The Troodos Conundrum 433


troodos2

 

The GCHQ listening post on Mount Troodos in Cyprus is arguably the most valued asset which the UK contributes to UK/US intelligence cooperation.  The communications intercept agencies, GCHQ in the UK and NSA in the US, share all their intelligence reports (as do the CIA and MI6).  Troodos is valued enormously by the NSA.  It monitors all radio, satellite and microwave traffic across the Middle East, ranging from Egypt and Eastern Libya right through to the Caucasus.  Even almost all landline telephone communication in this region is routed through microwave links at some stage, picked up on Troodos.

Troodos is highly effective – the jewel in the crown of British intelligence.  Its capacity and efficiency, as well as its reach, is staggering.  The US do not have their own comparable facility for the Middle East.  I should state that I have actually been inside all of this facility and been fully briefed on its operations and capabilities, while I was head of the FCO Cyprus Section in the early 1990s.  This is fact, not speculation.

It is therefore very strange, to say the least, that John Kerry claims to have access to communications intercepts of Syrian military and officials organising chemical weapons attacks, which intercepts were not available to the British Joint Intelligence Committee.

On one level the explanation is simple.  The intercept evidence was provided to the USA by Mossad, according to my own well  placed source in the Washington intelligence community.  Intelligence provided by a third party is not automatically shared with the UK, and indeed Israel specifies it should not be.

But the inescapable question is this.  Mossad have nothing comparable to the Troodos operation.  The reported content of the conversations fits exactly with key tasking for Troodos, and would have tripped all the triggers.  How can Troodos have missed this if Mossad got it?  The only remote possibility is that all the conversations went on a purely landline route, on which Mossad have a physical wire tap, but that is very unlikely in a number of ways – not least nowadays the purely landline route.

Israel has repeatedly been involved in the Syrian civil war, carrying out a number of illegal bombings and missile strikes over many months.  This absolutely illegal activity by Israel- which has killed a great many civilians, including children – has brought no condemnation at all from the West.  Israel has now provided “intelligence” to the United States designed to allow the United States to join in with Israel’s bombing and missile campaign.

The answer to the Troodos Conundrum is simple.  Troodos did not pick up the intercepts because they do not exist.  Mossad fabricated them.  John Kerry’s “evidence” is the shabbiest of tricks.  More children may now be blown to pieces by massive American missile blasts.  It is nothing to do with humanitarian intervention.  It is, yet again, the USA acting at the behest of Israel.

 

 


433 thoughts on “The Troodos Conundrum

1 2 3 4 5 15
  • Mary - for Truth and Justice

    This should be interesting. See who turns up in 5 days’ time.

    Leaders’ Summit 2013

    Russia assumed the G20 presidency for the first time on December 1, 2012. The G20 is the leading international cooperation forum, focusing on the most important international economic and financial issues. The G20 Leaders’ Summit, to be held in St. Petersburg on September 5-6, 2013, will be the main G20 event of 2013.

    http://www.g20.org/docs/summit/summit_2013.html

  • Phil

    Mark Stephen Golding 31 Aug, 2013 – 2:51 pm
    “Infowars is a compilation – period.”

    I’m not sure I get your point: A liar posts an article on his web site. You seem to be saying that because the liar says it was written by someone else then it must be true.

    “Phil – ..and compromise a valuable, even cherished source; – Phil you know me better – do you not?”

    Sorry mate, I don’t know you. I hope you understand that I do not take seriously a commentator on the internet who wants me to simply trust they have insider knowledge about special forces.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Villager

    Good to see you back.

    “It is unfortunate that Obama the Nobel Peace Prize winner (me still laughing/crying after all these years) is unable to turn statesman and take advantage of this opportunity.”
    ______________

    Maybe he will yet. Jeez, give the man time, you musn’t expect open action/reaction within the 24 hours. Don’t you agree?

  • Phil

    Passerby 31 Aug, 2013 – 3:09 pm
    “The data can be corroborated, in a very short time, and the veracity or lack thereof can be ascertained without the song and the dance.”

    But passerby the veracity of the story has nothing to do with my point, which is not to rely on professional liars as a source.

  • Villager

    “This should be interesting. See who turns up in 5 days’ time.”

    So, the original plan was for the ‘special relates’ to arrive macho-style all chuffed up after another round of bombing. Doubt that Obama will have the balls to take action till after the G-20 meeting where he’ll be trying to bolster his ‘coalition’. And that was probably the real reason why Obama cancelled his one-on-one with Putin, not Edward Snowden.

  • Villager

    Thanks for slowing me down Habby. You were right earlier, wait and see. Have to admit it is a difficult human challenge just to observe. And yes with the G-20 coming up, the UN report still to come, something may happen.

  • Herbie

    Phil

    “The veracity of the story has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I am merely saying that relying on a professional liar as a source is not what I expected from craig.”

    If the story has been generally verified elsewhere, then Jones is not the source, merely one vehicle for this information.

    Perhaps Craig just linked to the first version of this true story that he came across.

    Not sure why you’re making such a big deal about this.

    You certainly do seem to have a desire to make more of it than is there.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    To inject a little laughter – or at least a snigger – into this rather heated exchange:

    Has anyone else noticed the deliciously oxymoronic name of the White House spokesman : Josh Earnest ?

  • Phil

    Phil 31 Aug, 2013 – 3:04 pm
    “Sorry mate, I don’t know you. I hope you understand that I do not take seriously a commentator on the internet who wants me to simply trust they have insider knowledge about special forces.”

    Just to be clear mark I’m not saying you don’t know. I am simply saying it would be foolish of me to believe you. I understand it is difficult for you to counter that even if your source is 100%.

    Perhaps you might be up for trying to prove yourself without in any way compromising your source. Perhaps we could inspect some of your information historically and judge that indeed you are providing impressive information that was later publicly proven true. Can you point to some examples where you have knew before what later became public? A few of those would have me hanging on your every comment.

  • Phil

    Herbie 31 Aug, 2013 – 3:18 pm
    “If the story has been generally verified elsewhere, then Jones is not the source, merely one vehicle for this information.”

    Maybe. But it isn’t verified anywhere except for a load of other nonsense sites that have no credibility.

    Anyway, if it is verified elswhere on credible sites then those would be the sites to link to.

  • Jemand

    The simple fact is that John Kerry did indeed say “We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds.” in his Aug 30 media statement.

    Did Kerry cite the specific details of the image/s of the dead that he claims “we” saw to allow us to independently verify that those images are authentic? No.

    Instead, we are left to our own devices to find those images and, of course, in our research we see the BBC photos that were later retracted when exposed as false.

    What does that say about the Whitehouse’s preparedness to present to the American public and international community with *hard evidence* of the Assad regime’s culpability in using chemical weapons? Especially when proposing a lethal strike against the regime that is likely to cost many lives and many millions of dollars?

    So much of the narrative the US and Co. use when describing this incident includes references to “overwhelming evidence” of use of chemical weapons but then falters on a similarly firm accusation implicating Assad by resorting to limp wording such as “we believe”, “most likely” etc.

    Of course, the only reasonable conclusion for this timid accusation is that there simply is no evidence at all that Assad’s forces were responsible for the alleged attack. And yet they are so eager to launch military action. Why?

  • Fred

    “If the story has been generally verified elsewhere, then Jones is not the source, merely one vehicle for this information.”

    The problem is the article doesn’t actually say anything to verify, like Kerry’s speech it just gives people the impression they said something. Reading it you would think Kerry has been caught out using fake photos, after watching a video of the speech you realise there were no photos, then you go back to the article and find they never actually said there were, they just worded it to give that impression.

    Like if you listen to Kerry’s speech you’d think America has proof the Syrian government used chemical weapons but if you examine it closely you find he never actually says that.

    It’s like when George Bush said they had never said Bin Laden and Saddam were connected. Everybody was sure they had but if you looked back it was only ever implied.

  • Phil

    Herbie 31 Aug, 2013 – 3:37 pm
    “Phil The story is verified by both the BBC and The Daily Telegraph.”

    You are conflating two stories. Yes I know the story about the misused photograph. The infowars story is about kerry referring to the photo.

    Otherwise I suspect craig would have linked to the bbc or telegraph.

  • Fred

    “Of course, the only reasonable conclusion for this timid accusation is that there simply is no evidence at all that Assad’s forces were responsible for the alleged attack. And yet they are so eager to launch military action. Why?”

    Because they found a lot of oil and gas right off the coast of Syria and Russia has a naval base there. They want to build a pipeline across Israel to link the oil terminals in Turkey to the Red sea. Next step in American total world domination.

    Lots of reasons, none of them humanitarian.

  • Fred

    “You are conflating two stories. Yes I know the story about the misused photograph. The infowars story is about kerry referring to the photo.”

    But Kerry never actually says he’s referring to that photo, there are loads of photos of dead people in Syria match his descriptions.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=syria+dead&client=firefox-a&hs=WVT&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xwQiUrXkN9KShQeH8oDABw&ved=0CD8QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=670

  • Abe Rene

    The fact that the UK has a marvellous electronic eavesdropping advice in Cyprus is not evidence that other countries don’t have such things.

    Besides, who would be capable of such a chemical attack within Syria’s borders apart from agents of the state?

  • Herbie

    “Of course, the only reasonable conclusion for this timid accusation is that there simply is no evidence at all that Assad’s forces were responsible for the alleged attack. And yet they are so eager to launch military action. Why?”

    That’s the gas pipeline from Iran, thru Iraq and Syria and onward to the very lucrative European market.

    MOU signed 2011, around the time things kicked off in Syria.

  • Herbie

    The point ultimately, Phil, is that very obviously Kerry is talking total bollocks anyway.

    He doesn’t care about humanitarian issues, and will be quite cavalier in making up his propaganda narrative. Doesn’t even matter so much how full of holes it is. MSM will just muddy the waters.

    Surely you know that already.

    Anything he says wrt the Syrian issue that doesn’t include the gas pipeline and other material interests in the region is by definition bollocks.

  • Chris Jones

    @Phil – It’s always struck me as a slight form of inverted snobbery to dismiss the Alex ones show and Infowars as ‘crazies’, whether consciously or otherwise. It’s also strange how some react to a credible well written link when it happens to have been taken from a site they dislike – good links/writers can come from anywhere regardless of your views on the site. Even the Guardian or BBC come up with well written,credible articles and reports every now and then, depending on the writer and subject.

    For what its worth, 90% of the reports on the Alex Jones show/infowars seem credible and are verifiable, 5% might be conjecture and hubris, and possibly 5% is sometimes off target, although usually on the right track. That’s pretty good going in my view – certainly about 90% more credible than the BBC/CNN etc. He’s also an enetertainer and business man and has passion, whether its just for entertainment or not.

    Who knows, he might well be controlled opposition but hes a damn good one if he is. AS with everything, take out the good bits, filter out the bits you’re not so sure with. I’m not defending all his faults and he himself admits that he doesnt always get it right but can you show where he has blatantly and deliberately lied though? I’d be interested to see some proof to those allegations in the interest of fair play. And no, he’s not a lizard believer-can you back up those claims too if possible?

  • Phil

    Fred 31 Aug, 2013 – 3:58 pm
    “But Kerry never actually says he’s referring to that photo”

    Exactly. Because jones unambiguously states that kerry is referring to the photo. Jones said “Kerry referenced a photograph used by the BBC”.

    I think fred explains the problem with the infowars article very well above.

    If craig had mentioned kerry and the photo adding his own conclusion fair enough. But he didn’t. He linked to a lying article from a well know joke of a liar.

    Anyway, I didn’t mean to hijack the thread but I strongly believe it is important to avoid the likes of infowars. I have banged on about it too much. In the absence of a direct question from someone I will stop.

  • Fred

    “Besides, who would be capable of such a chemical attack within Syria’s borders apart from agents of the state?”

    I don’t think there’s any doubt it was agents of the state.

    Only question is which state.

  • Phil

    Chris Jones 31 Aug, 2013 – 4:19 pm
    “@Phil – It’s always struck me as a slight form of inverted snobbery to dismiss the Alex ones show and Infowars as ‘crazies’, whether consciously or otherwise. It’s also strange how some react to a credible well written link when it happens to have been taken from a site they dislike”

    Jones exagerrates, extrapolates, misrepresents and lies. He has even lied in the article being discussed today. Jeeesh. He seems to have become slightly more spohisticated with his money making paranoia machine but it wasn’t so long ago that he was claiming the illuminati were lizards dancing around midnight bonfires at bildeburb shindigs. It is not snobbery to not take the word of a liar.

    Well written? Who cares about the style when the very premise is a misrepresentation/untruth.

  • Herbie

    This is quite a good overview of the Syrian situation:

    “Peak oil, climate change and pipeline geopolitics driving Syria conflict”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1

    When they start talking about humanitarian issues, you know they’re lying.

    And it seems that more and more people now do know they’re lying. I expect that Western leaders are quite shocked that the old two-step between themselves and msm media has now broken down as a way of controlling people’s access to information and even their perception of what leaders have been up to over the years.

    Their narrative of benign intent has been overturned, and on a global scale.

    People will have long suspected that their leaders are not benign, but the change only takes place when people can communicate and discuss with others and in finding out that there’s a whole world of people out there thinking the same thing and experts saying the same thing and facts showing the same thing, it all becomes self-reinforcing and quite liberating. That’s the game changer and I really do believe that govts do not yet fully understand the implications of that change.

    Knowing what I know about that change, were I in govt, I’d be very careful what I said and did.

    There are crimes against humanity being committed now before our very eyes. They can’t be brushed under the carpet any longer, and those who deal in them should be very careful.

    Old certainties can shift very rapidly these days.

1 2 3 4 5 15

Comments are closed.