In context: The London Bombing Black Op

2005-07-31

Richard Moore

Previous related reports:
    Phony terrorism: 7-7 London  =  9-11 NYC
        http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=983&lists=cj
     Analysis: London bombings & coverup
        http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=994&lists=cj


Friends,

As developments continue around the London bombings, the
false-flag trademark on the operation becomes increasingly
visible. Before looking at specifics, I think it is important to
review the broader context in which these events are occurring.


* The strategic context

First, let me review the strategic context in which
this operation is taking place, based on the very-well
documented Engdahl material, which I have been reporting
on:
        http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=984&lists=cj
        http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=990&lists=cj

Yes Virginia, we learn from Engdahl, there is an identifiable
THEY who are at the top of the Western power pyramid, and
'they' are the top elites who control the leading
international banks on Wall Street and in The City (London's
financial district). The supreme power of this particular
Anglo-American elite alliance grew out of their roles in
planning and financing the first two World Wars.

The primary goal of this elite clique is to maintain control
over global finance. Their wealth and power come from
controlling the global money supply, credit availability,
interest rates, exchange markets, reserve currencies, etc.
With this power, and with the help of their IMF & World Bank
subsidiaries, they can, for example, make or break whole
economies - as we saw not that long ago with their attack on 
the Asian Tigers.

We are talking here about finance capitalism, which is a power
layer above industrial capitalism. While industrial
capitalism, and industrial corporations, typically seek to
maximize economic growth and development, finance capitalism
has its own broader control agenda - which in many cases
entails driving down the rate of global economic growth,
channeling development into regions which have greater
investment returns, or punctuating growth with wars,
depressions, credit-bubbles, looting episodes, etc.

Control over global energy resources is central to the
strategy of these top financial elites - not so much because
of the market value of those resources - but because of the
power that comes with that control. There is the geopolitical
power - the ability to decide who gets energy and who doesn't
- which was very important in winning both world wars. More
important on a day-to-day basis is the financial control - the
ability to decide which currencies must be used to purchase
energy resources - and hence which currencies function as
reserve currencies. These days that's the "petrodollar", which
then gets recycled through Wall Street and The City into the
unregulated, London-based, "eurodollar" markets.

As I pointed out in an earlier posting, it was not so much
Germany's growing industrial strength that caused these
financial elites to plan and initiate Word War 1, but rather
the growing financial influence of German banks, and Germany's
attempt to obtain independent petroleums sources via the
planned Berlin to Baghdad rail line. Today, fast-growing China
poses a similar threat to Anglo-American financial hegemony,
and she is similarly arranging for independent oil sources in
various parts of the world.

President Eisenhower, on leaving office, warned us about a
"military-industrial complex", whose growing power he feared.
He may well have been sincere; he didn't necessarily have any
"need to know" more than that. In fact, however, this
military-industrial complex, as part of the industrial
capitalism layer, is more a tool than a power center. It
provides returns on investment, it handles its own lobbying,
and it enables geopolitical control. But when the time comes
to set armament budgets or to initiate conflicts, the orders
come down from above.

Of more interest than Ike's "complex", is something Engdahl
calls a "fraternity" - a kind of personal-level network - that
exists in both Britain and the U.S., and which includes the
top banking elites and key players in the petroleum industry
and the Intelligence services (including Israel's Mossad).
Overall agendas are set according to macro financial
considerations, and the petroleum connections enable
coordination with oil development operations. The Intelligence
connections - besides providing insider Intelligence of all
kinds to the fraternity - provide also the capability to
coordinate covert operations: coups, assassinations,
destabilizations, African genocides, phony "pro-democracy"
movements, war provocations, and - last but not least -
false-flag domestic "terrorist" incidents.

For any given operation, the "need to know" loop begins within
the fraternity, and then branches out only as far as necessary
and prudent. A President, Prime Minister, or Director of
Intelligence, for example, may or may not be in the loop on
any given project.

This is not the place to outline how political parties, the
media, etc. are kept under control in the U.S. and Britain -
suffice it to say that he who controls the purse strings
controls all. Amshall Rothschild summed up the situation this
way: "Let me issue and control a nations money and I care not
who writes the laws".


* The tactical context

The neocon's Project for a New America (PNAC) agenda is
written with Peak Oil in mind, and with China in mind - and it
represents the current tactical agenda which is being pursued
by the fraternity, with the help of its subsidiaries, the
British and American governments. This agenda implicitly calls
for seizing control of as many oil sources as possible, not
only in the Middle East, but from as many southern-Asian
nations as can be pried loose from entanglements with the
re-forming Sino-Soviet alliance. Michael Moore was right about
pipelines through Afghanistan, but the profits of Halliburton
and Texas oil companies are not the main point: oil as power
is the point. The agenda also calls explicitly for the
prevention of any nation, e.g. China, from attaining a
position of regional hegemony.

See:
        PNAC agenda: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy,
        Forces and Resources For a New Century":
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

        "China Economy Rising at Pace to Rival US":
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062905F.shtml

        "US hurrying to save its bases in Central Asia":
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050725/40969584.html

        "Bid by Chevron in Big Oil Deal Thwarts China":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/international/asia/20unocal.html?th&emc=th


Within this tactical context, Iran seems clearly to be the
next target of military intervention. Meanwhile, Iran and
China are making deals for future oil deliveries, and China
and Russia have supplied Iran with advanced missile
capability. I've seen no reports one way or the other as
regards whether some of those missiles might have nuclear
warheads or be under the control of Russian or Chinese crews.
But in any case these missiles are not Saddam's old Scuds, and
they can do serious damage to Tel Aviv and to U.S. Carrier
task forces. Iran may turn out to be the tipping point to
World War 3, as was Poland in World War 2, and the Balkans in
World War 1. Only the above-named elites know for sure what
they've got in mind.

See:
        "Now America accuses Iran of complicity in World Trade Center attack":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wiran18.xml&

        "Is Iran Being Set Up?"   [planning for nuclear attack on Iran]:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp07272005.html

        "American Terror"   [current covert actions in Iran]: 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7786.htm

       "Top Chinese general warns US over attack"   [revealing intention to play
        hardball at some point in the game]:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
           "China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it
           is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan,
           a Chinese general said on Thursday."


* The PR context

Given the disastrous course the occupation of Iraq has taken,
enthusiasm for an invasion of Iran will not be easy to stir
up. The war in Iraq is already causing domestic political
difficulties for the Bush-Blair act, European public opinion
generally has always been against the adventure, and elsewhere
in the world anti-war sentiment is even more pronounced.
Escalation into Iran would not be impossible under such
circumstances - after all it would simply be one more in a
long list of acts of impunity by the lone super power- but the
political cost in this case would be considerable. It might
even be a tipping point in terms of global displeasure with
the Washington-London axis, encouraging new alliances among
nations to counter the hegemony of this pair of rogue states.

We must recognize that - despite its fundamental impunity -
the Anglo-American axis always accompanies its invasions with
an effective PR offensive. Just as air strikes always precede
ground invasions, to soften up defenses, so are war projects
always preceded by PR initiatives. In the case of Desert Storm
we got months of prime-time PR, including fictitious stories
of babies being taken from incubators by the Iraqis. Before
the more recent Iraq invasion we were spiked up with WMD
fantasies, a nuclear-capability hoax, phony 911 connections,
etc. We can be absolutely certain that the upcoming invasion
of Iran will also be preceded by PR actions, and that those
actions will be of a dramatic nature - sufficient to
counteract the growing anti-war sentiment both domestically
and globally.

It is in the context of this necessary PR project that we must
evaluate the unfolding series of bombings in the UK. And along
with those bombings we must consider as well the similar
incidents in Turkey and Egypt, and the growing sense of "When
not if" that is being cultivated by the U.S. media, regarding
a second event in the U.S. on the scale of 911 or beyond.

See:
        "Al-Qaida's U.S. nuclear targets":
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45313
                "Captured documents, terrorists reveal bin Laden's preferred
                dates, places for 'American Hiroshima'"

        "Al Qaeda Fingerprints On Bombings?"   [re/ Turkey bombing]:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/15/terror/main583850.shtml

        "Egypt arrests 25 more in probe of terror attacks ":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8671549/
               "Investigators have said they're looking into international
                links, including funding, for cells in the Sinai, particularly
                in light of other terror attacks using similar techniques
                around the world, such as this months' explosions against
                public transportation in London. "

If the Iranian PR offensive is indeed being launched at this
time, and if the initial London bombings were part of that
campaign, then we can perhaps begin to see in subsequent
events the outline of that intended campaign. The campaign -
and very appropriate it would be for its purposes - apparently
includes offensives on several fronts.

Within Britain itself, the primary objective, apparently, is
to create the same level of chronic and intense fear around
terrorism that has gripped America since 911, preparing the
ground for British participation in "retaliatory" actions.
Rather than one grand event, like 911, we see a more refined
British approach, building psychological tension with a series
of much simpler and cheaper incidents distributed randomly
around the UK.

On the global scene a less intensive PR intervention would be
required, and that seems to be what may be beginning with
Turkey and Egypt. The main objective here would be to spread a
low-level fear of terrorism globally, so that the Iran
invasion would at least be "understandable" to all, reducing
the likelihood of an effective political or diplomatic
backlash to the aggression.

Equally as important as the "incident front" in this PR campaign
is the "interpretation front". Following each staged terrorist
incident, the Blair-Bush twins always go on prime-time air to
explain to us "what it means". (In contrast to real terrorists,
who typically give a real reason as to why they themselves did it,
false-flag terrorists always give us a false reason why
someone else did it.) On the interpretation front, in this
current PR campaign, the objective seems to be to cultivate
globally a clear image of "Islamic religious hatred of the
West" as being the source of terrorism.

This objective is very clearly revealed in the UK media. I
receive BBC1 and BBC2 television here in Wexford, and I've
been amazed by the breadth and depth of the "Muslim
connection" propaganda. In post-911 America the emphasis has
been on specific bad guys, like Bin Laden and Saddam, and on
Al Qaeda as an organization. Anti-Muslim sentiment certainly
did rise, but was not a focus of the propaganda. In
post-bombing Britain, the emphasis has been very different.

Blair meets with Muslim leaders to "solve the problem
together". We are shown sinister looking grainy videos of
Muslim schools with Taliban look-alike teachers, where
innocent youth are purportedly being indoctrinated into hating
the West. When suspects are being reported on, a significant
amount of the air time is devoted to to pronouncing their full
Arabic-sounding names, along with any aliases they might use.
We see documentaries about British Muslim neighborhoods, where
economically disadvantaged youth are "understandably
vulnerable" to indoctrination. Blair went so far as to say
that Al Qaeda isn't really an organization, rather it's a way
of thinking and acting within "certain communities". The new
proposed "anti-terrorism" legislation emphasizes the role of
"preaching or encouraging terrorism" as being of primary
importance. We learn to our horror that Muslim schools
teaching in that way have been operating for some time in
Britain. (One wonders: if they exist why have they been
tolerated for so long?)

The global PR value of blaming terrorism on "Muslim hatred of
the West" is very clear, within the context of expanding
military aggression on to Iran. For one thing, it detracts
from the obvious argument that invasions tend to increase the
likelihood of terrorism, as a response. If terrorist
tendencies are inherent in "the enemy" - rather than provoked
by Western attack - then it makes more sense to respond
militarily. In this regard, Blair has presented impassioned
arguments, repeated in each newscast of the day, that the Iraq
war cannot be blamed for the bombings.

As regards Iran in particular: if terrorism can be blamed on a
culture (ala Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"), then it
makes sense to undertake a forced "regime change" on nations
which follow that culture. In this regard it is very
convenient that a Muslim "hardliners" surprisingly won a
recent election in Iran, and convenient as well that
Washington recently "discovered" that 911 "hijackers" passed
through Iran. Presumably this part of the PR campaign will be
showing us an increasing number of "Iranian connections" to
terrorist suspects and incidents, as well as inflammatory
clips selected from Iranian media.

We must keep in mind that some dramatic pretext must be
manufactured for invading Iran. It is essential that
geopolitical issues, in particular the control of oil sources,
be kept entirely out of the discussion. There have of course
been the concerns over Iran's "nuclear program" but those
have been somewhat muted by European compromise initiatives
and in any case they sound hollow after the Iraq-WMD
fabrications. Culture-based terrorism is a bit vague, and
therefore both easier to claim and more difficult to disprove,
as compared to specific WMD threats.

If we look at the PR campaign from a broader perspective, we
can see it as a one-two punch. We've been talking about the
first punch, the set up - the creation of a global popular
focus on cultural-based Muslim terrorism with a strong Iranian
connection. Once this mindset is sufficiently promulgated,
then we can expect the second, knock-out punch: a 911-scale
event in the U.S. which can be quickly blamed on Iran.

Whereas 911 came as a surprise to everyone except our
fraternity, its contractors - and most of the security
services around the world who had caught various leaks and had
naively notified Washington - this next major covert PR
operation will arrive in an atmosphere of public expectation.
People will be ready to be outraged, ready to be angry, and
ready in particular to be angry at Iran - the timeframe from
incident to "retaliation" is likely be measured in hours instead
of weeks or months.

There are of course other objectives served by this PR
campaign besides justifying an Iran invasion, the most notable
being the police-state legislation that almost always follows
false-flag incidents. I cite some reports on such legislation
below, along with other indicators of the false-flag trademark.



* Recent indicators of false-flag operations

        "UK plans global extremists list":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/uk_politics/4699745.stm
                The UK is to set up a global database of extremists who face
                automatic vetting before being allowed in, Home Secretary
                Charles Clarke has told MPs.

        "Police ask for tough new powers":
http://infowars.net/Pages/Jul05/230705powers.html 
                Police last night told Tony Blair that they need sweeping new
                powers to counter the terrorist threat, including the right to
                detain a suspect for up to three months without charge instead
                of the current 14 days. Senior officers also want powers to
                attack and close down websites, and a new criminal offence of
                using the internet to prepare acts of terrorism, to "suppress
                inappropriate internet usage". 

        "There has to be a shoot-to-kill policy, concedes Ken Livingstone": 
http://infowars.net/Pages/Jul05/230705kill.html?id=1669962005 

        "911 Rerun - Dead British 
        Bombing Suspect Very Much Alive":
http://www.rense.com/general67/cdom.htm
                An interview of a British teenager broadcast on a Pakistani
                television network has thrown into doubt investigators, claims
                that all the three London bombers of Pakistani descent visited
                Pakistan last year. According to the investigators, the three
                bombers had died in the July 7 attacks.
                   But 16-year-old Hasib Hussain, a namesake of one of the
                putative bombers and of Pakistani descent, said in the
                interview that a photograph of a passport purporting to show
                bomber Hasib Hussain, 19, was his, and not that of the bomber 

        "I was in tube bomb carriage - and survived":
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf
                "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb
                was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was
                underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in
                a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was,
                or any bag," he said. 

        "Did Greenspan Know About the London Bombings Two Days Before?":
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Whitney0721.htm
                Two days before the London subway bombings, Fed Master Alan
                Greenspan flushed nearly $40 billion in liquidity into
                financial markets. The sudden activity was an astonishing
                departure from the current policy of tightening interest rates
                to stifle inflation. The Chairman has not explained his
                erratic behavior, but there's growing speculation that
                Greenspan may have had information about the likelihood of
                terrorist attacks and decided to "preemptively" head off a run
                on the markets. [The fraternity knows all.]

       "Police Debate if London Plotters Were Suicide Bombers, or Dupes":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/international/europe/27suicide.html
                [In this way some of the original anomalies in the cover story
                are addressed for the discerning reader, while TV broadcasts
                continue to refer to "suicide bombers".]

        "Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1537457,00.html
                Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head,
                was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a
                bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by
                armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday. 

        In Britain, Migrants Took a New Path: To Terrorism
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/international/europe/28profile.html?th&emc=th
                By the time he was 17, British reports said, Mr. Ibrahim had
                taken up with a gang of criminals from north London who
                traveled to commuter towns in neighboring Hertfordshire,
                terrorizing residents. Arrested in 1995, he was convicted of a
                string of muggings and street crimes and sentenced to five
                years in prison, serving roughly half his term. It was there
                that he is said to have become a devout, and radicalized,
                Muslim, finding in Islam a place to direct his inchoate rage.
-- 

============================================================
If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
(http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email 
list by sending a message to:
      •••@••.•••

You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,
provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and
this disclaimer.

Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland
blog: http://harmonization.blogspot.com/

"Escaping The Matrix - 
Global Transformation: 
WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft:
    http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html
_____________________________
    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
      Reichstag fire."  
      - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
_____________________________
cj list archives:
    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj

newslog list archives:
    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog
_____________________________
Informative links:
    http://www.indymedia.org/
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/
    http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/
    http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm
    http://www.MiddleEast.org
    http://www.rachel.org
    http://www.truthout.org
    http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/
    http://www.zmag.org
    http://www.co-intelligence.org
============================================================

Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com