Dear cj,
I recall the day Patty Hearst was abducted from her dorm in Berkeley. I
just couldn't believe any would-be abductor would be so stupid as to choose
the dorm as the place to nab her (instead of, say, the roadside at night),
and my first response was "I bet she was in on it". My neighbors at the
time (no Internet then) were shocked at my "callous" theorizing about "poor
little" Patty, and ate their words only days later.
Sometimes you just have to go with your hunches.
>>From the very first reports, there was something about the Princess Diana
tragedy, besides the obvious horror of it, that didn't sound quite right.
She was no Jayne Mansfield, with a ruined career and propensity to drugs,
who we would expect to be careening around Paris at 120 mph, with her hair
flying. She was a respected public personage, with a healthy, sensible
mind and budding public career, and she was accompanied by a professional
security person / bodyguard.
It is POSSIBLE that both Di and her bodyguard had no concerns about an
obviously intoxicated driver, as the latest reports describe him, but I'm
skeptical. _Especially_ if a road-duel with reporters was expected, one
would imagine Di or her bodyguard would insist on a sound person at the
wheel.
The family of the driver is challenging the claim that he was drunk, and
calling for an independent blood test. It is not surprising that the
family would jump instinctively to the defense of his reputation, but when
they make that big a stink about it, there is some indication that the
family sincerely doubts that he would have been intoxicated when taking on
such a major responsibility.
I continue to find the circumstances suspicious and hope the investigation
will proceed on an open basis and all doubts will be cleared up. For
example: I'd like to see more than one eyewitness to the driver's alleged
drinking session.
---
In the meantime, I'm drawn to the two questions: Why Diana? and Why now?
While pondering these questions, there came into my in box came a certain
timely message, bearing some very critical clues, although unintentionally,
from our own cj contributor, Parveez Syed.
You remember him? He's a television producer (Shanti RTV), an Internet
publisher of news bulletins, and is the one who first suggested that TWA
800 _might_ have been shot down by an accidental U.S. "friendly fire"
missile. He was noted as follows in an exclusive story to the American
Reporter:
...An internal literature review on the TWA Flight
800 disaster by the Emergency Response & Research Institute
show that the charge that the U.S. Navy downed the Boeing 757
began on the Internet when an Iranian propagandist started
charging a cover-up by U.S. officials just 48 hours after the
plane exploided in mid-air...
Our analysis revealed that the original allegations of a U.S.
Naval "friendly fire incident" came from an alleged Iranian extremist
and propagandist named Parveez Syad, who is also known as Parveez
Hussein...
The above story is full of factual errors and it unfairly demonizes
Parveez, in an effort to discredit his suggestion - which as it turns out,
is still the most likley theory in the light of all known facts, but that's
another story.
Our recent cj#707, regarding spent-plutonium shells in Iraq, was
contributed by Parveez. It started out:
Millions of defenceless children and women
civilians, including Western funded Kurds and Shias in Iraq were
nuked during the Gulf assault by the Western "Allies", one
Western intelligence source told Shanti RTV news agency...
Parveez writes strong stuff, and I've published several of his pieces. And
he's sent in several items that I felt were too strong and didn't post
them. But he is not an "extremist" or "propagandist". He covers stories
that are taboo to the mass media, and is willing to attribute blame where
it belongs - but he checks his stories and he writes responsibly. It is in
fact his _effectiveness_ as a reporter which inspires ridicule by
establishment sources, as we saw in the AR piece above.
To the extent he's reached the notice of the powers that be, he's obviously
considered a threat as a reporter. Keep this in mind.
The piece Parveez sent in today was a heartfelt eulogy for Diana, with no
political subtext. It is longer than I think makes sense for cj, but it is
touching, and here is a typical segment:
Irish President Mary Robinson said that Diana had "shown a deep
sense of compassion to those less fortunate in our society".
Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said that she had "won the
hearts of the Irish people through her commitment and work on
behalf of so many charities and international causes throughout
the world". South African President Nelson Mandela said: "She was
undoubtedly one of the best ambassadors of Great Britain. I found
her very grateful, highly intelligent and committed to worthy
causes and was tremendously impressed by her warmness".
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "she captured the
imagination of millions throughout the world with her dedication
to her children and to innumerable worthy causes".
Diana's friend Rosa Monckton said that Diana "did everything from
the heart. Her heart ruled her head which is why, I think, she
was so often misunderstood," and talked "about things that
mattered". Welsh Secretary Ron Davies said: "She worked so hard
for the dispossessed and those in need". The Wales Council of
the European Movement said: "Diana was a beacon for peace and
internationalism. As Princess of Wales she is simply
irreplaceable and will be sorely missed by many millions all
over the world".
The untimely death of Diana came at a time when she was being
drawn gradually - but inexorably - into caring humanitarian
issues. She would willingly and eagerly go where her conscience
and courage drove her, refusing to allow even British royal
protocol, politicians and baby-klillers to keep her out of the
most sensitive of areas. She mirrored the concerns of ordinary
people, showed compassion and courage where and used her special
position to break down political obstacles, filters and borders.
The anti-landmines campaign is the best example of that.
As I was reading through the eulogy, I came to the following item which
immediately raised an alarm in my head:
Diana crusaded against anti-personnel landmines with high-profile
visits to help highlight the plight of landmine victims. She died
on the eve of a conference in Oslo at which about 100 countries
will try to agree on a treaty to ban anti-personnel landmines -
her favorite cause, for which she traveled to war zone in Bosnia
(on Friday 08 August 1997) and Angola (on 13 January 1997).
"Diana, the saintly queen of peoples' hearts, was serious
considering taking part in factual documentary on the killing of
more than 750,000 Iraqi infants," a source close to the late
princess told Shanti RTV news agency. Leaders in the world of
charity said they had lost one of their greatest campaigners.
Caring humanitarians and campaigners who felt supported and
encouraged by the Diana are deeply shocked and filled with
grief. "The documentary was being researched by Shanti RTV, and
may not be made until another high profile, caring humanist is
brave enough to help expose and stop the crimes against
humanity..."
Can you imagine a documentary about Iraqi children produced by Parveez and
starring Diana? It absolutely boggles the mind...
With Parveez producing, given what he wrote in cj#707, one could expect a
well-documented and absolutely devastating (and deserved) indictment of
US/UK actions in the Gulf War, as well as an expose of the apalling and
unnecessary cruelty of the ongoing U.S-sponsored U.N. sanctions. This
would not be a piece that the U.S. or the UK governments would want to be
shown on mass television - not at all. It would undermine policies at the
very center of current US/UK geopolitical strategy - not just force them to
give up a weapon (landmines) that they no longer need (a relinquishment
turned successfully to their own PR advantage, by the way).
The existence of such a documentary would not in itself be so threatening -
it would simply not be distributed, like so many other documentaries before
it. But WITH Diana on board???? My God - how could they suppress it? She
had the most sought after face in the Western World, she had received
international credibility as an effective promoter of serious causes, and
her integrity was in high regard.
Do you see the problem? The making of such a documentary, one can presume
without undue paranoia, simply could not be permitted. I'm not sure what
Parveez means by "seriously considering taking part", but if her intention
was to participate, then she was crossing (knowingly or unknowingly) a
forbidden line - the same line Martin Luther King crossed when he started
speaking out against the Vietnam War, the same line JFK crossed when he
took on the CIA _and_ the Mafia, the same line Bobby crossed when he didn't
take the hint, the same line Rabin crossed.
There's a line even the rich and famous cannot cross, and that is to become
too big a threat to too many of the wrong people.
And then there's the question of the timing. The tragedy occured on the
"eve of a conference in Oslo" devoted to her landmine efforts. Could it be
that an announcement was going to be made there about her _next_ endeavor?
Might that have been "Iraqi children"? Can you think of a more favorable
forum for such an announcement, from Diana's point of view? (She was, by
the way, media savvy.)
If "they" had decided to take her out, then they would want to act prior to
the announcement. Once the announcement occurred, and once the project
became controversial (as it immediately would have), then special suspicion
would surround any subsequent mishap that came her way. Permitting the
announcement would have measurably jeapordized the coverability of the
operation.
One can presume, in this hypothetical scneario, that events would not have
gotten to this pass without "them" trying to persuade the Princess to drop
the project. But she "didn't go quietly" from Charles, didn't kow tow to
the royal family, and her courage does not seem to have been blunted by her
subsequent successes. And given that "she traveled to war zones in
Bosnia...and Angola", one can presume she'd brave the hazards even of
Saddham himself and there would be compelling footage "on the ground" in
Iraq. And I'm not even considering the muslim angle with respect to her
boyfriend.
All in all, it seems "they" were faced with an unacceptable situation, and
that attempts at persuasion had failed right up until the last possible
moment, the moment when the situation would have become more problematic to
control.
Why Diana? Why now? One shudders to think.
---
Or it could just be a drunk driver and unfastened seat belts, and that's
all there is to it - stranger things happen everyday. But I want to be
very sure the driver was legitimately drunk, and not just the victim of
some designer time-release concoction dropped in his coffee. And I want to
know that _all_ the motorcycle jocks were legitimate (so to speak)
papperazi, and that none remain "unidentified". And I want to know if
Diana was under any kind of pressure regarding her work plans.
---
In the film "Rollerball" there is depicted a corporatized future world,
where political boundaries are the same as corporate monopoly boundaries:
some cities are Energy cities, some are Transportation cities, etc. In
this world, fame itself is an unacceptable offense. A "personality" is too
dangerous to give power (ie- media recongition) to. A personality has
irrational quirks such as character and integrity, things which didn't fit
in the well-ordered, faceless, corporate world.
rkm
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26 Wexford, Ireland
http://www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen)
* Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: