On 19th September, the news programmes reported a simple story - a story
which was not repeated again on 20th September:



Two men in Arab dress had fired at Policemen in Basra, killing one Iraqi
police officer.  The men were immediately arrested and taken into custody by
the police in Basra.  Stripped of their Arab garb they were found to be
British soldiers, possibly Special Forces.  The Ministry of Defence in
London asked the press to obscure the men's faces when the story was
reported - and terrestrial channels in the UK complied with this order.
This carried the implication that the men were SAS operatives.  The MoD
immediately made no comment and at around 10pm it was reported that the MoD
did not have an explanation for the actions of the captured soldiers.
Later, on 20th September, a TV news reporter said that she had been on a
plane carrying the freed SAS soldiers back to Basra from a de-briefing
session with the military in Baghdad.



As if to compound the original offence, British forces surrounded the police
station on the evening of 19th September, where the Special Forces soldiers,
dressed as insurgents, were being held.  Civilians surrounded the army
vehicles outside the police station and, in outrage at the atrocity
committed by the British Army, exercised their support for their civilian
police force - fire bombing a British tank.  We then saw soldiers emerging
from the tank, one of them in flames, but none killed. The British army
retreated, regrouped and smashed down a wall of the police station to rescue
the soldiers who had been rightly arrested, so freeing up to 150 other
prisoners also held by the civilian authority.  A story emerged that the
soldiers were in some way fighting to claim back the Iraqi police from
Muqtada al Sadr's influence.  Yet the fact that the fire bombing was
triggered by an assassination by SAS operatives was never repeated.  We were
merely shown acres of newsprint and pictures of British soldiers, on fire,
emerging from a tank.



The retaliation by Iraqi civilians has since been widely covered by all the
press as an unprovoked attack on British soldiers.  Yet it would appear that
an outright attack, on the civilian forces of law and order in Iraq, was
perpetrated by an arm of the Security Services, posing as Arab insurgents.
One can only applaud the right of the people to attack any force aiming to
undermine the properly constituted civilian police force, to ensure that
perpetrators of a murder of a police officer are brought to justice.
Instead our media appear incapable of adequately seeking out the causes of
the violence against British tanks in Basra.  Our press concentrate on
ordinary Iraqi citizens backlash against the wholly indefensible actions of
anarchists within the British Army in Basra, making no mention of the
provocative actions of SAS assassination squads posing as insurgents.  In
this our press are supported - it seems - from the very top of the MoD and
Government establishment in the UK, and far more worryingly it is now
patently obvious that our press has been brought so far to heel that it no
longer has the will to report uncensored news.  No right thinking person has
any option but to criticise the actions of the security services in their
deliberate undermining of law and order in Basra.  Yet the fourth estate
makes it plain, in subsequent media reports, that their role is no longer to
seek out and print the truth, but rather to support outright anarchy,
perpetrated by establishment institutions.



Unfortunately, as in the UK, the security services consider themselves above
the law, immune from prosecution and one must now seriously question exactly
who the so called 'terrorists' are.  As we have long suspected attacks,
supposedly carried out by terrorists, may indeed be perpetrated by our
unaccountable Security Services.  We are undoubtedly being deliberately led
into believing that we have something to fear from ephemeral anarchists in
our 'war on terrorism.'  Whereas the anarchists are inside the tent, pissing
with impunity on all of us from the most secret and lawless arm of our own
security services. Receiving protection for their clandestine activities
from the highest echelons of Government and our press is incapable of
discerning this simple fact.



The aim was then to ensure that a more plausible 'terrorist' atrocity was
perceived to be carried out.  We were duped into believing the attack on
British troops was entirely unprovoked and inspired by lawless forces within
the Iraqi Police who, so we are told, support Muqtada al Sadr.  This story
has been successfully buried, overtaken by events.  Meanwhile the press
concentrate on pictures of soldiers on fire, following a wholly illegal
'rescue' attempt, and ignore the original offence committed with impunity by
our security services.



Sir John Stevens' indictment of our Security Services in Northern Ireland
should have galvanised us into making our security services more accountable
and less maverick.  By 'rescuing' these soldiers from police custody all
that the British Army and MoD have done is to ensure that these murderous
soldiers, and those who gave them their orders, will never face trial.  The
truth will never be told and one can only look forward to the spin which the
MoD will continue to give the story.  The poodle press we currently have -
where press barons actively participate in spinning news stories in favour
of the anarchists within Government, and journalists are indentured members
of the security services - will ensure this story does not see the light of
day for very much longer.  Instead we are being fed some cock and bull story
which allows the hidden agenda for curtailing public freedom, human rights
and civil liberty to continue unabated, both here in the UK and it seems,
without any shadow of doubt, in Basra.



Back bench MP's, including those in the Liberal Party, asked to comment at
their Party Conference, appear to have moved the agenda successfully from
questioning the insupportable actions of two special services soldiers to a
general question of troop withdrawal from Iraq.  Hardly surprising, when one
bears in mind David' Shayler's allegation that the security services keep
files on members of Parliament and Ministers, that those who are elected to
represent us are incapable of questioning our out of control security
services.  If the security services have the dirt on those elected to power
then that power is naturally and inevitably usurped.  We have virtual
anarchy - anarchy within the British establishment and no one has the balls,
the will or the power to bring it under control.



Until the British people realise that voting for any party is unlikely to
bring a cessation to establishment anarchy we are all lost.  Party lists now
appear to ensure that the dirt gathered on candidates stems from the very
selection process.  Are out military intelligence only allowing candidates
with skeletons in their cupboards to stand for election, and preventing the
squeaky clean from ever being elected?  Do those on party selection
committees have the co-operation of our intelligence services in their
selection processes?  How many MP's work, or have worked, for our security
services - and do they realise that as representatives of the people they
are disbarred from public office if they do so? Who has the will to ask
these questions in the absence of a free press?



I know how out of control our security services are.  When Ian Eliot (ex
military and art teacher at HMP Whatton), and others, formed a plot to
threaten my life there was nothing I could do.  No police force to whom I
could turn and no court of law which would consider my case.  When
threatened by Robert Bridges, a lecturer at the University of Halifax, two
floors of a tower block on the outskirts of Birmingham devoted to training
security services personnel, he admitted to having killed a British
serviceman suspected of spying whilst serving in the MoD Police.  He knew
with absolute clarity that this admission would never mean he had to face
trial or answer for this murder.  He knew that the security services rule
this country - it is to them that MP's Ministers, Civil Servants, the media
and every other part of the establishment is answerable - not to the
citizens of this country.  My crime?  To have tripped over possible
unethical psychological experimentation, which had the sanction of the
security services, and to have rescued my then husband from the clutches of
those conducting this experimentation.  It is time we realised that the
excesses of our security services need to be urgently curtailed.  We are
indeed fighting a 'war against terrorism' but trying to find out whether the
terrorists are Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or those who originally
recruited these men, the security services of the USA and UK, is the real
battle.



If the truth is professionally smothered at every level of Government and
all those responsible for overseeing proper Government too fearful to do so,
then the only solution is to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in
order to find out to what depths we as a nation, in the grip of organised
anarchy, have sunk.  The whole truth must be told, not one iota left out and
only then can those who have perpetrated these actions escape punishment.



One recalls the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in London, killed by a bullet
not from the Libyan Embassy but from the trajectory of Special Forces
ensconced in a nearby building.  However if one repeats a lie often enough
it gains credibility and although it was undoubtedly proven that she was
killed from a building occupied by the security services the press have
swallowed the repetition and fed us the lie that she was killed by a Libyan
(see Tony Benn's diary - FREE AT LAST).   (1,636 words)



End Of Item



http://www.mason-rule.bizhosting.com

Note: The e-mail address given on the above website is no longer valid.

http://topcrime.250Free.com



Alternative E-Mail: bliarblair@hotmail.com