No Sibel Edmonds thread??!

[Darios]

A thought about the Griffins: - Libya was named by Edmonds as one of the beneficiaries of this network. Consider this from the article:

"It is clear that British intelligence has played a key role in the disclosures surrounding Libya. During the period that four shipments for Libya were made from Malaysia, MI6 agents were engaged - with the CIA - in top-secret negotiations with the Gadafy entourage, resulting in the Libyan leader's renunciation of his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons projects."

AFAIK we still don't know much about the content of these 'top-secret negotiations'. Is it possible that, as Libya 'came in from the cold', no one wanted any awkward questions asked, or investigations carried out as a result of U.K. and other companies investing in the new, improved Libya? Is it possible that the Griffins are in fact the 'fall guys', used to snap off the thread of the web that connects the AQ Khan network and it's govt and intelligence protectors / collaborators to Libya?

 

[EddyBlack]

Continuing coverage from the Sunday Times:

Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece

 

[fela fan]

This time it can't be written off as just a 'few bad apples', if Edmonds and her corroborating sources are right, it's a thoroughly embedded structure. Edmonds has, so far, only highlighted the U.S. patch of this network. It is extremely likely that other players in this farce of mind numbingly treason are as deeply rooted and extensive in the state and intelligence apparatus of other nations such as the U.K. and it puts a new, horrible light, on such low moments as the dodgy dossier (early draft hopefully to be revealed thanks to the Information Commissioner actually flexing his muscles for once), david kelly, the BBC & Hutton, Craig Murray's constructive dismissal and on and on.

Good post mate, but i fear it will indeed be written off.

Everything is an example of everything in life, and urban is an example of western society at large. The overwhelming relative silence on this thread compared to the 911 threads is equally intriguing and predictable. Basically stories like this are outside the zone of most people's desired consciousness, and the main reason why these criminals who run our countries continue to get away with their illegal activities and fearmongering. From time to time we get whistleblowers, and the latest is edmonds. But despite what they have to say, as much as they can say that is outside of (il)legal gags, after a minor blip in the running of their operations, everything returns to normal.

After all, it seems the combination of huge state resources at their disposal, plus the public's blind eye is enough to nullify any whistleblower.

It should never be forgotten that our leaders and power-exploiters can only get away with what we give them permission to get away with. And apart from perhaps 1% of the public, everybody grants that permission, usually unconsciously, but it is granted nevertheless.

Only when that 1%, or whatever figure it is, reaches some kind of critical mass, can we start reigning in these horrible urchins that grab power and abuse our resources in order to satiate their anti-human impulses and miserable agendas.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Powerful people in corruption shocker! The most shocking thing is that these incompetents couldn't organise a top-secret meeting if their lives depended on it. Intelligence? imbecility more like.

 

[EddyBlack]

Powerful people in corruption shocker! The most shocking thing is that these incompetents couldn't organise a top-secret meeting if their lives depended on it. Intelligence? imbecility more like.

That seems a bit dismissive of what is an important story.

 

[Darios]

That seems a bit dismissive of what is an important story.

It's ok, aloof cynicism will save us all.

 

[goldenecitrone]

That seems a bit dismissive of what is an important story.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if the world press did a proper investigation which resulted in thousands of corrupt, powerful people getting chucked in the slammer. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[teqniq]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if the world press did a proper investigation which resulted in thousands of corrupt, powerful people getting chucked in the slammer. I'm not holding my breath though.

Nor me alas.

 

[fela fan]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if the world press did a proper investigation which resulted in thousands of corrupt, powerful people getting chucked in the slammer. I'm not holding my breath though.

Why though? Why is it that this is not going to happen? Who is to blame for letting these corrupt people continue to exploit the rest of us?

 

[Darios]

Sibel is on point on this issue in her latest interview:

"You need to consider that the entire US press corps has failed on this story; not only the regular print and TV media, but the alternative media has failed on this too."

(emphasis mine).

 

[Darios]

On the positive side, she also said the following:

"Look at the positive press that the Times' series has received since their first article ran. Do you think their editors haven't noticed? The Times is adding more and more resources to the story, more journalists, bigger budgets, and more importantly, they are getting more and more sources coming forward to shed light on these illegal activities. As I have said from the beginning, this story is not about me, there are many sources who have been waiting for the right time to come forward, I've probably never even heard of most of them, and now they are coming forward. This will play out like Watergate played out, with the drip, drip, drip. So I say to everyone 'Buckle up, there's much more coming.'"

 

[laptop]

calling or emailling media organisations and "demanding" that they do stories about something is surefire way of ensuring that they won't.

I can confirm this.

Decent journalists refuse to be told what to do.

All journalists are under time pressure. Every indication that a story is in green-ink territory increases the odds on everything else about it going in the "maybe look at this if I have a spare fortnight" folder.



Example: fluoride, hazards of. There may be something in this, there may not - but there's so much green ink floating about the subject that no-one has time to look through it all to sift out the non-psychotic content, if any there be.

 

[Darios]

For those not reading the whole interview (damn it, in fact, even for those who are) - what Edmonds says on the Whitehouse quietly introducing legislation to enable the sale of nuclear tech to Turkey is very interesting. Sorry for the lengthy cut and paste, unfortunately its the only way to communicate this to people too lazy to click over to the original article:

" The timing is certainly very, very suspicious. The proposals that are being floated are very suspicious too. There are reports that Turkey will build an enrichment facility, and that Turkey will become the key supplier of nuclear fuel to other Muslim countries who want nuclear power plants. None of this makes any sense.

And again, the US media is nowhere to be seen on this issue. Where are the journalists? Do you remember the noise made a couple of years ago when the US announced that it would supply India with nuclear technology? So far, nearly a week after the announcement and not a single major US media outlet has even reported on the deal! Think of the hypocrisy, with all the saber-rattling at Iran over enrichment.

If it's such a good idea to sell nuclear technology to Turkey, why isn't the White House out there selling the idea? Where are the arguments in the press saying that this will be good for regional stability, or that it will help reduce demand for oil, or even that it is simply good business because US firms will be able to sell their hardware and knowledge? There's nothing! Silence. What does that tell you?"

What does it tell us indeed.

 

[Darios]

Example: fluoride, hazards of. There may be something in this, there may not - but there's so much green ink floating about the subject that no-one has time to look through it all to sift out the non-psychotic content, if any there be.

I still have difficulty understanding why other major news organisations in the UK (and the US FFS!!) cannot simply pick up and repeat the content from the original Times articles. We've seen this done enough times already when it's celebrity bullshit hour.

 

[fela fan]

I can confirm this.

Decent journalists refuse to be told what to do.

All journalists are under time pressure. Every indication that a story is in green-ink territory increases the odds on everything else about it going in the "maybe look at this if I have a spare fortnight" folder.



Example: fluoride, hazards of. There may be something in this, there may not - but there's so much green ink floating about the subject that no-one has time to look through it all to sift out the non-psychotic content, if any there be.

This is a laugh: comparing the attractions of writing a story on the hazards of fluoride, and of investigating and writing up on the story of complicit and endemic corruption at high levels of power whereby nuclear secrets are being sold that may lead in the future to a nuclear attack on one's nation.

Fluoride vs nuclear treason by high officials?? Yeah, okay, green ink (whatever this jargon means) on the former, but on the latter? Pull the other fucking one laptop. Yer a bloody mole, with typical disregard for anybody in the general public having any kind of intelligence.

 

[fela fan]

I still have difficulty understanding why other major news organisations in the UK (and the US FFS!!) cannot simply pick up and repeat the content from the original Times articles. We've seen this done enough times already when it's celebrity bullshit hour.

And herein lies the beginning to the questions i posed just above. It's basically coz people, the vast marjority of them, don't want do know about what edmonds is saying, but they do want their latest fill of gossip shit.

That, incidentally, is not a judgment on people, rather an observation. The reasons why this is the case can be investigated on their own, but probably not relevant here.

And we know that newspapers only print what will sell. The times of course numbers amongst its readers probably the entire secret services and intelligence community, and all those other organisations who employ mixed up fantasist people who can't get a grip on living life properly. So they're writing for their audience.

The sun and mail would lose circulation with stories such as these.