Friday, March 31, 2006


MI5 are trying desperately to cover their arses over 7/7. They've received some help from the lapdog Intelligence and Security Committee who cleared them from blame for 7/7. They are now publicly answering the ISC's question of why MI5 did not investigate Kahn further. MI5's reply is that they had other more important tasks.

This morning I awoke to BBC News 24 reporting this pathetic excuse. It made no mention of the damning information recieved from Saudi Arabia. But it did show a board with blanked out pictures of, I assume, faces. The pictures seemed to be giving the impression that they were all linked in some kind of network. MI5 say that Kahn was of interest but resources were low at the time and so they marked Kahn down for further investgation later. Now, this network on BBC News 24 showed Kahn as a peripheral figure, which is why, I assume, he was labelled as IC2 (I think this is the phrase Crispin Black used, but I may be wrong).

OK. So there's Kahn, considered unimportant, on the periphery of this network.


I have no idea when this network was drawn up. But The Sunday Times reported that MI5 had run out leads in their investigation. And yet the BBC are showing a network of assumed terrorists, and it appeared to be quite a large network, with Kahn on the periphery.

I've not slept well this week, and I've quite an important interview today to think about, but this does not make full sense to me at the moment.

Was the network quickly made up to show Kahn as a peripheral figure so that when some bumbling BBC reporter films it it looks like Kahn was indeed considered a peripheral figure?

Does the network exist at all? If so, why has it not been busted? And if it was busted why was it not plastered all over the news? Is the network now under surveillance? If so hasn't the BBC just blown a potentially very important investigation?

These are initial, 6am-after-a-crap-sleep thoughts.

I'd appreciate some input from anyone who saw this newsclip on BBC 24 News this morning.

Thursday, March 30, 2006


The Lords have taken a gamble and accepted a compromise so that it will now not be necessary to have an ID Card until 2010. The gamble is that the Tories will win the next election and repeal the legislation.

How do we know there will be another election?

How sure are we that Labour will not win the next election, if there is one?

How do we know that the Tories won't change their minds should they win, via another "terrorist" attack? We've seen how parties can change their tune once in office.

But what will happen if the proposed Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill passes?

Can this compromise be deleted/ignored?


Disappointing, but not unexpected.

The BBC has learned that an "investigation" by the Intelligence and Security Committee found that intelligence and security services cannot be blamed for the attacks on London on 7th July last year.

Just this year we found out that Kahn was under surveillance for at least two months after he returned from a known terrorist training camp, and was taped talking of joining Jihad and committing fraud to raise funds for terrorism. His name was later passed on to MI5 by the Saudis who had intercepted communications with a known al-Qaeda terrorist which indicated that Kahn was potentially involved in a plot to bomb London Underground. If I had received that info from the Saudis I would have at the very least put Kahn back under surveillance, if not picked up and questioned. This info from the Saudis was received shortly before 7/7. What would Kahn have done if he had been picked up and questioned under anti-terrorism laws? Or are these only for use against hecklers at Labour Party Conferences?

But no. MI5 had more important things to do, like send telegrams to the CIA informing them that two people on a trip to Gambia, who MI5 knew were innocent, were potential terrorists, which led to their extraordinary rendition to a jail cell in Afghanistan where they were tortured. Or allow the IRA to buy infrared devices for bombs to be used against civilians. Or allow the publication of several Islamic extremist papers inciting suicide bombings.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006


It is being reported by staff of CNN that a guest on the CNN Showbiz Tonight programme who withdrew at the last minute from a debate on 9/11 was a member of the Kean-Zelikow "Whitewash" Commission which made a right dog's breakfast of covering up government involvement in 9/11.

Alex Jones reports

"I guarantee that this member of the 9/11 Commission pulled out at the last moment because they think that by simply replying to Asner and Hicks and the comments of Charlie Sheen, he would be giving credence to their statements. This is a strategic move on their part to quash debate and avoid having to actually answer the hard questions about 9/11 which the 9/11 Commission failed to do. This stonewalling technique will not work forever - there are too many people waking up to their whitewash."

Tuesday, March 28, 2006


MI5 suggested to CIA that two men, Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, who they knew were on a genuine business trip to Gambia were actually on a suspicious trip with suspicious gear which they knew was in fact a modified battery charger. As a result of this "tip-off" the two were picked by extraordinary rendition and flown on N379P to Kabul and detained in the "Dark Prison", a CIA jail where prisoners were held in complete darkness and subjected to non-stop loud music.

Why on earth would somebody do this? Because they could? Were they ordered to?


MI5 tip-off to CIA led to men's rendition

· British residents flown from Gambia to Cuba
· 'Device' found in luggage was battery charger

Richard Norton-Taylor, Stephen Grey and Vikram Dodd
Tuesday March 28, 2006
The Guardian

MI5 knew that two British residents who were seized and secretly flown to Guantánamo Bay were carrying harmless items when it tipped off the CIA that they were in possession of bomb parts.
The disclosure is contained in high court documents released last night revealing the full extent of the government's role in the US practice of "extraordinary rendition" - in this case, of Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, in 2002.

The two men were seized in Gambia after a tip-off from MI5. British security officials had earlier detained the men at Gatwick airport before releasing them.

Saturday, March 25, 2006


Some news, when added to the stalling of the coming war on Iran, has made me feel like I did in the Spring of 2001 when I got the feeling something BIG was going to happen. And on September 11th...

Russia and China are doing their best to come to a negotiated settlement with Iran and its nuclear status, despite Super 'Stache Bolton and Nick Burns calling for a Chapter 7 UN Resolution which authorises force. As soon as Iran was reported to the UN SC by the IAEA I stated here that Bolton and Burns were pushing for such a Chapter 7 Resolution because the USA could not hang about on Iran. And the USA could not hang about on Iran because the 9/11 Truth Movement were making great, successful efforts to awaken the American and World people to the horrific truth of 9/11; that elements within American, British and Israeli governments were involved, either passively or actively, in the murder of over 3000 people on US soil.

To support this statement that the 9/11 Truth Movement is really making the New World Order shit their pants Charlie Sheen has bravely come out to question the official story. Sheen was interviewed by Alex Jones of, a researcher and actor with contacts in Hollywood. Sheen questioned the apparent controlled demlition of WTC 1 and WTC2, as well as the suspicious demolition of WTC7. Sheen was then attacked by the US press, referring to events in which Sheen was involved over 20 years ago and avoiding the arguments that Sheen was raising. The US TV show "Showbiz Tonight" has been following this story, and a poll of theirs showed that well over 80% of voters support Sheen in saying that the US government is covering up the truth of 9/11. Jones says that Sheen is not the only one in Hollywood who thinks like Sheen.

See for TV coverage.

In the latest show Alex Jones stated that he thought that nothing can now stop the truth about 9/11 coming out. I beg to differ Alex. Another 9/11 will stop the truth about 9/11 coming out. When you have actors like Sheen, with support in Hollywood, supported by over 80% of America saying the government is covering up 9/11 then we can be sure something is in the wind (and it isn't just the DU from Iraq). I have no idea how big, where or when, but I'm thinking something real nasty is being planned. I would urge all good people to stay focused, and for W to kick Cheney out asap.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006


Yesterday the Bliar gave the first of three speeches on British Foreign Policy. Here is a quote from that speech
This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core.

If the Bliar wants to confront the terrorist head-on, he doesn't have to spend billions and billions of taxpayers money and risk the lives of British soldiers. No. All he has to do is walk out of the door of Number 10, catch a taxi to the MI5 and MI6 headquarters, and tell them to STOP!!

The Bliar even made reference to the sources of terror: The Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism.

The extremism may have started through religious doctrine and thought. But soon, in offshoots of the Muslim brotherhood, supported by Wahabi extremists and taught in some of the Madrassas of the Middle East and Asia, an ideology was born and exported around the world.

Wahhabism was fostered by MI6 agent Hempher! The Muslim Brotherhood is a Masonic organization, and is thus British!

There is also the obligatory and mandatory reference made to the second biggest hoax of all time; 9/11 (the first being the current banking system). The research into 9/11, including a demolition of the Kean-Zelikow Commision Report by Griffin, at the very least shows a serious and incriminating lack of desire for a thorough investigation into that day and the surrounding events. Surely the Bliar is aware of some of the elementary doubts of that day?

This really is an incredible, and actually quite dangerous, speech which shows the Bliar's complete ignorance of history.

What also confuses me is that he is suggesting that terrorism be confronted head-on, yet he recently negotiated with the IRA for a cessation of hostilities!

So why negotitate with one terrorist and not the other?

And will he be sending his children to confront terrorism head-on? I doubt it.

New Blies. New danger.

Sunday, March 19, 2006


Last September there was an incident in Basra in which two men dressed as Arabs were arrested as they tried to drive away from a road block. Initial reports suggested that explsoives and guns were in the trunk of their car. These two men were imprisoned in a Basra jail. The two men were SAS. The British Army then broke into the prison where the two SAS were being held and freed them. The two SAS have subsequently disappeared. Not long after the man in charge of investigating the whole incident, Captain Ken Masters, was found dead in his room in his barracks.

The Basra authorities accused the two SAS of being agents provocateur.

Now another report has surfaced from Quds Press that three British soldiers have been arrested in al-Basrah while planting explosives. They were dressed as Arabs and were found planting explosives at the headquarters of the Islamic Party of Iraq. The British then arrested the arresting group of police, freed the three soldiers and kept the police arrested.

Today in The Sunday Times there is a report on Kevin Fulton, who was an MI5 mole inside the IRA

Here is an excerpt from that report;
Security sources have said Fulton was implicated in numerous bombings and shootings, allegations on which he declines to comment. He has said his handlers knew the nature of his role but ignored his warnings of forthcoming bomb attacks, including the Omagh atrocity, which killed 29 people in 1998.

Fulton and four other members of his unit in Newry pioneered the use of flash guns to detonate bombs. This technology was used in a bomb that killed Colleen McMurray, an RUC officer, in 1992. Her colleague Paul Slaine lost both his legs in the attack. He was later awarded the George Cross for his bravery.

Fulton claims he tipped off his handlers about this attack but they allowed it to go ahead to protect agents. “Two days before the attack on Slaine and McMurray I knew my officer commanding was using what we called a doodlebug, a horizontal mortar,” he said.

“I told my MI5 handlers and they took me to London for two days. The day I came back the bomb went off. The police were taken off the streets to allow the bomber to get in, set the device and get out.”

The trip to America came after the killing of McMurray, when the IRA had built sufficient trust in Fulton for commanders to send him abroad to buy remote control infrared devices that would allow IRA teams to refine the flash technique and detonate explosives from up to a mile away.

When he told his MI5 handlers about the mission, they arranged with the FBI to procure the detonators for Fulton.

In this month’s edition of Atlantic Monthly, Fulton outlines how an MI5 agent was sent ahead of him by Concorde to make preparations. He has also described the trip in interviews with The Sunday Times over the past few months.

In New York he attended a meeting with FBI agents and British intelligence officers. There he agreed to expose IRA operatives in America to the FBI. However, the same terrorists, who were arrested months later, were first allowed to procure and send the infrared technology to the IRA. Fulton claims this technology was used in the Troubles and forms the basis for insurgent bombs in Iraq.

A spokesman for the security service declined to comment.

Recently politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have accused the Iranians of meddling in Iraq and supplying the infra red technology for the roadside bombs that are maiming and killing poor British and American kids in Iraq. What Fulton is telling us is that this technology was
1. procured in the USA
2. with the collusion and knowledge of the FBI and MI5
3. and used in the murder of civilians with the collusion and knowledge of MI5

No wonder A spokesman for the security service declined to comment.

We also know the SAS were shooting civilians from cars in Northern Ireland.

We also know that Abu Hamza was left alone by MI5 despite warnings from a mole they had in Finsbury Park Mosque.

We also know that several Islamic extremist publications are published and sold in the UK and have been for years.

We also know that several Islamic extremist organizations are based in the UK, hence the term Londonistan.

We also know, from David Shayler, that MI6 paid al-Qaeda to asassinate Colonel Qadaffi, but the op failed and civilians died instead.

Is there not a pattern developing here?

Thursday, March 16, 2006


The Russian Communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov has suggested that H5N1 is a form of biological warfare.


"The forms of warfare are changing. It's strange that not a single duck has yet died in America - they are all dying in Russia and European countries. This makes one seriously wonder why...I tested all kinds of war gases at a range myself...I not only suggest this, I know very well how this [biowarfare attack] can be arranged."

I suggested last week, I think, that H5N1 could be a pet project of Donald Rumsfeld. It has been reported that he has made a personal profit of £3 million from the rush to stock up on Tamiflu, even though several experts state that Tamiflu is useless against H5N1.

"Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu drug" at

"Doctor says bird flu drug is ‘useless’" at,,2091-1903144,00.html
So maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.

"Tamiflu found ineffective in bird flu treatment" at

I dug up a Bilderberg connection to this alleged threat to humanity. I believe the agreement is that Gilead Sciences owns the patent for Tamiflu and licenses Hoffman-LaRoche to manufacture and distribute it. Rumsfeld owns shares in Gilead and was its Chairman. But the Vice-Chairman is Etienne Davignon, who runs Bilderberg at the moment. George Schultz is also on the board. And another Bilderberger is Lodewijk J.R. de Vink who sits on the board of Hoffman-LaRoche.

So deliberately releasing H5N1 into the planets atmosphere makes these a nice profit and helps to destroy certain economies which can then be bought out with paper dollars. Forgive my cynicism.

ps all links above are found on the Citizens for Legitimate Government at

Wednesday, March 15, 2006


Accusations over who is to blame for the radi at Jericho yesterday are flying faster than a B52 over Afghanistan.

The Ramallah Agreement allowed for Saadat to be detained in a Palestinian prison and his detenetion to be monitored by British and American monitors. The British had complained several times to the Palestinians about lax security.

On 8th March this year the Foreign Office wrote to the Palestinians threatening to withdraw if the security at the Jericho prison was not increased. More crucially, as part of the Ramallah Agreement the Israelis were also informed of this warning. SO the Israelis, though not told of the exact timing, were aware that if the monitors felt their security to be threatened then they could withdraw. This is crucial.

Now, reading the papers this morning I read Jack Straw, like Blair, using the language of a lawyer. Straw spoke in the House of Commons yesterday on this particular incident and said;
"We deliberately decided not to tell anybody of the exact timing of the withdrawal, both because of the risk to the safety of our monitors, but also precisely to ensure that there could be no collusion with the Israeli defence forces,"

No, Straw did not tell the Israelis "the exact timing of the withdrawal", but had told the Israelis the circumstances under which the monitors would be withdrawn.

So, how soon did the Israelis appear?

Well according to The Times

An Israeli commander waiting outside Jericho decided that the monitors’ departure rendered the agreement void. A 100-strong force backed by tanks and helicopters sped to the prison to seize Saadat and his colleagues, but was confronted by Palestinian guards, and a gun battle erupted.

So from this report we can gather that the Israelis were watching and waiting for the monitors to withdraw.

But here is a little telling detail from Donald Macintyre in The Independent;

The Israeli Army had earlier raked the prison with gunfire after cordoning off the area.

Say what??

The Israelis had cordoned off the area and raked the prison with gunfire!?

No wonder the monitors left in such a hurry!!

So I would say from this that the Israelis provoked the withdrawal with the knowledge from Straw's letter of 8th March that if threatened, say by raking the prison with Israeli gunfire, the monitors would withdraw.

Yes, the Palestinians were responsible for the prison. But Palestine is one of the poorest places on Earth. MPs are going on TV, dressing up in red leotards and acting like cats (and being ridiculed for it) just so that Palestinian kids have some food in their bellies, while the Israeli military is one of the best equipped forces in the world thanks to aid from the USA.

No, there was no agreement, no formal collusion between Israel and the UK. But I think that there was some informal agreement, a nod and a wink knod of agreement, that what happened yesterday woould happen.


We've all heard the politicians, Bush included, allege that Iran is involved in stoking the flames of civil war in Iraq and providing explosives, roadside IED's, that blow up mainly poor American kids who have no idea what they are doing in Iraq in the first place.

Who is more likely to know; the politicians, or the military in Iraq?


Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said today he has no evidence the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into neighboring Iraq.

On Monday, President Bush suggested Iran was involved in making roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, that are being used in Iraq. And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week accused Iran of sending members of its Revolutionary Guard to conduct operations in Iraq.

Today, Pace, the top U.S. military official, was asked at a Pentagon news conference if he has proof that Iran's government is sponsoring these activities.

"I do not, sir," Pace said.

Meanwhile super 'stache Bolton is talking more war talk.

The USA has no intention of acquiescing to any UN calls for restraint. We should know that by now. The tiniest terror attack on US soil will bring war. We saw how far these f^%kers are prepared to go for war in the Middle East on 9/11.

These claims by the politicians which are contradicted by none other than the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff may show that there is actually a revolt by the military. I hope so, otherwise it's going to be a Dr Strangelove kind of year.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006


What are the "Palestinian Territories"?

This phrase is being used by the BBC to refer to the area in which the British Council offices have been attacked today.

If it is Palestine then why not use the phrase "Palestine"?

Because the British Government does not recognise the State of Palestine as proclaimed on 15th November 1988.

So what are the "Palestinian Territories"? It is another name for "Occupied Territories".

So why the use of the phrase "Palestinian Territories", and not "Occupied Territories"? It implies to me that Palestine is a state, which indeed it is, but it is not recognised by Great Britain.


The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is being introduced in Parliament by Jim Murphy MP to destroy it, is eerily similar to a recent ruling in the USA which stated that the President could do what the hell he liked. It is similar to the Enabling Act 1933 of Germany which gave Hitler his authority.

The folks at Executive Intelligence Review have been analyzing this trend towards authoratarianism in politics and have identified its source. It is called Führerprinzip which was the idea of the leading Nazi philosopher of law Carl Schmitt. Basically Führerprinzip states that the head of state IS the law. Schmitt declared that the president could rule, under conditions of financial or economic emergency, by means of gesetzvertretende Verordnungen or "law-substituting decrees," which, while not formally laws, nonetheless carried the full weight of the law.

The folks at EIR have traced the current neoconservative ideology to a man called Leo Strauss. It was Carl Schmitt who arranged a Rockefeller Foundation scholarship for Strauss in 1934, which eventually led Strauss to Chicago University which was started with Rockefeller money and I believe is still supported by them. The Rockefellers and the Nazis were good buddies.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is just Führerprinzip under a different name.

This can not be good. The parallel between the USA and the UK now, and Nazi Germany is very disturbing.


I saw this one coming. Not this exact event, but something that would spark off an Arab-Israeli conflict. Why? In two weeks time is the Israeli General Election. The New World Order want Benjamin Netanyahu in power. They reason he is more likely to bomb Iran. However, there is one small problem. According to opinion polls the Israelis want Olmert.

The Hudson Institute, part of the neocon network of think tanks, held a conference in early January this year called "Israel After Sharon", referring to the comatose status of Ariel Sharon. In that conference it was agreed that if there was a mini Arab-Israeli conflict shortly before the election then Israel well may well swing behind Netanyahu, who is seen as a strong leader who will protect Israelis from the Arabs. The transcript of this conference is at

So this morning I heard that Israel had stormed a prison in Jericho. This prison was supposedly being guarded and protected by the British and the Americans. However, this protection was removed for "security reasons" (!?). This was a green light to the Israelis who then stormed the prison looking for Ahmed Saadat. It may well have been the Israelis threatening the US/UK guards thus creating the security concern. In response the Palestinians have attacked the British Council Office. There was automatic gunfire in the background on the interview I heard on the radio.

It does not look or sound good.



Of course it is, stupid!

From Hansard 6th March 2006

Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the infliction of simulated drowning falls within the definition of torture or cruel and inhumane treatment used by the Government for the purposes of international law. [56319]

Ian Pearson: Whether the conduct described constitutes torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment for the purposes of the UN Convention Against Torture would depend on all the circumstances of the case.

Ian Pearson is a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Here he is speaking for the Government. What is "the infliction of simulated drowning"? It is forcibly holding someone's head under water until they are nearly drowned. I would call this torture. Pearson here is answering that it "would depend on all the circumstances of the case".

So what does that mean?

See the title of this post for further clarity.

Monday, March 13, 2006


I have just been looking through the mortality statistics for 2004, how many people died from what cause. The deaths from diseases makes you wonder if we have our priorities right.

Approx 3000 people died at the WTC on 9/11, which caused the USA to spend billions and billions of dollars, kill thousands and thousands of civilians, and invade two countries.

In 2004 approx 3000 people died from each of the following;
Malignant neoplasm of ovary (female only)
Malignant neoplasm of rectum
Malignant neoplasm of pancreas (male only)
Malignant neoplasm of bladder (male only)
Malignant neoplasm of kidney,except renal pelvis
Malignant neoplasm of brain
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Diabetes mellitus (female only)
Parkinson's disease (nearly 4000)
Alzheimer's disease (nearly 5000)
Nonrheumatic aortic valve disorders (?)

Why no war on these?

On a much larger scale,
Stroke, not specified as haemorrhage or infarction, over 28,000.
Pneumonia, over 30,000.

Why no "War on Pneumonia"? Over ten times the number of people died from pneumonia as died in WTC.

As for 7/7, let's try to get that in perspective.

In 2004 how many people died as a result of simply being a driver involved in a traffic accident? 161.
Respiratory tuberculosis? 236.
Sudden infant death syndrome? 148.

No such war on traffic or TB is apparent. Why?

Because terror is ideal for a police state.

Statistics available at


This may be something. Maybe nothing.

A neighbour wanted to create a Hotmail account, and wanted me to show him what to do. So we set up his account on my computer. To apply for an account you try to categorise your job from a limited list of occupations supplied by Hotmail e.g. managerial.

There was one category of job, Government/Military.

Why are these in the same category?

Are we being conditioned to accept the Military as Government?

As I say, maybe I'm reading too much into that. But it irked me a little all the same.


Milosevic recently died in custody at The Hague. He had been defending himself against charges of genocide in a trial that had lasted five years. He was supposed to be checked every 30 minutes due to his ill health, but had not been checked for over three hours when he was found dead in his cell.

In the last month there had been traces of a drug used for the treatment of epilepsy. Milosevic was being treated for high blood pressure and heart problems, not epilepsy. The epilepsy drug found in his bloodstream can negate the benefits of the drugs he was taking for the treatment of his known ailments. The verdict reached from an autopsy was that he died of a heart attack. Could the epilepsy drug have negated the drugs Milosevic was taking for his high blood pressure?

Milosevic recently called Bill Clinton as a witness. Clinton had not responded to Milosevic's request. Why? What is it that Clinton could reveal were he to take the witness stand and swear under oath that he would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

The Balkan wars of the 1990's were about oil. Specifically a pipeline that would be built across the region which would drastically reduce the pressure on the shipping from the Caspian. At the time the Caspian was relatively untapped. So how did the USA, UK, NATO etc know that there would come a time in the near future for a pipeline across the Balkans? Because they knew a plan was in the pipeline for a false flag terrorist attack on the USA which would give the USA reason to invade the Caspian and take the nataural resources.

If Clinton were to take the witness stand he could reveal all this. He could also lose his chance of becoming Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Thus, Milosevic may well have been murdered.

Sunday, March 12, 2006


'' Get away from me, I will not be insulted by you, this is an insult'."

This is not unexpected, but still disgusting.

A survivor of 7/7 began her blog
shortly after then.

Her latest blog tells of an incident between her father, a gentle man
and parish priest, and Home Secretary Charles Clarke. Clarke is
actually her father's MP, which makes this incident even more
grotesque. Rachel's father recently attended a service at Norwich
Cathedral at which Clarke was the invited speaker. Rachel's father
thought the whole Q&A session afterwards was scripted, with a half hour
filled by just three questions, each answered by Clarke in a
self-congratulatory way, allowing Clarke to boast of Government
initiatives etc.

After the Q&A session Clarke tried to make a break for it before he
could be asked some REAL questions, but he failed. Rachel's father just
managed to catch Clarke before he left.

What happened then is a prime example of how this government treats its
electors with utter contempt.


...My father tells me he at this point left his seat and strode up to
Clarke, because he wanted to ask his question, and he said,

''Congratulations on fixing the meeting so that nobody can ask questions! You will have heard about Rev Julie Nicholson who is so angry she cannot forgive the bombers who killed her daughter on 7th July , well, I have a question, my daughter was feet away from the 7/7 Kings Cross bomb, and she and some other surivors have said they are not angry with the bombers, but with the Government, because there was no public enquiry. Why is there no public enquiry?''

Charles Clarke looked at my father ''in a very nasty way'', and then he said to my father

' Get away from me, I will not be insulted by you, this is an insult'.

And he stormed past, and Dad was so upset he could not share Eucharist with this man,

and my father left the cathedral in despair.

This pisses me off not just because Clarke is Home Secretary and the man's MP, but it is men like Clarke who are using 7/7 as an excuse to introduce ID Cards. And yet here he is dismissing the father of a survivor of 7/7 without giving a straightforward answer to a perfectly valid question about an inquiry and accusing the father of insulting him!!

Friday, March 10, 2006


A United Nations Chapter 7 Resolution is one which authorises force.

Nicholas Burns and John Bolton have been quoted as seeking one over Iran.

In The Times this morning we read excerpts from an interview with an unnamed British official.

But a British official warned the Council yesterday that it should move fast as it was “reasonable” to think that Iran could acquire the technology to make nuclear weapons “within a year”....Britain and the US will press the council to come up with demands that Iran must meet “within weeks, not months”

I expected this. I expect war this Summer, if not late Spring. The 9/11 Truth Movement is making a tremendous effort to request classified documents and awaken the American public. I recently read a survey which reports that over 50% of New Yorkers believe that at the very least elements within the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen. The Cheneyiacs can't hang about on Iran or they'll get lynched.

I also saw a report this morning by Alex Jones through PropagandaMatrix on the Civilian Inmate Labor Program. This is basically how the US Army will use many internment camps across the USA for slave labour. The inmates will be rounded up after the next major terrorist attack on the USA, and will consist of Muslims and politlcal dissidents like Cindy Sheehan. The Pentagon report on this is available at

Shortly after Iran was referred to the UN Security Council we were shown many times the press conference held by the Iranian rep to the IAEA Javad Vaidi. Vaidi used a phrase that Cheney will love him for. That phrase consisted of only three words, "harm and pain". The press immediately jumped on this as a threat to the USA.

What kind of threat? Economic? Or terrorist?

Well, the British haven't hung about. The Sun (surprise, surprise) is this morning quoting an anonymous British official on an increased possibility of a terrorist attack on Great Britain by Iran. From,,2-2006110510,00.html
BRITAIN must brace itself for terror strikes orchestrated by Iran, intelligence chiefs warned last night.

The Times is also referring to a "thinly veiled threat" from Iran. From,,251-2078412,00.html

But a British official warned the Council yesterday that it should move fast as it was “reasonable” to think that Iran could acquire the technology to make nuclear weapons “within a year”.

He added that Iran had made “a pretty thinly veiled threat to use violence” in retaliation, in declaring that it could cause “harm and pain” to the West. “Because Iran has a record of using violence in pursuit of its foreign policy objectives, you have to take it seriously,” he said, although he added the threat was “non-specific” at this point

NB the anonymity.

9/11 was indeed a terrorist attack. But it was with the complicity of elements within the US Government. For example we are told that two Boeing 767's flew into the WTC. But a partially-burned and damaged jet engine found close to the WTC was NOT an engine used by the 767. A video tape from a security camera at a gas station looking directly at the part of the Pentagon that was allegedly hit by AA77 was taken by the FBI within minutes of the crash, and despite numerous requests for its release the FBI refuses to release it, even though if the tape did indeed show AA77 striking the Pentagon it would quash the 9/11 Truth Movement who are very sceptical that AA77 struck the Pentagon (even though AA77 flew directly over The White House which I understand is protected by a surface-to-air missile system).

And as for 7/7. It has now become clear that the alleged perps of 7/7 were known and under surveillance by the intelligence services before it occured, despite initial denials. I have pointed out here the double standards in operation in which the BNP are prosecuted for inciting racial hatred while an MI5 agent in Finsbury Park Mosque was repeatedly telling MI5 that Hamza was a nasty piece of work, but was dismissed. There are also a number of Islamic extremist publications available in the UK which incite suicide bombing. It is painfully obvious why Blair refuses an inquiry into 7/7, and if he did the person in charge of the inquiry would be another Hutton clone.

I expect the USA and Britain to push for military action on Iran almost immediately. If this fails a terrorist attack on the USA and/or the UK will occur and blamed on Iran and the "harm and pain" quote from Javad Vaidi will be shown over and over again.

Thursday, March 09, 2006


Here is the first paragraph from the report of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Authority which was released yesterday, and available at

1. A meeting of the Board of Governors was held from 2 to 4 February 2006 to discuss the implementation of the Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereinafter referred to as Iran) and the Agency for the Application of Safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The meeting was called in response to the announcement by Iran of its decision to resume from 9 January 2006 “R&D activities on the peaceful nuclear energy programme which has been suspended as part of its expanded voluntary and non-legally binding suspension.

So in this first paragraph the IAEA is declaring that
1. Iran's nuclear energy programme is "peaceful".
2. Iran had not broken any law, but had withdrawn from a VOLUNTARY and NON-LEGALLY BINDING agreement.

The US Ambassador to the United Nations is a man called John Bolton. Before being awarded this job he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. The aim of this grand sounding job is to control and limit nuclear weapons, undoubtedly overseeing an expansion and/or upgrading of Israel's nuclear strike capability. Bolton recently spoke at the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference 2006, along with Dick Cheney. The AIPAC website has a section dedicated to Iran. After the %£*@heads at the IAEA referred Iran to the UN Security Council the AIPAC website now has this to say;

The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported Iran to the Security Council—an important next step in the international effort to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. The Security Council must use its authority to make clear to Iran that the continued flouting of its non-proliferation obligations will be met with strong and decisive sanctions and Tehran’s further isolation. As President Bush said in his State of the Union address, “The nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons.”

So there's AIPAC, supported by Bolton and Cheney and several others in the Bush Administration, screaming that Iran must be held to account for "continued flouting of its non-proliferation obligations". Meanwhile Israel is NOT a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. In 1995 a summit was held at which it was agreed that the Middle East should be a nuke-free zone. Iran signed up. Israel didn't.

There have been numerous reports lately that the USA, Israel and even NATO are planning and preparing to strike Iran. Reporting Iran to the UN Security Council has only given these warmongers a boost. We will soon be in the position we were in with Iraq.

Sack el-Baradei.
Sack Bolton.
Sack Cheney.

What would I have done? Got China, Russia and Iran, locked them in a room together and not let them out until an agreement had been reached between them.

Reporting Iran to the Security Council will only give some legitimacy to any air strike on Iran, whenever it occurs. Believe me, it's coming. These warmongers have form for this sort of thing.

And when reporting Iran there should at the very least have been a very, very strong condemnation of Israel, if not a referral of Israel to the Security Council.


Wednesday, March 08, 2006


Well, I suppose it's another excuse to relieve Iran of all that troublesome oil.

So there's Rumsfeld in his Pentagon office, telling us things aren't that bad in Iraq. While the US envoy to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad who lives in Iraq is saying the opposite.

Who do you believe?

The man who helped to sell North Korea nuclear power, the man who helped to sell Iran nuclear power, and the man who helped to sell Iraq anthrax (there is even a photo of Rummy and Saddam looking lovingly into each others eyes when they meet to negotiate the sale), and who is now using these as reasons for war? It was also Rumsfeld who halved the number of troops requested by his Generals for the invasion of Iraq, thus leading to this current instability in Iraq. Rumsfeld is also making a very tidy sum from the H5N1 scare through sales of Tamiflu. Is it possible that Rumsfeld created a top secret project in the DoD to create and release H5N1, tricking the world into buying a product Tamiflu which is manufactured by a company in which he has a substantial share?

Anyway, Rumsfeld is blaming Iran for the Civil War. Despite reports that the Askariya mosque in Sammara was sealed off by Iraqi and US military hours before it was blown up, and despite reports that it was a professional demolition requiring hours to place the explosives in the correct places, Rumsfeld still blames Iran.

Does Rumsfeld know something we don't know? After all, in a press conference shortly after the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 he did say the Pentagon was hit by a missile (which would explain the very suspicious lack of evidence of a large Boeing at the scene)!


US envoy to Iraq: 'We have opened the Pandora's box'

· 80% of Americans think civil war likely
· Rumsfeld accuses Tehran of fomenting conflict

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday March 8, 2006
The Guardian

The US ambassador to Baghdad conceded yesterday that the Iraq invasion had opened a Pandora's box of sectarian conflicts which could lead to a regional war and the rise of religious extremists who "would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play".
Zalmay Khalilzad broke with the Bush administration's generally upbeat orthodoxy to present a stark profile of a volatile situation in danger of sliding into chaos.

Mr Khalilzad told the Los Angeles Times Iraq had been pulled back from the brink of civil war after the February 22 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra. However, another similar incident would leave Iraq "really vulnerable" to that happening, he said. "We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" He added that the best approach was to build bridges between religious and ethnic communities.

An opinion poll published by the Washington Post and ABC News yesterday suggested that most Americans agreed with Mr Khalilzad - with 80% saying civil war in Iraq was likely, and more than a third that it was very likely. More than half thought the US should start withdrawing its troops, although only one in six wanted all troops to be withdrawn immediately.

Hours after Mr Khalilzad made his remarks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld said: "They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq and we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment."


Here is an excellent article on the setup of Iran.

The USA sold Iran on the idea of nuclear power and self-sufficiency in the 1970's.

But who was it exactly who arranged this?

The usual suspects. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.


In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]

In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration’s Secretary of Defense from 1975–1977.

The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3] Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.

According to Washington Post Staff Writer Dafna Linzer, “Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium – the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weopons builders.”[4]

What the current Bush Administration is asserting, particularly through its news agency Fox News, is that it needs to prevent Iran from achieving the exact same nuclear capabilities that President Ford and his key appointees, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were encouraging Iran to accomplish 30 years ago. Iran, a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is guaranteed the right to develop peaceful nuclear power programs – regardless of whether the United States approves or disapproves the politics or political leadership of that country; a point that Iran has repeated over and over again. For 30 years, Iran has proclaimed that it needs nuclear power since its oil and gas supplies are limited, just like the United States, and therefore has the legal right to produce and operate nuclear power plants. Thirty years ago, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld agreed. Today, Cheney and Rumsfeld appear to be crawling out of their skins with uncontrollable militarized lust for control of Iranian oil fields via a U.S. occupied, Iran.

As I have stated before, what is happening now in the Middle East was planned decades, if not centuries, ago. Pieces need to be placed years in advance; money, people, facilities, WMDs, nuclear stuff.

And when the time is right, a fuss can be kicked up.

Saddam was installed, sold WMDs, and then invaded.
Iran was sold nuclear power and processing equipment, and is now being accused, due to certain dual use items, of pursuing nuclear WMDs.

As these pieces are placed in position over time very few people notice. There's more important things to think about, such as football.

Also of interest is that Wolfowitz, as head of the World Bank, has been authorizing billions of dollars in WB loans to Iran. So Iran is dependent on Wolfowitz!


Sunday, March 05, 2006


The USA will this week give Iran a 30 day deadline to stop pursuing its alleged nuclear weapons capability, or else.

Or else what?

This was reported in The Washington Post yesterday. To read the article you must be registered (it's free). The article also reports that after three years of inspections the "International Atomic Energy Agency has not found proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons effort." However the IAEA cannot determine if Iran is definitely pursuing nuclear weapon capability.

Isn't that like trying to prove that something doesn't exist, proving a negative?

The suspicions of pursuit of nuclear weapons capability derive from dual use equipment. Certain items could be used for weapons. But this was the whole point. It was the USA who sold Iran the nuclear idea in the 1970's. It was the USA who sold Saddam the WMD he had, which was used as a pretext for invasion.

The situation with Iran has not just arisen out of nowhere. What is happening now was planned decades ago, and the pieces placed then.
Saddam was CIA and sold WMD.
Iran was sold nuclear power, and Khomeini was of British descent.

The price of gold has more than doubled in the last three years. I understand that people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have been buying it. Why? The dollar is just a piece of paper with some ink on it. People like Buffet and Gates are in the know. They are dumping the dollar. Something similar happened before the 1929 crash, when "the lucky ones" got out in time (the 1929 crash was engineered by British and anglophile East Coast American bankers).

Which is more likely this year; England winning the World Cup, or Iran being attacked?