In July last year, I made this post:
"...it has been reported by the Observer today, that one of the man suspected of involvement in the attacks in London on the 7th July was being kept under surveillance by the British security services."
"...it has been reported by the Observer today, that one of the man suspected of involvement in the attacks in London on the 7th July was being kept under surveillance by the British security services."
Some readers may recall, I posted this, also last July:
It appears that authorities had suspicions about at least one of the men, which could lend credance to the French claims. Also, if the men had been taken in by authorities, and then were released in order to "break a wider network", then authorities certainly would not make that public, in order to protect both their sources, and themselves.
The men may not have been arrested, but it certainly appears to be the case that there was an intelligence gathering process involving at least one of the men.
Which leads us neatly to why Charles Clarke would want to deny that any of those involved had been under suspicion of terrorist related activities previously.
If it turned out that ALL 4 men were supposedly informants (as some of the Madrid bombing suspects turned out to be) then this is a huge failure by authorities, and also lends weight to the claims that Benjamin Netanyahu received some sort of warning prior to the explosions in London.
These are important questions, not so called "conspiracy theories", and Blair & Co need to now answer these questions truthfully.
If the French claims are proved to be correct, then Clarke needs to resign.
Now, we have this report, from Newsweek, which confirms that 2 of those involved with the 7th July London bombings were under surveillance, and it is quite possible that a 3rd was under surveillance:
In an official document examined by NEWSWEEK, a British judge reports that U.K. investigators had pictures and voice recordings of Mohammed Siddique Khan—believed to have been the plot leader—and another suicide bomber, Shahzad Tanweer, meeting several times in February and March 2004 with suspects in an earlier, separate terror plot that U.K. authorities investigated under the code name Operation Crevice.
This report adds further weight to the French claims that 2 "terrorist suspects" were released by British authorities in order to "break a wider network." It is long past time for an explanation by Charles Clarke, and, it seems, his resignation.
It appears that authorities had suspicions about at least one of the men, which could lend credance to the French claims. Also, if the men had been taken in by authorities, and then were released in order to "break a wider network", then authorities certainly would not make that public, in order to protect both their sources, and themselves.
The men may not have been arrested, but it certainly appears to be the case that there was an intelligence gathering process involving at least one of the men.
Which leads us neatly to why Charles Clarke would want to deny that any of those involved had been under suspicion of terrorist related activities previously.
If it turned out that ALL 4 men were supposedly informants (as some of the Madrid bombing suspects turned out to be) then this is a huge failure by authorities, and also lends weight to the claims that Benjamin Netanyahu received some sort of warning prior to the explosions in London.
These are important questions, not so called "conspiracy theories", and Blair & Co need to now answer these questions truthfully.
If the French claims are proved to be correct, then Clarke needs to resign.
Now, we have this report, from Newsweek, which confirms that 2 of those involved with the 7th July London bombings were under surveillance, and it is quite possible that a 3rd was under surveillance:
In an official document examined by NEWSWEEK, a British judge reports that U.K. investigators had pictures and voice recordings of Mohammed Siddique Khan—believed to have been the plot leader—and another suicide bomber, Shahzad Tanweer, meeting several times in February and March 2004 with suspects in an earlier, separate terror plot that U.K. authorities investigated under the code name Operation Crevice.
This report adds further weight to the French claims that 2 "terrorist suspects" were released by British authorities in order to "break a wider network." It is long past time for an explanation by Charles Clarke, and, it seems, his resignation.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Limited Hangout
06.02.2006 16:30
We still do not know who was responsible. Only an investigation can determine that, but of course, Bliar has called such a thing a "ludicrous distraction", just as Bush did with the still-unproven, uninvestigated acts of 911, which kick-started this pre-planned Madness.
This is called a "limited hangout", released in order to distort that fact.
Don't Fall For The PsyOps
Blair and Putin use FALSE FLAGS because they work
06.02.2006 16:42
The test is VERY VERY simple. Single, spectacular, unconnected events are ALWAYS the work of the state. They generate a nice clean specific impulse on the back of which are launched desired packages of police-state laws, or in the worst case, attacks or invasions on innocent nations.
The is NO mystery or uncertainty about the tactic. It is used by the state simply because it works. Putin was actually caught bombing the apartment blocks in Moscow (which occured as a direct result of earlier contact between Blair and Putin, when Blair made it clear that he personally would ensure that Russia would avoid any EU backlash over its invasion of the then INDEPENDENT Chechnya, that the bombings were designed to enable). Even with cast-iron concrete evidence of the FSB and Putin FALSE FLAG, Blair and Putin were able to succeed totally in their goals.
The visible success of FALSE FLAGS like the Moscow Bombings, even when the truth behind them is categorically revealed, explains something that is missed by most commentators. That is, secrecy, and maintaining a plausible cover story, helps the process, but is far from essential for the method to work.
In other words, if clearer proof appeared tomorrow about the US/Israel/Blair involvement in the 911 meme, it wouldn't disrupt the power of Bush and Blair for one moment. Just as the Russian public were brainwashed to want their kids to die in the Chechnya invasion (and that story about the Russian kid that recently had his genitals and limbs amputated as a result of his torture at a Russian conscription centre illustrates the beautiful world that Putin and Blair gave them), the the people of the West have been brainwashed to believe that muslim lands must be put to the sword. Disrupting the origin story (911) would not disrupt the long and complex path of faith carefully built upon it.
Formal religions work this way. Those that knock scientology, for instance, cannot understand why the believers are unshaken when the founder, pulp sci-fi author Ron Hubbard, is trashed with factual info. However, when the tree is grown, nothing is gained by insulting the seed.
The 911 meme (a kind of thought seed) only had to survive its initial germination to do its job. Like most people, I took the events at face value at the time. One can see that as a consequence of the fertile ground laid down carefully by the Mass Media. The Moscow Bombings fell apart way too early, but it so happened that the desperation of the Russian people for a political change at the time (of the election that bought Putin to power) meant that even though many of them fully accepted that the FSB was behind the bombings on Putin's behalf, they chose not to care.
Exposing Blair's actions over 7/7 would make no real difference, and sometimes even I forget this sad fact.
The only good news is that large FALSE FLAGS are very difficult to arrange and execute, not because we are watching and thinking, but because they, like all humans, are capable of extreme paranoia when contemplating massive criminal operations. Previous planned FALSE FLAGS, like OPERATION NORTHWOODS were not canceled out of any sense of morality.
For those that wonder why Blair might hold back on further FALSE FLAGS against the muslims in the UK, understand that his New Reich party holds power in many population centres through the support of a powerful corrupt muslim leadership. These high-ranking muslim stooges will be kept sweet until circumstances make this situation impossible for Blair to maintain. Attacking Iran, and keeping muslim support for the New Reich party MAY be seen to be contradictory goals, but Blair has to assess this on a day-to-day basis
twilight