pap

Of course it's debatable. Kind of why I submitted it. "Believe" is too strong a word , but not by much. I have many reasons to believe elements of the US govt were involved in both planning and coverup, but suspect a combined operation with Mossad/Israel. Put it this way. I take that potential culpability seriously, especially given events preceding (PNAC's policy statement, stolen election, pre existing Iraq invasion plans), during (hijacking drills, impossible feats of pilotry relative to reported pilot skill, suspension of laws of universe) and after (fake bin Ladens, bellicose foreign policy, illegal wars in resource rich & strategically placed Middle Eastern countries, torture, the complete lack of investigation, the 9/11 Commission's failure to address basic errors - 19 hijackers, its complete disinterest in following the money trail, wholesale attacks on our civil liberties, David Kelly, the consequent realignment of the BBC, Arab Spring, calls for military action in Syria with no evidence, Israel's constant calls for military action in Iran, NSA & GCHQ spying on everyone). I don't think Dubya was involved in any of the planning. I came to the subject matter with the same sneering I frequently see when discussing the subject myself. I get it, but when investigating, each attempt to disprove it led to more problems. It's common, apparently. It's not that there are one or two problems with the official narrative. Almost every element of the day is suspect, and to upgrade aintforever's colourful claim from earlier, men and women with more relevant qualifications than us have driven double deckers through 'em. The cumulative problems are difficult to reconcile with the immutable narrative. Irrespective of whodunnit, 9/11 enabled the thinly-veiled imperialism that occurred thereafter. Every call the West has made since has been the wrong one, IMO. We've created new breeding grounds for extremists. The world is not a safer place for the West's efforts. Coupla things before I sign off :- 1) I address this every time, but this continual notion that everyone is somehow clued in on every aspect of the plan is bloody ridiculous. Stopping people from doing their jobs can be enough, which happened before, during and after the event. They wouldn't knowingly be part of anything; same goes for people just implementing innocuous orders. 2) I don't think for one minute that the perpetrators expected everyone to believe it. They expected most to fall for it, and to be able to deal with the others. The media and our own impression of ourselves does most of the work. Disinfo and in rare cases death, does the remainder.

Think it needs it; more than that, actually think we need long term electoral reform and a big discussion on what the state should constitute. I shudder to think at the cost of ideological vandalism whenever the majority pendulum swings the other way. The country shouldn't be used as a plaything to test political theory, which is sadly what happens each time a new bunch is returned.

The SDP could rely on established and in some cases, respected politicians, grew out of an existing movement, had seats from the get-go and lasted seven years. They're certainly different from UKIP in that they never came from nowhere. UKIP have done very well to come as far as they have. They've got a more populist appeal, and Sour Mash is right - this is a 21 year old party that is making waves in the establishment. Now I accept that when it comes to Westminster, they'll be smashed against the shoals of FPTP like any smaller party, but in most ways, they're very different from the SDP.

I'm travelling for a bit, so in my absence, thought I'd link "Let's Roll". http://letsrollforums.com/index.php Good 9/11 resource, nicely categorised, covering almost every angle. Shouldn't have to say this but none of the content on that site is mine.

Are UKIP actually interested in government? I think their main aim is to get a cast-iron referendum on the agenda. Rees-Mogg is already talking about doing a deal with them, but they're laughing it off at the moment and besides, it's not a sentiment that the Conservative party leadership will be happy with. Going to be interesting to see who blinks first.

Libs getting whacked here. Check out this graph. # of seats.

Claims henefits Alloa akbar. Fúcking genius!

Fk me, they've managed to make Southampton look interesting. Take a bow, all involved.

A crude guess at Westminster based on a PR system using 2010 results. http://frigsociety.com/2012/07/12/popularity-contest/

I'm quite proud of that line, myself. Never let it be said that I don't put the effort in when taking the píss. However, in this case, funny is also true. "Civil service" Are you f**king kidding? For starters, you're preaching yourself. Secondly, you're one of the most judgmental people on here.

Top man, igsey. It's always nice to be appreciated.

Four. Assessed on these, you've got a long way to go. Can you work on getting some others? I'm annoyed with copying and pasting the same stuff.

None of which invalidates anything I've said. The executive branch, the one that proposes and implements legislation, is unelected. Let's remember where we started on this; you were making some terrible point about UKIP and the apparent hypocrisy of them attacking the EU for being non-democratic when they stand to benefit from PR, the electoral system used to elect MEPs. I pointed out that UKIP were talking about other things, such as an unelected executive branch, after which you attempt to characterise the European Commission as civil service, which we both know is bóllocks. You got caught with your pants down. Why not try pulling them up instead of shítting all over the place?

How do you know that? Are you part of a whispering PM group? Is private snickering fun? Like I said, easily defeatable argument hour. Did you really think you could pass the European Commission off as mere civil service? The only thing the MEPs get to vote on is legislation the Commission proposes.

What is this, "easily defeatable argument hour"? UKIPs argument is fúck all to do with PR. The EU has an unelected executive branch. It suspends democracy to allow central banking to take priority. Those are just two counter-points off the top of my head, and one more than I needed.

Yeah, on FPTP locals. They'll get a lot more than that in the Euros. Píss poor argument by the way. Anyone who knows the electoral system will see through it.

Nothing changing:- http://news.sky.com/story/1267344/essex-man-gives-ukip-big-election-boost

It's potentially valid (it's early), but a little redundant. How's about I post every day on the status of my top lip? Monday: Nothing has changed Tuesday: Nothing has changed Wednesday: Found small blot of tomato sauce Thursday: Nothing has changed Friday: Nothing has changed.

Fk sake. Anyone seen Ed Miliband trying to look natural yet? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/21/ed-miliband-awkward-video_n_5363306.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular New Labour leader to Millbank, new Labour leader to Millbank!

Gotta ask, why even post on this thread if your opinion is that nothing's changed? What is the turnout, and how does it compare to previous ones?

I don't agree with your reasoning. In almost every other aspect of life, London is different from the rest of the country. At no point did I say that foreigners -> brainwashing. They were list items in response to your question, which was (unbelievably) "why is London different?", despite the fact that you live there and presumably have a good inkling. I'd say Essex voted UKIP because of demographics. It's much whiter than London, has a lot of ex-London residents, many of whom probs did the white flight thing back in the day. It goes to underpin the ethnic diversity argument we've both made for the London results. Wirral West is posh. Birkenhead and Wallasey are not.

This is amusing too:-

Love the spoof site:-

"The word 'racism' has been demeaned and diminished. When it's used now, it doesn't mean a single thing". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27533394

Looks after itself.