But why now?
The computers were destroyed last July.
Why has this footage not been on the front page of The Guardian? To show to us just how cruel and dastardly GCHQ are?
The reporter with this 'breaking' news is Luke Harding. Harding hates Russia, and the feeling is mututal, for Harding was kicked out of Russia for his anti-Russia Anti-Putin 'journalism'.
There is a clue in the report:
The bizarre episode in the basement of the Guardian's London HQ was the climax of Downing Street's fraught interactions with the Guardian in the wake of Snowden's leak – the biggest in the history of western intelligence. The details are revealed in a new book – The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man – by the Guardian correspondent Luke Harding. The book, published next week, describes how the Guardian took the decision to destroy its own Macbooks after the government explicitly threatened the paper with an injunction.
[source : Footage released of Guardian editors destroying Snowden hard drives, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq, 31st January 2014]
The Guardian blatantly took sides with Mikhail Khordokovsky, backing him, pushing his case as political, even publishing an editorial under his name, while Khordokovsky was where he belonged, in jail for ripping off the Russian people. Khordokovsky is a Rothschild asset. Khordokovsky had a deal with Lord Jacob Rothschild that Khordokovsky's shares in Yukos would go to Rothschild, and when Khordokovsky launched the Open Russia Foundation he did so at Somerset House in London, which is owned by the Rothschilds, and with himself, Henry Kissinger and Lord Jacob Rothschild on the board of trustees.
So from this we can guess that The Guardian is also an asset of the Rothschilds.
But when we also add into the mix my analysis of the editorials of The Guardian/Observer in THE GUARDIAN AND ITS ROLE IN ACCUSING ASSAD AND PUSHING FOR WAR ON SYRIA from 18th December 2013, then we begin to see a definite pro-establishment pro-Zionist position in the editorials of The Guardian.
And this is the newspaper that brought us Ed Snowden!
And now this very belated release of footage of the editorial team smashing their computers up which gives the impression that The Guardian is so anti-Establishment. But The Guardian is anything but!
As Dr Webster Tarpley says; you don't get to be on the front page unless the establishment wants you to know something.
So why would the establishment want you to know you were being spied on?
One analysis, and one with which I concur, is that the Snowden revelations began less than a week after there was a very significant turning point in the violence in Syria (NB I do not call it a civil war), when the Syrian Arab Army recaptured al Qusair, which was a massive logistics hub for the rebels. Things have been going down hill very quickly for the rebels since then. But before then President Obama had been under huge pressure to attack Syria, being implicated in a series of minor scandals, but he wisely refused. There were also several allegations that Assad had crossed Obama's now infamous 'red line' and had used chemical weapons, for example at Khan al Assal, but as usual it was shown that it was the rebels who used them. The Snowden revelations may have had some effect. Shortly after they began Obama changed his mind and decided that Assad had crossed Obama's red line. But still no war.
So Prince Bandar organised the false flag of Ghouta.
But there is another analysis that is equally as valid. Previous NSA whistleblowers had been ignored, such as Russell Tice and Wayne Madsen. But somehow, Snowden got the front page.
Why?
One of the less-remembered parts of the Osama bin Laden fairytale was that the NSA had a hard time keeping track of his communications with his Al CIAda operatives. Why? Because, as General Michael Hayden told CBS News back in early 2001, bin Laden used standard encryption and off-the-shelf American telecommunication products.
Sound unbelievable? That’s because it is. As they go on to admit in that very same report, they were tracking bin Laden’s satellite phone after all, and as James Bamford and others have described in exhaustive detail, the NSA was monitoring Al Qaeda’s “communications hub” in Yemen for years prior to 9/11, and purposefullly withholding most of that information from the CIA bin Laden unit. But the idea that the NSA just wasn’t able to track bin Laden because of his dastardly technology was a key meme for the NSA to implant in the immediate wake of 9/11. That’s why the Hayden interview was replayed on CBS less than 48 hours after the attacks, and that’s why, as recently declassified documents show, the NSA used 9/11 as an official talking point to justify their illegal surveillance of Americans.
This meme, of course, was a lie. As NSA insiders have pointed out for years, most if not all of the current illegal collections programs began before 9/11, but the false flag events of September 11th provided the perfect justification for the revelation and expansion of those programs.
[source : The NSA Fiasco: A Carefully Choreographed Stage Show, CRG, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-nsa-fiasco-a-carefully-choreographed-stage-show/5365992, 27th January 2014]
And it is that last quoted paragraph that needs to be read again and again.
All that Snowden's revelations have done is:
1. informed us that we are being spied on every nanosecond of the day, so get used to it (and most of the brain dead public have);
2. it is all dodgy but nobody is being prosecuted;
3. we are being told that despite all this dodgy spying the spying agencies need much, much more surveillance powers because of 'al Qaeda'.
Yet, on point 3, we created al Qaeda, gave them sanctuary in London through the Covenant of Security, and allowed preachers like Michael Adebalajo to preach Jihad against Syria (Adebalajo then butchered Lee Rigby).
It's all a sad, sad farce.
It's gud 'ere, innit?
No comments:
Post a Comment