Iraqi Family Shot in France: Military Intelligence Hit Job?

Does anyone really think that the killing of an Iraqi family on holiday in France was a "family dispute?"

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO - read British spooks) started pushing the line that it was a family dispute almost immediately (shades of JFK there).

To my unprofessional eye this looks like a hit job that was disturbed. The spooks have been known to use third parties to carry out hits from a distance (such as Islamic terrorists against Qaddafi many years ago, or even organised crime outfits). There may even have been a crossover with the CIA or Mossad - for whatever reason.

There is clearly much more to this than meets the eye.

Collateral Murder - Coming Soon to Libya

Panorama, Newsnight and the entire BBC machinery has been acting as the mouth of the Libyan rebels. Every (uncensored) report from Tripoli almost invariably has the words "cannot be independently verified" tagged on, whereas reports from rebel areas (even tenuous, speculative ones, have no such tag line).

On last night's Newsnight a spokesman for the Libyan rebels all but called for US/NATO military action, on their side of course, and if civilians died - so be it, if it helped them win their civil war, their armed insurrection.

Thus we see the "humanitarian" cloak used (as Farrakhan said) to disguise their nefarious aims, is quickly tossed aside when it comes to killing civilians loyal to the Libyan government or in their areas!

Of course the elephant in the room is that armed rebels in civilian clothing are "civilians" too - even though they are in armed insurrection, no doubt helped by the CIA/Mossad.

So, as very few British MPs and media voices have the courage to state, we are joining a Civil War on one side. The crimes of that side will be airbrushed and the crimes of the other side (if you'll pardon the pun) will be blown out of all proportion.

'Mission Creep' is already taking place. There's talk of arresting Gaddafi, "taking out" Gaddafi, assaulting towns held by the Libyan government and their supporters (with how many civilian victims?) to help the rebels...

Killing innocents comes easy to the Zionists, and always will to achieve their ends. They are just numbers.

Human lives, civilian deaths, collateral damage -- however you want to label murder of innocents -- only matter when the Zionists want in somewhere. Then civilians murders are a crime against humanity. Oh the tears flow!

Yet when hundreds of thousands die in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza - not to mention the million or so dead in Rwanda - it matters not a jot to the Zionists. Indeed, in some (most!) cases they are the ones doing the indiscriminate murder.

When Israel invaded Lebanon (a sovereign nation) many innocents died and UN checkpoints were attacked. There was no UN Resolution, no no-fly zone, no talk of war crimes.

When Gaza had democracy and voted in Hamas (as was their right), Israel enacted an illegal blockade. Where then was the humanitarian concern of the Americans?

Watch the following video. It shows the Americans in action, committing a war crime. Killing civilians. The man who leaked this video is being abused in an American military stockade.

Where is America's love of freedom, that they wanted this video hushed up?

What happened in Iraq could well happen in Libya if the various War Hawks, Neo Cons and Zionists have their way (including the British government's Defence Secretary). It's what the 'rebels' (who are leading the BBC by the nose, so must be part of a MI6 agenda) want, in order to get their way, and change the government of Libya by hook or by crook.

The talk of humanitarian aims, helping civilians etc. is all hogwash.

Watch the video from Iraq. A man walking down the street with a weapon (lets call him a "rebel") walks into a building. The American gunship then gets the all-clear from their own Command to attack the building, to blow it up (with everyone inside it).

If the rebel were a Libyan rebel and the helicopter were a Libyan government one, this would be shown on Newsnight as proof of war crimes, and as an excuse to get NATO troops on the ground to protect civilians (even the ones carrying weapons).

Why therefore, is it not a criminal act when the Americans do it? Because they are following Zionist war aims? Because they can veto the UN Security Council?

Is this any way to get neutral unbiased justice in the world? Or a neutral unbiased military response backed by the UN?

If NATO/US forces get even more embroiled in Libya, we will see more of this kind of action, more civilian deaths, the Civil War will escalate.

All to a back-drop of billions spent on weaponry at a time when all the Western states are close to bust and poverty in America, for example, is rampant! Kerching.

Yet because that seems to be a Zionist goal, we are all meant to sit back and clap politely when a Libyan rebel leader calls for more "collateral damage" to achieve his aims. Doesn't it kind of remind you of the Iraqi rebel nutters who were calling for war and promising they'd find the sites of the WMDs? Beware war propaganda using useful idiots.

Welcome to the New World Order. Killing is their business, and business is good.

Spooks, Poofs and Degenrate Moderns

The death of Gareth Williams, GCHQ and MI6 Spook in West London is a bit of a puzzle.

Various media outlets have hinted at him being a possible homosexual. Perhaps the best being that he was an "uphill cycler." Is that akin to an uphill gardener? If it turns out he once worked part time as a packer in a fudge factory... well, that'll seal the deal.

Already some journos are suggesting that his death may have been a 'sex game' gone wrong. Yes I know dear reader, you and I have both led such sheltered lives!

Perhaps this poor chap is being made a patsy for some spook scheme that's gone wrong? Or perhaps the media are trying to break a scandal to us softly?

If it does turn out a spook homosexual has been at the centre of some sordid "deathstyle" - well, you'd think 'they' (the Spook-masters) would have learnt the lessons of the past.

I wonder what it is that makes homosexuals so apt to treachery? Is it the base nature of their activities?

Does anyone out there in internetland know of any studies on this kind of thing?

Certainly the superb book "Degenerate Moderns" by E Michael Jones points to the degenerate sexual proclivities of those involved in the arts being responsible for the degenerate nature of modern 'culture.'

I must admit, the admittance of known homosexuals in the BNP over recent years made me uncomfortable, to say the least.

That some of them are now in the "Reformist" wing of the BNP (i.e. trying to expose alleged corruption in the BNP leadership) does make me doubt whether Nationalism will ever be truly free of the dysfunctional characters that have benighted it for many moons.

I hope to be proved wrong. Perhaps I am expecting more from human nature.

More on the BBC's Iranian Fibs Plus U.S. Psyops

BBC in Public Deception

Link:
Doctored Rally Pics

Iran Falling To US PSYOPS?

By Paul Craig Roberts

22 June, 2009
Vdare.com

President Obama called on the Iranian government to allow protesters to control the streets in Tehran. Would Obama or any US president allow protesters to control the streets in Washington, D.C.?

There was more objective evidence that George W. Bush stole his two elections than there is at this time of election theft in Iran. But there was no orchestrated media campaign to discredit the US government.

On May 16, 2007, the London Daily Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would "be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed."

We are now witnessing in Tehran US "attempts to foment a popular revolution" in the guise of another CIA-orchestrated "color revolution".

It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were "CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs." It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands.

The Mousavi protests have set up Iran either for a US puppet government or for a military strike. The mullahs are in a lose-lose situation. Even if the mullahs hold together and suppress the protests, the legitimacy of the Iranian government in the eyes of the outside world has been damaged. Obama’s diplomatic approach is over before it started. The neocons and Israel have won.

The US intervention and the orchestrated disinformation pumped out by the western media are so transparent that it is impossible to believe than any informed person or government is taken in. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the West wants the 1978 Iranian Revolution overthrown and intends to use deception or violence to achieve that goal.

It has become increasingly difficult to believe that facts and truth motivate the western news media. For the record, I would like to point out a few of the most obvious oversights, to use a euphemism, in the Iran reporting.

According to a wide variety of news sources (for example, London Telegraph, Yahoo News, The Globe and Mail, Asbarez.com, Politico), "Before the polling closed Mr. Mousavi declared himself ‘definitely the winner’ based on ‘all indications from all over Iran.’ He alleged widespread voting irregularities without giving specifics and hinted he was ready to challenge the final results."

Other news sources, which might not have been aware that the polls were kept open several hours beyond normal closing time in order to accommodate the turnout, reported that Mousavi made his victory claim the minute polls closed.

Mousavi’s premature claim of victory before polling was over or votes counted is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose of which is to discredit any other outcome. There is no other reason to make such a claim.

In Iran’s system, election fraud has no purpose, because a small select group of ruling mullahs select the candidates who are put on the ballot. If they don’t like an aspiring candidate, they simply don’t put him on the ballot.

When the liberal reformer Khatami ran for president, he won with 70% of the vote and served from 1997-2005. If the mullahs didn’t defraud Khatami of his win, it seems unlikely they would defraud an establishment figure like Mousavi, who was foreign minister in the most conservative government, and is backed by another establishment figure, Rafsanjani.

As Mousavi was seen as Rafsanjani’s man, why is it "unbelievable" that Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi by the same margin that he defeated Rafsanjani in the previous election?

Neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there was an orchestrated "color revolution" in the works. Before the election, Timmerman wrote: "there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran." Why would protests be organized prior to a vote and announcement of the outcome? Organized protests waiting in the wings are not spontaneous responses to a stolen election.

Timmerman’s organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for the explicit purpose of promoting democracy in Iran. According to Timmerman, NED money was funneled to "pro-Mousavi groups who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds."

The US media has studiously ignored all of these highly suggestive facts. The media is not reporting or providing objective analysis. It is engaged in a propagandistic onslaught against the Iranian government.

We know that the US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are responsible for bombings and other violent acts. It is likely that these terrorist organizations are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in Tehran.

A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. "IranElection" is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi @IranRiggedElect @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that on June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new Twitter.

He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.

One wonders why the youth of the world, who do not protest stolen elections elsewhere, are so obsessed with Iran.

The unexamined question is Mousavi and his motives. Why would Mousavi unleash demonstrations that are obviously being used by a hostile West to discredit the government of the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US puppet government? Are these the actions of a "moderate"? Or are these the actions of a disgruntled man who kept his disaffection from his colleagues in order to gain the opportunity to discredit the regime with street protests? Is Mousavi being manipulated by organizations funded with US government money?

John Bolton laid out the US strategy. First we try to destabilize the regime. Failing that, we strike them militarily.

As this strategy unfolds, Iranians will pay in lost independence or in blood for the naiveness of its secularized youth and for the mistake the mullahs made in trusting Mousavi.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand.

Spooks Sting Max Mosley But He Wins Court Case

So Formula One boss Max Mosley has walked away from a media sting in which one of the 'call girls' has already been exposed (pardon Matron!) as a spook agent.

This further underlines the pathetic way that our security services waste their time and money - and engage in questionable not to say illegal activities - in order to "bring down" figures they deem, in some way, to be an enemy of the State.

I don't know why they targeted Max Mosley. Maybe it was because of his father, maybe it came down to money and power. Perhaps it was a mixture of both: or something else known only to Mosley and the spooks...

This whole scenario is very reminiscent of another "sex scandal" involving David Mellor. Again it involved the lowest of the gutter press (Sunday red-tops) and was a sordid sex n sleaze. If you remember it involved a prostitute (again!) and the aforementioned MP engaging in what some euphemistically call 'Ugandan discussions.'

The interesting bit about the Mellor affair was not the lascivious tittle tattle or the prurient details that many Eastenders-watching morons poured over; but involved David Mellor MP a little while before the story broke.

You see, dear reader, Mr. Mellor had the damned nerve to travel out to occupied Palestine as an official - as a minister in Her Majesty's government no less! - and chastise the Israelis for their treatment of the Palestinians.

At the time he said what many other politicians would fear to say (even to this day, even when Israel invaded Lebanon with horrendous loss of life, and Blair's regime dragged its feet!). His words were withering and brought into sharp focus the illegal and shameful activities of the Israeli invaders and occupiers.

He was a veritable "voice in the wilderness" of Biblical proportions!

...And the 'people that matter' had him marked from that point onwards. They were determined to bring him down with maximum fanfare and embarrassment. If they could have ruined him via financial misappropriation, they would have.

So what's to be learnt from all this?

People who get in the way of our Zionist masters and their political, financial or other power structures will be set-up by the spooks.

This is why those who seek to lead political, social or pressure-group opposition to the New World Order should be (ahem!) whiter than white.

This isn't some kind of infantile puritanism, though it could be argued that sound morals, as well as the ability to keep fingers out of tills, shouldn't be beyond the pale for anyone fighting the system.

The sad truth is that if anyone who wants to be (or who wants to be seen to be) making a stand needs to be free of sexual, financial and other scandals.

If they are not, the spooks will either (emotionally) blackmail them into toeing the line, or they will be exposed as 'hypocrites' and shamed into silence.

So whatever your thoughts on Max Mosley as an individual, as a big businessman and as a sexual deviant, today is a good day because the spooks and their pet media has been given a bit of a bloody nose.


Link:
BBC News on Mosley Court Victory
MI5 Involved in Mosley Sting

Spies, Lies and Dodgy Alibis

Sir Richard Dearlove, MI6's 'C,' has said that MI6 agents do have a 'licence to kill' but, during his 38 year career, they have never used it!

He stated this to the coroner at the Diana Inquest.

The ex-MI6 boss must have been under some kind of oath - so can we expect charges of perjury for this Fairy Tale?

Whatever next???

They'll be telling us next that extraordinary rendition flights have never set foot (or wheel?) on British Crown soil... oh. Hang on. They've already spun that lie and been exposed.

This sequence of lies has echoes in the past from WW2 to Suez, from Iraq to Dr David Kelly (bumped off by the Sea Scouts no doubt).

How much more of this well chewed crud can be dished up to us without the people involved being held responsible for their lies, subterfuge and cover-up?