Matters impacting on Ernst ZŁndel's case in Germany -


world 'terrorism' & refusing to believe in the 'Holocaust'


The latest on the London Bombings - Did you see what I saw?

By Andrew S. MacGregor

Date: 2 August 2005

From: Andrew S. MacGregor

Late last week The British Special Branch arrested two suspects for the latest London bombings. What the media showed us were the two suspects, standing naked at the front of their 1st storey flat, surrounded by special operations or to be more direct, para-military police with their protective clothing and special assault weapons.

If you looked closely you would have seen the three broken window panes of the front window, where something like tear gas would have been fired into the flat to dislodge the two men.

A neighbour was interviewed by the media, and stated that when the police first challenged the suspects and ordered them to come out of the flat, they declined, as they feared they could be shot. Thus a couple of rounds of tear gas through the front window and out come the two suspects, meek as kittens with no resistance whatsoever. No resistance whatsoever, no last stand, no going down in a hail of bullets, no hand grenade or explosives, absolutely nothing, and there was the media to capture it all, London's finest doing a job with skill and precision.

It was the presence of the media to film this event that is the most telling.

The Special Branch could not permit another blunder similar to the fact that on the 7th July, the Israeli Embassy stated that they were warned at least 30 minutes prior by Scotland Yard, and thus were able to warn Benjamin Netanyahu of the dangers of a bomb going off in a railway station across from where he was to speak, or of the assassination of the Brazilian at a train station on the 22nd July. What Scotland Yard and the Special Branch are now required to do is to put out as much 'positive images' as possible to deflect the bad publicity, and to convince the people that they are being protected and ignore the major holes that have been exposed in regard to the actual timing and knowledge of the 'Terror Attacks'. It is a massive con.

Scotland Yard's 'Special branch' has been set up for a long time to deal with political situations such as what they are faced with now. From the Communist newspaper, 'The Campaigner' in Vol. 7, No. 6 dated April 1974, there is an article called 'Low intensity Operations: The Reesian Theory of War' by M Minnicino details how the Special Branch actually set up the Mau Mau cells in Kenya and controlled the so-called war of Independence in Kenya. The article also details a similar controlled operation in Malaya.

This article is corroborated by the war between the IRA and the British SAS.

Since the IRA had already been set up by the Irish, the only way the British Special Branch had to overcome this body was to infiltrate it. Once the IRA became aware of what was happening, any SAS operative that was captured by the IRA was automatically executed, and the SAS frequently got its revenge. Two known casualties of this war, was the execution of a known IRA operative in Gibraltar and the murder of two supposed 'Australian' lawyers on holiday from England in Europe. The IRA in fact apologised for that last act.

In Australia we had the Special Branches that were run by the various State Governments but they became subject to major political pressure in 1972 when Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister. They were later closed down and in Victoria were ordered by a Judge from the High Court of Australia to destroy all documents in their possession. When it was later revealed that prior to the destruction of these documents copies had been made and saved, these copies and all copies were ordered to be destroyed.

Finally, the Australian Police Special Branches were closed down totally and replaced by an 'Anti-Terrorist Group' controlled by the Federal Attorney General's Department, called the 'Special Operations Group' or SOG. We called them the 'Sons of God'. There was however another type of unit that was instigated, and these would have been the modern equivalent of what was called the 'Dog Squad' the undercover police that shadowed and mingled with the various criminal elements. Today this group is called the 'Special Intelligence Group'. These two Australia Police groups share training and intelligence with America, Britain and Germany. Thus there is no reason why it cannot be considered that Britain does not follow the same criteria as the Australian police groups.

In October 1997, the Melbourne Age newspaper printed a story in regard to how the police units were infiltrating various political and activist groups around Melbourne. Another article in the Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper quoted a retired ASIO desk officer in regard to these actions as being controlled by the Federal Attorney's Department by a body called the 'Protective Security Co-ordination Centre' (PSCC).

What must be realised is that with the wars in Yugoslavia and the first war with Iraq, the migrant groups would have had to have been infiltrated for intelligence purposes. Once an operative had established his bone fides, there is every chance that he would have then set up his own group to bring out the radical views that would be required to be demonstrated and then silenced by the government.

Now let us look at 'Suicide Bombing' and the Palestinian Problem. One of the major problems that Israel faced with the Palestinians was the PLO led by Arafat. There were several attempts to remove Arafat by Mossad, but none were successful. There may have been infiltrators from Mossad into the PLO, but while Arafat held rein, they were useless. The story that Mossad set up Hamas in opposition to the PLO then becomes highly likely, and often it was Israel's call that Arafat was unable or did not wish to rein in the 'Terror attacks' by Hamas on Israeli citizens makes this story even more feasible. It was Hamas who instigated the 'suicide' bombings in Israel. In fact every time Ariel Sharon required a 'suicide bombing' attack in Israel, he got it, especially during his visits to America.

But according to Professor Robert Pappe, who has made a detailed study of 'suicide 'bombings', the most suicide bomb attacks have been carried out, not by Palestinians but by the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist group in Sri Lanka. It was the Tamil Tigers who invented the suicide vest. However, what is not normally disclosed is that the Tamil Tigers were trained by Mossad, and thus we have a connection with the suicide vest, and its later use by the Palestinians suicide bombers from Hamas.

There is another discrepancy that Professor Pappe points out. Suicide bombing has nothing to do with religion, including Islam, and these specific attacks originated in 1980. We can then state that 'suicide' bombings were not part of the PLO's method of operations.

Now let us study some of the known circumstances of the London Bombings that occurred on the 7th July 2005. The targets were three trains and a bus. The supposed 'suicide' bombers were three Pakistani and one Jamaican, all Muslims, but none resided in London.

In a news media report, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard spoke to an Australian victim in a London hospital. What was reported in this media report was that the Australian victim had travelling on the rail system when the train she was a passenger on was subjected to one of the 'suicide' bombing attacks. This particular victim then left the rail system, totally unaware of what had occurred on the train and boarded the bus, and it was whilst on the bus that she suffered her injuries.

From this media report, it can be undeniably maintained that there was some time difference between the bombing of that particular train and the bus near the train station.

What was also very interesting was that an eyewitness of the bus bombing noticed the supposed 'Suicide' bomber hiding in a secluded part of the bus and checking the contents on the rucksack that he was carrying. If you were a 'Suicide' bomber then you would not be checking out the contents of the rucksack in which the bomb was lodged. Nor would you be hiding yourself in a secluded part of the bus, instead you'd be trying for maximum effect.

However, if you had been 'conned' into carrying the rucksack, and on board the bus when people from the bombed train boarded, and some of those people started talking about the explosion, and you were only half-smart, is it feasible that you would then try to hide yourself as much as possible and then check what it was that you were carrying in the rucksack?

We also received media reports that the initial bomb blasts on the trains were reported as 'power surges' and it was only after the bus event that it became clear that an actual 'Terrorist Attack' was taking place.

Now regardless of what Israel or the media tells us, Britain has one of the highest trained 'Anti-Terrorist' responses in the world, and it was obtained through the years of dealing with the IRA. Had Scotland Yard received any prior warnings in regard to the 'Terrorist Bombings' that were due to take place, then the public would have been warned. Furthermore, there would not have been the original assumption that the explosions had been caused by power surges. In other words, what we had was a complete misreading of what was a supposed 'Terrorist' attack by Muslims within the British communities.

If this had been an event orchestrated by persons within the British Intelligence Services, they would not have permitted their associates to be made to look incompetent. However, the quick responses and the required clues that surfaced so quickly so as to allow the supposed 'Terrorists' to be identified almost immediately. If it was not a 'British' operation, then who was behind it? Consider what this article tells us.

There is normally a time delay between an event occurring and the event being printed in a newspaper. After an event, a report has to be written, and edited by an editor, and then still have time to be included in the newspaper. Such a delay would normally be in excess of four hours, so when Efraim Halevi, a former head of Mossad writes an article for the Jerusalem Post, that is posted on the 7th of July, then questions should be asked.

Halevi wrote: "The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001. There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force."

How could this article that was written by Efraim Halevi be based on reports emanating from Scotland Yard's reports on the London Bombing? It is far too early, and the initial reports that the train explosions were 'power surges' demonstrates a total lack of preparedness for such an event by Scotland yard and the Special Branch. But Halevi knew, and was able to describe the bombings as, 'multiple', as 'simultaneous explosions', by 'perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope', and the last bit which is a whozzie, 'have come a long way since ~ the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001'.

Halevi is now telling us that the London Bombing was a more successful and more sophisticated than the events of 911, that killed thousands of innocent victims in America. That is ridiculous! That is a lie! It also reminds me of the old offence of 'Inciting to riot'.

So let us actually consider the London Bombing as we are supposed to as per the writings of the former Mossad chief. On the 7th July, after much studying of London's underground rail system, and the bus system, 4 devout British Muslims, plan a suicide mission to London. This is almost as good as the Syrian Suicide Squad from the film, 'The Life of Brian', where the Syrians intend upon rescuing Brian from the cross upon which he was crucified, arrive at the cross, commit suicide, and leave Brian on the cross to die.

You see, Halevi tells us that the perpetrators of the London Bombing had the operational capacity, and sent out the four people who were totally successful at their task. But the fact is that these perpetrators all died in the events.

The next series of bombings in London, which took place on the 22nd July, a fortnight later was totally inept, a total failure. This makes a sheer mockery of what we are told by the Former Mossad Chief.

Rightio, now then, let us consider another aspect of the London Bombing.

'Suicide' bombers normally wear a 'suicide vest, if they are going to blow themselves and their surroundings up. The idea of the vest is that once it is fitted to a person, there is virtually no chance of removing it. Again, the suicide vest was first used by the Tamil Tigers, and later by Hamas, and both of these organisations have connections with Mossad, but even if they didn't, Mossad would still have sufficient knowledge of 'suicide' bombers due to one of their favourite detonating grounds has been Israel. A rucksack is not a 'suicide' vest. It can be lugged around almost inconspicuously and dropped off almost anywhere, be it on a train or a bus, or under a seat, and the bomber can then decamp quietly, and the job is done.

Now with a suicide vest, the bomber cannot chicken out. Cannot have second thoughts, and has no option but to carry out the mission. A bomber carrying a rucksack though can have second thoughts, can jettison the bomb, and can depart the scene before the bomb goes off, and thus return to commit another terrorist attack against the dreaded enemy. But what happens, the entire four are killed by their own bombs before they can decamp the scene, which is in effect, a total failure four times over.

So consider that you're the boss man planning a Jihad in London. You get your four best goal kickers, and give each of them a rucksack full of explosives, say C4, and send them on their way. In this one attack not only do you lose your four best goal kickers, but you also use up your entire explosives stock.

On the second wave of 'Terror Bombing' that took place in London on the 22nd July, one of the so-called bombs was simply a 'detonator', and none of the bombs were successful. And this is what Efraim Halevi described as: "were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope"

"There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution." "They have come a long way since ~ the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001."

Professor Robert Pappe has demonstrated that suicide bombing is not part of the Islamic religion. What needs to be demonstrated next is the racist part of what occurred in the London bombing. Imagine what type of a response you would get if you asked a Frenchman or a German of a similar age as the four London 'Suicide' bombers, if they would be prepared to offer their lives in a sacrifice to avenge the death of the English. You can imagine the response you would get. You would be laughed at, mocked, jeered, if not totally insulted.

It is very much the same when you consider what is happening to the Palestinians and the Iraqis today. The Pakistani though are a completely different race of people. They can understand what is happening to the Arabs of the world today and sympathise with them, but to take the step of giving one's life for an Arab cause is totally extreme. The Jamaican case is even more extreme, and all of these cases are so extreme that they have to be considered impossible. Again if you note the Palestinian 'Suicide' bombers, they are normally young people, with no family responsibilities. The London bombers though had family responsibilities, and in this most cherished responsibility they have failed. Their God would not be pleased with them.

However, if we take into consideration the reaction of Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair and the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, in that they both immediately ordered troops to be ready for service in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has a border with Pakistan, and that border has frequently been used by the afghani fighters against the invaders, as a protective device. It has also been reported that American troops pursuing Afghani fighters have crossed the Pakistan border whilst in pursuit of these fighters.

Now this in reality does not alter the case in regard to the London bombings, but it does raise two serious questions:

1. Just how did these the British born, Pakistani 'Suicide' bombers know in advance that British and Australian troops would be stationed in Afghanistan, as that is the closest possible reason for them to become 'Suicide' bombers?

2. Just how could Tony Blair and John Howard justify sending troops to Afghanistan, a move opposed to by the majority of their constituents, without the aid of these 'Terrorist' 'Suicide' bomb attacks? These attacks have the hallmark of a political requirement.

In is interesting to note that the only reported Australian stationed in Afghanistan at the moment is the Melbourne born Rodney Cocks, who was in Military Intelligence whilst stationed in Timor, was involved in the Bali bombing, and while serving with the United Nations was involved with the bomb that Killed the Head of the UN Mission in Bagdad.

One of the most successful 'Terrorist' operations that took place in England was the assassination of Lord Louis Mountbatten by the IRA. Can you imagine that this operation as described by the former Head of Mossad, Efraim Halevi, would actually warn their main target? Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, and current Finance Minister would have been the biggest coupe any so-called 'Suicide' squad could imagine. Yet Netanyahu was warned in advance that he was a possible target, and not to leave his hotel room at the time of the London bombing. Nobody warned Mountbatten, on the day of his assassination, but somebody warned Netanyahu.

In fact, not even Scotland Yard was warned. Don't forget the first response to the bombing was that they were caused by power surges. As I have previously mentioned, the Special Branch is very adept at infiltrating various groups, and one of the main targets for any such infiltration would have been militant Islamic groups. If the Special Branch were doing their job, and they do, and are very good at it, they would have known of, and infiltrated the group that supposedly carried out the London Bombing attacks. They would also have known of the weapons caches, the bomb makers, the planners, they would have known of all the minute details, and then would have stopped the attacks before they had even started.

Instead, what do we have, a Special Branch that looks incompetent, and Scotland Yard taking three weeks to find possible militant Islamics who were frightened of being shot by police as they left their flat. Excellent potential for 'Suicide' bombers, don't you think?

There is though one piece of evidence that really stands out. The former Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and his chief of Mossad, Efraim Halevi, knew far more about the London bombing on the 7th of July 2005 than any member of Scotland Yard, the Special Branch or any Islamic militant group.



Andrew MacGregor, is a retired policeman who has made a detailed study of Tasmania's Port Arthur Massacre






Sydney academic banned from teaching
19:06 AEST Fri Jul 29 2005


A controversial law professor has been banned from teaching at a Sydney university after he publicly aired his views on non-whites and Africans in Australia.

Canadian-born Associate Professor Andrew Fraser was last week cautioned by Macquarie University over a letter he wrote to his local suburban newspaper, claiming Australia was becoming a Third World colony by allowing non-white immigration.

Prof Fraser, a lecturer at the university for 29 years, claims African migration increases crime, believes HSC results point to a rising ruling class of Asians, and wants Australia to withdraw from refugee conventions.

In a detailed public statement, the lecturer rejected the university's offer to bring his retirement forward from July 2006.

Macquarie University vice-chancellor Professor Di Yerbury responded with a three-page memo to staff announcing that Prof Fraser will not teach until further notice.

"His comments have elicited such a strong response from students, staff and the public that it is affecting the university's ability to operate effectively," Prof Yerbury said in the memo.

"In response to these difficulties, (human resources director) Tim Sprague, after discussion with senior management and the Dean, has informed Drew Fraser that it will not be appropriate for him to teach until further notice."

Prof Fraser said he rejected the offer to retire early because the university was essentially buying his silence.

"The university is offering (me) the academic equivalent of a dishonourable discharge," Prof Fraser said in a statement.

"To accept its terms would amount to an admission that (I) had somehow brought the university into disrepute."

He reiterated his refusal to personally apologise for his comments.

"(My) argument that the white Australia policy was fundamentally sound and that it was a mistake to abandon it falls squarely within (my) area of expertise and is an academically defensible view shared by a great many other Australians," Prof Fraser said.

He criticised Prof Yerbury's "appalling display of intellectual cowardice".

By apologising to African leaders on behalf of the university she had "sacrificed the time-honoured traditions of academic freedom to the illegitimate demands of ethnic pressure groups and political extremists", Prof Fraser said.

In defence, Prof Yerbury said she apologised because she was "distressed and embarrassed" that the university had been associated with the "repugnant" comments.

The university was committed to free speech, but Prof Fraser should not have attached his title to his comments, she said.

"It is one matter for Drew Fraser to be able to express his views, which he is doing at every opportunity and can certainly continue to do," the vice-chancellor said.

"But (it's) another to associate the university by attaching its name and the title of one's appointment when doing so on matters outside the academic area which an academic is appointed to teach and research."

Prof Yerbury said other arrangements had been made for Prof Fraser's two scheduled second semester courses.

©AAP 2005



Last Update: Monday, August 1, 2005. 10:01am (AEST)
'Racist' academic to defy university ban

The New South Wales university academic making public statements described as racist, insists he will be returning to campus today despite orders from his employer to stay away.

Law Professor Andrew Fraser, from Macquarie University in Sydney, has been criticised for claims including that people from sub-Saharan Africa are a high crime risk because they have below-average intelligence.

The Vice-Chancellor of the university, Di Yerbury, has apologised to the Sudanese community and cancelled Professor Fraser's classes.

However, Professor Fraser says he will be going to the campus this afternoon.

"I am going out, I feel I have to be available to tell students what's happening or at least as much as I know of what's happening," he said.

"First class would normally be at two o'clock [AEST]. I have a second one at four o'clock so I expect to be out there, just in case students want to talk to me."

Professor Fraser has also rejected a request to bring forward his retirement.

"I in fact refused their offer to that because in effect it seemed to me what they were offering me amounted to a kind of dishonourable discharge and I wasn't prepared to accept that - I just want to do the job I'm being paid to do," he said.

The university has warned Professor Fraser that the Vice-Chancellor's order not to return to work is a legally binding directive.

It says it has made arrangements in case Professor Fraser defies its request.


Related Audio




Also read Frank Gardner's item on this man:

 It will be dangerous to ignore the man in the turban

Gardner is the BBC Security Correspondent and his reports on al-Qaeda and global security can be seen on BBC1 and News24. Matthew d'Ancona is away.


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute