Jihadi John
[Aka Paki-Spider-Man]
[Half Pirate, Half Ninja, All Rubblish]
So - this is their current position on MI5 recruitment and penetration of Jihadist networks;
(which everyone in both 5 and 6 appear to be trying to infer 5 has no interest in achieving...)
6 claim that 5 had no file on John, or refusing to say whether or not they do, whilst heavily inferring that they don't, and as a result, 5 never warned 6 he was leaving to presumably join the NATO Arab Legion in the Iraqi desert near Mosul.
I have literally no clue who this is...
It's the standard MI5/MI6, FBI on 9/11 excuse - 'We do nothing BUT gather intelligence, but we didn't know because nobody had told us, so there's no way anyone could have stopped him, so please can we have another billion on the budget.'
That's the basic principle they are rallying around in their public account of these things.
But here's what they actually specifically say happened here, and what went wrong : 5 were mean to John and wouldn't leave him alone, and so he became a Jihadi.
Just with ASIO in Australia (who to be fair probably don't know any better, because most of them wouldn't be able to recognise a Muslim from a toaster), we are told to believe that 5 spend their entire time being mean to teenage Muslims and persecuting them in the hopes of spotting any potential radicals and stop it before it starts.
A four year old knows better than that, Jesus...
I'm not going to comment on the individuals, but in general I think those are very specious arguments.
These people draw attention to themselves because of their activity, their mixing, participation in extremist and sometimes terrorist circles, so of course they're going to draw attention to themselves and by an approach, if that's what happens, you give an opportunity to the individual to draw back from the terrorist groups that he - it's usually a he, sometimes a she - is about to mix with and you also give them a warning.
But the idea that somehow being spoken to by a member of MI5 is a radicalising act, I think this is very false and very transparent.
The decision to cut him loose can't possibly reflect well on them, since it would outwardly presents an impression of just gross incompetence and ineptitude and dereliction of duty all round by suggesting that they might not know everything there is to know about him.
Or at least, it might, if preventing the radicalisation of British Muslim youth in the Jihadi Irregulars of the NATO-Arab Legion were not their primary consideration and conduiting them in, along with special forces trainers, arms and other logistical support into secular, ethnically heterogeneous and friendly foreign nation-States with whom we have diplomatic relations and with whom we we not at war has not been the main project of the British and NATO Security Services continually since at least 1992 - which of course it is.
Furthermore, anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention knows this, and even worse still, the former Foreign Secretary responsible for instructing MI6 in the carrying out of this policy in Serbia and her neighbours for the better part of 5 years during the late 90s not only owned up to doing so in print on July 8th 2005, he both repudiated the Public Myth of The Mythical Al-Qaeda Beast and intimated that he was himself familiar with many of the personalities responsible for delivering those policy objectives on the ground.
"At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.
In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation. "
See the excellent documentary "The Weight of Chains" to understand why this should set all alarm bells ringing...
"Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. "
Cook himself has far from clean hands here - it is not true that Mladic commanded Serbian Forces. He commanded the Bosian-Serb Forces (and their allies) of the breakaway Republika Serbska Army, demonstrated at The Hague to be not under the control of the legal and recognised Serbian government in Belgrade, or the rump Yugoslav Army, from which it had taken most of its materiel and personnel
"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. "
Not true. It worked perfectly, still does and always has.
"Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. "
This is actually backwards. UBL financed, laundered and distrusted the funds, but other than being videotaped riding a horse or firing an AK-47, there is no evidence of his actual operational involvement in violence of any kind.
"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.
Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west."
The fact that the database itself is inferred to still exist in the 1998-2005 timeframe by Cook empirically proves that it was still in use, regularly consulted or updated with the post-Afghan activities, movements and résumés of all known experienced Jihadis - so the idea that anything that occurred in those years done by any of those people was unknown, unknowable and just a massive oversight is just a complete non-starter.
If Cook knew about it in 1997, when becoming Foreign Secretary and taking over custody of British policy in the Balkan Wars, including ongoing MI6 operations in Serbia, Albania and Montenegro, that's a firm indication that "the database" at that time still existed and was in use, and that he himself had been privy to at least some of its content or raw intelligence product, when planning for the Kosovo War.
Which is to say, Mr. Robin Cook MP, after resigning from the government to repudiate his own previous position as a State Sponsor of Terror for New Labour wrote a Guardian Editorial on the day of 7/7 indicating firmly that this goes on; he ordered and approved it, MI5 and MI6, on his instruction, continued to send British Muslim Youth from places like Bradford and Hounslow up the Kybur to attend Jihadi training and indoctrination in camps in Helmand built by the Saudi-BinLaden Group for the CIA, and then from there on to Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo and all points in between.
He did that, that is British Government policy for almost 30 years and still is, and EVERYONE knows this.
Why else does every other Security Service speak so scornfully of Londonistan...?
The UK harbours terrorists. It's what we do, we always have.
We love terrorists here, we always have, going back at least as far as the Black Magick and Enochian terrorism of John Dee and the Pirate King Sir Francis Drake, El Draco, the Dragon.
Mazzini proved that anyone with a purely self-serving sectarian ideology can be bought and used to perform a service for The Crown, creating the first real, global terror network, based in his rooms just on Gower Street.
Today, Sherlock Holmes lives next door.
See that light on the wall, left of the door..?
NW1 is a den of spooks, terrorists and spies.
Always has been, always will be.
And they have no intention of ever stopping.
After all, it works so well.
Yup. Same part of London as ALL the Rich Arab Families in London live in (there is a famous, exclusive Mosque on the edge of Regents Park, one of the oldest in England).
I wonder if he's a member of the MCC...
John
Biblical Meaning:
The name John is a Biblical baby name. In Biblical the meaning of the name John is: The grace or mercy of the Lord.
American Meaning:
The name John is an American baby name. In American the meaning of the name John is: The grace or mercy of the Lord.
Hebrew Meaning:
The name John is a Hebrew baby name. In Hebrew the meaning of the name John is: Jehovah has been gracious; has shown favor. In the bible John the Baptist baptized Christ in the Jordan river. Variants have been created in almost every language.
Shakespearean Meaning:
The name John is a Shakespearean baby name. In Shakespearean the meaning of the name John is: Henry IV' Prince. 'Henry VI' John Talbot. 'King Henry VI, III' John Mortimer, Montgomery, & Somerville. 'King John'. 'Merry Wives of Windsor' John Falstaff. 'Much Ado About Nothing' Don John. 'Richard II' John of Gaunt. 'Romeo And Juliet' Friar.
SoulUrge Number: 6
People with this name have a deep inner desire for a stable, loving family or community, and a need to work with others and to be appreciated.
Expression Number: 2
People with this name tend to be quiet, cooperative, considerate, sympathetic to others, adaptable, balanced and sometimes shy. They are trustworthy, respecting the confidences of others, and make excellent diplomats, mediators and partners. They are often very intuitive. They like detail and order, and often find change worrisome. They may sometimes feel insecure or restless.
