De Menezes execution

by **antiaristo** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:10 pm

It looks like it's open season on whistle blowers. Put George Smith (who leaked to the press) together with this and you have a clear warning. 6.30pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Police bodies complain about Menezes leaks Press Association Friday August 26, 2005 Two police bodies have written to the Home Secretary calling for an independent inquiry into leaks from the investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The Police Federation and the Metropolitan Police Federation wrote to the Home Office last week demanding that someone independent of both the police service and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigate the "unauthorised disclosure" of the documents. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1557291,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/attack...91,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:54 pm

Look at this from WRH El Mundo newspaper reveals, that spanish Infomation-Unit-Police (UCI) is thinking that one of their own men took part building one of the madrid bombs. The English is bad because it has been translated by machine. The story that Mike links to is in German. But even in bad English the meaning is unmistakeable: Madrid WAS an inside job.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:30 pm

The last Big Mac Did Hasib Hussain suddenly fear that Allah might be a vegan? <a href="http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_05_on/last_big_mac.html">www.brushtail.com.au/july...g_mac.html</a>

by **Peachtree Pam** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:11 am

Zymphora wants to know if SAS has committed a "ritual murder" before: <a href="http://xymphora.blogspot.com/">xymphora.blogspot.com/</a>

by **smiths** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:26 am

She says two IPCC investigators who interviewed her were equipped with a map of Stockwell tube which had key features in the wrong place. This initially led them wrongly to challenge her account. seems to me that arming the ipcc investigators with an incorrect map would be a brilliant way of scrambling the witnesses recollections of what they remembered and also ultimately of screwing up the witnesses accounts for the record. i also think it interesting that she was a journalist, maybe a better capability to solidly put 'crazy' events into a clear framework? i dunno

by **antiaristo** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:45 am

Pam, Here's another anomaly concerning the No. 30 bus at the Tavistock. Puzzle over the heroine who wasn't By Owen Bowcott in London and Bernard O'Riordan – August 30, 2005 The extraordinary fantasy life and lonely death of a New Zealand woman hailed as a heroine after the July 7 bombings in London has left a confused and contradictory trail over which former friends, colleagues and the medical establishment are puzzling. Police appear to have discounted rumours that Richmal Oates-Whitehead, whose body was found 10 days ago in a west London flat, committed suicide. The British Medical Association held an investigation into how she came to be employed but declined to reveal the outcome. Ms Oates-Whitehead gained prominence in New Zealand amid media coverage of the suicide bombing that destroyed the No. 30 bus in Tavistock Square outside the headquarters of the association. She worked there as editor of Clinical Evidence, an online edition of BMJ, the British Medical Journal. After the blast she appears to have joined medically trained staff bringing first aid to survivors. Her precise role remains uncertain. The 35-year-old always carried a stethoscope in her handbag. She later told New Zealand's Weekend Herald she had been helping the injured in a makeshift hospital next door to the association when two firefighters approached her for help. "They needed one doctor to assist as firemen cut two badly injured people out of the wreckage. Would she come? They would understand if she declined," the article said. It reported her as saying: "There was no room for hesitation - I wasn't thinking at that level. It was the moral and ethical thing to do." Her account included a controlled detonation of a second bomb. The problem was twofold. Police had no record of a controlled explosion in Tavistock Square; moreover, she was not a doctor. Coverage of the London bombings triggered suspicions. The Auckland papers began inquiries. On August 15 <>The New Zealand Herald<> published: "Doctor status of NZ bomb heroine questioned." The story disclosed the association was investigating her qualifications. Other papers published sceptical stories. Their reports unearthed bizarre behaviour. Ms Oates-Whitehead had claimed to be the victim of a stalker, had described herself as a professor, told some friends she had cancer and others that she had lost premature twins who lived for only a day. She even placed a death notice in the NZ Herald: "Two beautiful girls, Jemima Josephine and Molly Niamh … Taken away from Mummy and Daddy too soon. Two more beautiful angels in heaven." Challenged by the association, she resigned. On August 17, alerted by concerns from her family, police went to her flat and found her dead. Initial suspicions focused on the belief that, faced with humiliation and the loss of her job, she might have killed herself. But a post-mortem found she died of a blood clot on the lungs. The association declined to go beyond a brief statement: "It is with great regret that the BMJ Publishing Group has heard of the sudden death of Richmal Oates-Whitehead. Our thoughts are with Richmal's family and friends. The BMJ will be making no further comment." In fact, she did have a medical background. She trained for a year as a radiation therapist in 1991 and had a postgraduate diploma in health service management. She also had epilepsy. She had always dreamt of being a doctor, the New Zealand Sunday Star-Times reported. It quoted an interview with a Sydney forensic psychiatrist, Dr Anthony Samuels, who suggested she might have suffered borderline personality disorder and posed as a doctor to satisfy a psychological need. "People with borderline personality disorders often get into caring professions because they have so much need themselves and it distracts them from their own pain." www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/08/29/1125302508521.html

by **antiaristo** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:14 pm

We’ve now got aclear picture of what happened to Menezes at Stockwell, but no clear understanding of the purpose. Was it ritual? Why did they “do” him? Was it a “hit” or was it “psyops”. We’re a bit confused by it all. I’m pretty sure it was “psyops” if by that one means an event staged to influence perceptions. But I don’t think it was aimed at the general public, and I think that’s why we are confused. THIS “psyops” was aimed directly at two target groups: the SAS (target group 1) and the rank and file of the Metropolitan Police (target group 2). Look at this from the perspective of target group 1, the asSASsin. You are being asked to commit murder on demand. The promise is that you will be protected and not punished for carrying out the orders. The Treason Felony Act is your shield. You’ve done it many times, but mainly in Northern Ireland which was a war zone. The Lord Chief Justice was Lord Hutton, so no worries there. But now she wants you to do it in London??? That’s dodgy. You would appreciate a little reassurance….. Operation Menezes. You go to a VERY PUBLIC place (a Tube station in the rush hour!). A man is held immobile for you. You shoot him in the head. Eleven shots….methodical…one every three seconds. Now if you can get away with THAT you can get away with anything, and will (cheerfully?) accept such orders. And they WOULD have got away with it completely had it not been for the unauthorised leak to ITV. Just think about that. The institutions of inquiry were DESIGNED TO FAIL. And just think about that from the perspective of target group 2, the rank and file of the Metropolitan Police. For while the general public would have been fed a heap of shit by the inquiry, the cops would know the truth from the grapevine. These are the reasons we have to get the name of the killer. We have to show the SAS that they will not get away with it, even working on a direct order from the Palace. We have to show the ordinary coppers that Freemasons, be they SAS or their own Commissioner, are not above the law. We have to get the name of the murderer. And soon.

by **Peachtree Pam** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:22 pm

Anti, You can really connect the dots. It was a "demonstration" as we concluded, but you gave the answer as to who the demonstration was meant for. Pam

by **antiaristo** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:53 pm

Police victim's family refuse to meet Met chief · Sir Ian Blair tells MPs that shoot-to-kill policy stays · Clarke imposes first control order on Briton Alan Travis, home affairs editor Wednesday September 14, 2005 The Guardian The family of the Brazilian man mistakenly shot dead as a suspected suicide bomber yesterday refused to meet the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, after hearing him confirm that the controversial "shoot-to-kill" policy is here to stay. The Met commissioner yesterday told MPs that "a watershed" had now been passed and the future development of the policy would have to be debated in public. He said the "shoot-to-protect" guidelines for dealing with suicide bombers had been drawn up in secret in January 2003 by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, Treasury counsel, the Metropolitan police authority and "independent advisers" had all been made aware of the new policy. Giving evidence to the Commons home affairs select committee inquiry into the London bombings, Sir Ian came face to face for the first time with relatives of Jean Charles de Menezes. He apologised for his death and said the police were "extremely sorry". But he made clear that a "fairly quick" internal review had confirmed the shoot-to-kill policy, "except for a small number of administrative changes", without waiting for the official inquiry into the death to be completed. He did concede that the future of the policy should now be debated in public: "I accept that a watershed has been passed. I think now we have to find a process for debating these issues without necessarily revealing the absolute detail of the tactics," Sir Ian said. But three of Mr De Menezes's cousins at yesterday's hearing refused an offer, made through a police family liaison officer, to meet Sir Ian. Instead they read a statement calling for the shoot-to-kill policy to be suspended: "We are horrified to know that the shoot-to-kill policy is still in operation today. It remains a secret policy that has never been discussed in parliament. It must be suspended until the investigation is completed." At the same hearing the home secretary, Charles Clarke, confirmed that the shoot-to-kill policy applied to all police forces in England and Wales and revealed that he had imposed the first anti-terrorist "control order" on an unnamed British citizen and is currently considering imposing more. <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1569267,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/t...67,00.html</a> 1) It's NOT a shoot-to-kill policy. It's a shoot to protect policy. 2) This overt murder policy was agreed in January 2003. That is a couple of months after the police stitch-up of Paul Burrell (coordinated by John Yates). 3) The policy was decided by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Home Office was "informed". 4) Blair has already held his own inquiry. He has exonerated himself. 5) This overt murder`policy applies only in England, and not in Scotland. Can't have Scottish Rite Freemasons killing Scots now, can we? 6) Parliament is made up of useful idiots. No wonder they've had to barricade themselves in

by **Starman** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:02 pm

Antiaristo: Excellant observation re: Menezes' assassination as a carefully staged psyop to 'prove' complete official exonneration of police response with emphasis on prejudicial zeal -- ie, anything goes, your back is covered. This suggests the possibility of a similiar 'message' in the deliberately bungled, impeded, ineffective Katrina storm response by officials specifically tasked to provide timely aid. The suspicious reports of 'sniper' attacks were apparently used to justify suspended and postponed and rerouted and limited aid and rescue operations, despite the claimed helicopter shootings almost certainly being false -- even the pilot of the claimed target-helo shooting confessed he didn't know of such a thing happening. Have ANY sniper-attacks been confirmed? And what of reports that gangs of armed young rednecks were driving around in pickups, presumably 'protecting' the city from looters -- were they acting as agents provocateurs inciting violence, providing the source for much of the gunshots heard throughout the city? Recall the ugly image of the body-armoured SWAT team riding on the armoured car, shades of South Africa's state terrorism? And Gov. Blanco's veiled threat that 300active-army Iraq War veterans were arriving with their weapons locked and loaded, READY TO 'GET SOME!' That 'message' was for the public, and in hindsight, for the police and National Guard and other armed First Responders -- basically a License to Kill, wasn't it? I'm sure it warmed the hearts of many self-righteous rightwing zealots who eagerly embraced the notion of minority-member criminal-element gangsters who could be targetted as convenient scapegoats for all of their impotent feelings of subconscious class-guilt, frustrated rage, anxiety, self-doubts, humiliations, confusions, anger, unfulfilled expectations, and fears -- like the Gummint sanctioned a covert (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) form of lower class-race victimhood, ie., the 'abandoned' of New Orleans who showed their crass selfish opportunism by looting and 'rioting' (FOX even captioned some of their stories with that title) 'deserved' what they suffered for not looking after themselves and allowing themselves to become a burden that the Gummint then had to divert precious resources and risk equipment and manpower to look-out for and 'save' from themselves. For instance -- Look how eager the New Orleans Police Chief embraced the looting and violence meme as an excuse for the breakdown in law-and-order, while ignoring the crucial failures in the Police Dept. having NO community ties they could use for organizing citizen cooperation with rescue and aid forces, and the TOTAL failure of communication -- the citizens couldn't even get straight answers to basic questions, and were repeatedly lied to if they just weren't ignored or warned-off with threatening gestures and scornful remarks or aggressive display of weapons -- I mean, how would ANYBODY react to such contemptuous, insulting and arrogant behaviors from supposed civil servants? Afain, it sounds like such behaviors were almost intended to provoke a hostile crowd reaction that the police and National Guard (NOT local forces, so there was little empathy or understanding) could then put down with killing force. And I'm sure this attitude of official condemnation and scorn was reflected in many, many other ways -- such as the Police line at the foot of the I-10 bridge over the Mississippi River, preventing survivors from simply walking to their safety and rescue towards Gretna. I'm convinced that at least SOME of the confounded official response in N.O. had a psyops purpose, defining a domestic 'problem' underclass that is a burden on society -- a 'group' that can be blamed for a whole lot of issues and that serves as distraction for a public looking for the cause of difficult, complex problems. Re: "He did concede that the future of the policy should now be debated in public: "I accept that a watershed has been passed. I think now we have to find a process for debating these issues without necessarily revealing the absolute detail of the tactics," Sir Ian said." HoLy ShIT! Translation: We must now find a way to publicly debate this issue of Killing with impunity without discussing it directly or in detail -- in fact, the less this issue is talked about in depth the better off we'll all be. Can't compromise integrity by having too much information, now can we? What a bugaboo THAT would be, if the public really knew what they were talking about. Can't have the people thinking they live in a democracy -- now THAT would be never-ending kettle of rancid fish, eh wot? Aiaiaiai; And so it goes ... Starman

by **slimmouse** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:39 pm

11 shots over a 30 second period. Think about that. Thats not just a "run of the mill" hit. Thats a ritual killing. As Jeff has often said in the past, its not neccesarily what we think believe about the extent of the power these satanic assholes derive from this kind of evil. Its what they believe that counts; Beliefs which result in the likes of the De menez hit, the ritual abuse, torture, sacrifice of animals, children and all the rest of it,

by **Peachtree Pam** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:13 am

Good observations Anti, Starman, Smiths, Qutb and Slimmouse. I really admire the courage of the de Menezes family in calling these people on their crimes every chance they get. Let's hope they can maintain this even though I'm sure the PTB will do everything to obstruct justice. If the press will just keep asking questions (unlike the US press) the pressure will be sustained. Anti, will we ever know the name of the SAS assassin?

by **antiaristo** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:41 pm

Pam, I've been sitting with your comment/question open for more than a day. I don't think we will. Not if that select committee is anything to go by. Parliament is supposed to be sovereign. But it is clear Blair (the cop) has nothing but contempt for this bunch. Straightfaced lies, no less. Although the British press has a little more life than Stateside, the hope for democratic institutions is as weak. I fear the Menezes are going to be bitterly disappointed. Their courage is born of their class. They will be astonished at the depravity of their "betters". I'd hate to live there, knowing what I know. I'm just grateful my father was Irish. Let's face it, the Diana "inquiry" is still underway: in the meantime the murderer has "got on with his life" and "remarried" in a ceremony contrary to law. There is but one solution, but I can't say it.

by **rain** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:08 am

one solution ? that is their way. what is yours ?

by **Starman** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:11 am

"one solution ? that is their way." So, rape and pillage and torture and kidnapping and maiming and theft and razing and atrocities and murder are the same as, "their way", a pro-active self-defense? I think non-violence is great, but face it, when your sworn enemy desires nothing less than your peaceful accomodation to his/her brutal, unlawful and immoral tyranny, non-violence plays right into their hands. How many victims of genocide and torture and slow, lingering, agonizing murders am I willing to accomodate before I take offense at and repulse the forces of pure, unmediated evil? When Law and Order hads broken down and the hordes of marauding coke-crazed NegraAgua mercenaries (from nondescript anonymous countries?) invade my SmallTown USA, seeking Cheerleaders to debauch while smashing thru miles of simulated-wood vinyl picket-fences (financed by FEMA as our last-line of defense against The Dark Forces of Transnational Non-Specific Qausi-Religious Terrorerrorism"), I'm gonna actively defend my family, home and self and make an effort to hold onto my pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness before going along meekly as a good lil' compliant peaceful prisoner. 'Course, that's just me. Starman

De Menezes execution

Re: George Smith thread

Whistleblowing

Re: De Menezes execution

de Menezes execution

maps

Re: De Menezes execution

Understanding our enemies

Excellent post

Who Runs Britain?

re: Understanding Our Enemies: FEMA, too?

Im with Jeff and Xymophora on this one.

de Menezes execution

Re: de Menezes execution

dearest anti

"Same as?"

Who is online