Many people pooh-pooh everything Alex Jones. Sure, he's a libertarian capitalist. That doesn't mean he has no facts worth knowing. The following information is definitely worth knowing and will definitely not be big news in the U.S. mainstream media. That's because the U.S. mainstream media is in bed with the very people who pulled off the false-flag operations. They all agree behind the scenes that the people who die are "acceptable" losses in the cost-benefit analysis thinking the ultra-rich have their lackeys and dupes do when making global strategic plans. Of course, those people, the ultra-rich, are antichrists by the sheer fact of their excessive mammon.
Spanish Civil Guard bomb squad was behind the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.
More Evidence Madrid Bombing was a False Flag Op
July 17, 2008
Agence-France Presse reports:
Spain's supreme court Thursday overturned the guilty verdicts on four of the 21 people convicted over the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.
It also upheld a lower court's decision to acquit one of the alleged masterminds of the Al Qaeda-inspired attacks, Rabei Ousmane Sayed Ahmed, known as "Mohammed the Egyptian".
And it handed down a four-year prison term to a Spaniard, Antonio Toro, who had been acquitted on charges of transporting explosives.
Note: the attack is no longer considered the direct handiwork of al-Qaeda but is rather an "al-Qaeda inspired attack." Back in March, 2004, the corporate media resoundingly declared al-Qaeda to be responsible.
The supreme court Thursday overturned the convictions of Basel Ghalyoun and Mohamed Almallah Dabas, both condemned to 12 years in prison for belonging to a terrorist group.
It also cleared Abdelilah El Fadual El Akil, condemned to nine years for collaborating with a terrorist group, as well as Raul Gonzalez Pena, who had received five years for supplying explosives.
In other words, according to Spain's Supreme Court, these people did not belong to a terrorist group, at least not an Islamic terrorist group. Apparently, there was not enough evidence to stay the conviction of "Mohammed the Egyptian," said to be the ringleader, and his conviction was thrown out as well.
The court in October had handed down the heaviest sentences to two Moroccans — Jamal Zougam and Othman el-Gnaoui — and a Spaniard, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras.
As it turns out, Trashorras and a compatriot, Antonio Toro, were government informants, a fact reported by the New York Times and the Times Online. Toro was recently handed a four-year prison for transporting explosives.
The History Commons on the Cooperative Research website notes the following:
It is revealed that the man accused of supplying the dynamite used in the March 2004 Madrid train bombings was an informant who had the private telephone number of the head of Spain's Civil Guard bomb squad. Emilio Suarez Trashorras, a miner with access to explosives, as well as an associate named Rafa Zouhier both regularly informed for the Spanish police, telling them about drug shipments. Trashorras began working as an informant after being arrested for drug trafficking in July 2001, while Zouhier became an informant after being released from prison early in February 2002. Shortly after the Madrid bombings, investigators discover that Trashorras' wife Carmen Toro has a piece of paper with the telephone number of Juan Jesus Sanchez Manzano, head of Tedax, the Civil Guard bomb squad. She and her brother Antonio Toro are also informants.
In short, Trashorras and Toro are patsies and the evidence indicates the Spanish Civil Guard bomb squad was behind the bombing and a phantom "al-Qaeda inspired" terrorist group was simply a contrivance designed to feed public hysteria.
All of this is reminiscent of murderous Operation Gladio false flag operations carried out by the CIA, NATO, the P2 Masonic lodge, and their fascist allies in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s, operations designed to be blamed on communists. "One of P-2's specialties was the art of provocation. Leftist organizations like the Red Brigades were infiltrated, financed and / or created, and the resulting acts of terrorism, like the assassination of Italy's premier in 1978 and the bombing of the railway station in Bologna in 1980, were blamed on the left. The goal of this 'strategy of tension' was to convince Italian voters that the left was violent and dangerous-by helping make it so," writes Mark Zepezauer.
It now appears obvious the Madrid bombing was a Gladio-like operation designed to frighten and stampede the Spanish public into supporting the bogus war against terror and, as well, re-elect as prime minister JosÃ© MarÃa Aznar, the grandson of a prominent Franco fascist and a favorite of Bush and the neocons. Aznar, however, was roundly trounced in the elections.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)