A few more quick updates on the attack in Westminster yesterday.
So we have a bit more official information now. The suspect has been identified and is also dead. Two of the deceased victims have also been identified. We know now – officially – that the suspect is British-born ‘Khalid Masood’ and has an apparent criminal history.
There is also the curious matter of why ‘Abu Izzadeen’ was named by a number of news outlets as the perpetrator. Abu Izzadeen (formerly Trevor Brooks) was a well-known Islamic extremist caricature who would’ve actually been a perfect ‘perpetrator’ for this attack (along the lines of the weird Sydney Siege actor, Man Haron Monis, who – bizarrely – was an Iranian Shia ‘cleric’ that decided to carry out a (Sunni) ISIS attack and raise the black ISIS flag).
The only problem is that Izzadeen’s brother announced that he was still in prison – and not dead and not therefore the Westminster attacker.
After this, the story changed and we were told ‘Khalid Masood’ was the attacker.
So it raises some questions. Why did different outlets get their wires crossed? And why was Channel 4 news so oddly adamant about Izzadeen being the attacker? Channel 4 News is probably the most reliable and honest of the British news broadcasters and it strikes me as very odd that they would be so sloppy – particularly so early and at a time when police and government officials were being so careful not to name a perpetrator.
Just a brief side-note here on characters like Abu Izzadeen, Anjem Choudry and others. I had some fleeting encounters with some of these people about fifteen years or so ago, via a Muslim friend who was – at that time – falling in with some of that crowd and basically being brainwashed. Aside from the fact that these people – the general ‘Al-Muhajiroun’ crowd – are all total, 24-carrat morons – what I also know for a fact is that they were being kicked out of or banned from virtually every mosque in North London, as the people running the mosques didn’t want ‘extremists’ infiltrating their communities. I actually knew first-hand of an incident in Tottenham where the people attending a mosque for prayers literally formed a crowd and barred known ‘Al-Muhajiroun’ members from entering the mosque.
But getting back to the Westminster attack, I noticed an article listed in a Google Search, from The Independent. The headline read ‘Man Named As Terror Suspect Still in Prison’. But when I went to take a screenshot, the article is now gone. It’s now a dead link, the article probably having been removed. I advise anyone interested to keep checking to see if the article re-appears, as it might be just a technical fault.
I don’t know anything about Khalid Masood, but he is described as being ‘known by a number of aliases’. He is also specified as having been on MI5’s radar in the past.
An ‘ISIS’ social media account has now claimed responsibility for the attack: but, frankly, given that ISIS accounts have previously been traced back to British government security sources, this isn’t particularly meaningful.
As I highlighted yesterday afternoon, there were initial reports of two attackers. In fact, as late 2:20 AM last night, there was still a report of two attackers, with ‘Police are still searching for one of the two people believed to have launched Wednesday’s attack outside the British parliament building’. “The BBC understands from multiple sources that there were two assailants in the vehicle on Westminster Bridge”, according to a BBC correspondent cited.
Something else curious, in keeping with the 3/22 theme raised yesterday and the likely occult connotations of the date.
If you look carefully at this image of an air ambulance arriving in Parliament Square yesterday, you’ll notice it says ‘London Freemasons’ on it. This is also reminiscent of the dude in the Freemasons cap appearing on-camera during the San Bernadino false-flag coverage, which I always thought was odd.
Also, I want to return to the subject I raised yesterday about the CCTV having been switched off in Westminster for some months now. Someone was arguing with me last night, complaining that the CCTV issue and the attack in Westminster are unrelated or that it’s just a coincidence.
And I acknowledge that this may be the case. But I’m finding it very difficult to get passed the notion that all CCTV for Westminster would be taken off-line for ‘cost’ reasons.
Just think about this for a moment. London is officially the most surveilled, CCTV-heavy city anywhere in the world: every part of our great city is under permanent CCTV surveillance.
I find it hard to believe that, of all the areas in London, Westminster – the heart of government (and right next to MI6 headquarters) – would suddenly be deemed unimportant for surveillance. Because of the costs? What about the costs across the entire rest of the city? And there hasn’t been an attack on Parliament in living memory, but then one occurs a few months after it is decided to switch off the CCTV system?
For the record – and to clear up some confusion that always arises when this subject comes up – the term ‘false-flag’ does not mean an attack didn’t happen or that people weren’t genuine victims. What it more properly refers to is the possibility of state actors, patsies or generally state-enabled terrorism in which an attack is deliberately allowed or even encouraged to happen at a specific time and for some specific purpose.
This dramatic, high-profile attack in Westminster may fit that criteria.
Also for the record, I’m not insinuating that Parliament itself or MPs were privy to any of this. Bear in mind that the majority of MPs were locked in the chamber for the duration of the incident and would’ve had no eye-witness experience of what it was that happened.
Also, I don’t know if anyone saw ‘Rebel Media’s ‘live report’ from the scene of the Westminster attack, but how likely it is that EDL/Zionist agent-provocateur Tommy Robinson just HAPPENED to be on the scene in Westminster to give an immediate reaction via the psy-op ‘Rebel Media’ channel?
‘Rebel Media’ is (supposedly) a very low-key, alt-right operation, so how likely is it that they just happened to be in Westminster on the morning of the attack? And how likely is it that Tommy Robinson just happened to be wandering about the area too?
Just a question.