Advocates of ‘actors’ at the Boston bombings tend to use a highly subjective approach to analysis of the evidence, similar to the way Rorschach inkblot tests are used to analyze a person’s personality and emotional functioning.

I recently wrote an article explaining the reasons why I think there were no ‘actors’ used in place of victims at the Boston Marathon bombings. In that article I made reference to other websites and researchers who had taken up the ‘actors’ meme and run with it. In this article I’ll be looking more closely at the ‘evidence’ that has been presented in support of the ‘actors’ theory. Before I begin though, I should explain how and why my approach differs from the approach that the ‘actors’ advocates have taken.

When trying to decide whether a particular conspiracy theory, or particular angle on a conspiracy theory, is likely to be true or false, my approach is to first look at the plausibility of the theory in question. In terms of the Boston bombings, the idea that ‘actors’ took the place of real victims is the theory. When I first was forced to consider this theory, it took me about 3 minutes of rumination before it began to make no logical sense whatsoever. I more or less spelled out the lack of logic in my previous article, but it can be summed up as: why would a U.S. intel agency chose to use actor victims at a bombing that is designed to terrify the US population into believing that evil terrorists are out to kill them when they could very easily just plant a bomb and let the bomb do what bombs do best, kill and maim people?

Why would a U.S. intel agency chose to do this when, if you think about it, it massively complicates the planning of such an operation and greatly increases the chances of the official story falling apart? To date, no one has offered a sensible answer to this question.

Some bloggers have claimed that the use of ‘crisis actors’ at the Boston bombings is an attempt to further blur the lines between what is real and what is false, between fantasy and reality, and usher us all into a ‘reality TV’ world.

That’s a reasonable enough idea, but hasn’t that fantasy world already been achieved, to a great extent, with the long list of US/Israeli/British false flag “Muslim terror attacks” over the past 15 years? Isn’t the yawning chasm between what most people believe about “Muslim terror attacks”, and the likely truth behind them, wide enough that it constitutes an already massive break with reality?

What do the PTB have to gain, vis-a-vis the public, by adding the ‘actor victims’ element into the mix. If the average person in the street is none the wiser about the presence of ‘actors’, isn’t that functionally the same, from a psy-ops point of view, as if victims were real people and not actors? If people believe the ‘actors’ to be real victims, what’s the point in having actors rather than real victims? Maybe the answer is that US intel agencies have suddenly grown a conscience and an aversion to killing people, hence their use of ‘actors’? But the last time I checked, those high-level intel and government types were still a bunch of conscienceless, blood-thirsty, murderous bastards who delight in the suffering of others.

So basically, that’s where I was coming from when I began to look at the ‘actors’ theory. I could find no logical reason for the inclusion of ‘actors’ and many reasons why they should not be used. In addition, I found the alleged evidence for ‘actors’ at Boston sorely lacking in that it relied on conjecture, supposition and a good measure of imagination, all to make the evidence fit what appears to be a pre-established theory. Basically, all of the ‘actors’ theorists seem to have used an “ink blot test” approach to their analysis of the photographic evidence from the Boston bombings.

Note, it wasn’t that I was averse to the idea of the Boston bombings being staged by some element of US intel agencies – far from it. I was more or less fully convinced (based on the hard evidence and historical context) that the Boston bombings were a dyed-in-the-wool, false flag “homegrown terrorism attack”, designed, like all others, to justify US imperial warmongering and to terrorize the American people into trusting their authorities and looking to them for protection.

‘Actors’ theorists have spent a lot of time and effort questioning the veracity and plausibility of eyewitness statements (as reported in the media) about what they did or didn’t do immediately after the bombing. But surely supposedly seasoned conspiracy theorists should know better than most that it is the media’s job to hype national crisis situations, and that therefore exaggeration and dodgy reporting cannot, in isolation, be construed as evidence of a grand conspiracy involving ‘actors’. After all, there have been many other similar “terrorist attacks” where the media has been caught either making stuff up or misrepresenting the facts, and yet there were no associated allegations of ‘actors as victims’. In addition, as regards Boston, it should come as no surprise that certain people, like Carlos Arredondo, or ‘Cowboy hat man’, would exaggerate his role when he is being lauded in the press as a national hero. Human nature plays a part here, and these particular conspiracy theorists tend to overlook that.

Actors theorists have cited the fact, that because there were relatively few witnesses at the blast location, and rescuers were held at bay for the first few minutes by the temporary fencing, ‘actors’ could have used this opportunity to stage the scene. It’s true that there were relatively few witnesses at the blast location, but it’s also true that most of them were in a state of shock. It’s true that rescuers had to overcome the fencing before they could reach the victims, but what is overlooked is the fact that there is photographic evidence from, more or less, immediately after the bombing, and for several minutes afterwards, that shows no evidence of anyone ‘staging’ any ‘scene’.

Have a look for yourself.

The image below image has been used by ‘actors’ theorists to claim that none of the people seen here appear to have any serious injuries.

You tell me, is it reasonable to make such an assertion based on this image? Let me put it another way. Look at this image of a 2011 bombing at a shrine in Afghanistan, where 50 people, several of them in this image, were killed.

By the same rationale, couldn’t it be claimed that many of the very dead people in this image don’t appear to have received any significant injuries? Sure it could, but that wouldn’t change the fact that several of them are 100% dead. Oh, and by the way, where is all the blood? I mean, there is ALWAYS tons of blood at bombings with fatalities, right?

This same images of the immediate aftermath of the first Boston bombing, centering on the group of people that includes Jeff Bauman, the woman in the red coat and the man in the hooded top, have been used to claim that they all three individuals look very calm relative to the other people. This ‘evidence’ is used to imply that those three people are actors. But look at the image yourself. Would you be prepared to make such a statement based on that image and in the understanding that these people were pictured seconds after a bomb had just detonated right beside them?

A more rational explanation is that the three people who were seriously injured are in serious shock, and therefore ‘dazed and confused’, while those further away are not, and are therefore able to react more normally. The problem with the general approach taken by ‘actors’ theorists is that they assume, a priori, that there are ‘actors’ in these images and they then go about the process of trying to find evidence to prove their subjective belief. The result is that, before they have provided any evidence, they are already calling the victims accomplices etc. without having provided any evidence to back up that assertion. This has the effect of priming the reader to accept the ‘actors’ theory without any reasonable evidence. It’s not exactly an objective way to approach the matter.

Most articles and YouTube videos on this topic are full of similar attempts to state as fact that which is mere conjecture based on evidence that can be pretty easily explained in other ways.

The image below has been used by many to claim that Bauman and the woman in the red coat are giving hand signals and even making eye contact with each other, and that there is hardly any blood to be seen.

Again, the context is missing. A bomb went off 5 seconds before this photo was taken, about 3 feet from where the people in question were standing. It knocked them to the ground, damaged their ear drums (if only temporarily) and they are most likely in shock. Given this scenario, how can anyone state that anything can be interpreted from the positions of hands, legs, heads etc. Note, I’m not saying definitively that those people are not giving hand signals, neither would I state for sure that they are not singing kumbya. What I am saying is that, given the circumstances, no one can reasonably presume to know what those people are,or are not, doing.

The following two images have been used to suggest that the man in the hooded top is somehow manipulating or working on Bauman’s legs.

But, again, these are two still images taken in quick succession. How can anyone reasonably claim to know what anyone in this image is actually doing? Again we see that ‘actors’ theorists are desperately searching for ‘facts’ to fit their pre-established belief.

Perhaps the most discussed photograph of the Boston bombings is the famous image of Jeff Bauman in the wheelchair. ‘Actors’ theorists have claimed that it is ridiculous that Bauman is being evacuated in a wheelchair rather than strapped to a gurney. They also point to the fact that his wounds are in full display rather than covered by something.

The fact that Bauman was transported in a wheelchair can be explained by the fact that, at that point in time (about 6 minutes after the first bomb exploded) no ambulances had yet arrived, and gurneys were therefore scarce. There were however many wheelchairs available as part of the marathon entourage and these were used to evacuate several people before ambulances arrived.

Watch this time-lapse video (at double speed). At 3 mins 10 sec (i.e. 6 mins after the bomb exploded) you can see Bauman being removed from the scene and still no ambulances have arrived. Also notice that many wheelchairs are brought in but precious few gurneys. Notice how many people are brought out in wheelchairs. Bauman is in fact the fourth of fifth person to be removed from the scene. As to why Bauman’s injuries were not covered, that is, at present, an unknown, but it certainly isn’t proof that he was an ‘actor’.

The image below has been used by ‘actors’ theorists to make the point that the woman in the red top seems to be sitting around doing nothing and appears unfazed by the horror around her and ignorant of the fact that she is in the way of responders.

Again these are nonsensical allegations when we consider the effects of shock on a human being:

“The symptoms of shock show great variation but typically include an initial state of “daze”, with some constriction of the field of consciousness and narrowing of attention, inability to comprehend stimuli, and disorientation.”

According to many ‘actors’ theorists, this woman should have been alert and aware of everything that was going on around her, regardless of the fact that a bomb had exploded right beside her just minutes before.

‘Actors’ theorists have also questioned why no runners appear to have been injured by the blast. But this is really a rather disingenuous question to ask. The women in the above image were mere feet from the blast. The runners were 10-15 yards from the explosion and were protected from its effects by metal and wooden barriers and the material that made up the advertising sign that was draped over the barriers; more importantly, they were protected from the blast by the bodies of the spectators. The bomb was allegedly a pressure cooker bomb filled with gunpowder and a quantity of nails. The white smoke is indicative of gunpowder. The gunpowder was the means to produce enough pressure for the pressure cooker to explode, sending parts of the cooker itself and the nails flying in all directions, mostly from ground to waist level. A pressure cooker is of limited size, therefore it will produce a limited amount of shrapnel. There was obviously also a limit to the amount of nails or ball bearings that could have been added to the pressure cooker. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that most of this limited amount of shrapnel was absorbed by the bodies of those spectators closest to it. After that, all you have is a shockwave which clearly was not that strong based on the extent to which the blue advertising material covering the barriers blows out in this video:

‘Actors’ theorists have juxtaposed the last image above with the image below:

and cited the fact that in the first image the womens’ heads are together and their eyes are closed, while in the second image their eyes are open and their heads are apart. This is apparently evidence that they are ‘actors’. For the ‘actors’ theorists, it seems that when two images are taken of the same scene just a few seconds apart, the people in the images are not allowed to move. The idea that the worker was checking for a pulse and would likely have had her hands in that position for up to a minute is apparently irrelevant. The idea that the emergency worker would probably have been trying to speak to the women and that they would have responded to either her voice or touch, is not possible, apparently. Note also, that, between the two images, the guy in blue in the center has bent down and a woman in a red baseball cap has entered the picture.

Among other evidence that I have seen offered as proof of ‘actors’ is a still from a YouTube video that purports to show Christian Williams (the guy in the hooded top beside Bauman in the photos taken immediately after the bombing), sitting against the wall of a building near to where the first bomb went of just after the bomb exploded. Here’s the still:

The problem here is that the man in this image is wearing tan shoes, and yet it is claimed that this is the same man with the hooded top that is seen in the middle of the image below, despite the fact that the man with the hooded top in the image below is wearing dark shoes with a blue color or blue laces.

Also, if the image with the man sitting down at the wall is the same man that can be seen at the bomb site, and if the image of him sitting against the wall was taken immediately after the bomb went off, how did he get to the bomb site given that the images of him at the bomb site show him there within 2 seconds of the bomb exploding. Bi-location perhaps? I suppose anything’s possible in ‘crisis actor’ land. Seriously though, this is just more evidence of (a perhaps unconscious) selection and substitution of data in an effort to make the case for ‘actors’ at the Boston bombing.

Some people have asked why the people in this image below, who are about 10 yards removed from the blast site, are looking up in the air.

This image has been used to suggest that the bomb actually exploded in the upper floors of the building and/or there was something suspicious going on up there. Additional evidence for this claim is provided by a Fox News reporter on the day of the bombing who stated that, while she wasn’t exactly near the first bomb, when she looked around, she thought that the bomb came from inside a building.

A reasonable answer to the first point is that the people are looking up in the air because a large plume of smoke has just risen up in that direction, as is very obvious from the videos of the explosion. They may also be looking up at falling glass from broken windows. A reasonable answer to the second point about the Fox News reporter’s statements is that she was not close to the bombing site, and only turned around when she heard the explosion and saw the plume of smoke that a bunch of other people were looking at also. She inferred from this that the explosion came from further up the building. In any case, the video evidence makes it very clear that the bomb exploded at ground level.

Following up on this claim, some people have suggested that the ‘actors’ could have emerged from the Lenscrafters store. The problem however is that we have photographs showing the scene approx. 2 seconds after the bomb exploded, and we see no parade of bloodied-up actors coming out of Lenscrafters, instead, what we see are the people who were there when the bomb exploded.

Here’s another image of people, in this case cops, looking up at the building above the Lenscrafters store.

Why are they looking up there? Probably because the glass on the ground had just fallen from up there, and there may have been more about to fall, as it apparently did at some point based on this image.

Oh, by the way, if the bomb was inside the ground floor of the Lenscrafters store (as some people have suggested, how did that desk remain intact?)

While we’re on the topic of glass; one major question that is being used to suggest actors were involved is, if the bomb exploded outwards from the sidewalk, why does the glass appear to have fallen on the sidewalk rather than inside the store?

There are two points: 1) the glass was probably tempered or laminated and therefore remained intact and then fell outwards. Or, look at the first of the two images above with the cops looking up. Notice anything? The cops are reflected in the glass. That is to say, those windows were double-paned, and on the left pane, only the outer pane was broken by the blast, hence the glass there couldn’t have fallen in.

I could go on, and on and on folks, but I’m done. Oh, ok, one more. The following image is a still from minute 2.21 from this video of the bombing. I just thought it was interesting that not only had the ‘actors’ managed to get themselves into place in double-quick time, one of them even had the foresight to daub some blood on the barrier and on the broken part no less. Watch the few mins of video for yourself here.

Ok, I’m really done now. If anyone has any piece of ‘evidence’ that I haven’t covered here that they’d like me to opine on, feel free to send it to me. But be warned, I’ve looked at a lot of ‘evidence of ‘actors’ at the Boston bombings, and all of it fits into this same profile of mild to wild conjecture and supposition in an effort to make the case. And to be honest, I’m having a hard time explaining the extent to which this ‘actors’ business has been taken up by so many people.

The endless analysis of trivia in the aftermath of deliberately inflicted mass trauma events is itself evidence that the lines between what is real and what is false have blurred. It’s only when you have to actually counter the arguments that are being made that you realise just how ridiculous and baseless, i.e. lacking in any evidence, the arguments are. The only thing I can think of to explain it is that people are ‘disintegrating’ – they’re losing the plot, so to speak – and are projecting their own highly subjective and chaotic internal state outwards as ‘reality’; and they’re soooo damn convinced they have the ‘real deal’ and that they’ve ‘busted the whole thing wide open’.

Another possible explanation is that many long-term ‘conspiracy theorists’ have reached the end of their rope, so to speak. They’ve watched the government and assorted alphabet soup agencies get away with so much evil-doing, for so long, and despite all of their attempts to expose that evil, most people still don’t get it. I can see how that kind of frustration could lead a person to begin to ‘strain at gnats and swallow camels’. But it’s still a very bad idea to let your critical thinking capacities fall by the wayside and just go with whatever you think you see in photographs and reports of the latest ‘terror attack’. It’s also a serious problem for others who get sucked into this kind of subjectivity because, in the final analysis, people are being encouraged to believe lies as truth, the same kind of lies that are being spread by the government with their “terror attack” horse shit. I’m fairly convinced that believing lies has a very direct and deleterious effect on the human mind, and ultimately results in disintegration in one form or another. I’m just trying to warn people about that prospect and, as world descends further and further into fantasy and make-believe, I’m asking those of you who can, to try to hold firm and keep the objective truth firmly in your sights.

p.s. The guy throwing “blood powder”? (minute 2.07). Those are towels, for crying out loud.

The Boston Bombings: Made in America

The idea that many ‘terrorist’ attacks are in fact carried out by government intelligence agencies is not a new concept (I’ve spent the last ten years attempting to highlight the evidence for government complicity in ‘Islamic terrorism’ for one example). What is new is the idea that these government-inspired or perpetrated terrorist attacks are somehow doubly “fake” in the sense that some or all of the details of the attack didn’t actually happen in any real sense. The idea is that, not only was the attack fake in the sense that government, not ‘Muslim terrorists’ or ‘homegrown terrorists’, were responsible, but that the apparent victims were fake also, their roles, where necessary, being portrayed by ‘actors’, presumably working for the government. The claim that ‘crisis actors’ were used in place of real victims has been made about the December 2012 Sandy Hook shootings, the more recent Boston marathon bombings and even the May 22nd knife attack on a British soldier in London.

To clarify, the idea of ‘actors’ as it is being used in this context is not the same as ‘media plants’. Media plants are people placed at the scene of a government false-flag terror attack who pose as ‘eyewitnesses’ to establish an official narrative for the media and public. ‘Actors’, on the other hand, are people who are supposedly part of the false-flag attack itself and who pose as victims of the attack but who are not really injured at all.

The Sandy Hook massacre last December seems to have been the the first major event where the ‘actors’ idea gained traction. Within a month of the massacre, there were literally hundreds of Youtube videos and articles supposedly providing proof that the parents and neighbors of the victims were actually crisis actors and, therefore, the entire event was probably staged and no one was killed. The ‘hoax’ was, it is claimed, a crass and obvious attempt by the government to impose ‘gun control’ on America.

Many of the Sandy Hook hoax videos have received tens, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of views. I wrote about the implausibility of that particular ‘actors’ theory here and tried to compile the best evidence for Sandy Hook being a U.S. intel ‘black’ operation here and here. Despite my efforts, (not that I ever expect them to make much difference) the ‘terror attack actors’ idea continued to gain pace and made a serious reappearance at the Boston Marathon bombings.

The main ‘evidence’ for ‘actors’ at the Boston marathon bombings centered around one of the victims, Jeff Bauman. Bauman is the guy whose picture was sensationally splashed across media newspapers and websites as he was taken from the scene of the bombing in a wheelchair with the bone of one of his severed legs protruding.

I’m pretty sure half the planet saw that particular image.

Proponents of the ‘actors’ theory seized on this image as hard evidence that ‘fakery’ was afoot. After all, where was all the blood that surely should have been spurting from his leg? Even in the immediate aftermath of the bomb, it is claimed, pictures of the scene are devoid of any significant amounts of blood and certainly no spurting from Bauman’s leg(s).

Disbelievers also pointed to the color of what blood there was on the ground, citing it as evidence that obviously fake or ‘stage’ blood because it was just too bright to be real. Some pundits even pointed out that there were different colors of blood from one image to the next!

And what about those people around Bauman? One guy seems to be putting on his sunglasses just seconds after the bombing!

Surely all of these details constitute ‘slam dunk’ evidence that the Boston bombings were faked in the sense that ‘crisis actors’ were used, at least as part of the operation?

The problem with this theory is that it has no legs, so to speak. It seems that not one of the advocates of the ‘actors’ theory bothered to think about the implications of their claims. If they had, they would have been quickly confronted with some rather implausible conclusions.

For example, if Jeff Bauman was, as is claimed, an ‘actor’ who was already an amputee and was fitted with the bony prosthetics immediately after the bombing, how do we explain that none of his family or friends have spoken up and pointed out that Jeff couldn’t have lost his legs in the bombing because he lost them several months or years ago?

Jeff has been widely feted in the media in the months since the bombing, and made a surprise appearance before the Boston Bruins ice hockey game in early May. A few days ago Jeff threw the first pitch at Red Sox game.

From what I can gather, Bauman’s girlfriend may have been running in the race as part of ‘Team Stork’, and she may have been a student nurse at the aforementioned hospital. Alternatively, she and Bauman may simply have been friends with Team Stork runners. In the image below of the scene immediately following the first explosion, the woman in the foreground is wearing a shirt with the blue ‘Team Stork’ logo on it. She may have been with Bauman as they waiting for team members to cross the finish line.

Bloody Actors

The above image shows quite a lot of blood on the ground. As noted, many ‘actors’ theorists have claimed that this blood is “too red” to be real, despite the fact that there are at least two shades of red blood on the ground. A little research into blood color would quickly have informed such theorists that oxygenated blood is bright red, while deoxygenated blood is a dark (or darker) red color. I would have thought that most people would have at some point in their lives had experience with the color of blood, if only their own, in terms of a small cut. Doesn’t everyone know that fresh blood from your finger can be a bright red color and dried coagulated blood is dark red, almost black? In fact, depending on where and when you cut yourself, your blood can be a brighter or a darker shade of red (see the aforementioned oxygenated or deoxygenated blood comment).

Not enough blood? Wrong color?

What about this one? Actors? Stage blood?

Severed Arteries, Spurting and Instant Death

Then there is the image of Bauman himself and his protruding femur. ‘Actors’ theorists were quick to point to the ‘evidence’ that there is very little blood on Jeff’s leg, either in the images immediately after the bomb went off and also when he was being wheeled away from the scene in a wheelchair. I’ve spoken to several practicing doctors, all of whom have experience of serious trauma victims. Not one of them were surprised that there was not a large amount of blood squirting from Bauman’s wounds. What most of them did say was that they had been surprised at the lack of blood when they first encountered trauma victims early in their careers, but that they were quickly able to understand it based on their prior knowledge of human anatomy, and that since then, they’re never surprised at a lack of blood loss in trauma patients.

In Bauman’s case, the ‘actors’ theorists claim was that, since his femoral artery was “severed”, there should have been massive blood loss and he should not have survived. The problem here is again one of a lack of cursory research by those promoting the theory.

The femoral artery runs inside the thigh from the pelvis down to above the knee. The now infamous picture of Bauman in the wheelchair shows pretty clearly that both of his knees are intact and that his major injuries are below the knee. Therefore, it is not true to say that his femoral artery was severed.

Even in the case that his femoral artery had been severed, arteries are sphincteral, that is to say, they spasm and contract when severed. This appears to be a natural life-preserving function of the body to prevent blood loss. When arteries are compromised, coagulation factors are also released that facilitate the formation of thrombi which minimize blood loss. Just like the formation of a scab over a wound. It is such an effective system that blood thinner drugs are often given to prevent the formation of these thrombi during surgery on an artery.

There are other arteries in the lower leg (the anterior and posterior tibial arteries) but these are not major arteries and if severed, as in Bauman’s case, would very likely have spasmed resulting in a fairly quick reduction in blood loss. In addition, the man in the cowboy hat (Carlos Arredondo) had tied a tourniquet to his mid-thigh area, further restricting blood loss. (By the way, the reason Bauman was evacuated in a wheelchair was because there are usually many wheelchairs at the finish line of races for people who really shouldn’t be running marathons to sit down in, before they collapse).

The Implausibility of Crisis Actors at a Real Bombing

The following images were taken by a person in an office on the first floor of a building directly behind where the first bomb went off. Two photos appear to have been taken every second (the person probably just held down the shutter release button). You can see the full sequence here. These photos, along with a video of the bomb exploding (see below), provide fairly conclusive proof that Jeff Bauman was at more or less ‘ground zero’ of the explosion, and that a bomb really did go off.

The first image below shows the scene immediately after the bomb went off. Bauman and a few other people are in the center surrounded by a cloud of smoke. As the smoke clears in the subsequent images, you can see Bauman lying on the ground with his back to the camera. There is a man with a black and grey hooded top (the hood is grey) right in front of Bauman. This is ‘sunglasses man’.

Photo #1

Photo#2

Photo#3

Photo#4

Photo#5

Photo#6

Take note of the man running on the road in the top right of each photograph. He is wearing a black or dark blue running outfit with white short sleeves. He is also wearing pink socks (we’ll call him ‘pink socks’). He can be seen in the video below reacting to the bomb.

Here’s a still of the man I’m talking about.

My point here is that, the appearance of ‘pink socks’ in the video above, and his appearance in the images taken from behind where the bomb went off looking towards the finish line and down at the explosion site establishes that:

a) the bomb was real

b) that Bauman and others were at the site of the explosion.

For the actors theory to be believable therefore, we have to assume that Bauman, as ‘actor’, was undeterred by the violent explosion and carried on with his assigned job of fitting prostheses to his stumps (or having sunglasses man do it for him) ready for his big photo-op. Or to put it another way, that, in the middle of a bomb blast that clearly did happen, and was clearly strong enough to cause serious injury, a few government hired “crisis actors” were either:

a) manipulated into situating themselves at the site of the bomb (of which they had no knowledge) and then, when it did explode, causing them injuries, they proceeded to carry on with their role of “actors”

b) part of the bomb plot and agreed to place themselves at the site of the bomb, and their lives in danger, so that at least one of them could produce a prosthetic leg with protruding bone for later public viewing.

Bizarrely, this scenario is preferred by many over the scenario that the real bombers would have more likely opted for just detonating the bombs and creating real casualties for public exposure. Clearly the real bombers have no consideration for human life, because three people were killed, one of them an eight year old boy at the site of the second bombing that went off 10 seconds after the first and 100 yards away. Unless, of course, we are to believe that those three were also “actors” and did not die at all and were part of the “staged event”, their families and friends either in on the plot or ‘silenced’.

The Real Evidence Vs COINTELPRO

There seems to be a thread of “fakery” claims that run from 9/11 (the ‘blue screen planes’ theory) through Sandy Hook (another ‘staged event’) and Boston which, when looked at from a broad perspective, seems to have been deliberately invented and disseminated in order to discredit the serious evidence for government complicity in these specific ‘terror’ attacks.

The problem here is that, as concerns the Boston bombings, there is hard evidence that:

• There was a drill on the day of the marathon
• There were spotters on roofs and dog sniffing teams
• There were announcements made about the drills.
• There were two tweets from the Boston globe on their marathon update page that “authorities have announced that a controlled explosion will take opposite the library in 1 minute” (this was two hours before a bomb went off at that exact location)
• The FBI have admitted that they had been in contact with the two brothers for about 5 years
• The NY Times ran an article stating that virtually all previous “terror plots” that were “foiled” by the FBI were actually created by the FBI.

The only evidence that the two Tsanarev brothers were involved in the bombing is the alleged testimony of Bauman and, more importantly, the allegation that they killed a policeman a few days later at MIT. All that is really known is that the policeman, officer Sean Collier, was approached by an unknown person(s) as he sat in his car and shot multiple times. The only evidence linking the Tsarnaev brothers to this killing is the claim made by the unnamed man who was allegedly taken hostage by the brothers after they allegedly killed officer Collier. The story goes that after he was taken hostage in his own car by the brothers, the older brother asked him if he had heard about the Boston bombing. The unnamed hostage replied that he had, and the older Tsarnaev brother then allegedly said;

“I did that, and I just killed a policeman in Cambridge.”

So basically, the only real evidence linking the brothers to the bombing is the claim by an unnamed alleged hostage that the brothers made their bizarre confessed to him that they had killed Collier and were responsible for the bombing

Coincidentally, the traffic cop who was the first on the scene of Colliers murder (officer Richard Donohue) was a close friend of Collier. Even more coincidentally, officer Donohue was involved later that evening in the alleged shoot out with the brothers in the Watertown area of Boston, where he was, coincidentally, the only officer to be shot by “friendly fire”. And to round off the coincidence-fest:

“Officer Donohue of the MBTA Transit Police remembers almost nothing of the night he was shot during chaotic gunfire on a normally quiet Watertown street, or of the murder of his close friend, MIT police Officer Sean Collier, hours before in Cambridge.”

What are the odds, eh?

Do you know who J. D. Tippit is? J. D. Tippit was the Dallas policeman who was allegedly shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. The shooting of Tippit was instrumental in framing Oswald, at least in the public mind, for the murder of Kennedy.

Jim Garrison stated that “If Oswald was innocent of the Tippit murder the foundation of the government’s case against him collapsed.”

And indeed, it appears that the Warren Commission ignored a lot of evidence in the form of conflicting eyewitness testimony that strongly suggests Oswald did NOT kill Tippit.

That’s just some of the hard evidence that could be used to make a case for the Boston bombings being a govt. operation. But when you add in the idea that the bombings were actually ‘staged’ by ‘actors’, and proceed to back it up with very subjective ‘evidence’, virtually all of which can be exposed as bogus, thereby making those who claim it as ‘evidence’ look like fools and or liars, well….you’ve destroyed any usefulness of the hard evidence by associating it with the bogus evidence. For me, therefore, the ‘actors’ and ‘fakery’ meme is more than likely a deliberate attempt to do exactly that.

Of course, there is the other all-important element, without which government/intel attempts to spread disinformation would be useless i.e. the many, many individuals who have bought the story and disseminated the disinfo. I don’t for a second believe that owners of respectable websites like Globalresearch.ca or bloggers like Dave McGowan (and many others) are consciously playing a part in the disinfo campaign, but the reality is that they have been aiding and abetting what is most likely a COINTELPRO operation by giving the ‘actors’ theory legs (so to speak). I won’t pretend to know why such previously sober and serious journalists and authors have uncharacteristically been taken in by a con job (and a rather obvious one at that), except to hypothesize that, as the world continues to spiral down into ever increasing lies, social hysteria and madness, we may expect to see more and more people begin to ‘lose the plot’ in more ways than one.

These are the three human siblings (obviously misidentified as human) who kidnapped the three girls between 9 and 11 years ago and held them in their house in Cleveland, Ohio. The evidence suggests the girls were repeatedly raped and abused by the subhuman species known as the Castro brothers. Worse still, at least one of the girls gave birth to what is most likely the progeny of one of these freaks of nature. Latest reports suggest the girls may have given birth to up to 5 babies by the Castro creatures.

Ariel Castro

Onil Castro

Pedro Castro

Check out Charles Ramsey, a neighbor of the Castro brothers, describing how he discovered the Amanda Berry as she was trying to escape the house.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

The murder of two brothers, by the psychopathic elite, for the entertainment of the people

As more details come out, it becomes increasingly clear that police/security officials attempted to murder both brothers and cover it up with a tissue of lies. In the case of the elder brother, Tamerlan, they succeeded. The younger Dhzokhar has been effectively silenced and passed into FBI custody.

Almost a week after police claimed that the Tsarnaev brothers fought a rolling street battle with dozens of heavily armed police officers, we learned Wednesday night that they had only a single handgun, according to sources who spoke with  ABC News and the AP, something that directly contradicts what officials had previously said.

And that’s just the beginning of the bullshit that the police and FBI appear to have deliberately spread to the pusillanimous mainstream media, who then passed it on to the brainwashed public.  Here are a few more ‘revelations’ that paint a VERY different picture of what happened last week in Boston:

• After the manhunt, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said the brothers were “heavily armed” and numerous reports detailed a fairly extensive arsenal. According to a New York Times  report from April 21 citing a law enforcement official, “The authorities found an M-4 carbine rifle … two handguns and a BB gun.” Now unnamed sources say there was only a SINGLE 9mm pistol between the two brothers. Indeed,  photos of the shootout suggest only one brother had a weapon.
• Boat gunfight? – Police initially reported that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fired on police when they found him hiding in a boat Friday night. “ It was back and forth … yes — he was firing,” Watertown Police Chief Ed Deveau told CNN Saturday. In its definitive “ tick tock” of the events, the Washington Post reported that the suspect inside the boat “was shooting back.” That has now been exposed as BULLSHIT!
• Yesterday, the Washington Post and the AP sheepishly admitted that Tsarnaev was  UNARMED when police found him after what what was described as a “gunfight”. The truth appears to be that police riddled the boat with bullets, threw in a few flash/bang grenades, and then decided to try and contact the defenseless Dzhokhar. In the process he was shot in the neck, and police then lied to the world that he had “shot himself”.
• 7 -Eleven and the MIT officer – Initial reports suggested the brothers tried to hold up a 7-Eleven, and then killed an MIT officer who either responded to the robbery or just happened to be in the area. But days later, authorities revealed that the holdup was committed by different suspects and the confusion was caused by the close proximity of the two events. There is still no evidence that the brothers actually killed the police officer.
• Carjacking – Some reports indicate that the person whom the brothers carjacked  escaped while they inexplicably went into a store to buy snacks, while others say the brothers  let the victim go because he wasn’t American. It’s also still unclear which brother stole the black SUV, and which drove the Honda that followed.

In short, there are so many holes in the official story, that the entire case against them should be thrown out on the grounds of insufficient evidence and evidence of intent to pervert the course of justice on the part of the police and FBI. Indeed, given that it has been revealed that the FBI had the two brothers on their files for years, the FBI should be thoroughly investigated for what role it played in the Boston Marathon bombings.

I personally called this scenario on the very day of the Marathon bombings and in subsequent posts. I facetiously encouraged readers to immediately declare that it was “Muslim terrorists”.  I received a considerable amount of flak from people for my “lack of sensitivity” to the bomb victims. Well, to be completely honest,  because I have seen this type of scenario over and over again, I have as much sympathy for the two brothers as I have for the bomb victims. While the bomb victims were not specifically targeted for death, the two Tsarnaev brothers, as FBI patsies, clearly were. While no one is dancing on the graves of the marathon bomb victims, millions effectively dancing on the grave of the elder brother and rejoicing at the effective torture and capture of the younger.

Every single person who, in any way, rejoiced at the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the brutalisation of his brother, Dhzokhar, and then reveled in the disgusting display of jingoism that followed, should be utterly ashamed of themselves. If another bombing takes place, YOU will share part of the blame.

Indiscriminate terrorist attacks against civilians have traditionally been used by authoritarian governments to spread fear in an effort to control the population

‘Marathon Monday’ will never be the same for Bostonians. The 117th Boston Marathon ended abruptly when two bombs went off in quick succession at 2.50 pm EST near the finish line on Boylston Street in downtown Boston. As of this writing, 3 people have been confirmed dead, 17 are critically wounded and another 176 have been treated for injuries. The bombs – spaced some 500 yards and 10 seconds apart – went off on the same side of the street, where many spectators had gathered to cheer runners on to the finish line.

Flying limbs and streets awash in blood from what were effectively anti-personnel bombs, designed to maximise trauma, are daily occurrences in countries occupied by the U.S. military, but such gruesome scenes aren’t usually seen on the streets of the ‘homeland’. Until now.

As the initial shock subsides to make way for an official narrative that will no doubt squeeze every ounce of political capital from this heinous deed, we want to point out some of the inconsistencies we’ve noticed thus far.

A marathon spectator, Fred Milgram, speaking to Irish ‘NewsTalk’ Radio, said that he was talking to Boston Marathon runner Tim Hare, who saw a trashcan explode. Milgram stated that the other bomb was in the Marathon Sports store close to the finish line. This contradicts ‘anonymous sources close to the investigation’ (remember them?) who claim that the explosives were contained in “6-liter pressure cookers and hidden in black duffel bags” left on the sidewalk. Milgram also stated that marathon runner Tim Hare claimed that there was a young man who had been wandering around warning people for hours that “something was going to happen”.

Another Boston marathon runner, Mike Heiliger, told the Squamish Chief newspaper that a woman holding several bags had been telling runners who were picking up their pre-race packages in downtown Boston on Saturday (April 13th) that they were going to die if they participated in the event.

“I was downtown on Saturday and you know, you see these people on the street and think it’s just some nutbar,” he told The Chief from his Boston hotel on Monday. “It was a little creepy because you can identify who the runners are and I heard her say to this runner two feet away from me that, ‘If you run tomorrow you’re going to die.’“

But the strange synchronicities don’t stop there. In an April 12th story, Firehouse.com reported that Boston EMS would deploy a new, off-the-shelf, lightweight mobile device for the first time at the Boston Marathon on April 15th. The device is “intended for use in mass-casualty situations and gives EMS personnel the ability to carry into crowds and assess a patient upon arrival, document in real-time, transmit data to transport units before they arrive, and other features.

‘Don’t worry, it’s just a training exercise’

No, that’s not Baghdad, that’s  downtown Boston.

As we’ve seen time and time again, ‘drills’ coinciding with ‘terror attacks’ are a constant theme in the major attacks that have been used to justify the ‘War on Terror’. From September 11th to the London bombings to the active shooter drills in schools near Sandy Hook last December, drills conducted by emergency services that switch from ‘passive exercise’ to ‘real-time active’ mode have proven to be tell-tale signs that leave enormous question marks over the official narratives of events.

University of Mobile’s Cross Country Coach, Ali Stevenson, who was near the finish line of the marathon when the explosions went off, said he thought it was odd there were bomb-sniffing dogs at the start and finish lines, as well as law enforcement spotters on the roofs of buildings.

“They kept making announcements to the participants – ‘Do not worry, it’s just a training exercise’,” he told CBS Local TV 15 News.
“Evidently, I don’t believe they were just having a training exercise,” Stevenson said. “It seemed like there was some sort of threat, but they kept telling us it was just a drill… I think they must have had some sort of threat or suspicion called in.” Stevenson has participated in many marathons in major metropolitan areas, but stated that he had never seen such heightened security presence at a race.

That is one possibility: that local police were tipped off about a security threat on the day of the race, combed the scene before and during the race as a precaution, and announced to participants that “it’s just a training exercise” to prevent panic and reassure people. But investigators have since emphatically stated that there was no intel or warning prior to the attack, suggesting that the drill really was planned in advance.

How DID he know that?!

Observing the stream of spurious and misleading claims disseminated by anonymous ‘law enforcement officials’ in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre – claims the real investigators later retracted – we have speculated that drills timed with such attacks provide ideal cover for ensuring that people working for the perpetrators can be placed on the scene to ensure that the ‘right information’ reaches the press (and therefore the nation) in the immediate aftermath of an attack. Most drill participants unwittingly respond to open invitations for emergency personnel from all sectors, and even from neighbouring jurisdictions, to participate in ‘improving emergency preparedness’, etc. All it takes is one or two (maybe more?) intel operatives to blend in with the emergency response effort in the chaotic aftermath; provided they have appropriate attire, I.D. indicating membership of one alphabet agency or another, and security clearance, just about anyone can justify their presence on the scene – if later questioned – on the basis that they were there to take part in the drill.

Remember the second armed man wearing black cammo gear and caught in the woods next to the Sandy Hook school? He was apprehended, taken into custody then later quietly released with the explanation that he was “an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town.”

And do you remember this guy from 9/11? His name is Mark Walsh. Mark was pulled aside by a Fox News reporter to give a statement immediately after the second plane crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. How did he manage to describe in succinct detail a scenario the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) would take four years to make up?

NIST got it wrong of course, but that’s a whole other story. The point is that it’s common practice for intel operatives to be placed on the scene of a false flag attack to quickly establish the official narrative for the media.

Sure enough, we’ve come across a couple of instances of this at the Boston Marathon bombing. This was reported in the UK’s Daily Mail within an hour of the bombs going off:

A source who was speaking with authorities told MailOnline that there were shotgun shells in two explosions, which sprayed onlookers and runners with massive amounts of shrapnel, though the statement has not been confirmed by authorities.

Today, April 16th, investigators have been able to determine that the bombs were packed with ball bearings to maximise the extent of devastating injuries, but how could someone have determined that fact so soon after the explosions?

Here’s another hot contender for deliberate disinfo, taken from the same article:

Police told the Boston Globe that they are still finding ‘secondary devices,’ and pleading with anyone still in the area to leave at once.

In fact, a later report ‘confirmed’ that 7 other bombs were found and that a ‘controlled explosion’ had taken place outside the JFK Library around 4.30pm. And yet today Reuters cites officials stating that no additional explosives were found in the area, leaving just the two fatal explosions. But yesterday, Boston police said during a press conference 2 hours after the explosions that there was a third explosion, the one at Boston’s JFK Library. Throwing more confusion in to the mix was the earlier report of a fire, “possibly caused by an incendiary device”, at the library just ten minutes after the 2 Boylston Street bombs went off.

No wonder Reuters today described the official revision from ‘multiple secondary bombs’ to just two bombs as “a development that could complicate the case”! ‘Complicating the case’, it would appear, is exactly what the stream of false reports is intended to do following a mass traumatic event.

The following ‘eyewitness’ – interviewed within an hour of the explosions – also appears a little too confident and knowledgeable about the nature of the bombs, to the extent that even the news anchor feels obliged to state that no one really knew, at that point, what had happened.

The 2013 Boston Marathon was themed in remembrance of the victims of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th 2012. 26 seconds of silence were observed before the race began. The race being 26.2 miles long, one mile was dedicated to each of the victims. Survivors and their families watched on from the VIP area in the spectator stand at the finish line where the first bomb went off yesterday, cheering on a group called ‘Newtown Strong’ – Newtown parents taking part to raise money for local charities. Below you see that the banner marking the final mile carries a dedication to Newtown.

Banner at mile 26 of the Boston marathon commemorating the dead children of Sandy Hook

While several people have been taken in for questioning, as yet no charges have been pressed and no group has claimed responsibility. There is no autistic, reclusive 20-year-old to blame. What we have instead is this powerfully symbolic connection to – and reminder of – the Sandy Hook atrocity. The timing of this attack – on Patriots’ Day, a civic holiday commemorating the anniversary of the first battles of the American Revolutionary War, and traditionally observed on the third Monday each April – is intended to remind the people why they need strong leaders to protect them from ‘random’ acts of terror. There is also the fact today, Tuesday 16th April, is Israeli national independence day.

Disgust is often the first reaction to the mere suggestion that authority figures alone stand to benefit from terror attacks. And yet, in the midst of their trauma, they ask: “WHO COULD DO SUCH A THING?” While we can’t name names, history tells us that the source always lies within “ramified networks of mutual pathological conspiracies poorly connected to the main social structure”, as described by Lobaczewski in Political Ponerology.

Many older Europeans ought to be familiar with the ‘Strategy of Tension in Europe in the ‘Cold War’ years. The strategy of tension, employed by US and European government agents, was a tactic that aimed to divide, manipulate and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist attacks.

The theory began with allegations that the United States government and the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 supported far-right terrorist groups in Italy and Turkey, where communism was growing in popularity, to spread panic among the population who would in turn demand stronger and more dictatorial governments. There is no reason to assume, or believe, that governments today are any less interested in controlling the people through fear and terror.

Don’t listen to the boolsheet that some people are spreading that the “gun nuts” did it because they were angry that the Marathon organisers had set up a special marker at the end of mile 26 to honor the Sandy Hook dead. That’s NOT true!

Look, it’s obvious that the whole “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” approach HASN’T WORKED! They ARE HERE, NOW! So come on folks, don’t hold back, don’t wait for the lamestream media to ‘grow a pair’ and tell the truth that we all already KNOW (I mean, is 12 years of mind-programming not enough for christ’s sake?!). We need to NOOK them out of their spider holes all around the US. Sure, that might cause some collateral damage to Americans, but, ya know, ain’t it worth it to protect our Freedumbs and Dimocrazy??

Until then, grab your guns (before they’re taken away by that foreign interloper in the White House) and let’s go git them thar Mooslims! We’ve had enough already!! You heard it first here.

First item: the rather bizarre fact that, over the past 2 weeks, there have been hundreds of intense and widespread wild fires in Western Scotland, Western England, Western Wales and Western Ireland. Here’s a small selection of recent reports.

Derry firefighters tackle a staggering 114 gorse fires in the past week.

April 10th, 2013

Firefighters in South West Wales tackle 20 grass fires overnight

April 9th, 2013

Firefighters have spent the night tackling 20 grass fires across the South West Wales region

Fires blaze across Galway, Mayo and Sligo

April 8th, 2013

Fires blazed across counties Galway, Mayo and Sligo over the weekend, with all parts of Co Galway affected

Massive gorse blaze in Devon

April 6th, 2013

A “massive” gorse blaze has erupted near Okehampton in Devon, covering six square kilometres (1,482 acres) of moorland.

Fire crews left exhausted after battling Scotland’s worst wildfires in almost 30 years

April 4th, 2013

a “tireless, prolonged and intense” battle against blazes which have spread rapidly across the Highlands and islands.

The official explanation for the fires, some of which are being called “the worst in 30 years”, is either landowners doing “controlled burns” of their land or ‘young people’ deliberately setting them. As yet however, there has been no influx of farmers or landowners reporting that their “controlled burns” got out of control, and there has been no explanation as to why the youth of Scotland, Wales and Ireland have all suddenly decided to start hundreds of fires at the same time.

In an apparent effort to normalise the situation, the BBC decided to call late March/early April in these areas “wildfire season”.

Wildfires are common in places like California, where it is generally dry and sunny for much of the year, but the Western coasts of the UK and Ireland!? I can’t think of a wetter place in Northern Europe, especially in recent years. Generally speaking, there is little tree cover in the areas that have been set alight with various grasses, gorse and heather dominating the landscape, which are all synonymous with boggy, peaty land fairly well saturated with water.

Even more perplexing is the fact that many of these fires occurred during, or in the immediate aftermath of, major snowfall and freezing temperatures over much of the UK and Ireland. Since when is frozen ground, rain and snow, or snow-melt, conducive to raging wildfires, regardless of whether the fire-starter was a mischievous youth or mother nature? At least the Irish Minister for Agriculture had the decency to admit that there was no information on the source of most of the fires.

So what’s the deal here? Well, coincidentally, during the 2-3 week period of the fires, several meteorites/fireballs were seen over large areas of the UK (not to mention large areas of the entire planet). Now, I’m not necessarily suggesting that meteorite fragments hitting the ground caused these fires, but meteorites have been known to cause other notable effects, specifically electrical effects, that could offer a more plausible explanation to the origin of some, or most, of the wildfire outbreaks over the past few weeks.

So, while the official natural causes of wildfire ignitions are lightning, volcanic eruption, sparks from rockfalls, and the mysterious “spontaneous combustion”, it seems to me that a fifth needs to be added (or maybe we can just amend “sparks from rockfalls” by adding the word ‘heavenly’ before ‘rockfalls’.

As for the second item; I think the titles and summaries of two articles will suffice:

Syrian Rebels pledge allegiance to al-Qaeda

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

and

White House signs off on new aid for Syrian rebels

President Barack Obama has signed off on a new package of nonlethal aid for Syrian rebels, U.S. officials tell CNN, signaling his administration is cautiously wading further into the conflict.

Other than providing evidence that we really do live in a make-believe modern world where the truth is nowhere to be found (except on this blog and Sott.net), and reality is what the established authorities say it is, wild fires and ‘al-qaeda’ have been linked before in a more direct way. From an article I wrote with Niall Bradley last year:

Compounding our suspicion that the US government is racing to put out more than just forest fires is this impeccably timed dispatch from the official ‘al Qaeda magazine’ Inspire, in which the CIA’s favourite ‘terrorists’ called for jihadists of the world to “torch forests as part of the Islamic war against the West.” The Department of Homeland Security apparently had their story planned in advance, claiming that for more than a decade “international terrorist groups and associated individuals have expressed interest in using fire as a tactic against the Homeland to cause economic loss, fear, resource depletion, and humanitarian hardship.” Pretty coincidental, eh? Those ‘al-qaeda’ terrorists really are very useful.

James Steele, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s ‘Mr. death-squad’ in Iraq.

Ten years ago, more or less to the day, I wrote the following on the then Signs of the Times page:

“As I sit here, a motion in the UK House of commons has been defeated by some 415 votes to 149. Not that any other result would have stopped the US, yet it signifies a full green light for the attack on Iraq. Bush’s ‘ultimatum’ to Saddam expires at midnight (GMT) Thursday (7pm EST). “Shock and Awe” (read “death and destruction”) may come at any time between now and then. We have at most one day, one day left to ponder at the edge of the abyss before the coming darkness engulfs us all.

As if to mock those who are against this illegal invasion and the lies and deceit that have been used to justify it, Ari Fleishcer today stated that, even if Saddam went into exile now, the US would still invade. It’s not about WMD, it’s about domination and the destructive principle. Perhaps Ari feels he can be more truthful now that it is a ‘done deal’, now that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair have told the peace-loving people of the world to go f**k themselves. It must have been hard for Fleischer to stand up in front of the world’s media every day and lie so profusely. (Then again, maybe not).

It’s hard for me to describe the feelings I have right now; there is an enormous sense of impending doom, mixed with anger at being made to feel so helpless in the face of such rampant psychopathy. Who are these men that they can simply decide to throw the world and its inhabitants into “war without end”, and who are we that they could, for so long, fool us with such pathetic and barely-disguised lies and know that we would just roll over and let them get away with it?”

Ten years ago today, the US and British military (mainly) launched ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ aka ‘Shock and Awe’ aka, Operation destroy the critical infrastructure of Iraq and initiate an overt ten year attack on, and occupation of, the Iraqi people. To date, at least 1.5 million Iraqi civilians have been murdered, and at least 5 million displaced from their homes as a direct result of ‘liberation’. Deadly car bombings continue to this day. Suffice to say, Iraq was not liberated, it was destroyed, and destroyed deliberately.

Last week, the UK Guardian newspaper published the results of a 15-month investigation by the Guardian and BBC Arabic. Euphemistically titled James Steele: America’s mystery man in Iraq, the video report presents fairly damning evidence that, in the immediate aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, the US Govt. and military began to assemble a 10,000 strong ‘Shia militia’ that, under US command, would be used to do three things:

• Kidnap, torture, murder and maim members of the Iraq resistance and those members of the Iraqi population that supported them.
• Plants bombs that targeted predominantly Sunni and Shia areas in an effort to divide the population and thereby any unified resistance to the US occupation.
• Create the impression of a  ‘civil war’ in Iraq that could be used by the US and European governments and militaries to justify the continued occupation of Iraq for ‘peace-keeping’ purposes.

While the 50 minute documentary is proof enough that Rumsfeld, Cheney, General Petraeus, the CIA et al consciously employed the services of former US army Colonel James Steele in the organisation of death squads against the Iraqi grass-roots resistance (a tactic that he, Steele, had used against resistance movements in South America in the 1970s and 90′s), it panders to the official narrative that ‘sectarianism’ in Iraq was the root cause of the carnage that unfolded.

The so-called ‘Shia militia’ used by the American government (with the help and advice of British and Israeli counter-insurgency ‘experts’) were recruited directly by the CIA and people like James Steele to carry out extra-judicial murders of anyone they could loosely identify as ‘resistance’ and also indiscriminate attacks on Iraqi civilians, Shia and Sunni alike. Some of these individuals, in another setting, would be called ‘al-qaeda’.  The point being that the US forces of occupation, along with their British counterparts, had long experience in what actually happens when you militarily invade and occupy a sovereign nation: the people resist, and not just one ethnic or religious group, but more or less the whole population. There is nothing quite like a foreign occupation for uniting a country.

The British pursued this policy in Northern Ireland. First they sought the ‘Criminalisation’ of the conflict (presenting all resistance as ‘terorrists’) and then the ‘Ulsterisation’ of the conflict, which sought to create the impression among the wider British and world public that the struggle in Northern Ireland was an internal ‘sectarian conflict’ with the British playing the role of the frustrated ‘peace-keepers‘. Both strategies were outlined in an unpublished 1975 British strategy paper titled ‘The Way Ahead‘. As part of the effort to create the reality of a ‘civil war’, death squads were used to attack civilians from both communities (Catholic and Protestant).

In Iraq, these US-controlled ‘Shia’ death squads have been operating in much the same way, and while the media is content to portray them as ordinary Shias motivated by religious bias, they are in fact hired thugs who value only the money that they are paid by their US masters and the promise of positions of power in a future Iraqi government.

Throughout the US occupation of Iraq, the main representative of Shias in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, has repeatedly called for unity among Shia and Sunni Iraqis in the face of foreign occupation and deception in the form of efforts to divide the resistance. These efforts included the bombing of bridges in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities in an effort to prevent communication between Iraqis and the use of widespread terror tactics to force Sunni and Shia Iraqis to flee their homes. And the bombing of religious shrines, either Shia or Sunni, in an effort to create the reality of ‘sectarian strife’.

In short; today, Iraq is in ruins. The country has been ripped apart socially, mainly by way of the literal ripping apart of tens of thousands of civilians, with many being first brutally and systematically tortured by US-sponsored death squads. Hundreds of thousands more have been summarily murdered, either by the bombs of US aircraft, the bullets of US soldiers, or those ubiquitous and very effective “car bombs” planted by US operatives and their hired thugs.

Operation Iraqi Freedom brought death and destruction to an entire country of 26 million people. And it was deliberately and meticulously planned that way.

A couple of ‘f**king crazies’, past and present.
Lemnitzer and Rumsfeld.

I’ve been reading James W. Douglas’ excellent book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters. If you have time to read only one book on JFK, this is the one to pick. Douglas presents a detailed picture of Kennedy’s all-too-short time in office that leaves the reader in no doubt about how and why he was eventually killed, and who did it. In addition, it’s very well-written.

Douglas recounts that, during the summer of 1961, Kennedy was being harassed by the militant members (i.e. all) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to approve the use of nuclear weapons on Laos and Berlin, against the ‘Communists’ (of course). After one  meeting where the Joint Chiefs reiterated their psychopathic demands, Kennedy just walked out and, looking back at generals and admirals left in the Cabinet Room, said to an aide: “These people are crazy“.

Indeed they were.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time was Lyman Lemnitzer. Lemnitzer was the mad ‘genius’ who came up with Operation Northwoods in 1962, a plan designed to pave the way for an invasion of Cuba as part of the overall plan to supposedly ‘win the Cold War’.

Lemnitzer’s plan (which was, according to him, supported by the entire Joint Chiefs), included:

A series of well-coordinated incidents to take place around the US Marine base at Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces. Specifically:

Land friendly Cubans in uniform ‘over the fence’ to stage an attack on the base

Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base

Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires

Burn aircraft on the air base

Lob mortar shells from outside of the base into the base. Damage to installations

Capture ‘Cuban’ assault teams approaching from the sea

Capture a militia group that storms the base

A ‘remember the Maine‘ incident was to be arranged by blowing up a US ship Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba. The US would follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to ‘evacuate’ remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

General Lemnitzer also urged the Secretary of Defence to support a campaign of terrorism within the United States as a necessary evil in overcoming Communist Cuba. He stated:

“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities, and even in Washington. The targets of the campaign could be Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.”

Lemnitzer (and the Joint Chiefs)  also suggested “sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees en-route to Florida” and blaming Cuba and “exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, then arresting ‘Cuban agents’” and “releasing prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement”.

In response to all of this the US would “commence large-scale military operations against Cuba”.

Lemnitzer submitted his plans to Kennedy’s Sec. of Defense, Robert McNamara, at a meeting on March 13th 1962. There is no record of McNamara’s response, but, according to a March 16th  White House meeting, Kennedy told Lemnitzer and other key advisers that he could not foresee any circumstances “that would justify and make desirable the use of American forces for overt military action” in Cuba.

This is an important point. People tend to think of ‘Operation Northwoods’ as an aberration, a crazy scheme concocted by a few unhinged US military leaders, and that it would never have been implemented. Based on the evidence however, it seems that the only reason ‘Operation Northwoods’ did not become a part of US covert operation history, was because John Kennedy was president at the time.Certainly, since Kennedy’s death, there have been many Operation Northwoods-type operations staged by the CIA.

Kennedy’s repeated efforts to prevent individuals within the US military and the CIA from declaring nuclear war on the Soviet Union (and by definition the entire world), not to mention his attempt to end US involvement in Vietnam and Indochina, was what ultimately got him killed by those same individuals.

‘Peace for all time’. A nice thought. Pity about the f**king crazies running the show since you were murdered.

From the point of view of this military-industrial-intelligence complex, Kennedy’s ‘crime’ was that he was suing for peace with the Soviet Union (and therefore peace for the entire world) at a time when the psychopaths in that nefarious complex had their sights set on massive power, control and wealth that could only be obtained if the USA had an arch-enemy against which it had to ‘fight’ to ‘protect the free world’.

In his book, I think Douglas misses this important point in his understanding of the nature of the forces against which Kennedy fought, and lost.  Douglas repeatedly makes reference to the idea that Kennedy was fighting against a block of military and CIA leaders who saw it as their duty to defeat the ‘evil’ of Communism and thereby save the world. For me, this suggests that these architects of our modern world were driven by misguided, yet ultimately ‘good’, intentions. I don’t believe that to be the case.

The block of military, industrial and CIA leaders who repeatedly sought to undermine, and eventually murdered, JFK were, in my opinion, well aware that the idea of a ‘Red menace’ to the West was pure theater for the benefit of the public and the lower level military and intelligence grunts. They did not, therefore, genuinely believe in their official argument for maintaining the frigid nature of US-Soviet relations. They were, however, fully cognizant of the fact that the idea of a pervasive ‘Commie threat’ was absolutely necessary to justify their plans for imperial expansion and domination of as much of the globe as possible. For but one example; how was the invasion and ultimate economic colonization of most of SE Asia to be achieved with no Commie threat to speak of?

The peace in all time, for all men and women that Kennedy so dearly wanted to see blossom around the world was seen, quite correctly, by the psychopathic war mongers and conscienceless human beings that had, by then, insinuated themselves into positions of covert power in the USA as a direct threat to their dreams of war, conflict and profit at any cost. In his American University address on June 10th 1963, Kennedy stated that he saw “peace as the necessary rational end of rational men.” He failed to fully understand that his true enemy wasn’t just irrational men in his own government and military, it was a cabal of psychopaths in his own government and military to whom the idea of world peace was as alien as the idea of destroying the world with nuclear weapons to save it from a ‘Communist threat’ was to Kennedy.

Kennedy referred to the Joint Chiefs (and their CIA backers) as “crazy”. When they murdered Kennedy, those ‘crazies’ took complete control of the future of the USA and, to a large extent, the world. Since then, they have gone on to implement their macabre vision of ‘foreign policy’ in the form of many Operation Northwoods’ in many countries around the world.  It was these ‘crazy’ individuals and their ideological and genetic descendants (by the 21st Century they had become ‘f**king crazies according to Colin Powell) that brought us Operation Northwoods on steroids, aka the 9/11 attacks, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks on Libya and Syria, and the wholesale slaughter of the people of those countries via death squads, ‘al-aqeda’ and drones.

The problem of the lack of a ‘Commie threat after 1990 to justify these imperial aggressions was easily solved; as you may have noticed, they simply invented a new one.

Dim-witted patsies, easy prey for British ‘war on terror’-mongers

More ‘Muslim terror plot’ horse-shit from the British authorities was revealed this week at the trial of three Birmingham men who were accused of planning a “mass suicide bomb plot” that would have been “worse than 7/7″ according to hysterical British police and mainstream media. About 39 years ago, six Irish Catholics were tortured by British authorities and forced to confess to planting bombs in two pubs in Birmingham. Their deliberately and obviously wrongful convictions were overturned after they had spent 16 years in a British prison.

Reading the newspaper headlines you could be forgiven for thinking that British authorities had thwarted the worst criminal terrorist plot to wage mass murder on the British public since the Nazi blitz. If you look a little deeper than the headlines however, you’ll quickly realise that this is just more evidence that British intelligence agencies (like their US counterparts) dedicate themselves to finding young, (usually unemployed) British Muslims who are low on intelligence and high on personal hubris and bravado to parade in front of the British and World public as ‘evidence’ of a ‘Muslim terror threat’ and, therefore, why the British public should look to the British establishment for protection. 

As Craig Murray notes, these three blow-hards will be sentenced to life imprisonment for nothing more than thought crime [when a much shorter sentence for idiocy is appropriate]. They had made no concrete plans to carry out any attacks and instead spent their time crafting fanciful scenarios of what they would like to do based on their rather immature understanding of how to be a terrorist. For example, they threw around the idea of attaching blades to a car and driving it through a crowd of people.

In the tape recordings of bugged conversations Irfan Naseer, 31, is heard saying: ‘I feel like I’ve been driving a monster truck, you know.’

His alleged accomplice, Irfan Khalid, 27, replies: ‘Yeah, put blades on the front and trample on everyone.’ Khalid then tells Naseer and Ashik Ali that if they did that they would not get shot for a long time. Asked why, Khalid said: ‘You know what they said, the brothers in the magazine, they said stick thingy on… at the front, like you know, erm, blade… just weld it on and run into people. Just drive into people in a crowded area.”

I’m pretty sure that the only place that idea has was taken seriously was in a Mad-Max movie. This is the real extent of the ‘Muslim terror threat’ in the UK: a few unemployed village idiots who want to attack ‘the Brits’ by ‘sticking a thingy, an, erm, blade, on a monster truck’. But ignore all that and just ‘believe’ that the ‘terror threat’ is real.

During his police interview following arrest, Ashik Ali told detectives about plans to get hold of guns and a possible target of soldiers.

INTERVIEWING OFFICER: “What were you gonna do with a gun?”

Ali “I’d shoot people.”

IO: “Your, your plan was to have a suicide vest and shoot people?”

Ali: ” Yeah.”

IO: “And where was this gonna happen?”

Ali: “That didn’t really plan that didn’t. That was in May, April. Soldiers and that. But that was an idea in the head; that was what they wanted to do but nothing actually took place.”

IO: “So, the plan was to have a suicide vest, a gun. Have you got a gun?”

Ali: “No, I haven’t.”

In fact, no one of the three had anything that would have allowed them to carry out their wiley-coyote-esque plans.  Yet the mainstream media has loudly and repeatedly declared that the three were “guilty of mass bomb plot”.  Even a BBC journalist was moved to comment that:

“during the months of evidence at Woolwich Crown Court, the three men came across as utter incompetents. They even laughed among themselves about the grim satirical film, Four Lions, in which useless bombers are seeking martyrdom by blowing themselves up.”

In a sane society, the details of the life conditions and mental state and capabilities of these individuals would be taken into consideration in assessing their culpability and what charges should be brought against them. In a sane society, the statement to police by one of the three that, if his two fellow plotters managed to find women who would have them, their anger with the world may have eventually gone away, would be taken seriously (or at least laughed at as the words of a alleged ‘committed jihadi’). During his trial Irfan Naseer was pretty open about the fact that the hours of secret recordings of him talking about terrorism and bomb-making were all, in his own words, “nonsense”.

But the ‘war on terror’ had never been about sanity or rational thought, and it’s not even really about unjustly convicting people like these three unfortunates. What the war on terror is really all about is propaganda, the war for the mind, and access to the ‘belief center’, of the average citizen.

While these three guys serve as grist to keep the British and American government’s ‘war on terror’ mill turning and producing evidence of a ‘real terrorist threat’, the real goal is to continually force-feed this ‘evidence’ of a ‘real terrorist threat’ to the British and world public.

So what really pisses me off about these cases (and there have been many), is not the fact that the British justice system is massively corrupt (after all, injustice in the legal system in the UK is the norm rather than an exception and many people every year are unjustly imprisoned), but that, by destroying the lives of these three men, the British establishment is attempting to indirectly brainwash millions of other people.

You may think that being brainwashed is a lesser evil than being unjustly locked up for life, but fear-based brainwashing of the masses that forces them to look to the ‘authorities’ for ‘protection’ is what allows for corruption in the halls of power on this planet to reach a level where our entire global society is placed at risk of collapse under the weight of the massive lie that our ‘civilization’ has become.