What's Behind the London Attacks?

Only one word sprang to mind when I heard about the bombings that claimed the lives of dozens of Londoners today – convenient.

Is there anything convenient in death, or in thousands of lives destroyed from catastrophe? No – and words cannot express the sorrow I feel for the men and women changed by today's events. But governments with skeletons in their closets have a great deal to gain from a national tragedy bolstered by "terrorism."

As I sit in my office today, I hear the whispers of co-workers now utterly convinced our war on terror must continue. Despite American and British involvement in the Middle East birthing wave after wave of rebel forces, the Bush doctrine is now justified in the minds of millions. Petty grievances such as the Downing Street Minutes, the President's flagging support and Karl Rove's treasonous outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame are unimportant. A shadowy conglomeration is out to kill us.

Sound familiar? It should – the same emotional ploy was used to great effect on Americans in the wake of September 11th. Question nothing, particularly your cries for vengeance or that nagging feeling in the back of your head. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Unlike four years ago, however, I refuse to accept that the attack on London was anything less than a false-flag operation designed to enrage Western "civilization" against the Middle East. Why? Because there is no reason for "terrorist" groups to attack England. As recently as this week, the Ministry of Defense announced that plans were being drafted that would pull British armed forces from the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the British effectively admitting they're throwing in the towel, the only motivation to stay could come from an attack that compels the forces to stay and fight "global terrorism."

Think about it. The attack only benefits empires desperate to maintain a foothold in the Middle East without further eroding public opinion. Will Parliament shrug their shoulders and push their soldiers into longer tours of duty because of this? Obviously it's too early to tell, but if that happens, insurgents and rebels will have lost more than they could have ever possibly gained in destroying part of the Underground.

SOURCE

 

Maintaining a state of terror is crucial and the British public have been carefully primed for today‘s murderous attacks with endless reminders from the state security apparatus that such events were entirely predictable. No doubt there will now be calls for even more repressive surveillance and ‘pre-emption’ methods to be introduced.

The media for its part is of course doing its bit to keep ramming home the ‘al-Qu’eda' connection even though not a shred of evidence has ever been produced in or out of a court of law to show that it exists, let alone that’s it‘s behind any of the bombings. The name is merely a mantra, like ‘Red’ or ‘Commie’, a convenient button to be pushed as and when needed.

Of course it can‘t be proved that the people who set these bombs are the paid agents of the British or US state, anymore than the state can prove that al-Zarqawi exists, but the inability of the most sophisticated intelligence/security agencies on the planet to catch them; their chosen targets – never agents of the state, always civilians; and in Iraq, almost always Iraqi civilians – points to the work of agent provocateurs in the classic mould.

As I‘ve pointed out many times before, the Websites that are the convenient mouthpiece for the various ‘Islamist’ organisations, are extremely easy to trace, yet mysteriously, even when they have registered offices in the heart of London, the police never inquire. It’s all just to easy, just too pat and when the prepared handouts from the state propagandists are accepted without question by the corporate/state media, we have a ready-made recipé for repression.

SOURCE


Or maybe al-Zarqawi is the dim-witted school yard bully the corporate media likes to make him out to be. If so, the U.S. military and various intelligence organizations should have found him long ago. “There’s no shortage of documentation, in print and online, on how US intelligence agents operating around the world since the 1950s have created and developed their own terrorist groups,” writes Pepe Escobar for Asia Times Online, “their own terrorist warnings concerning these terrorist groups; and then how they applied multibillion-dollar counterterrorism tactics—including black psy-ops—to neutralize these terrorist groups they created in the first place.

Disinformation and propaganda are key. Creating a “face” to terror is key. So these black psy-ops always include the creation of a cipher. One American psy-ops operative recently leveled with the Australian newspaper The Age: “We were basically paying up to US$10,000 a time to opportunists and criminals who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq.”

Abu is a villain right of the Bushcon Ministry of Central Casting: he plays up the over-rated Sunni-Shi’a schism, attacks innocent civilians, engages in mind-boggling brutality, is everywhere and nowhere all at once, and serves the same purpose as George Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein. If the Bushcons didn’t have Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they would have to invent him—in fact, this is precisely what they have done.


Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: An Arab Villain Right Out Bushcon Central Casting Kurt Nimmo

 

Operation Northwoods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Operation Northwoods was a document drafted in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (and possibly President John F. Kennedy himself) on March 13, 1962. Long believed to be residing in the imagination of conspiracy theorists, the document was declassified in recent years by the Freedom of Information Act.

<snip>

Content

The document was drafted with the intent of getting public support for an invasion of Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that the US population would only support military intervention in Cuba in the event of provocative, aggressive action by the island nation against American soldiers, American civilians or Cuban refugees and Cubans in exile. The document frequently refers to staging fake attacks with fake victims, but in other cases does not specify whether the attacks should be fake or real, and for some recommended attacks explicitly notes that they could be real. Had Operation Northwoods been carried out, it would likely have required the coordinative efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is mentioned several times.

Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods proposed by the Joint Chiefs were:

Using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba.

Start false rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.

Stage mock attacks, sabotages and riots and blame it on Cuban forces.

Sink an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base - reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War - or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document refers to unmanned drones, fake funerals etc.)

"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."

Destroy a fake commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday" (really an unmanned drone)

Stage a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."

SOURCE

 

Yeah, to the global elite the planet is like a Grand Chessboard

 

A Brief History of Banking

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws" - Amshall Rothschild

In the recent era, the story of "the elite" commences with the development of the modern banking system in Middle Ages Europe. At that time, disposable wealth was usually held in the form of gold or silver bullion. For safety, such assets were kept in the safe of the local goldsmith, he usually being the only individual who had a vault on his premises. The goldsmith would issue a receipt for the deposit and, to undertake financial transactions, the buyer would withdraw his gold and give it to the seller, who would then deposit it again, frequently with the same goldsmith. As this was a time-consuming process, it became common practice for people to simply exchange smiths' receipts when conducting financial transactions. As time passed, the goldsmiths began to issue receipts for specific values of gold, making buying and selling easier still. The smiths' receipts thus became the first banknotes.

The goldsmiths, now fledgling bankers, noticed that at any one time only a small proportion of the gold held with them was being withdrawn. So they hit upon the idea of issuing more of the receipt notes themselves, notes that did not refer to any actual deposited wealth. By giving these receipts to people seeking capital, in the form of loans, the goldsmiths could use the money deposited with them by others to make money for themselves. It was found that, for every unit of gold held by the goldsmith, ten times the sum could be safely issued as notes without anyone usually becoming any the wiser. If a goldsmith held, say, 100 pounds of other people's gold in his vaults, he could issue banknotes to the value of 1000 pounds. As long as no more than 10 percent of the holders of those notes wanted their gold at any one time, no one would realize the fraud being perpetrated. This practice, known as "fractional reserve lending," continues to this day and is actually the backbone of the modern banking industry. Banks typically loan ten times their actual financial holdings, meaning 90% of the money they lend does not now, never has, and never will exist.

Loans issued by the goldsmiths had to be paid back to them with interest, meaning non-existent money slowly became converted to tangible assets in the form of goods and labour. Should the loan be defaulted upon, the banker had the right to seize the defaulter's property. As time passed, therefore, the goldsmiths became wealthier and wealthier. They had devised a scheme to create money out of thin air and then convert this money into real goods, labour, or property. A loan of money at 12% interest recouped not merely 12% for the banker, but 112%, as it does to this day.

As the industrial era began, so the potential for furthering this scheme increased exponentially. The goldsmiths were now fully-fledged bankers, and their ability to create money out of thin air and then convert it into tangible assets enabled them to begin to control whole industries to the point where the worlds of banking and industry became, to all intents and purposes, seamless entities. Extended family banking structures, such as the Rothschilds, acquired so much power in this manner that the various monarchies and fledgling governments of the time soon began to seem quite feeble by comparison.

To increase their power and influence still further, these elite banking families would subtly buy influence within governments or monarchies and utilise this influence to strategically stir up unrest between nations. When the inevitable disputes broke out, they would then lend vast sums of money, usually to both sides, so that war could be waged. Any armaments purchased would be those manufactured by the industrial wing of the banking-industrial cartel, and by regulating the loan of money and the timing of the delivery of weapons, the outcome of any conflict could effectively be controlled. If deemed necessary, monarchies and governments could further be destabilized by generating poverty through regulating the money supply, and by using agent-provocateur tactics to fuel any latent desire for revolution. With such power it was easy to control the fledgling governments of Europe and ensure that only those politicians who would do the will of the banking families came to power.

As the twentieth century dawned, the banking families hit upon a new means to consolidate and increase their gains. They discovered that by periodically restricting the money supply crashes within the emergent stock exchanges of the world could easily be engineered. The most notable example of this was the famous Wall Street Crash of 1929. What the history books usually fail to record is that, in a crash, wealth is not actually destroyed, but merely transferred. The "Crash of '29" allowed the most powerful of the banking and industrial families to absorb the weaker elements, generating even greater levels of centralized control.

As the technological revolution progressed, so the buying up of TV stations and newspapers allowed the creation and control of the mass media. This served to ensure that only a portrayal of events that suited the interests of the elite banking families would get to public attention - invariably one that all but denied their very existence.


A Closer Look at Government

The vision we're usually given of how political power is manifest in our society typically runs something like this: government at the top, banking, industry, media and military, beneath, and the people beneath this. However, an independent examination of the development of modern political power is more likely to reveal the following arrangement: extended family banking groups at the top, government beneath, facilitating the wishes of this hierarchy, and the media beneath portraying the work of the government to the people as "democracy in action."

It can thus be seen that, in truth, most governments are little more than front organizations for the elite banking cartels. They interface with the public via the media, acting to facilitate social change in a manner that maintains relative social stability, while ensuring that our culture stays in line with any course the elite wish it to pursue. Western governments do not usually allow the public to actually pick who becomes their political representative, merely to choose between individuals selected by the party hierarchy. Neither do the public get to pick the policies the representative will pursue, this is also under the control of the party. To say that this system is open to abuse is a considerable understatement.

SOURCE

 

Oh? Why do you think that?

 

Agree Ken. We shouldn't show everyone we ain't got no proof.

 

Well, thinking is always a step in the right direction. I reckon.

 

The political impact of London bombs

Analysis

By Nick Assinder
Political Correspondent, BBC News website

BBC News