July 22, 2005
The controlled press blames British-born Moslems for the terror bombings in London. But were the Pakistani lads from Leeds the architects of terror – or merely unwitting patsies?
Senior British, U.S. and Israeli political figures, the key players in the artificial “war on terror” – and the controlled press – blame “Islamic terrorists” for the July 7 terror bombings that killed 56 people in London.
Blaming British-born Moslems of Pakistani ancestry has inflamed public opinion against Moslems in Britain. The allegations against the four suspects remain unproven, while evidence suggests the bombing was a synthetic “false flag” terror operation carried out by a state-sponsored intelligence agency.
Before the smoke had even cleared, USA Today, a paper with ties to the CIA, blamed “Islamic terrorists” for the bombings. The first sentence of the paper’s July 8 front-page story pointed the finger at Islamic militants before any suspects had even been identified. The four explosions, it reported, “appeared to be the work of Islamic terrorists affiliated with those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack, officials said.” Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, and Prime Minister Tony Blair were among the first to blame Islamic terrorists. “It has the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda related attack,” Straw said.
Since the bombing, the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) and other mass media outlets have accepted as fact the unproven allegations. Working from that assumption they debate how British-born Moslems could commit such senseless atrocities against fellow Britons. The question of who is actually responsible for the crime, however, is seldom raised.
The young suspects from the city of Leeds do not fit the terrorist profile for such a random and senseless terror bombing. Well assimilated Moslems and fathers of young children, one with a wife expecting a child, these young men seem to have been used as unwitting “mules” in a sinister “false flag” operation. Reports in the British press suggest the young men were duped into a scheme in which they thought they were carrying innocent packages of perfume, while a hidden hand inserted lethal bombs in their backpacks.
“The London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves,” Jeff Edwards of the Daily Mirror wrote. “The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding a train at Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry ‘Allah Akhbar!’ – ‘God is great’ – usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb.”
“Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licenses, bankcards and other personal items. Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material,” Edwards noted.
One of the suicide bombers, Jermaine Lindsay, 19, spent nearly $2,000 on expensive perfumes from different stores in the days prior to the bombing. According to some terror “experts,” the terrorists thought the alcohol-based perfumes would act like napalm and the metal containers like shrapnel.
“British news reports about the suicide bombers sound like comedy scripts,” 9-11 writer Eric Hufschmid said. “We are now expected to consider that these terrorists placed expensive containers of perfume around the bombs. However, the ridiculous aspects of these suicide bombers could indicate they were ‘useful idiots.'”
“Perhaps these four young men were fooled into thinking that they were purchasing perfumes for quality control, or that they were checking the performance of sales clerks,” Hufschmid said. “After receiving payment for purchasing the perfumes, they would have been more trusting of their ’employers’, so they would be happy to deliver ‘Do Not Open’ packages on the morning of July 7. They would never suspect that somebody with a cell phone would detonate bombs in their backpacks while they were on the trains.”
There are a number of clues that suggest the bombing was a sophisticated “false flag” operation carried out by the architects of the “war on terror.” Such synthetic terror attacks are meant to shape public opinion to support the ongoing wars of aggression and occupation of Moslem and Arab states. In order to advance their “Clash of Civilizations” the architects of such terror seek to inflame public opinion against Moslems. The London bombings have achieved that, but why would British-born Moslems want to further an agenda that hurts their community most? Why did no one claim responsibility for the bombing? And why would Islamic terrorists kill innocent working people rather that hit a specific target?
The Israeli finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was staying at a hotel above the bombing that occurred on the Piccadilly line near Russell Square. Netanyahu, an extreme right-wing Israeli politician with the Likud party, is a chief architect of the “War on Terror.” Since the 1980s, Netanyahu has written books urging the western democracies to wage war against the Arab and Moslem nations. The U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq is exactly the kind of military action Netanyahu has called for since 1985.
Ariel Sharon, Israel’s prime minister, phoned Blair after the bombing and called it a “vicious crime.” There can be “no compromise with terror, which has become the major threat the free world is facing,” Sharon said, equating Israel with “the free world.”
According to Israeli and Associated Press (AP) reports, Scotland Yard and the Israeli Embassy in London were forewarned of the bombings. ”British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday’s explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said,” Amy Triebel, an AP writer in Jerusalem reported at noon on July 7. But who warned Scotland Yard?
“The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room,” the Israeli press reported. The source of the warning to British police was not revealed. Netanyahu was in London to speak at a conference to promote investment in Israel.
Israeli Army Radio reported on July 8 that Scotland Yard had received intelligence warnings of the attacks shortly before they occurred. If the London bombing was carried out by a domestic Islamic terror cell, who informed Scotland Yard?
“The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope,” Efraim Halevi wrote in the Jerusalem Post on July 7. How did Halevi know that the explosions were simultaneous? The underground bombings were not known to have been simultaneous until British authorities reported their findings on July 9. Until then it was thought that the three subway bombs had gone off at 7:51, 7:56, and 8:17 a.m.
Like 9-11 and other “false flag” acts of terror, the London bombings occurred during a large-scale terrorist exercise that took place at the same time and locations as the actual explosions. Peter Power, former high-ranking employee of Scotland Yard and member of its Anti-Terrorist Branch, told BBC 5 and ITV News that his company, Visor Consulting, had carried out “crisis exercises,” with an unnamed private company.
The exercise envisioned “almost precisely” the bombings that actually occurred, Power said. Power described the simulation of “simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station” and “bombs going off precisely at the railway stations” at which the actual bombings occurred.
“There were a few seconds when the audience didn’t realize whether it was real or not,” he said. On ITV, Power suggested that the unnamed partner in the terror exercise was concerned about Jewish buildings and banks being targeted.
I contacted Visor Consultants, the mayor of the City of London, Scotland Yard, and the transportation authority to ask about the identity of the unnamed partner in the terror exercise. A likely candidate is an Israeli company called International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) International N.V., an aviation and transportation security firm headed by “former [Israeli] military commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence and security agencies.”
Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at Boston’s Logan Airport in 1999 through Huntleigh USA, a subsidiary of ICTS. Until his 1996 conviction, Atzmon was president of the Israel Development Fund (IDF), a U.S. tax-exempt foundation funneling money illegally to the Likud party of Sharon and Netanyahu, according to author Anton Chaitkin.
Harel shares the name of Isser Harel, the co-founder of Israel’s Mossad and first director of the Shin Bet, the internal security agency.
Atzmon and Harel were majority owners of ICTS. The convicted Likud criminal’s [Atzmon] firm was in charge of security at Logan Airport, Chaitkin wrote – inspecting the validity of passports and visas, searching cargo, screening passengers – when two airliners were hijacked from there on Sept. 11, 2001, and demolished the World Trade Center towers in New York. ICTS also provided security at Newark airport.
At a trade exhibition in June, ICTS presented its “comprehensive security solution for the railroad and public transportation industry, which can be developed, tailored and implemented in a modular manner.”
“Was ICTS International, or one of its affiliates, involved in the July 7 terror exercise in London?” I asked ICTS spokesperson Petra Snoek at company headquarters in Amstelveen, Holland.
“Herewith I would like to inform you that ICTS International is not operating in the U.K.,” Snoek wrote. But ICTS International does have a subsidiary in Britain called ICTS U.K. Ltd., located in London’s Tavistock House South, precisely where the double-decker bus was bombed on July 7. A receptionist at ICTS U.K. Ltd. said the office was temporarily closed after the bombing due to damage, but that the company was indeed part of ICTS International.
Note: Due to the transfer of information from the original website to this updated format, some article post dates may differ from the date they were originally published. However, most articles contain the actual publish date at the top of the article.