I don't understand the last paragraph. Are you claiming anyone who questions the official narrative are "conspiracists" rather than open minded ? By your tone I suggest you have a closed mind otherwise you too would be a "conspiracist" and we can't have that can we? So which is it? By the way, who are these people who claim "ANY terrorist killing was in reality done by the government?"
How about instead of "conspirasist" you use the term open minded, especially straight after the event. That after all is the best time to be so minded don't you think? rather than ridicule, which you appear to be doing which seems to be the case with people who use the term "conspiracy theorist" to undermine anyone who thinks.... rather than blindly follows.

To answer the original question ( if anyone can recall the original question ).
The IRA with all their bombing and murder didn't change too much so why should a few Islamist terrorists ?

Briliant. Standard truther counter. Straight in with "questions the official narrative".




And another. "Go straight to ad hominem". You're not very good at this, are you?


Nobody needs any help in finding them or reading what they spew.


No, I don't think that at all. I think that it is pretty straightforward in this case, that a man with very dark ulterior personal motivations has basically committed suicide whilst carrying out a terrorists atrocity. I have no grounds at all to seriously consider taht in fact it woz da guvenment or da CIA wot done it and to ruminate anally about the possibility is a sign of psychosis.



The thing is, truthers always want to claim the high ground, and you are "MIS thinking, not thinking, which is something entirely different. Next, all we need is you calling me "sheeple"

No, YOUR not very good at this. After all, you can't answer a simple question. Try again.
"Are you claiming anyone who questions the official narrative are "conspiracists" rather than open minded ?"

=#FF0000"And another. "Go straight to ad hominem". You're not very good at this, are you?
There you go, ridiculing again. In Latin too, how clever of you.

You consider it "pretty straight forward". How come? Love to hear why you think so. However, you did type =#FF0000"THINK.. that it is pretty straight forward" Careful now, you'll be classified as a "truther"


=#FF0000 "taht in fact it woz da guvenment or da CIA wot done it"
Whaaa???

Why am "I MIS thinking." Is that possible ?

And lastly, why this talk about "truthers"? No where in my statement did I apportion blame to anyone so why try to label me.. Rather I was arguing for an open mind whenever any event, no matter what that event is, takes place.

=#FF0000Next, all we need is you calling me "sheeple"

I'll leave the insults to you.

Of course not. The issue is not with being "open minded", but with the lack of critical faculties to do so in a reasonable way. If a large seagull shoites on my windscreen, I am not "open minded" that it might in fact have been a CIA operative trying to make me crash, or a leak from a jetliner chemtrail tank, or an alien death ray. I exaggerate to make the point, of course, but it is that there are times when it is reasonable to be "open minded", and other times when to claim to be "open minded" is stupid or even perverse.


I was pulling you up on switching to ad hom rather than sticking to a straight response. It would only be ridicule if you didn't know you were doing it, but you did. I object to ad hom rather than reasoned discussion. Use of "ad hominem" is normal conversation not pretension. Most understand such common phrases, including "e.g.", "et cetera", and they are part of normal discussion. Anyone not understanding it can google it in a second. You making any comment at all about it just therefore makes you seem pointlessly pedantic.


Very funny, but of course "truthers" is an ironic term. I thought it was straightforward then, and it seems indeed it was. The better question would be, why would a "truther" reasonably think it was not?


See my first point above. That is precisely the point, the befuddled and hard of thinking persuade themselves that this is what clever and deep-thinking people do, when in fact in most cases there is no justification for wasting time in navel-gazing and endless musings and madcap theories.

Trying to get in between the row: Miro, please, Occam's Razor would suggest that this action was the result of a crazed person.
As are most attacks.

As to can armed police stop such persons acting violently on our streets, the evidence of the average Saturday night is NO. Fortunately such individuals usually single out one or two persons and rarely go as far as killing them.

This subject under discussion on ' Sunday morning live ' on the Beeb ATM , again the simple question asked " How do you stop somebody willing to die from killing potentially hundreds of people without actually shooting them ? "

And therein lies the problem.
Any attacker who is "happy" to die for their cause (whatever that may be), is very difficult to defend against.

The Nice incident was impossible to defend.

There has to be more done to cultivate an environment where there is more tolerance in the world, on all sides but, currently The Middle East is extremely volatile and with Mr Trump trying to gain power in the USA, the world will become less stable.

It's only a matter of time before something on a similar scale happens in the UK.

It's even worse than that. There only ever was a Nice incident because the lunatic managed to perpetrate the act. But had he been barred from driving into the area, then nobody would ever know or even suspect that such an insignificant "stop" had prevented a massacre.

It would have been nigh on impossible to blockade every French Town/City centre for the Bastille Day celebrations and if, a "lock down" is required before any "mass" gathering of people, there are all sorts of issues with staging these type of events. Even the different types of "protest" march that we regularly see in England, would become difficult to stage.
Of course, any type of gathering can become a target, if somebody or organisation wishes to target civilians (The Boston Marathon being a prime example).

Ultimately and ironically, this ends up being part of the cost of freedom.

100% false flag

We don't bother addressing mass killings on the roads anyway so why would the government bother arming for potentially saving just a handful of deaths by comparison. Such a waste of money, I mean it's only a few here and there, no big deal really is it. Acceptable casualties of life and all that!

1700 deaths on the roads at the hands of the real threat to our society that are motorists and the 22,500 serious injuries caused by same every single year is a national disgrace. if 6 people were killed every single day by terrorism there would be an outcry and public condemnation of the government for not doing anything solid to stop it. And yet we celebrate that this number is acceptable and the lowest it's been.

Armed police, ing ridiculous, fight the cause at its roots not the outcome ffs!