"[T]hat 9/11 was a Jewish plot or the 7/7 London attacks were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy [are lies]" - David CameronThe recent speech by UK Prime Minister (PM) David Cameron proposed dealing with "non-violent extremists" as harshly as with ISIS.
In his vocabulary, "non-violent extremists" are those who challenge the truth of the official narrative of 9/11 or what the UK has claimed about the London 7/7 subway bombings.
He appears to be unaware or deliberately ignorant of the mountain of proof that 9/11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad.
Moreover, we know that 7/7 was a contrived event, where we have documentaries and books that demonstrate it was done by MI-5 using four young Muslim men in the role of patsies.
Calling his bluff, the leading expert on 7/7, who is also a student of 9/11, responded to the PM's absurd position by turning himself in to Scotland Yard as a "non-violent extremist", but Scotland Yard refused to arrest him.
David Cameron's speech to the UN
The distinction between "violent extremists" and "non-violent extremists" should be apparent to all: violent extremists take actions to promote their cause through the use of violence - suicide bombings, blowing up mosques and beheading journalists come to mind - where non-violent extremists are critics of the official narratives who exercise their intellects to dissect the blatant dimensions of these fabricated events as an exercise in thought. So unless there is no distinction to be drawn between thought and action, the Prime Minister's position is simply absurd:
This year, Al- Qaeda had to be replaced as the new demonized enemy-image for the public to despise, because even US Marines had been holding placards saying, "I will not fight against al-Qaeda in Syria." So here we have David Cameron blustering about the new ISIL menace durng his UN speech and why it justifies the re-bombing of Iraq and now Syria. This name, now contracted to "Islamic State", has the great advantage of tying the word "Islam" directly to "terrorism". This new 'enemy' is being used as excuse to invade Syria, plus also to facilitate the division of Iraq into three countries.
But, some believe that the Prime Minister may have gone too far in this UN speech, in trying to demonize "truthers". He has developed the novel concept of "nonviolent extremists", who, he avers, somehow stimulate groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda to spring up. The reasoning here is truly bizarre. There may be a problem with British Muslims going out to Syria to fight against the Assad government, because they do not want a secular government to exist. But "non-violent extremism" is another distorted and indefensible concept, whereby the UK government can arrest anyone it wants.
Challenging the PM's indefensible position
Maybe Cameron's advisers have not apprised him that the leader of ISIL, Al-Baghdadi (aka Simon Eliot or rather Elliot Shimon), has both Jewish mother and father and is a Mossad agent. Maybe they have not told him that the beheading videos were fairly obviously fakes with no real blood, which seem to emanate from a group called SITE by Zionist agent Rita Katz. Jim Fetzer was interviewed by Press TV about the PM's posture on "non-violent extremism" after his speech:
Some sensible observations about Cameron's clamoring for more wars in Iraq and Syria has been written by the Daily Mail journalist, Peter Hitchins, in an article entitled, "Dragged into a war by clowns who can't even run a railway", who notes, "A year ago, we were on the brink of aiding the people we now want to bomb, and busily encouraging the groups which have now become Islamic State. Now they are our hated foes. Which side are we actually on? Do we know?" Indeed, the entire ISIL (or "IS") development appears to be a marketing strategy to get the American public to support bombing in Syria, which is being disguised as an attack on ISIL but has the intent of damaging the infrastructure to weaken Assad.
The 7/7 London subway bombings
How shameful that Britain's Prime Minister feels at liberty to make such patronizing remarks towards Iran at the UN, calling it to change its policies over support for "terrorist organizations", its "nuclear program" and its "treatment of its people", to which the President of Iran has replied. All 16 of the US intelligence agencies converged in the conclusion that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program in 2007, which they reaffirmed in 2011. But more interesting in relation to "non-violent extremism" is that the evidence 7/7 was brought to London by the government itself is simply overwhelming. Here, for example, is a documentary by John Hill that exposes the entire event in the space of an hour:
To demonstrate the (feigned or genuine) ignorance of the PM about the 7/7 event, Nicholas Kollerstrom discovered that the four young Muslim men, who were alleged to have committed the bombings, had been unable to reach those tube stops because the train from Luton, which they would have had to have caught in order to be in place on time, had been cancelled that day, which is all the more reason to conclude that David Cameron is either extremely naive or else the embodiment of duplicity, since he surely has to know that the research he is assailing on 9/11 and 7/7 is well-founded.
Nichols Kollerstrom turns himself in
In response to Cameron's remarks equating persons who question the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks in the US and UK and the West's policy towards the Middle East with Takfiri preachers who radicalize extremists, Nicholas Kollerstrom, as a student of 9/11 and 7/7, who qualifies as a "non-violent extremist" by the PM's new definition, recognizing himself as one of those who encompassed by this concept, surrendered to Scotland Yard and brought a copy of his book as evidence:
Click here for "9/11 Activist hands himself in as a 'non-violent extremist'" (Press TV)
Explaining his actions to the Press TV correspondent in London, Kollerstrom said, "David Cameron has redefined 'terrorism' at the UN to include people who believe that the London bombings involve government complicity [and] were to some degree arranged, which I certainly do believe - and I've published a book on the subject - and also I believe the 9/11 was an inside job. I do think Islamic nations are being selectively targeted, it's perfectly obvious, and if the police force are going by his directive what constitutes terrorism, it seems to me that they need to arrest me."
The Press TV correspondent was present while Kollerstrom handed himself in. "We want to report a possible terror threat, we've got a bit of evidence and wonder if we could come in and report it," Kollerstrom said at Scotland Yard headquarters in London, offering a copy of his book as proof. Scotland Yard refused to accept the book or arrest Kollerstrom, who observed that the definition of "nonviolent extremism" will lead to the arrest of many Muslims who share his views, as another example of UK racial profiling. Others have expressed interest in following his lead, which could become a movement.
False Flag Weekly News
As reported on this weeks edition of "False Flag Weekly News" (with Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer), the Islamic State contretemps appears to be a public relations stunt by the Obama administration, which had been thwarted by the public outrage over his proposal to fire cruise missiles into Syria in response to the gas attacks falsely attributed to the Syrian government, which Russia promptly refuted with 50 pages of documentation that it had been launched by the so-called "rebels", apparently supplied by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. The rise of the IS phenomenon are simply staggering:
Perhaps most telling of all is that a new terrorist entity, the Khorasan group, has been invented out of thin air in order to claim that it poses an "imminent threat" to the United States in order to justify American strikes in another nation without securing the permission of the UN Security Council, because one nation may attack another under the Charter of the United Nations only if it has permission from the Security Council "unless it confronts an 'imminent threat'". So between David Cameron and Barack Obama, we see the depths of depravity to which the West will sink to attack Syria.
And all of this is being done to promote the agenda of the Project for the New American Century, which needed a new Pearl Harbor to reverse US foreign policy from one in which we never attacked any nation that had not attacked us first to one in which we have become the greatest aggressor nation the world has ever seen and are undertaking one war after another on behalf of Israel by dismantling every Arab nation that served as a counterbalance to its domination of the Middle East, which it aspires to control from the Tigris-Euphrates to the Nile, which is why we are still there today.
Reader Comments
Is good for the gander. Cameron should be treated like a war criminal.