Skip to content

Proof: Agent Provocateurs at Protests – MI-6 Chief Altered Iraqi Intelligence – Ron Paul Slams Absurd Libyan War Debate

June 26, 2011

Documents Reveal Canadian Cops Used Agents Provocateurs to Disrupt 2010 G20


Comment: We have warned of the  infiltration of agent provocateurs at anti-globalist related protests such as at the G-20.  Clearly the objective is for cops to create mayhem in order to shut down legitimate demonstrations and also to implement a state of totalitarian  martial law.  Now, clearer evidence is coming out that substantiate the claims.  When the police become the criminals, this is a sign the government is way too large and powerful.  –  J. K. Rooney

Kurt Nimmo
June 24, 2011


Following the police state spectacular at the G20 last June, the cops were accused of infiltrating so-called black-bloc anarchists, who engaged in all sorts of pointless mayhem, including trashing a Starbucks and burning police cars (see video below). The corporate media had a field day covering these circus sideshow distractions while ignoring the larger issue of the globalists meeting behind closed doors and plotting to sell the national sovereignty of millions down the river.

It was necessary for the state to arrange this sort of meaningless property destruction in order to offer a public rationalization for spending nearly a billion dollars on police state “crowd control” equipment (including L-RAD sound cannons) for the globalist summit. The Canadian state also granted the cops special police state powers by expanding the jurisdiction of the existing Public Works Act to apply to high-security areas of the summit site.

It is now an indisputable fact the cops engaged in massive infiltration. According to newly released G8/G20 summit documents, the RCMP dispatched poseurs and agents provocateurs to infiltrate the ranks of anti-war, anti-globalization and anarchist groups.

In 2007, Canadian cops were caught red-handed posing as anarchists during a North American Union summit in Montebello, Quebec. “Protesters are accusing police of using undercover agents to provoke violent confrontations at the North American leaders’ summit,” the Toronto Star reported. “Such accusations have been made before after similar demonstrations but this time the alleged ‘agents provocateurs’ have been caught on camera.”

Photographs released showed the supposed “anarchists” wearing the same boots as the police arresting them. “Protest organizers on Wednesday played the video for the media at a news conference in Ottawa. One of the organizers, union leader Dave Coles, explained that one reason protesters knew the men’s true identities was because they were wearing the same boots as other police officers,” CBC News reported on August 23, 2007.

Reports filed by the Joint Intelligence Group formed by the RCMP-led ISU (Integrated Security Unit) reveal that various police services contributed at least 12 undercover officers to take part in covert surveillance of potential “criminal extremists” in a bid to “detect… and disrupt” any threats, according to CBC News.

In other words, the RCMP was assigned the task of discrediting the larger anti-war and anti-globalization movement and making the public believe they are bomb-wielding anarchist criminals.

“There’s a lot of stuff that isn’t in there, that’s been redacted, or isn’t spelled out. But it says these undercover operations were going on, that there were 12 officers,” investigative journalist Tim Groves, who requested and obtained the reports through an access to information request, told the CBC. “The problem is that, looking at these documents, police expected criminal extremism everywhere.”

The same mindset and illegal police state activity operates in the United States. Since the FBI’s use of CLOINTELPRO tactics to neutralize political opposition to the state in the 1960s and early 70s, such practices have been uniformly codified and are now widespread and routine in the so-called war on terrorism.

According to the CBC, RCMP records indicate:

– The RCMP set up a Joint Intelligence Group in January 2009, which in turn assigned a dozen officers to a covert PIIT (Primary Intelligence Investigative Team) expressly for monitoring and infiltrating suspected extremist networks.

– The joint-forces PITT had a mandate to use undercover officers and informants from within the ranks of protest networks, not just to monitor potential criminal activity by organizers, but also to “deter, prevent, investigate and/or disrupt” threats to the summit.

– The investigative team created and shared files on a long list of individuals, color coding them according to perceived risk level as red (suspect), orange (person of interest) and yellow (associate).

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Following the June summit in Toronto, a number of so-called black-bloc anarchists were outed as police agents provocateurs. Such reports were covered by the alternative media and generally ignored by the corporate media that had characterized the demonstrations as lawless behavior by a handful of crazed extremists.

“It is hopeful that in the days, weeks and months to come government and police will be forced to admit (under similar circumstances as in Montebello, Quebec in 2007) that much of the vandalism and fire-setting was undertaken by those encouraged, directly or indirectly, by agents provocateurs,” Canadian activist Ghada Chehade wrote following the summit.

Unfortunately, it took more than a few weeks for the truth to come out. It took exactly a year.




Ex-MI6 chief altered Iraqi intelligence

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Press TV
June 26, 2011

A top former British intelligence official had misled the public about the former Iraqi regime’s weapons program to pave the way for war, it is now revealed.

Sir John Scarlett
Sir John Scarlett

The then Prime Minister Tony Blair had assigned Sir John Scarlett to write the notorious dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on September 2002.

But, Scarlett, who was head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, sent a memo to Blair’s foreign affairs adviser referring to “the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional”.

Joint Intelligence Committee was duty-bound to give impartial intelligence-based advice to ministers, but in this case, intelligence has been misrepresented to make the case for war.

The former intelligence official Michael Laurie had told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that it was widely understood that the dossier was intended to make a case for war and misrepresented intelligence to this particular end. Now, Laurie’s claimed are evidenced by the disclosure.

Later, it was found that Scarlett had willfully made up the intelligence to look as credible as possible and render a war on Iraq as certain. He was awarded by Tony Blair the post of foreign intelligence agency’s chief in spite of all this.

Scarlett’s memo was sent to Sir David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, in March 2002 after an early draft of the dossier had been drawn up covering four countries with “WMD programmes of concern”: Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, had commented that the paper “has to show why there is an exceptional threat from Iraq. It does not quite do this yet.” In response, Scarlett suggested that the dossier could make more impact if it only covered Iraq. “This would have the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional,” he wrote.

Clare Short, the Labour cabinet minister who resigned after the war had started, said: “Those words show that John Scarlett was in on the deception from the beginning and was being duplicitous deliberately.”

Elfyn Llwyd, parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, said: “It is clear to me that John Scarlett was not an objective player in all of this.” Llwyd asked why Chilcot had neither published the Scarlett memo nor questioned Scarlett about it. “It again calls into question the credibility of the inquiry,” he said.

The memo, released under the Freedom of Information Act, has been described as one of the most significant documents on the dossier yet published.




Ron Paul Slams Absurd Libya War Powers Debate

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Ron Paul: Libya Funding Bill Must Be ‘Straight and Clean’

The State Column
June 25, 2011

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, came down hard today against a House bill (HR 2278) that would have limited the use of funds for the U.S.’s involvement in the Libya War. The House also rejected the limited funding bill for the Libya War, while also striking down a resolution that would have authorized the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya.

Today, Paul told his colleagues that the limited funding bill was not what it appeared to be. Paul argued that the Libya bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war.” The purpose of the Libya bill was to “limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya.”

Paul pointed out that if HR 2278 passes, “the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya.” As of this time, without a declaration of war or congressional authorization, the president doesn’t have the authority to conduct these activities.

Paul also added that rejecting the Libya bill isn’t “necessary to prohibit the use of funds for US military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution.” However, Paul acknowledged that, if given the opportunity, he would “support any straight and clean prohibition of funds.”

Earlier this week, Paul criticized President Obama’s explanation for the Libya War in a post titled “Strange Definitions of War and Peace.”  Paul said that Obama’s reasoning for not seeking congressional approval before using the U.S. military in Libya was “laughable if not so horrific.”

Paul has always been candid about his opinion on the Libya War. On June 6, in a post titled “Holding the President Accountable on Libya,” Paul argued that “the president’s attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful.” In the same column, Paul also said that “we are broke, and the American people know it. They expect Congress to focus on fixing America’s economic problems, rather than rubber stamping yet another open-ended military intervention in Libya.” In the same column, Paul also said that “the president’s attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful.  This policy must be reversed.” So far, Paul has done everything in his power to reverse the policy.

The White House conveyed Obama’s disappointment that HR 2278 failed to pass, saying “now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we are working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress.”



One Comment leave one →
  1. June 26, 2011 12:42 pm

    Interesting comments Dr. George Meredith, Bridget, K. and others. Keep them coming!

    I’d like to add to my comment on the agent provocateurs issue as I have observed this for some time. Why do we not see much of these provocations in tea party rallies? Here is my answer: I have been to many tea party events and even the biggest of them in DC. The large rallies are controlled by “establishment” Republicans for the most part and their objective is to harness the energy of dissent and bring these people back into the GOP fold. Therefore, the institutional tea party leaders narrow down the arguments to a couple of well publicized issues like Obamacare and ridding the government of the Obama, Pelosi and Reid triumvirate. Other media leaders also narrow down the issues and focus on non-specific topics for evoking emotions or bash lower level leftists like Van Jones (obviously a bad guy), instead of taking well directed aim at the heart of collectivism.

    These leaders fail to address most of the remaining issues that are bringing us into tyranny. For this cause, there is no need to use police provocateurs because the co-opting of the conservative revolt is having some success, defanging the potency of the “don’t tread on me movement.”

    Global governance is at the heart of our progressive loss of liberties.

    John R

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: