For starters, this is not the forum for your political rants.
Secondly, my friend, you repeated posts would indicate you suffer from
paranoia. I seriously suggest you seek professional help.
--
Dave Hargis, Microsoft Access MVP
"mfifemve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -= 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.
>
> 825
>
>
|
