Subscribe to InI’s Mailing List/Newsletter
 
 

Specific intelligence?

 
by William Bowles • Wednesday, 14 June, 2006
 
  
 

Last night (13/6/06) the Channel 4 News report on the invasion by an assault force of more than 250 state employees on the homes of two innocent citizens of this (formerly) green and pleasant land, Mohammed Abdul Kahar and his brother Abdul Koyair, opened with a list of all things reported by the media that were, to put it mildly, inventions, including, but not limited to, how the shooting took place; what exactly happened when a bunch of armed thugs broke down the door and masked and unidentified men, one of whom shot Kahar at close range, pushed his brother down the stairs and then beat him up. It also mentioned fictitious ‘terrorist’ links the two brothers had, non-existent criminal records and so on and so forth.

The report mentioned in passing that it wasn’t clear where all the dis/misinformation came from but never expanded on the observation.

The same thing went down with the de Menézes murder last July, when all kinds of rumours circulated, but ended up with not a single one of them being true. And, as with this latest example of state terrorism, the MSM never pursued the issue and with good reason.

Good sense tells me that the source of these lies could only be official if ‘off the record’. For example, the initial version of the shooting told an otherwise uninformed public that one brother shot the other. Where else could this have come from except an ‘official source’? The story ‘mysteriously’ surfaced within hours of the shooting. Are we to believe that the MSM made up this lie?

The shooting subsequently went through a series of transformations including one incredible version that suggested that the gun went off accidentally because the officer holding it was wearing thick, ‘anti-biological/chemical weapons’ gloves. Another planted story suggested that the shooter ‘tripped’. One is tempted to ask how, over his thick, anti-biological boots?

When we come to the nature of the ‘specific intelligence’ that led to the invasion of an entirely innocent family’s home, we are again presented with an astounding list of ‘off and on-the-record’ comments including definitive statements about the veracity of the ‘intelligence’ that led to the invasion, which included the ‘fact’ that the authorities were absolutely certain about the accuracy of the ‘intelligence’; that it came from an absolutely reliable source. But one story alluded to the fact that the ‘intelligence’ came from a “single source” but of course we will never know as the culture of secrecy ensures that the public is forever kept in the dark about the actions of the state.

Ultimately, the authorities “had no choice” but to act on the ‘intelligence’ as “public safety” was their primary concern. Obviously ‘public safety’ doesn’t include the man who got shot and could well have died. Well no doubt some sacrifices have to be made to justify the ‘war on terror’, just as our democratic rights have to be sacrificed in order to protect them.

Hiding behind the claim of ‘national interest’, and protecting their ‘intelligence’ sources and the on-going investigation by the ‘Independent’ Police Complaints Commission, we are none the wiser as to what led the authorities to execute this OTT operation. What we can deduce however simply from the scale of the invasion, is that its primary objective had absolutely nothing to do with public safety but with putting the frighteners on the public and as a diversion from the reality of the massacres in Iraq.

Even more fundamental is the fact that it is but another expression of the phony ‘war on terror’. How can one fight a phrase? The ‘war on terror’ is a complete fiction, it depends on nothing other than the endless repetition of the phrase, until it has no meaning other than that of a mantra that justifies any and all actions including the ‘unfortunate’ assassination of innocent people. We have all become cannon fodder for a ‘war’ that has no source just as it has no end.

My primary concern however is the degree to which the invasion reveals the parasitical relationship between the state and the media. Why for example didn’t Jon Snow’s ‘news’ report analyse the flood of lies that emanated from-on his own admission-who knows where?

Is it enough to simply report that a bunch of lies, innuendo and disinformation, reported initially as fact, and leave it at that, for this is exactly what Channel 4 ‘news’ did.

Surely this is a story of major proportions for it reveals that the MSM has an incestuous relationship with the state. After all, is Channel 4 asking us to simply accept the fact that these lies were, like ‘spontaneous combustion’, the result of some kind of unknown and unknowable process? They have to have originated from somewhere. Ask yourself why Jon Snow’s report didn’t ask the question; where did these stories come from?

An anonymous phone call, an email is all it takes, ask no questions, ‘trust me’. If, as one of Snow’s ‘expert’ guests said, the press doesn’t just report anything without checking its ‘facts’, then the press is directly responsible for spreading lies and confusion.

What is their purpose if not to sow confusion and to prejudice the public’s perceptions of the actions of the state, in other words to reinforce the claims of the state that it “had no choice” but to act as it did. Never mind that subsequently they proved to be fictions, every last damn one of them! The state merely has to deny any connection to them and leave it at that. The damage has been done, end of (this) story.

Again, a culture of secrecy and lies that is an intrinsic component of the ‘war on terror’ is the cause and because the MSM does not question this culture, it becomes an active participant in the process, thus revealing its true objectives. Objectives which contrary to popular myth have nothing to do with reporting the truth but of reinforcing and justifying the actions of the state. End of (my) story.

  |  


   
 
Subscribe to InI’s Mailing List/Newsletter
 
Main Index | Back to I‘N’I Index | Previous Article | NextArticle

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a CreativeCommons License.
For specifics please see ‘Terms and Conditions