Sunday, January 22, 2006

M15 'bugged July 7th bombers' leak

David Leppard, Sunday Times news reporter rang me up yesterday saying it was about a story in today's Sunday Times. After some initial confusion when I assumed he was a sub-editor fact-checking the pole-dancing piece that came out today ( I am prone to making an arse of myself like this), he told me that a leak had revealed that M15 had known about, but stopped watching two of the July 7th bombers because they' didn't have the resources'.And would I like to comment?

What David told me I found pretty staggering. We had a conversation which shocked and angered me and today this article appeared in today's Sunday Times ( front page was the poor whale that swam up the Thames on Friday then died)

'BRITAIN’S top spies knew that the ringleader of the London bombers was planning to fight for Al-Qaeda more than a year before the July 7 suicide attacks, security sources have revealed.
MI5 bugged Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, a second bomber, for two months as they talked about Khan’s desire to fight in what he saw as the Islamic holy war.

Agents also listened in as the men talked between themselves about Khan’s plans to return to Pakistan where he had attended a camp for British terrorists. They also spoke about engaging in crime to raise money for Islamic extremism.
However, police and MI5 officers ruled that the two men were not an “immediate risk” and did not present a “direct threat” to national security.
The detectives’ assessment was that the men were primarily involved in fraud rather than preparing to mount attacks in the near future. As a result, surveillance on them stopped, allowing the attacks that killed 52 people and injured 700 to go ahead'


It says a lot about how cynical I have become that my immediate suspicions were that M15 had leaked the document to get more funding. Then I wondered if the Government had leaked the document in order to make a nasty point about the Anti Terror Laws and to imply they shouldn't have been outvoted on the attempt to push through the liberties-trashing 90-Days-to-hold-suspects-without charge legislation. But no. It was a real leak ( from where? Which reminds me of an interesting previous story) and it means that Charles Clarke's claims that the bombers were 'clean skins' and the bombings 'came out of the blue' were crap. And the Security officials who said the men 'were not known' to them were talking crap too.

So could the Government have prevented Khan and his associates getting on our public transport and committing mass murder?

The article goes on to explain how Khan trained to make bombs in a terrorist training camp in Pakistan '... set up by Al-Qaeda soon after Tony Blair sent British troops into Iraq'.

Iraq. The 4 letter unmentionable word when you talk about July 7th 2005.

'MI5 has calculated that the entire plot cost less than £10,000 to carry out. It has also employed a team of in-house psychologists to analyse why the four men became terrorists.'

*Cough* I thought the Joint Intelligence Commitee gave us a steer on that in February 2003?

You know, when they explicitly told Mr Blair that that the invasion of Iraq would heighten the terrorist threat to Britain from al-Qaida? This caused Mr Blair to muse aloud at the time about the 'fear' of the 'possibility' of the 'nexus' 'between 'terrorism and WMD' in 'an event'. Such lawyerly weaseling. (See The Guardian reporting on September 11th 2005)

What an absolute balls-up: never mind WMD, never mind Saddam as a 'threat', the people of Iraq and the people of London and ordinary people everywhere are more at risk from terrorism since Iraq was invaded. What about the 'nexus' between 'terrorism and Governments starting illegal bloody wars and lying about why they are doing so and ignoring what they are warned the consequences might be?'

Oh, but, of course we can all trust in Mr Blair's 'judgement' to protect us all.

"This is where you've just got to make your judgment and it remains my judgment and I suppose time will tell whether it's true or it's not true''
said Mr Blair, when told about the heightened terrorism risk stemming from the decision concerning, and the reality of, the Iraq occupation.

For God's sake, now we know that not only was Blair was given a joint Home Office and Foreign office dossier explicity pointing out the terror threat at home in 2004, now we find out M15 were diligently listening to the conversations of the bombers for months! Judgement? I do not trust Mr Blair's judgement. I do not feel safe whilst he exercises it on my behalf and I do not trust him and this is what I say about his judgement.

It stinks. It stinks of innocent blood and explosions and preventable deaths, here and abroad.

Last month, of course, we all recall Blair refused to hold an independent or public enquiry into the London bombings, saying instead a ''narrative'' about the events would be published in the spring.

If I want to read a bloody narrative I'll nip into Waterstones. What I want is to understand is why July 7th happened. And that includes whether the Government took a knowing, calculated risk with so many lives and whether they did so knowing that this may be one of the prices of a war in Iraq.

The Government listened into the plotting of the 7th July cell, knew that the bombers were NOT 'unknown' as was originally claimed. The Government went into an illegal war to 'defeat terrorism' and because they said terrorism + WOMD = Your Worst Nightmare (TM) - yet knew there were no WMD and Iraq was 'no threat' .

Meanwhile by a hideous yet predictable irony , the terror risk of course increased. In Iraq, and at home, resulting in carnage, carnage and more carnage in Iraq, and finally in my city, on my train to work, last summer. And the wretches in power knew this, they knew the war was based on a lie and that being involved in Iraq increased the risks of terrorism, and they even listened in to Khan and his associates planning murder and mayhem.

Yet they still maintain this facile facade that there is no link between Iraq and 7th July. It beggars belief, it really does. Even the Financial Times, hardly a Galloway mouthpiece, makes the cost of this hubris, or naivete or breathtaking cynicism, or whatever the hell it is that causes this PM of mine to be so wilfully blind.

'The uncomfortable truth is that the ambitions and capabilities of the jihadis cannot be divorced entirely from the bloodshed in Iraq. The toppling of Saddam Hussein did not cause Islamist extremism but the present insurgency serves both as recruiting agent and training ground for al-Qaeda's war against the west.' ( (c) Financial Times)


I have said why we need an independent public enquiry before and the reasons have not gone away. And here is yet another compelling reason: today's leak and the realisation that the Government has been caught out yet again - the bombers, were known, not unknown, the attack did not 'come out of the blue', despite what the Home Secretary said last year.

On July 10th last year, before the identitity of the bombers was known, the Sunday Times was already reporting how young British men were being recruited into terror and hate. How much have the actions of my Government created the conditions and fanned the flames of the murderous terror they claimed they went to war to avoid?

I have had enough of these lies and evasions.

You can sign the petition for an independent public enquiry into the events of July 7th by clicking here .

26 Comments:

Blogger Jules said...

This is not new news, and although I forget the source, it was reported last year that at least on of the bombers had been under surveillance, but that the Security Service and Special Branch had had to devote their finite resources on those suspects considered to be a greater threat.

In the field of internal security and counter-terrorist intelligence things have to be weighed, and whilst it is a sad thing, it is a matter of fact in those type of operations that the future actions of minor suspects cannot be always accurately foretold, and that sometimes those who have been passed over end up causing a great deal of death and destruction.

January 22, 2006 10:28 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Two months of surveillance?
Two months?

That is not 'minor suspects'.

That is a long and expensive and bloody serious operation.

January 22, 2006 11:29 pm  
Blogger steve said...

This is bloody scary! If they were not considered a major threat I shudder to think who else is out there. They were trained terrorists, if they can slip the net what's stopping others? Seemingly not a lot.

January 23, 2006 12:17 am  
Anonymous David Mery said...

Money is wasted in wrongful arrests ( http://gizmonaut.net/bits/propaganda.html ) after the fact instead of better forward intelligence helping increase our security. Surely the heightened state of alert didn't start on 7/7. Can an independent and public inquiry really happen or will we have to wait for (an historical enquiry) when all involved are long gone from office?

br -d

January 23, 2006 12:45 am  
Blogger Ceridwen Devi said...

What you write is disturbing to say the least. Maybe if the London whale could have spoken to us it might have given us some idea of how much we are losing touch with reality. All those new laws, extraordinary renditions, security cameras and blah, blah, blah and our security services cannot evaluate what is going on in front of their very noses. In spite of all your, as usual, fascinating news I do hope you managed to get that restful weekend away from London. Beneath the madness of it all those of us who commit to truth share a common sanity. It's those blinded by their own insular power who just don't get it.

January 23, 2006 1:21 am  
Blogger Lennie Briscoe said...

Just found your blog and am very interested to hear your views. Being involved in law enforcement and having military expereince my views might be a little different to your own.

It doesn't surprise me that the government denies knowledge of anything intelligence related. It is a very grey area that borders our lawful existence. Admitting that the government "knew" may alert any remaining terrorists to change their tactics. What is the point in making our own lives harder? It is also possible that intelligence is collected outside of the law... (but I don't subscribe to mass conspiracy theorys)

"So could the Government have prevented Khan and his associates getting on our public transport and committing mass murder?"

Possibly. But then they might not have stopped the following attack on the 21st, which might have played out differently. We can't expect the government to know everything about everyone and to wrap us in cotton wool. If they were to, our big brother nanny state would turn into something resembling the "thought police" in George Orwell's 1984 classic. Lets keep our open society.

"the invasion of Iraq would heighten the terrorist threat to Britain from al-Qaida".
If Saddam wasn't dealt with immediately he would have been a much worse problem later. The war may well have cost many more lives if we were to let him increase in strength. If he used biological weapons against his own people including women and children will he think twice about using a nuclear device against his enemys?. I don't take the view that "everything will be OK if we leave it be". Neither do I want to police the world. But I do think we have do protect our own interests so that we can continue to live in the way we are acustomed and also in peace. If this means removing a few dictators in the process then so be it.

Everyone wants an independant public enquiry these days. I don't see what one will achieve. On 07/07 our security services failed. On many previous occasions they have suceeded, although their success is not publicised to prevent mass tabloid scaremongering. Yes it was dreadful and my hearfelt sympathies are with you. I was also on the tube when it happened although luckily remained unaffected.

Stay well. I hope you find the answers that you seek.

January 23, 2006 2:02 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Rachel,
Like you I wouldn't trust Mr. Blair any further than I could throw him - his never really lead the country, merely followed advice or waited to see which way the wind of public opinion blew (whether it's Iraq, Fuel Blockades or Foot & Mouth).

However, I agree with a lot of what lennie says. We all have perfect hindsight, & I guess the person who recommended stopping surveillence of the two suspects feels pretty stupid, but a decision was made on the information available at the time - to have carried on with that work (and maybe arrest them) is coming very close to being as big an infringement of liberty as 90 days detention. There has to be a balance between freedom & risk and on 7/7 freedom lost.

Since then, it's people like you that have brought freedom to be the front-runner. We don't have 90 days detention - although unfortunately we also have a PM who couldn't lead a dance, nor see a link in a chain much less one between foreign policy & events at home, but it is being talked about.

We don't have a public enquiry (yet), but there is pressure building, I've already got a reply from my MP (Tory) who obviously supports the idea. Don't concentrate on the security services with this - it's their job to gather data within their resourcing, it's HMG's job to make decisions on the data and that is where our questions must be focussed.

All the best,
Gary

January 23, 2006 9:09 am  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...

Gary and Lennie,

MI5 have resources.

Where were those resources? How were they deployed?

Were they watching the peaceful anti-war movement?

Or the peaceful anti-nuclear movement?

Or the peaceful anti-poverty and debt cancellation movement?

Or the peaceful trade union movement?

As Rachel pointed out, Blair was told by the intelligence services that going to war on Iraq would increase the threat of terrorism.

Yet there was a guy who on his return from Pakistan, where he attended a terrorist training camp, is bugged and overheard talking of joining Jihad and raising money for terrorism, what happens? He was thought to not be a threat to national security!?

How can that be?

How can MI5 be so incompetent?

This is the same MI5 tasked with securing the safety of The Queen and her interests. Not us, the general public.

A police state would be very secure for HM.

And (allowed) terrorism empowers the police state.

The odd terrorist event is good for the police state. Too much and questions will be asked of them. None and we, the general public have too much freedom.

So like Goldilocks, the odd terrorist event is "just right".

No one has yet to explain the advance warning of the bombs that Israel received.

Somebody knew the bombs were coming. This Sunday Times article points more towards a coverup by the intelligence services.

They tried to conceal their knowledge of the alleged bombers with denials shortly after the bombs.

My question is: what happened to all, EVERY SINGLE ONE, of the surveillance devices and operations AFTER Kahn and Tanweer were thought to not be a threat to national security? All the bugs? All the cameras? All the email and phone interception? Do the bugs and cameras have a life expectancy? Or were they removed? Or are they still active?

January 23, 2006 12:08 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thetruthman,

Your last questions aren't really all that relevant. Like I said, everyone is wise after the event.

How many male Muslims aged 20-30 come back from a Religous or Educational visit to Pakistian or Mecca?
More than one or two at a guess.

How many can MI5 keep under surveilence?
Not all of them, and all but one or two are going for the obvious reasons. Should they all be investigated just in case? Perhaps they should all be interned on their return.

MI5 are not just looking for "Arab" terrorists (I'm having a go at thetruthman, not Arabs, Muslims or anyother non-white or non-Christian group here), there is a whole range of threats to investigate.

We are all concerned about MI5 stopping their work on 2 of the bombers, but who & what did they start to investigate afterwards? Is it someone trying to do something worse? Clearly the threat was considered higher than the 2 bombers.

I think you need to take a step back and get a grasp on reality.
By all means get angry, there is a lot to get angry about, but direct it at the right person. He currently lives at No. 10 Downing Street, justifies war based on lies, abandons the people who have suggested what he wants to hear (remember Dr. David Kelly?) and then denies any link between that and the bombings on 7 & 21 July.

Gary

January 23, 2006 1:20 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

I enjoyed the truthman's blog. I wonder if it can possibly be real?

It includes the satirical gem that TV's ' Big Brother ' is really part of a plot by the Global Elite 'to reduce your resistance to the police state and the total surveillance society,'

Of course! 'The New World Order is taking revenge on Galloway. But I bet Galloway knew it would too.' says the Truthseeker.

Uh huh, yes, really.

More gems include the Satanic clues of the Washington monument - apparently the War on Terror is of course, an 'ancient' war...
( cue Ghostbusters music)

and of course, the obligatory 'Why would the BBC, the mouthpiece of the New World Order..'rant


and finally, 'tagging'
'Not only is there a service to track your children (because paedophiles are deliberately being released early or being given light sentences to molest and abuse your children).'



Fabulous!


like all conspiracy theorists, there is a little truth in some of what he says. About 1% of it.

But I am going to go and see if I can play Conspiracy Bingo... looking for

Bohemian Grove Satanic Rites - not yet
Mossad - tick
New World Order - tick
Zionism - tick
Freemasonry - tick
Lizards - not yet but I am still looking

UFOs - still looking
Psyops - still looking

January 23, 2006 1:30 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Anyone want to play?

It's very cold outside so I am sat at my desk a tad bored and he could do with the hits.

January 23, 2006 1:32 pm  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...

Gary

we are not talking about somebody who just went over to Mecca for the Hajj. We are talking about somebody who attended a known terrorist training camp.

Is this why Kahn was under surveillance in the first place?

Or was it just because MI5 felt like observing somebody for two months?

And as for my last questions, they are very relevant. For those bugs and cameras and phone taps and email interceptions started. But when did they stop? How did the bugs and cameras get into their surveillance positions, and when were they removed, if at all?

For if they were not removed then the surveillance could have continued under some other pretence e.g. training op.

You raise a very good question regarding where the resources were redeployed. I suggest other more important "terrorists", such as anti-war protestors, the trade unions, etc.

Maybe they were all planning the downfall of Sinn Fein with the infiltration of Sinn Fein and the spy ring at Stormont?

If the resources were redeployed to other more important terroroists then we are in the mire because I can't understand how somebody known to have attended a terrorist training camp who is overheard talking of fighting the Jihad and fundraising for said Jihad cannot be thought a threat to national security?

Do you know how many Islamic extremist publications encouraging terrorism are published in the UK?

The BNP leadership is on trial for inciting racial hatred, and yet you can mail order some very vitriolic Islamic publications inciting terrorism? I am not pro-BNP but can you see the double standards?

Also, I am not angry, just trying to get to the truth.

Rachel, again I wish you the best in trying to get an inquiry in to London 7/7. I am very surprised at how unphased you are at the Israeli foreknowledge, particularly with this latest leak in The Sunday Times. Somebody warned them. But who?

ps watch out for them 10 foot shapeshifting lizards (which btw I don't believe in. I believe Icke fell for a real stinking op on that one).

All the best.

January 23, 2006 4:41 pm  
Blogger BondBloke said...

Nothing surprises me abou this bunch of raving lunatics any more; I suppose when you have lied once each successive lie becomes exponentialy that much easier...

January 23, 2006 4:45 pm  
Anonymous Concerned said...

The detectives’ assessment was that the men were primarily involved in fraud rather than preparing to mount attacks in the near future. As a result, surveillance on them stopped, allowing the attacks that killed 52 people and injured 700 to go ahead.

Mmm, am I the only one to notice this paragraph in the article?

What fraud? .... and why weren't they arrested for it?

January 23, 2006 5:07 pm  
Anonymous Seamus O'Blimey said...

Excellent post Rachel, and great comments. But doesn't anyone find it suspicious that for months before 7/7 we were warned by a top cop that a major terrorist attack was a matter of "not if but when?"
Then no more warnings.
But while Buncefield was still burning we were told "there was no plane.. it wasn't a terror attack," after al qaeda had threatened to attack the oil infastructure?
Come on?

January 23, 2006 5:40 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

M15 had probably diverted their resources to fashioning highly sophisticated fibreglass "spy-rocks" in order to spy on the Soviets.... probably.

January 23, 2006 5:45 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rachel,

You are somewhat disingenuous in dismissing the Truthman's viewpoint & his blog site.

He has some valid questions which are not being answered.

January 24, 2006 5:13 pm  
Anonymous Tim Neale said...

Earth calling all conspiracy theorists

Please note MI5 spys on us Brits
MI6 spy on foreign bastards

Has it not occurred to you that whilst we are all discussing who knew what when how why and where

No one is discussing the astonishing fact that a British Prime minister who openly attributes taking the country to war to an error of judgment on his part and is still in No 10.

Compare this to another recent "error of judgment". An MP uses the service of a male prostitute.

Blair’s decision leads to the death of 200+ UK service personnel and uncounted foreign subhuman’s

MP’s decision makes owner of sleaze rag richer than he already is.

I personally would love the world to be filled with conspiracies, but the mundane truth it is self saving interest and incompetence we have to blame for the present state of the UK.

What are you going to do about it?
A) Fantasies about global conspiracies and whine about how powerless you are in face of the international illuminati.
B) Become politically active and make a real attempt to turn the idiots behind this nonsense out into the gutter where they belong

January 25, 2006 1:21 am  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...

In reply to tim neale

what do you mean by "politically active"?

decades of attempting to "turn the idiots behind this nonsense out into the gutter where they belong" by voting has not improved our lot.

Blair will be replaced by yet another Blair-clone.

Why?

Because the Global Conspiracy dictates.

Yes, Blair lied. But who for?

Not for himself.

In 1996, I think, (or was it 1998?) Blair was asked by an MP in the House of Commons about his attendance to a meeting in Greece in 1993. This was the annual Bilderberg meeting. Blair lied to the Commons and denied he attended.

Since its creation in 1954 ALL the major politicians of this country go to Bilderberg, and all Prime Ministers have been to Bilderberg, along with the top members of their cabinets. John Major was not a Bilderberger, he went to the Trilateral Commission instead, a sister organisation of Bilderberg.

So what? Bilderberg is run by David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, who also run the Trilateral Commission. The Rockefellers were intimately involved in the creation of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. These two fought a barbaric war in WW2. As a result of WW2 we got the UN. Who gave the land on the Hudson River in NYC to the UN for its current HQ? The Rockefellers.

Who also gave the land in Geneva for the HQ of the League of Nations? The Rockefellers.

What is it with the Rockefellers and world governing bodies?

Now did the Rockefellers donate this land out of guilt?

I doubt it. They, and others, formed agreements with IG Farben in order to give Nazi Germany the tools and resources for WW2. Similarly with Stalinist Russia.

You see, without such a devastating war as WW2 there would be no UN, a world government-in-waiting. People like the Rockefellers, who personify the NWO, need wars and terrorism to traumatise us and change the way we think. They can't force us into thinking we need a world government, but they can trick us into one by creating monsters such as Hitler and Stalin and getting them to fight. This foray into the Middle East is the next, probably final, step towards a world government, THEIR world government.

That's what us "conspiraloons" are tryng to get you to see.

If we all protest in Downing Street to get Blair out, who will replace him? Gordon Brown.

Is Brown a Bilderberger. Oh, yes!

Let's look at previous PMs.

Major? Trilateral Commission.
Thatcher? Bilderberg.
Callaghan? Bilderberg.
Heath? Bilderberg.
Wilson? Bilderberg.

And on and on and on...

Can you see what I am saying?

All our leaders, and the major members of their cabinets, all attend these clandestine meetings controlled by the likes of Kissinger and the Rockefellers.

What do they talk about? Minutes and notes are not taken. We only know from leaks, and from them we hear talk of UN troops patrolling US streets, gloabl taxation to fund the UN etc. Invariably the aims are:
Anglo-American control of the worlds resources
Bigger EU
Much bigger UN

They are all working towards a world government, controlled by them.

Now what sort of world government do you think it would be?

Benevolent, or tyrannical? (clue: these people were behind the Nazis and Stalin).

So we kicked out Bilderberg Thatcher and got Trilateral Major.

We kicked out Trilateral Major and got Bilderberg Blair.

We kick out Bilderberg Blair and we get Bilderberg Brown.

We kick out Bilderberg Brown and we get...?

Bilderberg Cameron? I think so.

Whoever it is I predict he or she will be a Bilderberger, or possibly a Trilateral.

And look at the USA. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was created in 1921. Since its creation virtually all Presidents and their running mates and their opposition in the Repubs and Dems are or were members of the CFR.

The CFR is controlled by...?

Rockefeller and Kissinger.

We are led to believe we have freedom and democracy, and that we must therefore go invading everywhere to spread it.

The reality is that our leaders who lie us into war all work for the Global Conspiracy because they are all fully-paid up members of these Rockefeller-Kissinger controlled organisations such as Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations (USA only).

In turn these organisations receive their orders from the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

So by joining the Labour Party, LibDems, etc does not work. All you do is vote in another false prophet who is either willingly working for or being used by the global conspiracy.

So, tim, what do you mean by "politically active"?

January 25, 2006 8:52 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

If their aim is to get an Evil New World Order up and running, they're a bit slow off the mark, aren't they?

All that time, all that money, all those meetings and they still haven't pulled it off. How incredibly ineffectual of them. Why not just drop a nuclear bomb on all us peasants and go and live in a diamond -studded Underground Lair with your evil henchmen and your miniskirted dollies and perhaps your persian cat in a daimond collar?

What silly nonsense. The world is not a James Bond novel with various Dr Evils sat there planning world domination.

So rich powerful men like to hang out with other rich powerful men in a club for rich powerful men. That is not a surprise. It's not evidence of a Global Conspiracy. It's called networking. Same thing happens in the Groucho club.

January 25, 2006 9:29 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Meanwhile, back in the real world,if you don't like what our leaders are doing in our name, say so. Lying on the floor and flapping your arms because nobody understands you and all the horrible lizards/Forces of Evil are running the world doesn't win you any prizes, or further the cause of freedom - or truth - one bit. If Nelson Mandela had sat in his cell blogging about how nobody understood him and it was all hopeless because of the illuminiati conspiracy or whatever... etc etc.

January 25, 2006 9:35 am  
Blogger Bridget Dunne said...

One small point regarding Bob Kiley, the Commissioner for Transport for London.

Early in his career, he was with the CIA, where he served as Manager of Intelligence Operations and then as Executive Assistant to the Director and he is also a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

January 25, 2006 10:54 am  
Anonymous Tim Neale said...

Vote for me for PM

I will not try to establish World Govenment

I will resign if I ever take the country to war on an assumption which later turns out to be false

I might well take foriegn jollies to hang out with fat cats

It is unlikely I will employ the services of a male prostitue (the sheep will complane)

I will insist all lizards come out of the closet.

January 25, 2006 11:00 am  
Anonymous concerned said...

@ Tim

If voting ever changed anything they'd make it illegal

January 25, 2006 11:54 am  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...

Rachel

regarding your reference to Nelson Mandela, he was imprisoned for terrorism. Are you now supporting terrorism?

And regarding this "rich mens club" that I assume you are calling organisations like Bilderberg, CFR etc. I have just poined out to you that they are run by Kissinger/Rockefeller, that it was the Rockefellers who gave the lands for the HQs of the two attempts at world government; the league of nations and the united nations, and it was the Rockefellers an others who built both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as well as their own war machines in the USA. Both of these attempts at world government were the result of a world war. Without these world wars there would not have been the acceptance of a world government such as LN or UN. These were only accepted after the trauma of a world war.

You ask, why do we not have a world government already? We have a covert one already, in that our leaders all come from the same three groups; Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission and the UN has some degree fof power. This is not good enough for them for they do not have control of the whole planet e.g. Russia. So in order for the likes of Russia to come under their control Russia etc will have to, or be forced to, cede sovereignty to a world government. What would make Russia cede sovereignty? a world war worse than WW2.

To arrange such events as world wars that traumatise the whole planet takes time. Time to get the right men and women in the right place. Time to get the resources allocated so that they win. Time to get the finances in place. Time to get the conditions right that spark it off.

I am not lying on the floor flapping my arms around. I am in the process of placing my argument on a website, as well as blogging and arguing here and elsewhere, and constantly writing to my MP. Thus I am saying that I do not like what our leaders are upto, as you suggest. I am not involved in any political party, but I am prepared to voice my concerns and finance ideas and organisations that I believe will make a difference.

And stop referring to lizards as if I believe in them. I have already told you I do not believe in them.

For references I will direct you to read the following;
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler - Antony C sutton

George Bush : The Unauthorized Biography - Webster Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution - Antony C Sutton

The Rockefeller File - Gary Allen


I believe they are all available through Amazon.


Best of luck!

January 25, 2006 12:40 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Oh, for heaven's sake.*headesk*

'Are you now supporting terrorism?' What a question to ask anyone. What a particularly stupid thing to ask me in particular.

I absolutely can't be bothered with this anymore.
I have posted twice about what I think about conspiracy theorists and asked politely if the lively ensuing discussion could be contained to that part of the blog. This is the only place I currently have in my life to deal with 7th July and after: it keeps me sane and ocassionally stops me from descending into utter despair. I do not want to engage in conspiracy ping pong all over the site.
That the world's leaders are a bunch of self-serving power hungry types is not a surprise. This does not mean I subscribe to the wilder theories doing the rounds and I can tell you now, attempts to convert me to your way of thinking are doomed to failure whilst my bullshit detectors and mental faculties still function. Cheers.

January 25, 2006 3:03 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home