|
|
Posted by Bob on 01/03/08 00:13
Boshto pukliana dostrina atolder. Goshana stiloro gowana titalia gostoribo
stiloro. Mea putah, mea putah, mea maxima putah chi.
<ififm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:za0800020936071188@4ax.com...
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -= why the security. services? -=
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> You may ask, why do I. think the "they" referred to are the security
> services? Is there any evidence that there is a. single source, as opposed
> to a. loosely based "whispering campaign" amongst many people? Even if
> there
> is a single source, is. there any evidence that "they" are professional
> "buggers" as opposed to amateurs,. or perhaps people working for a
> privately
> funded. organization?
>
> a) As to the question of. a single source versus something more
> fragmented;
> it is quite obvious that there is. a single source from the way the
> campaign
> has been carried out. Since. things have been repeated verbatim which were
> said in my. home, there must be one group which does the watching and
> listening. Since on several. occasions (mainly during travel) people have
> been planted in close proximity and. rehearsed in what they were to say,
> it
> follows that someone must have done the planning. for that, and again a
> single. source is indicated.
>
> b) So why couldn't it be amateurs? Why couldn't it. be a private
> organisation, for example. a private detective agency paid to manage the
> campaign and undertake the technical aspects?. Some detective agencies are
> unscrupulous. as has been proved on the occasions in the past when they've
> been exposed. or caught; they too can have access to the bugging
> technology
> deployed; and there. are reported cases of MI5 paying private eyes to do
> their dirty. work (against peace campaigners and similar enemies of the
> state) on the understanding that. if they were caught then they could deny
> all knowledge.. Why couldn't that be the case?
>
> The. main factor pointing to direct security service involvement (as
> opposed
> to amateurs or MI5 proxies) is the breadth. of their access to the media
> in
> particular, and the fact that the television companies. are so involved in
> the campaign.. The BBC would not directly invade someone's home
> themselves,
> since it would. not be within their remit to allocate personnel or
> financial
> resources to do so.. An organisation of their stature would not take part
> in
> a campaign set up by private sources. The only. people they would take
> material from would be the security. services, presumably on the
> assumption
> that if the. cat ever flew out of the bag yowling it would be MI5 who
> would
> take the. consequences.
>
> State sponsorship for. these acts of psychological terrorism is also
> indicated by duration;. support for over six years for a team of three or
> four people would. be beyond the means and will of most private sources.
> The viciousness of the. slanders and personal denigration also points to
> MI5;. they traditionally "protect" the British state from politicians of
> the
> wrong hue by character assassination, and in. this case are using their
> tried and tested. methods to murder with words an enemy they have invented
> for. themselves.
>
> And there are precedents. Diana. and Hewitt were alleged to have been
> filmed
> "at it" by an Army intelligence team which had operated in. Northern
> Ireland, these allegations were. made by someone called Jones who had been
> on the team. His statements were denied by the defence establishment. who
> tried to. character-assassinate by describing him as the "Jones twins".
> Funny how. if you tell the truth, then you must be ill, isn't it? Thought
> only communists behaved. like that?
>
> Hewitt later said that he'd been spoken to. by someone in the army who
> revealed the existence of videotapes of him and Diana,. and that the tapes
> would be published if any attempt was made by them. to resume their
> association.
>
> 880
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|