Incident at Glasgow airport?

[BigGully]

I give up.
I'll tell you one thing for sure, whatever twisting ang turning you can writhe into your point of view (just so you can call a whole religious group enemies), I won't be receding or alienating from ANY of my friends, whether they are Muslims, moonies or from Mars. Opinions like yours, and tunnel vision thinking, is what keeps people ignorant, intolerant to each other's beliefs, and ultimately at war with each other.

Are you burning crosses on anyone's lawn this evening, or booking your flight to Iraq? (which actually was a multi-religious country by Saddam Hussein's strict law)

Twisting & Turning.....hmmmmm

Which bit the 20% that have some sympathy with the suicide bombings..........maybe just a little disturbing........you guys just cant bring yourself to recognise our worries your imagination is soooo clouded with your own righteousness its laughable.

or was it

The 40% that want sharia law here in England...just a wee bit arrogant there......stoning women is soooooo yesterday even in Bradford!!!

As for burning crosses.......why do you mind numbingly moronic liberals..have to resort to such offence...when other people state facts...or their own legitimate fears.......i think you'll find that calling people racist, when they clearly are not is a bit naff fella.

But then again sticks and stones may break my.......oooops back to sharia law again...!!!!!

Why would you alienate your friends................never said you should...as the above facts state still the majority do not belong to the above groups.......but a sizeable minority undoubtedly do.

 

[Wienergull]

The word 'societal' is used here to describe a whole society in movement (change) rather than any isolated or secular, intra-social progression.
It better describes the point of a whole society.
i.e. "you are looking for a change in social life"
vs; "you are looking for a societal change"

The former intimates your own personal social surroundings, vs the latter, the complete social structure you and those around you (aka your 'social group') live within.

Blimey, I get in from a hard day at the coalface and find I've set quite a few hares running with a throwaway remark. For the record, I agree with most of the analysis in your posts. But to get back to my original point, I think that "social" can also have the broader sense that you attribute to "societal", e.g. as in Eric Hopkins' A Social History of the English Working Classes, 1815-1945. I think my feelings about the word "societal" are best summed up by the following thread. Perhaps, like the professor in question, I just have "some visceral reaction to elevated language", or perhaps I just "have a bug up [my] ass". And there I was thinking that you were the American.


Social vs Societal

Last year in my college English 1201 class, my professor always crossed out the word "societal" on a paper I did. He would write above it "...you should use 'social' instead..." Does that have something to do with context. Is there a situation where one of the words is wrong and one is appropriate? and why if they are synonyms and the same part of speech would there be a seperate rule?

Posted by Mike W. | Nov-19-06 8:10AM


Craig | Nov-22-06 8:58AM

societal isn't a word. i don't remember it being used ten years ago. i certainly don't remember it being used this much even five years.


porsche | Nov-22-06 5:58PM

Yes, it is a word, Craig. It's in all of my dictionaries. I just checked a 40 year old dictionary and it has "societal" in it. it's defined as "of or pertaining to society".

Societal's definition is more restrictive, but is roughly included within the wider definition of "social".

The word "social" is a much broader word with more definitions, only one of which is similar (but not identical):

"of or having to do with human beings living together as a group in a situation in which their dealings with one another affect their common welfare."

That could be interpreted to mean a society, but could also mean a family, or any group with a common interest.

"Social" can also just mean friendly and outgoing. "Societal" has no such meaning.

I don't know exactly how you used the word, but if you used "societal" to mean "pertaining to society" then you were absolutely correct. Now, you probably could have used "social", and meant exactly the same thing, but that doesn't mean that societal was wrong.

In some cases, using the word social is ambiguous, precisely because it has so many different meanings. In that case, using societal would probably be preferred for clarity.

I suspect that your professor is trying to prove a different point. He may think you are using buzz words, purposely using flowery prose when simpler words would suffice.

Using societal when just social would do could be considered an example of this. Many people have a pet peeve about using buzz words. His lesson might be that one should express oneself as simply and clearly as possible. On the other hand, if societal was used correctly, then your prof may just have a bug up his ass. Still, in general, don't use a big word when a small one will do.

For more on this check out:

http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives...


Rebecca | Nov-23-06 9:18AM

I wonder whether both words have more subtle meanings? "Social" pertains to human relationships and "societal" means having to do with society as a big concept?

Seems as if the two words are both usable.Your professor may have some visceral reaction to elevated language.


Chris | Nov-23-06 5:08PM

I'd say Porsche has elaborated the distinctions that seem right to me. Societal is first listed in the OED for 1898 in fact. And you have the option of the even older world "societary" with a more or less synonymous meaning. Try that one out on your professor perhaps?!


AO | Dec-6-06 11:55PM

I agree with most of what has been said. Societal is far more seldom used than social and so it may sound like a buzz word. On the other hand, I do think that both have appropriate uses in different situations, especially if you are writing within the social sciences where semantic distinctions between words like social and societal may be subtle but important. I personally studied anthropology in college, so one of the things that I tried to learn to do was to be able to recognize the difference between words like social and societal (or simple and simplistic, or other similar pairs) and to me, Rebecca looks right on. Social refers to something that has to do with society, somthing societal has to do with the system of society itself. I don't know if that is a great way to articulate it. Maybe Rebecca's words were better. But that's my understanding.


Chris | Jan-23-07 6:27AM

"societal" is used by people who are afraid of the word "social" because it makes them think of socialism.


Mike | Feb-9-07 4:49PM

The odds are, your professor is a purist and sees the word "societal" as jargon or a corruption of the word "social." Many feel the same way about nominalizations (ironically like "nominalization") or buzz-words like "truthiness." I think the lesson your professor is trying to teach is to use simple language and not get lost in what could potentially become a cloud of PC-isms.

 

[Wienergull]

The word 'societal' is used here to describe a whole society in movement (change) rather than any isolated or secular, intra-social progression.
It better describes the point of a whole society.
i.e. "you are looking for a change in social life"
vs; "you are looking for a societal change"

The former intimates your own personal social surroundings, vs the latter, the complete social structure you and those around you (aka your 'social group') live within.

Blimey, I get in from a hard day at the coalface and find I've set quite a few hares running with a throwaway remark. For the record, I agree with most of the analysis in your posts. But to get back to my original point, I think that "social" can also have the broader sense that you attribute to "societal", e.g. as in Eric Hopkins' A Social History of the English Working Classes, 1815-1945. I think my feelings about the word "societal" are best summed up by the following thread. Perhaps, like the professor in question, I just have "some visceral reaction to elevated language", or perhaps I just "have a bug up [my] ass". And there I was thinking that you were the American.


Social vs Societal

Last year in my college English 1201 class, my professor always crossed out the word "societal" on a paper I did. He would write above it "...you should use 'social' instead..." Does that have something to do with context. Is there a situation where one of the words is wrong and one is appropriate? and why if they are synonyms and the same part of speech would there be a seperate rule?

Posted by Mike W. | Nov-19-06 8:10AM


Craig | Nov-22-06 8:58AM

societal isn't a word. i don't remember it being used ten years ago. i certainly don't remember it being used this much even five years.


porsche | Nov-22-06 5:58PM

Yes, it is a word, Craig. It's in all of my dictionaries. I just checked a 40 year old dictionary and it has "societal" in it. it's defined as "of or pertaining to society".

Societal's definition is more restrictive, but is roughly included within the wider definition of "social".

The word "social" is a much broader word with more definitions, only one of which is similar (but not identical):

"of or having to do with human beings living together as a group in a situation in which their dealings with one another affect their common welfare."

That could be interpreted to mean a society, but could also mean a family, or any group with a common interest.

"Social" can also just mean friendly and outgoing. "Societal" has no such meaning.

I don't know exactly how you used the word, but if you used "societal" to mean "pertaining to society" then you were absolutely correct. Now, you probably could have used "social", and meant exactly the same thing, but that doesn't mean that societal was wrong.

In some cases, using the word social is ambiguous, precisely because it has so many different meanings. In that case, using societal would probably be preferred for clarity.

I suspect that your professor is trying to prove a different point. He may think you are using buzz words, purposely using flowery prose when simpler words would suffice.

Using societal when just social would do could be considered an example of this. Many people have a pet peeve about using buzz words. His lesson might be that one should express oneself as simply and clearly as possible. On the other hand, if societal was used correctly, then your prof may just have a bug up his ass. Still, in general, don't use a big word when a small one will do.

For more on this check out:

http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives...


Rebecca | Nov-23-06 9:18AM

I wonder whether both words have more subtle meanings? "Social" pertains to human relationships and "societal" means having to do with society as a big concept?

Seems as if the two words are both usable.Your professor may have some visceral reaction to elevated language.


Chris | Nov-23-06 5:08PM

I'd say Porsche has elaborated the distinctions that seem right to me. Societal is first listed in the OED for 1898 in fact. And you have the option of the even older world "societary" with a more or less synonymous meaning. Try that one out on your professor perhaps?!


AO | Dec-6-06 11:55PM

I agree with most of what has been said. Societal is far more seldom used than social and so it may sound like a buzz word. On the other hand, I do think that both have appropriate uses in different situations, especially if you are writing within the social sciences where semantic distinctions between words like social and societal may be subtle but important. I personally studied anthropology in college, so one of the things that I tried to learn to do was to be able to recognize the difference between words like social and societal (or simple and simplistic, or other similar pairs) and to me, Rebecca looks right on. Social refers to something that has to do with society, somthing societal has to do with the system of society itself. I don't know if that is a great way to articulate it. Maybe Rebecca's words were better. But that's my understanding.


Chris | Jan-23-07 6:27AM

"societal" is used by people who are afraid of the word "social" because it makes them think of socialism.


Mike | Feb-9-07 4:49PM

The odds are, your professor is a purist and sees the word "societal" as jargon or a corruption of the word "social." Many feel the same way about nominalizations (ironically like "nominalization") or buzz-words like "truthiness." I think the lesson your professor is trying to teach is to use simple language and not get lost in what could potentially become a cloud of PC-isms.

 

[NMH]

Erm... okay Wiener, however I wouldn't personally have called it 'elevated language', or regarded the use of the word as a stretch further than the regular conversation.

You are right in saying it set some of this 'society' off, as they can't handle regular conversation without getting in a lather or letting off rather unimaginative iambics.

Anyway, it's a word that better expressed what I wanted to say, so I used it.

"I hit the ball, and there it was, in the back of the net" ( Monty Python, crux of the football matter)

 

[NMH]

Twisting & Turning.....hmmmmm

Which bit the 20% that have some sympathy with the suicide bombings..........maybe just a little disturbing........you guys just cant bring yourself to recognise our worries your imagination is soooo clouded with your own righteousness its laughable.

or was it

The 40% that want sharia law here in England...just a wee bit arrogant there......stoning women is soooooo yesterday even in Bradford!!!

As for burning crosses.......why do you mind numbingly moronic liberals..have to resort to such offence...when other people state facts...or their own legitimate fears.......i think you'll find that calling people racist, when they clearly are not is a bit naff fella.

But then again sticks and stones may break my.......oooops back to sharia law again...!!!!!

Why would you alienate your friends................never said you should...as the above facts state still the majority do not belong to the above groups.......but a sizeable minority undoubtedly do.

I don't think my imagination clouded by any righteousness just because I don't FALL into the easy trap of hating "THOSE people over THERE". That some idiots are citing Allah as their inspiration, has been stated by Muslim leaders as wrong - and not a teaching from their religion at all.
You have at least steered away from the "congratulations on having Muslim friends" angle at least.

Racist? Religionist? What's the diff? Are you saying you aren't one of those/that?
And, what would you advocate be done about 'the Muslim problem'?
Are you with Bushbaby in thinking a nice 'crusade' in order?

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

WHOA!

What is going on here? This is supposed to be a thread where the right wingers can make themselves feel all macho, and the left wingers can wring their hands. At NO POINT did we say it was a thread to discuss bloody semantics.

Get back on track, otherwise you are going to have to bugger off and create another one!

Now, who wants to kill all Muslims, and who wants to give them holistic mind-massages?

 

[Wienergull]

Erm... okay Wiener, however I wouldn't personally have called it 'elevated language', or regarded the use of the word as a stretch further than the regular conversation.

You are right in saying it set some of this 'society' off, as they can't handle regular conversation without getting in a lather or letting off rather unimaginative iambics.

Anyway, it's a word that better expressed what I wanted to say, so I used it.

"I hit the ball, and there it was, in the back of the net" ( Monty Python, crux of the football matter)

You can't say fairer than that.

On your broader points, I have to agree with what you say about lazy generalisations. A few years ago, I visited the OSCE field office in Khujand in Tajikistan, a grindingly poor backwater in a grindingly poor country, a place ripe for "radicalisation" if ever there was one. Our guide was a local member of staff, a Muslim who took great pride in showing us his mosque and reciting from the Koran. He obviously drew a lot from his faith (not for me, but there you go), but was about as far from being a "fanatic" as you can imagine and clearly appreciated the work the OSCE was doing for his country in terms of democratisation, human rights etc. His views may have changed in the intervening years, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[NMH]

You can't say fairer than that.

On your broader points, I have to agree with what you say about lazy generalisations. A few years ago, I visited the OSCE field office in Khujand in Tajikistan, a grindingly poor backwater in a grindingly poor country, a place ripe for "radicalisation" if ever there was one. Our guide was a local member of staff, a Muslim who took great pride in showing us his mosque and reciting from the Koran. He obviously drew a lot from his faith (not for me, but there you go), but was about as far from being a "fanatic" as you can imagine and clearly appreciated the work the OSCE was doing for his country in terms of democratisation, human rights etc. His views may have changed in the intervening years, but somehow I doubt it.

Indeed, and in your guide's culture, SOME of his fanatical peers are calling him the equivalent of a "liberal pinko wimp" for not taking up the exploding vest.
"you MUST hate all Christians, they all want to kill and corrupt us".
That ethos works for some people, it's easier to embrace, and they can join a strongly arming and aggressive gang of noisy pissed off people. A bit like the brownshirts did in the late 30's.

 

[BigGully]

Indeed, and in your guide's culture, SOME of his fanatical peers are calling him the equivalent of a "liberal pinko wimp" for not taking up the exploding vest.
"you MUST hate all Christians, they all want to kill and corrupt us".
That ethos works for some people, it's easier to embrace, and they can join a strongly arming and aggressive gang of noisy pissed off people. A bit like the brownshirts did in the late 30's.

Any chance of growing up....guys.

We all know through are own experiences that thankfully most people our kind and caring ....... irrespective of race creed or colour.

But not to recognise the negatives within a Community is silly if your an adult and criminal if your in a position of power.

Why would you comment on Christians in this Terror context ??

It is a Muslim Countries that continue to top the league of hatred, intolerance now being aimed at The West.

 

[Wienergull]

Any chance of growing up....guys.

We all know through are own experiences that thankfully most people our kind and caring ....... irrespective of race creed or colour.

But not to recognise the negatives within a Community is silly if your an adult and criminal if your in a position of power.

Why would you comment on Christians in this Terror context ??

It is a Muslim Countries that continue to top the league of hatred, intolerance now being aimed at The West.

Well, I'm certainly not denying that there is terrorism and that much of it is state-sponsored, and I certainly do not condone it. At the same time I think that we have to recognise that none of this happens in a vacuum, just as IRA terrorism didn't happen in a vacuum. I agree with Hampshire to a certain extent that there is a qualitative difference in that groups like AQ appear ready to stop at nothing, but I still think their actions are driven by the overall political context (Iraq, Afghanistan...) more than people might think. Incidentally, I gather that the term "root causes" when speaking of terrorism is no longer PC, since it implies there might be some sort of justification for said terrorism.

 

[BigGully]

Well, I'm certainly not denying that there is terrorism and that much of it is state-sponsored, and I certainly do not condone it. At the same time I think that we have to recognise that none of this happens in a vacuum, just as IRA terrorism didn't happen in a vacuum. I agree with Hampshire to a certain extent that there is a qualitative difference in that groups like AQ appear ready to stop at nothing, but I still think their actions are driven by the overall political context (Iraq, Afghanistan...) more than people might think. Incidentally, I gather that the term "root causes" when speaking of terrorism is no longer PC, since it implies there might be some sort of justification for said terrorism.

The IRA was primarily a territory issue ( as I understand it ), the Irish ( Southern ) didnt want the North of the Country partitioned, and as most of the Southern Ireland was Catholic whilst much of the peoples in the North were Loyal to the Queen, Protestants. So although it ended up Catholica against Protestants it was the terroritory's which was the main issue.

I cant remember any killings as a result of an interpretation of Catholasism.

But to say that the Terrorists actions are driven by Iraq & Afghanistans is wholly untrue. Any actions by the West will be used as propogandam of course, but the Twin Towers, earlier bombings were years before Iraq & Afghanistan, in fact that was the consequance of the earlier terror.

AQ is willing to stop....the want Islamic Countries an Islamic World...full stop.... it aint give us Bradford and we will call it quits !!

The latest agreements with the IRA has no parallel with the Islamic Fanatics.

Its a Muslim problem...there must accept some responsibility and actively seek and not allow them their voice.

But I fear that many of the Muslim Community do have some empathy with these terror attacks. In fact in a recent poll 20% admitted that they did.

Why a few on here do not to accept the problem whilst innocent people are being killed on our streets amazes me.

Did anyone see Newsnight tonight...........said it all.

 

[brunswick]

if you read enough different sources enough and stop believing what you are fed by western media, you will probably realise that:

9/11 and 7/7 where inside jobs. False flags.

The main source of hatred and corruption is from the illuminati / goverment elite people.

Musllim hatred is increasingly stirred up by the governments deliberately.

But the front page of the sun and bbc news is far more safer to believe so i understand where most of you are coming from.

 

[sten_super]

if you read enough different sources enough and stop believing what you are fed by western media, you will probably realise that:

9/11 and 7/7 where inside jobs. False flags.

The main source of hatred and corruption is from the illuminati / goverment elite people.

Musllim hatred is increasingly stirred up by the governments deliberately.

But the front page of the sun and bbc news is far more safer to believe so i understand where most of you are coming from.

To attempt to pass those opinions (and that's all they are) as facts is a very dangerous way to go.

I have not seen much about conspiracy theories around 7/7, but I have seen the 9/11 ones. There seems very little actual evidence and a lot of conjecture. I am not saying that they are complete lies (particularly the attack on the Pentagon looks suspicious to me), but at the same time I'm not saying they are true. Just be careful when accusing other people of ignorance and then jumping on every conspiracy theory going.

 

[NMH]

Any chance of growing up....guys.

huh?

We all know through are own experiences that thankfully most people our kind and caring ....... irrespective of race creed or colour.

Most people would prefer that way to be, but extreme points of view, racists, and religionists want THOSE people to take up the fight - that's why they bomb innocents.

But not to recognise the negatives within a Community is silly if your an adult and criminal if your in a position of power.

Well, yes. I would hope that leaders WOULD look at negatives in communities and their society, otherwise I'd worry about what they were doing in a position of power. I wouldn't be too happy if they exacerbated the negatives - and those are the sort who want to wrest power in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and various places in Africa,,,,, and the list goes on.

Why would you comment on Christians in this Terror context ??

Because they rile their faction up, by using religion. Just like you.
Americans and Brits who know nothing about the rest of the world, and regard whole countries and peoples as lesser, because of dominant race or religion, are among that type. It's 'generaly' called ignorance. "we are great, they are barbarians" is a mantra that will convince the simple - all over the world.

It is a Muslim Countries that continue to top the league of hatred, intolerance now being aimed at The West.

To many Muslims, we are seen as the "intolerant" ones, "top of the hatred league" etc (to use your words). To stop their ignorance, does any learned person on Earth think that the solution and response is to be intolerant, make sweeping generalizations, and attack them indiscriminately?? That would work for those who want to generalize about a whole race, a whole religion (hmmmmm ring any bells BG?).

 

[brunswick]

To attempt to pass those opinions (and that's all they are) as facts is a very dangerous way to go.

why? more dangerous to bury head in sand me thinks. BBC pass off untruths as facts and you seem to believe them.

you say you know nothing of 7/7 bombings. let me give you an MI6 agents view and maybe you can be educated a little.

The true inside facts about the 7/7 London bombings
By James Casbolt, former MI6 agent – February 18, 2007

The British and US government are stirring an atmosphere of animosity and hatred between white and Asian people in the UK, US and around the world. Whites verses Asians invents the excuse for the invasion of the Middle East. They are also looking for a minority to blame for the terrorism in the UK and US that the governments themselves are responsible for.

This is known as ‘false flag’ terrorism. 'Al Qaeda' is an MI- 6, CIA organisation utilising Middle Eastern assets. These are big claims but this is backed up with evidence from my MI 6 contacts. My friend below was briefed in detail regarding what really happened on 7/7 and how the British Government were responsible.

James Casbolt- “ So you are saying the bombs were planted into the bus several days before the 7/7 London bombings”

X10- “ Yes, the British government switched the safety checking team. When they went into the bus depot a few days before hand a trade union spokesman who was asked about this said he couldn’t understand who the security was. He didn’t recognise anybody. These were people who come into check the buses. They normally check the buses for things like suspension, braking systems and the security cameras. Instead of staying what is usually an hour or so these people were there for the entire day. When workers approached them and started making small talk they wrere basically ignored . So they had the feeling that these people were not regular security.

James Casbolt- “So they were probably MI 5?”

X10- “They were MI 5. They were there primarily to make sure the video camera went off at a certain time. Which is of course what happened. Isn’t it is amazing that on that day, this was similar to what happened with the cameras prior to the death of Princess Diana. All the security cameras that counted on 7/7, not the ones that didn’t count, the ones that really counted weren't working. The security camera on that bus wasn't working on that particular day.

James Casbolt- “So where did they plant the bombs on the bus?”

X10- “Inside the seats and under the floor. I know that the eye witness accounts of what happened were all at variance with one another. The BBC relied exclusively on a testimony given by a Scottish guy. The Scottish guy contradicted himself so many times and yet no one in the media asked him about these contradictory statements. He said in one report that he got off the front of the bus and in another report he said he left through the rear door. One report said he was the first out and another report he said was the last off the bus. So there appears to be a lot of confusion in terms of the report”

James Casbolt- “So the four Asian lads were they MI 5 assets?”

X10- “They were stooges”

James Casbolt- “Do you think they consciously knew they were working for MI5?”

X10- “No they weren’t working consciously for MI 5. They would just be a shadow team lured into London to be part of a covert programme of simulated attacks. They were paid to be in a certain place at a certain time to take part in a simulated attack. A company was running a simulated terror attack at the time. Those boys were part of that. They were told “Your backpacks represent explosive devices but of course they aren't explosives”

James Casbolt- “So they were told ‘this is just a dummy run”

X10- “It was a dummy run. They were part of the dummy run. They stopped their car just outside of Luton and they were briefed by somebody. When they left Luton of course, they didn’t leave Luton at the time described because there was a cock up with train times. So whether they managed to get to London or not is an unknown because the video camera evidence has been shown to be faulty. There is a problem with the timing on some of the video footage.

James Casbolt- “So they bought return tickets?”

X10 - “Yea, they bought return tickets. Of course you wouldn't but return tickets if you knew you were on a one way journey to hell. Some of the other reports that were briefly mentioned in the quality, alternative media and not the tabloid media. Then they were completely ignored by the controlled tabloid media, was one eye witness who was talking about the fact that as she was coming off the train were the bomb exploded. The police officer said “Mind the hole!” and he pointed to a huge blast which showed the metal structure of the under carriage facing upwards as if the bomb had blown upwards. This was the security services taking the extra insurance that in case any of the bombs that their agents had left on the train and those were ex MI 5, ex SAS people, that they would have had a back up, a contingency to make sure those explosions did take place. A number of reports reported more bombs than there were alleged terrorists.

James Casbolt- “Why is it ex MI 5 doing it? Why is it not active MI5 agents?

X10- “In a way there is no such thing as ex MI 5. Once your MI 5 you’re always MI 5 (I would have to disagree with that statement as I managed to get away from my involvement with MI 6- James Casbolt). A lot of MI 5 people get jobs with other organisation that are similar in structure when they leave the security services. These organisations are usually part of the private sector. There have been a number of these organisations over the years. A very, very famous intelligence unit that used to work under Peter Mandelson involved in the oil business, and they announced a disclosure about three years ago. Norton Taylor who works for the intelligence part of the Guardian. He pointed out then that such organisations often announce their demise and its nothing of the sort. Its just disinformation or they just change into another company with exactly the same brief. There a lot of these little private organisations that soak up people who have left these intelligence services and they have them working on a private basis but more often than not they are contracted and they get work contracted out to them from the government”

James Casbolt- “So the four Asian lads, they were probably having their strings pulled by MI 5 officers”

X10- Oh yea, absolutely without a doubt. They were runners, a dummy team. I’ve spoken to a few people about the way in which dummy teams are run. They interest lads like that, what MI5 do is they say something like “We want you to be part of a film, part of a dummy run working with the government and also working with BBC producers on developing scenarios in which terrorist attacks in the UK could take place. You get to London and then you do this, meet us at a certain place and we give you a thousand quid”. That’s easy money and its easy money for what? Travelling to London, sitting on a train with a backpack for about half an hour or so and you collect your loot”

James Casbolt- “Do you think Mohammad Sidique Khan would have been a conscious MI 5 agent?”

X10- “He may have been paid by MI 5 to go through that on the TV. The same way as, there is another guy who is a known MI 5 agent. He used to be the sidekick of Abdul H the Muslim preacher. He was no 2. He was a ‘Mr fixer’ and had links to all sorts of exotic quasi terrorist organisations, which are of course almost all run by British intelligence. I wish I could remember his name”

James Casbolt- “You said one of the ex SAS men who was responsible for the bombings was called Mcgreagor and he was disguised as a homeless person.”

X10- “That's what they do to blend in, well not blend in but to make them look conspicuous. If you’ve got a homeless person clutching an old Tesco’s bag or something you don’t tend to look at him and say the guy looks like security threat”

James casbolt- “Can you explain what he did”

X10- “He was on the train and left a package with explosives in. The man who told me this, I developed a close relationship in the past and trusted him”

James Casbolt- “And this man was an MI 6 officer?”

X10- “Ex MI 6. He longer worked for them. Even in the days when I knew him he had already left the service. As far as the bus operations were concerned that was not his main topic. He was talking mostly about the people in the tube bombings. When all of the eye witness statements came up later on talking about the possibility that the bombs may have been placed under the buses, what the government did was put in a fail safe to make sure that even if some thing went wrong on the day with those people who were involved in the bombings themselves, they would at least have a secondary system to ensure the bombs exploded at exactly the time they wanted”

James Casbolt- “So would they have been set on timers?”

X10- “They were set on timers”

James Casbolt- “So they wouldn’t have needed to remotely detonated?”

X10- “No. This whole remote system is quite strange because on the day itself Ian Blair took down all of the mobile phone communications. Everything was switched off. You couldn’t make a mobile phone call. He knew in any event that there were no remote detonators and he was just covering his arse in case any curious journalists asked him a pertinent question later on. There were no remote detonations on the day at all. They were all personally delivered to the destinations”

James Casbolt- “What happened on the tube then?”

X10- “The agents were there at the exactly the right time they were supposed to be. If it was the actual case that those guys actually did get the train from Luton. I don’t believe they got the train from Luton because apparently that train never turned up. But if they had got to London before hand which s probably the case, they would have had plenty of time to receive the briefing in London. They would have got on train. They would have then been followed by these ex MI 5, SAS officers so that they were actually in the same cart as the so-called juvenile bombers. It would have taken place as scheduled”

James Casbolt- “So the guys on the train who were ex MI 5, ex SAS, they left the explosives on the train and then got off. What were their names again?”

X10- “The ex MI 5 man was codenamed ’J-boy’ and Mcgreagor was the ex SAS guy”

James Casbolt- “And then you say they escaped in a Vauxhall cabriolet?”

X10- “Yes and they were driven away from the scene”

James Casbolt- “So your MI 6 contact confirmed it was a Vauxhall cabriolet?”

X10- “Yes”

James Casbolt- “So J-boy and Mcreagor left explosives in bags under the seats but there were secondary explosives under the train carriage (See photos. Ed.) in case they didn’t go off”

X10- “Yes”

James Casbolt- “Do you know were the safe house was were Mcgreagor and J-boy went afterwards”

X10- “The safe house was in South London. This is a very unfortunate event that is going to be churning around in people’s minds for a long time to come. We need a proper public enquiry”

To the government factions who were involved in this act of mass killing I say this. How dare you blow up and murder my British people! All those who are accountable will be held fully accountable when the time comes! That time is coming soon. In my vision I see Asian and white brothers and sisters coming together in love and harmony in this country. We will confront the government peacefully for their terrorist crimes.

James Casbolt
http://jamescasbolt.com/bombings.htm

Notes:
1 “these people were not regular security”: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/150705busbombing.htm

2 “A company was running a simulated terror attack at the time”: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

3 cock up with train times: www.financialoutrage.org.uk/thameslink_database.htm

4 “Mind that hole”: www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3583

5 Mohammad Sidique Khan: www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4260

6 See photos: www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3583

For further background also see:

The Road To World War Three
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4121

Who Was Albert Pike?
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1086

How Could They Get it So Wrong?
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3478

 

[Woodchip]

So, has the world ended yet?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

why? more dangerous to bury head in sand me thinks. BBC pass off untruths as facts and you seem to believe them.

you say you know nothing of 7/7 bombings. let me give you an MI6 agents view and maybe you can be educated a little.

Oh My God.

I thought the only fantacists on this board were sexual.

 

[sten_super]

brunswick, do you not see what these people have to gain from spreading these conspiracy theories? Every 'alternative' media source in the world will want interviews, news and will bite their hand off for any morsel they want to give. It can be truth or made up. How do you even know that this guy is ex-MI6? And how do you know he had this conversation with an MI5 agent?

Conspiracy theories play on peoples insecurities and tell them what they want to believe. I'm sure that news sources like the BBC are to some degree the same, and I certainly don't believe everything that they feed me. But one unproven story is not going to be enough to convince me I'm afraid.

 

[brunswick]

well read some other sources - that is 1 from many.

itn/bbc/the sun - have given you one story - thats 1-1.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

brunswick - was that a government agent on fire at Glasgow Airport ?