Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Polonium and the press

Polonium poisoning is very much in the news this week. First, investigators exhumed the body of Turkish President Turgut Ozal, who died in 1993, officially of heart failure. His body showed signs of several poisons, including radioactive polonium.

Now, forensic experts are checking the remains of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. There have long been rumors that poison brought down Arafat in 2004, although the official cause of death is listed as a stroke. Not long ago, trace amounts of polonium showed up in clothing once worn by Arafat.

I may have much more to say about these mysteries anon. Right now, the factor that interests me is the remarkable ability of our media pundits to discuss the possibility of assassination without once touching upon the question of motive. Neither do our newsfolk feel comfortable with any attempt to focus on a potential perpetrator. In the world of American journalism, assassinations simply happen at random, like lightning strikes.

So far, I've encountered no American journalist -- not even on the left -- courageous enough to say that, if Arafat was assassinated, the obvious suspect is the Mossad. If Israel did kill the PLO leader (who was once thought to have more lives than a planeload of cats), the plan certainly backfired, since the current Palestinian leadership is more obdurate.

Our commentariat has always known how to hold their tongues. Whenever the conversation turns to Israel, they use velcro and Gorilla glue.

The case of Ozal -- who served as Prime Minister between 1983 and 1989, and President between 1989 and 1993 -- is also instructive.

Ozal had survived an assassination attempt in 1988, an incident ascribed to a lone gunman named Kartal ("Lee Harvey") Demirağ. Within Turkey, it is widely believed that Demirağ worked under the direction of General Sabri Yirmibeşoğlu, a far-right heavyweight and leader of Turkey's National Security Council. That's the conclusion Ozal himself eventually reached.

(Yirmibeşoğlu is an interesting fellow. He once admitted that his forces burned a mosque in Cyprus in order to blame the outrage on opposing forces.)

Now that we can be fairly certain that Ozal died by plutonium poisoning, the obvious suspects would be far rightists within Turkey's intelligence agencies. Our journalists will probably allow themselves to say as much -- but only that much. Do not expect your journalists to tell you that the American CIA has long had close links to both Turkey's intelligence community and to the Turkey extremist right. Some cynics have even suggested that our spooks control their spooks.

Via Wikipedia:
During the Cold War, an important asset was the Counter-Guerrilla, and the Grey Wolves; the paramilitary youth branch of the Nationalist Movement Party.[5] Before the death of Counter-Guerrilla Alparslan Türkeş, the far-right paramilitary Grey Wolves were used to attack leftists.[4]

The CIA also maintains a cadre of moles inside the National Intelligence Organization, as acknowledged in 1977 by its former deputy director—and CIA recruit—Sabahattin Savasman.
Perhaps the name "Grey Wolves" seems vaguely familiar to you. If so, you may have seen it crop up in news coverage of the man who shot Pope John-Paul II in 1983, Mehmet Ali Agca. At the time, a cadre of spooked-up American journalists tried to convey the impression that Agca worked for Bulgarian communists. The truth of the matter was quite different: Agca was a creature of the Grey Wolves, and of the more-or-less fascist forces operating within Turkey on behalf of the CIA's "Gladio" scheme.

(Today, Agca remains convinced that he is Jesus Christ. David Shayler, the former British MI5 agent turned bean-spiller, has come to the same conclusion about himself, even though he previously sounded quite rational. I'm beginning to think that someone somewhere has concocted a "Jesus" drug. A few drops into the target's morning coffee -- and presto! Instant Messiah!)

Back to Ozal. Although this site seems, well, a little weird, it offers a post from 2010 which may give us a few leads:
For many years, the rumor has circulated that President Özal did not die of a heart attack on 17 April 1993, but was assassinated by Gladio; that is to say, Turkish agents operating under NATO's orders.
As to possible motive:

In 1993, the Kurdish minority within Turkey, under the banner of the PKK party, fought to establish a separate nation. The military formulated a tough, anything-goes battle plan against the Kurds, using special forces, assassins, Grey Wolves, local thugs and mafiosi. The counter-revolutionary plan also called for psy-war tricks of the sort we've already discussed in relation to General Yirmibeşoğlu. This whole grisly effort was under the control of Interior Minister Mehmet Ağar, who got a lot (and by "a lot," I mean a lot) of weapons from the Israelis.

Two people stood in his way: Turgut Özal and a general named Esref Bitlis. They both sought a peaceful way to deal with the Kurdish problem. And neither of them wanted to be controlled by the Americans.

Bitlis died in plane crash in early 1993 (a little more than a week after James Woolsey became DCI) -- and that crash is now known to have been the result of sabotage. The American CIA has long been the prime suspect in that event.

As for Özal -- well, we now have a better idea as to what happened to him.

Again: Don't expect our journalists (even the ones who work for MSNBC) to talk much about the CIA and Israeli links to the forces that killed Özal. Even after evidence of foul play comes to light, our media would prefer not look very deeply into such matters.
In this, it's worth referencing Sibel Edmonds, especially as to the alleged assassination in Turkey. Ms. Edmonds notes some striking, perhaps surprising parallels between AIPAC, and the American Turkish Council, or ATC. May both paths lead toward Israel?
Dude. Really?

Troll. Really!

Are you really a Troll?
The Israeli government publicly adopted the policy that they would 'remove' Yasser Arafat, making it clear that if that meant murdering him then that's what they would do. Murdering him was also backed in a Jerusalem Post editorial. That was in September 2003:

"(Israel's deputy PM) Mr Olmert told Israel radio that the cabinet's decision to remove Mr Arafat could be viewed in the same manner as Mr Sharon's pledge to wipe out the leadership of Hamas.

'Killing is definitely one of the options,' he said. 'We are trying to eliminate all the heads of terror, and Arafat is one of the heads of terror.'"

Great syllogism, Ehud.

By that time, the Zionist army had kept Arafat confined in his Ramallah compound for a year. A year later, he died, after observing "This time, they got me".

Of course he was murdered by the Israelis.

More info here, but you've probably been through all this stuff.

The Arab League, through UN member state Syria, took the issue of the Israeli government's public threat against Arafat's life to the UN Security Council.

A motion admonishing Israel was discussed, but the US vetoed it. Nowadays that's the main use of the veto: the US blocking of motions against Israel.

Meanwhile in the 1948 OTs, Zionist 'left' party Meretz criticised Olmert, saying that murdering Arafat was inadvisable because it would endanger Jewish lives.

Where the fuck other than Israel would we get shit like this Gangster threats, 'fuck you's' to the world, 'criticised' by internal 'oppositionists' who share the swaggering elevation of the racist cause they share with the government, far above any consideration of law or wanting to appear civilised.

If you want a peace agreement, murdering the other side's leaders ain't a good idea.

If you don't, it's a great idea.

Arafat can't be brought alive again. But we can note that Israel have assassinated several Palestinian leaders since that time, most recently Ahmed Jaabri in Gaza. They also did it a lot before then.

When Arafat was still alive, the PA sent blood samples to Germany and the US to show that he'd been poisoned. George Bush responded by saying it was best to leave his fate in the hands of "the Almighty". Ariel Sharon said one should sometimes help Him. Just in case we thought a government leader couldn't possibly be a more cocky war criminal than Bush!

Mossad agents were even caught trying to murder Khaled Meshaal. The head of Mossad had to fly to Jordan with the antidote, which saved his life.

Arafat's life could have been saved too. That's probably what the PA were trying to sort out with the US. The purpose of Bush's statement was to have a laugh with the Zionist terrorists. But as usual, no show of submission to Israel is enough. So you've licked my boots clean and given us the security contract over your nuclear installations. But you didn't say 'Sir' when you reported your success. Are you an anti-Semite or something?

The purpose of Sharon's response was to foreground the message that 'we kill whoever we want to kill, and the world can eat shit'.
Shayler may once have been rational, but in the years before he discovered he was Jesus he was traveling around Britain proclaiming that no planes hit the WTC, and shilling for a blatant 9/11 con artist with a phony hero story.
Polonium is a very nasty way to die. When the russians used it on Litvinenko, they used it to send a message.

David Shayler wasn't "Messiah-fied" by the Mossad because he was promoting the bogus hero-fantasies of alleged WTC janitor William Rodriguez. Keep in mind that as a youngster Willie used the stage name "Roudy" and worked as an assistant to master illusionist (and Mossad Sayanim/asset) James Randi. No, on the contrary, Shayler was, instead, "stung" by disinfo-conman Willie, who has used his phony "Last Man Out" narrative to get close to several high-profile 9/11 truthers who, in turn, were getting uncomfortably close (in the Mossad's view) to uncovering what really happened on 9/11. Now I'm not saying that it was Willie himself who actually slipped the "Jesus Pills" into Shayler's morning coffee, but I wouldn't put it past him.
It's unlikely that Litvinenko was killed by Moscow-based Russians, in my opinion.

As for David Shayler...

(part 1)

Annie Machon, who split up with him after he went potty, spoke movingly about him when she said he is a man who showed great courage in fighting against oppressive forces, who in the end got brought down.

She shows a lot more understanding than say Larry O'Hara, who thinks Shayler must have gone back to working for MI5 because he was in the heavily spooked-up 911 'truth movement'.

A main thing about Shayler is that he isn't from a posh background. He didn't even go to a posh university. What kind of job was he going to get, after his trouble with MI5?

He did a bit of TV. I don't know him personally, but he probably couldn't stand that. I think he got a few bob from Mohammed al-Fayed, but not much. He had to make money to eat. Hence the speaking tours. Probably made him feel a bit more independent. Not much point speaking to almost empty rooms. So he got on the circuit. Priory of Sion, whatever was going.

I haven't checked, but if you say he said no planes hit the WTC, then OK. Bums on seats. Sure, this was assisting with mind befuddlement. But consciously MI5 at that time? No way!

(part 2 follows)
(part 2)

Shayler probably thought he'd done his time in the fight, and wanted to do something that didn't take a huge amount of effort or reading. He didn't make an enormous pile of money out of it. Bollocks to all the idiots who say he was consciously working for MI5.

Then he took loads of drugs. Maybe the 'truth movement' was doing his head in? Did someone slip him a Mickey? Maybe. Maybe they didn’t have to.

I don't care whether he dresses up like a woman and says he's the Messiah. He deserves admiration for what he did before. He fought a righteous battle and he lost. Let's have some humanity here.

He must have been an arsehole when he joined MI5, but then what they were doing was so disgusting even for him, that he turned against them. Is that good or is it bad? He realised he'd just been a 'useful prole' all along.

His mistake was that he pulled his punches against MI5. (And possibly also Mossad. One of the things he exposed was that the Arabs accused of planting a bomb outside the Israeli embassy in London didn't do it. The Brits knew they didn't. Most likely, the Israelis themselves did it. And the Brits knew that too.)

He got the balance wrong between revealing facts based on his personal experience, and speculation. Intelligent critical speculation is good. First he concentrated on facts he knew from working on this or that desk at MI5. I think he may have come out with reference numbers and stuff, just to prove he wasn't lying, you know. What he should have done was add some analysis from a broader perspective, and speculation. Don't become a poster boy for scumbag journalists working with the secret state's publicists to pretend they’re cleaning out the Augean stables. Condemn the whole shebang. Fight on the level of details, but don't only do that. The bastards will suck you in.

He should have said something about the Princess Diana assassination. He and Rosie Machon fled to Paris the same week, if I recall. Something like "I don't know any of the details, but on the basis of my time in MI5, I'm pretty sure MI6 did it, and so was everyone else in security or intelligence services I spoke to". He should have put that across in a way that also communicated a more profound and reflected-upon critique of the 'fundamentals' of Britain and capitalism in general. But it's not always easy to do that.

Instead, he came out with crap about how the secret state should be 'reformed' and 'cleaned up'. He even said that if that didn't happen, they'd be weakened by the kind of speculation people were doing in regard to Princess Diana, which involved people thinking the British state did things it didn't. In other words, he was advising the secret state on its public relations, on how to look good. Oh dear.

But why? Because that was the easiest channel, after he'd had the courage to stand up to the bastards, and he wanted to avoid going to jail for a long time, and maybe he'd be able to give evidence to parliamentary committees and write articles in mainstream newspapers, and all that utter shit.

Discourse about cleaning up the secret state by having a 'public' debate, led by posh fuckers in the main newspapers, has been there in the UK since about the 1980s. (Before then, MI6 wasn't even admitted to exist.) Machon herself has the catchphrase 'grown-up debate'. But although she too deserves considerable respect, she comes from a posh family, which was presumably why she didn't go to jail. Some of the stuff she writes is good. Some isn’t. But she’s been more successful in carving out a speaking-tour career than Shayler was. Both she and he know the fucking bastard system can't be reformed.

Cut them both a bit of slack, please. Shayler in particular.
Harry - we disagree over who ordered the Litvinenko murder, but what do you think the message was? Nuke-related? Death by polonium isn't nasty compared to many alternatives. Russian mafia killers have been known to do things like tie someone down and leave an electric iron on their chest. If you're talking about poisons, strychnine is many levels of nastiness above polonium.
When I see a reference to the American Turkish Council, I always remember that Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame first met at an ATC event. There's probably no connection at all to anything in this piece, but who knows.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic