Gladio

[someoneisatthedoor]

This is an extract from a narration I’ve been working on for some months now. It’s all based on mainstream sources of information.

Whereas the Northwoods plan was never acted out, Operation Gladio was a lengthy and devastating programme of terrorist attacks across Western Europe during the Cold War. In 1945, at the end of the Second World War, what is now referred to as the Gladio Network was born. It was a parallel military structure, composed of stay-behind troops who didn’t return home with the majority of soldiers when the war ended. The idea was that if the Soviet Communists sought to take advantage of the weakened state of Western Europe and invaded, the network could provide the basis for a resistance movement, committing acts of sabotage and adopting guerrilla warfare tactics against the Soviets. The aim was to avoid a repeat of the circumstances that led to the Second World War, where democracies all over Western Europe failed to counter the fascist invasions and were toppled quickly. As such, these covert armies operated much more secretly than their military counterparts. On the 3rd of August 1990, then Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti admitted that the network existed. Inspired in part by this admission, on the 22nd November of that year the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning Operation Gladio, which explicitly states:

…for over 40 years this organization has escaped all democratic controls and has been run by the secret services of the states concerned in collaboration with NATO

and that:

…in certain Member States military secret services (or uncontrolled branches thereof) were involved in serious cases of terrorism and crime as evidenced by various judicial inquiries

By the late 1960s, the Gladio Network had moved from preparing for a fight against a Communist invasion to using terrorism to actively undermine the support for Communist and other Leftist parties in Western European countries. In 1969, four bombs exploded in public places in Rome and Milan, one in the offices of the Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura, the Agrarian National Bank, in Piazza Fontana. 16 people were killed, and 80 were maimed and wounded. Initially, leftwing anarchists were blamed, and while members of the rightwing Ordine Nuovo were later convicted of the bombings, these convictions were eventually overturned. During the Parliamentary Investigation over thirty years after the bombings, Paulo Emilio Taviani, a long-serving politician who was at the Italian Ministry of Defence and oversaw the creation of Italy’s secret stay-behind network, said that Italy’s Military Intelligence Service knew about the planned bombing and was going to send a ‘senior officer from Rome’ to try to stop it from happening. Instead, a different officer from Padua was sent to try to lay the blame on leftwing anarchists, which was completely untrue. In 2000, a report to an Italian Parliamentary Commission on Terrorism explicitly alleged that the United States Intelligence also knew about the planned bombing and did nothing to stop it. The report says that this failure to act was part of a ‘strategy of tension’ whereby members of the Gladio Network, controlled by NATO, either committed acts of terrorism themselves or inspired acts of terrorism by rightwing groups, and then blamed the attacks on communist extremists. This strategy was designed to demonise the Left and put a halt to communism’s growing support in the country, and across Western Europe.

However, others have made more serious allegations than that of intelligence services knowing about such attacks ahead of time, failing to prevent them and then exploiting them for political ends, although even that is conspiracy to commit mass murder. Daniele Ganser’s book on the Gladio Network says that,

“The massacre [of 1969] had been carried out by the Italian stay-behind army and right-wing terrorists on the orders of the US secret service CIA in order to discredit the Italian Communists.”

During a trial in 2001, Giandelio Maletti, the former head of Italian counterintelligence, testified that,

“The CIA, following the directives of its government, wanted to create an Italian nationalism capable of halting what it saw as a slide to the left and, for this purpose, it may have made use of rightwing terrorism,”

And Paulo Emilio Taviani, stated that while he considered it unlikely that the CIA carried out the attack, that,

“It seems to me certain, however, that agents of the CIA were among those who supplied the materials and who muddied the waters of the investigation.”

This strategy of tension continued into the 1970s. General Gerardo Serravalle told an Italian Commission on Terrorism in the early 90s that at a ‘crucial’ meeting of the controllers of Gladio in 1972,

‘at least half of the upper echelons “had the idea of attacking the communists before an invasion. They were preparing for civil war”… ‘Why wait for the invaders when we can make a pre-emptive attack now on the communists who would support the invader?’’

On August 2nd, 1980, they got their wish. At 10:25 a.m., a timed explosive device went off in Bologna, killing 85 people and wounding hundreds. It had been left in a suitcase in a waiting room in Bologna train station. The explosion destroyed most of that part of the building, hit the train standing at the platform and caused the roof of the building to collapse. The militant communist group the Red Brigades were initially blamed, and the investigation was corrupted and obstructed numerous times, eventually leading to the conviction of two Italian Intelligence agents for investigation diversion. In 1995, two members of right-wing Italian groups were convicted of the bombing, but they have always maintained their innocence.

Another member of rightwing groups Avanguardia Nazionale and Ordine Nuovo, a man called Vincenzo Vinciguerra who was convicted of a 1972 bombing that killed three carabinieri in Peteano, has openly admitted his involvement with the Gladio Network. He testified at his trial in 1984 that,

“There exists in Italy a secret force parallel to the armed forces, composed of civilians and military men, in an anti-Soviet capacity - that is, to organise a resistance on Italian soil against a Russian army… A secret organisation, a super-organisation with a network of communications, arms and explosives, and men trained to use them… A super-organisation which, lacking a Soviet military invasion which might not happen, took up the task, on Nato’s behalf, of preventing a slip to the left in the political balance of the country. This they did, with the assistance of the official secret services and the political and military forces.”

Vinciguerra also described the rationale behind the terrorism influenced or carried out by the Gladio group.

“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the State to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the State cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.”

Several other terrorist attacks in Italy, including the bombing of the plane Argo 16 in 1973, the Piazza della Loggia bombing in 1974, and the kidnapping and assassination of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978 have all been linked to the Gladio group, as well as numerous other attacks across Europe.  In particular, the case of Aldo Moro makes a lot of sense.  Moro was forming an alliance between his own Christian Democratic party and the Italian Communist Party that threatened to lead to Europe’s first democratically elected Communist government in the elections the following year.  In May of 1978, he was kidnapped and later murdered, allegedly by the Italian Red Brigades.  The connection between Gladio and Aldo Moro’s death was alleged at the time by Mino Pecorelli, an investigative journalist who was shot dead a year after Aldo Moro’s assassination.  It is apparent that a militant Communist group would have had a lot to lose by assassinating one of the few political leaders in Europe willing to work with communists, and that either right wing terrorists or members of the Gladio network had a lot to gain by doing such a thing.  It is significant that at the time of the kidnapping the leaders of the Red Brigades were in prison, and the group had been heavily infiltrated by Western intelligence services, which suggests that even if it were members of the Red Brigades who were responsible, that these members were covert operatives or double agents.  As it turned out, the proposed coalition between Christian Democrats and Communists never happened, and to this date no one had been convicted of Moro’s murder.   

Although only three countries (Italy, Switzerland and Belgium) have held parliamentary inquiries into the Gladio Network, and the European Parliament have not yet held their investigation, despite passing a resolution about it over fifteen years ago, and despite the existence of arms caches controlled by these parallel military structures having been confirmed all over Europe. This includes in Britain, according Sir Anthony Farrar Hockley, a former commander of NATO forces in Northern Europe. A 1976 US Senate report stated that MI6 and the SAS were intimately involved, along with the CIA, in setting up the secret armies both during and after the Second World War, and maintained their influence over the Gladio network throughout its history. Whatismore, according to a report released by the Swiss defence ministry in 1991, the British Military, possibly the SAS, helped to train the Gladio group stationed in Switzerland and that British officials signed agreements with the group as recently as 1987.

[Impenitent]

sounds good so far… have you read frederick forsythe?

-Imp

[someoneisatthedoor]

Not in any depth, in fact, I think I’ve only read one novel by him. But I’ve read all of the Ian Fleming Bond novels and a few books by John Le Carre.

[free_thinker]

Here is a good 3 part BBC doc, from 1990 about Gladio:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 9&q=gladio

[NoelyG]

Enlightening SIATD

[someoneisatthedoor]

@NoelyG

Enlightening SIATD

Cheers. It’s a kind of hobby topic of mine, international espionage and its relationship to terrorism. The logic of second-guessing and double crossing is, I suppose, what attracts me to it. It’s like deconstruction, but with better suits and more dead people.

@free_thinker

Here is a good 3 part BBC doc, from 1990 about Gladio:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 9&q=gladio

Sure sure, one of my main sources of information about the Gladio network was this three part series. There are some excellent interviews with Vinciguerra and with Roger Lallemand - the head of the Belgian Parliamentary Inquiry into Gladio that uncovered links between the Belgian security services and the infamous Brabant massacres of the 1980s. A bit dry and stuffy - too many talking heads, not enough montage and narration, but a solid series nonetheless.

This morning I have been mostly reading about how the Algerian government (once again with the support of the British and the Americans) have been working with Al Qaeda over the last 15 years in much the same fashion as happened with the Gladio group in Europe.

[Colinsign]

We’ve spoken briefly about this essay. It’s very good. Very informative.

What the Gladio situation highlights is that there precedent for a global network of governmental powers to collaborate and organise clandestine military groups, with to all intents and purposes as terrorist Agenda.

What legacy has the Gladio projetc left? Are there reminents remaining today? Are there paramilitary groups like it functioning today?

I assume so.

[Carleas]

This article seemed related.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Colinsign

We’ve spoken briefly about this essay. It’s very good. Very informative.

The story is in many ways yet to be told in full. Ganser’s book does a good job, but is academic and dispassionate.

What the Gladio situation highlights is that there precedent for a global network of governmental powers to collaborate and organise clandestine military groups, with to all intents and purposes as terrorist Agenda.

One point I’d make - it was transnational organisations, mainly NATO, the CIA and MI6 who were involved in the planning and controlling of the group (though the cells worked relatively autonomously in terms of their initial mission of preparing for a potential Soviet invasion). National governments on the whole simply did not know that this was going on any more than our parents did. If security services and military elites didn’t give them the information, they had no real hope of finding it out otherwise.

What legacy has the Gladio projetc left? Are there reminents remaining today? Are there paramilitary groups like it functioning today?

I assume so.

Well, there are covert paramilitary and military groups controlled largely in secret without national (i.e. elected) governments knowing or having much to say about it. More significantly, as I’m presently reading, is the long history of MI6 and other agency involvement with Islamic terrorists. Through the Kosovo wars of the 90s we were, it seems, supplying arms and training to Al Qaeda. We’re not just talking a one-off like MI6 funding that bunch of militants to try to kill Gaddafi, we’re talking dozens of occasions spread across decades and continents.

@Carleas

This article seemed related.

It probably is. I really don’t know who killed Litvinenko, but it’s basically a toss-up between Russian and Western Intelligence Services of some kind. That’s what I love about this story - either way, it’s a gross act perpetrated in the name of a state, rather than a ‘proper’ murder.

[free_thinker]

It seems to me that the Gladio started out with noble causes (stop the EU from being overrun by commies) but then kind of got hijacked by James Bond wannabes, if those things are even true.

And the stuff about Al Qaeda, although they were armed by the US and UK, at the time, it was the right thing to do as it stopped the Russians. In the 80s they were a bigger threat.

We’re not just talking a one-off like MI6 funding that bunch of militants to try to kill Gaddafi, we’re talking dozens of occasions spread across decades and continents.

MI6 etc, get involved in “dirty” operations, I’m guessing that’s the nature of their work. I don’t understand, what’s wrong with trying to kill Gaddafi etc… You should remember, they had just blown up a plane in Scotland and shot a policewoman in London. MI6 sent out a message that if you try dirty tricks, we will get you. You could also argue that they wanted the assassination of Gaddafi to fail. This way there was no blowback and he got the message that “they” could get him.

The only thing that worries me about these organizations, MI6 etc… Is if they get involved in false flag operations. Even if they do, we don’t know if it’s MI6 or rouge elements within. Due to the nature of their work, it’s all guesswork. I have no doubt that many people are more then willing to do that kind of work.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@free_thinker

It seems to me that the Gladio started out with noble causes (stop the EU from being overrun by commies) but then kind of got hijacked by James Bond wannabes, if those things are even true.

They are true, in terms of normative standards of historical proof.

And the stuff about Al Qaeda, although they were armed by the US and UK, at the time, it was the right thing to do as it stopped the Russians. In the 80s they were a bigger threat.

I’m not talking about Afghanistan, I’m talking about Sierra Leone, Algeria, Kosovo and the like.

We’re not just talking a one-off like MI6 funding that bunch of militants to try to kill Gaddafi, we’re talking dozens of occasions spread across decades and continents.

MI6 etc, get involved in “dirty” operations, I’m guessing that’s the nature of their work.

It is indeed. My point is ultimately that we cannot make any kind of accurate assessment of the ‘war on terror’ until we acknowledge and research the connections between our intelligence and security services and terrorists.

I don’t understand, what’s wrong with trying to kill Gaddafi etc…

Security services should not be going around trying to covertly assassinate leaders of other countries. If MI6 tried to kill the leader of your nation, would you just shrug your shoulders and say ‘what’s wrong with that’?

You should remember, they had just blown up a plane in Scotland and shot a policewoman in London.

In which case we should have attacked overtly, if we were to attack at all. But similarly, by that logic, if the Iraqi intelligence service were to hire terrorists to assassinate Blair, that would be just peachy…

MI6 sent out a message that if you try dirty tricks, we will get you.

Hardly, since they have consistently denied involvement in the assassination attempt.

You could also argue that they wanted the assassination of Gaddafi to fail. This way there was no blowback and he got the message that “they” could get him.

Yeah, they meant for that group of militants to fuck up the bombing and kill innocent people. Either this is true, in which case everyone in MI6 involved in that should be tried for murder, or it is false, in which case you have no argument.

The only thing that worries me about these organizations, MI6 etc… Is if they get involved in false flag operations.

The assassination attempt on Gaddafi was a false flag operation. So we the Gladio operations.

Even if they do, we don’t know if it’s MI6 or rouge elements within. Due to the nature of their work, it’s all guesswork. I have no doubt that many people are more then willing to do that kind of work.

Of course they are. None of this makes it right.

[free_thinker]

I’m talking about Sierra Leone, Algeria, Kosovo and the like.

It was a good thing that the UK went to Kosovo and Sierra Leone. The rebels in Sierra Leone were stopped from taking the capital and killing was halted in Kosovo. No idea what happened in Algeria.

Security services should not be going around trying to covertly assassinate leaders of other countries. If MI6 tried to kill the leader of your nation, would you just shrug your shoulders and say ‘what’s wrong with that’?

But why not, if they have ordered a plane to be bombed and a policewoman to be shot. He was fair game. Of course I would not say whats wrong with that even if Stalin was my leader, as I would have been brainwashed. Doesn’t make it immorral, just because many people say its so.

if the Iraqi intelligence service were to hire terrorists to assassinate Blair, that would be just peachy…

Under Sadam that would be peachy. Maybe leaders would think twice before opening their mouth. Thats why MI6 needs to keep its wits about it. If leader A considers leader B to be a threat then B needs to be taken out. The whole point of a leader is that they protect their countries interests.

Yeah, they meant for that group of militants to fuck up the bombing and kill innocent people.

How do you know it was fucked up? How do you know it wasn’t some sort of bigger plan?

Gaddafi wasn’t a false flag has no UK citizen was hurt. Its the job of Mi6 to look after the UK, thats what it was doing.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@free_thinker

I’m talking about Sierra Leone, Algeria, Kosovo and the like.

It was a good thing that the UK went to Kosovo and Sierra Leone. The rebels in Sierra Leone were stopped from taking the capital and killing was halted in Kosovo. No idea what happened in Algeria.

Reread my post, I’m talking not about sending troops into these places, but funding Islamic terrorists in these places.

Security services should not be going around trying to covertly assassinate leaders of other countries. If MI6 tried to kill the leader of your nation, would you just shrug your shoulders and say ‘what’s wrong with that’?

But why not, if they have ordered a plane to be bombed and a policewoman to be shot.

Did he order those things? That’s like saying that John Major or Tony Blair ordered the hit on Gaddafi…

He was fair game. Of course I would not say whats wrong with that even if Stalin was my leader, as I would have been brainwashed. Doesn’t make it immorral, just because many people say its so.

No, the hypocrisy is what makes it immoral.

if the Iraqi intelligence service were to hire terrorists to assassinate Blair, that would be just peachy…

Under Sadam that would be peachy. Maybe leaders would think twice before opening their mouth. Thats why MI6 needs to keep its wits about it. If leader A considers leader B to be a threat then B needs to be taken out.

Based on ‘considering them a threat’? What if the leader is paranoid?

The whole point of a leader is that they protect their countries interests.

No, the whole point of a leader is that they have a country to use as a human shield.

Yeah, they meant for that group of militants to fuck up the bombing and kill innocent people.

How do you know it was fucked up? How do you know it wasn’t some sort of bigger plan?

Firstly, because the source for this story makes it clear that the intention was to kill him. Secondly, because we can speculate about bigger plans forever, I’d rather talk about what has happened.

Gaddafi wasn’t a false flag has no UK citizen was hurt.

You seem to be suffering from a great misapprehension about what constitutes a false flag attack. It simply means an attack by one group pretending to be another (or using another by proxy as a means to achieving the same thing). The nationality of the victims is irrelevant.

Its the job of Mi6 to look after the UK, thats what it was doing.

Tell you what, when you live in the UK and pay these people’s salaries through your own labour, live under the laws and habits of this country and experience the effects of this country’s institutions then you can make a valid comment on what it is to ‘look after the UK’. Until then, spare me the cliches and the missing of the point.

[free_thinker]

Reread my post, I’m talking not about sending troops into these places, but funding Islamic terrorists in these places.

Maybe they funded the “Islamic Terrorists” as its better for them to die then British troops, which is a good thing if you are MI6.

Did he order those things? That’s like saying that John Major or Tony Blair ordered the hit on Gaddafi.

Gaddafi has more control over his people, therefore its more likely that he would order those things. If he didn’t know, he is still responsible as he is the leader. Like when people say Hitler didn’t know about the Holocaust, still doesn’t make him a better person.

No, the hypocrisy is what makes it immoral.

What hypocrisy? That’s what I don’t understand. MI6 using “terrorists” to fight wars in their own country to make regime change rather then using British troops.

Based on ‘considering them a threat’? What if the leader is paranoid?

Well, it’s better if they are paranoid that they selectively target leaders then nuke an entire city.

It simply means an attack by one group pretending to be another (or using another by proxy as a means to achieving the same thing). The nationality of the victims is irrelevant.

Yeah Ok that’s true. Also, this is a different class of operations compared to 7/7, for example. That operation was used against the UK by the UK for a purpose which does not serve the people, unlike the Gaddafi case.

Until then, spare me the cliches and the missing of the point.

Do you mean I’ve missed your point? That is true. What exactly is your point?

[someoneisatthedoor]

@free_thinker

Reread my post, I’m talking not about sending troops into these places, but funding Islamic terrorists in these places.

Maybe they funded the “Islamic Terrorists” as its better for them to die then British troops, which is a good thing if you are MI6.

Not MI6’s decision to make, in a supposed democracy. But they took it anyway. And why put Islamic Terrorists in apologetic quotation marks?

Did he order those things? That’s like saying that John Major or Tony Blair ordered the hit on Gaddafi.

Gaddafi has more control over his people, therefore its more likely that he would order those things.

i.e. you don’t know, which makes your whole argument collapse.

If he didn’t know, he is still responsible as he is the leader.

So Blair is responsible for the attempted hit on Gaddafi, even though he didn’t know about it? Blair is responsible for every rape, murder, mugging, assault in this country just because he’s our political leader?

Ridiculous.

Like when people say Hitler didn’t know about the Holocaust, still doesn’t make him a better person.

Yes it does. Or at least, not quite as bad a person as he would otherwise be.

No, the hypocrisy is what makes it immoral.

What hypocrisy?

An institution set up to protect the country from terrorists (among other things) using those same terrorists in secret to further their own private, unaccountable agendas. It’s like a security guard at a football match giving a bomb to someone in the crowd.

That’s what I don’t understand. MI6 using “terrorists” to fight wars in their own country to make regime change rather then using British troops.

Firstly, regime change in other countries is not our decision, that’s for the people of the other countries to decide (unless that regime attacks us or is just about to attack us). Secondly, using terrorists in secret while apparently fighting them in public is incredibly deceptive and hypocritical. Thirdly, why do you keep putting terrorists in apologetic quotation marks?

Based on ‘considering them a threat’? What if the leader is paranoid?

Well, it’s better if they are paranoid that they selectively target leaders then nuke an entire city.

At least nuking an entire city is open and honest.

It simply means an attack by one group pretending to be another (or using another by proxy as a means to achieving the same thing). The nationality of the victims is irrelevant.

Yeah Ok that’s true. Also, this is a different class of operations compared to 7/7, for example. That operation was used against the UK by the UK for a purpose which does not serve the people, unlike the Gaddafi case.

Care to cite your proof that 7/7 was a false flag operation? Now, I know full well how the official version of events is an outright lie and have personally investigated every significant detail of it, but I don’t pretend to know what really happened or who was responsible.

But yes, assuming 7/7 was a false flag attack by Britain on itself, yes, it was strategically different to the Gaddafi incident.

Until then, spare me the cliches and the missing of the point.

Do you mean I’ve missed your point? That is true. What exactly is your point?

That placing power in the hands of secret organisations who are unaccountable and clearly haven’t the slightest care for the people they are charged with protecting, who work in secret with the people they tell us in public that they’re fighting, is a hypocritical sham that should be stopped. Ultimately, my point is that we should reform the intelligence services.

[free_thinker]

Not MI6’s decision to make, in a supposed democracy. But they took it anyway. And why put Islamic Terrorists in apologetic quotation marks?

Why put always Islamic, yet read the BBC and they never mention Christian IRA.

i.e. you don’t know, which makes your whole argument collapse.

That’s half of the point, I have been trying to make. i.e you said

“Not MI6’s decision to make, in a supposed democracy”

Who said MI6 made that decision, Gladio and the whole thing is based on what people say, who work for the government or people who “know” what the government and MI6 do, even though they have never worked there.

So Blair is responsible for the attempted hit on Gaddafi, even though he didn’t know about it? Blair is responsible for every rape, murder, mugging, assault in this country just because he’s our political leader?

Yes, he is. He should know what people are doing as their leader. If he does not that is a failure of his behalf not to find out. He is not responsible for rape as he did not order them and doesn’t control the people. He does or should know/control what his own government does.

Yes it does. Or at least, not quite as bad a person as he would otherwise be.

Ignorance should not be a defense, for what your cabinet does. That at the least a leader should know.

An institution set up to protect the country from terrorists (among other things) using those same terrorists in secret to further their own private, unaccountable agendas. It’s like a security guard at a football match giving a bomb to someone in the crowd.

Osama and Co were not the UK’s enemies in 1980. Neither was Sadam. Iran and the USSR were. Gaddafi was too, the small band of terrorists chosen to attack him were not a threat to the UK.

Firstly, regime change in other countries is not our decision, that’s for the people of the other countries to decide (unless that regime attacks us or is just about to attack us).

I agree with that 100%, but if the UK decides to send troops, why not send MI6 before them to cause mayhem.

Secondly, using terrorists in secret while apparently fighting them in public is incredibly deceptive and hypocritical.’

They use terrorists but not the ones they are fighting.

Thirdly, why do you keep putting terrorists in apologetic quotation marks?

The UK is considered a terrorist by many countries. Some people “terrorists” may just want the West to stop meddling in their affairs. Was Sir Francis Drake a terrorist or a national hero? What about the IRA, “fighting for Ireland’s freedom” or “terrorists”? Depends, who you ask. Anyone who fights for their freedom from an oppressor, e.g. the UK cannot be a terrorist. I guess George Washington was a “terrorist”, being one can be a good thing.

At least nuking an entire city is open and honest.

So honest people who had no control over their leader should be nuked as opposed to the leader himself? No doubt he will have a nice bunker to escape to.

but I don’t pretend to know what really happened or who was responsible.

If I gave the impression “I Know”, that was not intended. Half my point was that the masses will never know.

That placing power in the hands of secret organisations who are unaccountable and clearly haven’t the slightest care for the people they are charged with protecting, who work in secret with the people they tell us in public that they’re fighting, is a hypocritical sham that should be stopped. Ultimately, my point is that we should reform the intelligence services.

I agree with that. You are saying more though. That MI6 should not kill leaders and get involved in dirty tricks even if that would benefit people. I am saying that it’s better to kill the leader, even if we use terrorists, then the people, who more often then not are innocent. If MI6 does stuff that benefits the UK, that is good because that is its job.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@free_thinker

Not MI6’s decision to make, in a supposed democracy. But they took it anyway. And why put Islamic Terrorists in apologetic quotation marks?

Why put always Islamic, yet read the BBC and they never mention Christian IRA.

Because in the examples I’ve given I’ve been talking about Islamic Terrorists.

i.e. you don’t know, which makes your whole argument collapse.

That’s half of the point, I have been trying to make. i.e you said

“Not MI6’s decision to make, in a supposed democracy”

Who said MI6 made that decision,

The MI5 agent who turned whistleblower.

Gladio and the whole thing is based on what people say, who work for the government or people who “know” what the government and MI6 do, even though they have never worked there.

i.e. people involved in these things who became whistleblowers.

My point remains - do you have testimony (as I do) supporting your claim that Gaddafi ordered the bombing of a plane and the shooting of a police officer?

So Blair is responsible for the attempted hit on Gaddafi, even though he didn’t know about it? Blair is responsible for every rape, murder, mugging, assault in this country just because he’s our political leader?

Yes, he is. He should know what people are doing as their leader. If he does not that is a failure of his behalf not to find out.

Only if he’s prompted (which, in this case, he has been several times by the two former MI5 agents who keep bringing up the Gaddafi case).

He is not responsible for rape as he did not order them and doesn’t control the people. He does or should know/control what his own government does.

So he should control the million-odd civil servants but shouldn’t control the streets…

Yes it does. Or at least, not quite as bad a person as he would otherwise be.

Ignorance should not be a defense, for what your cabinet does. That at the least a leader should know.

On the other hand, ignorance quite often is a perfectly acceptable legal defense.

An institution set up to protect the country from terrorists (among other things) using those same terrorists in secret to further their own private, unaccountable agendas. It’s like a security guard at a football match giving a bomb to someone in the crowd.

Osama and Co were not the UK’s enemies in 1980. Neither was Sadam. Iran and the USSR were. Gaddafi was too, the small band of terrorists chosen to attack him were not a threat to the UK.

The hit on Gaddafi didn’t take place in 1980. It took place in 96/97. ‘Osama and Co’ are not our enemies now, it seems. Or at least, it’s a strange sort of enemy when you imitate and negotiate with them while pretending to do the opposite.

Really, ‘freethinker’ - why should I carry on trying to discuss this with you when EVERY time we disagree it is because you are either ignorant of the facts of the matter or because you deliberately chase red herring arguments?

Firstly, regime change in other countries is not our decision, that’s for the people of the other countries to decide (unless that regime attacks us or is just about to attack us).

I agree with that 100%, but if the UK decides to send troops, why not send MI6 before them to cause mayhem.

Because MI6 isn’t meant to be a paramilitary force. It is, or at least, it controls certain paramilitary forces. But that isn’t within its remit or its legally sanctioned powers. And because adding to the violence and mayhem in the world is likely to make this country less safe, not more.

Also, we never had any intention of invading. The hit was meant to just be a hit, not a regime change as in Iraq.

Secondly, using terrorists in secret while apparently fighting them in public is incredibly deceptive and hypocritical.’

They use terrorists but not the ones they are fighting.

Nonetheless, we’ve funded and trained Islamic terrorists in dozens of countries while claiming to be fighting them. Even if the individuals are different people, it doesn’t stop it being a lie and hypocritical.

Thirdly, why do you keep putting terrorists in apologetic quotation marks?

The UK is considered a terrorist by many countries. Some people “terrorists” may just want the West to stop meddling in their affairs. Was Sir Francis Drake a terrorist or a national hero?

Both.

What about the IRA, “fighting for Ireland’s freedom” or “terrorists”?

Both.

Depends, who you ask. Anyone who fights for their freedom from an oppressor, e.g. the UK cannot be a terrorist. I guess George Washington was a “terrorist”, being one can be a good thing.

Indeed it can. But I’m not the one claiming to be fighting terrorists while hiring them.

At least nuking an entire city is open and honest.

So honest people who had no control over their leader should be nuked as opposed to the leader himself? No doubt he will have a nice bunker to escape to.

At least it’s an overt military action that everyone can see and judge.

but I don’t pretend to know what really happened or who was responsible.

If I gave the impression “I Know”, that was not intended. Half my point was that the masses will never know.

Yes, we will. It’ll probably take 30 years, but we will.

That placing power in the hands of secret organisations who are unaccountable and clearly haven’t the slightest care for the people they are charged with protecting, who work in secret with the people they tell us in public that they’re fighting, is a hypocritical sham that should be stopped. Ultimately, my point is that we should reform the intelligence services.

I agree with that. You are saying more though. That MI6 should not kill leaders and get involved in dirty tricks even if that would benefit people.

I’m saying that practices such as the covenant of security do not benefit people. And that assassinating foreign despots doesn’t benefit people.

I am saying that it’s better to kill the leader, even if we use terrorists, then the people, who more often then not are innocent. If MI6 does stuff that benefits the UK, that is good because that is its job.

Again, when you live in this country, under its laws and institutions, paying for these bastards to hire terrorists the world over then you can talk about what benefits the UK. Until then, it’s just a useful cliche you’re using to prop up a dreadful argument. Since you don’t even know WHEN the attempted hit on Gaddafi took place you can have no idea whether or not its aim was to benefit the UK, so your whole argument is a red herring.

[free_thinker]

The hit on Gaddafi didn’t take place in 1980. It took place in 96/97. ‘Osama and Co’ are not our enemies now, it seems. Or at least, it’s a strange sort of enemy when you imitate and negotiate with them while pretending to do the opposite.

I never said the hit on Gaddafi was in 1980, or did I? I meant the UK funded Osama in 1980s not in 2001, funded Sadam in 1980s not now. Funded the terrorists against Gaddafi, those terrorist were NOT the UKs enemy then. Therefore what you said was false, that the UK funds terrorists while claming to fight them.

Really, ‘freethinker’ - why should I carry on trying to discuss this with you when EVERY time we disagree it is because you are either ignorant of the facts of the matter or because you deliberately chase red herring arguments?

Name one “fact”, although this whole argument has no facts to it, including my own, its all hearsay. Some whistle blower, is it David Shayler? He believes too, the planes that hit the towers were not real but were done using computers, wow good source. He will say anything to get on TV or to a convention. What red herring arguments? Maybe I have but that was no plan.

You best argument is that I don’t know because I don’t live in the UK. That may have some truth in it. I admit I don’t read the British papers etc… I do read the BBC and some other internet sources.

[Impenitent]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternativ … Flight_103

-Imp