By Dark Politicks
I haven’t vented my spleen on any major subject for while but today’s article in the Daily Mail about the death of David Kelly has given me another opportunity to write about a subject which I keep being drawn back to i.e conspiracy and why some people find it hard to entertain even the possibility of such events occurring especially when they involve agents of the state which is supposedly an entity that exists to protect us.
The article in the Mail reveals how an ex KGB agent who had defected to Britain was told by an MI5 agent how David Kelly had been killed by MI6 for “his reckless behaviour”.
There is a lot of evidence that supports the idea that David Kelly was killed rather than committing suicide which includes:
The supposed “death” cut to his wrist was such a cut that was
a) very hard to achieve, especially by David who had a problem with his arm and hand which meant he needed help to cut up his own food.
b) the cut to the ulnar artery was not enough to cause the loss of blood needed to kill someone especially when outside in the cold where the blood vessels would have narrowed to slow the bleed. This is backed up by 13 specialist doctors who revealed their concerns after the Hutton enquiry published it’s findings.
c) the amount of blood found at the scene where the body was found was minimal and not enough to justify the belief that severe blood loss was the cause of death.
d) the type of cut was very unusual for someone intent on committing suicide to make. No-one else died from that type of cut that year.
There is also other evidence such as:
- the amount of painkillers found in his stomach was only a third of the amount needed to kill someone.
- Evidence of livor mortis which reveals that Kelly had died on his back however he was reportedly found sitting up slumped against a tree.
- The body contained a number of cuts and abrasions to the face, body and legs which are similar to those types of injuries that would be found after a fight.
- No finger prints were found on the knife found at the scene.
- The people who found his body claim that there wasn’t a bottle of water, knife or watch that the police say they found at the scene.
- Contradictory evidence given by police officers to the Hutton enquiry about the number of officers at the scene.
- His famous comment to the British ambassador that if Iraq was invaded he would “.. probably be found dead in the woods.”
And there are many more inconsistencies and discrepancies which taken together can give the impression that David Kelly’s death was not a suicide but the result of foul play.
Today’s revelation by someone in the intelligence community seems to back up this theory and we already have a number of politicians who also believe that David Kelly was silenced by the British government because of his famous leaks to Andrew Gilligan which revealed that the famous dodgy Iraq dossier was indeed “sexed up” to bolster the case for war.
The question one must ask is whether or not it is likely that David Kelly would have been killed by the British government.
As someone who considers themselves a skeptic I need to be even handed with my skepticism. Not only should I not take on face value any theory I hear, whether it be a conspiracy or not, I need to also question anything my government says or does.
I often find when I debate such topics such as the death of John F Kennedy or the 9/11 attacks that the view someone takes on the matter is never purely one based on what they actually know of the events, or historical precedence of similar events but rather what they believe or want to believe.
The primary factor which usually decides whether someone is willing to consider a conspiratorial view of a crime is whether or not they have any knowledge of previous misdeeds, lies and cover-ups committed by their government.
A lot of people are very unwilling to entertain ideas of government conspiracies as they are brought up to believe that men are just and good and that those who govern are meant to be the best of us. People who obtain high office do it so that they can serve the common good, help the poor, increase social justice and to always ensure truth wins the day never for personal reasons whether it be money, influence or power.
The intelligence agencies that are run by the supposedly benign state are not compartmentalised instruments of power that are used to manipulate overseas governments and domestic enemies at home through infiltration, propaganda and malicious attack. No instead they are unseen heroes who protect us from nasty terrorists, evil dictators and subversive home born extremists.
They could never be used by those who control them to manipulate events to the benefit of a few instead of the elected majority. Any events that are traced back to these agencies are always mistakes, oversights or signs that they need more power and money so that they can do the job right.
The answer with all things is usually that it’s a mix of both. Whilst many politicians aim to serve the common good many do not and we only need to look at history to see how politicians have been mired in scandal, deciet and lies since the ancient times of Greece and Rome.
Usually it is very hard to convince someone who has little knowledge of history that our leaders and their agencies could be used for such conspiratorial activities such as false flag attacks, assassination and media manipulation to drive the case for war. However for those of us who know history we can see that there is no logical reason to believe politicians and agents living in current times would behave any different from those from the past. Fashion, technology and events may change but the human condition remains the same and the motives that drive those who crave power are always around no matter what century we may live in.
So when we look at David Kelly’s death we can certainly rule out the possibility that our supposed civilised and just democratic government wouldn’t engage in such an event as history shows that belief to be based on nothing but wishful thinking. Just on a British note we can look over last century and take the following events as precedence to back our case:
1. The recent expenses scandal shows that a large percentage of our elected officials from all parties are always happy to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers. Some more than others for sure but we can certainly see that our elected officials are not the best that society can offer.
3. Tony Blair’s discussion with George Bush on how we could start a war with Iraq by lying to the public and staging a false flag attack. This involved flying a UN marked plane over Iraq and then shooting it down and blaming it on Saddam Hussein. Just the fact that they talked about carrying out such a malicious and deceitful event to start a war shows you what kind of line our leaders are prepared to cross when it comes to war.
4. The Suez crisis was another example of how our government is prepared to lie and use underhand methods to start wars. It is also an example of how our government is prepared to collude with other supposed democratic nations in events of a massive scale and to try to stage manage events which they can then take advantage of. Britain wanted to regain control of the canal which Nasser had nationalised so along with the French and Israelis they decided to start a war between Egypt and Israel in which they could then enter supposedly as “peace keepers” and in doing so they would regain control of this vital asset.
5. The assassination attempt of Colonel Gadaffi by MI6. This was revealed by an ex MI5 agent David Shayler who revealed the plot to the Independent newspaper which was immediately gagged. The plot involved MI6 paying a large sum of money to an Al Qaeda related Libyan terror cell to carry out an attack on Gadaffi in 1996. Not only does this event show our government is prepared to assassinate foreign leaders it doesn’t like it also shows how closely related our agencies have been to our supposed enemy du jour Al Qaeda. Instead of helping to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice we were helping to fund his terror cells when they helped our foreign objectives. Jump forward a few years and we were also helping the Al Qaeda funded Kosovan Liberation Army during the war in Serbia.
6. The IRA, Britains enemy for the later part of the 20th century, had been infiltrated by British agents who had obtained the highest levels within the organisation and who carried out numerous crimes including assassinations and torture on their behalf. The famous double agent Stakeknife who was a member of the Army’s Force Research Unit (FRU) was allowed to carry out up to 40 murders of loyalists, policemen, soldiers, and civilians just so he could protect his cover and keep passing top-grade intelligence to the British. He also kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and killed other IRA men suspected of being British informers. This shows us that our government is perfectly capable of infiltrating our most hardened terrorist enemies and that it is also happy for those double agents to carry out crimes of mass murder as long as they get intelligence in return.
Those were just 6 of many examples I could have given that are all backed up by publicly accessible evidence and they all relate to actual events that have occurred in our near history. When taken individually you could make an argument that it was just a one off, or a rouge element within an organisation however when taken together they show a pattern of behaviour that suggests our government is perfectly prepared to lie to the public, collude with terrorists and other governments and trade any-one’s life for intelligence if it helps obtain a political goal.
Therefore the question we must ask when it comes to David Kelly as well as to other events of a conspiratorial nature is not whether our government is capable of carrying it out but is there enough evidence to prove they did?
The obvious problem with all events like this is that evidence will be hard to find as we are dealing with professionals who deal in deception every day. Just like the Israeli Mossad whose motto is “By way of deception” our intelligence agencies are perfectly capable of committing a crime and making the evidence point elsewhere. If they weren’t then they’d be in the wrong job and we cannot every expect to find a smoking gun with MI6’s finger prints all over it.
Therefore we can only deal with the discrepancies in evidence, the loose ends and most of all look beyond the prima facie evidence of a body and a slit wrist and ask “who benefits” from the crime.
David Kelly certainly benefited if his aim was to commit suicide. He had just been outed as the source of the sexed up dossier claims revealed by the BBC and he had been threatened with the sack if he ever talked to journalists or spoke publicly about his work again. The problem with this theory is that David Kelly’s family claim he was not suicidal at the time of his death and was actually looking forward to his daughters wedding and getting back to his job.
On the other hand we have a government on the verge of war who was in the proceed of manipulating a hostile public opinion to believe that Iraq could attack British forces within 45 minutes if it so desired. Both the British government and the USA had earlier agreed to go to war and the only thing that they needed was a believable excuse. The WMD road was the chosen route and the dossier was supposed to be key evidence that would help make that case.
Therefore it was undoubtedly embarrassing that the source of claims that the evidence was sexed up was one of their own top Iraqi scientists and they certainly couldn’t trust that he wouldn’t leak some more intelligence or even quit his job and go public on everything else he might have known.
This other knowledge, which would have again been very bad for the government if made public was reportedly the story that 3 nukes were stolen on their way from South Africa to Oman by “unknown” factions.
Add to this his years of work at Porton Down on chemical and biological weapons and who knows what other inside info he might have knowledge of that the government wouldn’t want the world to know.
Obviously this is all conjecture and speculation and here lies the problem of conspiracy based crimes. We are dealing with a type of criminal who specialises in misdirection, false flag, patsies and suicides. Therefore if one did find a neat little trail of evidence back to MI6 HQ on the Thames you would only be sure of one thing and that would be the involvement of any other agency apart from MI6.
Usually it’s the suicides that involve multiple gunshots to the head that arises ones suspicion but here we have similar medical based inconsistencies. Add to that the unique political context of the crime and the “cover up” Hutton enquiry which ignored every piece of contradictory evidence and there seems to be enough weight to make a logical conclusion that the death wasn’t a suicide at least.
Today’s revelation that those in the intelligence community already know this is no surpise and lends credence to the assassination and cover up argument. We may not have the evidence yet to accurately point the finger with 100% certainty but one thing is known for sure and that is our government is perfectly capable of carrying out such a crime on one of it’s own citizens and history backs up this point of view. Anyone who believes anything different should have their head examined.