1:05:00 PM
Yet another War-On-Terror sham
scam by the powers that be.
Introduction
Thirteen years has passed since that fateful Tuesday
morning, one that for many Americans, crystallized a suspected
link between Islam and violence. In that time, sadly enough,
unfavorable views of Islam have increased steadily. Out of
collective national heartache, a rising climate of hate and mistrust
has grown.
Two years after 19 of the world’s 1.3 billion
Muslims attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon, an ABC News
poll found that 34 percent of Americans believed that Islam
encourages violence. Five years later, in 2008, despite the rarity
of religiously inspired attacks, that number rose sharply to 48
percent. Today, the pattern of skepticism continues. A Washington
Post-ABC News poll released in September 2010 suggested that half of
Americans harbor negative views of Islam, the highest number recorded
since the al-Qaeda attacks in 2001.
Correspondingly in the midst of escalating anti Muslim sentiment, reported hate crimes against Muslims appear to be on the rise.
From 2000 to 2001, hate crimes in the United States against people of Middle Eastern descent increased by more than 324 percent, with 354 attacks in 2000 and 1,501 reported attacks in 2001.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) noted that hate crimes against Muslims in the United States rose by more than 50 percent from 2003 to 2004. And by 2009, not much had changed.
Pew Research released a report saying that “Eight years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Americans see Muslims as facing more discrimination inside the U.S. than any other major religious group.” Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, said in the fall of 2010, “I have been working on behalf of other Muslims for more than 30 years and I have never seen it like this, not even after the 9/11 attacks. Hate rhetoric often leads to hate crimes, and I think that’s what we’re seeing now.”
Correspondingly in the midst of escalating anti Muslim sentiment, reported hate crimes against Muslims appear to be on the rise.
From 2000 to 2001, hate crimes in the United States against people of Middle Eastern descent increased by more than 324 percent, with 354 attacks in 2000 and 1,501 reported attacks in 2001.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) noted that hate crimes against Muslims in the United States rose by more than 50 percent from 2003 to 2004. And by 2009, not much had changed.
Pew Research released a report saying that “Eight years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Americans see Muslims as facing more discrimination inside the U.S. than any other major religious group.” Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, said in the fall of 2010, “I have been working on behalf of other Muslims for more than 30 years and I have never seen it like this, not even after the 9/11 attacks. Hate rhetoric often leads to hate crimes, and I think that’s what we’re seeing now.”
We need look no further than this past summer as proof
of that. The Sikh temple shooting — where worshippers were
not targeted for their religion but for their dark skin, turbans,
beards, and foreign names — as well as mosque vandalisms, arsons, and
assaults on Muslim Americans are evidence of a growing climate of hate.
Despite efforts on the part of President George W.
Bush, President Obama, various members of Congress, and
American Muslim organizations to distinguish between violent acts of
individual Muslims and the quintessential nature of their
Muslim faith, such endeavors have often been overpowered by a
counter-narrative that exploits realistic fears and
represents Islam as a violent threat to not only American values but
the future of America itself.
The Islamic bogeyman represents the newest chapter
in America’s long history of monster stories. Given the vast displays
of violence committed by Muslim extremists, such an emergence only
seemed inevitable. Like the threat of the Bavarian Illuminati in the
late 1790s, the alleged infiltration of Catholics in the 1850s, and fears
of a Communist takeover throughout the 1900s, actual world events
have provoked the outbreak of fears in certain quarters of the country and
the fear of Islam is no exception.
But also like the monsters of the nation’s past, the Islamic threat has been seized upon by a cadre of individuals—an industry of Islamophobia—that use lurid imagery, emotive language, charged stereotypes, and repetition, to exacerbate fears of a larger-than-life, ever-lurking Muslim presence.
But also like the monsters of the nation’s past, the Islamic threat has been seized upon by a cadre of individuals—an industry of Islamophobia—that use lurid imagery, emotive language, charged stereotypes, and repetition, to exacerbate fears of a larger-than-life, ever-lurking Muslim presence.
This industry is largely, though not exclusively, comprised
of ideologically driven, right-wing activists, many of whom identify
themselves as evangelical Christians and have found a chorus of
like-minded enthusiasts within the Tea Party movement and various
political and social fringe groups. Despite their peripheral
location within American society, their outcries over a suspected Muslim
takeover have gained traction within more mainstream, moderate
communities.
In the summer of 2010, a rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment
and violence swept through the United States, generated by a controversy
that surrounded the construction of a Muslim community center in lower
Manhattan.
Two blocks away from the site of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center, Park51, as the development would be called, reawakened
the suppressed emotions of a nation deeply wounded by the tragedy.
Opponents of the project cited its location as their primary point of
contention. For them, building a “monster mosque” so close to Ground Zero
was offensive because Muslims, however deviant in their beliefs, were
responsible for the massacre there nine years before.
And, because the developers of Park51 were Muslims too, there must have been a link—the Quran found in Mohammad Atta’s bag contained the same verses that would be preached to Muslims attending worship in the building’s mosque, they believed.
And, because the developers of Park51 were Muslims too, there must have been a link—the Quran found in Mohammad Atta’s bag contained the same verses that would be preached to Muslims attending worship in the building’s mosque, they believed.
The center was also, according to some, an
omen that warned of a larger Muslim takeover. By infiltrating lower Manhattan,
they claimed, Muslims would use the mosque as a command center
for terrorism and dispatch extremists all across the heartland of the
United States, uprooting governments state by state until Sharia law
replaced the Constitution.
The conspiratorial theories of historical monster
conquests reemerged at Park 51 and have also reemerged in other
similar public paroxysms over “creeping Sharia” law, “stealth jihad,”
and “terror babies.” But unlike the earlier historic scares
which were born in church pulpits, on front porches, and in
government offices, the tide of recent anti-Muslim
sentiment was nurtured on the Internet where, with the single click
of a mouse, it went viral, spreading to every corner of the
country overnight. The Islamophobia Industry: How the
Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims
The Woolwich Terror Hoax
(Video) Kent Freedom Movement investigate the Woolwich false flag psy ops PT1
A short walk from the Woolwich DLR station
takes you to a moving tribute scene, a huge mass of flowers, national flags and
various gifts, to a ‘Fuselier Guard’ whose death became known on 22nd
May: Drummer Lee Rigby. Deep are the passions aroused by this death, which have
echoed around our world.
We are here dealing with a constructed
terror event where nothing is what it appeared to be: actors act their
parts and the media report as they are told.The primal War-on-Terror theme has been powerfully
reinforced by this mirage, as ‘the Phantom Menace’ strikes again.
We here go through the sequence of apparent
events, examining a series of what I will call Absolute Physical
Impossibilities.
A car ends up on the pavement of a busy
street under some trees. Because of the way it is facing it would have had to
veer over from the other side of the road, having just emerged from a
traffic-lights crossing, somehow waiting for a brief gap in the traffic to
cross over – and bump up onto a good 4” pavement, then somehow drive along
until, whump! It hit DLR (Drummer Lee Rigby). He was walking away from them
just by a traffic sign held up by two posts, wearing a ‘Help the Heroes’
T-shirt.
First Absolute Physical Impossibility:
this could only have been synchronised by an overhead helicopter, to see DLR
walking along, see the gap in the traffic, see the lights changing, and then
give the car its instructions. There was no such helicopter.
On the story we are given, there is no way
the car driver could have identified DLR, given the brief second or so between
possibly seeing him and deciding to drive across the road. And yet the whole
point of the story, is that ‘terrorists’ killed a British soldier.
Had such a car been coming towards him bumping
up onto on the pavement, an army lad would have been trained to sense it behind
him, and he only needed to spring forward a yard or so, other side of the big
traffic sign, to have been safe.
Where you might expect the car to have
crossed over the road there is a lamp post, ten yards or so from the
afore-mentioned traffic sign, so the car would have had to skirt round that
lamp post – then further down is a railing, near the traffic lights. We’re
talking about Artillery Road, Greenwich where this whole drama was constructed.
Skid-marks on the pavement, coming from the
tyres (see below, 2nd picture) – or possibly trails of car oil – point towards
that lamp-post, not shown in this image. It could not have happened!
Second Absolute Physical Impossibility:
the car had its whole front crumpled up, as if it had hit something, inches
from the poles of the traffic sign right in front – yet those poles were
untouched, with no scratch from any bump. That has to be a stage setup.
You can’t see the poles now, they are choc-a-bloc with flowers, messages etc
but fortunately Morris Herman (‘Morris108′) went there early and reported this
central fact.
Woolwich Defies Common Sense - Morris (Video)
And we are supposed to believe the two ‘evil
terrorists’ then emerged unharmed from the car, one brandishing a meat cleaver
and the other a gun? Why slam the front of the car into something if you have a
gun you are intending to use?
On a busy city street, we are supposed to
believe that no-one took any photos of this whole sequence of events?
Third Absolute Physical Impossibility:
DLR is lying knocked over from the car bump, then one killer starts chopping
his head off, causing death. But – there is no blood. Eight pints of red
blood should have spurted out onto the pavement.
Picture: You can here two undamaged posts
close-up (holding up a traffic sign) – which the car supposedly bumped into.
You can see NO BLOOD on pavement. You can also see the lamp-past alluded to
(with ‘Signal Timings’ on it) and behind it the railings, so the car would have
had to come between these two.
While there is no blood on the pavement,
shown by close-up photos of the scene, there is blood seen from an overhead
police-helicopter photo. The latter has to be fake. Quoting here Jim
Stone:
“When the helicopter flies over, you can see
blood where they supposedly dragged their victim from under the bushes to the
road. That blood is NOT THERE in the videos shot before the helicopter arrived,
and ALL video is AFTER they drag their supposed victim into the road. That´s
one obvious set up team blooper. In Hollywood, that’s what is called a
continuity error.” (May 24th)
The air photo supposedly shows a trail of
blood as the body was dragged out into the road. Murderers usually try to hide
themselves after committing the act – but, O no, not this one.
In the Daily
Mirror video (part 2, v30 seconds) note various people standing
around while the body is heaved out into the road. The road has to have
been sealed off in advance – at 2.20 pm on 22 May. That is the only way
something could have been dragged into the middle of a busy London road.
WOOLWICH MASSACRE DECEPTION EXPOSED (Video)
All this time there has not been a single
photo taken by a civilian passing by.
Fourth absolute physical impossibilityThe corpse supposedly lies in the middle of the road, with no drop of blood
around it – for twenty minutes, while the two perps (or rather, patsies) hang
around waiting for the police to arrive. What were they waiting for?
2nd picture: again, not a drop of blood to be
seen! This time you can just see the traffic sign which the car supposedly
bumped into. Casual conversations are here meant to be going on, after a
soldier has been hacked to death: clearly no-one expects the Fuselier guard to
come storming out of the nearby barracks!
In no photos can the head / lack of head be seen. The t-shirt appears pulled up to possibly cover over the head.
The army does not arrive! This is right outside their barracks, one of their soldiers hacked to death by a ‘wicked terrorist.’ DLR was supposedly coming from London back to his barracks, so he would have had to carry ID to get in. But, the evening paper said merely that he was believed to be a soldier.
Then the identifying was done by his teeth? This is an impossible storyline. We express this as – Fifth Absolute Physical Impossibility: If DLR was returning to his barracks, he would have to have had some physical ID. Then he would have been identified and the army barracks told. They would have stormed out. If the army did not come out, after half an hour, it basically means that DLR did not die there – he was already dead.
We see a large white lorry at one end of the road (away from the traffic lights) and a bus containing schoolchildren at the other end, and the road is blocked off for traffic. The bus has been parked opposite the lamp-post alluded to above- there is no bus-stop there.
The Rant
The ‘rant’ by Michael Adibelajo is the most famous image of the whole constructed sequence: the photoshopped blood on his hands, the lady-with-shopping walking by, his MI5 programming.This was presumably shot well before whatever happened at Woolwich on May 22nd: to quote the perceptive ‘September Clues:
In no photos can the head / lack of head be seen. The t-shirt appears pulled up to possibly cover over the head.
The army does not arrive! This is right outside their barracks, one of their soldiers hacked to death by a ‘wicked terrorist.’ DLR was supposedly coming from London back to his barracks, so he would have had to carry ID to get in. But, the evening paper said merely that he was believed to be a soldier.
Then the identifying was done by his teeth? This is an impossible storyline. We express this as – Fifth Absolute Physical Impossibility: If DLR was returning to his barracks, he would have to have had some physical ID. Then he would have been identified and the army barracks told. They would have stormed out. If the army did not come out, after half an hour, it basically means that DLR did not die there – he was already dead.
We see a large white lorry at one end of the road (away from the traffic lights) and a bus containing schoolchildren at the other end, and the road is blocked off for traffic. The bus has been parked opposite the lamp-post alluded to above- there is no bus-stop there.
The Rant
The ‘rant’ by Michael Adibelajo is the most famous image of the whole constructed sequence: the photoshopped blood on his hands, the lady-with-shopping walking by, his MI5 programming.This was presumably shot well before whatever happened at Woolwich on May 22nd: to quote the perceptive ‘September Clues:
they probably just filmed the guy as they would an interview, TV show or scene from a movie, on the corner of a regular street, somewhere in London. Onlookers and passer-bys don’t see anything out of the ordinary, just a guy giving an interview on a street corner. ..Blood on his hands added in post production.
You can see the extra red-glowing kerb-lines
as his red, red hands move about. See the blurred red coming off his hands and
sticking onto the trees behind him! You can see the extra red-glowing
kerb-lines as his red, red hands move about. See the blurred red coming off his
hands and sticking onto the trees behind him!
http://kentfreedommovement.com/video/woolwich-massacre-deception-exposed-special-edition-22-may-2013
Note, no red on his clothes after hacking someone’s head off!
(See here for how the fake blood was added)
WOOLWICH FAKE BLOOD ADDED VIDEO STILLS (Video)
All the normal traffic on this busy road has
been blocked off.
There are two different camera angles, ie two
persons were standing a few feet in front of M.A. as he ranted at them, filming
him. Watch the video as the old lady walks by with her shopping trolley,
unperturbed. What did she see? I suggest she saw no red colour on his
hands, nor was there any corpse in the road. And why did they not re-film
it, after she had ruined the whole effect, turning it into a joke? Answer: M.A.
has to have been programmed by MI5 to rant in this manner, which he did very
effectively, however it might not have been easy to get him to ‘do it again.’
Sixth Absolute Physical Impossibility: The
carelessly-photoshopped ‘blood’ moves around M.A.s hands,
fades away & returns, at one point gets stuck onto the trees behind him.
May 25th: A longtime friend of M.A.was in
the BBC Newsnight studio, telling how he believed
M.A. had been tortured and raped by MI5 agents – the security police turn up
during te interview, and arrest him as he comes out. See Nafeez
Ahmed’s comments here. His brother worked
for MI6 for years.
M.A.’s ex-girlfriend Justine Rigden testified
to how he
had been ‘lovely’ and just a ‘normal boy’. School friends
testify to how he had lived a Western lifestyle, growing up in Essex as a
Christian with hard-working Nigerian immigrant parents.
Bad actors arrive
Twenty minutes after the ‘event’ some police
lookalikes arrive, but not in real police cars (http://kentfreedommovement.com/video/woolwich-massacre-deception-exposed-special-edition-22-may-2013
Part 2, 4 mins) and are soon firing blanks around the place. One of them is
wearing white, trainer-type shoes (5.30 mins) Their arrival is the cue for ‘the
terrorists’ to start running towards the police car.
How likely is
that? These have to be programmed characters. They do not threaten to attack,
but supposedly the police open fire. Note the unlikely way in which a ‘bad
actor’ waves his legs about, after supposedly having been shot and lying on the
ground (7.20 mins) See the dummy-type human figure dragged into the road by
several people (Part 2, 45 seconds)
The Inquest would not comment
upon the cause of death. The one thing we need to know from an Inquest, is how
long the corpse had been dead. When the court case began of the 22-year old
suspect, the cause of death was reported as from ‘multiple injuries.’ If he
died from having his head hacked off, why would the inquest not confirm it?
When its all over, ‘The police remove a body
bag from the scene:’ this
image shows a yellow body bag rather too small, or the body
would be quite folded up if it fit into there, and judging by how the two men
are carrying it, it does not seem to weigh much.
That bag does not have the
weight of a human body. This reinforces the impression from the Mirror footage
(above) that some sort of dummy was put into the road. That’s why it didn’t
bleed. That’s why no pictures show its head, it was not DLR. Whenever DLR died,
rigor mortis might by then have set, so it was not convenient to use his dead body.
In a normal murder scene one would expect to see the body lifted onto a stretcher and put carefully into an ambulance, for the post-mortem. It would not be crumpled up into a 3-foot body bag! The men carrying it do not look like police.How strange that we have heard nothing about a funeral of DLR. One would expect it to be supported by his Fuselier guard regiment – with so many moving tributes on both sides of Artillery road even stretching round the corner, and for this to be given great publicity.
I predict that the two suspects in this case will remain forever silent, we will never be allowed to hear their view of what happened.
See also, ‘Queries over Woolwich terror event.’
Mirror
