WOULD YOU BELIEVE?
Would you believe that one of the alleged London
bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, can now be seen in a video with alleged al-Qaeda
mastermind al-Zarwahri?
Holy ben trovato, Batman!
Well, hold on to your horses because, believe it or not, the two make an appearance in the 'same' video - one released yesterday by Al-Jazeera in which Khan (pictured below in a frame from the video) doesn't go so far as to claim responsibility for the 7-7 bombings, but nonetheless spouts with apparent sincerity righteous anger over the way Muslims are being treated during the 'war on terror' and depicts himself as an avenging angel.
This video of Khan provides the strongest support yet for the government story of 7-7. This is, no doubt, why it was fabricated. Although I see no reason at this stage to doubt that the man in the video is actually Khan (although he does not look like the man said to be Khan in the Luton CCTV image), nothing whatsoever is known about the circumstances in which the video was made or in which it was interspliced with footage of al-Zarwahri. That Khan does not make any references to the 7-7 bombings suggests the possibility that the video was made for reasons which have nothing to do with the bombings. We really have no way of knowing - and the fact that it was inserted inside a video of al-Zarwahri does seem to suggest that someone thought it necessary to put the two men together in one video to help shore up the case that the bombings were connected to al-Qaeda. This implies that the Khan footage did not make the link sufficiently clear for someone's liking.
We are apparently looking at a psy-op which is designed to reinforce the official story of the bombings. People with critical minds will not jump to conclusions, however. For one thing, the possibility remains that Khan, who is 'believed to have selected and indoctrinated his fellow bombers' (SOURCE), did so because he was an agent provocateur. If so, it would have been part of his mission to make videos like this in order to bolster his image as an angry Muslim.
However, a more likely scenario can be deduced from this article published in the Guardian on September 4, 2005:
'British intelligence officers planned a "black propaganda" campaign against Islamic extremists, infiltrating their groups through the internet, documents leaked to The Observer reveal.... [on April 23, 2004] the Foreign Office's top intelligence official, William Ehrman ... proposed that spies should infiltrate extremist websites posing as radicals and dissuade extremists from taking up arms.'
BELOW: William Ehrman, a Blair appointee who played a role in the infamous affair over the dodgy dossier, as well as the cover up of the murder of David Kelly. Blair's all-purpose fix-it man?
From what we know about Khan, he was an extremely caring individual. It would not be inconsistent with what we know about him that he would have participated willingly in a mission ostensibly aimed at dissuading extremists from 'taking up arms.' If Khan was one of Ehrman's spies, it would therefore have been part of his mission to make videos like the one released by al-Jazeera in order to enhance his image as an angry Muslim. However, this mission could easily have manipulated by top level intelligence operatives like Ehrman to set up a group of patsies to be blamed for the London bombings. Khan could therefore have participated willingly in the making of this video but without the slightest awareness of its true purpose. The video would have been reserved for use in the eventuality that the operation was a success.
Whatever the story behind the making of the video, Khan cannot have been involved in the London bombings themselves. For those who still take the official story of the bombings seriously, allow we to reiterate my previous complaints about the official story. How come only one image of the four alleged bombers has ever been released? How come it is an image that shows abundant evidence of fakery? How come there is no plausible explanation for how, if the four men really did arrive at Luton station at 7.22 on the morning of July 7, they travelled from Luton to London? How come the CCTV footage of the men at Kings Cross station has never been released? How come there is no CCTV footage of the four men anywhere else on the Underground network? How come all four CCTV cameras just happened not to be working aboard the Stagecoach bus? How come no witnesses have come forward claiming to have seen any of the men either in the Tube or on the bus? How come there was no Muslim - nor, indeed, anyone at all - standing at the location where the bomb went off, according to survivor Bruce Lait? How come we haven't seen any of the footage supposedly taken of alleged bus bomber Habib Hussain at a London McDonald's shortly after the first three bombs went off? In short, how come the official story is thick on claims but thin on proof?
This footage of Khan looks to me like an attempt to shore up the official story by indirect means because the grand total of pieces of evidence available to the public that directly supports it is precisely zero. I am surprised that Al-Jazeera continues to be a party to the diffusion of these ridiculous videos.
AFTERNOTE: The hypocrisy of the U.K. government continues to amaze me. According to the Telegraph, 'David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said the nation would be sickened by the [Khan] tape. "Nothing can justify the murder of innocent people," he said.' But wouldn't that include the invasion of Iraq?
Holy ben trovato, Batman!
Well, hold on to your horses because, believe it or not, the two make an appearance in the 'same' video - one released yesterday by Al-Jazeera in which Khan (pictured below in a frame from the video) doesn't go so far as to claim responsibility for the 7-7 bombings, but nonetheless spouts with apparent sincerity righteous anger over the way Muslims are being treated during the 'war on terror' and depicts himself as an avenging angel.
This video of Khan provides the strongest support yet for the government story of 7-7. This is, no doubt, why it was fabricated. Although I see no reason at this stage to doubt that the man in the video is actually Khan (although he does not look like the man said to be Khan in the Luton CCTV image), nothing whatsoever is known about the circumstances in which the video was made or in which it was interspliced with footage of al-Zarwahri. That Khan does not make any references to the 7-7 bombings suggests the possibility that the video was made for reasons which have nothing to do with the bombings. We really have no way of knowing - and the fact that it was inserted inside a video of al-Zarwahri does seem to suggest that someone thought it necessary to put the two men together in one video to help shore up the case that the bombings were connected to al-Qaeda. This implies that the Khan footage did not make the link sufficiently clear for someone's liking.
We are apparently looking at a psy-op which is designed to reinforce the official story of the bombings. People with critical minds will not jump to conclusions, however. For one thing, the possibility remains that Khan, who is 'believed to have selected and indoctrinated his fellow bombers' (SOURCE), did so because he was an agent provocateur. If so, it would have been part of his mission to make videos like this in order to bolster his image as an angry Muslim.
However, a more likely scenario can be deduced from this article published in the Guardian on September 4, 2005:
'British intelligence officers planned a "black propaganda" campaign against Islamic extremists, infiltrating their groups through the internet, documents leaked to The Observer reveal.... [on April 23, 2004] the Foreign Office's top intelligence official, William Ehrman ... proposed that spies should infiltrate extremist websites posing as radicals and dissuade extremists from taking up arms.'
BELOW: William Ehrman, a Blair appointee who played a role in the infamous affair over the dodgy dossier, as well as the cover up of the murder of David Kelly. Blair's all-purpose fix-it man?
From what we know about Khan, he was an extremely caring individual. It would not be inconsistent with what we know about him that he would have participated willingly in a mission ostensibly aimed at dissuading extremists from 'taking up arms.' If Khan was one of Ehrman's spies, it would therefore have been part of his mission to make videos like the one released by al-Jazeera in order to enhance his image as an angry Muslim. However, this mission could easily have manipulated by top level intelligence operatives like Ehrman to set up a group of patsies to be blamed for the London bombings. Khan could therefore have participated willingly in the making of this video but without the slightest awareness of its true purpose. The video would have been reserved for use in the eventuality that the operation was a success.
Whatever the story behind the making of the video, Khan cannot have been involved in the London bombings themselves. For those who still take the official story of the bombings seriously, allow we to reiterate my previous complaints about the official story. How come only one image of the four alleged bombers has ever been released? How come it is an image that shows abundant evidence of fakery? How come there is no plausible explanation for how, if the four men really did arrive at Luton station at 7.22 on the morning of July 7, they travelled from Luton to London? How come the CCTV footage of the men at Kings Cross station has never been released? How come there is no CCTV footage of the four men anywhere else on the Underground network? How come all four CCTV cameras just happened not to be working aboard the Stagecoach bus? How come no witnesses have come forward claiming to have seen any of the men either in the Tube or on the bus? How come there was no Muslim - nor, indeed, anyone at all - standing at the location where the bomb went off, according to survivor Bruce Lait? How come we haven't seen any of the footage supposedly taken of alleged bus bomber Habib Hussain at a London McDonald's shortly after the first three bombs went off? In short, how come the official story is thick on claims but thin on proof?
This footage of Khan looks to me like an attempt to shore up the official story by indirect means because the grand total of pieces of evidence available to the public that directly supports it is precisely zero. I am surprised that Al-Jazeera continues to be a party to the diffusion of these ridiculous videos.
AFTERNOTE: The hypocrisy of the U.K. government continues to amaze me. According to the Telegraph, 'David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said the nation would be sickened by the [Khan] tape. "Nothing can justify the murder of innocent people," he said.' But wouldn't that include the invasion of Iraq?
