Scaremongering - draft leaflet

[xmasdale]

Mike Stagman has also sent us this draft leaflet. Points in it can be used in our campaigning straight away.

The other question is: "Do we want to use it as the basis for a leaflet we print and use?" What do you think?

Noel





SCAREMONGERING -- New Labour's Tactic to Shred Democratic Freedoms


Blair-Brown-New Labour have used unscrupulous and persistent Scare tactics in their drive to construct a police state in Britain.

["The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence, clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken]

September 11, 2001 --- Anyone who keeps abreast of American events, evidence presented online and recently in the Guardian and Daily Mail, the best-selling book (in Germany) entitled The CIA and September 11 by Andreas von Bulow (the former German Minister of Technology and Defence Ministry expert), and the trend in U.S. and German public opinion, would very seriously doubt the official version of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, indeed doubt that any significant part of it is true.

[Recently, in mainstream print, see "9/11 On Trial" by Tony Rennel, Daily Mail, 6 August 05, and "The War on Paperclips" by AL Kennedy, Guardian, 11 May 05. The Scottish Herald has printed letters-to-the-editor in this vein also.]

There has been a dramatic series of anti-Government revelations, plus a mountain of ironclad circumstantial evidence (e.g. the vital principles of determining guilt in criminal law -- Who benefits? e.g. (Iraq oil, Afghanistan oil pipeline, destruction of the U.S. Bill of Rights, American economic and military power spreading throughout the globe) and Who had the physical capability? -- these thoroughly indict the U.S. Government;

the Bush Government attempts to stop any investigation of the September 11 attacks; and when an investigation was finally allowed, it was so controlled by the Government that the Commission was not permitted to investigate WHO CAUSED the attacks, only enquire about 'security lapses';

No credible evidence has ever been put forward of Muslim involvement in organising the attacks --- only repeated, brainwashing propaganda

the clear CIA-US Military link to the later anthrax attacks;

strong evidence of interior explosions in the WTC (including persistent eyewitness reports --"a classic controlled demolition" some experts have called the collapse of buildings;
together with the fact that both the US and British governments have technology whereby the controls of an airplane can be taken away from the pilot and the plane directed into the captor's assigned destination -- see von Bulow -- not to mention their remote-control technology which can direct a pilotless plane;

the destruction or disappearance of vital evidence by government agents

the highly specific pre-9/11 warnings of from U.S. government agents and from government sources in Britain, Germany, France, Israeli, Italy, Russia, etc.

the stopping of government agents by higher-ups in the government from interfering to prevent the 9/11 attacks; and the promoton of government officers in the intelligence agencies who were adjudged irresponsible in their intelligence failures

Insider trading on the stock market with clear knowledge when the attacks would take place and which airlines would be involved

the unimaginable failure of the U.S. Air Force to react to the air strikes in New York and Washington, DC;

the utter impossibility that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon,

the U.S. Govt's long-laid plans, before 9/11, to invade Iraq and Afghanistan for purposes of seizing incredibly rich oilfields and constructing oil & gas pipelines

The U.S. Govt has a track record for this type of operation. (see USS Maine and Admiral Rickover's reconstruction of the explosion which 'justified' the assaults on Spanish colonies ; the proposed 'incident', including American dead, put to President John Kennedy, an engineered pretext to 'justify' the invasion of Cuba, which Kennedy refused; President Lyndon Johnson's fabricated Tonkin Gulf Incident to 'justify' a full-scale war in Vietnam; and every day in the life of the CIA)

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Was September 11, 2001 the date of the greatest fraud in human history? The most fantastic conspiracy theory of all time must be of one man in a cave in Afghanistan orchestrating an operation that no government could possibly have pulled off and got away with -- except for the U.S. Government.

Was it? Of course. Just look at the evidence.


In Spain, the Madrid bombings were very probably a government operation (but which government or governments?) as the former Prime Minister Aznar "destroyed all computer records dealing with the bombings before leaving office". (see "Aznar 'purged' all records in Madrid bombings cover-up'", The Independent, 14 December 2004)

In the UK --- Revelations tainting the U.S. Government have their counterpart in British revelations concerning the New Labour Government's persistent lies and coverups regarding the Iraq war. This dishonesty has resulted in an all-party contingent of MPs filing a motion of Impeachment against PM Blair for high crimes and misdemeanors in misleading Parliament and Public.

UK Government propaganda --- Never forget the fictitious Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" and their "45 minutes" delivery); then there was the totally unsubstantiated (hence false) claim that the security services thwarted a plan to destroy the Canary Wharf towers, London's financial nerve centre.

Dr. David Kelly --- One of the world's top bioweapons experts, advisor to MoD and MI5/6, already acted as a source of information accusing the Government of lying about Iraq, a threat to reveal more and bring down the Blair-New Labour Government, Blair's wrongful prevention of the mandatory coroner's inquest and his setting up a Whitewash under Hutton, suppressed reports by top toxicologists and attending paramedics impeaching the 'suicide' claim, Kelly's Baha'i faith which forbids suicide, his death not long before retiring and receiving his pension, etc. -- it's obvious that Kelly was silenced.

London Bombings --- This doesn't add up either.
[Note that John Scarlett was responsible for the "sexed-up dossier" on Iraq, has admitted deleting material portions of an intelligence report, AND was then, not fired, but promoted by Blair to be head of MI6.]

Ask again, Who benefits?
Blair's immediate allegation of an Islamic terrorists/'Al Qaeda' job was contradicted by police officials as lacking in evidence. One Government claim after another has turned out to be false. [A compliant news media again -- as with 9/11-- has acted as a propagandist.]

NO PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE of Muslim involvement that would stand up in court has been brought forward.

Mark the following : The terror alert level was DOWNGRADED for the first time in four years one month prior to the attacks DESPITE Britain being host to the G8 summit of major industrial nations.

A few more points:
a. Both Bush and Blair linked bombings in their countries to "Islamic terrorists" within one day, prior to any investigatione. (Blair said it within 3 hours.)

b. Bush and Blair both ruled out investigations into their respective events. This alone, together with the answer to Who Benefits?, should inform any worldly person in which direction to look for guilt.

c. Bush and Blair both blamed 'suicide' bombers, conveniently accusing people who could not defend themselves.

d. Blaming Muslims conveniently aids the invasion of Iraq in order to seize perhaps the world's most valuable oilfields -- with Iran's oilfields coming up as a target.

e. Israeli intelligence foreknowledge of the strikes in both New York and London, warning Israelis to stay out of harm's way.

f. Why were no 'hijackers ever filmed the morning of 9/11? Why did CCTV cameras mysteriously fail in London?

g. Yet there were mysterious survivals of IDs at both New York and London. An obvious plant of a so-called 'hijacker' ID miraculously escaped the crashed plane inferno. Amazingly, all so-called London 'bombers' left their ID behind, one of them at two different tube stations !!

h. Eyewitnesses reports in New York to interior explosions are matched by a London eyewitness report that the blast seemed to come from below.

i. A couple of nice touches that secret services seem to enjoy: The US events occurred on September 11, or, the way Americans write dates, 9-11. 911 happens to be the American emergency number. (September 11 was also the date of a CIA-facilitated coup in Chile 30 years ago which overturned the democracy and brought Pinochet to power.) For London, the bombings occurred just after London was awarded the extremely lucrative Olympics. Great timing !

Another nice touch for London: The alleged 'bombers' are claimed to have worn backpacks. Never has any plausible evidence been provided of this. What proof are mere photographs of people wearing backbacks got to do with carrying explosives and setting them??
Backpackers, however, are normally young people, the kind who might engage in environmental and other protests, the kind of activists that prominent members of the New Labour and Brussels governments have slandered as 'terrorists'. Now, young people wearing backpacks can be harassed by the police and suspected by naive, propagandised citizens. How convenient.

In short, if one wishes to truly find the real perpetrators of the London bombings, the prime suspect ought to be the organisation that silenced Dr. David Kelly.

The New Labour Government has scaremongeringly created an atmosphere of distrust, apprehension and paranoia, aided by the emasculated, toadying BBC.

Beware of any incident, real or fabricated, to justify the calling of an Emergency under the unconstitutional Civil Contingencies Act which would grant the Government dictatorial powers. [Note: In 1933, the Nazis burned down the Reichstag, blamed the deed on someone else, then Chancellor Adolf Hitler pushed through legislation similar to the Civil Contingencies Act which granted him "temporary" dictatorial powers to deal with an "Emergency".]

Beware.

P.S. Keep in mind the ease with which government secret services can perpetrate the kind of bombing operations described above, and get away with it. But how terribly difficult it is for anyone else, if not aided by government agencies.

Do reflect for a moment on the startling similarity between the use oppressive governments/institutions -- most notably the German Nazis -- have made historically of slandering Jews, with the use oppressive governments/institutions are now making of the slander of Muslims.

Reflect also on the kind of society that has been developing under the New Labour Government (with the help of the Tory hierarchy, especially Michael Howard). It has led not only to the destruction of one liberty after another, and of the democratic process itself.
It has eventuated -- who would have believed this? -- in the summary execution in broad daylight of an innocent, helpless man. Seven bullets to the head of a helpless, innocent man. Followed by a series of lies, outright official falsehoods about the man's clothing and behaviour (Jean Charles de Menezes was NOT challenged, he did NOT vault a ticket barrier, and was NOT wearing a bulky coat; he was on the ground, face down, his arms pinned to his sides by one of the killers). He could have been stopped and questioned when leaving his home. Why allowed to board a bus? Why allowed to enter the Underground? Why allowed to sit down on the train? And then gunned down.) Such things happened in Germany in the 1930s.

How could 'a mistake' account for such a long, drawn-out, cold-blooded, murderous operation? One might well ask, Was the killing designed to intimidate the British public? Telling us that this Government must be abjectly obeyed??

Do you want your children and grandchildren to grow up in this type of secret-police, shoot-to-kill society? If not, you had better register your opinion with Newsmedia and MPs.

[xmasdale]

Seb Rojas has sent us the following reservations about this draft leaflet. In my view if there are any points in the draft which could cause dissention among 9/11 Truth campaigners, we should cut them out.

We should remember that our campaign is a broad coalition of people who are not satisfied with the official explanation of what happened on 9/11 and are calling for an independent and thorough investigation into all the evidence. This coalition ranges from people who think

What do you think?

Noel









>mstagman@hotmail.com writes:
>
>Must mention, certainly in 4-pager, MADRID BOMBING SHREDDINGS.
>Mike
>


Noel replies:
>I have some worries about implying we see a conspiracy in everything. It
>allows us to be dismissed as having a psychiatric rather than a political
>problem. If we can convince people of just one conspiracy, they can then
>move on
>to the others later.
>
>Noel



Seb replies:
I agree, Noel.

This next point, I suspect, is going to be a bit controversial within the
group.

For this leaflet, are you sure we should be going for the London bombings?
I'm really in two minds about this. Here are the reasons why.

In favour:

- It's increasingly looking like the terror atrocities are part of a new
'Strategy of Tension' and somebody should be alerting the public.

Against:

- People might think that we see a conspiracy in everything. As you said, if
we crack 9/11, the rest will follow.

- It only happened a short time ago and many are still shocked and angry, it
would probably be seen as bad form to pre-empt an inquiry into e.g. the de
Menezes execution (I hear a decision on this has been conveniently postponed
for 6 months). We leave ourselves open to attack from the media once this
really starts to take off. They will step-up their efforts to brand the
movement as an affront to the victims of 7/7, as holocaust deniers and so
on.

I'm sure most in the group will want us to deal with the London bombings,
but I think it should remain at the periphery for *this leaflet*. Perhaps we
could allude to it or at the most add 2 facts that will get people thinking.
We need this to appeal to as many people as possible and I can guarantee you
that if people are open or are convinced by our case, the logical corollary
is that they will start doubting the London Bombings.

Numerology is a big no no, IMO.

Seb