing what I say, then it will not be 'just me' in times to come.
Never even a single post or e-mail to me to point out any wrongdoings. Never an opportunity for me to apologise. Come on guys, dont add to the decay of British society by being unreasonable in debating/discussing these things.
I second both of TA's posts,
I second both of TA's posts, although I don't think he should have been quite as apologetic as he was in his second one - it sounded as if he was pleading with the blogmeisters; this is undignified.
With all due respect for the judgement of Quarsan, Ringverse et al, I think it would have been nice to have been able to actually read the deleted contributions and make up my own mind about them
It behoves a site like this ill to start behaving in a manner which smacks of the tactcs of bLiar and his gang. Even when we're commenting on someone who is obviously held in the highest esteem by those who run this site.
As for Rachel's theories themselves, well, I certainly look forward to reading them in extenso (is that neutral enough for you guys?)
Umm, what is happening here?
Umm, what is happening here? Blairwatch guys, I follow this blog and point it out to other people at every opportunity I deem relevant. This whole thread seems to be at odds with my impression of the things the blog stands for in the sense that discussion or comment appears to be repressed for reasons that are not known to me or others. Is there any chance you could open your decision making with regard to the mass removal of the comments on this page so that myself and the people I point here as an indication that there are still voices of reason in the world can make an informed and intelligent decision ourselves as to the legitimacy of the decision and thus maintain the sites credibility. Please.
ta
Krippers.
If you posted the reasons clearly and I missed it then please link me.
OK, Anon. Just who owns
OK, Anon. Just who owns this blog?
Becoming of your 'role' in Blairwatch. Just what is that then?
The owners of this blog can do just what the hell they want, including deleting comment and/or banning prats.
As far as I'm concerned that's no bad thing.
If you don't like it you've got two choices - and you know exactly what the hell they are.
Now, now, Chuck , cool down,
Now, now, Chuck , cool down, what has upset you so?
Of course the owners of this blog can do what they want. But if they just delete any opinion they happen not to agree with, they then open themselves to the suspicion that this forum is not really for discussion and argument but rather for just getting their rocks off by seeing their own wisdom (and the supporting wisdom of acolytes such as your good self) on the web.
I am not of course saying that this is their position - but it appears to be yours, Chuck. So I should just say : chuck it, Chuck.
I have just read this for
I have just read this for the first time and I think it is very good and people here may, or may not get
something from it. What you can't say.
If you refuse to allow what TAK said then maybe some hints of the subject matter? Was it so terrible?
I have just read this for
I have just read this for the first time and I think it is very good and people here may, or may not get
something from it. What you can't say.
If you refuse to allow what TAK said then maybe some hints of the subject matter? Was it so terrible?
I think people may find this
I think people may find this essay interesting, I wonder if what TAK said was so bad. I doubt it.
What you can't say
I think people may find this
I think people may find this essay interesting, I wonder if what TAK said was so bad. I doubt it.
What you can't say
Blairwatch have made it
Blairwatch have made it clear that they are deleting lizard related comments. The stubs remain, so it is not as if comments are being 'disappeared'.
It is their site and they have put a lot of time and effort into it. I don't think there are many sites that would be so tolerant of some of the stuff that gets posted here.
Eh Up --- most stimulating !
Eh Up --- most stimulating ! Concords with me own observations, evolution of paradigms, etc. (did a more reasoned post, but the counter flushed it away. Careless frog ! .)
Dick Cheney --- I'm not sure that me mate TA / TAK /Killer is a lizard freak !
Tonys Akiller
Tonys Akiller here.
Actually what has happened actually mirrors Mr. Blairs Britain in many ways.
1) I was denied me Habeas corpus when I ask for the reasons for you censoring my posts and account.
2) A body of people met to decide my fate without me being able to challenge the 'evidence' you were discussed.
3) I was briefed against me by using false accusations to discredit me.
4) You have removed my rights to freedom of speech (although of course on your blog, I understand that this cannot be a fully guaranteed right at, but I didn't breach the guidelines!)
5) Like NeoLabour ethos and manifesto pledges, statements in the 'About' section were betrayed.
I ask myself, how come people who say and appear to be so anti-Blair and so fiercely opposed to the quagmire our country is in right now, use those very methods and tactics against me. Maybe it's inside all of us, but we only see it in others like Blair and so on. The psychology of this would be very interesting to probe.
My posts were mildly critical of Rachel because it seems to me that Artful Dodger like, she was spinning her book to appeal to conspiracy theorists with words like "There is one hell of a tidal wave coming" and 'secrets' and 'hidden'.
But despite what I took to be conspiracy 'bait', she lets slip that it will not contain anything for what might appeal to a 'conspiracy theorist' firstly when she writes "People make mistakes, I always understood that. People feel terrible that it happened on their watch, I understand;" and secondly in reply to a post by Kier, when she says "No, Kier, it is not a conspiracy theory. It is facts". Isn't that phraseology exactly what people accusde 'conspiracy theorists' of saying. Question: When does a fact become part of a dismissible conspiracy theory and when does it become an acceptable fact? I'd say its dismissed simply when the facts conflicts with out personal prejudices and programming.
I was a bit sarcastic at BW for them not telling us that in effect this article acts as a plug for Rachel’s book. No mention that it referred to a book was made. Revelation via book or blog? Does it really matter? Well yes, perhaps it does. A book and a blog usually differ in that one normally relates to generation of person income. The other usually is normally free of charge, solely for the blog readers benefit.
OK, when the fat lady sings, plugging someone’s book is not a big deal, and if that book aids to the call of demanding a fully independent public enquiry into that day, then really, that is what should take centre stage. As Rachel’s calls for that are already well known, I played the role of Devils advocate and examined a person in the stages orchestra playing 2nd fiddle as it were.
Also I floated the suggestion that people feeling towards Rachel have influenced this site. Perhaps that was the most sensitive point?
No I'm not a lizard freak. I presume this is referring to David Icke and his illuminati theory. I don’t subscribe to that idea. But the suggestion of a connection between me and lizards exists because it was a straw man very sadly put out into the BW air recently by certain members of the Blairwatch team themselves, innocently perhaps, but disappointingly it happened again after it was pointed out.
Killer, you could have
Killer, you could have condensed and cooled that a bit more .
Rachel's book and the mysterious OTHER STUFF are separate. I have no prob in assuming that someone PTSD, short of sleep !, may , perhaps, exaggerate. I just stick that on the shelf----- it will out. Patience.
I always read reviews on Amazon etc before plunging, and do so rarely. Immune to plugs, and in this case I think you're wrong about Rachel and everyone's commercial motives..
I've always considered you a valuable ally in our sundry researches-- your Gladio BBC2 link went off to NZ yesterday , to an ex-Army friend.
I strongly recommend Eh Up's link above. In any human relationship, the truth sometimes has to be released slowly, not by the barrer-load.
we can offer a space to
we can offer a space to interesting people who can add something extra
That's the point, you're not interesting and what you're adding basically amounts to spam. You just make a lot of very similar posts which we find boring. That's one reason why we're deleting you. We're bored with the same old nonsense about 7/7. Additionally you made some nasty comments about Rachel, as you can see four in a row.
Another reason for deleting your posts is that you're putting other people off from contributing. by filling up threads with your drivel. You say you're not a nazi, but you have previously posted links to sites like Jew Watch here to back up your ramblings as 'evidence'. Funny that, you don't believe a word of what the mainstream media say, but you will uncritically accept what a bunch of deeply anti-semitic neo nazi's say.
Recently you gave us plenty of abuse and announced that you were going to start a campaign to discredit us, bringing in people like this charming chap. You can't have it both ways. You can't abuse us and our friends and then whine when you get short shrift.
We're deleting you. Get over it. Go and put your stuff on your own blog.
The lies are certainly
The lies are certainly flowing thick now.
I never siad I would start any campaign. I was not insulting to Rachel (if you put the posts back people would see this) I do not drivvel on about 7-7. People in glass houses.... The apostate site has absolutely nothing to do with me. It was you who first notified me of it. Posting information in what you may classify as Nazi sites does not make me a nazi. The info related to issues like the number of Jews before and after WW2. All and Sundry can see that. It is information which must be assessed for validity and truthfulness. I never said I disbelieve what mainstream media says. You are clearly lying as there is no way you could be saying these things out of innocnet error. You have no shame? I do not accept it. I never said I accept that. You are clearly deeply confused between Zionism and Jewdaism. I never gave you plenty of abuse. I dont abuse your friends.
For those unsure as to why
For those unsure as to why Tonys Akiller/TA/Anon comments are being deleted on this post, why not take a look at this recent post by the guys at BW. It explains why BW have become intollerent towards certain comment threads.
Personally I think they have been very patient towards the commenting re: 9/11 and 7/7. Many discussions of other important topics (non- 9/11 or 7/7) on this blog appear to have been hijacked by 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theories (not a perjoratiive term, IMHO) with Tonys Akiller and others - often anonymous commenters - using this site as their own personal blog with repetative, rambling and off-topic/inappropriate comments and links.
Yes, 9/11 changed everything geo-politically, but that does not mean that any post on any topic can and should be turn into a discussion on the ins-and-outs of 9/11 or 7/7. There are many other sites where such contributions can be made.
The BW guys have clearly and repeatedly stated over a period of months that they do not wish for that place to be on their blog, as is their right as blog moderators. Asking nicely for it to stop in comment threads had no discernible effect, thus the post linked above. That seemingly had no effect either hence the multiple deleted comments here, where - I'd hazzard a guess - Tonys Akiller repeated himself in multiple comments and then replied to his own comments again. His reference to deleted criticism of Rachel has a long history too, one familiar to many who read BW/Rachel and other blogs. As for "plugging" her book did TonysAkiller/TA/TAK/Anon/Blairfaced lies get such a shit-on over posts concerning revelations taken from Craig Murray's book?
Warnings HAVE been given previously and I for one support the guys at Blairwatch having editorial/moderator control.
Right, one more time. I do
Right, one more time. I do think I made this all clear in my post but I will do it again. I wrote, quite clearly...
''The book is personal and nothing to do with the campaign for an independent 7/7 inquiry. . I don't want people to think the 7/7 inquiry campaigning is about the book. It is not; it never was.''
It is no secret between me and my blog readers that I am writing a book, and so I updated readers on the latest news in my life.
I have said I am writing a book for some months, since I took voluntary redundancy and embarked on the project in Ocrober 2006. Writing it has been a big part of my life and as my personal blog contains updates on my personal life ( like millions of other bloggers blogging about their lives) it was, and is normal for me to include updates about the process of writing the book. (And my forthcoming wedding, and my cat Miff, and a lot of other personal stuff. I also write about politics. My blog, that's what;'s going on in my life. Political and personal stuff. See? )
In other news, on that particular entry, I said I had just done an interview about a forthcoming news story that can't be written about yet for legal reasons.
Wary of people thinking I only go on the news to publicise the book, I tried to make it very clear indeed that I wasn't doing anything of the sort.
In fact, I made it clear that I was NOT speaking out to publicise the book.
Doubtless incurring the wrath of my publishers, I did what most authors would think was a completely insane thing, I turned down the opportunity to mention I was doing a book on the national news. That is, I totally shot myself in the foot and refused an emormous PR opportunity. I said:
''I'll talk about the book when it is time, after the big news story has broken and the news cycle has moved on. I really don't want to confuse the two separate issues''
Why on earth did I do that?
Because I have been campaigning for a 7/7 inquiry, with other survivors and bereaved, since December 2005 ( evidenced by links to 2 pieces I wrote about it for the Sunday Times and a link to a speech I gave in the house of Lords. You can also check my blog where you will see over fifty pieces campaigning for an inquiry. Here's pictorial evidence of me asking for one in September 2006.) And I think it is crucial that people understand my reasons for campigning for one, which I have given over and over and over again.
It's not about blame,it's not about publicity, it's about saving lives.
Now then. I'm criticising failures to act on intelligence here, I am not going to be popular, I run the risk of having a hatchet job done on me .
So I am explaining - proving - that I am NOT doing this to sell a book.And it is important that nobody is able to slur me by saying ''oh, she's merely campaigning to raise her profile , to sell her book''
Because you see, that would not be true. The book has been pitched, pre-sold months ago, and makes no mention of mysterious revelations. The book is not out for months - I have only just handed it in. And the book is not aimed at the sorts of people who read Chomsky or who follow conspiracy theories. It's a personal account, and it'll be out in the summer. And I hope it helps people. And nobody has to read it if they don't want to.
The revelations will be out long before the book is on the shelves.
'B-b-ut - she's writing a book! It must therefore be true that she is trying to get publicity for it!' people may still cry.
Easiest way to prove that is to walk the walk.
The number of people reading my blog is about 500 a day.
The number of people watching the news is several millions.
Ergo, QED, I am demonstrating quite clearly that this is not, and never was, about the book by pointblank refusing to mention it on the news. Remember, I only started writing when my ad career stopped. In October 2006. As opposed to the 7.7 inquiry campaign, started in Dec 2005. I have been in the news many times talking about the need for an inquiry. Have I ever mentioned the book anywhere other than on my small personal blog?
Nope.
Yes some people who read blogs know I am writing a book.And getting married. And have a cat called Miff. But the vast majority of people don't. And I'm happy to keep it that way.
Onto the next canard...ithat t's all a conspiracy and I will reveal all, about how Blair personally ordered M15 to crawl down the tunnel and pop bombs under the trains in order to erm...make Blair popular/raise support for the war in Iraq or any of the other things that have ...um...not happened. Sorry to disappoint. But no.
It is no secret that I have no patience with conspiracy theories. Here's me making that clear...again
''No, Kier, it is not a conspiracy theory. It is facts, facts that have been suppressed so as not to prejudice ongoing trials. Therefore it is wholly different to the ' bombers were innocent' nonsense that is on your conspiracy theory site.
The media have not been able to publish these facts, and nor have I, nor has any other UK blogger, because of the laws surrounding trials in this country.
FWIW As there is a no-conspiracy theory policy on this blog, please note any conspiracy theory comments or commenters will not be published. You have your own sites, please go and play on there, not here. Please. ''
I am making it clear ( I hope, I thought) that the media, and blogs, have not been able to tak about certain evidence revealed in court because of legal reasons.
But when they can, it will personally be a huge relief for me, because the issue I happen to care passionately about will have huge publicity, and I am sure that many more voices than mine will join the calls for an inquiry.
If you are a campaigner, and you know that damning new evidence that supports your campaign is coming, and that the media are likely to go mad supporting your calls, you are a happy bunny
It has been such a long slog, I was pleased, and I shared that with my readers, many of whom are supportive of the calls for an inquiry themselves. I let them know about the petition. I was simply sharing my personal good news, more good news ( the first being that the book was accepted and the publishers were happy)
I thought I'd made it all very clear, but I went even further to explain in the comments in response to questions about when it would be out and where they could get it...
''It's going to be out this summer, not sure of exact date yet... from all good book stores, supermarkets and amazon...it's not about a public inquiry though.. It would be very boring to write a whole book about that.
The inquiry stuff will go mental next month - or possibly at the end of this month - depending on various legal factors which can't be predicted.
The campaign for an inquiry is separate to the book, the book is personal, the campaign is public. IYSWIM.''
I don't really see how I can be any clearer. *sigh*
I guess this shows that people who want to see conspiracy theories will always see conspiracy theories, even when I make it - I think - crystal bloody clear - that the book is about nothing of the sort - and that I am simply saying how glad I am that the long slog of campaigning for an inquiry - which I have been heavily inolved in since Dec 2005.
And I'd like to thank Blairwatch, Chicken Yoghurt and Netherworld as well as many other bloggers and readers for their support of the matter of an independent inquiry into the biggest mass murder in the UK for centuries.
It's good that soon we will alll be able to blog about it in a lot more detail, and the general public ( who are not as up on these things as political bloggers) will be able to find out all about it too.
Cheers.
Jeez, TA, that's quite a
Jeez, TA, that's quite a rant.
One which totally made the BW guy's point for them.
I think Quarsan fancy
I think Quarsan fancy Rachel.And who wouldn´t. I never realized she was such an attractive looking woman!Love is blind eh Blairwatch mods!!,,,which one of you guys are getting married then soon?
Thanks for the link to PCA
Thanks for the link to PCA blog quarsan. Yes that was more than enough information, if I get comments about the deletions from the people I point to BW I'll point them right there. Certainly BW integrity is intact.
Also, thanks to Rachel for outlining her case against, I feel that you have done remarkably well so far, your position probably doesn't need defence against those that rage against you when they see the world through the twisted eyes of false conjecture, however you have defended admirably well. I feel that those that follow you in totality would not be swayed by the flames of fools. My support to you.
well done
well done Rachel
http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2007/03/future-looks-bright-for-conspiracy.html
EVERYONE IS SAYING IT WAS A CONSPIRACY
I just wanted to point out
I just wanted to point out that the Kier mentioned in Rachel's comment is not the same Kier who is associated with the J7 Truth Campaign. Thanks.