Rules of conflict for a world war

The Dissemination of:


Rules of conflict for a world war

By Efraim Halevi (07/07/05)


When the former head of any major Intelligence body talks about world events, a person should try to comprehend exactly what is being stated. It is also understandable that what the general public is told can frequently be taken in more than one way. So let’s see just exactly what Efraim Halevi told us on the 7th July 2005, the day of the London Bombing.


[“The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place yesterday on the London transportation system”]


The subway bombings were never classified as ‘simultaneous’. The subway bombings were initially put down as occurring at the actual time they were reported, not at the time they were detonated. Furthermore, the initial reports of these explosions were not of bombings, but rather ‘power surges’ and it wasn’t until the bus bomb exploded that Londoners realised they were under attack.


The explosions did not take place ‘yesterday’, they took place on the 7th July, 2005, the very same day this article was printed by the Jerusalem Post. In other words, this article had to have been composed prior to the explosions that occurred in London. That simply means that the ‘former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevi’ had prior knowledge of the event.


Again, that the Jerusalem Post ran with this article also means that the article was published prior to the actual bombing, as any editor on hearing of the bombing taking place in London, would have realised the error and immediately ‘corrected’ Halevi’s mistake.


“The London transportation system” is more than just the ‘Subway’. It includes the Omnibus (Bus) system as well. So what does this mean? It means that Efraim Halevi is telling us all about the planning of the ‘London Bombing’, not what happened as it hasn’t occurred at the time Halevi wrote this article, but exactly what was planned. That means that the bus bomb was also supposed to detonate at the same time as the subway bombs, and since that didn’t happen, then something has gone wrong.


Now this is important. Had any bus been a target, then the bomber could have caught any bus and detonated the bomb at the preset time, for as Halevi has stated the bombs were ‘simultaneous’. However, it had to be that particular bus with ‘route 30’ which was the target, even though the bus was behind schedule, which again means that the event was planned in this manner.


Why couldn’t the ‘bomber’ catch any particular bus and then detonate the bomb? The only reason the ‘bomber’ couldn’t detonate the bomb on any bus would be that he wasn’t carrying the bomb. And then the final piece of planning, the ‘route 30’ bus was diverted and the bomb detonated within the area preselected as per Halevi’s article, which explains:


[“were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope.”]


Now the official story is that four young Muslim men, three from Leeds and one from Aylesbury, with ‘home-made’ explosives, packed in rucksacks, carried out a ‘suicide bombing attack’ on the London transportation system.


This simply means that the ‘bombers’ had an operational capacity of ‘one strike only’. If it was as Efraim Halevi has stated, that is that the ‘perpetrators had an operational capacity of considerable scope’, then it is not these men that Halevi is talking about, but of the team that organised these ‘bombers’.


Also go back to the fact that the bus 30 was the only bus that could have been bombed, and thus the bomb had to be on the bus prior to the supposed ‘bomber’ boarding that bus, and thus the bomber was not carrying the bomb in his rucksack, then, were any of the ‘supposed ‘bombers’ actually carrying bombs? The answer has to be ‘No”!


Again, remember that this article was written prior to the event which simply means that Halevi had prior knowledge, and the only way Halevi would have such knowledge would be that Halevi was part of the planning team.


[“They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.”]


What Efraim Halevi has done here is to group all of these ‘terrorist attacks’ together. Halevi tells us that the London bombing, 911, and the American embassy attacks were by the same group. Both the American and British governments tell us that this group is called ‘al Qaeda’ and run by the ‘terrorist’ Osama bin Laden, the younger brother of Salem bin Laden, George W. Bush’s partner in George’s first oil business venture.


What is noticeable is that Efraim Halevi has only inferred that this operation, of which he has prior knowledge, is ‘al Qaeda’, and again, if Efraim Halevi has prior knowledge of ‘al Qaeda’, it can only mean that Halevi is part of al Qaeda. But, Efraim Halevi is a former head of Mossad! What this means then is that ‘al Qaeda’ must be connected to Mossad.


[“There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution.”]


If we consider the actual ‘bombing event’ as per the government and media perspective then where was the ‘careful planning’? Perhaps in the manufacture of the bombs? The ‘intelligence gathering’? There was no sign of such. ‘A sophisticated choice of timing’? Well considering that the train the bombers were supposed to catch from Luton didn’t run on the day, then the choice of timing doesn’t appear to be that sophisticated. A near-perfect execution of four bombings? Again there was no evidence that the execution of the bombs was near perfect.


However, if you remember that this article was written prior to the event, and then consider that this event was a ‘false flag’ operation, then Efraim Halevi is very much spot on; he is totally correct, and that is what he is telling us, it was indeed a ‘false-flag’ operation.


[“We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.”]


This is the conclusion that Efraim Halevi has decided for us. However, once we can determine that the enemy who has attacked us was Halevi and his associates, then we destroy him as a ‘fighting terrorist force’.


[“One historical irony: I doubt whether the planners knew that one of the target areas, that in Russell Square, was within a stone’s throw of a building that served as the first headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that preceded the State of Israel.”]


Right! It has already been demonstrated that this article was written prior to the event. That being the case, then the bus being bombed outside Tavistock Place, which is very close to Russell Square, has to be part of the planning.


Now for Efraim Halevi to be aware prior to the event that the bus was to be bombed at this location, again demonstrates that Halevi was part of the planning process. It would also mean that the detonation would be handled by someone other than the so-called ‘bomber’ as had things gone wrong, then the bomb would have been detonated by the ‘bomber’ at some other point.


So this is part of the careful planning and sophisticated choice of timing that Efraim Halevi has mentioned previously, having the bus bombed outside Tavistock House, at Tavistock Place. We have already worked out that the bomb was not carried in a rucksack, but had to be on the targeted bus, and because the location was specific, we can also conclude that the person detonating the bomb would also have been on location near Russell Square, and the main suspect for this act has to be Richard Jones, not Dr Richard Jones of the Tavistock Institute, but rather Richard Jones of Ayrshire who told everybody he had just got off the bus.


Again, be aware that it was ‘Richard Jones’ who alerted everybody that the ‘suicide bomber’ was not wearing a vest, but was carrying a ‘rucksack’. This was the only clue to ‘rucksacks’ supposedly being used in all four bombing events, and this clue was vital, as it informed the public at the time of the events, how the bombs had supposedly been conveyed to the targets.


However, the one difference between a ‘suicide vest’ and a rucksack, is that the ‘suicide vest’ cannot be removed by the wearer, but the rucksack could have been dumped anywhere, and the perpetrators would have survived to bomb another day, just as the IRA did twenty years prior.


[“It was at 77 Great Russell Street that Dr. Chaim Weizmann, a renowned chemist presided over the effort that culminated in the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a national home in what was then still part of the Ottoman Empire.”]


This is for ‘local’ consumption. This is to remind the Jews of Israel of the history that went into creating the modern Israel.


[“We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe and characterized by the absence of lines of conflict and an easily identifiable enemy.”]


There is another name for this type of terrorism. It is called, “Low Intensity Operations”, and it was invented by General John Rawlings Rees of Tavistock in the 1920’s.


[“There are sometimes long pauses between one attack and another, consequently creating the wrong impression that the battle is all over, or at least in the process of being won.”]


This is again part of General Rees theory of Low Intensity Operations, which is designed to keep the people in a state of flux, and thus easily controlled.


[“Generally speaking, the populations at large are not involved in the conflict, but by and large play the role of bystanders. But once in a while, these innocents are caught up in the maelstrom and suffer the most cruel and wicked of punishments meted out by those who are not bound by any rules of conduct or any norms of structured society. For a while, too short a while, we are engrossed with the sheer horror or what we see and hear, but, with the passage of time, our memories fade and we return to our daily lives, forgetting that the war is still raging out there and more strikes are sure to follow.”]


Please note here that what Efraim Halevi is stating is that it is the general populace that is the target of these incidents of ‘politically motivated violence’. Why the general populace? Why not the government? Well what Halevi is telling us here is that attacks such as the London Bombing are a ‘government sponsored’ terrorist act. You see, when people rise up and attack government it is called rebellion or treason, and when governments desire to usurp something outside their constituted powers then the governments use ‘terror’ against their constituents.


[“It cannot be said that seven years after this war broke out in East Africa, we can see its conclusion. We are in for the long haul and we must brace ourselves for more that will follow. The ‘Great Wars’ of the 20th century lasted less than this war has already lasted, and the end is nowhere in sight.”]


Now how many politicians have stated this lie? What is interesting is that Halevi equates the start of ‘this war’ with the so-called ‘al Qaeda’ attacks on the American embassies, yet terrorist atrocities associated with Israel have been occurring since the 1940’s. Why differentiate?


[“There will be supreme tests of leadership in this unique situation and people will have to trust the wisdom and good judgment of those chosen to govern them.”]


Here Halevi is telling us that we must trust our government.


[“The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting.”]


In the aftermath of the London bombing the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair joined with the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard and both immediately pledged more troops for the war in Afghanistan. Normally such a pledge would be the responsibility of the Parliaments, but, almost as if knowing what Efraim Halevi wanted, both of these politicians made the commitments that normally are the responsibility of the parliament.


The question that now has to be considered is; ‘was this the purpose of the London bombing?’ If the purpose of the London Bombing was to enable these Prime Ministers to make such a pledge, then what are the possibilities that both Prime Ministers were in some manner complicit with the bombings?


[“The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted to cater to the necessities of this new and unprecedented situation, and international law must be rewritten in such a way as to permit civilization to defend itself. Anything short of this invites disaster and must not be allowed to happen.”]


Efraim Halevi calls this a ‘new and unprecedented situation’, but he had already stated that ‘this war’ has been going since 1998 with the bombing of the two American embassies in Africa. Thus this is not a new or unprecedented situation, but rather an excuse for upgrading the war in Afghanistan, a country that is totally irrelevant to the London bombing, but as Halevi has stated, ‘territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting’. No wonder Halevi is calling for the rules of combat, as well as International law to be rewritten.


[“The aim of the enemy is not to defeat western civilization but to destroy its sources of power and existence, and to render it a relic of the past. It does not seek a territorial victory or a regime change; it wants to turn western civilization into history and will stop at nothing less than that.”]


Now for the first time we are told what the ‘London bombing’ was about. There are two main sources of power that control western civilization; usury and oil. If these two ‘powers’ were destroyed, then western civilization as we know it would be destroyed, along with all the chains and servitude that binds the people of that civilization. In other words, the London Bombings were designed to maintain the ‘status quo’ of ‘Big Business’ and to keep us in perpetual servitude.


[“It will show no mercy or compassion and no appreciation for these noble values when practiced by us.”]


Now hang on for one moment. When has Mossad ever shown mercy, compassion or appreciation?


[“This does not mean that we can or should assume the norms of our adversaries, nor that we should act indiscriminately. It does mean that the only way to ensure our safety and security will be to obtain the destruction, the complete destruction of the enemy.”]


To obtain the complete destruction of ‘the’ enemy requires that we show no compassion or mercy, just as Joshua did at Jericho. But who is ‘the’ enemy? Halevi has already stated that, “Generally speaking, the populations at large are not involved in the conflict.” So the main populations are not our enemy per se according to what Halevi has already stated. Efraim Halevi has though pointed out the enemy as thus; “those who are not bound by any rules of conduct or any norms of structured society”. So who does Halevi consider as the ‘enemy?


[“Much has been said in recent years about the vital need for international cooperation. There is no doubt that this is essential. Yet no measure of this will suffice and it cannot replace the requirement that each and every country effectively declare itself at war with international Islamist terror and recruit the public to involve itself actively in the battle, under the direction of the legal powers that be.”]


So Efraim Halevi has designated ‘the enemy’ as International Islamist terrorists’. Halevi has also stated that this war has been ongoing for the past seven years, but Israel and Mossad have been battling ‘International Islamist terrorists’ since at least the 1960’s, so why differentiate?


But Efraim Halevi even though he has called on every country to combat the International Islamist terrorists has demonstrated prior knowledge of this terrorist attack, including the actual area of at least one of the bombings. And yet Efraim Halevi has failed to warn Britain of the pending attack. This goes against every argument that Halevi has put forward to combat the terrorists.


Furthermore, when we consider the media reports that the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Israeli Finance Minister, had received a warning of the ‘terrorist bombing attacks’ prior to the event, then we must consider, at the very least, that Efraim Halevi to be the source of that warning.


[“In the past, governments have been expected to provide security to their citizens. The responsibility is still there, in principle. But in practice, no government today can provide an effective ‘suit of protection’ for the ordinary citizen. There can be no protection for every bus, every train, every street, every square. In these times the ordinary citizen must be vigilant and must make his personal contribution to the war effort. Private enterprise will have to supplement the national effort in many walks of life.”]


Well, one would have thought that the reason Britain had so many CCTV cameras installed throughout the country was to offer some protection to its citizens, but it is amazing just how many heinous crimes are committed when these cameras are turned off.


[“The measures that I have outlined above will not be easily adopted overnight. When the US entered World War Two, Congress approved the momentous decision by a majority of one vote. Profound cultural changes will have to come about and the democratic way of life will be hard-pressed to produce solutions that will enable the executive branch to perform its duties and at the same time, to preserve the basic tenets of our democratic way of life. It will not be easy, but it will be essential not to lose sight of every one of these necessities.”]


Maggie Thatcher once made the remark that she would not give in to (IRA) terrorism. Efraim Halevi states that we must give up some ‘cultural’ aspects to preserve the ‘democratic’ way of life. However, once Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John Howard announced prior to any Parliamentary meeting that their countries would be sending more troops to Afghanistan, we witnessed the Cromwellian takeover of the Crown. This is what Efraim Halevi was preluding to when he spoke of ‘Cultural changes’.


[“This war is already one of the longest in modern times; as things appear now, it is destined to be part of our daily lives for many years to come, until the enemy is eliminated, as it surely will be.”]


The so-called ‘Cold War’ ran from the 1950’s to 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and Gorbachev’s surrender to the west. Efraim Halevi equates seven years with almost fifty years, but says that we will still win. Well only time will tell, but there is a fifty, fifty chance we could also lose.


[“The writer, who heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad. (© 1995-2005. The Jerusalem Post 07/07/05)”]


Think about this for a moment! Efraim Halevi is not only a former head of Mossad, he was at the time of the London Bombing, the ‘Head’ of “The Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies” at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.


Could the London Bombing have been a ‘strategic’ study for the criminalisation of Islam in Britain? Consider this site.


http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/08/20/how-israel-wages-game-theory-warfare/

[In 2005, the Nobel Prize in Economic Science was awarded to Israeli mathematician and game theory specialist Robert J. Aumann, co-founder of the Center for Rationality at Hebrew University. This Jerusalem resident explains: “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”

Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. With the use of game theory algorithms, those responses become predictable, even foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.

Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide. For a skilled agent provocateur, the target can be a person, a company, an economy, a legislature, a nation or an entire culture—such as Islam. With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal.]

What we should consider here is if there is any possible link between Halevi’s “The Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies” at the Hebrew University” and Robert J. Aumann’s “Center for Rationality at Hebrew University”. Efraim Halevi’s statement of, “There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution” certainly suggests there is a connection between these two bodies and the London bombing on the 07th July, 2005.


Halevi has already told us by writing his article prior to the London Bombing that he was aware of the event prior to its occurring. Halevi has also told us that he was aware of much of the planning of this terrorist attack. And then we are supposed to believe that the perpetrators were Islamists. We then look at the behaviour of the British Prime Minister, and of the Head of the metropolitan Police, and again we must ponder what these people knew that was not in the public domain.


There is though one other major error made, and that was by Benjamin Netanyahu, who stated on the morning of the London Bombing that he had been warned by Scotland Yard prior to the actual bombing. When Scotland Yard denied issuing such a warning, Netanyahu then stated that the warning from Scotland Yard came via the Israeli Embassy, and Scotland Yard apparently then became mute.


However when journalists on a later BBC program reporting and attempting to debunk the so-called ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ on the London Bombing spoke to Benjamin Netanyahu in regard to the warning he had received, Benjamin Netanyahu again stated that he had received a ‘warning’, but only after the first bombs went off. Now this must be considered an impossibility as the first bombs that exploded on the London subway were initially thought to have been ‘power surges’, and it was only after the bus bombing that the terrorist event was realised.


Thus, Benjamin Netanyahu has twice given us the knowledge that he had prior warnings of the London Bombing, much the same as his former head of Mossad.



Andrew S. MacGregor.