Boshto pukliana dostrina atolder. Goshana stiloro gowana titalia gostoribo
stiloro. Mea putah, mea putah, mea maxima putah chi.
<iviemv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:vc0800021006254166@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -= why. the security services? -=
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> You may ask, why do I think the "they" referred to are. the security
> services? Is there any evidence that. there is a single source, as
opposed
> to a loosely. based "whispering campaign" amongst many people? Even if
> there
> is a single source, is there. any evidence that "they" are professional
> "buggers" as opposed to amateurs, or perhaps people working for. a
> privately
> funded. organization?
>
> a) As to the question of a single source versus something. more
> fragmented;
> it is quite obvious that there. is a single source from the way the
> campaign
> has been carried out. Since things have been repeated verbatim. which
were
> said in my home, there must be one group which does the watching. and
> listening. Since on several occasions (mainly during travel). people
have
> been planted in close proximity and rehearsed in what they were to. say,
> it
> follows that someone must have done the planning for. that, and again a
> single source is. indicated.
>
> b) So why couldn't it be amateurs?. Why couldn't it be a private
> organisation, for example a. private detective agency paid to manage the
> campaign and undertake the technical aspects?. Some detective agencies
are
> unscrupulous as has been proved on. the occasions in the past when
they've
> been exposed or caught; they too can have access to the. bugging
> technology
> deployed; and there are re****ted cases of MI5 paying private eyes to. do
> their dirty work (against peace campaigners and. similar enemies of the
> state) on the understanding that if they were caught then. they could
deny
> all knowledge.. Why couldn't that be the case?
>
> The main factor pointing to direct. security service involvement (as
> opposed
> to amateurs or. MI5 proxies) is the breadth of their access to the media
> in
> particular, and the fact that the television companies are so involved.
in
> the campaign. The BBC would. not directly invade someone's home
> themselves,
> since it would not. be within their remit to allocate personnel or
> financial
> resources to do so. An organisation of their stature would not. take
part
> in
> a campaign. set up by private sources. The only people they would take
> material from would be the. security services, presumably on the
> assumption
> that if the cat. ever flew out of the bag yowling it would be MI5 who
> would
> take. the consequences.
>
> State sponsor****p for these acts of psychological. terrorism is also
> indicated by duration; sup****t for over six years for a team. of three
or
> four people would be beyond the means and. will of most private sources.
> The viciousness of the slanders. and personal denigration also points to
> MI5; they traditionally "protect" the British state from. politicians of
> the
> wrong hue. by character assassination, and in this case are using their
> tried and tested methods to murder with words. an enemy they have
invented
> for. themselves.
>
> And there. are precedents. Diana and Hewitt were alleged to have been
> filmed
> "at it" by an Army intelligence team which had operated in. Northern
> Ireland, these allegations were made. by someone called Jones who had
been
> on the team. His statements were denied by. the defence establishment
who
> tried to character-assassinate by describing him as. the "Jones twins".
> Funny how if you tell the truth, then you must be. ill, isn't it?
Thought
> only communists behaved like. that?
>
> Hewitt later said that he'd been spoken to by someone in the army. who
> revealed the existence of videotapes of. him and Diana, and that the
tapes
> would be published if any attempt was made by them to. resume their
> association.
>
> 880
>
|
