Is European Terrorism as Simple as it is Portrayed by Government?
Armed police new breed of Lifeguard, Scarborough?
For those of us that like to keep a watchful eye on current events, the past year or so has contained plenty that may have made us wish we had "gone to Spec-Savers", as the saying goes. Another aphorism along the same lines may also be appropriate: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King." The greatest con would be if the organs of light, actually created the darkness in which the majority stumbled. Is this what actually persists in the UK and elsewhere? Is government and media in cahoots to knowingly portray an inaccurate picture of events both at home and abroad, and if so why? There is certainly strong evidence this is the case.
Take for example the skewed presentation of the recent election campaign in which Jeremy Corbyn was almost uniformly denigrated and misrepresented. Yet despite this fact, whenever he spoke on the campaign trail he attracted large crowds, largely unreported by the media, in stark contrast to the reception and treatment of Mrs May's outings. Why was the press so uniformly opposed to Corbyn but supportive of May, even when the context of a Conservative win could hardly be conducive to press and Internet freedom? This is yet another indication of a sophisticated psychological ploy to make the reader believe that voting in a certain way ensures the very opposite of what is intended.
The same sort of twisted logic applies the whole "war on terror" and the "terrorist threat", used to justify the very measures that are anathema to a free and democratic society. Can anyone be taken in by a logic that requires heavily armed police to patrol the beaches of Scarborough as one heavily publicised event revealed, or similar individuals on commuter trains, this apparently to "reassure" the public. How is it expected to reassure any level-headed person? Is the reasoning that a potential bomber or crazed knife attacker is less likely to take the 6.45 from Reading if he knows there is a remote chance of meeting a para-military person walking down the central isle?
The logical terrorist who plans would ensure time and location were both safe (unless of course he/she intended to destroy themselves in the process) and the crazed killer by their very nature is disinterested in risk. Of course as happened in so many recent cases the suggestion is made that deadly force saved lives and everyone therefore swallows the irrational extension that we need an armed cop on every corner just in case.
Clearly the policy of heavily armed police and the publicity surrounding them, must be for a quite unrelated reason. Not only is the public persuaded this is an essential move in its own interest to ensure its safety, these deadly weapons and the subtle mental shift that must accompany them if they are to work, is sold as positively 'soft, cuddly and child friendly', when nothing will disguise from any sensible person, the exact opposite is the case. In this way a major change in policy and policing practice is introduced with virtually no democratic debate or oversight and is almost welcomed by the public as a necessary and good thing.
No one seems to question how in the real world, the need for such weapons is extremely rare and largely inappropriate. How in real cases they have failed to prevent an event subsequently used to justify them. Nor how every policeman trained in firing guns and carrying them around so obviously, is one less policeman available to investigate a burglary or respond to an incident.
It is hard not to perceive a dark agenda in all of this on the back of strangely conveniently timed "terrorist events" actively used to support a repressive and intimidating policy, of which heavily armed police and soldiery is just a facet. I believe thanks to the Internet, but no thanks to the mainstream media, this awareness is slowly but surely sinking in to the majority. It reflects itself in the distrust and low regard government and politicians are now held. It also reflects itself in the unpredictable election results in America, France and Britain.
Reeve Vanneman - University of Maryland 1950 - 2000. What is it now?
In the mid '90's polls in America indicated an increasing majority did not trust its government and specifically what it said about 9/11, yet still the myths are perpetuated both sides of the Atlantic. The truth is seems not only cannot be admitted, lies continue to be told in a collusion between government and media, and any doubters are dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" and mad men.
This in fact is the mad world of deception in which we find ourselves and which renders each and every "terrorist event" immediately suspect. Yet still the media acts as an unquestioning channel of what ever the official account is of such events, never following up lines of enquiry or submitting the alleged "facts" to stringent examination. As a result all anomalies and conflicting or suspicious details are 'swept under the carpet', and the prevailing official explanation becomes the only one. And woe betide anyone who seeks to question it.
Time and again the careers, even lives, are sacrificed by those who attempt to challenge the official line. Few in Parliament have attempted it. Stephen Milligan, Robin Cook, George Galloway, Clare Short, Baroness Warsi, Gerald Kaufman and even Simon Danczuk come to mind as few examples in the political sphere. We think of David Kelly, Gareth Williams, Craig Murray, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange in other areas that have challenged government accounts and suffered the various consequences.
McCain in talks with the leader of ISIS in Syria
These are extreme examples but of course there are legions more. For the majority, dissenters in the West are generally tolerated just so long as they have little impact. How long in the context of a campaign against "Fake News" and now the allegation that the Internet is facilitating terrorism, however fatuous that may be, this will continue, waits to be seen. In the meantime the majority of the public seems content with the official narrative of ISIS terrorism being an all pervading and unprecedented threat requiring extreme measures to control it.
Never mind all the suspicious factors that are apparent, starting with the now well known deceit about ISIS itself, a created proxy of American/Israeli/Saudi/British/French policy to undermine the Syrian state. So at its very foundation, if ISIS is to be blamed for all these European attacks, the trail leads right back to these self same powers acting through their secret agencies.
It is historical fact well known fact the Mujaheddin was set up by America to fight the Russians and how there is a clear developmental line from that through the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, IS, Daesh blamed both for the events of 9/11 and all the mayhem since, when in fact the true blame rests with the American policy that has created them.
But even if you are unpersuaded by this powerful implication of the true creators of European terrorism, you surely cannot have missed all the other factors that point to western government involvement in the incidents:
the fact that Israeli intelligence was clearly able to predict them because it has its agents on sight able to distribute initial film;
how the same methods and excuses are continually used;
how security is often controlled by Israeli firms yet fails abysmally;
how the claimed attackers are consistently known to the security services yet not stopped;
how their profiles are quite opposite to fundamental Muslims;
how they all end up dead;
how CCTV footage of the actual event is never available or of exceeding poor quality;
how the official story does not make sense or cannot be supported by the facts;
how the perpetrators always helpfully leave their identification papers that even survive explosions;
that the bereaved act so strangely as to question their genuineness;
how plans are obviously in place to utilise, sport, pop entertainment and church, including their celebrities to press home the themed psychological messages of love and hope;
how the events neatly coincide with past and future political events and support political objectives;
and generally how the events are sensationalised and dragged out ad nauseum, whilst ignoring much worse western military terrorism abroad;
..... must give you reason to doubt the simplistic official version?