Archive | ISIS RSS feed for this section

London Terror Attack: A False Flag or Gross Incompetence?

3 Jun

WATCH ALL CLIPS AND CLICK ALL LINKS!

[Published 04 June 2017]

Just as the Youtube clip below was a staged event of a fake terrorist attack in Syria, so yesterday’s terror attack in London was a false flag.

For those who do not know, a false flag is an incident that occurs, but was in fact a staged event. The specific intention of a false flag is for the purpose of spreading propaganda and/ or to instil fear in us.

To be absolutely clear: to say that an incident, such as an act or terrorism is a false flag should not detract from the panic and fear it instills and the harm or loss of life it causes to victims and their families.

It is no less tragic or abhorrent.

In the case of the Manchester attack the week before, the person who committed this atrocity, Salman Abedi, was known to the authorities for more than five years. Yet, despite warnings from the FBI and members of his local community, including, allegedly, his own mother, the security services and British authorities were apparently completely unaware of either his extremist views, his movements leading up to the attack, or his intentions to carry out the attack.

We already know from sources including the media, that Abedi planned to martyr himself, using what has been described as a sophisticated explosive device; for which he would have likely required technical expertise, as he did not possess the know-how or expertise himself.

Abedi’s attack just so happened to occur at the very same time as a general election in the UK; in which the Labour party opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was, and continues to be, harangued by the current government and the media in baseless smears and accusations regarding his non-existent support for the IRA and Hamas.

Immediately following the Manchester attack, Theresa May’s government announced that it was increasing the security threat of another imminent attack, from “severe” to “critical”.

The authorities also claimed, that Abedi was part of a terror cell and had made repeated trips to Syria and Libya.

IMG_20170604_121813.jpg

More than 30 terror related arrests were subsequently made in the Greater Manchester area, including reports of a woman being shot by armed police, whose name has not yet been released and neither have her family members spoken out or been interviewed.

The police, government, and the security service, have since confirmed that Abedi was a lone wolf — and not part of any terror cell.

The terror threat level was dropped back to severe less than a week later.

What has also come to light, is that Abedi, plus several members of his family, were also on the payroll to overthrow Qadafi in Libya and latterly Assad in Syria by British security services.

As noted by John Pilger, the British government maintained “assets”, who were cultivated by MI5 handlers.

Some have called Abedi’s act of terrorism blowback for British Foreign policy.

Remarkably, it was French authorities who informed the media of Abedi’s travels to Syria. When asked to confirm how they knew this, French Interior Minister, Gerard Collomb, said British authorities had made them aware.

It begs the very serious question: why would the British authorities ask the French to make an announcement to the press about something they were already aware.

Despite the multiple arrests of more than 20 suspected associates of Abedi, why has every single one been released without charge?

Now, on the very eve of the London attack, several pertinent things happened on social media, at the scene, and in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

First, we have footage taken at the scene on the eve of the attack of police officers and apparent ‘crisis actors’ – yes, you heard that correctly – stripping down to their underwear in the street and changing clothing in shop doorways.

In the footage below, some of the officers appear to be putting on riot gear, but pay attention to the officer on the far left who takes of his uniform and puts on a pair of camouflage trousers.

As is very clearly indicated and shown in the image below, the officer who puts on a pair of camouflage trousers is actually shown as one of the so-called terrorists, later reported and photographed as being shot dead by police.

He is wearing the same t-shirt and the same camouflage trousers with his right leg raised, despite being apparently shot dead.

In a further post on social media, we also have evidence posted by a Ryan Hooper, not less than an hour before the first media reports of a terrorist attack, that both London Bridge and Borough stations were closed.

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 22.57.52.png

Second, Amber Rudd, the current Home Secretary, appearing at hustings… to persuade voters to allow her retain her seat in the upcoming general election, was filmed censuring one of her rival candidates, Nicholas Wilson.

Wilson is standing as an independent and recently exposed Rudd’s connections and financial dealings in the Panama Papers. Nicholas Wilson has also been relentless in pursuing HSBC for defrauding its customers, tax avoidance, and financial crimes, for the last 10 years.

In the Youtube clip above, Rudd is clearly seen passing a note to the Chair of the hustings, asking for Wilson  to be silenced.

Why?

Because, as above, Wilson had previously exposed her links to organised financial crime, a series of bankrupt businesses, and links to individuals convicted of financial crimes.

Before being silenced at the hustings, Wilson was speaking of the UK government’s involvement in illegal arms sales and trade to fund and support terrorism and its efforts to destabilise Middle Eastern countries.

Wilson’s references to Rudd on the matter, related to her role as Home Secretary, in her visits to broker arms sales with the Kingdom of Saud, that in all likelihood contravene international law.

Less than an hour later, on news of the attack coming to light, the media and the police reported that there were three separate attacks in London.

Early reports listed the attacks as having taken place at London Bridge, Borough Market, and Vauxhall.

In the early hours, however, that the story had changed.

The socalled attack in Vauxhall was subsequently reported – both by the police and the media – as a non-terrorist incident.

Borough and London Bridge stations were closed, remember? So why not close Vauxhall station, even as a precautionary measure?

Reports were already coming in of three men in a white van, who were reported as being seen driving erratically at speed across London Bridge, who then exited the van and ran toward Borough Market, stabbing and slashing at people on the streets who were out socialising.

No one has captured any footage of this white van.

Yet, in December 2016 a ferrari mounted the pavement in Battersea, injuring seven.

Similar non-terrorist incidents have occurred in Islington and Brentwood in recent months.

One onlooker, Gerald, recounted to the media, that he saw the attackers stabbing people indiscriminately and considered throwing a stall from the market at them.

Really, Gerald?

Borough Market is closed at that time of night, so how and where would you have obtained a stall to throw at these attackers?

There is no camera, mobile phone, or street camera footage of the white van driving erratically across London Bridge or of the attackers stabbing people in Borough High Street or near the market.

In a further contradictory report, a photographer, Gabriele Sciotto, speaks with the media regarding his doubts that the attack involved explosives and that he was suspicious or doubtful that the images he took of two of the attackers wearing canisters that could be detonated, were in fact fake in his opinion.

Scroll back up to the Youtube clip filmed and uploaded of the police crisis actors.

When asked by a BBC journalist how many victims there were, a senior Metropolitan police officer on the scene, said that he had not been told.

This was some three hours after the attack and; at this point, no deaths (other than those of the attackers), had been reported or confirmed.

We now know that the explosive canisters shown in the photo taken by Sciotto, strapped to two of the dead attackers have been confirmed as fake.

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 22.01.50.png

The Independent newspaper has also reported that a member of the public was fleeing the scene with a glass of beer in hand.

The following morning, authorities reported a total of seven deaths, including the three attackers.

If indeed this latest attack was neither a hoax nor a false flag, then the authorities, including Theresa May’s government, have some big explaining to do to the public.

Afterall, Theresa May was Home Secretary prior to becoming Prime Minister and has had seven years to tighten and increase surveillance of terrorist suspects.

Since the attack, however, Theresa May has chosen this attack to call for a new plan to counter extremism and terrorism; including unprecedented and unwarranted access to all communications on everyone’s mobile phone apps, such as Whatsapp and internet browsing history.

Trump has joined her in this call.

This is the second of two attacks in the UK in twelve years, so why does Theresa may want complete control of the internet and access to all our data now?

Interestingly, Theresa May, until the eve of this attack, was three points behind in the election polls – and again, within hours of the attack – Jeremy Corbyn was being attacked by politicians and under fire from the media for simply supporting peace with the IRA.

On the BBC’s Question Time programme two nights before the London attack, two of the audience were later discovered to be Tory plants, whose purpose on the programme was to smear and humiliate Corbyn. One of whom, pretended to be a poor student, who was in fact extremely wealthy and wearing a Ralph Lauren jumper on the programme.

Whether this latest attack is just a timely opportunity, or it was indeed pre-planned and the government and security services were aware and party to it – always remember, there is no such thing as coincidence – as desperate times always call for desperate measures.

Did Theresa May allow the London attack to happen, or were the authorities completely clueless and incompetent in gathering or acting on intelligence about this attack?

The fact remains, that Theresa May told the press in an interview four days before the attack, that security services were aware of another imminent attack, which begs the question: why reduce the threat level from critical to severe and not arrest the suspects before the act?

Only this evening, the authorities have announced that they know the names of the now dead suspects, but refuse to release further details at this time.

The evidence is here before you, so seek it out, digest it, and make up your own decision or choose to believe what they tell you and want you to believe.

Stay woke, or be one of the sheep!

Author: Jason Schumann

Mosul: How Do Terrorists Get Their Hands On Chemical Weapons and Why is No-one Concerned?

5 Mar
mg

A representation of the effects of Chlorine gas.

In February 2017, the Daily Star reported the suspected assassination of Abu Yaha al-Iraq, socalled “engineer” behind ISIS’s stash of horrifying Chlorine bombs.

It is since January however, that the UN and other sources have been reporting on the potential for ISIS/ Daesh to obtain and make use of chemical weapons – which, if it were to proven – would represent a clear breach of international law and thus a war crime.

Again, in February, it was reported that the Pentagon also alleges the manufacture of ‘improvised’ chemical weapons. Contradicting this, in 2015, it was reported – again, by the Pentagon – that ISIS was not and could not manufacture such weapons.

In the last few days however, we have had new reports from the International Red Cross of multiple hospital admissions of civilians, including several children, suffering from what appear to be symptoms indicating exposure to these kinds of chemical weapons.

If reports are true, then who is supplying ISIS with the necessary material and equipment to manufacture them and why?

How is ISIS obtaining the expertise to manufacture them?

If neither of these, and ISIS has simply ‘come by’ a stockpile of already manufactured chemical weapons, from who or where did they obtain them and what were they doing in Mosul anyway?

It’s pretty hard to believe that ISIS is capable of or has the expertise to manufacture these chemical weapons on its own; so, one must logically assume that someone or a foreign state is supplying them.

As Michael Springmann recently told Press TV, the manufacture of the elements needed to create a chemical weapon, like Chlorine gas, “is something that is not [what] you can make [it] in your bathtub at home.”

Could it by that the US or another Western government is supplying ISIS with the materials and equipment to create Chlorine gas, or the weapons themselves?

We already know from the Washington Post reported in September 2016, that the Saudi-led coalition have been using White Phosphorus in Yemen, which has been confirmed was supplied to it by the United States.

We also know that Western governments, including the United States, are, and have been, funding Islamist militants, including ISIS, since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 80’s.

Why is no one asking these very pertinent questions; and why does no one seem at all concerned to want to to find out the answer and bring those responsible before the international criminal court?

 

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

 

%d bloggers like this: