Cox Forum The alexcox.com Discussion Forums    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Profile   You have no new messages   Log out [ ]  Alex's Xmas Blog: 2005.12.23 - 7/7 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next          Cox Forum Forum Index -> Cox Blog Discussions View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:51 pm    Post subject: I have not banned them: they have banned me. I have given them right of reply, they have not. I have not picked a fight with them, or taken their personal stories and twisted them and lied about them, but they have done it with me. I am not saying, for example Bridget is a racist who hacks forums or Ally is a liar who beats his wife or burgles house , yet they are saying the equivalent about me. I delete off topic spam about Zionist conspiracies in threads about chest infections, that is NOT THE SAME THING as beinG unable to reply in a thread WHOLLY about me, my profession, sex, background, and whether I am lying about the fact that I was victim of a a) savage rape and b) murderous terrorist attack. (Which by the way is a matter of public record and you may visit the perpetrator in Belmarsh if you choose, and b) go talk to about 2000 police officers and forensic experts... ) Especially when I have gone public about the attacks purely in order to help other survivors: it is breathtakingly offensive, and saying someone is a bit sad for thinking that the world is run by lizards or freemasons or what have you is a world away from what I have been through. Sorry, but if you can't see that.... Imagine, say, that your husband, say had died of cancer, and that you had written movingly about his death and final illness. Now imagine I say you are a lying bitch who murdered him to get the life insurance, or who made it up to get attention. There is a world of difference between personal attacks and disagreeign with what survivors say in a polite manner. And when people offer eye witness testimony and well sourced links vs. evidence -free assertions, there is no contest. Fortunately, there is no contest. I just dislike lies about me being published on the internet, however tiny the readership. Even if to respond is to dignify them unwontedly. So, I fight back. It is what I do. I am a campaigner. And I am off work ill, I have time, and it is satisfying to punch back at those who attack me. Whoever they think they are. Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:00 pm    Post subject: double post Last edited by Rachel on Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:13 pm; edited 1 time in total Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:02 pm    Post subject: double post Last edited by Rachel on Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in total Back to top Prole Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 80 Location: London UK Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Rachel wrote: Ha! Nice editing Bridget, I see you just siad that 'I have never said that you were the only vioce of survivors...' then DELETED IT! Do feel free to PM that apology.... Sorry Rachel you've lost me there .. As for PMing an apology I would if I thought I had given offence and had something to apologise for. _________________ In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:10 pm    Post subject: double post... Last edited by Rachel on Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:11 pm; edited 1 time in total Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:11 pm    Post subject: Quote: Rachel, let me make it clear that I have never said that you were the only survivor, just that your voice in the one that we hear above all the others in a consistent way in the media. Even to the extent that you spoke about the ambulances not arriving at Russell Square on London Tonight (despite not being badly injured or having had to wait two hours) and at Westminster Abbey. Ha! Nice editing Bridget, I see you just said that 'I have never said that you were the only vioce of survivors...' then DELETED IT! Bollocks. In your own words. Quote: 'The very busy Rachel North, or should that be the only voice of the survivors of July 7th?, seems to have had quite a week' '...Rachel will really have served her purpose for the State. There are advantages to having 'only one voice' of the survivors of July 7th, it can then be the 'voice' that says the things the State wants us all to hear' Oh - and the Westminster Abbey thing? The theme of the section I was invited to speak in was ''WORKING FOR PEACE'' not ''HOW INJURED WERE YOU?'' I was invited as the peace activist person who founded Kings Cross United, through my writing, ( Jane set up the website BTW - and I set up the group, keep your knicks untwisted and keep up with the webcast) and because of my message that we are all fellow passengers in this journey - Black, White , Asian, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu... And I am not in control of whom Prince Charles or Westminster Abbey or the Commonwealth Institute chooses to invite... you do have a quite extraordinary view of my powers! http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/03/commonwealth-day.html And good luck with the blogging.(Profile Views 406 - you must be thrilled! The world awaits!) Do feel free to PM that apology... Last edited by Rachel on Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:21 pm    Post subject: Prole wrote: Rachel wrote: Ha! Nice editing Bridget, I see you just siad that 'I have never said that you were the only vioce of survivors...' then DELETED IT! Do feel free to PM that apology.... Sorry Rachel you've lost me there .. As for PMing an apology I would if I thought I had given offence and had something to apologise for. Bridget, you said I was the only voice of the survivors.# Quote: 'The very busy Rachel North, or should that be the only voice of the survivors of July 7th?, seems to have had quite a week' '...Rachel will really have served her purpose for the State. There are advantages to having 'only one voice' of the survivors of July 7th, it can then be the 'voice' that says the things the State wants us all to hear' Yes? Remember? And here I am proving that you are talking crap....do keep up with the news, and the links on my blog, which you leave comments on, and , you know, the MEDIA generally, where you will find many, many other vctim reports. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=July+7+victims&meta= See? No? Oh dear! Let.Me. Explain. I am not and never have been 'the only voice,' of the survivors, you are incorrect in claiming I am the ' only one voice' of the survivors. Keep up! Let's stay lively , shall we! By the way, did you attend yesterday's hearing? You know, the one on the news? With all the survivors? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4835566.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1738668,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2100675_1,00.html http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13515293,00.html http://www.itn.co.uk/news/britain_14311.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006130760,,00.html And I expect you will be looking forward keenly to reading th report of the GLA - featuring all the other survivors! You remember, the ones you think don't exist, since for some reason you can only read my words? Chin up Bridget, I am patient. Back to top Prole Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 80 Location: London UK Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:24 pm    Post subject: Rachel said: Quote: And good luck with the blogging.(Profile Views 406 - you must be thrilled! The world awaits!) For some of us Rachel this is not about fame or publicity. Quote: I have only one reason for starting this blog. It is to ascertain the facts behind the events in London on and since the 7th July 2005. http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_bridgetdunnes_archive.html Ascertaining the facts is the only reason I engage in these tiresome exchanges with you, Rachel. I sometimes think that you are drawn back to these forums because a part of you questions the official line as well. _________________ In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:30 pm    Post subject: Yeah, if I was after fame and publicity I woudl possibly not choose being rapoed and blown up by Al Qaida as my route to household namedom? And I might do it under my own name? And it might be considered that I already had a successful career before July 7th? Ascertaining the facts? R-i-g-h-t. OKay, let's ascertain the facts about how many survivors there are... and how many vioces there are. One - me - or more? Let's refresh our memory...here's your position Quote: 'The very busy Rachel North, or should that be the only voice of the survivors of July 7th?, seems to have had quite a week' '...Rachel will really have served her purpose for the State. There are advantages to having 'only one voice' of the survivors of July 7th, it can then be the 'voice' that says the things the State wants us all to hear' Starter for ten ( hint - click the links, use google, read a paper or watch the news) Off we go! I recommend google....for starters. Back to top Kier Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 13 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:32 pm    Post subject: Rachel wrote: it is breathtakingly offensive, and saying someone is a bit sad for thinking that the world is run by lizards or freemasons or what have you is a world away from what I have been through. Sorry, but if you can't see that.... I do see it. But what I am trying to draw the parallel with is the reaction and outcome to the comments - not the content of the comments, nor indeed who they were made by and in what context. In the instance of your blog and in the instance of the nineeleven forum, regardless of what was said, it is plain that each person contributing, for whatever reason, felt they had justification for what they were saying, and justification for being offended by what others were saying. Rachel wrote: Imagine, say, that your husband, say had died of cancer, and that you had written movingly about his death and final illness. Now imagine I say you are a lying bitch who murdered him to get the life insurance, or who made it up to get attention. I can see what you're saying here but I don't think it's a fair analogy. It just illustrates the difficulty in trying to have a debate between someone who has a personal, emotional involvement with a situation and people who don't - or, at least, not in the same way. The difference between the scenario you have just suggested and the scenario of 7/7 is that the former is very much a personal situation involving a couple of people and 7/7, along with being a personal tragedy for many, is also regarded as a world event and viewed by many in that context only. I don't debate with you in order to rubbish your views or even to convert you to my way of thinking and opinions. You have your view and I have mine. What I hope for is that any other people observing the debate will see that there are many, many facets to this event and more than one way of viewing the situation. Rachel wrote: There is a world of difference between personal attacks and disagreeign with what survivors say in a polite manner. And when people offer eye witness testimony and well sourced links vs. evidence -free assertions, there is no contest. There are people, and I include myself in this, who have been polite and civil towards you, yet still get tarred with the 'conspiraloon' brush. Earlier on this thread you said "You had someone willing to engage - and all you saw was an opponent." I could argue that from my personal point of view I never saw you show willingness to engage. My first contact with you was in a comment thread on The Antagonist's blog, where your first posts were confrontational, to say the least. I am sure that from your perspective this was wholly justified, from mine it seems you presented yourself very much as an opponent from that point. I would also have to argue that many of us who have disagreed with your views on 7/7 also have well sourced links and valid questions, and that there are many evidence-free assertions regarding the official explanation for who committed the act of bombing London. Like I said before, in this respect, none of us is any better than the other. I certainly don't think it's objectively accurate to say there is 'no contest'. We are - as must be obvious to anyone by now - going to have to agree to disagree about who bombed London on July 7th. As far as you're concerned it's been proven, as far as I'm concerned it hasn't. I want a complete examination and analysis of every aspect of that day before I will draw a definite conclusion. I am not willing to be spoon-fed information; I will seek it out myself from as many mediums as possible and question absolutely everything. I think we all have a responsibility to do nothing less. Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:49 pm    Post subject: Quote: It just illustrates the difficulty in trying to have a debate between someone who has a personal, emotional involvement with a situation and people who don't - or, at least, not in the same way. The difference between the scenario you have just suggested and the scenario of 7/7 is that the former is very much a personal situation involving a couple of people and 7/7, along with being a personal tragedy for many, is also regarded as a world event and viewed by many in that context only. It may be a world event, and you may never have expected someone directly involved to join in - but I did. Unsurprisingly, in a thread about me, called' Rachel from N. London'. Uncomfortable? Undoubtedly. But engage in personal attacks on public boards and that is what happens...( I talk hear generally, not of you personally Kier) 7/7 involved REAL people. Eye witnesses, survivors. With access to real information. Real people. Real sourvces. Suddenly it's not such a cosy back slapping hobby, is it? Quote: there are many, many facets to this event and more than one way of viewing the situation. Yeah. Many, many, many witnesses. Police reports. Fire officers,nurses, doctors, photos, DNA, taped confessions, real 'Islamic' fundementalist hatemongers. Injured pople. Dead people. And conspiracy theorists. Quote: I could argue that from my personal point of view I never saw you show willingness to engage Oh really? WTF have I just done for dozens of pages on my blog, this site, the 9/11 site? Quote: My first contact with you was in a comment thread on The Antagonist's blog, where your first posts were confrontational, to say the least Yep. Some dickhead maintains there were no bombs on a train where 26 died. I tend to take exception to that, seeing as, you know, I saw the bodies an' all. Quote: I would also have to argue that many of us who have disagreed with your views on 7/7 also have well sourced links and valid questions I have seen none. None. That is my point. I've given you people a lot of time and energy and have pointed out where you are off track. Sat at a PC, what evidence do you claim to have? And if you have it, how come NOT ONE REPUTABLE SINGLE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST HAS EVER EVER PUBLISHED IT? ANYWHERE. EVER. Quote: I am not willing to be spoon-fed information; I will seek it out myself from as many mediums as possible and question absolutely everything. I think we all have a responsibility to do nothing less. Nobody is spoon feeding anyone anything: media, in case you did not know is highly competitive and the thing about 7 July is THERE IS NO OFFICIAL VERSION. YET. It is multiple and independently-sourced from many competing individuals who work for many COMPETING news agencies ALL OVER THE WORLD. YOu get surprisingly few disrecrepancies, when you think f it this way. That ther eare some prves it is REAL, not a conspiracy. Kier, you are one of the few who has actually not been personally offensive, and I thank you for that. You are entitled to your view, and I generally don't fight with those who have different political, say, views to mine. I am no evangelist or monothought cliqueist. But this is different. This is real life, my life, not theoretical internet speculation. This is a bomb, a suicide bomb, that I am still recovering from. In my carriage, not under it. Killing and maiming real people. And those who go round questionning if I am real, if I was even there will get it with both feet from me. I doubt any genuine survivor would do differently. Maybe they'd see you in court. Who knows. Back to top alkmyst Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 13 Location: UK Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject: Call for an Independent Public Inquiry Earlier this evening I sent the following Email to Rachel. I advised her that I would be posting the Email on the www.nineeleven.co.uk forum but it is also pertinent to this thread. This message was sent in response to a PM that Rachel had sent to me after she had discovered that she was apparently barred from posting. Quote: Rachel, In an open democracy, which previous comments on your blog would suggest you not only support but would vigorously campaign to uphold, all questions are valid until such time as full, frank and open judicial review has been properly conducted. The core issue that would appear to be most divisive between, yourself and the 9/11 - 7/7 research community, is your forceful insistance that there is nothing to be gained by questioning the official version of events, ostensibly the allegation that the events of 7/7 were perpetrated by four young muslim men. If you are so confident that the evidence supports the official version of events, why is it that you feel the need to argue so vehemently that this issue is not appropriate for inclusion in the Terms of Reference of any Independent Public Inquiry? Whether it was intended or not, you would appear to have become the 'official voice' of the 7/7 survivors. Consequently, a simple acknowledgement on your part that, in the interests of absolute transparency, the concerns of the 7/7 research community should be addressed by an Independent Public Inquiry, might actually unite our respective groups. After all is said and done, are we not all simply interested in ensuring that the long-established values of this country are upheld by our elected representatives? We do not necessarily expect either you or any other survivors to agree with any of the issues or concerns raised by the 7/7 research community; we only ask that it be acknowledged that in the interests of due democratic process, that our issues and concerns should be addressed and brought to closure, by placing the appropriate irrefutable evidence in the public domain. I take no pleasure in reviewing the way that the forum debates have evolved but just as we respect your democratic right to retain your particular view of what transpired on that fateful day; we would ask that our right to hold an alternative view be duly acknowledged. The following is an extract from: www.julyseventh.co.uk Each one of us deserves to know the full truth about who/what brought about the biggest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe. Yet the authorities refuse to release a connected set of CCTV footage showing the alleged bombers in London on July 7th. Nor will they allow independent experts to check out phone, credit and computer records, or the tube, bus, Luton or Leeds forensics. In refusing an 'expensive' Judicial Inquiry the State has shown how cheap it holds the lives of Londoners. Meanwhile we are left with no option but to conduct our own Independent People's Inquiry to find out WHAT happened on July 7th. Only then can we work out WHY it happened and how to stop it from happening again. If you have any doubts at all about the official version of events please write to your MP, the Home Office, to local and national newspapers and raise the questions that you feel need answering. We hope you may also wish to join the growing band of us who are researching collaboratively. Investigate with an open mind and remember that conspiracy theories are quite often conspiracy FACTS. For more information on 9/11 & 7/7 parallels and connections, see: http://nineeleven.co.uk/ and http://officialconfusion.com/ The State has repeatedly proved itself to be the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law; killing through illegal wars and stealing from the poorest in the form of regressive taxes, increased fares, fines and living costs. Let us not forget the tragic fate of Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, executed at Stockwell station. Those who ask questions seek only the truth behind what happened in July. We are supposed to live in a democracy so let us hold politicians and public servants to account. Only the truth will stand the most rigorous of questioning and only liars need fear questions being asked. In the name of Peace, Love, Truth & Justice, RELEASE THE EVIDENCE! http://julyseventh.co.uk/ The Independent People's Investigation into July Seventh Al K Myst Rachel, would you like to post your response ..... the one that you Emailed to me? Al K Myst Back to top Kier Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 13 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:51 pm    Post subject: Rachel, you're still doing the very thing that you don't like being done to you. Calling research that every person has a right to engage in, a 'cosy, back slapping hobby.' is disparaging. I know you don't agree with it and you don't see the point of it but such comments are just as judgmental as the judgments that are unfairly made on you. It usually ends up with people being offensive back to you, as one would expect when people feel they've been unfairly insulted. We can discuss forever who has been more unfairly insulted than any other person, or who has more justification in being upset and I keep re-iterating to you that I fully understand your viewpoint and your right to be distressed at what people say about you....but it puts none of us any further and I do believe serves no useful purpose for any of us. I can see from what you write that your defence is that people were offensive to you first. I don't contest that you would have read offensive things about yourself, or that you had a right to be angry about it and defend yourself to those people....but using attack as a form of defence seems to keep sending us all round and round in a pointless circle. You said, in response to my statement that I had not observed you show willingness to engage: Quote: Oh really? WTF have I just done for dozens of pages on my blog, this site, the 9/11 site? To clarify, I meant willingness to engage in the manner that you would like others to engage with you in. In other words, yes, you engaged, but in the manner of an opponent! So it can hardly be surprising that people viewed you as such and responded to you as such. Once more, I know that you feel there was most definitely justification, but I will refer to what I said above. You say that you have seen no valid questions or well sourced links presented to you, and my response to that is that I have repeatedly made the point that those men could not have caught the 0740, the 0748 or even the 0725 train that morning, since none of those would have got them to Kings Cross mainline station in time to have been picked up on CCTV by 8:26, which is the time the police say they were there. I have backed this up with the evidence provided by the Communications Manager for Thameslink Rail. I have also raised the issue of the extremely flimsy CCTV evidence, comparing it to the copious amounts of moving footage that the police released from the day of June 28th - which we are expected to accept was a 'dummy run', but have been shown no other evidence to back this up as their actual reason for being in London that day. Please see my previous posts on this thread, where I make this point. I know there is no 'official version' yet - that is precisely the point I keep trying to make when it seems that you become offended by anybody questioning the version which you say is the truth. When I speak of the 'official version', I refer to the version which has been unquestioningly given by the media to the public as the only version of who perpetrated the attack, and has been generally accepted by the public as such. Again, I want to make it clear that I do not dispute your witness account of that day and I do not dispute that there were bombs. I simply dispute the way we've been told who did it, and how, when, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions and with examples, many flaws in these assertions. Thank you for responding to me personally, Rachel. But I will say again to you that I have never questioned that you are real or suggested that you were not there. So I really hope you will keep that in mind in any future exchanges we might have. Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:52 pm    Post subject: Quote: The document you requested could not be found or is protected. E-mail contact: admin@nineeleven.co.uk I am unable to post replies. I am unable to read PMs. It is spolite not to publish private correspondence sent from my personal email to your personal email and not anything to do with the boards, but I daresday, if you wish to publish it, you will do so, and I cannot stop you, and I daresay you should like nothing more than to upset me, and it will make you feel powerful and I shall continue to think even less of you for doing so, just as I should if you published my private address or telephone number on the board. Back to top Rachel Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49 Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:56 pm    Post subject: And of couse, I point out that I have never given you permission to publish private correspondebnce on these boards, nor to read my mail or make calls on my mobile or to access my bank account. And now I wait to see quite what your point is? Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         Cox Forum Forum Index -> Cox Blog Discussions All times are GMT Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next Page 11 of 13 Stop watching this topic   Jump to: Select a forum alexcox.com forums----------------Welcome to alexcox.com 2.0Cox Blog DiscussionsFilm Discussions  You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You can edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group