Means, Motive, Opportunity.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:00 pm

Who has the means, motive and opportunity to go collectively and completely unpunished for the following crimes against humanity; The MLK assassination The JFK hit The Diana Murder 9/11 7/7 The De Menes assassination Pope JP 1s Murder Any one particular group with that kind of clout ? Or are all these incidents seperate ?

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:05 pm

The war in Iraq

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:19 pm

slim, Is this one of those "Employees are debarred" competitions. I think I know the answer, but am I allowed to enter?

by **nomo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Or are all these incidents seperate ? <hr></blockquote> If they were, would that shatter your worldview?

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Is this one of those "Employees are debarred" competitions. I think I know the answer, but am I allowed to enter?<hr></blockquote> Let me see; Providing you can authenticate your sources by a strict 'standard' test as is posted around here somewhere, and provided you dont fall for some all encompassing idiots conspiracy theory, I should imagine you'll be ok <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/8/06 5:31 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If they were, would that shatter your worldview? <hr></blockquote> Not at all Nomo. I merely seek enlightenment, and was hoping that this board might be able to help. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/8/06 5:28 pm

by **Quentin Quire** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:26 pm

IMHO -- I don't think any of these can be pinned on one specific group. I don't believe in an over-arcing Illuminati/NWO group who pull all the strings. I just don't believe the world operates that way - although there are many here who possibly disagree. However I do believe in cabals - whether political, intelligence agency or 'secret society' based - whose modus operandi, beliefs and goals often overlap and who will pool resources, intelligence and cover-ups in order to fufill shared agendas. The JFK assassination is a prime example. So many groups and individuals wanted the man dead that when overlapping plans converged on that one day in Dallas it became exceedingly difficult to extricate the truth behind the varying groups which planned the job and the resulting cover-up. Which is of course highly beneficial to all those involved and a testament to the effectiveness of their nature and M.O. I don't believe some Illuminati puppet-master controlled a convergence of CIA/Naval Intelligence/Anti-Castro Cubans/Mafia/Big Business/Right-Wing interests which ended with JFK's head going back and to the left. But I believe all the above had something to gain from his death and were either complicit or implicit in the furtherance of the act. IMHO the 'One Wizard Behind The Curtain' thinking so prevalent in much conspiracy and para-political research is probably the most effective dis-information tool at the hands of these groups.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>IMHO the 'One Wizard Behind The Curtain' thinking so prevalent in much conspiracy and para-political research is probably the most effective dis-information tool at the hands of these groups.<hr></blockquote> Well Ive got it down as the haves against the have nots. And I have to say I dont like it. Not for 'me', mind you , but for the rest of humanity. After all, Im a lucky guy. Ive got all the comforts I need. But to the best of my understanding ( despite not being able to offer a 20 page lecture on the subject ) its the Same as it ever was. Im just wondering meanwhile, how the haves legally enshrine their position ? Thanks for your post Quentin. One for the "No specific Group" bin <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/8/06 5:42 pm

by **Quentin Quire** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:51 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well Ive got it down as the haves against the have nots. And I have to say I dont like it.<hr></blockquote> I agree completely. And I'd personally regard myself as being in the 'have-not' category. I also agree it's 'the same as it ever was.' The motives of the 'haves' never change -- greed, a lust for power and the need to control these factors through some form of hierachy. What does change is the necessary control mechanisms to keep the 'have-nots' in place, whether the tribal leader-shamanic mechanisms of early mankind, the monarchistic/religion based societies of the middle-ages up to the technocratic/corporate structures in place today. As time and technology progresses the control mechanisms of the 'haves' need to progress in complexity in order to keep the 'have nots' unable to question or resist them. Which - IMHO - is the weakness in the 'haves' plan. At some point the complexity of their plans and methodology will only be able to stretch so far. With the growing power of the internet and global communications more of the 'have nots' are able to see through the system they are enshrined in and may (I hope) be able to alleviate some of the problems.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:18 pm

There is a splendid example being played out before our very eyes - except for those who will not see. You asked me for the Dummy Guide, slim. My case has become WAY too complicated. Every fresh cover-up (we are currently at Mary Poppins herself, "Culture" Secretary Tessa Jowell) adds another chapter. But anybody that WANTS to can see what's happening with Jean Charles de Menezes. May I cross post? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Menezes family to meet president  Relatives of the Brazilian man shot dead by police in London are to meet the country's president for private talks on Thursday, the family has said. Three cousins and a friend of Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 - shot last July - will speak to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at the end of his UK state visit. The family said the meeting would take place at Heathrow airport, but the Brazilian Embassy would not confirm it. Mr Menezes was shot at a Tube station after police mistook him for a bomber. Policy defended A Foreign Office spokesman said he was aware the relatives had requested to meet the president. A Menezes family spokesman said the meeting would take place in a diplomatic suite at Heathrow airport before the president leaves the country. The family will make a statement afterwards. Mr Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell tube station, in south London, the day after the failed bomb attacks on July 21. He had been mistaken for a suicide bomber and was shot seven times in the head. On Wednesday, an Association of Chief Police Officers' review of the killing found there was no need to change the strategy police use to deal with suicide bombers. But it did accept the public needed a clearer explanation of police tactics. President Lula da Silva is on a three-day visit to the UK, which includes a state dinner at Buckingham Palace, talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair at Downing Street and meetings with business leaders.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4787968.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4787968.stm</a> This is important, even though the British will keep right on with the cover-up. The test will come in Strasbourg, at the European Court of Human Rights. If the Menezes family go alone, they will be cheated like myself. If they think they can get away with it, the Council of Europe will break European law and side with the British. Precedent proves that to be true (ref 24316/03). But with the backing of the Brazilian Government, the de Menezes family can enforce the law, and get justice for Jean Charles. The legal issue hinges on the difference between the Human Rights Act, in Britain, and the European Convention on Human Rights. BOTH texts incorporate Article 2 <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ARTICLE 2 RIGHT TO LIFE 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.<hr></blockquote> Clearly this Article 2 has been breached by the British security state. They pumped seven bullets into an innocent man on his way to work. They fired eleven times, at point blank range. One every three seconds. THAT is a ritual assassination. So how come the British can LEGALLY cover this up? The answer lies with Article 13 of the Convention <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ARTICLE 13 Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html">www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html</a> Only common sense. What use is a "human right" that is discretionary, and cannot be enforced? But what about the British Human Rights Act? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Human Rights Act 1998 1998 Chapter 42 - continued -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes. [9th November 1998] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:- Introduction The Convention Rights. 1. - (1) In this Act "the Convention rights" means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in- (a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention, (b) Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and (c) Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol, as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/80042--a.htm#1">www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts...2--a.htm#1</a> Notice anything strange? Article 13 is not there, is it? Which means so called "human rights" as they exist in Britain are not enforceable, are discretionary, and are therefore not rights at all. Which leaves Queen Elizabeth free to deploy her Treason Felony Act against Mr Menezes and his human rights. Which is exactly what she is doing. Which is not really surprising: after all, she gave the order for this ritual murder in the first place. Added on edit It is now clear that the Foreign Office is run by Sir Michael Jay, and that Jack Straw is a bobbing head put there to give Jay cover. Jay is the Queen's man. He runs British foreign policy the way she wants it run. Here is a taste (cross post) Remember this guy, identified in the first post on this thread as invoking the Treason Felony Act? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>When the issue came before the court of appeal in July 2004 the judges were handed an extraordinary witness statement 10 minutes before the hearing began. From Sir Michael Jay, permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, and authorised by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, it asked the judges to refrain from ruling on the legality of the war for fear of "giving comfort to terrorists, endangering the lives of Britons in Iraq and harming foreign relations".<hr></blockquote> Turns out he is ANOTHER serial offender. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Foreign Office chief accused of cover-up By Philippe Naughton The Whitehall mandarin who heads the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) was today subjected to a withering attack by an influential committee of MPs, one of whom accused him of a "cover up" over the organisation's failures. The criticisms of Sir Michael Jay, the FCO's Permanent Under-Secretary, relate to a report by external consultants detailing a series of leadership failings at the organisation, which employs 6,000 people worldwide and has an annual budget of almost £1 billion. Today, in its own report, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) accused Sir Michael of originally attempting to suppress the document and of acquiescing with senior staff who failed to co-operate with the consultants Collinson Grant. It concluded: "Sir Michael is part of the problem." Today’s report was also scathing about the FCO’s introduction of the Prism computer system in embassies and MI6 stations around the globe, which it said had caused "great dissatisfaction" among diplomats. One staff member wrote that "in the FCO’s long history of ineptly implemented IT initiatives, Prism is the most badly-designed, ill-considered one of the lot", the report revealed. The committee was also critical of the FCO’s failure to inform MPs of the largest fraud in its history, involving more than £790,000 in falsified allowances in the Tel Aviv embassy, exposed last year by the National Audit Office. The FAC said that the Foreign Office had "failed seriously in its duty" by not informing it about the fraud, which continued undetected for four years "as a result of weaknesses in financial control and involved clear breaches of long-standing accounting procedures". Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour member of the committee, said that today’s report detailed "the failure to disclose fraud, mismanagement, incompetence, adverse reports by independent consultants, indeed wilfully trying to cover up this catalogue of failure from the public and Parliament". He said it was the FAC’s third "major confrontation with the culture and style of senior managers of the Foreign Office", following controversial reports on Sierra Leone and the Iraq war in earlier parliaments. The Collinson Grant report was produced in January 2005 following analysis of the work of almost 3,000 Foreign Office staff. But today’s report noted that it remained unpublished until July, following pressure from a member of the FAC. The consultants raised concerns about the quality of leadership at the FCO and proposed cuts of as many as 1,200 posts and the removal of layers of management to achieve savings of £48 million annually. "The entire organisation needs to be challenged and reformed, but the leadership lacks the skills needed and the will to upset the status quo," the consultants wrote. They also complained of a lack of co-operation from some senior staff, particularly at the Paris Embassy, one of Britain’s largest and most prestigious overseas posts. In evidence to the committee last October, Sir Michael, the former Ambassador in Paris, said he accepted many of the consultants’ conclusions, but not their "root and branch criticism". He said he was "proud" to lead an organisation which did "an extraordinary job in difficult circumstances", but acknowledged that a "culture change" was needed. In a later letter, he said that the FCO believed some of the consultants’ recommendations to be "ill-founded" and some of the figures used to draw up possible savings inaccurate. The FCO had in fact cut costs by £6.6 million in 2004-05 and was confident of cutting £39 million this year. The FAC today responded: "We can only conclude from this that Sir Michael is part of the problem. Under his stewardship, the report was originally suppressed. It criticised the management he was supposed to lead. "He acquiesced in a situation where some senior managers failed to collaborate with Collinson Grant’s proper inquiries. His senior managers did not contest or seek to correct prior to publication errors which they now allege are contained in the Collinson Grant report. "When asked what he deems to be ‘ill-founded’ in the recommendations of Collinson Grant, he failed to give a specific example. This is all wholly unacceptable from a Permanent Under-Secretary." It added that the failure to share with MPs the Collinson Grant report or an internal report by Norman Ling, a senior official, into IT failures was "evidence of a disturbing aversion on the part of FCO management to proper scrutiny of its activities". The Prism system was designed to replace 30 separate existing systems, with new software and hardware, and changes in management and working practices in virtually every FCO post in Britain and overseas. But a "hugely embarrassing" internal review by Mr Ling last year listed a long series of flaws in the project, including hasty and bad decision-making, inadequate funding in some areas, lack of management skills and an exaggeration of the potential benefits of the new system, said the FAC. The "anguished" letter sent to an internal FCO magazine gave "only a hint of the true scale of anger in the ranks", said the committee. "Anyone who has visited a post where Prism has been rolled out knows that many staff are at their wits’ end about it," it said. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, rejected the committee’s criticisms of Sir Michael, who is due to retire in July and is expected to be replaced by Sir Peter Ricketts, the envoy to Nato. "I cannot and do not accept the criticism of Sir Michael Jay which I regard as wholly unreasonable," Mr Straw said in a statement. "Indeed, the report commends much of the important work Sir Michael has driven forward under his effective leadership of this organisation. "For example, the report praises ‘the FCO’s commitment to changing aspects of its culture and to giving leadership and management skills their appropriate place in the organisation’."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-2076280-2,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/pri...-2,00.html</a>

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:27 pm

Of course, you can cross post, since you are providing the legally enshrined means. There are of course other means, such as 7 bullets to the head, but you are CLEARLY INDICATING the Legal means.. Those means include building a network of obedient people, who probably dont understand the way this all works, but what the hell, they got their nice position, and their fancy car. Meanwhile, we enter the age of biometric passports and all the rest of it in the name of "fighting terror". The most blatant lie to anyone on this board, that there ever was - cos after all folks we understand who causes the terror right ? But meanwhile of course, anyone who dares cite Makow , Icke and Co around here, is verging on the insane - despite the fact that theyve been predicting this stuff for long enough. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/8/06 6:29 pm

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:38 pm

Here's Wiki on Sir Michael Jay <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Michael Jay Sir Michael Jay KCMG was born in Hampshire in June 1946 and educated at Winchester College, Magdalen College, Oxford, of which he is an honorary fellow, and London University's School of Oriental and African Studies. After voluntary service as a teacher in Zambia, he joined the Ministry of Overseas Development in 1969, serving in London, Washington (at the World Bank) and in the British High Commission in New Delhi. In 1981 he joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He served in the European Secretariat of the Cabinet Office from 1985-87, as Counsellor in the Paris Embassy from 1987-90, and in the Foreign Office as Director for European Affairs, then Director General for European and Economic Affairs from 1990-96. In 1996 he was a Senior Associate Member of St Antony's College Oxford. From July 1996 to September 2001 he was British Ambassador in Paris. In July 2001 he was appointed Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office and Head of the Diplomatic Service, a post he took up on 14 January 2002. He will retire in July 2006. In 2005 Michael Jay was, in addition, appointed the Prime Minister's Personal Representative (Sherpa) to prepare the G8 Summit at Gleneagles. Michael Jay married Sylvia Mylroie in 1975. She has been Vice Chairman of L'Oreal UK since September 2005, Chairman of Food From Britain since January 2006, and is an independent Non-Executive Director of St-Gobain. She also chairs the Pilgrim Trust and is a Trustee of the Entente Cordiale Scholarship Scheme.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Michael_Jay">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Michael_Jay</a> If you are serious, it takes a few minutes to make the connections. Zambia equals Northern Rhodesia. Another of Cecil Rhodes boys? Oxford. The Cecil Rhodes connection. Ambassador to France AT THE TIME OF THE RITUAL ASSASINATION OF DIANA; PRINCESS OF WALES. Blair's sherpa at Gleneagles. Implementing the Queen's agenda at G8. Entente Cordiale. Non Aggression agreement between the Scottish Rite and the Great Eastern.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:40 pm

The JFK hit has a number of things that make it possible for only one group to be responsible. Off the top of my head, pun intended- L. Fletcher Prouty pointed out a few of them. To begin to look at JFK one must read everything possible L. Fletcher Prouty has written or said. He was the Pentagon's liason with CIA from 1954-1963 when the Dulles CIA took over the US government. New Orleans DA Jim Garrison also tied Clay Shaw and other CIA operatives to the plot and all his writings plus court transcripts damn the agency as central to the crime. Check the Data Dump forum for Garrison trial transcripts. Prouty has written he had been sent to Antarctica on a classified mission during that time but knew something was wrong with the cover story as soon as it appeared in the paper in New Zealand. 1) The security stand down in Dallas. Prouty knew how it was supposed to be but wasn't. Same thing happened when Reagan was shot. Ford was shot at twice in a few weeks. Big clue. 2) The press stories on Oswald were way too thorough and early. Prouty was in New Zealand and saw the paper with info that should have been impossible to both obtain and get out that quickly. Prouty wrote that someone forgot about time zone issues, too. 3) The altering of JFK's motorcade route. 4) The presence of a number of CIA covert ops at Dealey Plaza like Lansdale, Hunt, etc. 5) Dealey Plaza photos with Umbrella Man and Radio Man who get together after the shooting. 6) Umbrella Man. The photos of a man with an umbrella, the only one on a clear blue sky day who turned it as he tracked JFK who passed very close by. Prouty had witnessed a demo of an umbrella gun and it was displayed publicly during the 1975 Church Committee hearings. 7) The alteration of the autopsy photos and disappearance of JFK's brain. The Mafia or Cubans couldn't do that. For starters. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/8/06 6:48 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The JFK hit has a number of things that make it possible for only one group to responsible<hr></blockquote> Another guy with any number of ( magic ) bullets to the head. And as for my initial question ? No group collectively capable with motive and opportunity responsible , not Just for JFK , but for the litany of murder outlined ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/8/06 6:51 pm

by **Darklo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:12 pm

Quentin; <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't think any of these can be pinned on one specific group. I don't believe in an over-arcing Illuminati/NWO group who pull all the strings. I just don't believe the world operates that way - although there are many here who possibly disagree. However I do believe in cabals - whether political, intelligence agency or 'secret society' based - whose modus operandi, beliefs and goals often overlap and who will pool resources, intelligence and cover-ups in order to fufill shared agendas.<hr></blockquote> I entirely agree. Thats the way organised crime works.

Means, Motive, Opportunity.

Means, Motive, Opportunity.

And I might add, the latest atrocity.....

Re: And I might add, the latest atrocity.....

Re: Means, Motive, Opportunity.

Not quite sure.

Not at all;

RE

Re: RE

RE:

Modus Operandi

Re: Of course you can cross post

Re: Modus Operandi

Re: Means, Motive, Opportunity.

Re: Another guy with bullets to the head.

Cabals

Who is online