whatreallyhappened.com - fearless journalism or Internet loonies?

POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Sunday, July 12, 2026 14:27
VIEWED: 6725
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 16, 2005 7:25 PM

I read a couple of stories linked from the main page (ones that were written by the site author rather than third party sources) and they seemed to have a story followed by a short paragraph that seemed to say, yeah whatever. They're conclusions at least seemed to be unsupported.
My main argument was that they cut out 'the other side' of the story as much as goverment/organisation loyal news sources.
The site showed reasonable conclusions that blamed the goverment or goverments while leaving out other possible and reasonable theories that gave conflicting explanations.
For instance no mention of the G8 conference as a motive for terror attacks in London could be found in the article on this site.

Maybe i was wrong, to a degree i'm working on first impressions, but it seems that the information on the site is coloured as much as mainstream sources are.

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 16, 2005 7:42 PM

Ruxton
I'm sorry neither of thoes links worked for me.

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 16, 2005 10:43 PM

I've just managed to open this link:
http://www.libertyforum.org/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&ma
in=293783132&type=thread

Just thought i'd post an alternative view:

Quote:
If the purpose of a suicide-terrorist attack is not to die, but to kill and to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society, why do they die?

Because its far easier and more effective both physically and psychologically to walk in with a bomb strapped to you than to plant a device.

Quote:
If the purpose of the suicide bomber is to end the occupation of his country, why is the suicide tactic not as old as war and territorial occupation itself?

Who says it isn't? Receant history: kamikaze pilots of japan during the second world war? Or of course refrences *MUCH* older than that:

Quote:
And Samson said, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.(Judges 16:30)

Quote:
During the Crusades, the Knights Templar destroyed one of their own ships, killing 140 Christians in order to kill ten times as many Muslims.

It has to be remebered of course that suicidal attacks never would have been effective without explosives which are a relativly new invention.

Quote:
So it's not the fundamentalism, it's not the occupation, it's not suicide, it's not a guerilla tactic, it's the timeless strategy of the Jews working to advantage themselves on their journey toward dominion.

Yes all jews are evil, always looking for an angle to screw the rest of the world over for their own betterment. Is this one of thoes well reasoned arguments you spoke of?

Quote:
we should wonder why the occupying Israeli force was not targeted rather than the French and Americans who were on the periphery as peacekeepers. Just because a target is handy does not make it strategically worthwhile. If the planning was so tight that simultaneous truck bombs could hit these two marginal targets, why not use that expertise and tonnage to hit the one perfect target?

Part of the objective of terroism is to make their cause public. Attacking Israeli targets would be less effective than attacking international ones. French and Americans may also be seen as an ally to the israeli aggressor.

Quote:
After the Russian Revolution and WW I, Jewish/Communism was triumphant and ready to conquer Europe. All of Europe had been weakened by WW I. The threat of Communism called for an alliance of Europe against the onslaught. It was not to be because Jewish influence on Churchill and Roosevelt made impossible the only sensible alliance of all Europe against Stalin.

Absolutly, Hitler wasn't such a bad old salt after all was he?
There's also the fact that the 2nd World War was well underway by the time Winston Churchill became prime minister. Up until 1940 Neville Chamberlain was prime minister of Briton.

I've only picked little pieces from the article but much of it seems poorly researched, based largely on conjecture, sites only 1 source and seems to spend most of its time blaming the Jews and Israel for everything.

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

RUXTON

Sunday, July 17, 2005 3:18 AM

NEWS HEADLINES:
"Authorities told ABC News that records show Mohammed Sidique Khan, the eldest of the bombers now believed to be the field commander of the attacks, had called a person who is associated with the Islamic Center, a mosque in Queens, N.Y. Yet, a member of that mosque claimed they had no knowledge of the phone call."
[Posted Jul 16, 2005 02:17 PM PST]

ABOUT WHICH RIVERO SAYS:
"The 'Authorities' have a problem. They have been exposed as lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed link from Iraq to Al Qaeda and the supposed link between Iraq and 9-11, all of which turned out not to exist. We've seen a plethora of forged documents including the Niger 'Yellowcake' documents, and the document that smeared George Galloway.

"So now we're supposed to take the 'authorities'' word now?

"I don't.

"I don't believe anything either the government of the UK or the government of the US says now. Prudence demands outright dismissal of official statements by 'authorities' as total junk until proven beyond a shadow of doubt by an independent third party investigation."
=============================

I agree most wholeheartedly with Mr. Rivero. I am sick of being lied to by everyone in "authority." I'm old enough, and have done enough research, to know I've been lied to.

Enough is enough.

BTW, there are no mentions of the G8 conference being the target because it doesn't make any sense to link the two. (The conference was not in London.) There are other, more reasonable connections, which is why Rivero's site focuses on the other side of that story. The bombings seem to have been a false-flag operation with highly unlikely parallels to 9-11, including the simultaneous "practice drills" ongoing during both events. The odds of that being a coincidence are out of sight.

Citizen, I'm sorry I don't have time now to discuss the points you made. Two items seem to be peculiar, however. One, no Israeli targets have EVER been hit, and two, I don't buy the idea of "fanatics" wanting to blow themselves up, especially when one has a new family and when none of the "bombers" were particularly fanatical about religion. Muslim faith PROHIBITS suicide, by the way.

Mr. Rivero has, over the years, given much insight into many "conspiracies," such as the JFK shooting. A well-trained rifleman, I visited Dallas and know there is no way Oswald did the shooting as described, for instance, and whatreallyhappened has lengthy archives on that shooting. Therefore I tend to believe what he says because my experiences match his conclusions in most things.

Oh, one more thing. I noted that author's seeming bias, but the commonly accepted thought that the IDF and/or Mossad are BLAMELESS is far from the truth. Remember to ask "Who benefits" from such attacks, and ALWAYS qustion what you're told on TV. One of the things I retained from college was to always question everything if you seek the truth.

............Good luck, Citizen, and thanks for your time and considerate responses.

DIETCOKE

Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
re:
Quote:
random ravings of loonies
Admittedly I only scanned a couple dozen links, and only for sources and headlines - however, many were links to respected US news sources (Wash Post, NYTimes), respected foreign news sources (BBC, Reuters, Toronto Sun, Financial Times) and other reputable US or international news sources I'm familiar with. There were sources I didn't recognize that neverthless carried stories that were broken elsewhere and have good 'conventional' media coverage. And there were news sources AND stories I didn't recognize, including a couple of Isreali news sources.

I didn't check out the selection of stories, but I suspect that's what you have an issue with.

Based on the credibility of roughly 2/3 of what I saw, I'm inclined to think most of what is linked is factual (with the caveat that it might have a pov and one should take that into account).

Well I'm not sure how creditable The New York Times is when it comes to reporting the news. While every newspaper is slanted either left or right, the New York Times is just WAY too liberal for my taste. It doesn't even attempt to show both sides of a story.

Love the film and theater section though!

NY/NJ Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc

RUXTON

Monday, July 18, 2005 7:13 PM

Please note that the present official police story, which presumes the London bombers were tricked into the job, was presented a week ago by whatreallyhappened.com.

Yeah, he's just a loonie -- who NEVER believes what he's told.

Pay attention to a few good bloggers, NEVER TV news, and you'll be way ahead of the pack:

" BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper has reported."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15961272%255
E663,00.html

CONNORFLYNN

Monday, July 18, 2005 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Please note that the present official police story, which presumes the London bombers were tricked into the job, was presented a week ago by whatreallyhappened.com.

Uh?.. It said they "MAY" have been tricked into believing that they would have time to escape once the bombs were set. It said that they "MAY" have not been suicide bombers. It didn't say they were tricked into DOING the job.

RUXTON

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:02 AM

Connorflynn, you are right. I stand corrected.

However, the whole bombing thing seems mighty fishy to me. The "official" story keeps on changing. Will we ever know the absolute truth?

Doubtful, I'd guess.

CONNORFLYNN

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Connorflynn, you are right. I stand corrected.

However, the whole bombing thing seems mighty fishy to me. The "official" story keeps on changing. Will we ever know the absolute truth?

Doubtful, I'd guess.

I have alot of respect for the British Intelligence and the British people. They've been dealing with this sort of crap for decades. In my opinion it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent every type of terroristic attack attempt. I commend them for their restraint.

If someone is intent on killing innocents, they will succeed eventually. The fact that they(The Brits) know WHO the individuals were/are goes a long way in solving the crime. The British government is doing its best to keep it's country updated on the whats/whys and hows. Unfortunately the MEDIA tends to jump the gun and make assumptions based on "anonymous" sources.

RUXTON

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:07 PM

CF, What makes you think the Brit gov't knows who the bombers were? Isn't it possible they are lying? Do you not accept that as a possibility?

I tend to doubt the conclusions of those who seem to be eager to accept what they're told at face value, because I believe we'll get better answers in the long haul by questioning everything from all sources. This attitude forces us to ask questions of our own, such as, Does this or that make sense?, and Who benefits from this or that scenario?

All best,

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE