COINCIDENCE OR PERFECT TIMING?

So when Tony Blair is giving a speech at Georgetown University about reforming world governing organizations, and after W and he spoke of their regret at the way Iraq has gone and requesting more support, shots are reported to be heard at a building next to the Capitol leading to the Capitol, the home of US government, being closed and evacuated, TWICE! Both reports turned out to be false.

When the G8 was in Scotland last year and Benjamin Netanyahu and Australian PM John Howard were in London, there was a bomb attack on London Underground.

Are these just more concidences, like Dick Cheney supervising simulations of terrorist attacks on the US Eastern air space, simulation she organised and which were very similar to the attacks that actually occured in real life on 9/11?

Coincidences, or perfect timing?

A WORLD OF VOYEURS

Big Brother 7 starts this Thursday (whooppee!). This is the TV programme I despise the most. Why?
1. it is conditioning us to total surveillance
2. it is encouraging voyeurism, leading to more pornography

As The Sun reports today

BIG Brother bosses have put THREE double beds in the house to encourage sex romps.

And they have hidden a secret camera in a 5ft-high rabbit-shaped hedge to keep a close eye on housemates.

There were just two double beds in 2005’s Big Brother, but this year show chiefs are going all out for action between the sheets.

The bathroom also features a tub big enough for a THREESOME.

The housemates are set to include blonde Lea Walker, 35, a divorced mum of one who sold her house to pay for plastic surgery and starred in a porn flick.

In the last year or so Channel 4 has run two weeks examining the sex industry. I have yet to see a single one hour documentary on the fraudulent fractional reserve banking system which allows a handful of self-appointed money masters to control the world. No, instead of looking at that Channel 4 wants to turn us into a world of voyeurs, in which the intimacy between two people leading to human love is not allowed. All sexual contact will be visible to millions, splashed across newspapers, turning man from loving being to lustful beast. I believe this kind of behaviour can only lead to a growth in the watching of pornography and from there, who knows?

There is only one force which would want that.

AWAITING THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ INCIDENT

The Vietnam War was kicked off by false reports of an attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tunkin.

The 'War on (T)error' was kicked off by 'a New Pearl Harbour', 9/11.

With Cheney foaming at the mouth in trying to find an acceptable excuse to attack Iran and a significant part of the international community opposing Cheney's megalomania another 'incident' is required to persuade enough of the right people that war on Iran is required and/or justified.

A few weeks ago I suspected that another terrorist incident would occur soon after reading of the reception Charlie Sheen received when he suggested to Alex Jones that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition. Over 80% of respondents in a CNN poll supported Sheen! That must have really put the shits up them because Sheen was literally slaughtered in the press, even by our very own Marina Hyde, with nobody addressing the fundamental issues Sheen was raising. 9/11 was PNAC's/Cheney's 'a New Pearl Harbour', giving them reason enough to invade the Middle East and Caspian. But it is also their growing, bleeding, festering sore that is threatening to burst wide open, leading to charges of treason and 1st degree murder against most members of the Bush Administration.

Thus Cheney et al need something, and quick. The 9/11 Truth Movement, and now the 7/7 Truth Movement, are making their cases to larger audiences. People are listening and considering the evidence, and not instantly dismissing it. Cheney can't hang about, thus the proposed Chapter VII resolution which would authorize military action this year, even though it is thought Iran is years from a bomb.

Now Will Thomas reports on what his sources in the US Military have told him about the plans for a US-led attack on Iran. Apparently one of Thomas' sources told him,

“It will be another Gulf of Tonkin,” my source reported. “They want it. They’ll have it. Even if they have to make it.”

Thomas' report is entitled, "US Troops Prepared To Attack Iran. Bush Said To Be Seeking “Persian Gulf Incident”

SO EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE ISC! SHOCK! HORROR! :-()

The Sunday Times is reporting that evidence indicating that Mohammed Sidique Kahn was more of a potential threat than was previously thought has been withheld from the Intelligence and Security Committee during their inquiry into 7/7. This should come as no surprise. The list of witnesses in Annex A of the ISC report reads like a who's who of the gimps who lied to us about Iraq and took us in there on a false pretext.

There is a follow-up article by David Leppard which goes into the withheld evidence in more detail, and it is very damaging. According to the Leppard article

THE CLUES THAT MI5 MISSED AND THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS


Mohammad Sidique Khan led the 7/7 bombers. His phone number was logged by MI5 in 2003 after he was contacted by a known terror suspect already being monitored by the security services. The two men talked about arranging meetings but this was never followed up. Why?

The following year Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, another 7/7 bomber, were bugged over a number of months by MI5 talking about a separate alleged plot to blow up targets in the UK. One of the bugs was placed in a car Khan was driving, yet MI5 says it did not have the “resources” to identify either man. Is this credible? [TTM: er, did it not have a number plate? And if the car was bugged I would guess it was being tracked too.]

Khan and Tanweer visited terror training camps in Pakistan in 2003 and 2004. Their trips were not monitored, say the security services, despite the war on terror being in full flow. Why did MI6, which has substantial resources in Islamabad, fail to pick them up? Why were they not clocked at British ports? [TTM: I would guess they were but were allowed to go on with their terrorist business.]


In the months before the bombings MI5 took a greater interest in Khan for reasons not properly explained. It admits it showed surveillance photos of him to foreign intelligence services and terrorist prisoners in detention centres around the world. Why was MI5 suddenly so interested in Khan? [TTM: to get an idea as to how well known Kahn was before he was allowed to bomb London so that many people wouldn't say, "oh yeah, everybody knew Kahn was a terrorist".]


The telephone number of a third bomber, Germaine Lindsay, was also on MI5 files long before the attacks. This had previously been denied. Lindsay’s Fiat car was linked to a burglary in May 2005, in which a handgun was involved. Lindsay was shown on the police computer as the registered owner, but police inquiries at the time failed to track the car. Why? [TTM: Again, to allow the plot to evolve and happen]


The security services had been monitoring a suspected Islamic fundamentalist in the Beeston area of Leeds that the bombers came from only a year or so before the attacks. He worked in the same extremist bookshop the bombers frequented and he knew them. Why was this not mentioned in the Home Office account last week? [TTM : because this, along with the other evidence, would indicate not incompetence but complicity]



The flat where the bombs were made was sublet to the bombers just a few weeks before the attack. The man who gave them the keys is an Egyptian with a PhD in biochemistry. He left for Cairo eight days before the bombings. Last week he said he was entirely innocent of any involvement. He also confirmed the British authorities have never sought to interview him. Why? [TTM: perhaps he is not innocent and British authorities know this]

As explained a few days ago, the point is to create terror. Synthetic terror to control us. But the terror that does occur needs to be of the correct size; too big/much and there is absolutely no way a public inquiry can be avoided and light shone into the shadows, while too small/little then the effect of the terror/trauma is not worth the risk. I would say about 50 dead and hundreds more injured is in the 'possibly too big but just about acceptable' scale. 7/7 was the biggest terrorist attack on mainland Britain.

But again, look at how 7/7 was used. The politicians and security services were crying out for torture and 90 day detention!

I cannot see how MI5 can be this incompetent. They claim 'lack of resources' but they've had extra millions and millions thrown at them, as reported in the ISC's annual reports, besides the usual budget (which was not completely used up). But what Leppard shows is that Kahn and Tanweer were bugged talking of a bomb plot! Kahn and Tanweer were under surveillance for months and extensively photographed. You don't spend months putting someone under surveillance unless they are a serious threat, particularly as MI5 claim 'lack of resources' and the manpower for a such surveillance is substantial, as stated in the ISC report. But what other modes of surveillance were used? Were all emails and phones logged? Were bugs/cameras placed in their places of residence? Were these still active in the period before 7/7? But more importantly, who were the case officers?

Personally I don't believe the official story. The government 'has form'. 7/7 was a LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) for one reason; Police State.

THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2004-2005

Each year the ISC compiles a report on the Intelligence community. The 2004-2005 report contains very interesting bits of information.

From The ISC Report 2004-5 we can read

29. In last year’s Annual Report,6 we expressed concern about the reduction of effort allocated to counter-espionage work, and both the Director General and the Home Secretary acknowledged that the UK was “carrying some risk here”. We were told that the planned 2004–05 allocation would be 10% of the Net Resource Allocation. In the event, because of a £*** underspend on counter-terrorism that reduced the Service’s total Net Resource Requirement in 2004–05, the actual allocation to counter-espionage was 11%. However, we are concerned that current planning provides for a reduction in the allocation to counter-espionage from the previous year, down to 9% of the Net Resource Requirement, which, despite the increase in funding available to the Service, is actually a real terms reduction. We repeat the concerns we expressed last year that, because of the necessary focus on counter-terrorism, significant risks are being taken in the area of counter-espionage.

The emphasis is not added by me!! The emphasis is in the report!!

So the "lack of resources" excuse does not compute. The ISC were expressing concern that counter-terrorism resources were being cut and had been cut for a number of years!!

The reason as to why they were being cut is not given. I have my suspicions.

But there's more!

From the report

21. In previous years we have reported that the Agencies did not spend their full allocation and they have consequently rolled the funding over as end-year flexibility. To manage this underspend, a block adjustment of £*** has been made to reflect an assumption that it will be possible to identify £*** in each of the years 2004–05 to 2007–08 that can be reallocated within the SIA. This has allowed the bids presented by the Agencies to PSX (the Cabinet Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure) to be funded. There is a risk that these underspends may not occur, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has agreed to look again at the funding should the underlying assumption prove incorrect. In the current year, £*** has been drawn down from the end-year flexibility reserve for the Agencies.[emphasis added]

So the intelligence agencies have not been spending their full budgets for years now and the accumulated surplus has been carried through to this year!! Christ, their rolling in it. They've got more money than the fractional reserve bankers and Harry Enfield's character Loadsamoney put together!

Lack of resources? Bollocks!

WHO COMPILED 'THE NARRATIVE'?

I can't find a name or any signature or any text or similar to identify who compiled 'the narrative of events of 7/7' published yesterday. Who was it? And what sources did he/she use? The ISC Report is signed by the members of the ISC. The narrative gives no such indicator as to the identity of the person or persons who compiled the report. Is this legal? Standard procedure?

CON COUGHLIN HAS WRITTEN A GOOD ARTICLE TODAY

Con Coughlin has written a good article today for The Daily Telegraph.

In MI5 must pay for a scandalous error he says

The picture of MI5 that emerges from a careful reading of the ISC report is of an organisation that feels at ease with its own complacency.

This, after all, is the same organisation that, in the 1990s, allowed London to become a world-renowned centre for Islamic extremists, earning the capital the unwelcome soubriquet "Londonistan". It was here that the Paris Metro bombings in 1995 were masterminded, and most of the key figures responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks had strong ties with the British capital.

I believe there is much more than complacency going down here.

There is something sick within British Intelligence. If it's not shooting up Northern Irish citizens, it's fitting up known innocent businessmen for torture in Afghanistan. And if it's not that it's arranging with the FBI for infrared bomb technology to be placed into the hands of the IRA and allowing it to be used in Northern Ireland. Yes, some good is done by them. It's as some MPs said a few years ago after the break-in at Castlereagh; rogue elements. The state security apparatus is used for private motive, profit and gain.

The whole point is to create terror. With terror a population is much more easily controlled. The population want protection and flock to the government to protect them with a Police State, or even war. I will still argue that 7/7 was a 'Goldilocks' event; it was just right. With the IRA terror threat now gone a new terror threat was required, but too much terror and cries of incompetence are made, while too little terror and we go about our lives with freedom and without fear and with our minds free to think about our lives and the shitty state of the world instead of being drowned in celebrity this, that and the other.

What happened after 7/7 though? Or rather how was 7/7 used by The Security Services and politicians? More police state laws. There has even been a letter from Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller requesting that evidence gained from torture be used as evidence!! And yet as Con Coughlin in the above article states

More than £1.5 billion is spent on funding MI5, MI6, and the high-tech GCHQ base at Cheltenham, and billions more are spent on the nation's police forces, which include Special Branch and the Anti-Terrorism Branch.

But all this money - and all the "resources" that it buys - counts for nothing if our security chiefs can't be bothered to carry out even the most rudimentary identity checks on potential terror suspects, the kind of checks the police are only too ready to conduct for the most inconsequential traffic infringements.

So quite happy to use torture. But check someone's identity? Sod that!

I heard a relative of a survivor of 7/7 on the radio yesterday. He was very angry and suspicious. Why? Because the excuse for 7/7 is 'lack of resources'. He asked what complaints were made by MI5 about lack of resources? What were the results of these complaints, if indeed there were any? These are questions he was asking, not me. But I'm asking them now because I think this is an achilles heel. Can a FOIA be made to learn what requests were made, when, and by whom to whom, and the results of any such requests?

FIRST IMPRESSION OF 'THE 7/7 NARRATIVE"

Absolute b*ll@cks!!

After a quick skim through the 7/7 'narrative of events'. The preface contains this;

This narrative summarises what the police, intelligence and security
agencies have so far discovered about the bombers and how and why they
came to do what they did.

A few points to make for starters.
1. Annex A point 4 says

The key event in the founding of Al Qaida was the Soviet invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

As well as Annex C, which says

1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent occupation.

Zbigniew Bzrezinski has stated that al-Qaeda was created by the Americans before the invasion of the Soviets.

2. No mention of the Israelis receiving the advance warning.

3. Regarding 'Londonistan', Annex A point 9 says

As Al Qaida developed in the 1990s, a number of extremists in the UK,
both British and foreign nationals – many of the latter having fled from
conflict elsewhere or repressive regimes – began to work in support of its
agenda, in particular, radicalising and encouraging young men to support
jihad overseas. These included Abu Hamza and Abdallah al Faisal (both
now serving prison sentences), Abu Qatada (currently detained pending
possible deportation) and Omar Bakri Mohammed (now outside the UK and
excluded from returning here). During the 1990s, it is now known that there
was a flow of young Muslims, from the UK and elsewhere, travelling to
Pakistan and Afghanistan for indoctrination or jihad..

There is plenty more to be said about this e.g. MI5 mole Reda Hassaine inside Finsbury Park Mosque having his observations of Abu Hamza totally ignored by his handler.

4. No mention of previous surveillance of suspects, or information received from other intelligence agencies e.g. Saudi Arabia regarding bomb plots on the London Underground.

5. The suspects apparently still caught the 0740 from Luton, which I thought didn't run that day. I'll have to check up on that one.


This appears at first reading to be a total whitewash and a total waste of time, paper and memory.

PLEASE DON'T CRITICIZE MI5 :-)

The Independent is preparing us for the release tomorrow of two reports into the 7/7 bombings of last year. The headline of the article I refer to is

Security services identify 700 potential al-Qa'ida terrorists at large in Britain

To me this says, "don't criticize MI5 tomorrow because they've got to defend us from 700 terrorists". The article does not mention that for years London has been known as Londonistan because MI5 and MI6 have been allowing Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists to live, recruit, and publish newsletters etc inciting suicide bombings, in London and the UK in general.

I look forward to these publications tomorrow. It will be interesting how the Israeli foreknowledge is handled, if at all.

THE PANAM103 AND 9/11 CONNECTION

This is a very interesting piece of research. Apparently the man who investigated the PanAm103 crash at Lockerbie and the man who controlled all the evidence from the 9/11 attacks is the same man; Robert Mueller. It was recently revealed in a swron statement by an ex-Chief Police officer that evidence implicating Libya was planted into the wreckage of PanAm 103 by the CIA. Mueller was the guy who investigated the crash for the US Justice Dept. He also investigated the collapse of the Bank of Crooks and Criminals Incorporated, or BCCI. So it would appear that Mueller could be relied upon to cover things up!

Mueller was then appointed head of the FBI just 7 days before 9/11. He took control of virtually every aspect of the investigation of 9/11.

From http://www.rense.com/general71/panam.htm

Pan Am 103 & 9/11 Connection
by Russell Pickering
russellpickering@bresnan.net
5-7-6

In the recent Rense-linked article Police Chief - Lockerbie Evidence was Faked, there is a huge clue as to what may have happened to 9/11 evidence as well (1). The key lies in the fact that the exact same person "handled" both investigations. In fact, the person who led the Pan Am 103 investigation for Bush Sr.'s "Justice" department just happened to be appointed the director of the FBI by Bush Jr. just seven days prior to 9/11.

"Robert Mueller was nominated by President George W. Bush and became the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on September 4, 2001". (2)

"After spending 1988 and 1989 in private practice, he joined the staff of Attorney-General Richard Thornburgh, and his star rose at the Justice Department as the head of the criminal division under President George Bush's father from 1990 to 1993.

And he led the investigations of the 1991 collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International banking and the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103." (3)

CONTROLLING ALL SIDES

Is this what is going on within The Labour Party?

Are Bilderbergers Brown and Blair controlling the left and the right within The Labour Party, with Brown acting the disgruntled leader-in-waiting, but at the same time very happy with his IMF position and the changes Blair is making?

Hmm. I'm beginning to think so. What did/do they talk about when alone together? In his monthly press conference today Blair said that what is said between the two of them remains secret. Is Brown doing all he can to remove Blair? Or is he just making all these noises and references for "renewal" to take some of the heat out of the situation so Blair can stay in power and implement the policies they both agreed upon?

EVIDENCE IN LOCKERBIE TRIAL WAS PLANTED BY THE CIA

Another stitch-up!

The CIA planted a fragment of a circuit board in the wreckage of the PanAm 103 which crashed outside Lockerbie in December 1988. So says an anonymous ex-Police Chief in a sworn statement to the lwayers representing the man convicted of bombing PanAm 103.

From The Scotsman

Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked
MARCELLO MEGA

A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.

The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison.

The evidence will form a crucial part of Megrahi's attempt to have a retrial ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The claims pose a potentially devastating threat to the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.

GORDON BROWN SHOULD NOT BE LABOUR PARTY LEADER

If Blair is pressured into publicly stating a date for his stepping down, or if there is even a leadership challenge, the one who should not be leader is Gordon Brown.

As stated a few days ago in 1991 Gordon Brown was the first member of the Parliamentary Labour Party to be invited to the Bilderberg meetings in the 1990's.

Why?

What was so special about Gordon Brown that the banking elite would invite Brown six years before he became Chancellor of the Exchequer?

And why would Blair be invited 2 years later, in 1993?

Does this explain the relationship the two had/have? Do they know something we don't?

And why do these two occupy the two most powerful positions in government, and have had without too much scandal to remove them?

Brown is currently Chairman of the IMF International Monetary and Financial Committee, and has been for a number of years. Could he really be 'a man of the people' if he has been able/permitted to hold this position and be Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I don't think so.

But Brown has shown his true colours by selling our nation's gold on the market at times his money masters wanted and at cheap prices and thus not achieving the best market price.

This is what has been happening. For year the banks and central banks (all controlled by the same banking elite who run Bilderberg) have been running an unbelievable scam. The central banks have been loaning the private banks the gold at very low rates of interest e.g. 1% pa. The private banks then sell the gold and use the proceeds in businesses with a much higher return e.g. 40%. But in order for the private banks to make a profit when the gold is due to be returned to the central banks, and the private banks need to buy back the gold they sold, the price of gold needs to be approximately the same price it was when it was loaned to the private banks, preferably lower but not to have risen too much. So when the gold is due back another central bank would flood the gold market with physical gold, which lowers the price of gold, enabling the private banks to buy back the gold they sold at lower prices, which helps the private banks to make huge profits!

As if having the fractional reserve banking system wasn't enough?! This is just pure greed. They just can't help themselves. What force would do this?



This was a highly coordinated scheme and has been run for about a decade. It appears to have been rumbled now because the price of gold is rising rapidly and fast approaching the price it should be. A man called Reginald H Howe followed and documented this scam and filed a complaint on 7th December 2000 alleging gold price fixing and named Alan Greenspan, the Bank for International Settlements, JP Morgan, CitiGroup (Rockefeller) among the codefendants. You know, the usual suspects. The Golden Sextant website has been following this. It's most recent news bulletin states that the BIS has indeed admitted that it was involved in helping to fix the price of gold.

In February 2006, the Bank for International Settlements published the proceedings of its fourth annual conference held in Basel on June 27-29, 2005, as BIS Paper No. 27, Past and Future of Central Bank Cooperation. In his opening remarks to the conference and based on his eleven years of service at the Bank, Mr. White stated in part:

Before turning briefly to an assessment of past efforts and likely future challenges, it is perhaps worth spending a minute on what is meant by central bank cooperation (emphasis in original). I think that the terminology developed for domestic monetary policy might have some uses here; namely, the ultimate objectives, the intermediate objectives and the operational instruments. The ultimate objectives have always been monetary and financial stability, though clearly the focus of attention has often shifted over the years. The intermediate objectives of central bank cooperation are more varied. First, better joint decisions, in the relatively rare circumstances where such coordinated action is called for. Second, a clear understanding of the policy issues as they affect central banks. Hopefully, this would reflect common beliefs, but even a clear understanding of differences of views can sometimes be useful. Third, the development of robust and effective networks of contacts. Fourth, the efficient international dissemination of both ideas and information that can improve national policymaking. And last, the provision of international credits and joint efforts to influence asset prices (especially gold and foreign exchange) in circumstances where this might be thought useful. [Emphasis supplied.]

Do you remember Gordon Brown selling a substantial quantity of our gold reserves a few years ago, allegedly to raise cash for Africa, amid allegations that Brown had not made that much money, had squandered a national asset and should have sold at a different time? Well, that was part of this conspiracy to help the private bankers make massive fortunes by suppressing the price of gold at critical times.

So Brown should not be Leader of the Labour Party, or Prime Minister. He is just another stooge.

I would like to see somebody like Bob Marshall-Andrews as leader and PM. He seems to have his head screwed on. Get Marshall-Andrews and 'the rebels' in Whitehall.

WHAT DID AHMADINEJAD REALLY SAY ABOUT ISRAEL?

Did Iran's President Ahmadinejad really call for Israel to be "wiped off the map"?

Maybe not.

From http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12949.htm

It was October last year when we
came home, flicked on the radio and listened aghast to the news
that the Iranian president denied the Holocaust had happened and
said the state of Israel should be wiped off the map. ‘Christ,’
we thought, ‘this nut job’s playing into their hands with this
kind of rhetoric.’ Since then “the Cuban missile crisis in slow
motion” as one US academic has described the Iran/US imbroglio
has ratcheted up to high alert with Seymour Hersch of the New
Yorker

reporting that the White House is all prepared for nuclear
strikes. It would take just 12 hours to deploy nuclear
weapons for a bunker busting strike that would kill a million
Iranians according to conservative estimates commissioned by the
Pentagon. Nuclear armed planes are now on constant alert and
public opinion has been framed around those mad, mad statements
on Israel by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



But what if the pronouncements by Ahmadinejad that cast him as
this season’s baddie incarnate had been a) mistranslated and b)
taken out of context?



When

properly translated the Iranian president actually calls for
the removal of the regimes that are in power in Israel and in
the USA as a goal for the future. Nowhere does he demand the
elimination or annihilation of Israel. He called for greater
governance for Palestine. The word map does not even feature.
And the president makes plain that the Holocaust happened, but,
he argues western powers have exploited the memory of the
Holocaust for their own imperialistic purposes. What the
mainstream ran with is complete deception.



The deception has been aided by the fact that much of the media
use an ‘independent’ company called

Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri) for translating
Middle Eastern languages.

Memri just happens to be owned by two right-wing neo-con
Israelis:

Meyrav Wurmser, the wife of one of Dick Cheney’s aides (and
ex-special assistant to ‘Strap-on’ John Bolton),

David Wurmser and former(?) Israeli Military Intelligence
officer, Colonel

Yigal Carmon. Indeed a look at Wikipedia’ s incomplete staff
list seems to suggest a heavy Israeli bias in staffing and at
least two more ex-Israeli Military Intelligence people. Still
the little red email is sure
that’s just a coincidence, as is the fact that the Israeli army
(presumably military intelligence) has

also used this mistranslation tactic in the past.



And once Ahmadinejad had been brushed with the wacko Jew
destroyer tag, it was a short hop, skip and ein Sprung before he
was alongside Adolf Hitler in the pantheon of baddies. Like
Milosevic and Hussein before him, Ahmadinejad’s Hitler
comparison is as sure a sign war is imminent.



Unlike Hitler though Ahmadinejad doesn’t rule Iran, nor does he
control its foreign or military policy. The man in charge of all
that is Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.



Iran is a theocracy, and Khamenei is the theocrat-in-chief. To
give you an idea of where Ahmadinejad lies in Iran’s political
hierarchy, note that no one can even run for the presidency in
the first place without the approval of Khamenei and the
Guardian Council, a group of six clerics and six conservative
jurists that are selected by Khamenei.



Ahmadinejad serves the purpose of being a believable bogeyman.
He’ll find his Ph.D. in civil engineering and being a founding
member of the Iran Tunnel Society useful if Seymour Hersch’s
bunker-busting nuke allegations come true

.

SO CLARKE'S GONE. WILL THE AGENDA CHANGE?

No!

The banks will still be creating infinite amounts of money to enslave the world, including you, and their chosen ones such as Blair implement their agenda; war and the Global Police State.

But who's bothered about all that when Big Brother's going Bikini-n-BBQ!!! Human's are so, so simple. The Money Masters laugh at you the way you may laugh at a dog pointlessly chasing a ball.

THE RESHUFFLE

As soon as I heard Blair was reshuffling his cabinet earlier this morning I knew Clarke would go and Reid would take his place. 'Reefer' Reid is just the beastman to push through the ID card/database state Blair's Bilderberg masters want. And another Bilderberg position has appeared; I have been expecting a special Secretary of State for Europe cabinet position to be created soon to push forward the Fortress Europe idea for it is moving far too slowly for the money masters, and we now have one, to be occupied by the servile and creepy former Defence Minister during the time of the Iraq War and the death/murder/suicide of Dr David Kelly (and the man who also recently called for compulsory voting), Geoff Hoon.

Blair kept Clarke at the Home Office, not as Blair suggested to sort out the foreign prisoner scandal, but as the fall guy for the local election results. I actually feel some sympathy for Clarke, but this shows Blair's ruthlessness and blindness; Clarke was too busy pushing through the Bilderberg ID Card/Database State and Blair can't see that it is Blair himself who is the liability.

Speaking of the local election results the Conservative Party should not be that confident in their apparent rise in popularity. They made massive gains in London where the strategic voter scheme was being run. Yes, it sent a message to Blair, but I would guess that a significant proportion of people in London voted according to the suggestion made by the strategic voter scheme rather than with their true political thinking.

And as for the BNP, the reason for immigration is to break down barriers in race and nationality, to show to us that we are all just one people who need a one world government to stop artificially-created wars (and not forgetting cheap labour). The BNP are a barrier to this, and are thus demonized in BBC documentaries leading to unsuccessful prosecution for inciting racial hatred. It is my belief that if the Atlantic Foreign Policy was not what it has been, turning most of the world into a shithole, installing dictators and raping the world, stealing natural resources, then most immigrants would not want to leave their families for a better standard of living. Wouldn't you? Yes, some would want to leave, but nowhere near the levels now. The world today is as a result of British and American Foreign Policies in the 19th and 20th Centuries, probably designed to do what is happening right now. These money masters plan centuries ahead, and the plan is passed down from generation to generation, much like Class A shares in the biggest hoax ever foisted upon mankind, The Federal Reserve.

FLIGHT 93

Universal Pictures recently released a propaganda film in the USA, "Flight 93". It allegedly shows the world what really happened to United Airlines Flight 93 on the morning of September 11th 2001. We are told, by the Bush Administration, the Kean-Zelikow Commission, and every other New World Order arse-licker, that the passengers on UA 93 rushed the terrorist hijackers but could not regain control of the plane and the plane crashed into the ground in Pennslyvania killing all on board.

OK. Explain this!

From http://web.archive.org/web/20021109040132/http:/wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard


Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.

"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

So on the morning of September 11th 2001 United Airlines admitted that Flight 93 actually landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio!

The growing 9/11 Truth/Sceptics Movement has bombarded the Universal website discussion board for their propaganda film Flight 93, and Universal has decided to shut the board down due to the contradictory evidence posted by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

From http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2006/040506admitsdefeat.htm

Universal Admits Defeat, Removes Flight 93 Forum
Crescendo of dissent on official fairy tail leads to wiping of website


Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 4 2006

Universal Studios has admitted defeat in its efforts to re-package the official 9/11 fraud and has completely deleted its own forum after the website was hijacked by individuals posting truthful information about what really happened to Flight 93.

We previously reported that Universal's forum moderators were deleting entire threads in real time deeming them, "inappropriate."

The website had been turned into a battle ground for countering the Flight 93 government apologist propaganda being regurgitated in an impetuous lunge to give credibility to a tale about as reality-based as Humpty Dumpty.

Now a visit to the website only returns the text, "There are no message boards currently available."

The fact that Universal took the decision to remove the entire forum suggests they were concerned that people voicing alternative explanations behind 9/11 and attacking the government version of events was harmful to the reputation of the film, proving again that Flight 93 was produced, in addition to making hundreds of millions of dollars, to negatively reinforce the official 9/11 orthodoxy.

Polls on the website returned results of 80% believing a government cover-up behind 9/11.

IRAN WILL ATTACK ISRAEL IF ATTACKED

Early last month I posted a very brief summary of events planned for the Middle East, in THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (a brief intro to British Foreign Policy in the Middle East). These events were planned centuries ago, and have involved creating a very nasty brand of Islam via British agent Hempher influencing ayoung and angry Wahhabi, and the skullduggery involved with creating and sustaining Israel. Both of these are products of British Foreign Policy of the 19th and early 20th Centuries.

The sequence events I listed is as follows;
1. create and control a nasty, terrorist strain of Islam through an agent called Hempher
2. create and sustain a colony within Islamic territory for Jews (Israel), leading to anger within Muslim community and young, angry men and women joining this nasty strain of Islam
3. arm that colony (Israel) with nukes
4. have your terrorists make a number of attacks on this colony over the years so they get a name for themselves
5. then run a false-flag op on your soil, have your terrorists blamed for the terrorism, and invade the region
6. create a furore over a country seeking a peaceful nuclear power process (Iran)
7. invade said country (Iran) to stop it from producing nukes
8. said country (Iran) then attacks the colony (Israel)
9. the colony (Israel) then nukes said country (Iran)
10. RUN A LONG, GLOBAL WAR INVOLVING NUKES, BIO'S, CHEM'S and TERROR
11. when war ends form a totalitarian world government to stop wars that you created

NB Israel has been given nukes by the British and the USA. Iran has very recently stated that it will attack Israel, so I have highlighted event 8. From http://www.rense.com/general70/evil.htm

Iran Threatens Israel
If US Does 'Evil'
By Edmund Blair
5-2-6

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Tuesday to attack Israel in response to any "evil" act by the United States and said it had enriched uranium to a level close to the maximum compatible with civilian use in power stations.

The defiant statements were issued shortly before world powers meet in Paris to discuss the next steps after Tehran rejected a U.N. call to halt uranium enrichment.

Senior officials from the U.N. Security Council's permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany were to discuss how to curb an Iranian program that Western nations say conceals a drive for atomic warheads.

Iran denies the charge and refuses to back down from what it calls its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

What do you think Israel will do if Iran attacks it?

On Iran being reported by the IAEA to the UNSC John Bolton and Nicholas Burns went straight for a Chapter 7 Resolution, which authorizes the use of force. They didn't get it. But as we have seen with Iraq the USA will probably go right on ahead and attack Iran anyway. There is a very nasty energy controlling The White House.

BERNARD LEWIS : A PILLAR OF WISDOM?

Today The Times has published a comment piece by Dean Godson of Policy Exchange, a think tank. The Policy Exchange website states that Godson was "Chief Leader Writer of the Daily Telegraph", but does not say what he does now for full-time employment, only that he occasionally writes comments for The Times, The Sunday Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Godson's comment is on Bernard Lewis, the academic British Agent guiding American Foreign Policy. Apparently Dick Cheney flew to a party being held for Lewis's 90th birthday where Cheney gave a speech (and I'll try to find a transcript of that). Lewis is currently Cleveland E Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton. Cleveland E Dodge was the son of Cleveland H Dodge, who was the biggest donator to Woodrow Wilson's Presidential campaigns in 1912 and 1916. Wilson subsequently created the biggest fraud on mankind, The Federal Reserve, and despite promises to stay out of WW1 sent troops to Europe. Cleveland H Dodge was also a Director of National City Bank, which was owned by the Rockefellers. So with this history behind the chair what sort of man would occupy it?

Godson reveals that Lewis worked for MI6 during WW2. Godson also reveals that Lewis was

"Born in 1916 to a Jewish immigrant father and an Anglo-Jewish mother, he grew up in Notting Hill, Stoke Newington and Willesden and first became interested in oriental languages when learning Hebrew for his bar mitzvah. He subsequently studied under Sir Hamilton Gibb at the School of Oriental and African Studies".

So, is he still Jewish? If so, does this affect his views? Probably. I saw Lewis in a documentary about Islamic Fundamentalism and 9/11 about a year ago. Lewis still believes that 9/11 was a government-free op! And from what Godson has wrote it appears Lewis is unaware of the British infiltration of Islam through Hempher in creating Wahhabism to destroy the Ottoman Empire from within.

Anyway, the comment piece by Godson shows the respect that people like Cheney and Wolfowitz have for Lewis, and how Lewis is guiding American Foreign Policy regarding the Middle East.

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2160473,00.html

A pillar of wisdom in the great Islamic debate
Dean Godson

For years the US Government has listened to and learnt from the 90-year-old Professor Bernard Lewis


CONSIDER AMERICA the paradoxical. It is the most forward-looking country on earth, where one of the cruellest put-downs is “you’re history”. It is a youthful country, where the elderly are regularly dismissed as “old timers”. And its public discourse can be spectacularly anti-academic, with populist politicians railing against “pointy-headed professors”.
But yesterday, Dick Cheney — arguably the most powerful Vice-President in American history — commandeered Air Force 2 and flew to Philadelphia to speak at a luncheon in honour of a 90-year-old history professor. The event, hosted by the World Affairs Council, was none other than the birthday celebration of Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton and the last of the great Orientalists.

In the postwar era, perhaps only John Kenneth Galbraith among the economists, and Edward Teller and Albert Wohlstetter among the nuclear theologians, have enjoyed comparable influence. Cheney’s tribute is all the more noteworthy considering that Lewis never served in the US Government; his only stint in officialdom was wartime service in MI6.

CLARKE, PREZZA AND MONEY

So the righteous Prezza allegedly had sex in his office while the door was open, and Clarke erroneously allowed several hundred foreign criminals to avoid deportation, some of whom have committed crimes again.

SCANDALOUS!!

Well, no. Lets' get all this into perspective.

During the 1990's while the Tories were in power and before Labour came to office only two member's of the Parliamentary Labour Party were invited to Bilderberg meetings; current Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in 1991, and current Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1993. The positions these two men hold are arguably the two most powerful positions in government. Is it just 'a coincidence' that Brown and Blair were invited, and nobody else, and that they now hold these two positions? Or is it, as Bilderberg Chairman Etienne Davignon claims, that Bilderberg are just "excellent talent spotters"?

[By the way, Blair has lied to Parliament about the attendance of himself and Brown to these Bilderberg meetings.]

So what is Bilderberg? If you ask the likes of Jon Ronson he'll say it's a meeting of 'Jewish Lizards'. In reality if you look at the attendance list you will find it is a meeting run by the most powerful fractional reserve bankers (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg) to interview potential candidates for political office so that the chosen ppoliticians continue the agenda of the fractional reserve bankers. The Steering Committee decides who is invited, approximately 100 of 'the great and the good' from Europe and the USA. It is widely believed that one, if not the main, objective of Bilderberg is to create One Europe Government as a stepping stone towards One World Government. In support of this thesis John Monks was the only other person from the UK 'left', besides Blair and Brown, to be invited, in 1996, before the 1997 Labour victory. Then Monks was the General Secretary of the TUC. Now Monks is the General Secretary of the European TUC, a member of the Councils of the European Policy Centre, Brussels and the Center for European Studies, London. But he is also a Trustee of The Friends of Europe. But who is the President of The Friends of Europe? It is currently Etienne Davignon who is also currently the Honorary Chairman of Bilderberg! There are quite a few regular Bilderbergers who are also Trustees of The Friends of Europe e.g. Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, and Carl Bildt. So Monks is a big Europe man, and there is no way he would have been invited in the first place and also be where he is today if the bankers didn't like what he said.

If you get invited to Bilderberg, you have a chance to make it. But if you say the right things you will make it. For example Bill Clinton at Bilderberg 1991, made President of USA 1992. Brown and Blair at Bilderberg early 1990's, now Chancellor and Prime Minister of Great Britain for over two terms in office.

Why? What is so special about the people who control Bilderberg?

Along with the bankers who control it, or their representatives, there are always, always, always members of the press e.g. The Economist, The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph. But if there are always members of the press in attendance then why do you read about, for example, Prezza and Clarke, and not hear anything about Bilderberg, or for that matter, fractional reserve banking?

Well, I'll ask again; Who has the power to create as much money as they want to buy, or even create new, media outlets? Who owns Reuters? Rupert Murdoch is a Bilderberger. Conrad Black, former owner of The Daily Telegraph is also a Bilderberger.

These people control what you read, hear and see with regards to the news, and thus what you think. They can make or break politicians. They can also create diversions, to take your mind off potentially damaging news.

So why do you not read about who has the power to create money while you eat your cornflakes, but you can read about Prezza getting a blow job from his sexretary who was hiding under the desk?

Or what would you rather read while you eat your cornflakes?

So what if Clarke goes?

So what if Prezza goes?

If one goes another clone will take their place and the merry-go-round/musical chairs continues.

As Josiah Stamp stated, as long as we allow the bankers to create money at will they will always use that power to buy and/or control media to influence your vote to put people like their chosen one Blair in place so that people like Blair can put people like Clarke in place to bring in ID Cards/database.

Let's get this straight. The ID Card/database is not Clarke's idea. Clarke is a stooge for it. The ID Card/database idea was thought up years ago, before Clarke was born. IBM helped the Nazis to create an ID Card/database state. I would guess that it is the furore over ID Cards that diverted Clarke from sorting out the foreign prisoner scandal. But as Labour have suggested it is Labour who were the first to introduce the system, so who knows how many have avoided deportation under previous governments, Tory or Labour?

So, what's more important? Clarke fired to be replaced by another clone selected by Bilderberg's chosen one Blair to continue the rush towards a Police State? Or to take the money-creating power from the bankers so they stop selecting people like Brown and Blair to be our leaders years before they enter office and then use their influence over the media to get their chosen ones into office to continue the banker's agenda (oh, and not forgetting putting everyone and everything into eternal debt slavery)?

It's upto you.

BUSH INCREASES CONTROL OVER THE USA

When I say Bush I mean the people for whom he is a simple front.

I posted a few weeks ago about the comparisons between Nazi Germany and current British and American politics. Carl Schmitt was the Nazi theoretician of law and came up with the idea of Fuhrerprinzip, that the head of state was the law. The "Kill Parliament Bill" , although slightly amended now, had a strong whiff of Fuhrerprinzip . But across the pond Bush is taking that principle to another level.

From http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=355

If you need evidence the Straussian neocon controlled Bush administration is a dictatorship, consider the “decider” in the White House, according to the Boston Globe, “has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution,” or rather his trashing of the Constitution. No doubt Bush has never read the Constitution, not that it matters—he is president in name only and the executive branch is controlled by a cabal of Straussians who believe in Machiavellian dictatorship, not a constitutionally limited republic. “Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ‘whistle-blower’ protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.”

Once upon a time, Congress had the power to write laws and to the president a duty ‘’to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” but in Bushzarro world this tradition is turned on its head. In effect, there is no reason for Congress to convene because the Straussian fascists have declared Ausnahmezustand (state of emergency under the pretense of a bogus war on terrorism) and now the executive is free to break laws of all sort, both national and international.

Bush, not Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, is the “new Hitler” and the Patriot Act and subsequent legislation and executive orders serve as the neocon Reichstag Fire Decree (in essence, a continual state of emergency). Bush’s Straussians have put into practice the political philosophy of Carl Schmitt, who wrote Die Diktatur (On Dictatorship) and believed the office of the Reichspräsident should rule supreme and transform the juridical system into a deadly juggernaut.

The article to which Nimmo refers is
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

Now if that ain't Fuhrerprinzip what is?

AL-ZARQAWI (the psyop) WAS ALLOWED TO LIVE

Former CIA agent Mike Scheuer says that the psyop Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was allowed to avoid being killed by the USA a number of times during 2002. Scheuer says that al-Zarqawi was living at a terrorist training camp in Iraqi Kurdistan and detailed intelligence on al-Zarqawi including overhead imagery was passed daily to the Bush Administration. But al-Zarqawi was allowed to live so that a link could be made between Saddam Hussein and terrorism, which would no doubt reinforce the lie that Cheney & Co were pushing that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Since then al-Zarqawi has been transformed into this Goliath terrorist by the good folks in the psyop dept at US Military HQ.

From http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-allowed-zarqawi-to-escape/2006/04/30/1146335608444.html

The United States deliberately passed up repeated opportunities to kill the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before the March 2003 US-led invasion of that country.

The claim, by former US spy Mike Scheuer, was made in an interview to be shown on ABC TV's Four Corners tonight.

Zarqawi is often described as a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, whose supporters masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington

...During the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi's presence in the north of the country was used by US officials to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism.

.

And who says terrorists aren't used by governments?