No offence, but this Craig Murray -person does not seem like a properly vetted source for information about Her Majesty's Governments wrong doings or suspected thereof: "Murray was removed from his post in October 2004,shortly after the Financial Times leak, which Murray later told Amy Goodman, he thought had been leaked by the British government to incriminate him" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
The political naivety of some people in this thread is astounding. You probably believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq simply because you were told to by the government, and we all know governments never lie, not even bend the truth. No wonder you are all Bond fans. The espionage world he inhabits has no nuances and MI6 can do nothing that is amoral. I fear that if you were ever recruited by them you would probably have a nervous breakdown at some of the things you were ordered to do to protect the state. It’s not all dinner jackets and gentleman’s clubs I’m afraid. Most of it is to do with discrediting nations and politicians and arranging “accidents” etc. Sad but true.
Most of you who were in the military will know this but play it down. No doubt you had to sign the official secrets act or something similar. You’ve probably had the fear of God put in you not to be “disloyal” to the crown once you left the services.
I think you you should try to ovoid getting personal and stick to the issues instead.
I had my doubts a out the WMD's in Iraq. The reason is that the Bush jr administration and the neocons were known to want regime change in Iraq. They believed this would start a positive domino effect in the Middle East creating Democratic and pro-West governments. There were also serious sources that questioned the WMD claims, such as the UN team searching inside Iraq.
I think we all understand MI6 actions isn't as pure as snow. Espionage is often a dirty game. But it's a long leap from realising this to beliving what you do:
- The British secret services has engineered fake murders of at least two people because the Americans told them to. The goal, apparently, is to make a major power with nuclear weapons and an actively aggressive leadership their enemy. Is this a correct understanding of your opinions?
I wonder: did the MI6 murder Dawn Sturgess to make the Skripal case more believable or are she and her boyfriend Charlie Rowley secret agents too?
I think you you should try to ovoid getting personal and stick to the issues instead.
I had my doubts a out the WMD's in Iraq. The reason is that the Bush jr administration and the neocons were known to want regime change in Iraq. They believed this would start a positive domino effect in the Middle East creating Democratic and pro-West governments. There were also serious sources that questioned the WMD claims, such as the UN team searching inside Iraq.
I think we all understand MI6 actions isn't as pure as snow. Espionage is often a dirty game. But it's a long leap from realising this to beliving what you do:
- The British secret services has engineered fake murders of at least two people because the Americans told them to. The goal, apparently, is to make a major power with nuclear weapons and an actively aggressive leadership their enemy. Is this a correct understanding of your opinions?
I wonder: did the MI6 murder Dawn Sturgess to make the Skripal case more believable or are she and her boyfriend Charlie Rowley secret agents too?
I wasn’t being personal. I think you might be being a bit paranoid there. “Some people” doesn’t necessarily mean you alone.
When you say, “the reason is that the Bush jr administration and the neocons were known to want regime change in Iraq. They believed this would start a positive domino effect in the Middle East creating Democratic and pro-West governments” people in 2003 would have said you were advocating conspiracy theories. So this isn’t really a proper counter argument.
You say, “The British secret services has engineered fake murders of at least two people because the Americans told them to. The goal, apparently, is to make a major power with nuclear weapons and an actively aggressive leadership their enemy. Is this a correct understanding of your opinions?” you are assuming that the US have never told the UK what to do, but as we have seen with the WMD episode in Iraq that the UK did follow orders from the US—that was the main criticism of the anti-war demonstrators, who were eventually proven right.
You say, “I wonder: did the MI6 murder Dawn Sturgess to make the Skripal case more believable or are she and her boyfriend Charlie Rowley secret agents too?” but I never said Sturgess was dead. There is no actual Sturgess or Rowley, both are MI5 agents posing as these created personalities. So no one was harmed in this MI5 operation.
If people won’t examine the links I’ve posted and instead just make knee-jerk reactions as to what I am saying then we won’t get very far
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
I never thought your comments were directly ment for me, but they were ment for members of this forum. That sort of comments might lead, down the line, to closed political threads. We all know how feel about that )
I don't think the neocons view on Iraq and the Middle East was any secret. They had talked and written about this publicly for years. It's not really comparable to this situation.
The US has told the UK what they wish them to do on many occations, but right now I can't think of any cases where they have been asked to fake murders to create a serious confrontation with a major power. On the Iraq issue the US chose to believe some sources and not to belive other sources based on ideological thinking. Not really the same thing as knowingly faking murders.
You should also remember that the current US administration, especially Trump, isn't know for being particularely critical towards Putin and his regime (to put it mildly) . This makes it even less likely that the US are "ordering" Britain to go though with this extreme plan to make enemies of Russia.
Don't you think Dawn Sturgess had family, co-workers and friends? Don't you think she had childhood friends? I can imagine how the Skripal could have been recruited to the MI5 and talked into a conspiracy. They were cut off from their roots in Russia and they knew SVR/GRU wanted them dead. It's not likely or very believable, but it doesn't sound kimpossible (seen in isolation, that is. It makes little sense when I look at the wider picture). Creating two British identities who are ment to get a lot of attention from the police, media and the public. Then "killing" one of them and forcing the other to live the fake identity for the rest of his life with this identity is impossible in the real world. You can of course imagine a new fake death or moving to Alaska, but this whole thing would end up being ludicrously complicated.
If you consider the posibility the British police are investigation real murder here (and you agree that's what, have you thought of how Rowley and other people who knew her must feel when they read posts like yours?
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
i'm gonna go out on a limb here but personally i think you've got too much time on your hands, take dubious sources as fact and join the dots up in a way that you get to paint your own picture of matters, whether subliminally or not.
it's the typical conspiracy mantra; you state something and anyone who disagrees must be 'working for them/the others'. The more we deny that the more you shout "well you would say that, wouldn't you?!"
And so on and so forth until it all spirals out of control and thing get personal, ultimately resulting in you being banned, as happened before did it not?
In a nutshell, calm down dear, and stop reading internet tripe. (ironic you read that on an internet forum huh?)
I don't think the neocons view on Iraq and the Middle East was any secret. They had talked and written about this publicly for years. It's not really comparable to this situation.
It’s true that the document you allude to (The Project for a New American Century) does exist, but that wasn’t the reason given by Bush et al for the invasion of Iraq. The official reason Bush gave was that Iraq had WMDs. So I think you are being a little disingenuous here.
but right now I can't think of any cases where they have been asked to fake murders to create a serious confrontation with a major power.
Such cases would hardly be public knowledge would they? Most of the exposures about various dark ops and false flags don’t come to light until many decades after the event. Such as that of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the False Nayirah Testimony and the USS Maine incident. That the CIA, MI6 etc is above “faking murders” as you put it is quite a naïve thing to suggest. Perhaps you think all they do is to send agents out to look for Blofelds and Goldfingers.
You should also remember that the current US administration, especially Trump, isn't know for being particularely critical towards Putin and his regime (to put it mildly) . This makes it even less likely that the US are "ordering" Britain to go though with this extreme plan to make enemies of Russia.
Yea, that’s why Trump bombed Syria earlier this year and has expelled over 60 Russian diplomats and has increased sanctions against Russia.
This makes it even less likely that the US are "ordering" Britain to go though with this extreme plan to make enemies of Russia.
There’s nothing particularly extreme about it from the geo-political angle. Sanctioning and expelling diplomats is par for the course in what the US and UK do when a country displeases them. It’s really just “business as usual”. Not very nice but hardly extreme from the US and UK standpoint.
Don't you think Dawn Sturgess had family, co-workers and friends? Don't you think she had childhood friends?
As I have said many times here, Sturgess never existed. The woman in the photos was an MI5 operative. The security services create false identities and histories for all its operatives used for false flag operations. If there was a real Sturgess how come the media never interviewed any members of her family, or covered her funeral. The UK media usually cover funerals of innocent victims and make a fuss about them, so why not in this case then? And don’t say because her family wished not to be publicised. The media always find a way of getting around privacy issues if they can get a good photo or video of someone’s suffering.
I can imagine how the Skripal could have been recruited to the MI5 and talked into a conspiracy. They were cut off from their roots in Russia and they knew SVR/GRU wanted them dead. It's not likely or very believable, but it doesn't sound kimpossible (seen in isolation, that is. It makes little sense when I look at the wider picture).
I’m glad you have shifted position slightly, and don’t see my theory as being absolutely outlandish.
Creating two British identities who are ment to get a lot of attention from the police, media and the public.
MI5 are aware that the public have very short memories and forget things easily when a fresh news cycle comes along. That’s what MI5 count on. And the media assist them in this by changing news cycles fairly rapidly.
Then "killing" one of them and forcing the other to live the fake identity for the rest of his life with this identity is impossible in the real world. You can of course imagine a new fake death or moving to Alaska, but this whole thing would end up being ludicrously complicated.
If the person “killed” was an agent of MI5 then they would just go back to being anonymous like all MI5 agents are. Your objection would only be valid if MI5 used non-MI5 people. In that case more effort would be needed to hide them.
If you consider the posibility the British police are investigation real murder here (and you agree that's what, have you thought of how Rowley and other people who knew her must feel when they read posts like yours?
See my above explanations to this sort of question.
We need to put a bit of realism in here, all mi5 agents are not anonymous, neither are all mi6 agents for that matter, this investigation has involved both police, anti terror squad, mi5 and due to the nature of attack mi6 also.
What Osris is alluding to knowingly or unknowingly is a grand conspiracy that has needed hundreds of people from multiple agencies covering up and playing along with a government plan to alienate the Russian state, for not much gain. Purely because the current US government says so, which would then also include perhaps a dozen Americans including cia operatives. Its not possible these days pure and simple.
If you go and stand outside the Vauxhall Bridge sis building or Thames house you will see many agents coming and going. What you're talking about is deep cover field agents, of which there are not that many, they are selected from police or military backgrounds primarily, a few have come from a civilian background and worked through the ranks of the sis. Dawn Sturgess must have been placed in deep cover as a drug addict for years possibly 15 and left a created a background fitting of someone in that position including having an illegitimate daughter 11 years ago who is known to social services, schools the police etc.... It's just doesn't work like that.
Furthermore modern intelligence sharing due to international terrorism makes such operations on this scale simply impossible. Clandestine operations do of course still happen but they are very different in execution than they were in the 60's.
As for the wmd in Iraq. The glorious leaders of the time who instigated that did so for political reasons and gain and based it all on dubious intelligence that they thought would hold water if it was examined and it didn't. Furthermore the cleanup operation in the UK and the US was shoddy and badly done. It had more holes than a mosque in srebrenica.
Is Dawn Sturgess 11- year old daughter a MI5 agent too?
Those two reports just mention that her daughter was present at the funeral. There is no photo or footage of the daughter, nor with any of the other family members. Odd for UK media, which usually has full coverage of such funerals. Also note that the only photo both reports have is of an isolated hearse with no people in the background, unlike all the other media coverage of other funerals.
Without photos, footage or interviews with family members, these reports are not credible.
What Osris is alluding to knowingly or unknowingly is a grand conspiracy that has needed hundreds of people from multiple agencies covering up and playing along with a government plan... Purely because the current US government says so, which would then also include perhaps a dozen Americans including cia operatives. Its not possible these days pure and simple.
Only a handful of people would need to know—certain CIA, MI5 and National Crime Agency people, the Skripals, “Sturgess” and Rowley” and the police officers and chemical clean-up workers present at the Skripals house in Salisbury. The police officers and chemical clean-up workers were most likely MI5 operatives anyway. Besides, whether all of the CIA, MI5 etc knew about it is beside the point as all of them can keep secrets anyway. Whistle blowing isn’t a healthy pursuit in the intelligence services—look what happend to Edward Snowdon.
The media is doing most of the heavy lifting anyway in making this story look credible, and once that is achieved the public are all too easy to go along with it. Like Number 24 they don’t really go deeply into the issue and just repeat what they read in press reports.
For the US to regain control of the Middle East is a big gain to them. If they can demonise and discredit Russia and isolate it from the international community they can topple Syria and Iran, and install puppet regimes there that will support US military and corporate interests in the region.
If you go and stand outside the Vauxhall Bridge sis building or Thames house you will see many agents coming and going. What you're talking about is deep cover field agents, of which there are not that many, they are selected from police or military backgrounds primarily, a few have come from a civilian background and worked through the ranks of the sis.
True, and yes I am talking about deep cover agents, though not necessarily in Sturgess’s case. In that instance we merely have a photo and a name. The person in the photo could be anyone who died a few years ago, and a fake name and identity attributed to that person.
In the case of Rowely, he could either be a deep cover operative or someone MI6 has compromised to play the part. Sometimes they do this when they need “bit players”.
Dawn Sturgess must have been placed in deep cover as a drug addict for years possibly 15 and left a created a background fitting of someone in that position including having an illegitimate daughter 11 years ago who is known to social services, schools the police etc.... It's just doesn't work like that.
Furthermore modern intelligence sharing due to international terrorism makes such operations on this scale simply impossible.
As I said before it matters not whether all of the CIA, MI5 or any other international security agency know about it or not, they are all working on the same side. Any one person in these organisations who spilled the beans would end up like Snowden—or dead. So there is an incentive to keep quiet.
As for the wmd in Iraq. The glorious leaders of the time who instigated that did so for political reasons and gain and based it all on dubious intelligence that they thought would hold water if it was examined and it didn't. Furthermore the cleanup operation in the UK and the US was shoddy and badly done. It had more holes than a mosque in srebrenica.
I have no disagreement with you here, my point is that they used the excuse of WMDs to do this. Had they been more honest and said “we have political reasons for doing this, as it will help the US economy” not many people would have gone along with it. So they had to lie. But at the time many people thought they were not lying, and accused the people who thought they were lying of being conspiracy theorists. It is easy to silence questions by saying that those who question are conspiracy theorists.
I have been asked by members here why I brother discussing this with you, and to be honest I have asked myself the same question many times. If you are willing to belive this child and her parents were just an act and only a few people would have to be in on such an operation to work you'd belive elephants can fly.
All I can do now is urge you to think logically though this case and if it really makes sense.
I also urge you to notice if serious media pick up on this, or it mainly stays in the type of places on the net were conspiracy theories are rampant. If you find many people in the internet sites where you are who believe school massacres in the US are "black flagg" with actors and agents, 9/11 was an inside job etc. you should see this as bad signs. I wish you the best, but after these posts I'm worried about you. Take care
and only a few people would have to be in on such an operation to work you'd belive elephants can fly.
As I said even if all of the CIA and MI5 knew about it, their members are sworn to secrecy for fear of prosecution or perhaps even death. I wish your responses were more considered.
I also urge you to notice if serious media pick up on this, or it mainly stays in the type of places on the net were conspiracy theories are rampant.
What is “serious” media, as you call it? Liberal types would say The Guardian is serious media, and right-wing types would say the Daily Mail is. There is no such thing as an impartial press. First lesson in journalism class.
If you find many people in the internet sites where you are who believe school massacres in the US are "black flagg" with actors and agents, 9/11 was an inside job etc. you should see this as bad signs. I wish you the best, but after these posts I'm worried about you. Take care
Please don’t be so childish as to tarnish all questioning of governments as being like believing in school massacres etc. Shame on you. Try to become more informed about things—if only to stop you looking silly.
Comments
I removed it because I realised Number 24 wasn't talking about the forum getting closed down, just the political thread -{
Had to backtrack and delete quickly then
No offence, but this Craig Murray -person does not seem like a properly vetted source for information about Her Majesty's Governments wrong doings or suspected thereof: "Murray was removed from his post in October 2004,shortly after the Financial Times leak, which Murray later told Amy Goodman, he thought had been leaked by the British government to incriminate him" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray
-Mr Arlington Beech
Most of you who were in the military will know this but play it down. No doubt you had to sign the official secrets act or something similar. You’ve probably had the fear of God put in you not to be “disloyal” to the crown once you left the services.
I had my doubts a out the WMD's in Iraq. The reason is that the Bush jr administration and the neocons were known to want regime change in Iraq. They believed this would start a positive domino effect in the Middle East creating Democratic and pro-West governments. There were also serious sources that questioned the WMD claims, such as the UN team searching inside Iraq.
I think we all understand MI6 actions isn't as pure as snow. Espionage is often a dirty game. But it's a long leap from realising this to beliving what you do:
- The British secret services has engineered fake murders of at least two people because the Americans told them to. The goal, apparently, is to make a major power with nuclear weapons and an actively aggressive leadership their enemy. Is this a correct understanding of your opinions?
I wonder: did the MI6 murder Dawn Sturgess to make the Skripal case more believable or are she and her boyfriend Charlie Rowley secret agents too?
Yes, I agree. Guys, please keep this polite and impersonal.
I wasn’t being personal. I think you might be being a bit paranoid there. “Some people” doesn’t necessarily mean you alone.
When you say, “the reason is that the Bush jr administration and the neocons were known to want regime change in Iraq. They believed this would start a positive domino effect in the Middle East creating Democratic and pro-West governments” people in 2003 would have said you were advocating conspiracy theories. So this isn’t really a proper counter argument.
You say, “The British secret services has engineered fake murders of at least two people because the Americans told them to. The goal, apparently, is to make a major power with nuclear weapons and an actively aggressive leadership their enemy. Is this a correct understanding of your opinions?” you are assuming that the US have never told the UK what to do, but as we have seen with the WMD episode in Iraq that the UK did follow orders from the US—that was the main criticism of the anti-war demonstrators, who were eventually proven right.
You say, “I wonder: did the MI6 murder Dawn Sturgess to make the Skripal case more believable or are she and her boyfriend Charlie Rowley secret agents too?” but I never said Sturgess was dead. There is no actual Sturgess or Rowley, both are MI5 agents posing as these created personalities. So no one was harmed in this MI5 operation.
If people won’t examine the links I’ve posted and instead just make knee-jerk reactions as to what I am saying then we won’t get very far
Surely Higgins bullying is OK though
I don't think the neocons view on Iraq and the Middle East was any secret. They had talked and written about this publicly for years. It's not really comparable to this situation.
The US has told the UK what they wish them to do on many occations, but right now I can't think of any cases where they have been asked to fake murders to create a serious confrontation with a major power. On the Iraq issue the US chose to believe some sources and not to belive other sources based on ideological thinking. Not really the same thing as knowingly faking murders.
You should also remember that the current US administration, especially Trump, isn't know for being particularely critical towards Putin and his regime (to put it mildly) . This makes it even less likely that the US are "ordering" Britain to go though with this extreme plan to make enemies of Russia.
Don't you think Dawn Sturgess had family, co-workers and friends? Don't you think she had childhood friends? I can imagine how the Skripal could have been recruited to the MI5 and talked into a conspiracy. They were cut off from their roots in Russia and they knew SVR/GRU wanted them dead. It's not likely or very believable, but it doesn't sound kimpossible (seen in isolation, that is. It makes little sense when I look at the wider picture). Creating two British identities who are ment to get a lot of attention from the police, media and the public. Then "killing" one of them and forcing the other to live the fake identity for the rest of his life with this identity is impossible in the real world. You can of course imagine a new fake death or moving to Alaska, but this whole thing would end up being ludicrously complicated.
If you consider the posibility the British police are investigation real murder here (and you agree that's what, have you thought of how Rowley and other people who knew her must feel when they read posts like yours?
Thank heaven for small mercies then -{
it's the typical conspiracy mantra; you state something and anyone who disagrees must be 'working for them/the others'. The more we deny that the more you shout "well you would say that, wouldn't you?!"
And so on and so forth until it all spirals out of control and thing get personal, ultimately resulting in you being banned, as happened before did it not?
In a nutshell, calm down dear, and stop reading internet tripe. (ironic you read that on an internet forum huh?)
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
It’s true that the document you allude to (The Project for a New American Century) does exist, but that wasn’t the reason given by Bush et al for the invasion of Iraq. The official reason Bush gave was that Iraq had WMDs. So I think you are being a little disingenuous here.
I’m glad you agree with me on that.
Such cases would hardly be public knowledge would they? Most of the exposures about various dark ops and false flags don’t come to light until many decades after the event. Such as that of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the False Nayirah Testimony and the USS Maine incident. That the CIA, MI6 etc is above “faking murders” as you put it is quite a naïve thing to suggest. Perhaps you think all they do is to send agents out to look for Blofelds and Goldfingers.
Yea, that’s why Trump bombed Syria earlier this year and has expelled over 60 Russian diplomats and has increased sanctions against Russia.
There’s nothing particularly extreme about it from the geo-political angle. Sanctioning and expelling diplomats is par for the course in what the US and UK do when a country displeases them. It’s really just “business as usual”. Not very nice but hardly extreme from the US and UK standpoint.
As I have said many times here, Sturgess never existed. The woman in the photos was an MI5 operative. The security services create false identities and histories for all its operatives used for false flag operations. If there was a real Sturgess how come the media never interviewed any members of her family, or covered her funeral. The UK media usually cover funerals of innocent victims and make a fuss about them, so why not in this case then? And don’t say because her family wished not to be publicised. The media always find a way of getting around privacy issues if they can get a good photo or video of someone’s suffering.
I’m glad you have shifted position slightly, and don’t see my theory as being absolutely outlandish.
MI5 are aware that the public have very short memories and forget things easily when a fresh news cycle comes along. That’s what MI5 count on. And the media assist them in this by changing news cycles fairly rapidly.
If the person “killed” was an agent of MI5 then they would just go back to being anonymous like all MI5 agents are. Your objection would only be valid if MI5 used non-MI5 people. In that case more effort would be needed to hide them.
See my above explanations to this sort of question.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salisbury-novichok-amesbury-dawn-sturgess-funeral-daughter-poisoning-charlie-rowley-a8470281.html
Is Dawn Sturgess 11- year old daughter a MI5 agent too?
What Osris is alluding to knowingly or unknowingly is a grand conspiracy that has needed hundreds of people from multiple agencies covering up and playing along with a government plan to alienate the Russian state, for not much gain. Purely because the current US government says so, which would then also include perhaps a dozen Americans including cia operatives. Its not possible these days pure and simple.
If you go and stand outside the Vauxhall Bridge sis building or Thames house you will see many agents coming and going. What you're talking about is deep cover field agents, of which there are not that many, they are selected from police or military backgrounds primarily, a few have come from a civilian background and worked through the ranks of the sis. Dawn Sturgess must have been placed in deep cover as a drug addict for years possibly 15 and left a created a background fitting of someone in that position including having an illegitimate daughter 11 years ago who is known to social services, schools the police etc.... It's just doesn't work like that.
Furthermore modern intelligence sharing due to international terrorism makes such operations on this scale simply impossible. Clandestine operations do of course still happen but they are very different in execution than they were in the 60's.
As for the wmd in Iraq. The glorious leaders of the time who instigated that did so for political reasons and gain and based it all on dubious intelligence that they thought would hold water if it was examined and it didn't. Furthermore the cleanup operation in the UK and the US was shoddy and badly done. It had more holes than a mosque in srebrenica.
Those two reports just mention that her daughter was present at the funeral. There is no photo or footage of the daughter, nor with any of the other family members. Odd for UK media, which usually has full coverage of such funerals. Also note that the only photo both reports have is of an isolated hearse with no people in the background, unlike all the other media coverage of other funerals.
Without photos, footage or interviews with family members, these reports are not credible.
Only a handful of people would need to know—certain CIA, MI5 and National Crime Agency people, the Skripals, “Sturgess” and Rowley” and the police officers and chemical clean-up workers present at the Skripals house in Salisbury. The police officers and chemical clean-up workers were most likely MI5 operatives anyway. Besides, whether all of the CIA, MI5 etc knew about it is beside the point as all of them can keep secrets anyway. Whistle blowing isn’t a healthy pursuit in the intelligence services—look what happend to Edward Snowdon.
The media is doing most of the heavy lifting anyway in making this story look credible, and once that is achieved the public are all too easy to go along with it. Like Number 24 they don’t really go deeply into the issue and just repeat what they read in press reports.
For the US to regain control of the Middle East is a big gain to them. If they can demonise and discredit Russia and isolate it from the international community they can topple Syria and Iran, and install puppet regimes there that will support US military and corporate interests in the region.
True, and yes I am talking about deep cover agents, though not necessarily in Sturgess’s case. In that instance we merely have a photo and a name. The person in the photo could be anyone who died a few years ago, and a fake name and identity attributed to that person.
In the case of Rowely, he could either be a deep cover operative or someone MI6 has compromised to play the part. Sometimes they do this when they need “bit players”.
See my previous response.
As I said before it matters not whether all of the CIA, MI5 or any other international security agency know about it or not, they are all working on the same side. Any one person in these organisations who spilled the beans would end up like Snowden—or dead. So there is an incentive to keep quiet.
I have no disagreement with you here, my point is that they used the excuse of WMDs to do this. Had they been more honest and said “we have political reasons for doing this, as it will help the US economy” not many people would have gone along with it. So they had to lie. But at the time many people thought they were not lying, and accused the people who thought they were lying of being conspiracy theorists. It is easy to silence questions by saying that those who question are conspiracy theorists.
All I can do now is urge you to think logically though this case and if it really makes sense.
I also urge you to notice if serious media pick up on this, or it mainly stays in the type of places on the net were conspiracy theories are rampant. If you find many people in the internet sites where you are who believe school massacres in the US are "black flagg" with actors and agents, 9/11 was an inside job etc. you should see this as bad signs. I wish you the best, but after these posts I'm worried about you. Take care
I have also asked myself why you bother to discuss it with me seeing as you are quite naïve cornering realpolitik and geopolitical matters.
I have yet to see evidence in those two scant press reports you posted that prove that a child exists. Assertions are not proof.
As I said even if all of the CIA and MI5 knew about it, their members are sworn to secrecy for fear of prosecution or perhaps even death. I wish your responses were more considered.
All I can do is to urge you to address each of my detailed responses to your knee-jerk objections.
What is “serious” media, as you call it? Liberal types would say The Guardian is serious media, and right-wing types would say the Daily Mail is. There is no such thing as an impartial press. First lesson in journalism class.
Please don’t be so childish as to tarnish all questioning of governments as being like believing in school massacres etc. Shame on you. Try to become more informed about things—if only to stop you looking silly.