David Cameron and Theresa May - Dangerous Nonsense
A bizarre passage, unnoticed in David Cameron's UN speech, could be the first signal of government censorship plans and may lie behind Home Secretary Theresa May's plans announced this week for a clampdown on government designated "extremists" even when they do not advocate violence.
Cameron laid down the new government line in his speech to the UN. "We shouldn't stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism". What on earth does this mean? UKIP? Stop the War? Surely one goal of democracy is to persuade potentially violent extremists to become non-violent extremists? And isn't it the role of a democratic government to stand by while the democratic process unfolds.
The PM did not offer a definition but he said non-violent extremism is characterised by "the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations".
This statement takes smearing and guilt by association to a new level of absurdity. The Clash of Civilisation theory is the ruling theory at least in the US and Israel, Cameron only needs to read Rupert Murdoch's publications or listen to any speech by Netanyahu to see that. Presumably Cameron is not calling for "restrictions" on people like Rupert Murdoch and Samuel Huntingdon?
The idea that Muslims are persecuted as deliberate policy is also widespread. The best way of refuting that might be if Cameron and his NATO friends would bomb a non-Muslim country but since 9/11 this has never happened. If Cameron and Obama had got their way last summer Syria would have been the seventh Muslim country to be bombed since 9/11 and ISIS would quite likely now be in charge there.
A more logical candidate for the next bombing spree might be Saudi Arabia who according the official story supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers and, we now know, supported at least some of them in the US in the run-up to the attacks. Cameron's advisers are probably aware that the demand is growing in Congress to release the redacted part of the Congressional 9/11 probe which describes this in more detail, but the evidence is already public in the form of FBI leaks.
We are left with the most bizarre passage of all, but perhaps the part that could prove the most significant as the 911 truth movement continues to spread its influence globally. With his reference to "the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot" Cameron is pedalling his own lies. Most in the 9/11 truth movement have an open mind as to what a genuine investigation might find. There is as much interest in the role of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and their friends in the CIA who blocked the arrest of the alleged 911 hijackers. The most vocal US group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth studiously takes no position other than to demand an inquiry into the as yet unexplained collapse of three (sic) skyscrapers apparently brought down with astonishing speed by two plane collisions in New York, events the Twin Towers were designed specifically to withstand.
The emerging global truth movement that is making Clinton, Obama and Cameron so nervous is fed by the unanswered questions over 9/11 and 7/7 - but also by the lies used to start the 2003 Iraq war. If they will lie systematically to start a war, the supreme crime according to the Nuremberg tribunal, why would they tell the truth about anything else, ask the sceptics. So far no politician or newspaper editor has been jailed or even sacked for incompetence as a result of the weapons of mass destruction hoax, so that might be a good place for Cameron to make a start at "not standing by". Why not a public inquiry into how the media laundered the Iraq lies and why with a few exceptions they have not even apologised?
Contrary to politicians' claims, there has never been a full and thorough inquiry into 9/11 or 7/7. An inquiry cannot be genuine when the intelligence agencies, whose activities or lack of them are an essential part of the story, are obstructing justice themselves. For instance, the CIA refused any access by the 9/11 Commission to their interrogations of alleged 911 organisers, now Guatanamo Bay prisoners, nor to the interrogators, nor to the interrogation records which they later illegally destroyed.
The 9/11 Commission was, in the words of its chair and co-chair, "set up to fail". Commissioner Cleland did not even sit through the charade, he resigned calling it a whitewash and a scandal. Does that make Cleland a non-violent extremist?
The 7/7 inquest was constrained in many ways, not least by the state counsel making it clear at the outset that they would not look into so-called "conspiracy theories". This suggests another way that Cameron could "not stand by". Why not reconvene the 7/7 inquiry with orders to look thoroughly into all the "conspiracy theories" with unlimited subpoena powers against anyone they or the relatives of the survivors wish to question? Don't the victims deserve that anyway?
Perhaps the most bizarre of all Cameron's logical twists is the claim that the 9/11 truth movement is encouraging Muslim extremism. People saying Osama Bin laden was a dupe of the CIA or even had nothing to do with 911 are, according to the Prime Minister, helping recruit more jihadist supporters for Osama Bin Laden's soulmates. In fact Al Qaeda and the NATO both agree that the 9/11 truth movement is their enemy, and have condemned it in often similar terms.
This all makes sense if the intelligence agencies have more links than they like to admit with jihadists, that the 9/11 and 7/7 stories are indeed wrong and that NATO governments are trying to find ways to use the fear factor to extend their already pervasive media control by threatening anyone who could be designated a "non-violent extremist", which could be just about anyone the government dislikes.
No need to worry about that though, it's obviously a conspiracy theory.