Friday, July 07, 2006


«You, Donald James Woods, are declared a banned person, in terms of the internal security act. Henceforth, and for a period of five years, you are forbidden to associate with more than one person at the time or being in a room with more than one person at the time, except for the members of your immediate family. You are forbidden to write anything, whether privately or for publication. You are forbidden to enter any printing or publishing premises of any kind, and are restricted for that five years to the magisterial district of East London».

Clandestine government agents told Donald Woods, newspaper editor and freedom fighter in South Africa those words during the years of Apartheid. This counted among several other methods in the government’s attempt at stopping him and others from speaking out in the fight against a thoroughly unjust system, a weapon used against both black and white people. With Stephen Biko and countless others of all colors and creeds, they resorted to far harsher methods.

Today is the anniversary for the so-called 7/7 bombings in London last year, and there will be a lot of commemoration and solemn speeches praising the dead and scaring the living, about the threat «terror» poses to us all. Teflon Tony and his eager cohorts are these days introducing yet another set of new, oppressive laws very similar to those working in South Africa during Apartheid, laws already in place for military personnel like Malcolm Kendall-Smith and other government whistle blowers and objectors. These laws are what now are introduced for all people living in Great Britain. Anyone can be tagged, and placed under curfew, banned from public life. One can say one good thing about these new laws: They are not racist, in the sense that they can and will be used against everyone. They will be used mostly against perceived sinister muslims at first, but that isn’t truly what they’re for: As with so many new laws and measures introduced under the rule of Tony Blair the First, but also long before him, of course, they are meant to terrorize and control the entire population. That’s what they are really for, under the pretexts and innuendo.

The similarities and differences to South Africa under Apartheid are truly remarkable. There is a long sordid list of the similarities. But the differences are actually the worst part... since, in some crucial ways, the Great Britain appearing from the smokescreen these days, from the sweet words, false humanitarian speeches and veiled threats... is fast becoming far worse than South Africa ever was.

Once again, Great Britain is competing with the United States for the spot as the leading force in the war against Freedom all over the globe.

The anniversary for the assassination of Jean Charles de Menezes is also coming up soon. Crazed police officers filled him with bullets and claimed for days he was a «terrorist». Will there be a public memorial for him, for all the other victims the «War on Terror», and various brutal police forces have claimed through the years?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hopefully, these schemes are now being exposed for the public through alternative and mainstream media.

A false-flag bombing can only work, can only achieve its purposes (to frighten and terrorize the populace, and turn its anger against a third party or power that the real perpetrators want people to hate) if the schemes are not exposed, and if they can get away with it.

We see positive signs in this direction now. The NRK, the state public service broadcaster in Norway, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, follows up on the Le Monde articles, on the morning culture news, July 6. About 15 minutes of the radio program Kulturbeitet (Culture Pasture), with peace research institute (PRIO) researcher Ola Tunander, a media science professor from the University of Oslo, and a lot of questions.

I've worked out a transcript and an English translation now, which I post below:

41% of New Yorkers think the US government knew the attacks on 9/11 were planned. Many Americans are skeptic to the official version of what went down on 9/11, and the World Trade Center was hit by an attack, while two other planes also allegedly crashed.

But why aren't these stories written in the ordinary press? Now they come in books and on film, and not least on the Net.

This is Kulturbeitet («Culture Pasture») on [NRK radio] P2, and we salute timeless design. The Volvo Amazon is 60 this year, solid stuff, in other words.

We start with Jens Book-Jensen and Willy Weed's Caba orchestra. They used to play at restaurant Caba in Oslo, where it truly swung back in 1935, as we can hear.


With a little bit of good spirit, Book opened Kulturbeitet on NRK P2 today.

«9/11 is an inside job,» writes Le Monde diplomatique on the front page in its July edition, followed by a question mark.

The article refers to those stories about the 9/11 attack that don't fit in with the official version of what happened, as e.g the World Trade Center collapsed to the ground. Several books and films tell these stories, but why has a wall been raised between them and the media?

Ola Tunander, researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), who has studied in depth the connections between terror and intelligence services, what are the Americans so skeptic about?

Yes, in part, when gallup polls have been conducted recently, one has found that about 40% believe that one has not investigated what happened on 9/11 properly. That the government knew what happened, that they let it happen, or that they were onvolved in one way or another. And 40% is quite a lot, or 41%, those are pretty high numbers.

One of the books that have come out [actually not yet] is the anthology «9/11 & American Empire : Intellectuals Speak Out», where you also contribute. What is it that comes to the surface in these other stories, that is not present in the official versions?

Those who have now discussed these issues, they are a number of professors, both with technical and social science perspectives, and natural science. There are loads of problems that are not particularly clear when it comes to the official version. In part you have 7 persons, who have been interviewed, of the so-called hijackers, in Saudi-Arabia and Morocco, and on the BBC, among other plaves. And they are then alive and well, these persons you normally consider perpetrators of the hijackings. And when the FBI chief was later interviewed about this, he then says that vi really don't know who they were, for people can hold so many types of passports. So there is a considerable blur on this point. But what's probably more problematic, is that on these video films a lot of clear explosions and such are visible, all the way down, when it comes to these towers collapsing. And then there are loads of molten steel down below, at the base of the towers. And then you have to ask where that comes from? And there are lots of witnesses, for instance firemen, a whole bunch of them, 20-30 persons, who describe such explosions in detail. So it's obvious that the official story can't be true, but what really happened is of course a different matter.

What implicastions will there be if the official story is not correct, if it looks more like what Le Monde diplomatique provides us with, which is a lot of witness testimonies, that give other versions, as you say, that there were other explosions in the World Trade Center, that a plane never hit the Pentagon, the military HQ? For you also have witness testimonies put forward in a film called «Loose Change 9/11», that is shown at documentary film festivals and can be seen on the Net. But what does it really mean, politically?

I think that from the side of the mass media, one is careful, because it would mean so much, too much, if it was correct. It would place the American administration in a bad light, and that in turn means that people will have to reconsider their general world view. And that is something one does not like to do. And thus it is problematic to write about it, and to raise the issue in the mass media.

Tore Slaatta, professor of media science at the University of Oslo, you've seen the film «Loose Change 9/11» and read the article in Le Monde diplomatique for this month. Are these stories well enough founded to deserve a print in the [crappy Norwegian tabloids] Dagbladet, Aftenposten and VG?

That is hard for a third party to tell. What's interesting is anyhow that these films actually touch on that insecurity that is always present in regard to information about this type of thing. One often says that the first victim of a war is the truth. There is much at stake here. And it's clear that what these films are doing, is to open up some of these questions, or to ask questions about things that you perhaps earlier on took for granted, or that you believed in. Nevertheless, an insecurity is created, and an openness created in which to discuss more of what really happened.

For we can hear what it sounded like on the 12th of September on the radio... [US, Norwegian radio news clips]

That was our correspondent on the day after the attack. And Ola Tunander at PRIO, 44% in these polls in the USA, as shown in Le Monde diplomatique, say the Bush administration took advantage of the attacks on 9/11 to attack Iraq. How is terrorism used politically, through history?

Well, first you can say that it is now esatblished that the group that was to become the Bush administration, already in the 90s wanted to have an attack on Iraq. So that is already confirmed, that one wanted this attack, and that it had nothing to do with 9/11. And there Richard Clarke at the White House has written that on the day after 9/11, Rumsfeld thought one should bomb Iraq, as there weren't really any good targets for bombs in Afghanistan. But historically there are plenty of examples, also on the American side, of wanting a terrorist attack, that was produced by one self, and later used to legitimize attacks on others. In Cuba in the 60s, in 1962, the American defense chief wanted to have an attack on Cuba. And to legitimize that, he wanted a terrorist campain in the USA, set off by his own agents. Then Cuban agents would be taken, to legitimize this event. And this is stated clearly in a [declassified] document, so that's undisputed. And later there was a lot of things in Italy, where there was a number of terror attacks in the 60s and 70s, where later it surfaced through court cases that were held in Italy, that Americans were not only involved, but that they in fact ran the whole project.

So, Tore Slaatta, professor of media science: If we listen to the story that many witnesses confirm, that there were other forces than those that are blamed now, who can have been at least involved in the 9/11 attacks, then why is so little written about this? I keep coming back to that question.

Yes, that's an important question. And it is often so, that really when we need the independent and free media the most, it is unfortunately so, that we see that the dependence is also very big. We are concerned with two tings when we try to do research on and study the production of news, in relation to such huge, political and historical events. The one thing is that there is much at stake when explaining and describing and defining that reality. The story msut be told, and it's really all about political legitimity and action room. And the other thing is that journalism and news is a form of routine, professional work, that follows certain rules for how this reality should be described, as news. This often gives news sources, or authoritative sources, in this case the American president, and the White House, a very great power to define reality, for the rest of the world. And there was no doubt a pretty certain closing of the American public sphere, right after 9/11.

Ola Tunander, you are waving your hand here.

Yes, one can say, I read the Swedish press in the 30s, I read the press FROM the 30s -- I'm not that old, and I found out that the description of Hitler, for instance, it was as if he was a regular politician. And the concentration camps were pretty much impossible to raise as an issue, because they were so radically apart from the reality people were living in.

You can in any case be informed on the Net, and in academic books, and on film. But thanks for joining us here; Ola Tunander, researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), and Tore Slaatta, professor of media science at the University of Oslo. That was all we could cover in this segment of Kulturbeitet, we'll be back after the news, and we will celebrate the [Volvo] Amazon as mentioned, that is 50 years this year.

Please spread far & wide!