Sunday, 30 September 2012

Is the public enemy no.1?

September 2012

As the world was distracted by the great Olympic sideshow, Britain and the US admitted to giving military aid to the insurgents in Syria. "And we will give them more", stated UK Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the US of trying to justify terrorism.

Kabul Press notes the lack of comment from the US administration on the assassination of Syria's Foreign Minister, suggesting that they are encouraging Syrian suicide bombers.

An article in Iran's Press TV website claims that NATO has secretly authorised an attack on Syria.

History is repeating itself. The mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from Iraq. Yet Syria seems to be the line drawn in the sand, as far as Russia and China are concerned.

Attempts to isolate Iran, again on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction, are now looking ridiculous, as 120 nations assemble in Tehran for a conference of the Non-Aligned Movement.

"Non-Aligned Movement: Tehran's new secret weapon?" asks an article on the Russia Today website:

Leaders and ranking envoys from more than 120 developing nations flew to Tehran this week to attend the 16th summit of the NAM. There, they are expected to throw their support behind Iran in its standoff with the UN Security Council and the ‘big six’ of world powers. Basking in the publicity they are usually deprived of by international media, the leaders of “underdeveloped and unprivileged” nations (to use the NAM’s parlance), will feel like real movers and shakers in world politics. At least, for the five days before they return home.

Yet who is the enemy? They keep saying that terrorist incidents bear all the hallmarks of Al Qaida. I pointed out in my July newsletter that Al Qaida always has been a US database of CIA operatives and their co-fighters, and that perhaps it should be written as 'Al CIA da'.

An analysis of the possible links with the CIA has since been published by Elias Davidsson on the website Muslims for 9/11 Truth, under the heading 'Al-CIA-duh exposed! Who are Al Qaeda's enemies?'

I think we were all relieved that there wasn't a terrorist attack on London during the Olympics, but it's not over yet. The Paralympics ends on the 9th of September. In an article headed 'Imminent terror attack on London?', the Iranian television website Press TV has published further reasons to think that an attack may have been planned.

In September 2011 the Westfield Stratford City Mall, situated next to the Olympic Park, was opened by former Executive Chairman and General President of the Westfield Group Frank Lowy. "Frank Lowy and his copartner Larry Silverstein had rented the whole World Trade Center (WTC) for 99 years just a few weeks before the 9/11 attacks", the article states. It also points out:

"The WTC complex buildings 1, 2, and 7 along with Westfield Hotel were ruined in the 9/11 attacks, so Silverstein and the Westfield company pocketed about $5.4 billion from the attacks".

I think that must have been the Marriott Hotel, owned by the Westfield Group. Other Marriott Hotels which suffered terrorist attacks were those in Islamabad (2008-09-20) and Jakarta (2008-07-17). "With regard to Lowy's talent for investment in places that are victims of terrorist attacks, the question raises that [of] whether the Olympic Park would be a possible target for terrorist attacks. The insurance companies have been committed to compensate about $7 billion for lost profits, if terrorist attacks happen", the article suggests

I think we have to regard the scenario analysis published by the Rockefeller Foundation, which I reported on in my July newsletter, as being just that: four possible scenarios, one of which was the 'Hack Attack' involving a terrorist attack during the London Olympics. That document could have been put out to sound out ideas amongst the insiders, in rather a similar way that think tank reports in the UK can be put out to sound out political ideas before politicians have the courage to talk about them in public. Perhaps someone should be analysing the other three scenarios put out by the Rockefeller Foundation.

I think there's not much doubt that the London Olympics must have been the most militarised and draconian ever. I don't think there can be many people left in the UK who would not agree that the Olympics were taken over by giant corporations. Stories of the 'brand police' defending the commercial rights of these corporations against other business told us whose side the Establishment was on. The most ludicrous of these that I came across was the announcement of an investigation when unofficial condoms were found in the Olympic village.

So what's it all about? Suppose this were extended to the whole country, not just for the Olympics, but forever, with G4S running the brand police, the rest of the police, the prisons and possibly parts of the the judicial system, too. That's what Mussolini called Fascism. When I say we are governed by corporations, most people nowadays seem to agree. That is how close we are. Could it be that the Olympic circus was just an exercise for the coming Fascist state?

There's been a lot of nonsense, as well as a lot of sense, talked of the year 2012. My own interpretation has been that 2012 is the culmination of a twenty-year operation to introduce the draconian New World Order. This may have consisted of four five-year plans following the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. In the UK these stages look like: stage 1 (1992 - 1997) establishment of New Labour, Demos, etc; stage 2 (1998- 2002): pretexts for Blair's wars; stage 3 (2003 - 2007) chaos in the Middle East and fear at home; stage 4 (2008 - 2012): financial control. So perhaps there's now a fifth stage (2013 - 2017): consolidation of the corporate / Fascist state.

In my July newsletter I mentioned Richard Cottrell's idea that Tony Blair may be positioning himself to come back as Prime Minister. I thought he could never be an elected leader ever again, so if he was to become Prime Minister again they would get some clown elected in 2015 - perhaps the current Mayor of London Boris Johnson - then let Tony Blair take over in 2017.

I asked Richard for his thoughts on this, and he wrote back, "I think we are mistaken that Bliar is popularly unelectable. I am afraid the electorate in the UK is now so dumbed down (just the same here in Italia, btw) that Iraq happened somewhere in the Old Testament, ...". He wrote that he thought there'll be a new openly 'National Socialist' movement, building on the rather successful New Labour model, except this will be a mass movement with distinct fascist overtones and organisation. "Somewhere in London", he wrote, "the blueprints are being worked on right now. The elimination of all opposition groups will lead the way to compulsory membership if there's to be any kind life for the ordinary individual: jobs, access to health and education, housing, even food - and the right to travel, especially abroad. Of course it won't happen overnight, it will 'evolve' with the assistance of a few dramatic false flags here and there". It's a chilling thought, but if you look at Tony Blair's website and you understand Orwellian newspeak, it's believable.

Tony Blair came under attack from Archbishop Desmond Tutu in The Observer, in an article explaining why he refused to share a platform with Tony Blair at the 'Discovery Invest Leadership Summit' in Johannesburg the previous week. He wrote that those responsible for the suffering and loss of life arising from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 "should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague".

It was a good time to bury bad news for the Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq war. Publication of the findings of the inquiry, which began in 2009, has been delayed for at least a further year, owing to the refusal of the government to release cabinet papers. However, the Chilcott committee has had access to those papers; the only issue is whether the papers can be released to the public. So why can't Chilcott go ahead with the report, even if it is partly based on evidence which they cannot publish? According to The Guardian article: "Chilcot has said Blair's claim that MI6 established 'beyond doubt' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was 'not possible to make on the basis of intelligence'".

The Daily Mail reacted with an editorial, beginning:

"Tony Blair stands accused, by this paper among many other observers, of one of the most serious abuses of power a prime minister can commit. The charge is that he made a private agreement with George Bush to join the US in an offensive war against Iraq. Then, with the aid of spin doctor Alastair Campbell, he wildly exaggerated evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a deadly threat to this country, so as to persuade the Cabinet, Parliament and the British people that the invasion was justified".

What puzzles me is that the Daily Mail can condemn Tony Blair for deception over the Iraq War but remain quiet on deception over the Afghan War. Shortly after 9/11 Tony Blair told Parliament that he had proof that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, and that he would make the evidence available to MPs, who would be able to read it after the debate in the House of Commons Library. The document he deposited there said little more than he had told the Commons, and he could just as easily have presented that to the Commons as the speech he gave. That was plain deception. <

Now history is repeating itself, with talk of possible use of chemical weapons by Syria, and development of a nuclear bomb by Iran, with Israel threatening to bomb Iran and presidential candidate Mitt Romney giving them the green light if he is elected as US President. If Israel were to carry out its threat it's unlikely they could disrupt any underground nuclear facility in Iran, unless they themselves dropped a nuclear bomb on Tehran in order to wipe out all the people involved. In carrying out any bombing campaign they would have most of the world against them, including many in Israel and the US. And if Tehran did have a nuclear bomb, could they use it? Their Muslim neighbours in Pakistan haven't used theirs yet.

In this war rhetoric against Iran, Mitt Romney stated that Iran had "seized embassies". That is exactly what UK Foreign Secretary William Hague threatened to do to the London embassy of Ecuador, in order to arrest Julian Assange, who has been granted political asylum by Ecuador, and is now residing in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. On 19 August Julian Assange gave a speech from the embassy balcony, but beforehand, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray gave a speech outside, in which he stated:

"The Vienna Convention is absolutely plain. The Vienna Convention of 1961 is the single most subscribed international treaty in existence, and it states in article 22 section 1 that the diplomatic premises of an embassy are inviolable. Full Stop. Are inviable. You can not invade the embassy of another country. As Tariq [Ali] rightly said, there were times when I sheltered Uzbek citizens from their government within the confines of the British embassy in Uzbekistan. Even during the height of the tensions of the Cold War the opposing parties never entered each other's embassies to abduct a dissident. The fact that William Hague now openly threatens the Ecuadorians with the invasion of their sovereign premises is one further example of the total abandonment of the very concept of international law by the Neoconservative juntas that are currently ruling the former Western democracies [cheering]".

He went on to say:

"And I tell you this: in international law and in Ecuadorian law, whatever British domestic legislation may say, if the Metropolitan Police enter the premises of the Ecuadorian embassy they are subject to Ecuadorian law, and they are committing a crime under Ecuadorian law [cheering] and for this as individuals policemen are quite likely liable to prosecution [cheering]".

Answering a question from a journalist, Craig Murray said that the British diplomatic service was extremely unhappy at this threat by William Hague, and that it makes every British embassy around the world liable to invasion. The video and a full transcript were published on the Democracy Now website.

Craig Murray wrote in his blog the following day that a Guardian editorial claimed that he had omitted all mention of the sexual allegations against Julian Assange, and that the Guardian had made no attempt to indicate the gist of what he had actually said. He wrote that even the New York Times had at least got to the point, when reporting: "a former British diplomat, Craig Murray, asserted that Mr. Assange had been 'fitted up with criminal offenses' as a pretext".

The Guardian had earlier been working with Julian Assange in publishing some of the material which he had provided.

"The Guardian's shrill and vitriolic campaign against Assange is extraordinary in its ferocity, persistence and pointless repetition", he wrote, "The sad truth is that its origins lie in the frustration of the Guardian's hopes to make a great deal of cash from involvement in Assange's putative memoirs".

Perhaps the sad truth is that otherwise the Ecuadorian embassy might get a little overcrowded.

The following day, Craig Murray appeared on Newsnight, and said, "I think there are elements of a set-up", and outlined why. He was widely criticised for naming Anna Ardin as one of the women who had made allegations against Julian Assange. He defended this on the grounds that this information was already widely known, and, indeed, Anna Ardin had herself publicised her case by giving interviews to the press. He also pointed out that the BBC had repeatedly named Nafissatou Diallo, the alleged rape victim of Dominique Strauss Kahn, while the criminal investigation into the alleged rape was still in progress. "Why the contradiction?", he asked.

In the same edition of Newsnight, a video clip of Respect Party MP George Galloway was shown, in which he stated: 'The Julian Assange Sex Crime Allegations, If True, Are Not Rape'. This attracted widespread condemnation in the press, though I don't recall any similar condemnation when former cabinet minister and now veteran anti-war campaigner Tony Benn told the Stop the War Coalition on 7 February 2011, "The charge of rape simply doesn't stand up to examination". It's important to point out, though, that Julian Assange hasn't been charged; he's only wanted for questioning. The Swedish government's website states: "Within the EU the procedure for extradition has in general been replaced by surrender according to the European Arrest Warrent".

So I'm confused.

US feminist Naomi Wolf told Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight that the Assange case was being treated differently from other similar alleged rape cases in Sweden.

Canadian author Naomi Klein, too, on December 2010 tweeted: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade afghanistan. Wake up!"

Australian author and film director John Pilger wrote on 23 August that the British government's threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy in London and seize Julian Assange is of "historic significance". "Hague has made a laughing stock of Britain across the world", he wrote. "It is as if the Olympics happy-clappery has been subverted overnight by a revealing display of colonial thuggery", he continued, going onto the "Guardian's perfidious role in the whole Assange affair". He also wrote of a Pentagon document which described how Julian Assange would be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to "criminal prosecution".

I have to say that there has been some scepticism within the 9/11 Truth Movement concerning Wikileaks. The amount of information and the amount of editing would suggest that there must be a national intelligence agency at work behind it. Some commentators whose analyses I generally value were taking this line, such as Gordon Duff of Veterans Today, who in December 2010 thought that Wikileaks was a Mossad operation and Webster Tarpley argues that Wikileaks is a CIA operation.

It's possible, of course, that Julian Assange himself doesn't know where the information is coming from, since Wikileaks is the publisher rather than the spying network. It's quite possible that such an operation would be used by national intelligence agencies. One possibility that no-one ever seems to consider is that Russia could be behind Wikileaks. Julian Assange has had his own show on Russia Today, and the Russian intelligence services would surely not let their television station fall into such a trap. Russia does have an interest in limiting NATO's advance throughout the world, as we all have, and it would be expected that they would have some operation to counter the CIA/MI6 subversion that they are reporting across the globe, including Russia. Selective reporting would be expected, even if only to avoid revealing their sources. Russia Today does regularly interview people who are active in the truth movement in Britain and the US.

Daniel Estulin, famous for his revelations on the secretive Bilderberg meetings, has just published a book called 'Deconstructing Wikileaks'. The author "freely admits to some ambivalence in his opinion of Wikileaks".

Whatever the truth, the propaganda war continues. John Pilger's latest film 'The War You Don't See' is now available to watch online. It's about the role of journalists in military propaganda. "If people really knew the truth", British prime minister Lloyd George told the editor of The Manchester Guardian in 1917, "the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know, and can't know".

"Never has so much official energy been expended in ensuring journalists collude with the makers of rapacious wars which, say the media-friendly generals, are now "perpetual". In echoing the west's more verbose warlords, such as the waterboarding former US vice-president Dick Cheney, who predicated "50 years of war", they plan a state of permanent conflict wholly dependent on keeping at bay an enemy whose name they dare not speak: the public."

"What are you going to do about it?", asked John Pilger four times on 26 April 2012 in an article headed 'You are all suspects now. What are you going to do about it?'. I intend to do exactly what I have been urging others to do, and what we in '9/11 Keep Talking' are doing, and what John Pilger, Craig Murray and many others have been doing: Keep Talking!

No comments:

Post a Comment