40 1 min 9 yrs

Well, we can honestly say we have now seen it all.

The Lebanese Tourism Department is complaining about the depiction of its Capital city, Beirut, as a terrorist haven in the TV drama ‘Homeland, which is silly enough.

Then the news arrives that at least eight are dead in a massive car bombing which kills the Security Minister.


Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

40 thoughts on “and then two arrive at once…

  1. Assad and his genocidal thugs from Syria have been blamed. The explosive will be Iranian or Russian. Expect significant retaliation soon.

  2. No evidence offered about Syrian culpability, but the meme is out and about and that’s what sticks in the docile minds of the general public. Likewise, I have no evidence that Mossad was involved but who gains?

  3. The Damascus regime is fighting for its survival. Organising terror attacks abroad might be something of a distraction in that case.

  4. Well who else could possibly have a motive to commit mass-murder in Beirut at this particular time? The Syrians have loads of previous here, including several assassinations of senior Lebanese politicians. They regard Lebanon as their back yard and Hezbollah is their sworn ally.

  5. Peter –

    Yes, Damascus has plenty of previous here, not to mention Hezbollah. The attack could be the work of one or both.

    Then again, Israel also has plenty of previous there and Mossad knows how to set off a car bomb in Beirut.

    The dust hasn’t settled and Damascus is being blamed. Experience should suggest that it’s best to wait instead of accepting what the MSM immediately says.

  6. So there is evidence that can be shown which ties the explosion to Syria or is this just baseless speculation?

    Colm – exactly what is the point of the comment at 10.10?

  7. Colm – is there any evidence linking Syria to the explosion? I’ve read the report in The Guardian and it offers nothing other than “speculation”. As you know, speculation is neither news nor reporting.


    – Speculation was already rife that Syria, or its allies, were behind the attack in Beirut on Friday despite the quick condemnation by Damascus of the bombing. –

  8. Allan

    Who had motive? I assume you are attempting to suggest that the culprit is Israel but why would they want to destabilise Lebanon when Syria is in melt-down?

  9. Syria is not in meltdown – it is under externally-funded attack. And whenever has Israel not had motive to meddle murderously in the affairs of its neighbours?

    See page 2, items 1 – 6. Btw the Brookings Institute is one of the most influential think-tanks in the US governmental sector. Creating further disturbance on Syria’s borders and blaming the Syrian regime for those troubles makes perfect sense when you sit in the Brookings Institute.

  10. Allan

    Yes there is a lot of evidence linking Syria to the explosion. I have been gathering it in a big dossier and I will be taking it to my local police station tomorrow. If I don’t get kidnapped by Mossad first !

    How the hell am I (or any of us tapping away at our keyboards in our cosy little British homes) supposed to have the foggiest clue who planted a bomb in a Beirut street ?

  11. But Spain is in meltdown – not that anybody who watches ‘mainstream’ news would know. In fact, the authorities in Spain are intending to outlaw filming of police doing their ‘duties’, duties which include beating demonstrators against banker-driven austerity which has led to unemployment rates of 25% generally and 50% in the under-25s.

    Watch this and make up your own minds:

  12. Colm – exactly my point. None of us has a clue so if you don’t mind, don’t blame Syria until there is evidence (not proof – just a bit of credible evidence).

  13. Allan

    When the evidence is produced you will claim it is a fake, all part of the vast worldwide zionist conspiracy.

  14. Colm – when I pointed out that Israel could equally be culpable, and there are plenty of precedents, and Pete Moore added that there was no evidence linking Syria, your post at 9.59 mocked the possibility of Israeli involvement. It isn’t for nothing that Mossad’s motto is ‘By deception, shalt thou make war’ and this could easily be one of those cases.

    Peter – oh look! Here is part of that worldwide zionist conspiracy:

    “I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran, which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming [i.e., if the Iranians will not shut down their nuclear program], the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests. So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.”

    “Look, people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Someday one of them might not come up. Who would know why?… We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.”

  15. Allan

    I fail to see how anything I have written on this thread mocks the possibility of any country’s involvement. I would no more be in a position to reject Israeli involvement than Syrian, Saudi Arabian or Outer Mongolian ! I don’t know where you get this idea that I have picked sides in this event.

  16. Colm – at 8.41, Peter wrote that “Assad and his genocidal thugs from Syria have been blamed”.

    At 8.51, I wrote “No evidence offered about Syrian culpability…Likewise, I have no evidence that Mossad was involved”

    Posts by Peter and Pete then speculate on whether it could be Syria or Israel as the culprit. NB Syria or Israel – only two possibilities cited: Syria by peter and Israel by me (and Pete).

    At 9.59, you wrote “Pete – Wait until who’s (sic) definitve conclusion ? Allan’s ?”

    Given that only two possibilities had been cited and your post mocks the possibility of it being Israel without mentioning any other possible culprit, the only remaining possible culprit is Syria. Now Colm, if you fail to see how your post doesn’t point a finger at Syria then that is your failing.

  17. Allan

    Not at all. My comment was just a dig at your reputation as ATW’s great conspiracist. It wasn’t actually relevent to the countries being mentioned. You could have been blaming Belgium for all I cared. I honestly have no irons in this particular middle eastern fire. I know I have this annoying habit of making silly comments in serious threads, but that’s all it was. If you want to credit me with an analysis of this event that I don’t possess that’s your perogative.

  18. Colm – when I put forward one of my ‘great conspiracies’, I back it with evidence, evidence which I expect readers to look at which is why I attach links and cite the supportive text. In this instance, there is no evidence at all linking Syria to the explosion in Beirut, nothing but “speculation” as I showed with the linked report in The Guardian. Therefore one must conclude that the blaming of Syria is nothing but a genuine conspiracy theory – because there is no evidence.

  19. Allan

    You don’t and are not in any position to back any of your claims with evidence. What you do is Google for other websites which have ‘information’ backing your theories. How do we know that those other websites aren’t fakes or simply repeating lies. Anybody on the internet can ‘prove’ anything by posting links to other websites. If I posted a million links to websites which claim Elvis is still alive does that mean he must be ?

    There is of course only one single truth as to who caused that Beirut bomb but there will be thousands of pieces of ‘evidence’ on the web claiming it was others. Posting links on forums is never proof.

  20. PS Allan. My above comment is not a particular accusation toward you. I would say the same about anyone here. Forums like these are places to express opinions, but nobody here can prove the source of events of which we have no direct involvement like the Beirut bomb.

  21. Colm – show me any single ‘conspiracy’ where I have not backed my argument with supporting evidence. Note particularly that I don’t use the words ‘proof’ or ‘prove’ but you somehow attribute that to me. Here is something which I wrote a few weeks ago:

    Allan@Aberdeen, on September 23rd, 2012 at 12:32 am Said:

    I’ve written several times on this site that it is extremely difficult, almost impossible, to ‘prove’ from a PC and internet scouring an argument to a point of being beyond dispute. All I offer on any thread is evidence to back my argument as ‘proof’ to any reasonable definition is not possible.

    Here is a good example and it is in my technical field.

    On 9/11, building 7 fell into its own footprint at freefall acceleration. This is typical of controlled demolition and can only occur when the supporting columns of the structure are destroyed simultaneously or in a closely-times specific order e.g. taking out the innermost columns slightly prior to the outer columns. Here is the video evidence which is strongly supportive of the points above:


  22. Allan

    Even if it was true that the collapse of the twin towers had been caused by rigged explosions and done so to effect the dramatic political repercussions why on earth would the perpetrators have also felt the need to also rig any other surrounding buildings wirh explosives. Surely collapsing the 2 towers would be more than sufficient to effect the intended consequences. It doesn’t make the slightest sense at all to also rig up smaller surrounding buildings with explosives. It’s hardly as if the government could only justify invading Afghanistan/Iraq if building 7 also came down !

  23. Colm – please stop with the diversions. You made a couple of points and I’m engaging directly with you on them. At 10.49am today, you declared that I attempt to ‘prove’ points whereas I have always stated that it is impossible to provide ‘proof’ (conclusive of an argument) but that I always provide supportive evidence. In this instance, almost uniquely, I can and did provide absolute proof that your assertion is wrong.

    You also stated that I don’t back my arguments with evidence. I now ask you to provide such an example.

    As for building 7, I’m not going to get tangled up in any ‘theories’ – the video evidence of itself is compelling enough.

  24. Allan

    OK I will repeat my earlier comment from 10.49 as you seem to have missed it.

    “You don’t and are not in any position to back any of your claims with evidence.”

    Nothing you have posted is evidence. It is just youtube clips and other websites that people have posted. Not a shred of it is evidence in any concrete factual manner any more than people claiming they have seen Elvis in the supermarket is ‘evidence’ that he is alive.

  25. Hundreds of videos of a man appearing to be Elvis in a supermarket might be evidence that he’s alive.

    Actual footage of what might be a building collapsing at freefall speed into its own footprint is evidence (not proof) that the supporting columns were knocked out precisely to achieve that outcome.

  26. Colm – in all of the threads on which I have commented and attached supporting evidence, would you provide an instance when the attached evidence is of the level of your ‘Elvis lives’ theory i.e. totally off the wall?

    Btw, why did you invoke ‘Elvis lives’? Is it that you needed something absolutely ridiculous to make some kind of failed strawman argument. Why not mention that Elvis was the first man on the moon? Sad, really.

  27. Allan

    The idea that Elvis is still alive is more sensible than that the twin towers were destroyed by controlled explosives.

  28. Colm – I provided evidence relating to building 7 and not the twin towers which is a different case. The video footage is direct and has been analysed with respect to the physics of its speed of collapse: that is what I provided as a case for me making an argument and backing it with evidence. So far, you have not made a single dent in the validity of that evidence.

    Nonetheless, you have also failed to provide back-up to your asssertion that I do not provide evidence to my arguments but merely information – I assume you mean that it’s random and unrelated to the matter in discussion.

    If you consider the idea that Elvis being alive is more sensible than the twin towers having been destroyed by explosives, would you provide some supporting evidence?

  29. Evidence is just stuff that people consider and draws them to a conclusion. It might be rubbish but that’s another matter.

  30. Colm – the problem with arguing with conspiracy nutcases is they don’t stop. Real facts never bother their imagined ones.

Comments are closed.