Hurrah - "Twilight" finally exposes himself
a | 20.10.2006 16:30
No longer any need to pore over one of indymedia's most regular commentators with furrowed brow, and the feeling you must be missing something. No longer will you have to spend time shaking off the sticky, unpleasant impression of a terrible, shadowy, mad world which his comments leave behind - let's face it, it's bad enough without them.
Yes! Twilight has finally exposed himself. Could be her, of course, but I'm guessing not. Pushed, obviously, by the general respect and gratitude activists, anti-war mongers, and other ordinary decent people are giving to Craig Murray, the UK's former ambassador in Uzbekistan, Twilight has finally gone too far.
In a post further down the newswire, Twilight's calling the man who stood against Jack Straw in Blackburn, who has tirelessly stood up and spoken against the War on Terror, who has lambasted the demonisation of Muslim people, and fought for their legal and moral rights, a Nazi. Because he once worked for the Foreign Office. Never mind that he left after they accused him of 17 falsified charges, and drove him to a breakdown, following his criticism of their policies, of course.
And not just a Nazi. A Nazi, who by calling attention to our government's support for the regime in Uzbekistan, which persecutes Muslims, and likes to boil some alive, is actually trying to demonise all Muslims by criticising the state.
Yep, it's insane. You'd say it was the security services, if you didn't feel they'd write better. Or could it be that Mr Murray is getting too dangerously popular and effective? Mmmm...
In a post further down the newswire, Twilight's calling the man who stood against Jack Straw in Blackburn, who has tirelessly stood up and spoken against the War on Terror, who has lambasted the demonisation of Muslim people, and fought for their legal and moral rights, a Nazi. Because he once worked for the Foreign Office. Never mind that he left after they accused him of 17 falsified charges, and drove him to a breakdown, following his criticism of their policies, of course.
And not just a Nazi. A Nazi, who by calling attention to our government's support for the regime in Uzbekistan, which persecutes Muslims, and likes to boil some alive, is actually trying to demonise all Muslims by criticising the state.
Yep, it's insane. You'd say it was the security services, if you didn't feel they'd write better. Or could it be that Mr Murray is getting too dangerously popular and effective? Mmmm...
a
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Yep, I agree
20.10.2006 17:07
Twiglet sometimes gets some things somewhat right, like for example when he points out that an analysis of the "war on terror" that assumes that all the terror plots are as the mainstream media reports is fundamentally flawed, though you don't have to be working for the state to think this, and this comment has a nasty racist comment at the end of it:
But he get's other things horrible wrong, like his comment on the feature that links to the GreenLeft article on the phony terror cells (
And as the above says his comments on Craig Murray are way off:
9/11 and the death toll caused by the geoncide in Iraq are things he has got right but it's getting harder to find the decent nuggets from him due to the mounds of crap it's buried in...
Of course the article above is non-news and should probably be hidden...
observer
Not sure
20.10.2006 17:42
.
sceptic is not twilight
20.10.2006 18:07
Pertr Power - as in the guy who reported about the terror drill he was running on 7/7 on R4? I douby that he has ever posted here...
dusk
Ex tenebris nil nisi bonum
20.10.2006 18:50
sceptic
Yawn, I pointed out the significance of working willingly for Adolf Hitler
20.10.2006 19:38
What was the job of British Intelligence in Uzbekistan at the time of Murray's duties. Oh, sorry, we are supposed to forget that British embassies in such nations at time of war exist to further the needs of those wars? Perhaps you should all discover the extent of military bases and military operations in all the surrounding nations around Iraq and Iran, for this information is far from hidden.
Now, lets continue learning from history, shall we. Who staffed many of the worst death camps during WW2. The answer should not suprise you, but may. Not nazis, but the allies of nazis. Did this mean the nazis escaped blame? Now did any nazi officers suffer nervous breakdowns because they reported back to High Command that their duties seem to be going further than surely Adolf Hitler intended? ALL THE TIME.
The very fact that many of the worst crimes against humanity were carried out by allies of the nazis (under nazi control) allowed some nazis to try to pretend to themselves that THEY were Mr. Clean, and the 'sub-human' tribes of Europe were the animals. "Don't blame me gov, I was just a nazi working for Hitler during the Death Camp period, blame the people it was my job to recruit to run these camps".
ANYBODY WHO, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, CHOSE TO WORK FOR BLAIR IN A DIPLOMATIC CAPACITY IN ANY NATION WHOSE SUPPORT WAS REQUIRED TO FURTHER BLAIR'S PLANS FOR GENOCIDE IN CHECHNYA, IRAQ OR IRAN IS ***DIRECTLY*** LEGALLY CULPABLE FOR THOSE ACTS OF GENOCIDE.
I hope I make myself clear.
Any nazi from WW2 who eventually got gut sick from all the evil they were involved in, tried to salve their conscience with a letter to their boss (and there were so many of these people), and lost their job as a consequence, deserve no sympathy (although they may be used, if possible, against the greater evil).
Perhaps you remember the case of one of Hitler's most senior figures that flew to Scotland to say sorry, and arrange a truce? He had breakdown after breakdown, but we still let him die in prison. Jeez, according to Blair's agents here, we should have given him a medal, took his advice, and made up with Uncle Adolf.
Anyone who worked for Blair is of Blair. ANYONE WHO WORKED FOR BLAIR IS OF BLAIR.
Does this mean some of them are genuinely sorry? Well, anyone can repent. It is possible to front British Intelligence in Uzbekistan FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF CREATING THE MEANS TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AGAINST MUSLIMS IN IRAQ AND IRAN, and then be sorry. I mean, child murders on death row say sorry all the time, and I'm sure some of them mean it. My love, however, is with the people that don't murder children in the first place. And I'm sure many of these child murderers had breakdown after breakdown and even joined the ACLU and peace groups and like.
And by the way, Murray drew my attention to NOTHING. The crimes of Uzbekistan were documented long before they played on HIS conscience. Indeed, the dillema for Murray was not that he had to break the truth, but that he was seen by friends, family and colleagues operating in a regime about which the truth had already broken.
Adolf Hitler destroyed countless lives. Amongst these were the lives of massive numbers of willing nazi followers, many of whom ended up killing themselves or their families over matters of conscience or honour. DAVID IRVING IS ATTACKED AND IMPRISONED WHEN HE SUGGESTS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE GREATEST SYMPATHY FOR THE NAZI MOVEMENT, BECAUSE IT CONTAINED THESE MEN AND WOMEN OF 'HONOUR' ('honour in his terms, NOT mine). If you are against my position on Murray, you are in favour of Irvings position on the nazi movement in general.
I think Irving is a great historian, but I also know that Irving is a nazi sympathiser, which I will state clearly is a terrible thing.
While our New Reich agent is attempting to attack me (with the usual success), there is a better story to be reading.
Yes, The Guardian (instrumental in building the legend of Murray as anti-Blair warrior) is having a laugh at Putin congratulating the President of Israel for being a rapist.
I'll say it again, the propaganda rag partially responsible for carefully creating the legend of Murray is laughing with Putin and the Israeli High Command for using their power to rape and contemplate raping women.
My enemies are rapists, and proud to be so.
QUOTE
Putin praises sexual prowess of Israeli president
UNQUOTE
And what kind of headlines did The Guardian (Blair's main pro-war, anti-muslim outlet) use to promote Murray?
ONLY ONE REGULAR ON THIS SITE DESCRIBED BLAIR, AND HIS TEAM'S ACTION IN IRAQ AS GENOCIDE, AND GAVE THE TRUE FIGURE OF 500,000+ (NOW AT 650,000+ AND RAPIDLY RISING). The person above that attacked me, and his New Reich mates, ensured that Blair's holocaust denying figure from IBC was pushed here whenever possible.
Today, there are masses of sites now calling Blair's actions in Iraq genocide, and quoting a figure above half a million at last. I guess telling the truth makes me a liar, does it?
The enemy of mine enemy IS NOT MY FRIEND when that first enemy originally willingly worked for the second enemy. (A principle that Churchill followed ruthlessly when working with nazi defectors). However, like Churchill (a guy who I like not one little bit), I understand that such defectors may be of some use, but only if it is remembered every living second that they are in a position to continue serving their original masters.
If I saw people saying Murray is useful, I would be unlikely to say anything. But when people are saying what a great guy he is, and pushing him as an alpha-leader, like Benn or Galloway, well then I can hardly hear my self think due to the warning sirens that are screaming.
The anti-Blair movement needs leaders that are whiter than white. No taint, no connection with Blair (now or in the past) whatsoever. Defectors, like Murray, are, of course free to offer their services by providing inside intelligence on Blair's operations (and did you know that Murray has NEVER done this?).
What would Churchill have thought of a nazi defector that kept Hitler's Official Secrets act, and refused to divulge information on the inner workings of the nazis. Stupid question, isn't it. Such a person could quite clearly NOT be called a defector.
Of course, I am not saying Murray should break the law, but I am saying that because of his past, if he keeps the law he cannot be on our side EVER. That is not an opinion, but self-evident fact. People who have not worked willingly for Blair DO NOT have to break the law to be anti-Blair's-genocide. However, for most people that have worked in any position of power for Blair, they DO have to break the law to be anti-Blair's-genocide. Thus, I allow Murray's own actions to answer MY question.
David Irving was at least willing to go to prison for his principles. Like him or not, at least you can say that about the guy. I must be a fortune teller, because I knew I'd never see Murray in prison for the same reason.
And as for the mention of Jack Straw. Well the author of the above article, and his New Reich friends, were busy pushing Straw to be an anti-Iran-war leader when Straw became leader of the house, and Beckett was made foreign secretary. The lie they told was that Straw had fallen out with Blair, because Straw was anti-war. Indymedia UK holds records of past articles and comments. Go find out who pushed Straw (in the EXACT same way that Murray is promoted) for anti-war leader then, and note that each time I ensured a comment pointing out that Straw was, and always will be, Blair's guy.
Was I wrong then? Was I wrong when I proved that 'pirate's posts on behalf of Outrage! ALWAYS followed the agenda of Blair's war plan's, even showing how Indymedia's in the US had pro-gay posts that PROVED that the same issues could be raised WITHOUT following such an agenda?
Was I wrong when describing Blair's actions in Iraq as a genocide, and giving the correct level of deaths?
Was I wrong when I posted that Israel's vile mass murder of muslim holidaymakers on the beach proved that Israel was planning massive depraved war crimes?
I am a bad person for being right? Well, we all know that one faction here thinks so. We all know that faction spends the whole of its time attacking people like me, and yet have ZERO INTEREST in attacking Blair as a genocidal maniac. Interesting- I'm a problem, but Blair's acts of genocide are not?
Of course, this New Reich faction DOES frequently mention Benn, Galloway, Murray, Chomsky, etc. Why? Because the psychology is to make you focus on people and not their cause (if indeed they are genuine enough to truly have a cause).
Take someone who is- Brian Haw. But how is he treated here. We are ONLY told that he is important, and not the cause he sacrifices his whole life to. It is a simple psychological trick. Describe Mr Haw as the victim, so you STOP thinking about the victims that cause Mr Haw to protest in the first place. AND LONG BEFORE I WAS USING WORDS LIKE ATROCITY AND GENOCIDE TO DESCRIBE BLAIR'S ACTIONS, THIS HERO WAS.
It is disgusting that certain people are allowed to post stories about Mr Haw here without including images of his protest art at the top of the article. Disgusting, but oh so good for Blair. In a world where there really are no co-incidences, the downplaying of Brian Haw's cause is no co-incidence.
What would Mr Haw choose? His immediate victory in court, or the defeat of Blair and the other warlords. To read the regular articles here, you would falsely assume the former. This is not to say that Mr Haw is not concerned with his day to day battles, but for others to project this as the most important issue he is involved with is an act of very calculated manipulation.
But then, as I have said so many times (and this is the real motive for this attack on me) Blair has billions to spend on psychological warfare and we have almost nothing. If Blair's people think they see a chink in my armour, or people like me, they must probe it.
The above article is the old "he's punched you teddy bear" trick. It insults you, for they are well aware of my logical response, and trust that most activists are too stupid ever to seek a logical understanding of the issues involved with their struggle.
So I quote real history in my defense. And the people in British Intelligence spent their time at Oxford or Cambridge learning the self same knowledge. But while they consider themselves smart, and consider me smart, THEY CONSIDER YOU STUPID.
How does that feel? I go out of my way to explain a position, with facts, history, and analogy. They simply say, "listen you stupid bleeps, twilight has just insulted your mother". How does it feel when they treat you like this.
If a person gives an opinion and an argument behind that opinion, they are treating you like an adult, since if you can demolish the argument, you can dismiss the opinion.
I know, from the strength and violence used to defend Murray, that British Intelligence consider Murray an essential asset. This DOES NOT mean that Murray is proved to be working for them directly. Murray may simple be considered a perfect 'useful idiot' or Murray's intelligence handlers may feel that their manipulation of him is working perfectly. Who can say?
I was amused by the article suggesting that by standing against Straw, Murray's credentials are proved. Of course, we recently watched as the leaders of the anti-war movement STOOD-DOWN a planned protest against Straw- get this- because the protest was going to be too big. A real protest, as opposed to a intelligence service stage managed demo (like on the 23 sep, that left Blair more powerful than ever) risked snowballing into genuine public anger against Blair.
During the last general election, there was another Murray type person, the father of some dead soldier that stood against Blair. YOU WERE ALL TOLD REPEATEDLY ON THIS SITE AND OTHERS TO STAND BEHIND BRITISH SOLDIERS IN IRAQ, BECAUSE THIS FATHER WAS CHALLENGING BLAIR. Sorry, what was the outcome again? Yes, you all forgot, once the intelligence op was over, and Blair won, and once again, you lost.
REMEMBER, BLAIR'S PEOPLE ASSUME YOU HAVE THE MEMORY OF GOLDFISH, AND CARRY ONLY THE INFORMATION GAINED FROM THE LAST 6 MONTHS OF USING THE GUARDIAN OR CHANNEL 4 NEWS.
That's why they assume Murray will play, because THEY tell you the history that is significant, and the facts before that date, you are supposed to ask no questions about. Well Murray had a long history before 'falling out' with Blair. *I* am more interested in the hidden history, than the history that known propaganda outlets are all to willing to push at me.
The last thought (phew). Preaching to the choir. Learn what this means as a control tactic. Murray speaks to people with an assumed position. Thus what he says, that the audience already believes, can be totally ignored (for it happens at no cost to Blair whatsoever). What matters is what Murray says (if anything) OUTSIDE this definition. Crap about 'demonisation of muslims' counts for nothing, because the audience already holds that true. Ditto torture, and dodgy regimes pleased in order to win their military assistance for Blair's acts of genocide. All of that is preaching to the choir. Now going to the UN, and presenting evidence that Blair is responsible for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY (which Murray could do tomorrow) would show that Murray was genuine.
What? Murray hasn't done that! Well, knock me done with a feather.
So, My New Reich article author, do you think you suceeded in buying your master Blair a little more time, or have I troubled you again. Don't worry, you and I both know that people like me are dead once Blair moves to the next phase. I know my history , and so do you.
twilight