PRESS RELEASE
22 October 2015
SUDDEN DEATH OF MICHEAL MEACHER MP
Michael Meacher, who died yesterday, was in many ways the
intellectual powerhouse behind the insurrection that saw Jeremy
Corbyn elected leader of the Labour Party this summer.
He was one of the few politicians to attend the Parliamentary
debate on money creation, he gave a stirring speech at the protests
when UK hosted the secretive Bilderberg Group, and he was the only
mainstream politician to raise questions about the 911 attacks, with
a 2003 article in the Guardian headed "This War on Terrorism is Bogus".
His 911 stance led to an aggressive character assassination
campaign by the US London Embasssy. Later, when he planned a showing
of the 911 sceptic movie Loose Change in the House of Commons it was
cancelled at the last moment while Michael said privately that he
feared violent repercussions.
In recent weeks he was active again behind the scenes, supporting a
911 family member who is seeking a new inquest. At a private Commons
meeting last autumn he seemed in excellent health. He said he did not
feel anything like his age and might stand again for Parliament.
News reports have given no details of the cause of Michael's
unexpected death beyond a statement from Peter Dean, his constituency
office manager, who said: "We are extremely sad and it has been quite
a short illness he has had and we just don't know the details at present".
Ian Henshall an organiser of Reinvestigate 911 said: "I hope that,
to put to rest any lingering doubts, his aides will take a close look
and divulge full details of what happened.
"Even more importantly, I hope the Corbyn leadership recognises the
urgent need to replace Michael with someone who understands the big
issues and is sceptical of the veracity of news reports in the Western media."
CONTACT
Ian Henshall <crisisnewslet...@pro-net.co.uk>
Reinvestigate 9/11 campaign <i...@reinvestigate911.org>
Reinvestigate 9/11 email list
<reinvestigate911-l-subscr...@reinvestigate911.org>
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=171161#171161
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
additional info...
Some of Michael's comments...
Last twenty tweets from Michael's deleted twitter account
@MichaelMeacher restored
http://www.bilderberg.org/meacher_twitter.html
Michael Meacher MP - on 9/11, The PNAC & Peak Oil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0atrw3640yo
This war on terrorism is bogus
Michael Meacher
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to
secure its global domination
Saturday 6 September 2003 12.15 BST Last modified on Friday 3
October 2014 09.56 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the
reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little
attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws
light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that
after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in
Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war
against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US
and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war
could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit
all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of
the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says
"while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring
to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as
the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising
American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as
"demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN".
It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove
as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China
for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of
American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the
US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target
specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea,
Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence
justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system".
This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is
dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it
provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before,
during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This
can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the
CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they
provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of
whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers
could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the
Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing
them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French
Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the
20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor
reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer
large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he
had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his
computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times,
November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent
wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash
into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on
September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later
than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania
at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate
from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC,
until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?
There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft
before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military
launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious
aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once
an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter
planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John
Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence
services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible
for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt
has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early
October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated
Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However,
a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called
"war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving
wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself
hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be
truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public
consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for
what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly
Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on
Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence
linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time
Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the
PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans
for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well
before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker
Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains
a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising
influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the
Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group,
the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to
the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But,
confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the
US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable
pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already
been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this.
The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly
this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some
advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information
never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a
reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC
blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming
the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in
the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new
Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go"
button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it
would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that
the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon
energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60%
of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of
remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so
supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies
for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced
domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce
only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the
UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government
has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020,
and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted
that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in
July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies
was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the
remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain
British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief
executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own
oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002).
And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in
August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to
other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes
to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online,
August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil
supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this
myth and junior participation in this project really a proper
aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to
justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own
independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the
evidence needed for a radical change of course.
--
--
Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political power they wield?
There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested
particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual leaders/dudes.
To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PEPIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pepis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.