When I first read the news about the ‘beheading’ of the British soldier (Lee Rigby) in Woolwich, England, I didn’t bother watching the videos of the event. But I thought the news stories about the event were more believable than the usual ‘Muslim terrorist’ propaganda (which usually, at least, turn out to be ‘false flag’ events). There was none of the ridiculous nonsense about killing all ‘infidels’ indiscriminately, and placing bombs in public places to do just that.
The two killers with such similar names (Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale) claimed to have specifically targeted a military person who served in Afghanistan, and were uninterested in harming non-military people. (How they knew that the person they killed was a soldier, and specifically that he had served in Afghanistan, is not explained). This would at least have a superficial appearance of being in conformity with the teachings of the Qur’an and of Islamic Sharia.
Another quite unusual aspect of this event was the fact that the killers stuck around for about 20 minutes until the police arrived, actually seeking to be photographed and filmed, and explaining their reasons for what they did. It would seem that they were absolutely convinced of the ‘righteousness’ of their actions, and were ‘honorable’ enough not to seek to avoid any consequences of their actions.
However, Muslims throughout England and around the world immediately started repudiating the actions of the two Michaels, because they realized that despite any superficial appearances – supposing the killing actually happened as it has been reported – their actions did not meet any reasonable or ‘righteous’ definitions of ‘just war’ (including Qur’an and Sharia); and there was nothing ‘honorable’ in what they did.
Very obviously, Lee Rigby was not armed and actively engaged in battle; and he was nowhere near the country of Afghanistan (or any other Muslim country). There is nothing in the least bit ‘honorable’ or ‘righteous’ about attacking and killing an unarmed person.
In addition, the two Michaels are not citizens of Afghanistan, nor members of the Taliban. They are British citizens; and as such they are considered by Sharia to have an unbreakable oath of allegiance and peace with England (“covenant of security”). This means that the Muslim person is obligated to maintain peaceful coexistence with all citizens of the country – even with the military – no matter how disgusted he may be with policies or actions of the country. If the oath was not given verbally or in writing, it is at least implied. And Islam is very strict about the requirement to keep one’s oaths.
Sharia requires that a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country must obey the laws of the country in which he/she resides, even if those laws are inconsistent with Sharia. If the inconsistency is so great that he/she feels that the laws simply cannot be obeyed in good conscience, then the person has only a couple of alternatives: (1) emigrate to another country; or (2) practice nonviolent civil disobedience. Taking up arms against the Government or any member of the society – including members of the military – is not an alternative. (For these last 2 paragraphs, see for instance the article Terrorism is to Jihad as Adultery is to Marriage – particularly points 10 and 11.)
I sympathize very strongly with Muslim disgust and anger over the unjust and illegal wars being carried out by ‘Western’ nations against Muslim nations. Nevertheless, one is required to have control over oneself so that he/she does not allow ‘righteous anger’ to result in ‘exceeding the bounds’ of ‘natural’ or ‘Divine’ law. Do not let your hatred for the people who barred you from the Sacred Mosque induce you to break the law; help one another to do what is right and good; do not help one another towards sin and hostility… do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of God… (Qur’an 5:2 and 8, Abdel Haleem version).
It is here that the two murderers – assuming the killing actually took place as reported and supposedly filmed – went wrong. They allowed their anger to lead them to ‘exceed the bounds’, “break the law”, act in “sin and hostility”, and “lead [them] away from justice”.
However, what if the killing never really took place? What if the event was entirely staged and scripted? Of course, it sometimes seems that for every major tragedy or terrorist event, there will be someone who will claim that it was fake. For instance, when the shootings at the Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Connecticut (USA) took place, there were (and still are) people who claimed that no one was killed there; everything was staged using ‘crisis actors’. I have never bought into that idea; the arguments I have seen were entirely unconvincing to me. So when the news of the Woolwich beheading appeared, I just naturally took for granted that it was real. After all, there were supposed to be videos and pictures documenting the murder – even though I had not looked at them.
Nevertheless, while reading the comments at one of the blogs I frequent, I found someone who gave a link to a site producing evidence that Woolwich was a fake; and I decided to check it out just to see what kind of arguments were being presented. I found that in this case the evidence was actually very convincing.
At the end of this article, I will give links to several of the sites where I have found pictures and videos of the supposed Woolwich slaying. One of them runs in slow motion so you can see the fakery more clearly. Others stop the video at various places in order make comments on what is being shown. One is a newscast from The Sun in Canada – and it is decidedly anti-Muslim, so there is no inclination on their part to ‘doctor’ the video to make it appear to be a hoax.
For right now, I’ll just mention some of the things I discovered which proved to my satisfaction that in this case the alleged murder was entirely a staged and scripted hoax. For one thing, there were a number of people who walked right past the ranting Michael Adebolajo with apparently no concern for their safety. In most of the videos you see a woman pushing a shopping cart and approaching Michael, but she is edited out before she reaches him (which makes it appear that she just suddenly disappears). One or two videos, though, show her walking nonchalantly past Michael, and also show several other people doing likewise (they are entirely cropped out of most of the videos).
That in itself might not be all that convincing. After all, we frequently read or hear reports of people walking past muggings without trying to help the person being mugged – or in any way showing concern that they themselves might also become victims of the mugger[s]. What is really convincing, though, is the complete absence of blood – except that in most of the videos the ‘killer’s’ hands appear to have a reddish color. In absolutely none of the videos and pictures is there any blood on the street around the ‘dead body’. In some of the videos taken from helicopters after the two Michaels have been shot and taken away, there is blood in front of the wrecked car; but this blood is absent from the videos and pictures taken before the police arrived – while Michael was ranting to the audience. And even that blood (obviously added later in order to make things have a more authentic appearance) does not reach the street where the body was lying. In none of the videos or pictures is there any blood on the clothes or faces of either of the ‘killers’. [Interestingly though, in a video in which passersby are not cropped out, – there is a picture of a female walking by with what would appear to be blood on her clothing. Was the photo-shopper so careless and sloppy as to put the fake blood on the wrong person?]
How is that possible, considering the viciousness with which the killing took place? Remember that Lee Rigby was supposedly violently hacked to death with cleavers and knives, and even beheaded. There should have been blood all over the two Michaels, and pools of it around the ‘dead body’. In fact, the news accounts told us that was in fact the case. The two were supposedly ‘covered’ in blood, and the lady who sought to comfort Lee (comfort a man with no head? Check his blood pressure as we’re told that one of the ladies did?) was supposedly kneeling in a pool of blood. Yet every one of the videos proves that to be a lie. While it is what you would expect, it simply was not the case.
Even the blood on the hands of Michael Adebolajo is clearly photo-shopped in. This can be seen even in the news broadcast from the Sun News of Canada. This broadcast was decidedly anti-Muslim, and accepted the beheading story as entirely factual. They certainly were not inclined to ‘doctor’ the video to try to make it look like a hoax (by removing blood from the video). Beginning at the 1:18 mark of the video, there is a two minute excerpt of Michael’s ‘explanation’ of why he had ‘killed’ the soldier (on the screen behind the news commentator). By observing carefully, you will notice that sometimes Michael’s hands appear to have a reddish tint; but at other times that tint is missing. It’s “now you see it, now you don’t”. Clearly you have here another indication of the very careless and sloppy nature of the ‘doctoring’ of the video.
Of course, the very fact that the alleged murderers hung around to be photographed and recorded is itself highly suspicious, suggesting a hoax. I can’t recall that happening in any other supposed terrorist event, whether committed by Muslims or others. There were other suspicious aspects also, noted in some of the videos for which I will give links at the end of this article.
I consider it to be obvious that there was no real murder committed by the two Muslim men. It was faked from start to finish. Does this mean, then, that I’m saying that Lee Rigby and his death are ‘made up’ also? Not at all. I’m assuming that there is a very real soldier named Lee Rigby, who died recently by some means. I am denying that he was murdered by the two Michaels. He and his death were simply used by the orchestrators of this farce, inserting him into the story since a real dead person was needed as ‘proof’. Perhaps he died of natural causes, or was killed in an actual automobile accident.
Were the people who directed this pretend terrorist act so callous as to take Lee’s body from the morgue and use it as a prop in the production? Or was a fake body used, and then ‘identified’ as the deceased Lee Rigby? I certainly do not know the answer to that question. Either way, though, it is clear that whoever planned and orchestrated this hoax are viciously cold-hearted SOBs who have lost any humanity they perhaps had at one time.
It is known that Michael Adebolajo was approached by MI5 (or MI6), seeking to use him as an agent. He is said to have outright refused to cooperate with them (as was proper and wise). However, apparently the “Intelligence” agents continued to harass, intimidate, and threaten him until he finally gave in and agreed to work with them. Then they ‘repaid’ his reluctant help by setting him up to be labeled a terrorist – by getting his cooperation in what he perhaps was told was a ‘training exercise’. A lady calling herself ‘AJ’, in an article at her blog Musings of a Muslim Pakistani American Mom in Riyadh shows how MI5/MI6 go about intimidating and threatening Muslim people into cooperating with them. The two Michaels would appear to be two more examples of such coerced cooperation.
Here are links to some of the sites containing videos and/or pictures of the alleged beheading in Woolwich. See what you think about it. (It probably doesn’t need saying; but my referencing these sites does not mean that I subscribe to every position promoted by the site. Some may believe, for instance, that the Sandy Hook shootings did not take place; or perhaps even that no planes hit the Twin Towers. I am only referencing the evidence concerning the alleged Woolwich murder. I obviously, for instance, do not advocate the anti-Muslim ranting of The Sun News).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nw5wJIq-pc (From Sun News)