Published On: Sun, Aug 19th, 2018

Praetorian pantomime: inevitably, the likelihood of Salih Khater being the driver becomes an issue of doubt

Since the previous FBEL piece on the car crash in Westminster for which a suspect has now been charged with attempted murder, more evidence has been discovered, examined and found to confirm the findings already made.  The material in question is two pieces of footage showing armed police at the scene of what was initially, and hastily deemed a terror attack by the Metropolitan Police’s head of counter-terror, Neil Basu, because of the apparent deliberateness of the crash at the particular location it happened.

The first item shows armed police arriving to the place where Salih Khater has been accused of pranging a Ford Fiesta into a barrier in a deliberate act of aggression. Although filmed at a distance, police in this footage are seen dashing from their own transport, leaping a barrier that separates the slip road into Parliament from the main thoroughfare, and then to bustle around the car. Significantly, at no time is the driver of the Ford Fiesta seen so as to identify him. This is important, because it should not be assumed that Salih Khater was in charge of the vehicle.

The second piece of footage is zoomed-in to show armed response activity at the car. However, at the commencement of the film, the police are already present (instead of being seen to arrive), and crucially, the viewer still does not see Khater being removed from the car. Instead, his first appearance comes when he is lifted from the floor after a scrum that is obscured by the open driver’s side door. Indeed, it appears that this scrum was in progress at the outset of this particular snippet, and therefore, once again – and to be entirely strict about it – the viewer does not see Khater being removed from the driver’s seat of the car.

Although both sets of footage omit the one piece of very vital information that would stem the discussion that this article is about to deal with (which in itself is a defining feature of a false flag attack or a hoax), they also show detail on the periphery of the arrest that is highly damaging for the official narrative. The image immediately below (click to enlarge) shows the first armed response vehicle arriving at the scene (in all there appears to have been five, carrying anything up to 10 armed police). Notice that “beat cop” on the right who must have been told to hold a position at a distance from the suspect’s car. This constitutes the setting up of a police cordon (to the south).

Now consider a still from the second piece of footage – immediately below (again, click to enlarge). This is a scene that shows armed police moments after they have taking Khater into custody – but please notice a detail in the background. A strip of white extends behind the head of armed policeman in a cap, who stands in a space framed by the armed response vehicle and the lamppost, and looks very much like police incident tape. In other words, a cordon to the north.

Given that at the time of the arrest of Khater (as it is being represented in the imagery) there had been a police cordon already in place at both ends of the street in which it took place, it is possible that the Sudanese immigrant had not been driving the vehicle at all. The information suggests that there may have been time to introduce him at the scene so as to be in position for the arrival of the armed response. Indeed, there wouldn’t have been any need to place him in the car if the view of the arrest area could be suitably obscured from the scrutiny of those trying to observe it. In the previous FBEL piece, it was suggested that the “mystery van” manoeuvred in the manner it did in order to block the road ahead of a civilian vehicle whose presence was undesirable. In this case, we might presume that the act was related to hiding activity at the car crash scene that was not to be seen by members of the public.

To a reader unfamiliar with FBEL, who may have chanced upon this article, it will probably appear unreasonable that in the face of the Occam’s Razor explanation – i.e. Khater had been driving the car as it has been claimed he was – anyone could formulate a hypothesis to state that the authorities went to great and elaborate lengths to frame him. However, the evidence strongly points to a deception. Firstly, the arrest of Khater was pure theatre – or in other words, if the arrest followed real police procedure, then the State is going to be in big trouble in the face of real “terrorism” (i.e. physical opposition aimed at damaging it). The author doubts that any of those police were carrying loaded weapons. Secondly, and this has been introduced above, the likelihood of Khater having driven a car into the scenario from which he emerged an arrested man should be a matter of serious doubt.

A refugee from Libya in 2010, Salih Khater is supposed to be living in Birmingham and, until recently, suppose to have been a university student. Applying some very basic thought about Khater’s situation, it is easy to uncover a fundamental implausibility to the cover story that has him driving to London. Is it actually more likely that he would have travelled by train? It is a question that we cannot possibly answer. And yet, it is important that we bear the following in mind: if the footage of Khater’s arrest showed him being bundled from the car in a way that undeniably indicated that he had been its operator when it crashed, then there would be no doubt at all, and no question to answer. As such, until there is footage as described above, then the doubt must remain. Indeed, the emergence of Khater from a huddle of police looks, to a seasoned observer of these things, like the pulling of a rabbit from a hat: a conjuring trick. The essential art of a hoax or a false flag attack is to make something appear to be happening that isn’t happening at all. It is by the same art that the British Government rules (therein lies the reason why Britons do not know it). The British Ruling Class is the Wizardry; the Magi – or the Wise; the Illuminated, and of course, the Masonic. For this reason alone, nothing is to be taken at face value.

Moreover, Khater has history that does, arguably, give him scope for being a patsy (willing or under duress) in the enterprise. Khater came from Libya, evidently before the UK and friends launched the war there. It is a small matter that gets scant column-space in the corporate-media, but it is something that needs further examination. Despite what the UK corporate-media likes to tell its clueless audience, black people from sub-Saharan Africa were only persecuted after the commencement of the NATO invasion-by-(al-Qaeda)-proxy when the Arabic Islamists supported by British Government got free rein in the country to vent all their pent-up hatred. By then, Khater was already in the UK where he claimed asylum. On first impressions his case looks odd because of the confusion regarding which country he is supposedly a refugee from. If Sudan, then note that now, on having gained British citizenship (given away like candy these days [look out for the FBEL article coming soon on what to do about this]) he is looking to return there as a visitor (at least, so those telling a story about his being in London to get a visa would have us believe). If Libya, then why would he not have been deported back to his homeland? Who knows who in British Government has had a word in Khater’s ear, issued what threats – and one wonders, when arrangements whereby an immigrant gets to live in a country appear to defy common sense, what deals to be revoked for non-compliance are in place between the likes of Khater and the British Government.

In keeping with the British Government’s natural tendency to deceive (in fact, it deceives to survive), the arrest of Khater looked characteristically high-theatre. First of all, the behaviour of the armed responders appears strange in the light of the fact that driver of the Fiesta was contained – and not by any pressure exerted by police, but by his own sedentariness. In other words, he did not leap out of the car upon crashing to attack police or passers by – at least, not according to the official narrative. In fact, the behaviour of the driver would indicate one of two things – and one must ask if the police response factored in the most foolproof assumption of the two. 1) It was a fair cop – or in other words, he was waiting to be arrested, or even unconscious after the crash; in either case, he was passive after the deed. 2) He was waiting to ambush police.

Now, it was said immediately of Khater that he was a potential terrorist. In that case, we would assume that the possibility of Case 2 would have shaped the police approach. However, in the footage filmed at a distance, the police are even seen opening the driver’s door of the car after rushing the vehicle en masse. Was there then, no concern at all about stampeding into a potential killing zone? If things really were as officially claimed, no one in the authorities could know that the crash wasn’t the lead event in an ambush. Did police know, for instance, that the car was not booby trapped to take a crowd of them out at the opening of the door, either instantaneously or delayed (to collect more of them) by a timer? Did police know that the driver of the vehicle didn’t have a shotgun on his lap in order to shoot the first armed responder as he approached the car? Shouldn’t we have expected to see, in the circumstances, a perimeter of gunmen covering a more tentative approach with an emphasis on securing a negotiated surrender? There is, of course, an argument to be made in support of rushing a target to neutralise him before he can create harm, but this was redundant in the circumstances where a police cordon had already been established. The author is convinced that the armed police merely acted in a piece of theatre, and the opening of the car door was a flourish to indicate that the driver was the target of the charge.

Incidentally, the reader is asked to notice that all the armed response police were male and white. When one understands the nature of the elitism of the Masonic hierarchy that holds the levers of power in the UK, it is not a surprise to see. The armed unit of the Metropolitan Police can be considered as a lower level of Britain’s equivalent to the Praetorian Guard (and that is not to give then any undue esteem, because they are nowhere near as special as they think they are; rather it is to describe “law enforcement” in the UK whose interests are inextricably linked with the survival of the regime). Equality and Diversity is something that is only unleashed on the public to make it weak. When it comes to safeguarding the hegemony, then it’s a completely different matter. And the author would say this to beat Bobbies who are decent human beings (if such a thing still exists) and of the sort that apparently had to jump out of the way of the Fiesta as it tried to crush them against a barrier – the sort who are told to hold position in a cordon while the Praetorians prepare a phony fake show. You aren’t on the winning side. The Praetorian class do not share any interests with you, and as such you do not owe them any loyalty. It is in the interests that you have in common with the general population that you should sabotage, when and how you can, the efforts and the abilities of the Wizardry to perform psychological operations that push political agendas. And the Westminster incident should teach that you are as dispensable as is the public. As such, not only is it your duty to engage in sabotage, but much more than a professional reputation relies on it.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image