Those who cure you will kill you

[Mark Stapleton]

Emblazoned across the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, Sydney's highest circulation newspaper and owned by arguably the most vocal supporter of the global war on terror, Rupert Murdoch, is this:

OATH OF EVIL:

Those who cure you will kill you

With these sinister words, al-Queda terror chiefs delivered their chilling warning that men who had taken an oath to save lives were set to become cold-blooded killers.

Just weeks before the plot to mass murder British civilians, al-Queda issued the coded warning that doctors would be their new foot soldiers.

As the family of the Gold Coast doctor still being held as a terror suspect defended his innocence, Baghdad based Anglican vicar Andrew White revealed yesterday he was told of the plan in April. He said he was approached by the Iraqi al-Queda leader at a religious reconciliation meeting in Jordan.

"He told me that the plans were already made and they would soon be destroying the British. He said "The people who cure you will kill you".

"I met the devil that day. He talked to me about how they were going to destroy British and Americans".

Canon White refused to divulge the identity of the al-Queda commander.

The man, who travelled from Syria for the meeting, said the plans would come to fruition in the next few weeks.

British born Canon White, who runs Baghdad's St. George Memorial Church, is also seen as a diplomat, a hostage negotiator and an advisor to the US Government.

My question is how many al-Queda leaders sidle up to Anglican vicars and reveal to them the plans for terrorist activities in advance?

Edited July 5, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Sid Walker]

Emblazoned across the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, Sydney's highest circulation newspaper and owned by arguably the most vocal supporter of the global war on terror, Rupert Murdoch, is this:

OATH OF EVIL:

Those who cure you will kill you

With these sinister words, al-Queda terror chiefs delivered their chilling warning that men who had taken an oath to save lives were set to become cold-blooded killers.

Just weeks before the plot to mass murder British civilians, al-Queda issued the coded warning that doctors would be their new foot soldiers.

As the family of the Gold Coast doctor still being held as a terror suspect defended his innocence, Baghdad based Anglican vicar Andrew White revealed yesterday he was told of the plan in April. He said he was approached by the Iraqi al-Queda leader at a religious reconciliation meeting in Jordan.

"He told me that the plans were already made and they would soon be destroying the British. He said "The people who cure you will kill you".

"I met the devil that day. He talked to me about how they were going to destroy British and Americans".

Canon White refused to divulge the identity of the al-Queda commander.

The man, who travelled from Syria for the meeting, said the plans would come to fruition in the next few weeks.

British born Canon White, who runs Baghdad's St. George Memorial Church, is also seen as a diplomat, a hostage negotiator and an advisor to the US Government.

My question is how many al-Queda leaders sidle up to Anglican vicars and reveal to them the plans for terrorist activities in advance?

A very good question, Mark.

Rather too sophisticated for the Telly. It like to serve up its terror doses undiluted by qualifications or thoughtful questions.

Just goes to show that Those who preach at you often deceive you

[Evan Burton]

Yeah, I think it simply some sensationalism at its worst.

[Sid Walker]

Yeah, I think it simply some sensationalism at its worst.

Evan,

Surely it's more than sensationalism if - and I admit it is an IF - the 'canon' is not in reality just an ordinary civilian, but is instead playing a conscious role in hyping up this latest terror scare.

The Telegraph one could accuse of sensationalism (although I suspect the editor might take it as a compliment).

The vicar might more accurately be described as a spook - or at minimum, a stooge of spooks.

Incidentally, in a similar vein, last night I watched an interview with a former 'friend' of one of the accused doctors during his time at Cambridge. With friends like that, the hapless man clearly needs no enemies. Although the interviewee was introduced as a devout Muslim, he devoted most of the interview to confirming suspicions that the terrorist suspect is, indeed, a very dangerous character. Nothing substantial was adduced to support this proposition... just oodles of innuendo.

These well-timed roll-outs of supporting innuendo do not seem accidental to me. They are not just 'sensationalism'. They are a controlled release of supporting spin. The difference is not a mere quibble. It goes to motivation and complicity.

Edited July 5, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Evan Burton]

I wonder whether it was said at all.

And, these people have yet to be proven guilty of anything.

[Len Colby]

Yeah, I think it simply some sensationalism at its worst.

Evan,

Surely it's more than sensationalism if - and I admit it is an IF - the 'canon' is not in reality just an ordinary civilian, but is instead playing a conscious role in hyping up this latest terror scare.

The Telegraph one could accuse of sensationalism (although I suspect the editor might take it as a compliment).

The vicar might more accurately be described as a spook - or at minimum, a stooge of spooks.

But the story seems so obviously absurd it seems doubtful the vicar would be doing this at the behest of an intel agency. Mark did he say why he didn't say anything to authorities?

[Mark Stapleton]

Yeah, I think it simply some sensationalism at its worst.

Evan,

Surely it's more than sensationalism if - and I admit it is an IF - the 'canon' is not in reality just an ordinary civilian, but is instead playing a conscious role in hyping up this latest terror scare.

The Telegraph one could accuse of sensationalism (although I suspect the editor might take it as a compliment).

The vicar might more accurately be described as a spook - or at minimum, a stooge of spooks.

But the story seems so obviously absurd it seems doubtful the vicar would be doing this at the behest of an intel agency. Mark did he say why he didn't say anything to authorities?

Good question, Len.

No, the article was silent on that important question. I agree that the story (regarding Canon White's comments) does seem quite absurd. But that's the point--when it comes to the WOT absurdity rules the day, it's become the rule not the exception. Perhaps it's the chilling images of 9/11 which immobilise people's brains but the media here has the public scared witless.

Murdoch's media, in particular, seems to be pushing the issue of terrorism so hard that they seem to be willing it to happen. Cynical, sure, but just think of the media windfall---talkback radio goes into meltdown, the public glued to the cable news channels and the newspapers become compulsive reading (higher circulation, extra editions). Think of all that lovely, lovely lucre. The sweet icing on the cake is that Murdoch's mouthpieces would then preach to all and sundry the new gospel, "We told you didn't we"? It's no wonder the rest of Australia's fearless media is falling into line behind Uncle Rupert.

Hopefully it won't happen. This will cement in Murdoch's mind the conviction that terrorists are low, rotten bastards--and unreliable as well.

[John Simkin]

But the story seems so obviously absurd it seems doubtful the vicar would be doing this at the behest of an intel agency. Mark did he say why he didn't say anything to authorities?

I heard the interview on BBC Radio 4 with Anglican vicar Andrew White. He said it was not unusual to hear these threats. He therefore never reported it to the authorities. It was only after the two doctors were arrested during the attempt to blow-up Glasgow Airport.

Several members have suggested that this so-called NHS conspiracy is part of a British intelligence disinformation campaign. I think this idea is nonsense. The two men arrested in Glasgow were both working for the NHS. So have the five other people arrested during the last week. It is not in the interest of the government to give the impression that a NHS cell exists. The British public is already concerned about the large number of foreign doctors in the NHS. This is especially true in working class areas where local residents often have difficulty understanding what medical staff are saying to them. The idea that this people could also be Muslim terrorists will only help undermine confidence in the NHS. This is a big vote loser and Brown will be very concerned about the latest developments.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

On the front page of the Sun this Wednesday, A union Jack flag, with the suggestion.

"FLY THIS IN THE FACE OF TERROR."

You really couldn't make this up.....