So Bliar has used these still-unexplained attacks in order to supercede the courts, and get what he's wanted for four years, the power to detain and deport at will.

Wonder who carried out the attacks ...

While the people who brought us "Iraq has WMD!!" are claiming this man has 'vowed more terror in London' - claims that are being uncritically repeated by the media - it is interesting to remember that he was arrested three years ago.

Meanwhile, the compelling, independently-verifiable evidence that would support Bliar's Conspiracy Theories about 7/7/21 and the electrician shot EIGHT TIMES by a still-unidentified man (like video images from the most surveilled country in the world) is still suspiciously absent. The timing is very interesting, and bears investigation. Note the careful stage dressing, the placement of the rifle behind him, which is not typical of legitimate "terrorist" messages.

Bin Laden's No 2 'captured in Iran'

Rory McCarthy in Islamabad and Luke Harding in Kabul
Monday February 18, 2002
The Guardian

Osama bin Laden's most senior lieutenant, the Egyptian militant Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been captured and jailed in Tehran, a leading Iranian newspaper reported yesterday.

Zawahiri, the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, was arrested several days ago and has been imprisoned in the city's Evin jail, where political prisoners are usually held, the Hayat-e-Nou newspaper said.

If the report is correct, the arrest is the most serious strike at the heart of Bin Laden's al-Qaida network since the World Trade Centre attacks, and a diplomatic coup for Tehran.

Article continues
The FBI has Zawahiri on its most-wanted list in connection with the August 1998 bombings of two US embassies in east Africa in which 224 people were killed. It has offered a $25m reward for information leading to his capture.

The Farsi-language paper gave few details yesterday about the arrest and no indication of the source of its information. The paper is regarded as reliable and is run by Hadi Khamenei, a leading legislator and the brother of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But Iran's foreign ministry said last night. "The news that has been published in the Hayat-e-Nou newspaper is not true. We deny it," Hamid Reza Asefi, a foreign ministry spokesman, said.

In Kabul the interim government said many al-Qaida and Taliban fighters had crossed into Iran but it had no information on Zawahiri. "We are not aware that a person of al-Zawahiri's stature has been arrested," foreign ministry spokesman Omar Samad said.

Zawahiri, 50, who wears thick spectacles and a long, dark beard, is regarded as Bin Laden's closest ally. He has been living with him in Afghanistan for several years and often served as his personal doctor. In an interview in June last year, Bin Laden said he had merged Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad with al-Qaida.

In December, Afghan commanders involved in the attacks on Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan said they believed Zawahiri had recently been at the camp. His wife and three daughters were later reported to have died in a US bombing raid, although it was thought Zawahiri was not with them at the time.

Washington has criticised Tehran for allowing al-Qaida and Taliban fighters to slip across its border and Iran was named by George Bush([search]) as one of three "axis of evil" countries.

The Guardian
- Homepage:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,893569,00.html

its an interesting idea that the state is trying to perpetuate fear so it can push through 'security' measures which otherwise would be unnacceptable.

i was reminded of the southwest bbc spotlight news this thursday (4th aug) with a short piece about how the local police were searching trains in the area with sniffer dogs as a 'deterrent' for any planned suicide attacks. my gran (a cynic, but certainly not radical) travelled on the trains that day and told me that one policeman, complete with dog, boarded her train accompanied by a photographer. all three cleared off again as soon as the photoshoot was over. it certainly seems to fit with a thesis of the state and media trying to artificially create a 'state of hightened alert'.

As if there aren't enough *real* things to get worked up about...

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/320072.html

:-)

yep and they have also got one sniffer dog in Afghanistan trying to stop the flow of heroin out of there.
Or maybe it was the same one that your grannie saw on the train in south london.
it's going rather well for them methinks ..

PsyOps:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/320072.html

"Publication of methodology or defacto admission of bullshitting: what'll it be PsyOps?"

who cares if this government evolves to become one of the most fascist, evil and vile regimes on this planet? for now I don't. Simply because the only way to enable a popular revolution is to accelerate our journey to a place where the majority of people don't want to be.

The faster we slide down this precarious slope to a situation where people are so divided, downtrodden and powerless it will eventually lead to a situation whereby they will want to hear the reasons for their demise of social well being, they will begin to hate the position they have let themselves fall into and will then look for alternatives.

it is simple human emotions that are driving this government policy - that of fear and greed - when these emotions are overcome by reality, forces for change will be at play.

"This is coupled with relentless propaganda about Iran, the home of seventy million Muslims and the ‘birth place’ of the suicide bomber"

Interesting that those in power claim Iran to be the birth place of suicide bombers.

The first recorded suicide bomb was detonated by Christians during the Crusades who sailed a ship in amongsed the islamic enemy ships, and blew it up packed with explosives.

PsyOps:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/320072.html

"Publication of methodology or defacto admission of bullshitting: what'll it be PsyOps?"

...do the pre-math.

'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

 http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/02/18/120.html
.

Most of PsyOps's arguments fall into one of the following categories. These are all well-known fallacies: arguments that are logically invalid and where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It's "name the game" time, folks.


1. Ad hominem - attacking the man, not the argument

Example: "the people who brought us "Iraq has WMD!!" are claiming..."

PsyOps's arguments typically focus on who is speaking rather than what they are saying. Certain individuals or groups are wholly distrusted from the outset, regardless of how credible their statements or arguments may be in any individual case. Conversely, others' arguments (typically his own) are accepted as-is and need no further examination.

No-one and no organisation always tells the truth. Sometimes falsehoods are malicious and sometimes they're mistaken. We all make judgements about individuals' and organisations' credibility but we can only do so meaningfully if we assess every statement they make on its own merits. We fall prey to prejudice on either side if we don't - uncritically either believing someone or not believing someone based on our assessment their previous record, which may in itself be wrong.

PsyOps's own arguments in his eyes are unassailable because he appears to believe that he is one of the few people with integrity. In his own case, testing that argument against the evidence or counter-arguments is both unnecessary and an unwelcome slight on his character. When his arguments are criticised, he makes accusations of bad faith or mischief against his critics rather than engaging with their arguments. Typically, he accuses his critics of being liars, coplovers and spooks/spies in a feeble attempt to diminish their credibility. None of this has any bearing - whether it's true or not - on the validity of the arguments his critics present, but simply serves to distract from the relevant argument.

On a point of style, referring to Tony Blair as "Bliar" is not only quite juvenile, but is a strong indicator that PsyOps is treating his statements in an ad hominem way, rather than acting as a shrewd critic. Most people in this country and presumably everyone on IMC believes Blair lied over WMD in Iraq. We don't need that point to be reinforced. We haven't forgotten. His real name will do.


2. Abuse of cui bono? / who benefits? / who profits? (inferring behaviour from motive)

Example: "Who Profits?... Wonder who carried out the attacks"

Asking "who profits?" with a nod and a wink, and with the implication that those that benefit most are the instigators of something is not and has never been a useful way of understanding politics.

Firstly, cui bono is an investigative technique used by people like the police when drawing up a list of possible suspects for a crime. It applies to individuals and small groups. It does not apply to large organisations and the workings of states and governments, which have very different dynamics. It is not a technique used in political analysis. Everyone with an education in politics and/or law knows this. PsyOps appears not to.

Even if the actions of a large organisation or government may be in themselves criminal, cui bono still does not apply. It does not apply to individuals occupying powerful organisational positions, either. Characterising Tony Blair as an individual with criminal/selfish intent is not relevant. He may have all kinds of sinister personal motives, but his power derives from his office and is exercised through it. A greedy cousin bumping off a relative to profit from their will is not meaningfully similar to a government organising a terrorist outrage to justify repression. To think that it might be is woefully reductionistic.

Secondly, even where cui bono applies (in cases of individuals/small groups and crimes), it has never been the case that those with the most to benefit are the prime suspects. It is an investigative technique for drawing up a shortlist, nothing else. Inferring motives is difficult. The true culprit may well not be on that shortlist.

Thirdly, cui bono is not an element of evidence and cannot be presented as such in a court. To prove a case in court, you have to show that someone did something, not just that they benefitted (or thought they would benefit) from doing something. Motivation matters to an extent, but in itself proves nothing. Several people may have a good motive for a crime but that doesn't mean that any one of them committed it, or that the person with the (apparently) strongest motive was most likely to commit it.

The processes of investigation (gathering evidence) and prosecution (testing the validity of evidence) are different. If you insist on using cui bono inappropriately in a political context, it no more benefits your case than in would in a criminal trial context.

Fourthly, in respect of governments and large organisations, they are particularly skilled at playing any situation to their advantage. It is largely this skill that brings certain politicians and parties into power. Seizing an opportunity and milking it for all its worth is not the same as creating an opportunity either by lawful or criminal means.

Asking "cui bono?" in a political context is a classic sign of the conspiracy theorist who chooses their conclusion first and then goes looking for evidence to support it. Credible political analysts do not do this.

Recommendation: Try presenting evidence that suggests that someone did something, rather than alluding to who might have had a motive for doing something. "Who benefits?" in itself proves nothing.


3. Simple factual ignorance: misunderstanding how society/government/the law works

Examples: "the compelling, independently-verifiable evidence ... is still suspiciously absent", "claims that are being uncritically repeated by the media"

PsyOps seems to have little understanding of the common practices, roles, powers and responsibilities of just about every significant body in public life: governments, legislators, political parties, pressure groups, the civil service, police, the courts, the CPS, the IPCC, the media.

This demonstrates itself frequently when PsyOps criticises one of these bodies for performing their normal function in the normal way or exhorts them to do something that would be outside their remit. He then alleges mischief or conspiracy when they don't work the way he expects them to.

Society does not exist for our individual benefit or pleasure, nor do major institutions bend themselves to our whim. Of course, with no understanding of how these bodies normally work, he's entirely unable to call them to account when they really do neglect their duties or exceed their powers. He just can't tell the difference. This has the unfortunate effect of reinforcing the ignorance of those that are similarly clueless.

Recommendation: Get an education. Read some books on how the various systems in society work. Go to college or uni and study it. Right now, you're thrashing around in the dark drawing all kinds of sinister inferences that are based simply on your ignorance of very well known facts.


4. Focus on irrelevant and often emotionally-intense detail

Example: "the electrician shot EIGHT TIMES by a still-unidentified man"

Some details matter and some don't. It depends on the context. To take this particular example:

"electrician" - his occupation is irrelevant. Being an "ordinary worker" makes an unjustified killing - if it is so - no better nor worse.

"EIGHT TIMES" - it doesn't matter how many times he was shot. All that matters is that he was killed. Whether by a single shot, eight or eighty, doesn't have any bearing on whether the killing was right or wrong. Are we to assume, conversely, that the killing would have been less bad had he been shot fewer times?

"by a still-unidentified man" - sounds very sinister, spooky and emotionally-intense. Unfortunately, it's simply untrue in any relevant sense. The killer is unidentified to us, but then we're not charged with investigating it. The killer is known to those that currently need to know - primarily the IPCC - and if charges are brought, his identity will be revealed.

Recommendation: trim away the fat and let's concentrate on the meat. Don't delude yourself or fool others that something that has emotionally bad consequences must necessarily have a sinister cause.


Therefore:

I'm not going to make the same mistake that PsyOps often makes, namely, trying to infer his motives in the absence of any evidence. I will say, however, that his behaviour has troll-like effects in that it distracts people from critically examining the salient issues and sidetracks everyone into dealing with his (and others') evidentially-unsupported conspiracy theories. Other people do this, too. If PsyOps and others continue with their intellectually dishonest strategems I'll continue to "name their games" and treat their arguments with the contempt they deserve.

Bad things are going on in this country and it makes no real difference right now whether the government have engineered the whole situation or are just exploiting it as it stands. We need to assess what they are visisbly saying and doing, rather than tie ourselves in knots trying to determine what may be going on behind the scenes. If evidence comes to light to suggest government foul play, we'll take that on its merits. In the meantime, we have more than enough to do working forward from what we already know, rather than wasting time spinning fantasies.

Your right about one thing, somebody is profiting from mailitarizing the London streets. Ronald McDonald is having trouble paying a 3 trillion dollar US deficit (and growing every year) all by himself, That is when Uncle Sam steps in with all the 'happy meals' (war toys) for coalition governments to play with. A quarter of America's GDP is military based.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/320270.html

The thing Mr Ops doesn't seem to want to acknowledge is that in the UK there hasn't been the hysteria he assumes there has been. The UK has been under attack since the 1940's (with a few years respite) people here are generally resigned to the concept that people want to kill us. Especially in London. When the "Real IRA" were on the loose the biggest gripe I heard was "Now, I have to get the Bus, sigh!" when a tube alert happened. So, the "Come to Daddy" argument is lame.

But the "terror laws!". Well as must've here'll know that this creep of antidemocratic legislation has been noticable since at least Michael Howard (i.e. that's when I sat up and said: hold on!") PsyOps seems to have missed out on the REAL conspiracy to fit people the Thatcher/PIRA years... Polticians enacting bad legislation can't be anything as dull as backhanders for campaign supporters (ID cards etc) or a desperate move to make it look like something is being done, when nothing really can be done (Terrorism Act). No, it has to an exciting world where "false falgs" are waved and it's the well-heeled jackboot of "facism" stamping on faces. His world is every bit is more bigotted as the imams the world over recruiting zealots into terrorism. more, because at least they have SOME grain of truth they can hold up to the disgruntled.

He also doesn't seem to realise, or want to admit, that to attribute the attacks to 'dark forces' is to deny that there is a lot of anti-western thinking in Muslim countries/communities. That thinking is there for very real reasons. It's called 'foreign policy' (i.e. treating others like shit) and it goes back centuries. To blame it all on shadowy figures is the greatest diversion from matters embarressing to those "who stand to gain". Al Qaeda, as a terrorist philosophy exists. It's members are as real as its victims. Sure you can argue definitions of how cohesive it is. Whether it's a car boot sale, Kentucky Fried Chicken or McDonalds of terrorism... but it isn't a cover story.

The REAL conspiracy arguments are lost in the drama of the same paranoid conspiracy semantics of the US right-wing militias. The real conspiracy is probably to be found in said foreign policy and US presidential office business interests (chronies). But that kind of story only makes geeks hot and bothered= white collar crime. It'll still amount to premieditated mass murder.. but without the Boy's Own Andy McNab prose. It'd be another mouldy script on a Hollywood agent's shelf.

The thing that makes laugh about PsyOps and his ilk, is that he picks and chooses when certain people are to be trusted: corporate media, politicians... anyone that will serve the purpose of teh Boy's Own Adventure... Hell, he's even arguing elsewhere that some story emanating from a Tehran newswire is to be believed- I guess Islamic Jihad are just another brnach of Mossad. Are Tehran now part of the New World Order??? If Tehran said the "The moon isn't made of cheese" I'd be sceptical.

There is no room for opportunism, synergy, random convergence, the literally obvious in the world of the conspiracy loons. EVERY single thing has to be the fault of the hate figure. It's not enough that the CIA bankrolled Al Qaeda in the '80s and am sure there must have been someone saying even then "This'll come back and kick us on the ass!". Not good enough, Al Qaeda has to be cover for our Scooby Doo bad men.

Ad hominem, ad libitum, ad fucking nauseum.

What's more PsyOps is a liar. He tries to make himself appear to be wiser than the rest of us and fraudulently borrows gravitas with boasts of spycatching but is unable (not unwilling) to substantiate these boasts.

In short, he needs to be able to put all his fears in a little box where he can see them, but to do that he needs the constant reassurance that he has invested his secuirty with the right "company", hence the fanatical spamming of crazy theories= denial.

It's interesting how many Spooks/Trolls show up whenever these subjects are broached, and people begin talking about them, as well as thei gaping holes in the official Theory put forth by these proven LIARS, not to mention their complete inability to present compelling, independently-verifiable evidence.

They've already LIED to give the impression of a threat which does not exist, and suddenyl, we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt? The thing that really identifies the Plants/Volunteers is that, while they demand that the Opposition provide Impossible Proofs (Disinformation), they do not demand the same of the people using these unexplained events to further their agenda (www.newamericancentury.org), steal people's hard-won rights, disseminate hatred, and pursue aggression from which they profit greatly.

25 Tactics for Truth Suppression
(Disinformation)
 http://www.benfrank.net/sweep/disinfo.html

A Field Guide to Hasbara (Propaganda)
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284723.html

You'll note, of course, the irony inherent in "Zorro" the Spook's Ad Hominem attack on "PsyOps" ... He has yet to address any of the pertinent information used to support these ideas.

...

magoo is a bright monkey and psycho sops is a bit carried away.... but magoo disregards too much for a bright monkey to dismiss when he plays devils advocate for the powers that be. he dismisses so much you gotta ask why does such a bright monkey ignore glaring problems in some of the arguments put forward in the media i.e about planes landing on the pentagon. (this would now be his cue to become slightly more giving so as to look more 'real' psychologically).

Dont fall for the psy ops doesn't do himself many favours by labelling every event as a planned event by psy ops, some definitely are but spinning real events is much more cost effective than creating them. S/He should become more scientific and cautious about his claims to a) stop him/herself going nutty and b) letting far more rationally presented evidence outwaying any small nugget of reasonable supposition s/he provides.

"It's interesting how many Spooks/Trolls show up whenever these subjects are broached"

Ad hominem, yet again. This is getting quite tiresome.

If you don't understand what it means, please re-read what I've written more carefully. It means: attacking other people personally rather than their arguments makes you look stupid and doesn't damage their case. I'll try to simplify it further if that definition still causes difficulty.

And I think there's a substantial difference between a spook and a troll, so which is it to be? A paid agent of the state, or someone maliciously having fun by writing provocative comments? Any evidence to back either of those up? We're all waiting. I believe you were asked to come up with some evidence on another thread and that failure to do so would be a tacit admission of bullshitting. Well? Your silence on that point is deafening.

"They've already LIED to give the impression of a threat which does not exist, and suddenyl, we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt?"

We're supposed to judge each statement and action on its merits. It's what mature people do that makes them effective in society, rather than a pathetic, quixotic permanent opposition.

"The thing that really identifies the Plants/Volunteers is that, while they demand that the Opposition provide Impossible Proofs (Disinformation)..."

Ad hominem plus straw man. I've never demanded proof from anyone. I do, however, expect your assertions to be accompanied by and derived from credible (though not irrefutable) evidence. They're not. I expect your conclusions to be more plausible, based on the evidence that we have, than alternative explanations. They're not.

"You'll note, of course, the irony inherent in "Zorro" the Spook's Ad Hominem attack on "PsyOps" ... He has yet to address any of the pertinent information used to support these ideas."

If "Zorro the Spook" isn't in itself an ad hominem attack, I don't know what is. Evidence? Would it be too much to ask you to support that rather serious and ridiculous charge?

As for addressing the evidence to support the conspiracy theories, I and others have done that quite exhaustively on other threads. There is nothing new here, besides peddling cui bono-derived speculation and pathetically trying to defame people who disagree with you.

And if it wasn't obvious, I was quite scrupulous about dissecting PsyOps _arguments_ and providing examples of his handiwork to support what I said. If it turns out in practice that every single statement he makes is based on one of the logical fallacies I've described there's not much I can do about that.

Note his response has simply been more of the same (LIARS, trolls, spooks...) rather than a substantial attempt at refuting a single point I'd made.

So let's put the name calling and the loud shouting to one side and try to support logically valid arguments with evidence. Too much to ask?

I wholly agree with your appraisal but...

Oh, I'm not disregarding them. I'm well aware of the many "interesting" facets to 9/11. Perhaps there was some element of collusion, perhaps not. Perhaps Turkish agents were working in Washington perhaps not. Perhaps Warren Buffer was involved... but WHERE is the solid evidence? The thing to always keep telling yourself: thr truth is strabger than fiction. Random convergence is what drives the universe.

The thing is, I can admit I haven't as Scooby Doo what happened and is happeneing. But, I won't go reading tea leaves for the answer. The fact that Bush and Blair are proven liars and should be tried in an international court for war crimes doesn't prove every crackpot theory by default. I hate Bush/Blair and their apolgists. But I hate them for what they undoubtedly in full knowledge have done. I don't have to invent more.

Sure there is a lot of ambiguity RE: 9/11. But there is no clear indication where EXACTLY it is eminating and why ( as pointed out, politicians are beasts of opportunism and spin: much like Mr PsyOps). I don't think however we are looking at institutionalised conspiracy here. It is absurd to suppose that CIA/FBI/MI5/MI6/Mossad/Saudi/Al Qaeda are all in on a big secret and nothing has leaked. Not one signle person had a deathbed confession, an unguarded monent, a crisis of conscience or the smell of big payouts for a big story?

All PsyOps does is look for gaps in information and plug them with fanatical crap. He has no idea (like the rest of us) what bloody evidence the authorities have and do not have, and their reasons for non-divulgence. He has no idea why what has been said has been said, There are no allowances for error or misinformation to protect intelligence assets etc etc etc.

The clincher however, is that fact he denounces all criticism as spookdom, but will not back up his claims by publishing how he has supposedly caught spooks... for the obvious reason: he's a "positively IDed" liar.

It's interesting how many Spooks/Trolls show up whenever these subjects are broached, and people begin talking about them, as well as thei gaping holes in the official Theory put forth by these proven LIARS, not to mention their complete inability to present compelling, independently-verifiable evidence.

They've already LIED to give the impression of a threat which does not exist, and suddenyl, we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt? The thing that really identifies the Plants/Volunteers is that, while they demand that the Opposition provide Impossible Proofs (Disinformation), they do not demand the same of the people using these unexplained events to further their agenda (www.newamericancentury.org), steal people's hard-won rights, disseminate hatred, and pursue aggression from which they profit greatly.

25 Tactics for Truth Suppression
(Disinformation)
 http://www.benfrank.net/sweep/disinfo.html

A Field Guide to Hasbara (Propaganda)
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284723.html


You'll note, of course, the irony inherent in "Zorro" the Spook's Ad Hominem attack on "PsyOps" ... He has yet to address any of the pertinent information used to support these ideas.

"Dont fall for the psy ops doesn't do himself many favours by labelling every event as a planned event by psy ops, some definitely are but spinning real events is much more cost effective than creating them."

I only comment on situations where the evidence glaringly doesn't support the Conspiracy Theories being spun by the people who brought us "Iraq has WMD!!", or directly contradicts their stories, as is the case with the recent bombings.

If you disagree, then I hope you will talk specifics next time 'round.

"It's interesting how many Spooks/Trolls show up whenever these subjects are broached"

[Ad hominem, yet again. This is getting quite tiresome.]

Actually, it's not an Ad Hominem (as your entire "critique" of me is), but merely an observation of your Tactics, weighed against the backdrop of Gov't Spooks, willing Brownshirt volunteers infecting sites such as this.

[And I think there's a substantial difference between a spook and a troll]

As do I, however, they both pursue the same course - DISTRACTION.

[Any evidence to back either of those up?]

Just your behaviour and Tactics, and my history of helping rout out such Plants. Demanding Impossible Proof is a Tactic of Disinformation. It would take the site administrator's to ascertain that information.

[I believe you were asked to come up with some evidence on another thread]

And I pointed you, and other readers, to the place to obtain it (Vancouver/Victoria/Global IMC Admin.s). You failed to respond. That's not my problem.

"They've already LIED to give the impression of a threat which does not exist, and suddenyl, we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt?"

[We're supposed to judge each statement and action on its merits.]

Thus far, these LIARS have failed to present the independently-verifiable evidence which would exist if their various "the Arabs did it!!" Conspiracy Theories were true. Weighed against their profiteering from these attacks, as well as their stated agenda, it all seems pretty clear.

Note the Troll's Ad Hominems throughout ...

"The thing that really identifies the Plants/Volunteers is that, while they demand that the Opposition provide Impossible Proofs (Disinformation)..."

[Ad hominem plus straw man.]

Is that why you didn't post the whole quote?

The other thing which instantly identifies Plants is that they don't comment on the subject in these threads, merely continue the Distractions they've created.

"Zorro/Chatterton" does this almost exclusively.

Sorry, I accidentally posted before I had addressed all of your Disinformation.

[I've never demanded proof from anyone.]

Um ... you just did ... above ... where you childishly taunt me about providing proof that you are Government agent or volunteer Troll. That I cannot ascertain, but your own behaviour, actions, and purpose here identifies you as one or the other.

[I do, however, expect your assertions to be accompanied by and derived from credible (though not irrefutable) evidence. They're not.]

It's interesting that you're so up on my activities.

That's a Red Herring which I've already addressed for you. I'm citing the Government's LACK of evidence, and attempting to ascertain what their inability to prove their statements must mean. It is your unwillingness to apply these same criteria to the LIARS in No. 10 which ID'ed you.

"You'll note, of course, the irony inherent in "Zorro" the Spook's Ad Hominem attack on "PsyOps" ... He has yet to address any of the pertinent information used to support these ideas."

[If "Zorro the Spook" isn't in itself an ad hominem attack, I don't know what is. Evidence? Would it be too much to ask you to support that rather serious and ridiculous charge?]

Not at all, however I understand that I'm only furthering your Distraction from the subject at hand, Bliar's willingness to profiteer from these attacks.

Your entire comment is an attack, and doesn't touch on the subject of this thread.

[So let's put the name calling and the loud shouting to one side and try to support logically valid arguments with evidence. Too much to ask?]

Not at all. That is exactly my point. You only demand this of people like myself, while giving the suspect LIARS in the Government a free pass.

- Given Bliar's willingness to use these attacks to attain powers the courts have blocked him from having for four years, people should examine these recent events very carefully, and ask themselves "WHO PROFITS?" ...

Address the topic??? The topic is absurd. Do you even know what "martial law" means... I guess not, so learn here:

 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martial%20law

You really think they are going to prosecute Galloway???!

"The staged commotion around the space shuttle" apart from the fact this really is getting into the realms of clinical paranoia, this the UK. I'll be so bold to speak for everyone: no-one here could give a fuck about the Space Shuttle; it's not a focus of national attention.

"relentless propaganda about Iran". Where??? Provide a statistical analysis of this "fact". The only Iran story I can find in the UK with legs is the nuclear power negotiations. Not even near the front pages and certainly not "relentless".

"showing the true face of war": an empty statement. Here was me thinking that all conspiracy theorists thought the was fake hahahaha!

"The repercussions of 7/7 can be emotively milked for years to come" I doubt it. 7/7 hasn't invoked any mass fear in the first place! Unlike the US we are used to the idea of being within reach of terrorism.

That aside, Mr Ops you're a one trick pony and getting very dull and repetitive and predictable= Time to find somewhere new to spam!

"while giving the suspect LIARS in the Government a free pass" This is the funniest thing you have said here... so go out on a high note!

I doubt anyone here is defending the publically acknowledged liar Blair. We are just not letting you hijack one set of lies to serve your own.

I personally have criticised politicians in this country for lying. But I contacted THEM to do it. I'm the last person to defend that lying sack of shit and his chronies.

Your tactic is obvious through its childish simplicity, and learned from Bush ("If you aren't with us..."): If you don't subscribe to my fanatical nonsense then you must be with my hate figures... truly pathetic.

Just a thought: perhaps we are against BOTH!!! Wooooh!

Aha, I see. Healthy scepticism of the wilder conspiracy theories, a demand for reasonable standards of evidence, and a strong suspicion that PschooOoops might not be the full shilling qualify us as government spooks.

When do we get paid, what's the holiday entitlement, and do I have to declare it for tax?

My first job will be investigating how we (ie the omnipotent, ever present security forces/aka the powers of darkness controlling the world) can bring down the twin towers, cause 7/7 directly, but forgot the plant WMDs in Iraq after the invasion - thereby causing massive political harm to the government(s) and helping draw attention to the main reasons behind the war (oil, oil, and oil)......

who profits?

well have a look at the mining companies and the price of copper.

thye metal not bobbys!

all you nice lads should buy some copper futures and some shares in RTZ

why?

thats what they makes bullets from

and theys lots of bullets to be maid!

I'm still half convinced Psy-Ops is in fact a spook himself. You know, during the civil rights movement, the FBI used to infiltrate left wing groups and organisations like the Black Panthers, and smear mud and sow dissension in an operation known as COINTELPRO. They used to denounce other people as spooks who weren't, and used a variety of different tactics to create division and confusion.

Psy-Ops conspiracy rants fill up Indymedia, and perhaps a casual browser who comes across it will be instantly turned off and driven away because of this tinge of craziness. That's why it is important to respond to it, because it shows that the consensus on Indymedia is that we do not adhere to wild conspiracy theories. Capitalism itself is the conspiracy, and the main players are in the open, as politicians and business leaders. Maybe the Illuminati exist, and pursue some agenda, maybe the Freemasons enjoy a great deal of influence within some political institutions and perhaps the Jewish lobby have an overly strong influence in Washington. But this does not mean they exist as a secret controlling body of rulers who control all the events in the world. These conspiracy theories reek of the kind of thing that was going around before the rise of Nazi Germany. They serve to undermine legitimate criticism of capitalism and foreign policy.

For example, not many people are more critical of the policies of Israel than I am. I have been with the ISM, I have argued time and time again with zionists here and on the street. And this criticism stems from my feeling that taking the land of another people, trying to create and maintain a racial majority in the land, and keeping people under brutal oppression is wrong. And an understanding that this middle-east policy is generating a resentment and backlash that we felt on 9-11 and now 7-7. But I recognise that this situation has come from primarily British foreign policy and later US foreign policy taking advantage of Jewish suffering to create 'a little Ulster in the middle-east'. The reasons for the creation of Israel and the actions of it's people are understandable in the context of the holocaust, and European imperial policy, although it doesn't make it right, and Zionists hold their ideology for good reasons, although not correct. It wasn't driven by a hidden conspiracy of secret rulers. It was a very open conspiracy between the British government and the World Zionist Organisation, with the very open Balfour declaration. It was driven by centuries of European persecution against the Jews, which created this feeling of a need to create a state.

So when trying to create some dialogue and understanding about this issue, when some idiot comes along with theories like, 'The Jews were behind 9-11', and 'Mossad planned 7-7 working with Blair', then any hope of understanding goes out the window, and progress can't be made, because you're saying exactly the same things the Nazi's used to say before the holocaust, which drove the zionist project, and you simply throw more fuel onto the fire of fear, anger and resentment that continues to drive it.

It is very easy for right-wing opportunists to attach themselves to left-wing issues to try and drive people towards a fanatical hatred and racism. Even the Nazis called themselves socialist.

I don't know....these conspiracy theories really annoy me, because they serve these purposes. They turn people off Indymedia, they unconsciously feed this sort of paranoia and racism, and they waste all our time trying to show that we don't adhere to it.

For that reason I'm going to resort to the same logic Psy-Ops uses, and call him a spook. Because his sophisticated 'Conspiracy-nutter' psy-ops tactic is disruptive to the progressive movement. Perhaps it's deliberative. How much do MI5 pay you? Exactly what rank do you hold in the Illuminati?

"Um ... you just did ... above ... where you childishly taunt me about providing proof that you are Government agent or volunteer Troll. That I cannot ascertain, but your own behaviour, actions, and purpose here identifies you as one or the other."

Blimey, now I have to eat my hat. I never envisaged such a foolproof method of cathing "spooks". NOW, I understand. A "sppok" is anyone that disgrees with PsyOps.

Well, there we go. Not only a liar but a halfwit too.

Cheers for clearing that up at last. I know you are probably too slow to have noticed, but you have just blown any credibility you had here (if there was any to start with...)

I agree wholly on the effect our learned friend has on IM, but my gut feeling is that he really does believe this stuff. Not wishing to score cheap points, but I think he may have "probalems" that need addressing by the medical profession.

Either that or he's a VERY clever troll playing a oscar winning role as a paranoid Forest Gump.

re:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasons for the creation of Israel and the actions of it's people are understandable in the context of the holocaust, and European imperial policy, although it doesn't make it right, and Zionists hold their ideology for good reasons, although not correct. It wasn't driven by a hidden conspiracy of secret rulers. It was a very open conspiracy between the British government and the World Zionist Organisation, with the very open Balfour declaration.

It was driven by centuries of European persecution against the Jews,
which created this feeling of a need to create a state.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
European persecution against the Jews, which created this feeling of a need to create a state.
 http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/christian_persecution_of_the_jew.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Policy in Palestine
 http://www.marxists.de/middleast/palquest/britpol.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lehi (Hebrew acronym for Lohamei Herut Israel, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel") was a radical self-described terrorist group that had as its goal the eviction of the British from Palestine to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state.

British authorities termed the group the Stern Gang, a label that persists in historical accounts.


Contact with Nazi authorities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1940 and 1941, Lehi proposed intervening in the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany to attain their help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine and to offer their assistance in "evacuating" the Jews of Europe arguing that "common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO (Lehi)." Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig and delivered a letter from Lehi offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich". Von Hentig forwarded the letter to the German embassy in Ankara, but there is no record of any official response. Lehi tried to establish contact with the Germans again in December 1941, also apparently without success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
see:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine
(Irgun Zvai Leumi)

Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and
the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany (1941)

A poster for a Zionist film screened in the 1930's to Jews in Hungary and Romania

From Lenni Brenner: The Iron Wall, London 1984, pp.195-197.
 http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/irgunazi.htm




It is often stated in the speeches and utterances of the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany that a prerequisite of the New Order in Europe requires the radical solution of the Jewish question through evacuation ('Jew-free Europe').

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries.

The solving in this manner of the Jewish problem, thus bringing with it once and for all the liberation of the Jewish people, is the objective of the political activity and the years-long struggle of the Israeli freedom movement, the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Palestine.

The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and, The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively lake part in the war on Germany's side.

This offer by the NMO, covering activity in the military, political and information fields, in Palestine and, according to our determined preparations, outside Palestine, would be connected to the military training and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be along the lines of one of the last speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler emphasized that he would utilize every combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.

A brief general view of the formation, essence, and activity of the NMO in Palestine:

The NMO developed partly out of the Jewish self-defense in Palestine and the Revisionist movement (New Zionist Organization), with which the NMO was loosely connected through the person of Mr. V. Jabotinsky until his death.

The pro-English attitude of the Revisionist Organization in Palestine, which prevented the renewal of the personal union, led in the autumn of this year to a complete break between it and the NMO as well as to a thereupon following split in the Revisionist movement.

The goal of the NMO is the establishment of the Jewish state within its historic borders.

The NMO, in contrast to all Zionist trends, rejects colonizatory infiltration as the only means of making accessible and gradually taking possession of the fatherland and practices its slogan, the struggle and the sacrifice, as the only true means for the conquest and liberation of Palestine.

On account of its militant character and its anti-English disposition the NMO is forced, under constant persecutions by the English administration, to exercise its political activity and the military training of its members in Palestine in secret.

The NMO, whose terrorist activities began as early as the autumn of the year 1936, became, after the publication of the British White Papers, especially prominent in the summer of 1939 through successful intensification of its terroristic activity and sabotage of English properly. At that lime these activities, as well as daily secret radio broadcasts, were noticed and discussed by virtually the entire world press.

The NMO maintained independent political offices in Warsaw, Paris. London and New York until the beginning of the war.

The office in Warsaw was mainly concerned with the military organization and training of the national Zionist youth and was closely connected with the Jewish masseswho, especially in Poland, sustained and enthusiastically supported, in every manner, the fight of the NMO in Palestine. Two newspapers were published in Warsaw (The Deed and Liberated Jerusalem): these were organs of the NMO.

The office in Warsaw maintained close relations with the former Polish government and those military circles, who brought greatest sympathy and understanding towards the aims of the NMO. Thus, in the year 1939 selected groups of NMO members were sent from Palestine to Poland, where their military training was completed in barracks by Polish officers.

The negotiations, for the purpose of activating and concertizing their aid, took place between the NMO and the Polish government in Warsaw - the evidence of which can easily be found in the archives of the former Polish government - were terminated because of the beginning of the war.

The NMO is closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure.

The fighting capacity of the NMO could never be paralyzed or seriously weakened, neither through strong defensive measures by the English administration and the Arabs, nor by those of the Jewish socialists


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's peculiar, it's paradoxical, that Sharon and Likud should be the ones who are trying to equate any authentic resistance in Palestine with some of the terrorist activities, as terrorism in Israel really started with Begin and Shamir and later Sharon," says Clovis Maksoud, the former Arab League ambassador to the United Nations. "It's a very valid question as to why they see no similarities between themselves under the British and the Palestinians under their occupation." Especially, he adds, as the Israeli government supports museums that honor assassins and terrorists¬óincluding one located on a street named for a terrorist.

 http://www.rense.com/general18/fromtheIrvRubin.htm

You'll note that the "usual suspects" still haven't actually said anything, and once again demonstrated their hypocrisy in relying on childish Ad Hominems.

People are free to contact the British Colombia IMCs and talk to them about their experience with positively-IDed Spooks, and nasty little Trolls.

25 Tactics for Truth Suppression
(Disinformation)
 http://www.benfrank.net/sweep/disinfo.html

A Field Guide to Hasbara (Propaganda)
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284723.html

...he could just be barking, you know. But the double-bluff theory (hypothesis?) is a good one.

Don't forget that on the day the vote was taken to renew the PATRIOT Act, the man arrested in Iran in 2002 released an "al Qaeda video", warning of "more terror in London" ...

Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US
By Patrick Martin
9 August 2005

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

According to a report published Monday by the Washington Post, the Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within the continental United States, in which terrorist attacks would be used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions or the entire country.

The front-page article cites sources working at the headquarters of the military’s Northern Command (Northcom), located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The plans themselves are classified, but “officers who drafted the plans” gave details to Post reporter Bradley Graham, who was recently given a tour of Northcom headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base. The article thus appears to be a deliberate leak conducted for the purpose of accustoming the American population to the prospect of military rule.

According to Graham, “the new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources.”

The Post account declares, “The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement.”

A total of 15 potential crisis scenarios are outlined, ranging from “low-end,” which Graham describes as “relatively modest crowd-control missions,” to “high-end,” after as many as three simultaneous catastrophic mass-casualty events, such as a nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attack.

In each case, the military would deploy a quick-reaction force of as many as 3,000 troops per attack—i.e., 9,000 total in the worst-case scenario. More troops could be made available as needed.

The Post quotes a statement by Admiral Timothy J. Keating, head of Northcom: “In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a chemical or nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of Defense is best positioned—of the various eight federal agencies that would be involved—to take the lead.”

The newspaper describes an unresolved debate among the military planners on how to integrate the new domestic mission with ongoing US deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign conflicts. One major document of over 1,000 pages, designated CONPLAN 2002, provides a general overview of air, sea and land operations in both a post-attack situation and for “prevention and deterrence actions aimed at intercepting threats before they reach the United States.” A second document, CONPLAN 0500, details the 15 scenarios and the actions associated with them.

The Post reports: “CONPLAN 2002 has passed a review by the Pentagon’s Joint Staff and is due to go soon to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top aides for further study and approval, the officers said. CONPLAN 0500 is still undergoing final drafting” at Northcom headquarters.

While Northcom was established only in October 2002, its headquarters staff of 640 is already larger than that of the Southern Command, which overseas US military operations throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

About 1,400 National Guard troops have been formed into a dozen regional response units, while smaller quick-reaction forces have been set up in each of the 50 states. Northcom also has the power to mobilize four active-duty Army battalions, as well as Navy and Coast Guard ships and air defense fighter jets.

The Pentagon is acutely conscious of the potential political backlash as its role in future security operations becomes known. Graham writes: “Military exercises code-named Vital Archer, which involve troops in lead roles, are shrouded in secrecy. By contrast, other homeland exercises featuring troops in supporting roles are widely publicized.”

Military lawyers have studied the legal implications of such deployments, which risk coming into conflict with a longstanding congressional prohibition on the use of the military for domestic policing, known as posse comitatus. Involving the National Guard, which is exempt from posse comitatus, could be one solution, Admiral Keating told the Post. “He cited a potential situation in which Guard units might begin rounding up people while regular forces could not,” Graham wrote.

Graham adds: “when it comes to ground forces possibly taking a lead role in homeland operations, senior Northcom officers remain reluctant to discuss specifics. Keating said such situations, if they arise, probably would be temporary, with lead responsibility passing back to civilian authorities.”

A remarkable phrase: “probably would be temporary.” In other words, the military takeover might not be temporary, and could become permanent!

In his article, Graham describes the Northern Command’s “Combined Intelligence and Fusion Center, which joins military analysts with law enforcement and counterintelligence specialists from such civilian agencies as the FBI, the CIA and the Secret Service.” The article continues: “A senior supervisor at the facility said the staff there does no intelligence collection, only analysis. He also said the military operates under long-standing rules intended to protect civilian liberties. The rules, for instance, block military access to intelligence information on political dissent or purely criminal activity.”

Again, despite the soothing reassurances about respecting civil liberties, another phrase leaps out: “intelligence information on political dissent.” What right do US intelligence agencies have to collect information on political dissent? Political dissent is not only perfectly legal, but essential to the functioning of a democracy.

The reality is that the military brass is intensely interested in monitoring political dissent because its domestic operations will be directed not against a relative handful of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists—who have not carried out a single operation inside the United States since September 11, 2001—but against the democratic rights of the American people.

The plans of Northcom have their origins not in the terrible events of 9/11, but in longstanding concerns in corporate America about the political stability of the United States. This is a society increasingly polarized between the fabulously wealthy elite at the top, and the vast majority of working people who face an increasingly difficult struggle to survive. The nightmare of the American ruling class is the emergence of a mass movement from below that challenges its political and economic domination.

As long ago as 1984—when Osama bin Laden was still working hand-in-hand with the CIA in the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in Afghanistan—the Reagan administration was drawing up similar contingency plans for military rule. A Marine Corps officer detailed to the National Security Council drafted plans for Operation Rex ’84, a headquarters exercise that simulated rounding up 300,000 Central American immigrants and likely political opponents of a US invasion of Nicaragua or El Salvador and jailing them at mothballed military bases. This officer later became well known to the public: Lt. Colonel Oliver North, the organizer of the illegal network to arm the “contra” terrorists in Nicaragua and a principal figure in the Iran-Contra scandal.

As for the claims that these military plans are driven by genuine concern over the threat of terrorist attacks, these are belied by the actual conduct of the American ruling elite since 9/11. The Bush administration has done everything possible to suppress any investigation into the circumstances of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—most likely because its own negligence, possibly deliberate, would be exposed.

While the Pentagon claims that its plans are a response to the danger of nuclear, biological or chemical attacks, no serious practical measures have been taken to forestall such attacks or minimize their impact. The Bush administration and Congress have refused even to restrict the movement of rail tank cars loaded with toxic chemicals through the US capital, though even an accidental leak, let alone a terrorist attack, would cause mass casualties.

In relation to bioterrorism, the Defense Science Board determined in a 2000 study that the federal government had only 1 of the 57 drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tools required to deal with such an attack. According to a report in the Washington Post August 7, in the five years since the Pentagon report, only one additional resource has been developed, bringing the total to 2 out of 57. Drug companies have simply refused to conduct the research required to find antidotes to anthrax and other potential toxins, and the Bush administration has done nothing to compel them.

As for the danger of nuclear or “dirty-bomb” attacks, the Bush administration and the congressional Republican leadership recently rammed through a measure loosening restrictions on exports of radioactive substances, at the behest of a Canadian-based manufacturer of medical supplies which conducted a well-financed lobbying campaign.

Evidently, the administration and the corporate elite which it represents do not take seriously their own warnings about the imminent threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons—at least not when it comes to security measures that would impact corporate profits.

The anti-terrorism scare has a propaganda purpose: to manipulate the American people and induce the public to accept drastic inroads against democratic rights. As the Pentagon planning suggests, the American working class faces the danger of some form of military-police dictatorship in the United States.

 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/mart-a09.shtml

...can we have links for things such as the text of the Washington Post piece? For what its worth, you can find it at:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080700843.html?sub=new

Patrick's piece is interesting, but of course he writes for the World Socialist Web and has a position on this. I'm not sure that everything he says is quite backed up by the piece, but read it for yourselves.