Craig, I see you still persist in using the term ‘Al Qaeda’. Would you please define how you are using it for my mind?

Why are the terrorists attacking us? What motivates them really? Essentially the establishment view is that they hate us for our freedoms and way of life, and that they are irrational, perverted, and brainwashed.

Yet, the terrorists themselves repeatedly say the opposite, they are reacting to western policies that oppress them and lead to massive loss of life, destruction, and suffering in their countries, and specifically in the open wound that is Palestine.

Western leaders seem both ignorant, hypocritical, violent, self-servinging, and adopt grotesquely different, and double-standards, accross the board. Our rhetoric arbout freedom and progress and democracy, is for domestic consumption only; it’s our actions that really count not our words, and the difference between our pretty words and our ungly, violent actions, is striking; to anyone who isn’t lobotomized or blind.

One only has to examine the vast difference between western firepower and how effective our terrorism is, compared to the enemy, in relation to the recent Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Gaza, in a nutshell, is what the West really is, when one strips away the rhetorical gloss, the ritualized language about “freedom” and “democracy” and “human rights.”

Our ability to slaughter civilians on a massive scale, with impunity, is obvious. We kill the enemy in ratio that’s close to 1-100. After Gaza who on earth is surprised when people in the Middle East and beyond are “radicalized?” Are actions radicalize them for God’s sake!

Given the level of violence aimed at the countries we deem “savage” and “barbarian”, or outside of “cilization” it’s surprising we aren’t under attack more often. But then, the paltry nature and effectiveness of the “terrorist threat” indicates the true and real weakness of the enemy, and how overwhelming powerful are military capabilities are in contrast.

‘We should know by now that the intelligence services and politicians no longer care if the intelligence is true: they want intelligence that justifies the actions they want to take anyway,…..’.

I would go further and say that many of the ‘terrorist’ victims of torture are picked up by agencies not because of any association with terrorism but to provide evidence that there are terrorists.

Dr Dr Al Balawi didn’t kill women and children; he killed the aggressors. It’s unfortunate he had to kill himself.

Craig,

I understand your point of view but as Bob Baer has pointed out what this case shows is not so much the problem of humint but the over reliance by western intelligence services on sigint. The fact the cia have had to rely on the jordanians for a useable asset speaks volumes.

One of the problems I have with this post in particular are your sloppy generalisations:

‘We should know by now that the intelligence services and politicians no longer care if the intelligence is true’

Craig, come on, we both now you cannot talk about an intelligence agency in that manner. ‘It’s like saying what is the MI6 view on X?’ – An agency made up of thousands of individuals will have a wide variety of opinions. You do yourself and your readers a disservice when you talk about the intelligence services not caring if it is true or not. Do you really mean this? That every single employee does not care about the validity of the information they are obtaining? Or are you talking about the people at the top?

I could make a similar accusation about the FO but it wouldn’t be true. Less of the broad brush if you please!

Control

Cpntrol,

I don’t think it is a generalisation. To take the example of the Dirty Dossier” on the Iraqi WMD, there was a clear direction given to the intelligence agencies right from No 10 that the intelligence should be fixed around the policy. The integroty of the system has disappeared – the agencies (and the FCO too) are now committed to telling the story the politicians want to hear, not to discovering the truth.

A powerful, succinct and sad account of human failure, deceit, lies, unnecessary suffering and genocide.

I was amused by media references to Dr Al-Balawi’s “treachery”. None of the journalists or analysts seemed to register that, on the contrary, what he really did was to fake treachery in order to strike back at those promoting and benefiting from it.

The fundamental – and insoluble – problem that the Americans face is that of defeating a movement rooted in a culture of which they know nothing. Most Americans pride themselves on living in ways that contrast starkly with that of the average Afghan or Pakistani. Many times I have seen Americans refer to Asian countries as “shitholes” and the like, epitomizing their uncomprehending disdain for people who don’t shower twice a day, perfume themselves, overeat, drive around in big shiny cars, and festoon themselves with electronic gadgets.

So how is the US government to obtain humint? If any American were to gain enough “local knowledge” and experience to go undercover in Afghanistan, he would automatically become suspect in the eyes of his masters as having “gone native”. So they are reduced to buying information from intermediaries – who are not averse to the incredibly rich revenue stream represented by US government funds in one of the world’s poorest countries.

No wonder the alternative of sitting in an air-conditioned office and dropping bombs by remote control has come to seem so attractive. Unfortunately this is the very antithesis of intelligence-led warfare.

Control,

‘That every single employee does not care about the validity of the information they are obtaining? Or are you talking about the people at the top?’

I can only assume you know nothing about the structure, hierarchy and modus operandi of the intelligence services.

At the operator level it is getting the information without leaving a trace that is priority, not content. The operator must have that unique ability of being able to ‘talk oneself out of a situation’ with maximum credibility.

That is an important focus in the recruiting strategy after competency and it is that ability which is tested in any applicant.

Yes very powerful piece Craig.

Keep up the good work.

Tom,

I wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph but one must be careful not to paint all Americans with the same brush.

Yes we Brits are naturally good at being ‘friendly to the natives’ at the honest level, although, and I’m being cynical, not so good at adopting a disguise and posing as Arabs planting bombs as we did in Iraq. Bad move!

Again I agree with your last paragraph; the curse of myopic, hyper-threading heuristic and deadly flying machines remotely controlled by ‘gamers’ sat in leather backed swivelling chairs is a nasty reality of the 21st century.

Craig,

I understand what you are saying and clearly there is an argument to say that after the Cold War the intelligence services had to find something to do and being reliant on the politicians mean there is some inevitable amount of horse trading.

It seems unfortunate however that because i) people like Ali Campbell thought they had a legitimate role in the framing of a defence/intelligence question ii) that b**stard John Scarlett signed off the dirty dossier knowing full well it was a piece of political propoganda, that you would suggest the intelligence services have lost all integrity (that is, all employees are without integrity).

Craig, your opinion is not that far from David Cornwell in respect of the politicisation of the intelligence services.

‘Yes. Here, in Britain, we’ve watched this same process happening. The thing about spying is that it’s simple. It sees itself as a pure science, exactly as very good journalistic reporting is. As with journalism, there are two absolutely sacred areas. One is the sanctity of sources and the other is the objective truth. What we saw here, in the preparation of that disastrous dossier that so embarrassed Colin Powell in the United Nations, was the attempted corruption, if you like, of pure intelligence and, at a certain level, the politicization of the intelligence arm. When you do that as a politician you actually deprive yourself of true objectivity. You say, “I know there are weapons of mass destruction out there, so go and damn well find them!” That’s no way to give a brief. You’ve got to say, “Come to me and tell me what you’ve found.”‘

and on the money problem

‘Your intelligence budget for the CIA alone is, I think, $30 billion a year. The result is a huge proliferation of junk. The art of refining that and turning it into a lucid statement you can write on a postcard and put in front of a busy politician really is very, very difficult stuff. The intelligence business is threatened by exactly the same bad people that your business is threatened by. In good journalism, you’ve got people back from the field who are sitting behind desks who can smell a rat when it comes in. They can identify the young Turk who has just been taken on by the foreign desk who wants to make his name and may be fabricating. They can look at information obtained and think, “Well that may be planted so that we’ll think that way. But is it really true?”

‘In the intelligence world, with so much money around, there are tremendously sophisticated peddlers who are just making stuff up, feeding information to the empty areas of your head and taking huge sums of money for it and disappearing into the smoke. And I think some of the intelligence services fell for some of that stuff.’

It’s not an easy problem to fix but how do you suggest you could get back integrity?

Mark, respectfully I think you miss the point I was trying to make. Of course the person on the ground cares about the content. You don’t think they know if they are ‘buying’ rubbish intel because they are getting the HMG chequebook out?

-Control-

We all do and say what we believe to be right, because there is no reason to contradict oneself; therefore good people do good things, and bad people do bad things.

Evil is not bad people being persuaded to do bad things, for that is the natural state of bad people, but the false-witness that persuades good people to do bad things.

Therefore our government is evil by dint of false-witness.

I think they trusted him because he said, “Trust me, I’m a doctor”.

They should learn from me, my wife is a doctor and I never trust her. She keeps telling me to eat lentils and beans saying they are healthy and trust me I’m a doctor crap. But the fact is if I did eat beans, being Muslim I’d probably get arrested for the gas that will leak out of my underpants. It is a good thing I don’t smoke because if I did and that caused my pants to catch fire I could get done for being another Abdul Muttalib.

Time is reporting that Al-Balawi had been a genuine CIA asset, but turned partly in response to civilian casualties.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952177,00.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/07/terrorism/index.html

NYT reports Al-Balawi’s brother was “changed” by Israel’s Gaza campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07jordan.html

Thanks Craig,

This is an excellent post. Every sentence is a gem.

MI5 / MI6 ARE A SECRET POLICE ?” NOT AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Craig says – “We should know by now that the intelligence services and politicians no longer care if the intelligence is true: they want intelligence that justifies the actions” The truth is, as my own case so aptly demonstrates, that what we have is a Secret Police and not an Intelligence Service; so it is hardly surprising that they distort the truth and torture innocents. One cannot be effective in both roles since the job requirements are different.

In fact the job requirements are mutually exclusive. An intelligence service is about the quiet collection of truthful information and its analysis; an intelligence service’s objective is getting at the truth. Contrast that with a secret police service who are agent provocateurs, spreaders of lies, torturers, threateners, and murderers; their objective is to hide the truth (and terrorize the enemies) for whatever nomenclatura controls them.

As you know my own experience of our so-called intelligence services (defamatory lies, intimidation, harassment, threats) proves that MI5/6 in the UK, and CSIS in Canada are a very good secret police; I don’t think it is fair to expect them to be an effective intelligence service as well.

Jaded:

‘Craig, I see you still persist in using the term ‘Al Qaeda’. Would you please define how you are using it for my mind?’

That’s a fair question to ask and i’m surprised you haven’t responded. I’ll just assume you are perfectly happy with the MSM take on it then…

im just wondering how many people died from the cold weather in the uk this winter, and how much money compared to that spent on the wars was spent on the elderly?

“…one must be careful not to paint all Americans with the same brush”.

Very true, Mark, and I don’t as a rule. (Sorry if I hurriedly gave the wrong impression). I know quite a few Americans who are clever, empathetic, and kind.

What I really meant was that it’s the ignorant redneck tendency who exist in sufficient numbers to dominate political discourse and – most important – voting patterns. Mark Twain admitted this when he said that “War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography”.

Americans are brought up to believe that their country is special – unique, indeed – mostly because they are. It must be very hard indeed to resist the obvious inference that others (i.e. foreigners) are inferior.

“If any American were to gain enough “local knowledge” and experience to go undercover in Afghanistan, he would automatically become suspect in the eyes of his masters as having “gone native”.”

Tom, you must be the product of the British university system.

“Mark Twain admitted this when he said that “War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography”.”

Again, not very clever.

You need to take some sort of remedial course in logic and skepticism.

I’ll second Stephens laudations, Craig, a thoughtfull post, albeit sad in its conclusion.

Dr. Dr. Al Balawi seems to have been a serious thinker and a principled fighter at that.

Not annonimous bombing from great hight, he made sure that his target was the right one.

Oh hallo Larry, nowhere else to go?

@ control ~

You seem to cast doubt that a large number of people in a huge organisation (such as the intelligence services) could be knowingly and deliberately distorting or suppressing “the truth” of what they discover.

It doesn’t work like that. The BBC is a perfect case in point here. After the dodgy dossier affair, when Andrew Gilligan got a rocket for disclosing the true facts, the top suits (I mean the TOP suits) at the BBC were hauled into No. 10 and given a right royal roasting by the PM’s staff, A Campbell brandishing the white-hot branding iron. They were told, in no uncertain terms, that if the BBC ever stepped out of line again, heads would roll ~ possibly even the heads of the Top Suits.

Since that moment ~ and we can date it very precisely ~ the BBC has retreated into its shell of timidity and denial and obfuscation, not daring to even breathe a word of criticism against the establishment (the disgraceful refusal to run the charity appeal for the people of Gaza was a very obvious symptom of this). Now, the BBC does employ many editors and journalists of integrity, but in this new climate these people have to find a new accommodation between themeselves and the stories they report. Most of them don’t want to give up glamorous, well-paid, high-prestige jobs working for a world-famous broadcaster (would you? when your life-long career goal has been to work for them?) so they bend to the editorial climate of the moment, and tell themselves that they are being professional “unbiassed and impartial” reporters of the news, which means choosing those bits of the news the establishment are comfortable with (we’re winning in Afghanistan) and ignoring or downplaying other stories (the Israeli armed aggression against the civilian population of Gaza). This truth is self-evident. Can you imagine an assault on a civilian population by a lethal force of arms anywhere else in the world that wouldn’t have produced a storm of outrage and condemnation from the BBC and the rest of the media? But Israel and the Palestinians are a different matter. They don’t count as much as us Westerners.

The way the BBC hacks justify their jobs and salve their consciences is not by deliberatley lying, but by bending the truth here and there, omitting certain facts and emphasising others, reaching an accommodation which allows them to remain good guys and in work. The same happens in the intelligence services. Bright, caring people who have sold out but still convince themselves they are doing a good job for the country. It takes a great deal for a man to believe something is true when his livliehood depends on his not believing it.

Just to put the “terror threat” to our way of life in an alternative and polemical perspective. For what it’s worth.

A friend of mine who has invested heavily in shipping, told me, rather defensively, as she is very “green”, that around 40 huge container ships arrive in the port of San Diego in California everyday, and about fifty others are on their way in and out of California.

Supposedly, according to some research she’s done, these 90 to 100 ships pollute the atmosphere to an extraordinary degree, pumping out CO2, and a variety of poisons into the atmosphere, doing more environmental damage than the rest of California’s transport system combined.

In LA alone, it’s said that 10,000 extra deaths and 100,000 cronic illnesses can be laid at the door of these “death ships” yet what’s done about it? What about the threat to our way of life from 10,000 deaths a year?

Larry

British degrees are known as the world’s best while American degrees are known as the world’s worst. It is a well known fact that an America degree is worth about the same as 2 or 3 British A Levels.

America is a gangster republic, it was built for murder and theft and all it has done since its creation is murder and theft.

It was created by committing genocide against the people who were their first and then stealing their land and wealth.

And since it was created it declared war and and every year since its creation to steal more by killing more.

So if Tom Welsh has a British education, then he is all the better for it, and if you Larry have an American University education, you would have been better off home schooled.

Good post mirrorman. I tend to sum up the BBC as propagandising ‘themes’. You hear the odd bit of dissent or counterargument, but the ‘themes’ are now set in stone. For example, 9/11 muslim job; 7/7 muslim job; ‘War On Terror’; bank charges here to stay; climate change; Tony Blair is important etc.. They just play the pipes of the Establishment.

“But Israel and the Palestinians are a different matter. They don’t count as much as Westerners.”

I meant, of course, that the Palestinians don’t count as much as Westerners. The Israelis count for much more in Western eyes.

Jaded.,

But I thought the Muslims were responsible 7/7 – why on Earth do you think they didn’t do 7/7?

And do you think climate change is a hoax? Why?

I met Bin Laden and he told me so.

Whites count more than Blacks.

That is what they really mean. What do they call Israel when they say Israelis are worth more than Arabs?

They say it is a piece of Europe in the Middle East. In other words “Some white people surrounded by worthless Niggers”

but Jaded, why do you believe that the Muslims did not do 7/7?

Jadad

I’ve met him too. He lives near me and is a parent governor the local school.

And anyone drives past him they open their windows and shout, oy Bin Ladin!

Steve, I answered at 5.42p.m.. Thanks.

I mean, you have to be seriously stupid and uneducated to believe that the Muslims did not do 7/7.

I mean, you have to be seriously stupid and uneducated to believe that the Muslims did not do 7/7.

Indeed, doubly so…

Since their own CIA agents were killed, the Americans will be compelled to learn to look for signs that people might be coming under the influence of their enemies, and to examine the credibility of humint generally. This may have a knock-on influence on Britain’s intelligence services, in that obtaining accurate information may become again more important than telling people what they want to hear. So, in the long run, Britain’s secret services might benefit from this tragedy.

On accurate reporting in the UK media I saw an interesting report in NY Times a month or so ago. The French Foreign Minister was asked about how effective NATO was in Afghanistan. He said something like, ‘Its not effective at all.’ Pretty damning but no mention in UK media.

MI5 / MI6 ARE A SECRET POLICE ?” NOT AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

I would think that there are different levels/departments in the service. Recruitment into the different divisions would depend on the morality of the agent. I imagine there are those that carry out normal intelligence activities, while there are others who are paid more to carry out a bit of torture etc. Another section would be involved in crime, setting up carousel and excise frauds, scams of all sorts. To complement this section there would be a group to cover up their colleagues illegal activities. Last but not least there is the hit squad for people who get in the way of government policy ie Dr Kelly.

Government agencies need to be accountable , but the Secret Services need to be, well, er, secret. Is this an unresolvable contradiction?

It only works if you have a strong ethical code in society to which public servants subscribe. That is what New Labour, with its elevation of lying to a principle of government, has helped to undermine.

Craig.

Ruth

I am seriously concerned with the post from Mr Russell and even more concerned with the link http://zerzetzen.wikispaces.com/

Is this an attempt to intimidate us or is this a bona-fide case of physical and mental torture by persons unknown, or even worse, the British security services?

I would appreciate clarification of the facts presented here.

Thanks

Mark

@ Ruth – clever insight! But what would you do about villains like Dr. Evil?

Prod – Prod – Prod – 100% packet loss – Not good!

Details on the events can be viewed on Ant’s site here:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk

Tell Ant I sent you.

Larry

Here this dood – I visit here for inspiration, knowledge, sometimes a good laugh or simply a chat.

You neither inspire or say anything of any meaning or remotely funny or enjoyable.

I suggest to stick with Facebook and FarmTown or FarmVille or CafeWorld or the new one CountryLife – much better ways of occupying your time.

I have no doubts that what Roderick Russell says is true. Mainly because I and my family have been intimidated by the secret services. When they thought I had a photograph of a senior agent involved in illegal activities on a vast scale they made an attempt by phone to contact my little son and soon after that someone set light to the house next door with a slow burnig device. Of course I can’t say for sure that it was an agent who started the fire but as I had been followed before and after the photo was going to be given to me it’s quite logical to think the worst. There were further attempts to incriminate my elder son. Another person who was set up by this agent was subjected to all kinds of intimidation. Intimidation isn’t just restricted to the intelligence services but also to judges particularly from the appeal court who bring in judgments to conceal state crime and will send a completely innocent appellant back to prison.

The Guv likely have a team of people working on lies all the time. The police are there to control us, not protect. Can’t have the public not doing as they are told now can we? Need to force them to. Very good article. One of the best.

Ruth, was that person with the slow-burning device wearing quasi-futuristic clothing?

Mark Golding,

what’s that about packet loss? Links to your site, julyseventh.co.uk and R Russell’s site are all working for me at present.

Ruth,

Thank-you – I wonder if the judge in the recent public order trial was intimidated or ‘advised’ – perhaps I should have given evidence of rape, murder, maiming, disfiguring, mental torture and orphaning of babies, toddlers, pre-school and teens in Iraq?

Clark,

Just a grouse! My connection is monitored(all ports), logged, analysed (deep packet) UPS and backup dial-up. I am paranoid – that’s all.

“perhaps I should have given evidence of rape, murder, maiming, disfiguring, mental torture and orphaning of babies, toddlers, pre-school and teens in Iraq?”

Thank you for pointing out the faults of Muslim extremists. Just imagine if they acquire a nuclear weapon.

For what it is worth, my reading of Roderick’s story is that he has suffered persecution and intimidation from an ex-employer. This has been compounded by disinterest and inefficiency from the police and Home Office.

I am not so far convinced that amounts to state collusion (other than by passivity) or security service involvement. The police are sadly nowadays focused on protecting the state, not protecting individuals from individual crimes. The police in the North West are also particularly prone to be locally corrupt. That may be playing a part.

Larry,

No – Thank-you – but – Bush to Blair he: “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.” Jan 31st 2003 – Bad mistake Dood

But of course. “God will be the ultimate judge of the Iraq war.” (PM Blair March 2006) or Allah (SWT)

Bush said a number of stupid things, Mr. False Dichotomy.

Now what do you think would have happened had Saddam Hussein expired? (which was a bit inevitable)

Larry,

I least we both agree, Mr Bush was unable to determine right from wrong – as for Saddam – Hey that cruise missile was way off despite CIA illumination – but the war had started and Blackwater was only just recruiting. We witnessed the results of the ‘hit squads’ – a bad thing – the only good thing is we are now prepared (as witnessed in Iran) for false-flag internecine warfare – hence the victory.

Oh, no, Mark – whether Bush managed to say some stupid things has nothing to do with his ability to distinguish right from wrong.

So is Obama now engaged in false-flag warfare in Iran?

“Ruth, was that person with the slow-burning device wearing quasi-futuristic clothing?

Posted by: Larry

“Now what do you think would have happened had Saddam Hussein expired? (which was a bit inevitable)

Posted by: Larry

“So is Obama now engaged in false-flag warfare in Iran?

Posted by: Larry

So what exactly did you come here to learn, Larry? Do you take notes? What’s with the 101 questions? Hm?

He thinks he can stir it up. And he does absolutely nothing only waste people’s time. Grrr … Trolls.

What does a proper 911 Truther say? “I’m just asking questions.”

object to the phrase ‘took out’ – far too hollywood, far too devoid of the murderous violence of the action – ‘murdered’ would have been appropriate, whatever the political rights and wrongs that lay behind the incident. Big admirer of the blog, Craig, but such cavalier and careless use of language offends.

“Taliban fighters have developed a deadly new generation of their most lethal weapon, the improvised explosive device, or IED, which is almost undetectable because it has no metal or electronic parts, military experts said last week …”

http://tinyurl.com/ybajdc4

Ruth,

Dr Kelly tragically died from suicide. A suicide he described before he did it and one which his family are no doubt saddened by but not apparently surprised by. His wife, however, has apparently been irritated by fantasy dissidents snooping around trying to find out how much deeper this “mystery” goes.

Also, it seems a bit of a stretch to say that because a “slow-burning device” was found in your next door neighbours garden that it was a response to your fantasy dissident behaviour which amounted to planting a thought in the head of a secret agent about a photograph you don’t have but would be really incriminating if it existed.

I mean, where on Earth do you get the idea that “the secret service thought I had a photograph of a senior agent involved in illegal activities on a vast scale”?

Did you have this picture? What kind of vast-scale criminality did this single snapshot reveal?

“Dr Kelly tragically died from suicide”

If he did, it wasn’t from the amount of paracetamol he swallowed, and it wasn’t from the cut on his wrist. If you know anything at all about medicine and/or suicide attempts, you’d know this much. Tell us what he died of.

Larry,

Good try – The methods of agitation in Iran are known to me and I am not prepared to reveal them yet. President Obama is destined to be a great leader, you know I have said that, and I stand by it. He alone has made the decision not to strike before negotiation and I appreciate that (after Iraq).

I cannot be tricked into false dichotomy Larry (I realize now you meant me) – I am too long in the tooth, besides, as agreed, I outrank you.

“If he did, it wasn’t from the amount of paracetamol he swallowed, and it wasn’t from the cut on his wrist. If you know anything at all about medicine and/or suicide attempts, you’d know this much.”

He died from the cut on his wrist, the overdose of co-proxamol and his pre-existing heart condition.

But if not that, what do you think…?

@angrysoba: What you said regarding Janice Kelly – “His wife, however, has apparently been irritated by fantasy dissidents snooping around trying to find out how much deeper this “mystery” goes.” You haven’t got a link for that or anything have you? About Janice Kelly’s apparent irritation? I’ve been following the Kelly story as it happens, and it interests me. Am not a conspricacy theorist mind.

Specifically (and I don’t mean to split hairs or beget an argument) who is making the claim she is irritated? Or is it an assumption? Would like to know.

Cheers

Good post, Craig, but may I suggest that you call time on “take out”, as in “We use it to take out wedding parties with bomb attacks”?

Best not to echo a US military term intended to mask the reality of mass killings.

“He died from the cut on his wrist, the overdose of co-proxamol and his pre-existing heart condition.”

Bullshit. Read up on the subject.

dreoilin,

Agreed; Mrs Kelly has been intimidated and Oxford search & rescue know his body was moved. Many eminent surgeons and physicians has questioned (some refuted) the post mortem medical evidence.

From the Daily Telegraph 5 December 2009

‘Six eminent doctors have launched a legal action to reopen the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly in an attempt to prove he was murdered.’

He couldn’t have died from a cut ulnar artery which is tiny in width, and would have retracted and closed.

He hadn’t ingested enough tablets to make a toxic dose.

There is no evidence that he had a “coronary”. All men of his age would have some coronary deficiency, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he died from such. There was ‘no pre-existing heart condition’ other than the condition any man of his age would be in.

Well qualified doctors dispute the medical “evidence” of this so-called suicide. Their arguments are strong.

Angrysoba: Do some Googling. I’m not going to do it for you. I see Ruth has provided a link.

————————-

Mark,

I don’t know who killed him. But I believe he was murdered. Absolutely.

“Well qualified doctors dispute the medical “evidence”"

What, the notorious David Halpin? A doctor with a political agenda, as well as being a menace to society, is in breach of the Hippocratic oath. If you believe this stuff about dark forces I fear it puts you on the verge of joining all the other daft conspiracy delinquents on this site. The question for you is this: if he didn’t die after cutting his wrist and ingesting 29 painkillers on top of an existing heart condition then how did he die? And if he was killed, why, how and who?

Anyone with half a brain can see that David Kelly was an introvert who was hardly likely to announce his planned suicide to the world.

Rainborough.

“Good post, Craig, but may I suggest that you call time on “take out”,”.

How does one weaken the effectiveness of euphemisms used by agents of the military industrial complex to beautify their crimes? The answer is use them sarcastically in a context that emphasizes their true meaning. Craig is a master of this technique.

IED’s are not as deadly as the incompetence of ministers, you can buy 2000 well equipped wallis w116 for the price of a single Apache, flying at a hight of five foot, searching and destroying IED’s/UXB’s using the same equipment than a much bigger helicopter has.

They are nimble and much more manouvrable than any of the big birds.

We’ve got the gear, but have we got the will to use it?

What’s a Wallis W116?

“What, the notorious David Halpin? A doctor with a political agenda, as well as being a menace to society, is in breach of the Hippocratic oath …”

Accoding to a link from July 2009, there are 13 of those doctors. Not one, Eddie. And that’s only counting those who are prepared to go public.

http://tinyurl.com/mwpfro

“The question for you is this: if he didn’t die after cutting his wrist”

The ulnar artery was cut. Plus there were some scratches. Provide me with some precedents of people bleeding out from a cut ulnar artery. Crossways. It takes at least 20 minutes to bleed out from the major artery in the groin, if pressure is not employed to help it retract and close.

“and ingesting 29 painkillers”

How do you know he did that?

“on top of an existing heart condition”

What heart condition?

“then how did he die? And if he was killed, why, how and who?”

Can you read? I wrote above, “I don’t know who killed him.” Why do you turn around and ask me?

And you have heard, I assume, of injection sites that can be invisible other than under a microscope. That’s just ONE option, Eddie. Possibly one option that these doctors would like an inquest to examine. If it’s not too late.

You did know that he was a member of the Baha’i faith which condemns suicide? You know that his fingerprints were not on the knife with which he allegedly cut himself? You know it was blunt? You know that the paramedics who attended the scene said afterwards that there wasn’t enough blood for him to have bled out?

“who was hardly likely to announce his planned suicide to the world”.

You know that David Kelly had said, “I will probably be found dead in the woods”? Was that an announcement of his “planned suicide”, Eddie, or a concern about being murdered?

I’m not going to keep this up, Eddie. I don’t have much interest in to-ing and fro-ing over a disputed death the investigation of which has already been ‘shut down’ by the authorities.

“The Hutton Inquiry took priority over an inquest, which would normally be required into a suspicious death.[25] The Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, considered the issue again in March 2004. After reviewing evidence that had not been presented to the Hutton Inquiry, Gardiner decided that there was no need for further investigation. This conclusion did not satisfy those who had raised doubts, but there has been no alternative official explanation for Kelly’s death.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

——————————

“What’s a Wallis W116?”

and does it detect wood? Because according to the link I left above, that’s what the Taliban are making the IEDs out of now.

Correction:

The above should have said:

“You know that the paramedics who attended the scene said afterwards that there wasn’t enough blood to be significant?”

I’ve read Norman Baker’s wild-eyed speculative nonsense.

Dr Kelly’s wife didn’t want to speak to him as even he admitted.

Co-proxamol overdoses had led to the deaths of over 400 people per year as even Baker admitted. Mostly accidental, apparently.

Baker thinks it “uncanny” that Dr Kelly predicted he’d be found dead in the woods yet it’s only uncanny to a bunch of conspiracy theorists like yourselves given that people who plan their own demise may have the most insight into how it will happen. (Ever thought of that?)

The “qualified doctors” didn’t actually examine the body as opposed to the qualified doctors that did and ruled suicide.

Oh and Baker also thinks that Robin Cook was murdered for an article he wrote a year previously, but slyly elides the amount of time by saying, abruptly, “Robin Cook died shortly afterwards, on Saturday 6 August, while out walking in the Scottish highlands.”

“Shortly afterwards” is more than a YEAR after the article Baker quotes and he was out walking with his wife. What is he insinuating to his silly goose* readership?

How many of you also believe that Tony Blair was responsible for the deaths of John Smith, Mo Mowlam and Tony Banks (I’ve seriously seen people who suggest Blair had Robin Cook and David Kelly whacked believe he was behind the deaths of the other three…oh, and Princess Diana of course.)

* Borrowed from Larry.

On the murder of Dr Kelley.

When the security services whack a dissident they do a half hearted job of covering with plausible deniability as for example making a murder resemble a suicide. The reason is that the assassination is not simply to get rid of that particular dissident but also to warn others. The security services want to leave public opinion ambivalent as to whether it was or was not a hit, sufficiently accepting of the suicide explanation to make a searching inquiry unnecessary but with a good residue of suspicion which will be concentrated in the minds of public servants who know of government wrong doing.

Eddie,

It is easy to grimace and say doh! conspiracy theorist; when does a ‘theory’ become reality = Ah yes when the Sun reports or even the BBC of late. Put bluntly I do not trust Hutton and my friend is Rowena Thursby who spent a year examining the evidence. I won’t give you a long list of anomalies in this tragic case because with respect you are not prepared to consider all the facts; not everyone has an investigative mind.

Happily others here are prepared to be subjective.

“What heart condition?”

You need to do some reading.

And I don’t mean Rowena Thursby’s website.

http://beyondbelief.blogspot.com/

deollin: “You know that David Kelly had said, “I will probably be found dead in the woods”? Was that an announcement of his “planned suicide”, Eddie, or a concern about being murdered?”

Oh my word!

If I said, “If things go bad I’ll probably put a shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger” and then, things go bad and I’m found dead in a locked room with a shotgun and my brains all over the wall, would you marvel at how uncannily I predicted my death?

Well, you’re a conspiracy theorist so I suppose anything is possible in your world.

“When the security services whack a dissident they do a half hearted job of covering with plausible deniability as for example making a murder resemble a suicide. The reason is that the assassination is not simply to get rid of that particular dissident but also to warn others. The security services want to leave public opinion ambivalent as to whether it was or was not a hit, sufficiently accepting of the suicide explanation to make a searching inquiry unnecessary but with a good residue of suspicion which will be concentrated in the minds of public servants who know of government wrong doing. ”

Where does this gem of wisdom come from? Is this something you KNOW or is it more mindless speculation?

@angrysoba: As I asked above, if there is a link to some sort of public record on Janice Kelly’s frustration with consipiracy theorists, do please link it – as a favour. Doesn’t diminish from your argument if it was an assumption on your part. Just wondering where you heard it from.

Your attitude as regards the late Dr Kelly seems very redolent of David Aaronovitch’s, by the way. That right?

Rob Lewis.

I googled Wallis W116 and came up with only one relevant hit:-

http://www.edp24.co.uk/CS/forums/431439/PrintPost.aspx

It discusses the W116 assuming prior knowledge but you might get something by context.

While it was conceivable that people in the UK did not know about what our colonial forces were doing in foreign places in the past, in this media age anybody with one or other of his/her six senses still functioning knows what is being done by UK US IS forces abroad. If people know what is being done in our name to foreigners and they are happy about it, it follows that they are RACIST.

The equal opportunities monitoring that we have to participate in when applying for work etc says it all about our present racism. Are you: White or Black or Asian? I am an ethnic mix, with a trace of Semitic extraction, but predominately of Indo-European extraction, as is my wife. She’s classed as Asian, coming from Kurdistan, while I am ‘White’. She says downza for twelve, I say a dozen. She says derga for door, gryea for ear, etc etc etc. Our linguistic links are unarguable proof of or racial commonality. Jew and Arab are also linguistically and racially the same.

How is it therefore that our rulers have conned us into thinking that our fellow Middle-Eastern and Indo-European brothers and sisters in humanity are legitimate targets for our military violence? We are at a level of racism which is equivalent to Nazism and our crimes have already exceeded Nazi crimes. Please don’t wring your hands later when the blindfolds are removed from your eyes and you stand before Allah on the day of Judgement, accused of condoning the slaughter of your brothers and sisters by your own government. We are living extremely comfortably now on the backs of dispossessed people in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other colonised countries. What is different from living in previous centuries off Black African slavery? We advanced our knowledge and culture on their pain. I simply do not understand the difference.

An Islamic group today is proscribed for criticising UK foreign policy with a threat of ten years imprisonment. Slaughter must be done. You do not have the right to condemn the racist violence of your Nazi government. If you are not a Nazi with them, you are not allowed to exist on this planet. Roll on marytrdom.

“Put bluntly I do not trust Hutton and my friend is Rowena Thursby ”

Ha ha ha ha!

Deollin: “You know that David Kelly had said, “I will probably be found dead in the woods”? Was that an announcement of his “planned suicide”, Eddie, or a concern about being murdered?”

Angrysoba: Oh my word!

I see you don’t detect sarcasm too easily, Angry.

TTYL

“@angrysoba: As I asked above, if there is a link to some sort of public record on Janice Kelly’s frustration with consipiracy theorists, do please link it – as a favour. Doesn’t diminish from your argument if it was an assumption on your part. Just wondering where you heard it from. ”

I’m pretty sure that I got this from the Conspiracy Files where Baker and Thursby are in conversation and someone tells them that Mrs Kelly would rather not continue this speculation and that she accepts the verdict of suicide.

Thursby fatuously speculates that Mrs Kelly simply WANTS to believe it is suicide as it seems to her a more comforting explanation (WTF???!?!??!?!)

I seem to remember Baker himself dismissing anything Mrs Kelly had said about the state of mind of Dr Kelly himself and instead relied on acquaintances of Dr Kelly’s from the local pub who naturally said they were shocked and surprised Dr Kelly could have killed himself.

Essentially this is Baker’s template for the whole book. Selectively and utterly credulously accepting all evidence which squares with his “theory” and dismissing anything that strongly supports the suicide hypothesis with bizarre ad hoc rationalizations:

“Mrs Kelly was too ill to know what she was talking about.”

“Dr Kelly’s mother had committed suicide with an overdose of pills, it’s true, but then Dr Kelly never seemed to get upset when he talked about it so he had probably gotten over it completely.”

“The police used a mast that looked suspiciously capable of sending a signal to Tony Blair’s plane over the Pacific”

Bizarre red herrings that are made to seem far more suspicious than they are:

“Why would the police let a sniffer dog into Dr Kelly’s house to check for evidence?”

Dreoilin – I agee it’s a pointless exercise, like debating 911. But I asked how, why and who and although I don’t expect you to have the answers it seems to me that it is down to you and people like you to provide answers if you make mad speculations about how someone died. It’s like asking a believer to prove there is a God. If you can’t, then I will carry on being an athest thanks. I didn’t say that the cut to his wrist killed him on its own. That, the painkillers and the heart condition acting together did. As for blood, believe it or not liquids tend to leach into soil, so comments by paramedics about there not being enough blood are misleading. Also, some animals eat blood. Who is to say a passing fox or cat didn’t have a meal at the suicide site?

@angrysoba: thanks. Hypothetical question for you – and I’m not advancing an argument here by underhand means, I just want to “sound you out” – do you think the Hutton Inquiry was necessary, and if so why?

“@angrysoba: thanks. Hypothetical question for you – and I’m not advancing an argument here by underhand means, I just want to “sound you out” – do you think the Hutton Inquiry was necessary, and if so why? ”

Well, the Hutton inquiry seemed to come about to settle a different issue, as far as I understand. Not to determine the cause of death but to find out if either the BBC or the government (or perhaps both) had behaved irresponsibly and perhaps whether or not they had contributed to his death through exposing him to the media.

It is possible I suppose that Dr Kelly’s suicide was in fact suicide, but that may not let the government off the hook. It is possible that threatened with legal action and the loss of his pension he saw suicide as the only way to protect his family’s future.

In any case the British government has more than enough motive as Kelly had exposed it as telling an embarrassing lie. It is naive to think that a government willing to sanction an illegal invasion leading to 1.3 million excess deaths would hesitate at whacking one public servant.

@angrysoba: that was how it ended up, yeah, as a BBC versus government thing, with some time given to how each of them behaved. But that was not how it started. Cast your mind back – it is the day after David Kelly’s body has been found. A Telegraph staffer catches Blair in a Tokyo press conference and asks him if he’s got blood on his hands. Blair can’t answer. Hours later the government announces there will be an official inquiry – “to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death [not suicide] of David Kelly”.

I guess what I’m asking is,

a) do you think when that inquiry was announced it was implicit its chief purpose was to ascertain the cause of death?

b) do you think the cause of death needed to be established?

c) and at that moment in time (18/7/03) were you as sure of the late Dr Kelly’s suicide as you are now?

If you could answer those questions I have two more for you. I’d be really interested to know what you think if you can indulge me.

And let us not forget that Kelly had committed a serious breach of his contract by talking to Gilligan. He was in trouble and he knew it. There have been countless examples of suicides related to problems at work or loss of one’s job.

“if you make mad speculations about how someone died”

Eddie, I’m not making any mad speculations. I don’t believe the suicide ‘theory’ holds up. Period.

“It’s like asking a believer to prove there is a God.”

No it’s not. That one is not provable, one way or another. A suicide versus a murder could be, if there was a full and proper investigation.

“Also, some animals eat blood. Who is to say a passing fox or cat didn’t have a meal at the suicide site?”

You can’t have enough blood exit a severed ulnar artery, before it closes up, to cause a person to bleed towards death. Cutting several blood vessels lengthways up the arm is a different matter. Why are people ignoring this very specific point (and focussing on stuff like the Baha’i faith which I threw in among several other questions?)

Afaik, the doctors demanding an inquest are focussed mostly on the assertion that he lost a significant quantity of blood via this very small artery, something which is not possible. They also say he did not ingest a toxic dose of paracetamol. But it’s not the main plank of their case. Nor is the condition of his heart.

I should be elsewhere. Have fun.

@Eddie: “And let us not forget that Kelly had committed a serious breach of his contract by talking to Gilligan.”

Leaving everything else to one side for the moment, I’m not sure how you can claim to know this, Eddie. I know you oppose unfounded allegations – ultimately what you’re doing here is holding a dead man up to charges of impropriety and unprofessionalism. Followed by a bit of speculation and statistical generalisation.

Well he admitted that he spoke to Gilligan so that is a serious breach of his contract to begin with. He knew the contact was unauthorised and he confessed to his employers who cautioned him. He may have faced more serious disciplinary action had he not died. These are all facts that are in the public domain.

@Eddie: I think the picture is more complicated than you may think. He had several employers simultaneously; he gave a series of press interviews over the years, some spontaneous, all of which were considered part of his job, as were “follow-up” calls; neither you nor I have seen his employment contract, if he even had one; he never admitted to his employers or otherwise that his contact with Gilligan et al was “unauthorised”, his employers never officially “cautioned” him. Those are the facts in the public record.

Had a proper disciplinary hearing or tribunal taken place, we might be able to draw a conclusion about David Kelly’s supposed breach of contract. But this didn’t happen. So without wanting to climb on any sort of high horse, I think you’re “making decisions above your pay-grade”, as Alistair Campbell would say.

Oh good, the Kelly case again. Worth remembering, I think. The journalist who told the truth got sacked. The BBC chairman who supported him got sacked. And the man who leaked the truth was paraded in public in front of a ‘committee’ in a room which resembled a Roman arena, and was subsequently found dead.

Course I’ve no idea whether Dr Kelly, poor man, was physically murdered or scared to death. Having quickly looked at the case again, and reminded myself that the government are still behaving like a pantomime villain (cancelling the coroner’s inquest, indeed) I’m now almost convinced that he wasn’t murdered, but that someone set it up to look as if he was.

Thereby conveniently distracting all of us from the horrible reality that is Alastair Campbell in the Iraq enquiry. He doesn’t care what we know; I shouldn’t think he cares about much any more.

Rob Lewis

Note from Richard Hatfield Personnel Director at the MoD. (from the Hutton report)

“I interviewed Dr Kelly about his letter dated 30 June to his line manager, Dr Bryan Wells, at 11.30 on Friday 4 July. Dr Wells was present. The interview ended at approximately 13:15.

I began by explaining to Dr Kelly that his letter had serious implications. First, on the basis of his own account, it appeared that he breached the normal standards of Civil Service behaviour and departmental regulations by having had a number of unauthorised and unreported contacts with journalists. Regardless of the detail of what had passed, this opened up the possibility of disciplinary action. Second, his unauthorised discussion with Andrew Gilligan on 22 May appeared to be directly relevant to the controversy surrounding allegations made by Gilligan about the government’s WMD dossier even if, as he had said in his letter, this had not been the discussion described by Gilligan at the FAC hearing.”

I hope that is clear enough for you? As I say above, he was cautioned and may have faced disciplinary action had he not died. Your sneering approach does you no credit.

On the other hand, Campbell may have concluded that they ‘had a good laugh’, which were, I believe, Blair’s parting words to him.

Eddie, Angrysoba, Larry,

just to recap:

911 – the official version is beyond doubt.

Dr Kelly – the official version is beyond doubt.

Correct?

recursive: it is not at all convenient for a group of people who have publicly demonstrated their willingness to authorise mass murder, to see time, energy and temper spent on squabbling about precisely how much mass murder they were prepared to authorise.

correct?

@Eddie: No Eddie, it’s not quite clear enough for me. It appears we have read the same things but drawn different conclusions. Let me be clear about the point I am making. I would agree that the MoD appear to have threatened the possiblity of discplinary action in order to keep Dr Kelly “in line” and protect “the message” as well as their own skins in light of pressure from No 10 and the JIC. But I disagree that they had any right to do so. Had the MoD proceeded with disciplinary action, they would have got nowhere.

From the Hatfield email:

1) “It *appeared* that he breached the *normal standards* of *Civil Service behaviour* and *departmental regulations*…

-Nothing in that to conclude that David Kelly was in “serious breach of his employment contract”, as you allege. In fact, Hatfield has gone out of his way to avoid referring to terms of employment. And as Hutton concluded, there was much confusion as to what regulations actually applied, as Kelly worked for a number of different entities.

2) “It opened up *the possibility* of disciplinary action

-Again, this is deliberately equivocal.

3) “His *unuthorised* discussion with David Gilligan”

-The employer would need to prove this contact was unauthorised. It is not enough to simply say so. In Kelly’s defence, he would be able to point to literally hundreds of occasions when he had spoken informally and formally to the media over the course of several years, interaction which was either demonstrably encouraged by the MoD or ignored, but certainly largely known and never criticised. Surely any objective tribunal or arbitration process would have to conclude the employer only took exception in this instance because of WHAT was said, not to WHOM or HOW he was saying it?

Kelly would have been the legal victor of any disciplinary action (based on the facts we have).

Further, and note bene, once Hatfield had told him to stop talking to the press (which he had done several times a week for over a decade), he stopped. Yet what happened next? The MoD leaked his name to the media, without arranging any kind of alternate accommodation for him, and they came flocking to his house to talk to him.

Not only would the MoD have been legally unable to take disciplinary action, David Kelly would probably have had good grounds for a case against them. Employees have won court cases for far smaller greivances than Dr Kelly suffered in many, many parts of the civil service.

Finally, you allege impropriety on the part of a dead man; your sole evidence for this allegation is a single equivocal email that surfaced in the Hutton Inquiry from the very man tasked to throw the book at Kelly in the first place; and you offer “that my sneering approach does me no credit.”

Damn, I can’t edit my comments, so to clarify this unfortunate construction of my own (see above):

“Further, and note bene, once Hatfield had told him to stop talking to the press (which he had done several times a week for over a decade), he stopped.”

Kelly had been talking to the press several times a week for over a decade is what I am trying to say. Clearly, Hatfield had not been telling David Kelly to stop several times a week for over a decade.

In fact, Hatfield had only been in post for a number of months, if I recall. Wheareas Dr David Kelly CMG had been working for the defence of the realm since 1986.

Come on don’t be a pedant and a fantasist. The employer says the letter “has serious implications” – clear enough for you? Most reasonable employers would use the word “appeared” pending any hearing – not wishing to pre-empt a final judgement. That is normal HR practice. The point I am making is that Kelly knew he was in trouble with his employers and this could have been a factor in him taking his own life, on top of the media firestorm around him. The testimony from Hutton is clear. Don’t be silly.

Sorry Rob: I don’t understand. It’s always hard, since eddie delivers foaming attacks at the drop of a hat, but in this case I don’t think he was attacking Kelly. Without wanting to impugn the latter’s conduct in the slightest, it’s plain that Kelly was led to believe that he was in real trouble, and, like Gilligan and Dyke, he was. Sensible friends would have told him exactly what you’ve just written, of course, but perhaps he didn’t have any.

But, as the sores left by New Labour continue to ooze, we should remember what the ‘opposition’ was up to while all this was going on. Refusing to oppose anything, as I remember. I fear for the UK under Cameron.

@Eddie: I disagree that the language used is derived from normal HR-practice, and I don’t believe that the MoD’s conduct as regards Dr Kelly puts them in “the most reasonable employers” category.

But, not wanting to prolong our argument: “The point I am making is that Kelly knew he was in trouble with his employers.” If that is the only point you’re making, it’s a reasonable enough assumption. If you would additionally want to argue that Dr Kelly WAS actually guilty of misconduct or of “serious breach of employment contract” as regards his meeting with Gilligan in the Charing Cross hotel, I would contest that.

In terms of disciplinary action, as per your own argument, Kelly received no more than a first verbal warning as regards his meeting with journalists, a warning he adhered to.

RODERICK RUSSELL ?” RESPONSE TO CRAIG / RUTH’S COMMENT (Jan 11, 2010) ?” MI5/6′s ZERZETSEN TORTURE

Craig, I am afraid that Ruth is right on this issue when she says “I have no doubts that what Roderick Russell says is true … I and my family have been intimidated by the secret services”. Look at my Wiki. There is overwhelming evidence that MI5/6 and The State at high levels are involved in the persecution of my family, and the resultant cover-up conspiracy to ensure that my well-witnessed complaints are never investigated.

Now of course the police know that what has actually happened is far worse than anything I have written so far. This is a true horror show. Let us take an example that I referred to before: The case of former FCO diplomat and whistleblower Mark Higson who died from an accident caused by severe epilepsy brought on as a result of his persecution. I stated – There are many other examples of severe conditions that are a common development for those who, like Mark, suffered from zerzetsen torture. Epilepsy is only one of the effects that MI5/6 & CSIS try to induce in their victims.

I brought this up in an earlier blog, and I didn’t quite disclose all. You see my wife is another example.

Imagine what she has been forced to deal with over the years bringing up our three children while being subjected to continuous threats and abuse against her family. It is hardly surprising that she has developed a severe health condition. The stress of our situation has weighed heavily on her health and she had her first seizure (in 2001) in the middle of the night, while asleep, and after hearing that a motorbike had been run at me in London. Although she is not affected by seizures now, this is considered to be a serious health issue and life threatening without proper prescribed medication.

And what did the MI*s do when they discovered that they had achieved all this? They turned their attention on my daughter who was then a student at Aberdeen University, and further geared up their threats against my wife.

Proof of MI5/6 & State involvement is on the WIKI. If the so-called human rights industry had put honesty ahead of toadying to the establishment, this torture would have been stopped a long time ago.

Now look at the wiki and particularly the huge body of documentary evidence attached to it. You will see substantial sources of proof as to the involvement of the MI*s and State in all this.

The first thing I would say is that various police services did book crime numbers, did begin an investigation, and were stopped. So it is not true that the lack of honest investigation is just due to inefficiencies at police level. It was interference from the State (I suspect MI5) that stopped them ?” and if you look at the correspondence files behind my WIKI you will see proof that various police services and a home office minister (e.g. former Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears) then began to lie in writing. Look at my correspondence with the so-called Independent Police Complaints Commission and you will see that like other police services, they were desperate to pass the buck. Look at the Police Report and note the proven fabrications on it. Why the proven written lies from Hazel Blears, etc. etc.

The establishment’s first attempt was to spread rumors that my complaints are all a hoax and I am a nutcase (a typical deception tactic of the MI*’s, particularly where they think that either themselves or the royals are involved) and they geared up a crooked Manchester judge to lend credibility to this. See the wiki. Well there are so many independent sources of corroboration that they dropped the “he is mad” excuse, and are now saying the police are inefficient.

Now as for the involvement of MI5 / MI6 in the persecution and cover-up conspiracy. Look at the WIKI. ?” Table of Contents: Chapter 7 – Role of MI5, MI6, CSIS Intelligence Agencies in Zerzetsen. Each point relating to intelligence services involvement has at least one item of independent corroborative evidence for verification purposes. Take all the points together and the involvement of the intelligence services is proven.

I know people don’t want to believe that the State, its establishment, and the MI*s are capable of Nazi-level zerzetsen torture against a completely innocent family, but I am afraid they are, and the proof is all there for anyone who has the courage to look.

Repeated evidence of a police cover-up, of a crooked judge, of politicians lying to avoid an investigation, of MI5/6 involvement ?” and still no investigation ?” are proof of cover-up to the full “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard several times over. I have dozens of provable examples of deliberate lying on this issue from ministers, police, etc. Craig, what more do you need.

Craig, the real reason this is being covered up is because the establishment powers that be are scared as to where an honest investigation would lead. I will be publishing an article on this in the near future.

Roderick Russell

#207, 1733 ?” 27 Ave. SW

Calgary AB T2T 1G9

403.229.0864

Roderick,

Oh, I don’t doubt what they are capable of. But there are too many logical jumps in your conclusion.

Yes, you received letters from Hazel Blears saying first that the police had no record of your case, and then that it had been investigated and the case was closed. But I am not convinced that is evidence of dark forces, rather than of sloppy and uncaring work in the police and Home Office. Reprehensible, yes.

I see plenty of prima facie evidence that yur ex-employer has initiated a campaign against you that may well involve organising physical intimidation by local thugs. I am sorry, but I really don’t see the evidence that it involves MI5 or MI6. I am not trying to be obtuse or hurtful – I just don’t.

I would like to confirm everything my father, Roderick Russell, has written here.

It is an extremely disgusting issue and we have received no help and no investigation.

Amy Russell

Hi Roderick and Amy – I’ve read a number of your posts to do with your situation on this blog, and for the little it is worth, I believe you, and you have my sympathy. I have no experience of the kind of harrassment you describe, though arguably Craig has! and would tend to agree that it is difficult to prove SIS involvement.

I do agree that, either way, it needs to be dealt with, and would suggest that if it is ongoing you get your MP involved (or is Hazel Blears your MP? – I think that would deserve a separate boatload of sympathy all on its own).

However, as you will have worked out, the “external perspective” of a sympathetic policemen, members of parliament, readers here, and anyone else you have thought to contact, is that if you “appear mad” then little further effort will be made by various parties to investigate your case. Accordingly – though I say this in possession of little of the facts – it might be best when reporting your issue to stick to what has happened, rather than making analyses of SIS/state involvement etc, which may discourage people from helping you.

You’ve probably heard this advice before, however! I do hope you get it sorted out.

Craig, There is much more to the cover-up than just the Police and Hazel Blears (though I would point out that Blears was Minister responsible for MI5 at the time). A provably crooked Judge, huge proof of MI5/6 involvement. The sad fact is that the so-called human rights industry are scared to investigate this, as are the police.

If they don’t think that the MI*s and the State are involved, why are they ducking it? Well let me suggest a reason?

The employer who slandered me is headed up by a man who was Deputy Chief of UK Defense Staff, and is Prince Charles’s best friend. The company itself was run day to day by a man who went on to run the Duchy of Cornwall, Prince Charles’s largest income source. There are many other ways that show that this company was tied at the hip to the royals.

People here in Canada, who are close to some involved in the cover up, have suggested to me that it is being covered up because it is too close to the royals. This is why I published a comment in Canada’s top paper “Monarchy is dangerous for your civil liberties” and why the paper printed my comment after review. I just wish that our human rights institutions had just one iota of honesty in them, since without their ongoing connivance none of this abuse could continue.

Just a couple of things that I should add FYI:

My onetime position with Grosvenor International Holdings was Group Controller. I did an excellent and very honest job for this company, but chose to leave because I didn’t want a long term career with them. During my notice period they twice asked me to reverse my decision and stay on. I am far from being the only former executive with them who was slandered.

If you click on my signature above you will see a summary that I have sent to government and opposition front benchers here in Canada. Prime Minister Harper is aware of the issue. Clicking on my earlier signatures brings up the wiki

I would like to confirm everything my target, Roderick Russell, has written here.

Gene Hackman in “The Conversation”

Hi Roderick and Amy – further to Jon’s post, I’ve read a number of your posts, and for the little it is worth, I also believe you, and you have my sympathy. I do have one suggestion about not relying on your MP or police involvement. Accordingly – though I say this in possession of little of the facts – it might be best for you to purchase several industrial-size rollers of aluminum foil. You know, the type restaurants use. Every morning, unroll enough material to form a metal hat for each of you. This will ensure that you remain unmolested by the MI* cosmo-rays in your daily life.

You’ve probably heard this advice before, however! I do hope you get it sorted out.

Roderick,

I really don’t doubt your ill-treatment, or that the influence wielded by those close to the Royal family could have been wielded against you. I know that such influence can indeed be used with judges. If it was or not in your case I don’t know, but it isn’t implausible. But none of that would necessitate the involvement of MI5 and MI6 – I still don’t see where you have got that from.

Rob, had to sleep as it was late here in Japan when you posted your comment.

“Cast your mind back – it is the day after David Kelly’s body has been found. A Telegraph staffer catches Blair in a Tokyo press conference and asks him if he’s got blood on his hands. Blair can’t answer. Hours later the government announces there will be an official inquiry – “to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death [not suicide] of David Kelly”.”

Well, like Tony Blair I was also in Japan the day after the death of David Kelly so I don’t have the same “I remember where I was when…” experience and the news was probably far less reported here than in Britain where I imagine it was a national scandal.

Indeed, the very fact that Tony Blair was so caught off his guard and flustered and unable to employ the spin machine makes it seem like a complete shock and surprise even to him. I know it is not a fashionable thought but isn’t it possible that it was a gut blow even to him? To know there is the possibility (the high likelihood, in fact) that his government had been partly responsible to drive this man to suicide?

If the government discovered Dr Kelly as the leak to the BBC then why would they expose him and put a massive spotlight on him before having him assassinated?

It sounds absurd to me.

“a) do you think when that inquiry was announced it was implicit its chief purpose was to ascertain the cause of death?”

No. The “circumstances” surrounding his death didn’t seem to imply that. Rather, whether he took his life due to the his unwitting role as a political handgrenade.

“b) do you think the cause of death needed to be established?”

Sure. And it was.

“c) and at that moment in time (18/7/03) were you as sure of the late Dr Kelly’s suicide as you are now?”

I don’t remember. As I said I was in Japan and I’m not sure what kind of rumours were circulating in Britain at the time. I think I abstractly entertained the idea that he may have been done in and after hearing these persistent rumours I decided to buy Norman Baker’s book.

When I read his laughable and wildly speculative “theory” I remember being more convinced than ever that it was suicide. Norman Baker is essentially the person who made me as sure as I am today.

Also, just for the record, I remember now that Baker suggests in his book that Janice Kelly might know who “killed” Dr Kelly but has decided to remain silent on grounds of national security. He admits he has no evidence at all for this calumny but includes it in order to support his “theory”.

What a scumbag!

“You can’t have enough blood exit a severed ulnar artery, before it closes up, to cause a person to bleed towards death. Cutting several blood vessels lengthways up the arm is a different matter. Why are people ignoring this very specific point (and focussing on stuff like the Baha’i faith which I threw in among several other questions?)”

dreollin, I believe you said earlier in this exchange that people who believe Dr Kelly committed suicide don’t know enough about medicine or suicide. This is similar to those who say that people who believe the “official” 9/11 account don’t know enough about physics and chemistry.

You haven’t established your own credentials yet as far as I remember. But are you saying it is impossible for people to commit suicide through slashing their ulnary artery? Are you saying that there are no cases of people doing just this? Doesn’t this neglect to take into account the overdose and the pre-existing heart condition?

Oh, and if you don’t want people dwelling on the Bahai theology (i.e comprehensively refuting that slender piece of “evidence” in a single comment) then don’t raise it in the first place. It looks like a desperate tactic when you’re piling up all kinds of pieces of “evidence” that each falls apart on inspection.

Do you promise me you’ll never, ever use that again in an argument about Dr Kelly’s suicide?

Craig, Look at Chapter 7 on the Wiki re the role of MI5, MI6, CSIS. Now if you look at these points the word intelligence service screams out at you, particularly when you know it is all being covered up at very high levels. Each point (chapter 7) has a source of corroborative evidence to back it up (often not on the wiki), some of the points have many sources. Maybe a few of them alone would not be enough to draw the conclusion intelligence services are involved, but all of them together are. The highly sophisticated telephone tapping, email interference, mail interception are just one point, but quite telling I think.

Now how do I know which intelligence service it is. My assumption is that it is CSIS in Canada and MI5 in UK (CSIS and MI5 are very close and even do staff swaps; CSIS was set up by MI5 in 1984). So lets play devil’s advocate and say that it was some other intelligence service; all I can say is that MI5/CSIS are condoning it and so are part of it. Lets even say it was one of these private hoodlum/security types ?” they are all staffed by former MI5/6, CSIS officers anyway and again it is being condoned.

Now I know of incidents where Grosvenor used the intelligence services to defame another leaver. I was there at the time, and am absolutely certain of this; incidentally I protested about it and the Chairman’s secretary gave me a cactus saying that the Chairman though it would suit me as I was so prickly (complaining about their illegal use of intelligence services was seen as prickly). I thought this was MI6

When we were complaining to Hazel Blears (incidentally there are 3 written lies from her that are mutually exclusive, not just the one you mentioned ?” obviously I have to redraft the wiki to make it more clear), I was also getting threatened just for complaining. Ordered to stop complaining in one incident; shot in the head with a pellet in another, etc. An MP brought all of these points to Blair’s attention, complaining about Blears and it was covered up again. Nobody but my MP and Blears knew about each complaint at the time. Blears was responsible for MI5 at the time.

Could it be more complicated. Yes, possibly. I have identified several people who are involved [probably assisting as freelancers] – one of whom I know with certainty was retired from British Military Intelligence (I assume freelancing for MI5, MI6); the police in Calgary told Amy that they could tell from his modus operendi that her assailant (another guy) had also had military intelligence operational training; and others.

So what I can say is that the intelligence services are involved and, at the very least MI5, CSIS are condoning it. Please bear in mind that I tried all the normal channels first (police, IPCC, Home Office, etc) before going public.

Lamby:

‘Ruth, was that person with the slow-burning device wearing quasi-futuristic clothing?’

I believe the people that wear such clothing are invariably those that have swallowed the government accounts of 9/11 and 7/7. You can often see them sporting silver hats that look suspiciously like tinfoil too. You dress like this yourself I take it?

@angrysoba: thanks for your time and considered reply.

There was a time window when I think everyone, for a while, had their doubts. That’s fascinating in itself really, that such a moment occurred. Now, of course, after so much has come to light, everyone is bitterly and sarcastically divided. But in collectively, in our heart of hearts, whatever our opinion now, we know that we live in a world where cover-ups and killings are not inconceivable.

Again, thanks for your answers. The Inquiry was set up at a time when Dr Kelly’s cause of death was not established – which is surely of consequence? So I think despite (or because of) its terms being very vaguely worded, Hutton had to look at the possibility of murder to some degree.

But I did say I had two other questions for you, so here they are (as far as I rememeber):

d) How and where do you think the cause of death established?

and

e) What was it that finally extinguished your doubts he may not have killed himself?

I think you answered this by saying it was reading Norman Baker’s book, ironically (but for what it’s worth I think you might be being a bit harsh on him personally).

Hi Rob,

If I come across as mocking or scornfull of conspiracy theories surrounding David Kelly then please understand that I am not directing them at you. You are discussing this in good faith and I appreciate it.

d) As far as I know this came from the pathologist’s report.

I know that Mr Baker pointed out that such public enquiries as railway crashes and other accidents already assume the cause of death and that they usually occur when there are multiple deaths but that in itself is surely not a reason to doubt the verdict of suicide.

e) Exactly! If Norman Baker presented the best evidence that exists for presuming Dr Kelly was murdered then the case is extremely weak. When we make judgments about anything in life we have to go with what has the best evidence to back it up and frankly the “theory” or “hypothesis” that Dr Kelly committed suicide wins hands down.

For the record, I find it truly tragic that this man ended his life like this and that his family had to suffer as a result. I also find it rather tragic that self-appointed fantasy dissidents have nothing better to do than rummage around in the minutiae of his death speculating about vomit trails and the possiblity that Janice Kelly somehow acceded to the murder of her husband.

“speculating about vomit trails and the possiblity that Janice Kelly somehow acceded to the murder of her husband”

–angrysoba

I’ve just done an Edit/Find. Please show me where these were mentioned, and by whom.

“frankly the “theory” or “hypothesis” that Dr Kelly committed suicide wins hands down”–angrysoba

Ahhh! So you’re a conspiracy theorist yourself, then? But you have little evidence on your side, mate. Sorry.

I don’t know about the other doctors but David Halpin is a well known fruitcake, and if the others are prepared to associate with him then their case is dead in the water as far as I am concerned. As I said before, doctors who act with a political agenda are a danger to society.

“David Halpin is a well known fruitcake”

This is typical of eddie’s ‘debating’ technique: denigrate the character of whoever holds a position he objects to and…well, that’s it actually. Sorted. QED. Saves having to discuss evidence or tricky things like that.

The key issue here I think is the failure to hold an inquest. A formal inquest is chaired by a coroner and has the legal powers of a court to call witnesses. Hutton had neither the expertise nor the legal powers to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the cause of Kelly’s death. Unless and until an inquest is held the cause of Kelly’s death must by definition remain unknown.

Incidentally, David Halpin is a former Consultant Orthopaedic & Trauma Surgeon at Torbay Hospital & Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Hospital. Despite eddie’s claim that he is ‘notorious’ and a ‘menace to society’ I am aware of no cases of medical malpractice or negligence against him.

So what does eddie really object to? I think I’ve found it: Halpin founded the ‘Dove & Dolphin’ Charity which serves to ‘relieve poverty, distress and hardship among the Palestinian people and to promote the welfare of Palestinian children’. A menace indeed. Ought to be locked up.

Eddie, as you seem to be an expert on ‘fruitcakes’. What are your views as to the sanity of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair ?

thanks MJ, I agree.

dreolin. You said this, “If he did [commit suicide], it wasn’t from the amount of paracetamol he swallowed, and it wasn’t from the cut on his wrist. If you know anything at all about medicine and/or suicide attempts, you’d know this much.”

I asked you what your credentials were. What do you know about medicine and/or suicide attempts?

You seem to be maintaining that it is impossible to commit suicide by severing the ulnar artery.

It seems to be rare and Dr Kelly was the only person to have died that way in 2003. However, one person died from severing their ulnar artery the year before him. Two the year before that. One the year after him. So his case is not unique.

“Needless to say, Angrysoba knows better. Because, er…um… because

uh…”

Well, apparently I know that people have died from severing their ulnar arteries and apparently you don’t. But it wasn’t me who made out they knew something about medicine/suicide. You did that in the sentences of yours I quoted above.

“I’ve just done an Edit/Find. Please show me where these [vomit trails and implicating Mrs Kelly] were mentioned, and by whom.”

I mentioned them while talking to Rob. Rob said I was a bit too hard on Norman Baker so I pointed out two things I found objectionable in his book. Have you read Baker’s book?

“Ahhh! So you’re a conspiracy theorist yourself, then? But you have little evidence on your side, mate. Sorry.”

Eh? What on Earth are you talking about? I think it was suicide. How do you come to the conclusion that I am a conspiracy theorist for thinking so? It seems he committed suicide as he had told people he would using his wife’s prescription medicine and his own knife while walking in the woods. His wife and some of his friends testified to the fact that he was extrememly depressed about what had happened. I don’t see the mystery.

Angry,

Why have you completely ignored the report I posted from the Independent of 5 Dec 2009 in which several experts are quoted? Including an expert in coroners’ law and several doctors qualified in various branches of medicine?

And where are the links to the reports of people who died by severing *only one* ulnar artery that you mention above?

Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that, mate.

Goodnight

“Why have you completely ignored the report I posted from the Independent of 5 Dec 2009 in which several experts are quoted?”

I read it. So what? All the article says is some guys are suspicious. That’s not evidence.

“And where are the links to the reports of people who died by severing *only one* ulnar artery that you mention above?”

I don’t know and don’t start moving the goalposts by saying *only one* ulnar artery. It was your professional opinion that “He couldn’t have died from a cut ulnar artery which is tiny in width, and would have retracted and closed.” Or at least I think it was a professional opinion. You claim some knowledge in this area but I am yet to hear what it is.

“Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that, mate.”

No, I don’t. The burden of proof is on you and so far you haven’t come close to providing grounds for suspicion let alone explaining what might have happened if the most plausible story (He went into the woods and killed himself) isn’t true.

“Goodnight”

Sweet dreams. Check under the bed for secret service before you turn in, though.

Oh, I do have something to say about the article. One of the doctors has contradicted your claim that there was nothing wrong with his heart but a bit of wear and tear. He specifically refers to “heart disease”.

Maybe he plays it down as you no doubt will but it is one of a number of inaccuracies you’ve posted. I don’t know if you are deliberately distorting things by referring to co-proxamol as if it were regular paracetmemol but it doesn’t make your case look strong when you are constantly having to scale back your claims.

Anyway, if your expertise is in co-opting other doctors then I think it is fine for me to quote “Britain’s leading forensic toxicologist”, Robert Forrest on the subject of co-proxamol:

“We normally see higher concentrations than that in a person who has died of an overdose of co-proxamol. But if you’ve got heart disease – and if there is something else going on like blood loss, then all three of those are going to act together. The overdose of co-proxamol, the heart disease and the blood loss.”

And Professor Forrest concluded: “I’ve got no doubt that the cause of Dr Kelly’s death was a combination of blood loss, heart disease and overdose of co-proxamol.

“Not necessarily in that order. If I was going to put it in order I’d put the overdose of co-proxamol first. But it’s important that all of them had interacted to lead to the death”.

I guess you could attempt the old he’s-probably-in-on-it gambit but if you do then there really is no point continuing this any more because you will simply reject anything that doesn’t fit your conclusion. You’ll also not be satisfied with any new inquiry into his death unless it returns the only verdict that you will accept “He was murdered by Tony Blair’s goons”.

The Office of National Statistics recorded the number of people who died from cutting their ulnar artery.

“And where are the links to the reports of people who died by severing *only one* ulnar artery that you mention above?”–dreoilin

“I don’t know”–angrysoba

That’s great.

“and don’t start moving the goalposts by saying *only one* ulnar artery.”

There is no moving of goalposts. None whatsoever. Dr Kelly’s left ulnar artery was cut, crossways. Everything I have said is in reference to that one ulnar artery, and being cut in that way. I have never referred to more than one, or to any other scenario.

“One of the doctors has contradicted your claim that there was nothing wrong with his heart but a bit of wear and tear. He specifically refers to “heart disease”.”

If you’re referring to some thickening with plaque of coronary arteries, please see what I wrote above at January 12, 2010 12:24 PM.

I.e. “There is no evidence that he had a “coronary”. All men of his age would have some coronary deficiency, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he died from such. There was ‘no pre-existing heart condition’ other than the condition any man of his age would be in.”

It has been stated that the condition of his heart was not life threatening, and that he did not have a heart attack.

“I don’t know if you are deliberately distorting things by referring to co-proxamol as if it were regular paracetmemol”

No, not deliberate, just an error. Co-proxamol has been withdrawn in the UK, and here, for some time. However, it makes no difference in this case. There was no overdose. It’s been officially stated that while the empty tablet sheets were near the body, he did not have an overdose IN his body. What’s IN the body is more relevant than some empty sheets thrown nearby. Anyone could have walked off with 26-7 of 29 tablets.

“Anyway, if your expertise is in co-opting other doctors then I think it is fine for me to quote “Britain’s leading forensic toxicologist”, Robert Forrest on the subject of co-proxamol”

He’s entitled to his opinion. As are the six doctors listed in the article and the expert in coroners’ law.

“you will simply reject anything that doesn’t fit your conclusion. You’ll also not be satisfied with any new inquiry into his death unless it returns the only verdict that you will accept “He was murdered by Tony Blair’s goons”.”

How do you think you could possibly know that? You’re funny! I really don’t care that much, mate. I thought I made that clear in what I said to Eddie above. You’re the one who seems to have an inordinate interest in proving somehow that Dr Kelly died by suicide. Why, I can’t imagine. Unless you have nothing else to do and are still on holiday. Or you’re one of these people on the internet who has to “win” all arguments.

“The Office of National Statistics recorded the number of people who died from cutting their ulnar artery.”

Ah … So, you don’t know in these cases, 1) if it was one or both ulnar arteries that were cut? 2) if any other blood vessels were opened at the same time? 3) if the ulnar artery/arteries was/were cut crossways or lengthways? and 4) if the people were lying in warm water, which would inhibit the retraction and closing of the artery/arteries?

It appears you have no similar situation at all to refer to as a precedent.

Angry, I said to Eddie: “I don’t have much interest in to-ing and fro-ing over a disputed death the investigation of which has already been ‘shut down’ by the authorities.” That still applies. If it wasn’t for your *insistence* that the man committed suicide (something you could not possibly know — just as I don’t know for a fact if he was killed, or who might have killed him) I would not be here now.

And I won’t be back to this again, Angry. Have a nice day.

Awww. No one likes a sore loser.

Bye.

There is a story recounted by Orwell of Sir Walter Raleigh, imprisoned in the Tower and writing a history of the world. An altercation beneath his window led to a murder. Try as he might he could not find out the truth of what had happened. He gave up his history of the world in disgust. The point I am making is that you are wasting your time over this. Like Raleigh, none of you can unravel the truth, but the BALANCE of the evidence suggests suicide. But no one will ever prove it conclusively because no one but Kelly was there. However, I think it is down to the naysayers to prove it was not suicide, not the other way round. All kinds of people are trying to jump on the bandwagon, from dodgy doctors to Norman Lamb. But remember Hilda Murrell and let it be a lesson to you.

One point puzzles me. The ulnar artery was completely severed. From my memory of A level biology severed arteries tend not to close up because they are taking blood pumped from the heart. Just a thought.

“But no one will ever prove it conclusively because no one but Kelly was there. However, I think it is down to the naysayers to prove it was not suicide, not the other way round.”

Of course. But every attempt to crowbar in a conspiracy theory turns up nothing very compelling.

It’s not that I am trying to “defend” the suicide theory, I am just pointing out that the alternatives are very weak.

If dreollin was a scientist or was writing a doctorate he would have his “findings” rigourously pored over and challenged by his peers. What would he do if they are unmoved by his arguments? Flounce off in a huff like he has done today?

“no one but Kelly was there”

That is not known.

“severed arteries tend not to close up”

But there was very little blood by the body, suggesting either the arteries were cut after death or that the body was moved. Also he had ingested only a therapeutic dose of co-proxamol.

“it is down to the naysayers to prove it was not suicide, not the other way round”

Why? On the known facts a presumption of suicide appears premature and unwarranted. Surely it is down to an inquest to establish the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt?

Blood – he was out of doors on soil. Blood soaks into soil. Who would expect a pool of blood around a body that was on soil? He took up to 29 co-proxamol. That’s not therapuetic where I live. ALl the known facts point to suicide.

P.S. Dreoilin is a she.

“Blood soaks into soil”

It would still be readily discernible.

“He took up to 29 co-proxamol”

He ingested three. There were empty packets around, but he had not ingested the contents – an important distinction.

“Dreoilin is a she”

I’m aware of that. It was angrysoba who drew the wrong conclusion from insufficient evidence (perhaps not for the first time).

“I’m aware of that. It was angrysoba who drew the wrong conclusion from insufficient evidence (perhaps not for the first time).”

I’m not bothered enough to find out.

But apologies to dreoilin for bending her gender.

She can believe what she likes, obviously, but she can’t expect not to be called on it and probably shouldn’t get annoyed so easily.

Angrysoba:

‘Sweet dreams. Check under the bed for secret service before you turn in, though.’

Why check under the bed when we have dogsbody agents on Craig’s blog? They are certainly unimportant dullards, but the root of their employment does stem from a SIS agenda. I found the following piece very entertaining. Take note of the pretending to be 3 or 4 people and working in shifts. LMAO. How much do you subhuman, sick freaks of nature earn anyway? £5 an hour? What would your family think? Maybe Jaded will tell them and out you all. Ha ha. Anyhow, here it is. The last little paragraph is also a little gem:

‘Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings, according to a recently uncovered article Sunstein wrote for the Journal of Political Philosophy.

As we have often warned, chat rooms, social networks and particularly article comment sections are routinely “gamed” by trolls, many of whom pose as numerous different people in order to create a fake consensus, who attempt to debunk whatever information is being discussed, no matter how credible and well documented. We have seen this on our own websites for years and although some of those individuals were acting of their own accord, a significant number appeared to be working in shifts, routinely posting the same talking points over and over again.

It is a firmly established fact that the military-industrial complex which also owns the corporate media networks in the United States has numerous programs aimed at infiltrating prominent Internet sites and spreading propaganda to counter the truth about the misdeeds of the government and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2006 CENTCOM, the United States Central Command, announced that a team of employees would be hired to engage “bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information,” about the so-called war on terror.

In May 2008, it was revealed that the Pentagon was expanding “Information Operations” on the Internet by setting up fake foreign news websites, designed to look like independent media sources but in reality carrying direct military propaganda.

Countries like Israel have also admitted to creating an army of online trolls whose job it is to infiltrate anti-war websites and act as apologists for the Zionist state’s war crimes.

In January last year, the US Air Force announced a “counter-blog” response plan aimed at fielding and reacting to material from bloggers who have “negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.”

The plan, created by the public affairs arm of the Air Force, includes a detailed twelve-point “counter blogging” flow-chart that dictates how officers should tackle what are described as “trolls,” “ragers,” and “misguided” online writers.

New revelations highlight the fact that the Obama administration is deliberately targeting “conspiracy groups” as part of a Cointelpro style effort to silence what have become the government’s most vociferous and influential critics.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

In a 2008 article published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, Obama information czar Cass Sunstein outlined a plan for the government to stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

The aim of the program would be to “(break) up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories,” wrote Sunstein, with particular reference to 9/11 truth organizations.

Sunstein pointed out that simply having people in government refute conspiracy theories wouldn’t work because they are inherently untrustworthy, making it necessary to “Enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts,” he wrote.

“Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy,” writes Marc Estrin.

“It’s easy to destroy groups with “cognitive diversity.” You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don’t come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.”

This is what Sunstein is advocating when he writes of the need to infiltrate conspiracy groups and sow seeds of distrust amongst members in order to stifle the number of new recruits. This is classic “provocateur” style infiltration that came to the fore during the Cointelpro years, an FBI program from 1956-1971 that was focused around disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents.

“Sunstein argued that “government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories.” He suggested that “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action,” reports Raw Story.

Sunstein has also called for making websites liable for comments posted in response to articles. His book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some as “a blueprint for online censorship.”

The Infowars office has been visited on numerous occasions by the FBI as a result of people posting violent comments in response to articles. Since the government now employs people to post such comments in an attempt to undermine conspiracy websites, if a law were passed making websites accountable, Sunstein’s program would allow the government to obliterate such sites from the web merely by having their own hired goons post threats against public figures.

The fact that the government is being forced to hire armies of trolls in an effort to silence the truth shows how worried they are about the effect we are having in waking up millions of people to their tyranny.’

Jaded,

I’ve been worried about the matters you raise above for some time.

It seems to me that it is VITAL to NOT accuse people of being paid trolls. Firstly, it makes the accuser look paranoid. Secondly, remember that such people can post either way. You have no way of knowing if I’m trolling, and I don’t know if you are; people who’s opinion you hope to change will just be made to feel alienated if they are accused of being part of a conspiracy.

Consider this also. ‘John’, who believes a mainstream fallacy, is following a discussion between ‘Jim’ and a ‘Troll’. ‘Troll’ writes things the ‘John’ innocently believes, ‘cos he saw them on telly. ‘Jim’ calls ‘Troll’ a troll. To ‘John’, it seems that ‘Troll’ has been maligned.

It’s a minefield, isn’t it? But take heart. There IS truth, and sensible, rational argument converges upon it, though not always as quickly as we might wish.

So don’t let your comments become personal. Site original sources. Unfortunately, infowars won’t do, we need the original articles. I don’t dispute that there’s a lot of good stuff on Infowars, but it’s mixed with less reliable stuff which taints it.

And if you’re ever feeling wound up, take a breather.

Sorry, I made a mistake in my third paragraph that wrecks the meaning. Here’s the corrected version:

Consider this also. ‘John’, who believes a mainstream fallacy, is following a discussion between ‘Jim’ and a paid troll, whom I shall call ‘Troll’. ‘Troll’ writes things the ‘John’ innocently believes, ‘cos he saw them on telly. ‘Jim’ calls ‘Troll’ a troll. To ‘John’, it seems that ‘Troll’ has been maligned.

I don’t care if someone is a “paid troll” or not, as long as they are interesting. They’re still people, right?

but it’s funny how all the people being accused of it seem to be the least paid trollish ones, I think.

JaDumkopf:

You wrote a lot of words there. Let me tell you it was a waste of time because I only read the first thirty or forty of them.

You are boring.

Your family have no doubt told you that.

I didn’t read the rest.

Goodbye.

“I only read the first thirty or forty of them”

Typical.

Aww, he’s flouncing off in a huff.

Bye Soba!

dreoilin, you always seem a decent person (well, Irish). I don’t get your angle on asoba, or larry either. It might be exasperating & infuriating when people disagree with you, but why resoprt to such childish abuse? You don’t speak for me. Asoba, ignore jaded’s tedious posts by all means, but please don’t go away altogether.

Btw, as I said on another thread, ‘jaded’s’ posts have more than a little in common with the posts of Lee John Barnes, the BNP’s ‘legal advisor, who ‘contributes’ to Harry’s Place. Check them for distinct similarities in style and tone.

“why resoprt to such childish abuse?”

As in what? What words are you referring to?

“You don’t speak for me”

I can’t imagine why you would think I was speaking for anyone only myself.

“you always seem a decent person (well, Irish)”

What does that mean?

dreoilin: Childish as in:

“Aww, he’s flouncing off in a huff.”

Abuse was too strong; sorry.

Otherwise, whatever you imagine, was making it clear to asoba that I disagreed with you, which I hope is OK, added ‘decent’ because usually your posts are interesting & clear & sensible, and Irish because I like the Irish.

Pax!

I assume that ‘unsigned’ was you, technicolour.

“he’s flouncing off in a huff” was a quote from Angrysoba, something he said about me on January 14, 2010 1:24.

He also said to me, “Awww. No one likes a sore loser. Bye.” on January 14, 2010 12:53

I was quoting him back to himself. They’re (basically) his words, not mine.

technicolour,

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. At January 14, 2010 11:28 AM, dreoilin gave a long and clear reply to angrysoba, which finished with this paragraph -

“Angry, I said to Eddie: “I don’t have much interest in to-ing and fro-ing over a disputed death the investigation of which has already been ‘shut down’ by the authorities.” That still applies. If it wasn’t for your *insistence* that the man committed suicide (something you could not possibly know — just as I don’t know for a fact if he was killed, or who might have killed him) I would not be here now.

And I won’t be back to this again, Angry. Have a nice day.”

For this she received the following, completely uncalled-for, ‘childish’ comments from angrysoba -

Posted by: angrysoba at January 14, 2010 12:53 PM -

“Awww. No one likes a sore loser.”

Posted by: angrysoba at January 14, 2010 1:24 PM -

“Flounce off in a huff like he has done today?”

I guess dreoilin afterwards returned the phrase to angrysoba because she was annoyed by it, as, I presume, he intended.

fair play. sorry. don’t let it get to you though, dreoilin

Sorry again, dreoilin (where is that name from?) if that sounded patronising, it wasn’t meant to.

No worries.

“dreoilin” means “a wren”.

The wren was sacred to the Druids of pre-Christian Ireland, as were all the birds.

Boohooo….the CIA get fucked over BOOOHOOOO…….

Rearrange into well known saying “Coming had fucking it.”

“Sorry again, dreoilin (where is that name from?) if that sounded patronising, it wasn’t meant to.”

Perhaps I should have mentioned that “dreoilin” is not a name, it’s a handle/nick. And I’m not patronise-able.

Perfectly put, Craig. Perfectly put.