The Case of Dr Al-Balawi 162


There is a very great deal that we can learn from the case of Dr Al-Balawi, the suicide bomber who took out seven CIA agents in Afghanistan.

The first relates to intelligence. Dr Al Balawi had become a trusted CIA informant, believed by the CIA to be helping them to target al-Qaida elements on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Except that we now know he was a dedicated al-Qaida all along.

Presumably much of the intelligence he had been providing was deliberately false and misleading. This yet again illustrates the point I have made repeatedly about the unreliability of “humint” – intelligence gained from informants.

As British Ambassador, I saw in Uzbekistan a continued stream of intelligence from the Uxbek torture chambers, accepted by the CIA and MI6 but which, in many cases, I knew to be false. The Uzbek government wished to retain Western support and subsidies by exaggerating their role in fighting al-Qaida; that was their purpose in providing the false intelligence. The Western security services and governments wished to exaggerate the threat of al-Qaida for domestic political purposes: that was their purpose in accepting it.

Torture is not the only source of unreliable “Humint”. Double agents like Dr Al-Balawi are another, A very high proportion of this intelligence is bought for cash, and that is the most unreliable of all. The dirty dossier on Iraqi WMD was full of tall stories for which you and I as taxpayers paid dodgy informants millions of dollars.

Yet we used unreliable humint as the basis for a war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands. We use it to take out wedding parties with bomb attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We use it to keep people detained without charge for years in Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, in Belmarsh, and we use it to deliver people up to torturers around the World.

We should know by now that the intelligence services and politicians no longer care if the intelligence is true: they want intelligence that justifies the actions they want to take anyway, and that keep on stream the mega profits that their friends are making from the War on Terror.

So Dr Al Balawi’s case gives us an invaluable insight into the world of intelligence.

But it does more than that. Why would a medical doctor, a happily married professional man with two children, become a “terrorist”. The answer is crystal clear.

Al-Balawi “started to change,” says his wife, after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229792

The failed underpants bomber was said by eye-witnesses to be shouting about Afghanistan: Dr Al-Balawi was motivated by our illegal invasion of Iraq. Violence begets violence – it is a truth as old as man.

Our unconscionable attacks on weaker nations, and our increasing complicity in the slow genocide of the Palestinians, are bound to provoke reaction, however weak that reaction may be compared to our own ability to kill en masse. The notion peddled by politicians and mainstream media, that we invade countries abroad to keep us safe at home, should be met with the derision it deserves.


162 thoughts on “The Case of Dr Al-Balawi

1 3 4 5 6
  • angrysoba

    Oh, and if you don’t want people dwelling on the Bahai theology (i.e comprehensively refuting that slender piece of “evidence” in a single comment) then don’t raise it in the first place. It looks like a desperate tactic when you’re piling up all kinds of pieces of “evidence” that each falls apart on inspection.

    Do you promise me you’ll never, ever use that again in an argument about Dr Kelly’s suicide?

  • roderick russell

    Craig, Look at Chapter 7 on the Wiki re the role of MI5, MI6, CSIS. Now if you look at these points the word intelligence service screams out at you, particularly when you know it is all being covered up at very high levels. Each point (chapter 7) has a source of corroborative evidence to back it up (often not on the wiki), some of the points have many sources. Maybe a few of them alone would not be enough to draw the conclusion intelligence services are involved, but all of them together are. The highly sophisticated telephone tapping, email interference, mail interception are just one point, but quite telling I think.

    Now how do I know which intelligence service it is. My assumption is that it is CSIS in Canada and MI5 in UK (CSIS and MI5 are very close and even do staff swaps; CSIS was set up by MI5 in 1984). So lets play devil’s advocate and say that it was some other intelligence service; all I can say is that MI5/CSIS are condoning it and so are part of it. Lets even say it was one of these private hoodlum/security types ?” they are all staffed by former MI5/6, CSIS officers anyway and again it is being condoned.

    Now I know of incidents where Grosvenor used the intelligence services to defame another leaver. I was there at the time, and am absolutely certain of this; incidentally I protested about it and the Chairman’s secretary gave me a cactus saying that the Chairman though it would suit me as I was so prickly (complaining about their illegal use of intelligence services was seen as prickly). I thought this was MI6

    When we were complaining to Hazel Blears (incidentally there are 3 written lies from her that are mutually exclusive, not just the one you mentioned ?” obviously I have to redraft the wiki to make it more clear), I was also getting threatened just for complaining. Ordered to stop complaining in one incident; shot in the head with a pellet in another, etc. An MP brought all of these points to Blair’s attention, complaining about Blears and it was covered up again. Nobody but my MP and Blears knew about each complaint at the time. Blears was responsible for MI5 at the time.

    Could it be more complicated. Yes, possibly. I have identified several people who are involved [probably assisting as freelancers] – one of whom I know with certainty was retired from British Military Intelligence (I assume freelancing for MI5, MI6); the police in Calgary told Amy that they could tell from his modus operendi that her assailant (another guy) had also had military intelligence operational training; and others.

    So what I can say is that the intelligence services are involved and, at the very least MI5, CSIS are condoning it. Please bear in mind that I tried all the normal channels first (police, IPCC, Home Office, etc) before going public.

  • Jaded.

    Lamby:

    ‘Ruth, was that person with the slow-burning device wearing quasi-futuristic clothing?’

    I believe the people that wear such clothing are invariably those that have swallowed the government accounts of 9/11 and 7/7. You can often see them sporting silver hats that look suspiciously like tinfoil too. You dress like this yourself I take it?

  • Rob Lewis

    @angrysoba: thanks for your time and considered reply.

    There was a time window when I think everyone, for a while, had their doubts. That’s fascinating in itself really, that such a moment occurred. Now, of course, after so much has come to light, everyone is bitterly and sarcastically divided. But in collectively, in our heart of hearts, whatever our opinion now, we know that we live in a world where cover-ups and killings are not inconceivable.

    Again, thanks for your answers. The Inquiry was set up at a time when Dr Kelly’s cause of death was not established – which is surely of consequence? So I think despite (or because of) its terms being very vaguely worded, Hutton had to look at the possibility of murder to some degree.

    But I did say I had two other questions for you, so here they are (as far as I rememeber):

    d) How and where do you think the cause of death established?

    and

    e) What was it that finally extinguished your doubts he may not have killed himself?

    I think you answered this by saying it was reading Norman Baker’s book, ironically (but for what it’s worth I think you might be being a bit harsh on him personally).

  • angrysoba

    Hi Rob,

    If I come across as mocking or scornfull of conspiracy theories surrounding David Kelly then please understand that I am not directing them at you. You are discussing this in good faith and I appreciate it.

    d) As far as I know this came from the pathologist’s report.

    I know that Mr Baker pointed out that such public enquiries as railway crashes and other accidents already assume the cause of death and that they usually occur when there are multiple deaths but that in itself is surely not a reason to doubt the verdict of suicide.

    e) Exactly! If Norman Baker presented the best evidence that exists for presuming Dr Kelly was murdered then the case is extremely weak. When we make judgments about anything in life we have to go with what has the best evidence to back it up and frankly the “theory” or “hypothesis” that Dr Kelly committed suicide wins hands down.

    For the record, I find it truly tragic that this man ended his life like this and that his family had to suffer as a result. I also find it rather tragic that self-appointed fantasy dissidents have nothing better to do than rummage around in the minutiae of his death speculating about vomit trails and the possiblity that Janice Kelly somehow acceded to the murder of her husband.

  • dreoilin

    “speculating about vomit trails and the possiblity that Janice Kelly somehow acceded to the murder of her husband”

    –angrysoba

    I’ve just done an Edit/Find. Please show me where these were mentioned, and by whom.

  • dreoilin

    “frankly the “theory” or “hypothesis” that Dr Kelly committed suicide wins hands down”–angrysoba

    Ahhh! So you’re a conspiracy theorist yourself, then? But you have little evidence on your side, mate. Sorry.

  • eddie

    I don’t know about the other doctors but David Halpin is a well known fruitcake, and if the others are prepared to associate with him then their case is dead in the water as far as I am concerned. As I said before, doctors who act with a political agenda are a danger to society.

  • MJ

    “David Halpin is a well known fruitcake”

    This is typical of eddie’s ‘debating’ technique: denigrate the character of whoever holds a position he objects to and…well, that’s it actually. Sorted. QED. Saves having to discuss evidence or tricky things like that.

    The key issue here I think is the failure to hold an inquest. A formal inquest is chaired by a coroner and has the legal powers of a court to call witnesses. Hutton had neither the expertise nor the legal powers to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the cause of Kelly’s death. Unless and until an inquest is held the cause of Kelly’s death must by definition remain unknown.

  • MJ

    Incidentally, David Halpin is a former Consultant Orthopaedic & Trauma Surgeon at Torbay Hospital & Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Hospital. Despite eddie’s claim that he is ‘notorious’ and a ‘menace to society’ I am aware of no cases of medical malpractice or negligence against him.

    So what does eddie really object to? I think I’ve found it: Halpin founded the ‘Dove & Dolphin’ Charity which serves to ‘relieve poverty, distress and hardship among the Palestinian people and to promote the welfare of Palestinian children’. A menace indeed. Ought to be locked up.

  • Chris Dooley

    Eddie, as you seem to be an expert on ‘fruitcakes’. What are your views as to the sanity of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair ?

  • angrysoba

    dreolin. You said this, “If he did [commit suicide], it wasn’t from the amount of paracetamol he swallowed, and it wasn’t from the cut on his wrist. If you know anything at all about medicine and/or suicide attempts, you’d know this much.”

    I asked you what your credentials were. What do you know about medicine and/or suicide attempts?

    You seem to be maintaining that it is impossible to commit suicide by severing the ulnar artery.

    It seems to be rare and Dr Kelly was the only person to have died that way in 2003. However, one person died from severing their ulnar artery the year before him. Two the year before that. One the year after him. So his case is not unique.

    “Needless to say, Angrysoba knows better. Because, er…um… because

    uh…”

    Well, apparently I know that people have died from severing their ulnar arteries and apparently you don’t. But it wasn’t me who made out they knew something about medicine/suicide. You did that in the sentences of yours I quoted above.

    “I’ve just done an Edit/Find. Please show me where these [vomit trails and implicating Mrs Kelly] were mentioned, and by whom.”

    I mentioned them while talking to Rob. Rob said I was a bit too hard on Norman Baker so I pointed out two things I found objectionable in his book. Have you read Baker’s book?

    “Ahhh! So you’re a conspiracy theorist yourself, then? But you have little evidence on your side, mate. Sorry.”

    Eh? What on Earth are you talking about? I think it was suicide. How do you come to the conclusion that I am a conspiracy theorist for thinking so? It seems he committed suicide as he had told people he would using his wife’s prescription medicine and his own knife while walking in the woods. His wife and some of his friends testified to the fact that he was extrememly depressed about what had happened. I don’t see the mystery.

  • dreoilin

    Angry,

    Why have you completely ignored the report I posted from the Independent of 5 Dec 2009 in which several experts are quoted? Including an expert in coroners’ law and several doctors qualified in various branches of medicine?

    And where are the links to the reports of people who died by severing *only one* ulnar artery that you mention above?

    Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that, mate.

    Goodnight

  • angrysoba

    “Why have you completely ignored the report I posted from the Independent of 5 Dec 2009 in which several experts are quoted?”

    I read it. So what? All the article says is some guys are suspicious. That’s not evidence.

    “And where are the links to the reports of people who died by severing *only one* ulnar artery that you mention above?”

    I don’t know and don’t start moving the goalposts by saying *only one* ulnar artery. It was your professional opinion that “He couldn’t have died from a cut ulnar artery which is tiny in width, and would have retracted and closed.” Or at least I think it was a professional opinion. You claim some knowledge in this area but I am yet to hear what it is.

    “Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that, mate.”

    No, I don’t. The burden of proof is on you and so far you haven’t come close to providing grounds for suspicion let alone explaining what might have happened if the most plausible story (He went into the woods and killed himself) isn’t true.

    “Goodnight”

    Sweet dreams. Check under the bed for secret service before you turn in, though.

  • angrysoba

    Oh, I do have something to say about the article. One of the doctors has contradicted your claim that there was nothing wrong with his heart but a bit of wear and tear. He specifically refers to “heart disease”.

    Maybe he plays it down as you no doubt will but it is one of a number of inaccuracies you’ve posted. I don’t know if you are deliberately distorting things by referring to co-proxamol as if it were regular paracetmemol but it doesn’t make your case look strong when you are constantly having to scale back your claims.

    Anyway, if your expertise is in co-opting other doctors then I think it is fine for me to quote “Britain’s leading forensic toxicologist”, Robert Forrest on the subject of co-proxamol:

    “We normally see higher concentrations than that in a person who has died of an overdose of co-proxamol. But if you’ve got heart disease – and if there is something else going on like blood loss, then all three of those are going to act together. The overdose of co-proxamol, the heart disease and the blood loss.”

    And Professor Forrest concluded: “I’ve got no doubt that the cause of Dr Kelly’s death was a combination of blood loss, heart disease and overdose of co-proxamol.

    “Not necessarily in that order. If I was going to put it in order I’d put the overdose of co-proxamol first. But it’s important that all of them had interacted to lead to the death”.

    I guess you could attempt the old he’s-probably-in-on-it gambit but if you do then there really is no point continuing this any more because you will simply reject anything that doesn’t fit your conclusion. You’ll also not be satisfied with any new inquiry into his death unless it returns the only verdict that you will accept “He was murdered by Tony Blair’s goons”.

    The Office of National Statistics recorded the number of people who died from cutting their ulnar artery.

  • dreoilin

    “And where are the links to the reports of people who died by severing *only one* ulnar artery that you mention above?”–dreoilin

    “I don’t know”–angrysoba

    That’s great.

    “and don’t start moving the goalposts by saying *only one* ulnar artery.”

    There is no moving of goalposts. None whatsoever. Dr Kelly’s left ulnar artery was cut, crossways. Everything I have said is in reference to that one ulnar artery, and being cut in that way. I have never referred to more than one, or to any other scenario.

    “One of the doctors has contradicted your claim that there was nothing wrong with his heart but a bit of wear and tear. He specifically refers to “heart disease”.”

    If you’re referring to some thickening with plaque of coronary arteries, please see what I wrote above at January 12, 2010 12:24 PM.

    I.e. “There is no evidence that he had a “coronary”. All men of his age would have some coronary deficiency, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he died from such. There was ‘no pre-existing heart condition’ other than the condition any man of his age would be in.”

    It has been stated that the condition of his heart was not life threatening, and that he did not have a heart attack.

    “I don’t know if you are deliberately distorting things by referring to co-proxamol as if it were regular paracetmemol”

    No, not deliberate, just an error. Co-proxamol has been withdrawn in the UK, and here, for some time. However, it makes no difference in this case. There was no overdose. It’s been officially stated that while the empty tablet sheets were near the body, he did not have an overdose IN his body. What’s IN the body is more relevant than some empty sheets thrown nearby. Anyone could have walked off with 26-7 of 29 tablets.

    “Anyway, if your expertise is in co-opting other doctors then I think it is fine for me to quote “Britain’s leading forensic toxicologist”, Robert Forrest on the subject of co-proxamol”

    He’s entitled to his opinion. As are the six doctors listed in the article and the expert in coroners’ law.

    “you will simply reject anything that doesn’t fit your conclusion. You’ll also not be satisfied with any new inquiry into his death unless it returns the only verdict that you will accept “He was murdered by Tony Blair’s goons”.”

    How do you think you could possibly know that? You’re funny! I really don’t care that much, mate. I thought I made that clear in what I said to Eddie above. You’re the one who seems to have an inordinate interest in proving somehow that Dr Kelly died by suicide. Why, I can’t imagine. Unless you have nothing else to do and are still on holiday. Or you’re one of these people on the internet who has to “win” all arguments.

    “The Office of National Statistics recorded the number of people who died from cutting their ulnar artery.”

    Ah … So, you don’t know in these cases, 1) if it was one or both ulnar arteries that were cut? 2) if any other blood vessels were opened at the same time? 3) if the ulnar artery/arteries was/were cut crossways or lengthways? and 4) if the people were lying in warm water, which would inhibit the retraction and closing of the artery/arteries?

    It appears you have no similar situation at all to refer to as a precedent.

    Angry, I said to Eddie: “I don’t have much interest in to-ing and fro-ing over a disputed death the investigation of which has already been ‘shut down’ by the authorities.” That still applies. If it wasn’t for your *insistence* that the man committed suicide (something you could not possibly know — just as I don’t know for a fact if he was killed, or who might have killed him) I would not be here now.

    And I won’t be back to this again, Angry. Have a nice day.

  • eddie

    There is a story recounted by Orwell of Sir Walter Raleigh, imprisoned in the Tower and writing a history of the world. An altercation beneath his window led to a murder. Try as he might he could not find out the truth of what had happened. He gave up his history of the world in disgust. The point I am making is that you are wasting your time over this. Like Raleigh, none of you can unravel the truth, but the BALANCE of the evidence suggests suicide. But no one will ever prove it conclusively because no one but Kelly was there. However, I think it is down to the naysayers to prove it was not suicide, not the other way round. All kinds of people are trying to jump on the bandwagon, from dodgy doctors to Norman Lamb. But remember Hilda Murrell and let it be a lesson to you.

    One point puzzles me. The ulnar artery was completely severed. From my memory of A level biology severed arteries tend not to close up because they are taking blood pumped from the heart. Just a thought.

  • angrysoba

    “But no one will ever prove it conclusively because no one but Kelly was there. However, I think it is down to the naysayers to prove it was not suicide, not the other way round.”

    Of course. But every attempt to crowbar in a conspiracy theory turns up nothing very compelling.

    It’s not that I am trying to “defend” the suicide theory, I am just pointing out that the alternatives are very weak.

    If dreollin was a scientist or was writing a doctorate he would have his “findings” rigourously pored over and challenged by his peers. What would he do if they are unmoved by his arguments? Flounce off in a huff like he has done today?

  • MJ

    “no one but Kelly was there”

    That is not known.

    “severed arteries tend not to close up”

    But there was very little blood by the body, suggesting either the arteries were cut after death or that the body was moved. Also he had ingested only a therapeutic dose of co-proxamol.

    “it is down to the naysayers to prove it was not suicide, not the other way round”

    Why? On the known facts a presumption of suicide appears premature and unwarranted. Surely it is down to an inquest to establish the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt?

  • eddie

    Blood – he was out of doors on soil. Blood soaks into soil. Who would expect a pool of blood around a body that was on soil? He took up to 29 co-proxamol. That’s not therapuetic where I live. ALl the known facts point to suicide.

    P.S. Dreoilin is a she.

  • MJ

    “Blood soaks into soil”

    It would still be readily discernible.

    “He took up to 29 co-proxamol”

    He ingested three. There were empty packets around, but he had not ingested the contents – an important distinction.

    “Dreoilin is a she”

    I’m aware of that. It was angrysoba who drew the wrong conclusion from insufficient evidence (perhaps not for the first time).

  • angrysoba

    “I’m aware of that. It was angrysoba who drew the wrong conclusion from insufficient evidence (perhaps not for the first time).”

    I’m not bothered enough to find out.

    But apologies to dreoilin for bending her gender.

    She can believe what she likes, obviously, but she can’t expect not to be called on it and probably shouldn’t get annoyed so easily.

  • Jaded.

    Angrysoba:

    ‘Sweet dreams. Check under the bed for secret service before you turn in, though.’

    Why check under the bed when we have dogsbody agents on Craig’s blog? They are certainly unimportant dullards, but the root of their employment does stem from a SIS agenda. I found the following piece very entertaining. Take note of the pretending to be 3 or 4 people and working in shifts. LMAO. How much do you subhuman, sick freaks of nature earn anyway? £5 an hour? What would your family think? Maybe Jaded will tell them and out you all. Ha ha. 😉 Anyhow, here it is. The last little paragraph is also a little gem:

    ‘Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings, according to a recently uncovered article Sunstein wrote for the Journal of Political Philosophy.

    As we have often warned, chat rooms, social networks and particularly article comment sections are routinely “gamed” by trolls, many of whom pose as numerous different people in order to create a fake consensus, who attempt to debunk whatever information is being discussed, no matter how credible and well documented. We have seen this on our own websites for years and although some of those individuals were acting of their own accord, a significant number appeared to be working in shifts, routinely posting the same talking points over and over again.

    It is a firmly established fact that the military-industrial complex which also owns the corporate media networks in the United States has numerous programs aimed at infiltrating prominent Internet sites and spreading propaganda to counter the truth about the misdeeds of the government and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    In 2006 CENTCOM, the United States Central Command, announced that a team of employees would be hired to engage “bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information,” about the so-called war on terror.

    In May 2008, it was revealed that the Pentagon was expanding “Information Operations” on the Internet by setting up fake foreign news websites, designed to look like independent media sources but in reality carrying direct military propaganda.

    Countries like Israel have also admitted to creating an army of online trolls whose job it is to infiltrate anti-war websites and act as apologists for the Zionist state’s war crimes.

    In January last year, the US Air Force announced a “counter-blog” response plan aimed at fielding and reacting to material from bloggers who have “negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.”

    The plan, created by the public affairs arm of the Air Force, includes a detailed twelve-point “counter blogging” flow-chart that dictates how officers should tackle what are described as “trolls,” “ragers,” and “misguided” online writers.

    New revelations highlight the fact that the Obama administration is deliberately targeting “conspiracy groups” as part of a Cointelpro style effort to silence what have become the government’s most vociferous and influential critics.

    A d v e r t i s e m e n t

    In a 2008 article published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, Obama information czar Cass Sunstein outlined a plan for the government to stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

    The aim of the program would be to “(break) up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories,” wrote Sunstein, with particular reference to 9/11 truth organizations.

    Sunstein pointed out that simply having people in government refute conspiracy theories wouldn’t work because they are inherently untrustworthy, making it necessary to “Enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts,” he wrote.

    “Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy,” writes Marc Estrin.

    “It’s easy to destroy groups with “cognitive diversity.” You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don’t come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.”

    This is what Sunstein is advocating when he writes of the need to infiltrate conspiracy groups and sow seeds of distrust amongst members in order to stifle the number of new recruits. This is classic “provocateur” style infiltration that came to the fore during the Cointelpro years, an FBI program from 1956-1971 that was focused around disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents.

    “Sunstein argued that “government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories.” He suggested that “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action,” reports Raw Story.

    Sunstein has also called for making websites liable for comments posted in response to articles. His book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some as “a blueprint for online censorship.”

    The Infowars office has been visited on numerous occasions by the FBI as a result of people posting violent comments in response to articles. Since the government now employs people to post such comments in an attempt to undermine conspiracy websites, if a law were passed making websites accountable, Sunstein’s program would allow the government to obliterate such sites from the web merely by having their own hired goons post threats against public figures.

    The fact that the government is being forced to hire armies of trolls in an effort to silence the truth shows how worried they are about the effect we are having in waking up millions of people to their tyranny.’

  • Clark

    Jaded,

    I’ve been worried about the matters you raise above for some time.

    It seems to me that it is VITAL to NOT accuse people of being paid trolls. Firstly, it makes the accuser look paranoid. Secondly, remember that such people can post either way. You have no way of knowing if I’m trolling, and I don’t know if you are; people who’s opinion you hope to change will just be made to feel alienated if they are accused of being part of a conspiracy.

    Consider this also. ‘John’, who believes a mainstream fallacy, is following a discussion between ‘Jim’ and a ‘Troll’. ‘Troll’ writes things the ‘John’ innocently believes, ‘cos he saw them on telly. ‘Jim’ calls ‘Troll’ a troll. To ‘John’, it seems that ‘Troll’ has been maligned.

    It’s a minefield, isn’t it? But take heart. There IS truth, and sensible, rational argument converges upon it, though not always as quickly as we might wish.

    So don’t let your comments become personal. Site original sources. Unfortunately, infowars won’t do, we need the original articles. I don’t dispute that there’s a lot of good stuff on Infowars, but it’s mixed with less reliable stuff which taints it.

    And if you’re ever feeling wound up, take a breather.

  • Clark

    Sorry, I made a mistake in my third paragraph that wrecks the meaning. Here’s the corrected version:

    Consider this also. ‘John’, who believes a mainstream fallacy, is following a discussion between ‘Jim’ and a paid troll, whom I shall call ‘Troll’. ‘Troll’ writes things the ‘John’ innocently believes, ‘cos he saw them on telly. ‘Jim’ calls ‘Troll’ a troll. To ‘John’, it seems that ‘Troll’ has been maligned.

  • technicolour

    I don’t care if someone is a “paid troll” or not, as long as they are interesting. They’re still people, right?

  • technicolour

    but it’s funny how all the people being accused of it seem to be the least paid trollish ones, I think.

  • angrysoba

    JaDumkopf:

    You wrote a lot of words there. Let me tell you it was a waste of time because I only read the first thirty or forty of them.

    You are boring.

    Your family have no doubt told you that.

    I didn’t read the rest.

    Goodbye.

1 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.