(The justice secretary, Ken Clarke. Photograph: Ho/Reuters, from the guardian)
I would like to state my complete lack of confidence in Ken Clarke and the British public right now.
Ken Clarke has said recently that he intends to push through reforms that will allow home owners to defend themselves against burglars by any means necessary, and supported this by saying that he thinks that an elderly lady should be allowed to stab and kill a teenage burglar.
Worryingly, after listening to some debate on the issue, I gather that Mr. Clarke’s proposals have accumulated significant support. I say worryingly because this policy is clearly not based on common sense or evidence but is clearly just a ploy to appease the public, appealing to their most primal instincts.
My feelings on this issue are similar to my feelings on the death penalty. Like the burgular idea, the death penalty enjoys popular support in this country, and like the burgular idea, I feel the public are misinformed and not nearly rational enough.
The key issues for me are these. Firstly, if people are going to be allowed to stab or shoot (dismember? torture? castrate?) burglars, then burglars, instead of turning up with a screwdriver and a balaclava, sneaking in and running off with your T.V., they’re going to turn up with a sawn-off shotgun, to guarantee that they get what they want. Meeting violence with violence is only going to escalate the problem. It’s the same reason that despite popular support, the British Police are not being issued with firearms.
It’s because evidence has shown that when you become more pro-active in your defence, you increase the scale of the threat. Criminals will simply obtain guns in response, and the problem is immediately scaled up.
Allowing people to use excessive force on burglars would lead to a necessity amongst criminals to have guns, which would fuel the importation of guns into the UK, which would mean UK police would all have to routinely carry guns, which would lead to more shootings, more deaths and ultimately the kind of deadly mess America is in now.
It may seem sensible, but it’s a slippery slope.
This leads me to my second point which is that all of this talk of fighting burglars with new legal powers is missing the point. It’s tackling the symptom and not the cause. It’s putting a plaster on a giant wound in our society. Burglars burgle houses because they’re homeless, or addicted to drugs, or they’ve grown up in poverty, where they’re told that they’ll never become anything so they might as well steal. These are desperate, poor people. The way to tackle this issue is to address the reason for their desperation, not to tell every pensioner to keep a knife under their pollow and sleep with one eye open. This is Britain, not Baghdad.
You may be wondering, since I have such a strong opinion, what I would do to address this issue.
My answer: absolutely nothing that involved giving more power to homeowners. And why?
Because the law already strikes a good balance.
The current law already allows home owners to use reasonable force to defend their homes. It also states that this is the force which the homeowner feels is necessary in the situation.
So, if a pensioner is being burgled, and they take a knife, fearing for their life and they stab and kill a burglar, then a hury can only come to one conclusion. They feared for their life, they felt the force was necessary, therefore the outcome was fair.
All you have to show is that the force was reasonable, and that you had good reason to do what you did.
People often point to the case of the farmer, who shot a burglar and was jailed. This case is used as an arguement that we need more power to defend ourselves, but this case shows no such thing.
What happened was, in the middle of the night, the farmer heard someone downstairs in his house. Instead of calling the police or shouting a challenge, the farmer took his shotgun, stood at the top of the stairs, and fire into the dark, seriously injuring the burglar. This was simply excessive force. The person in the dark could have been a child running away from home, or a drunken teenager or a confused old man who thought it was their own home. The burglar was actually unarmed. Either way, the force was excessive, and the farmer was rightly convicted.
All of this misses what is for me, the main point.
The most important point is this: why, as a society, would we want to encourage people to take their lives into their own hands for the sake of a T.V. or laptop. Confronting burglars is inviting violence, and it could so easily backfire.
As a society we should be tackling poverty, social deprivation and encouraging people away from crime. As homeowners, we should be getting smarter, not more violent. The vast majority of burglars are repeat offenders, they are simply difficult to catch, so why don’t we focus on that?
“Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes….A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.”—Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian (1927)
I'd like to thank you for your 9/11 series, it's been fantastic!
Now I'd like to ask a question (and for the record it is not indicative of my stance on this issue):
If this was pre planned, if the american administration was behind this-- why did they leave so many loopholes for us to find? Why would do something as stupid as leave behind such clues for us to find?
Well firstly thank you for saying so! I’m very pleased with the reaction.
And secondly to answer your question, I don’t think its necessarily the case that clues were left behind, I think its more to do with the size of the operation that inevitably left loopholes. Just imagine how much work would have to go into designing and executing 9/11, I think they were bound to make mistakes or leave evidence somewhere. I think they were also hoping that even if loopholes were left, the mass hysteria that erupted after 9/11 would sufficiently blind people to the rational facts. No-one was interested in a government conspiracy idea at the time, they were all too interested in revenge and military invasion.
9/11 - Does it make sense to you? Part five FINALE!!!
Well here we go, I hope you’re as excited as I am, because today I conclude the 9/11 articles with part five.
The thing that I find most intriguing about 9/11, is that the people who pointed the fingers of blame in the American administration were actually the people who stood to gain the most from what followed after 9/11, and those who were blamed generally met pretty sticky ends.
Firstly, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The masterminds of 9/11? I think not. 5 days after 9/11 a tape from Bin Laden appeared in which he stated he knew nothing of the 9/11 attacks and that it was committed by a group with their own motives, but this footage was aired just once, on Al Jazeera, and never shown again. Given the fact that the video the Americans released in which he apparently did claim responsibility is clearly a fake, by which I mean in it, his facial shape has changed, his beard is a different colour and he looks younger and healthier, not to mention the actor wears a gold ring which Salafists (a strain of Islam Bin Laden is part of) aren’t allowed to wear gold, I think it’s safe to say that the one which was aired only once and never seen again is the true story.
Not only did Bin Laden state he wasn’t involved, but he also gained nothing from 9/11. Before 9/11 he enjoyed freedom of movement outside the US and even had kidney dialysis in an American hospital in Dubai, but after 9/11, he was unable to stay in Afghanistan, he was unable to move freely because no country would harbour him and his survival became much more difficult, and if recent reports are to be believed, he is now deceased. Clearly, Bin Laden had no motive for 9/11.
So, on to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, literally translated means database. Unusual name I guess, until you remember that Al Qaeda was a giant terrorist resistance movement created by the Americans to fight off the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The CIA funded, trained and supplied them and even used many of them as CIA assets. Since 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan has ripped their country apart, removed all American support and supplies from them, and seriously damaged their ability to function outside Afghanistan. So where is the benefit to them in 9/11?
And finally Saddam Hussein. Before 9/11 he enjoyed a comfortable dictatorship, often supported by America as most dictatorships usually are. However, after 9/11 there were constant insinuations that he was involved, (which no doubt were a surprise to him), he was accused of having weapons of mass destruction, and within 18 months he was invaded and forced to go on the run, before being found in a hole in the ground, held for three years, and finally, executed. Doesn’t take a genius to see there was no motive for him to be involved either.
All of the people who were accused of involvement actually had nothing to gain from 9/11. America is a powerful enemy to have, and all of these entities were enjoying comfortable lives before 9/11 and would no doubt have avoided any involvement in anything which would risk the wrath of the world’s most powerful military nation.
So now let me turn the focus around, and see if perhaps there is motive for someone else to be behind these events.
Let’s start with Larry Silverstein. He was the owner of the WTC complex after spring 2001, when he acquired a 99 year lease on the property. Please remember from one of my previous articles that the towers were huge money losers due to their age, and quotes for removal of the asbestos ran into the billions of dollars. Well the first thing Larry did when he acquired this lease was immediately re-work a new insurance policy, to specifically include protection from terrorist attack. This policy was worth $3.5 BILLION. But when the towers fell, and it all went to court, Larry didn’t get 3.5 billion, no… He got 7 BILLION DOLLARS. Why double? Because he successfully argued that each plane, hitting each tower, counted as two separate terrorist acts, and not one, therefore he was entitled to two payouts each of 3.5 billion. So he avoided expensive asbestos removal, got an opportunity for urban re-generation at ground zero and pocketed 7 billion dollars. I think I see some benefit there!
Next, the neo-con administration. What they got from 9/11 was a mandate from the angered population for military conquest around the world. Everything they wanted in PNAC (read part four) came true. Regime change, control of Middle East oil and greater executive power through the Patriot Act. In a country of 300 million people that’s a lot of power. And just to further prove something regards the oil claim I just made, don’t forget, that America wanted to build a massive pipeline through the Middle East to control the flow of oil to China and Russia, but the Taliban in Afghanistan said no to it, but shortly after the American invasion when the Taliban were ousted, that pipeline went ahead and America took control of the oil flow.
Dick Cheney, Bush Jnr, Bush Snr and other republicans on the board of weapons companies. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that when those towers fell, the angry beast that is America was going to go to war with somebody, and who is the only benefactor of conflict? Weapons Companies! This for me is at the heart of why Bush and co would perpetrate such a disgusting act, good old fashioned American greed. What a lot of people don’t realise is that Cheney, Bush Jnr and Bush Snr all have shares or are senior members of weapons companies such as Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, so when the US went to war, they made millions and millions out of the death and destruction that followed. All they needed was a major event to justify the invasions and get the population whipped into an angry frenzy.
So all the people who pointed the finger of blame, the government, the politicians and the owner of the 9/11 complex all benefited hugely from 9/11. They were merely deflecting the blame before people noticed it was them who had motive.
Before I make my conclusion to this week’s 9/11 articles, I will just mention the failed 9/11 Commission.
The 9/11 Commission took a long time to come about. You would think that if America really had been attacked by radical Muslims they would be eager to investigate. 9 days after Pearl Harbour there was an independent investigation, and 7 days after JFK was shot there was one too. But Bush refused. It took 411 days to get one on 9/11, And only after pressure from the victims’ families.
And even when it was set up, it was never going to find anything. The commission was a whitewash. Bush chose the chair of the committee and all of its members. He riddled it with loyal republicans, and to make sure no one found anything anyway, he starved the commission of funds so they couldn’t properly investigate. When the findings were published, the Bush administration censored 28 pages and blacked out massive sections of the pages which weren’t censored. And when Bush was asked to testify at the commission, he told them that he would only do so, if he could do it whilst not under oath, totally off the record, with Dick Cheney present, unrecorded, and all journalists’ notes had to be submitted to the security service. Does that not strike you as guilty demeanour???
OK, so here’s my point, for all of you who have been reading every part through the week, ill stop presenting evidence and draw this to an end.
It is my firm belief, after years of research, that 9/11 was not perpetrated by a bunch of radical Islamists, who could barely fly two seat aircraft let alone jet planes. There are simply too many unexplainable factors. One or two I would let go as coincidences, but the entire 9/11 official story stinks of a cover up.
Towers could not have fallen unless blown up – scientifically impossible they fell because of 90 minutes of small fires and smoke.
Pentagon was clearly not hit by a plane, many people reported seeing a military plane shooting a missile at the building, but they were later silenced.
Multiple ground shaking explosions were heard at the WTC’s but were never explained, including all the people with explosion injuries.
The entire story surrounding the hijack with the miraculous discovery of a passport in the rubble and a list of all the terrorists in a piece of luggage left behind is implausible.
Bush’s administration clearly hid something because they were hugely resistant to any kind of investigation.
The only people who benefited from 9/11 were those with financial interest in further wars and the expansion of political power, not a bunch of Muslims and dictators in the Middle East.
For me, the more likely scenario is this… Bush comes to power, supported by very powerful republican figures. He is presented with PNAC, it presents possibilities of America dominating the world, and all of them getting rich off the back of it. Bush gets involved, along with Cheney, and Bush Snr etc. The towers are rigged with explosives during all of the strange activity in the preceding weeks. On 9/11, the towers are blown up, it looks like a terrorist attack when in fact it is a well planned operation. The Pentagon attack is simulated, a missile fired but a plane claimed to have hit it, all CCTV footage is confiscated to cover the truth. The miraculous story of the flight that went down in a field instead of hitting the White house gives everyone a sense of pride that their fellow citizens weren’t completely helpless that day, because some of them overpowered the terrorists and the White House was saved. The following months bring a wave of angry patriotism, everyone is desperate for revenge, and in the following years both Afghanistan and Iraq are ‘justifiable’ wars in America’s search for revenge. In actual fact what America is doing is plundering oil and taking control of the Middle East by installing its own regimes. And on top of it all is the Neo-Con administration, getting rich, and denying as completely implausible and unpatriotic the idea that they ever had anything to do with it.
9/11 was a false flag operation. An operation where one party commits an act, frames it so that it looks like someone else committed it, and this then justifies them to go on the attack. And if your still doubting that the American government would ever do this then let me remind you of the Cuban Missile Crisis. A document which has been de-classified has shown that in the 1960’s, when America was looking for a reason to invade Cuba and secure its safety, they drew up plans for a false flag operation. Of the possibilities drawn up, one was to dress American agents up as Cuban soldiers, blow up a US navy ship killing the sailors on board, and use this as justification for an invasion. Do not think for one second that your government would not consider sacrificing its own citizens. It was considered in the 1960’s, and it happened on September 11th 2001.
The basis was right wing imperialist ideology (PNAC), the benefits were riches and power, and the result was a dominant world power expanding its dominance. It just takes a little digging to see through the mud.
I shall leave you with a quote from my favourite author:
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell.
Thank you for reading.
For further information I recommend you watch “Loose Change” on Youtube, or read a book called “9.11 – The New Evidence” by Ian Henshall.
(Please Like and Re-blog if you wish. All Re-blog’s are appreciated.)
Ok you know the deal by now, today is part four, the penultimate article of the 9/11 series. Whilst I’m highly excited about tomorrow’s conclusion, I do need to bring your attention to a few more issues which I think point to a different conclusion form that of the official government story. So here we go…
Pre Planned 9/11 - NORAD and PNAC.
So what evidence is there that 9/11 was pre planned by the American administration? Well my answer to you consists of four letters – PNAC. PNAC is short for Project for the New American Century, and it’s a document written by a right wing American think tank in September 2000 and was signed and even drafted by some of the most senior members of the Bush administration. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Lewis Libby and Bush himself all put their signatures on that document.
The reason this document is important is because it was very influential in right wing circles and it advocated creating an even stronger USA which acted as a ‘global constabulary’ unchallenged in policing the world. It also stated that if America was going to be tomorrow’s dominant military force, there would need to be some kind of ‘catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new pearl harbour’ to facilitate this.
The document also talks about the importance of controlling Middle Eastern oil if America is to be the dominant military and economic force in the world during this century.
And hey presto, what happens just a year after it’s published? Pretty much everything written in PNAC came true. The abandonment of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, establishment of more permanent military bases around the world, regime changes in the Middle East both in Iraq and Afghanistan, control of those nations oil, AND the catastrophic and catalysing event which facilitated the invasion of these nations…9/11. All of these things were in PNAC, and all came true. Let there be no doubt about the ruthlessness of American republicanism in their efforts to strengthen their nation at the expense of all others.
Did you know that since Korea in the 50’s, the USA has never been at peace? There has not been one year when the USA was not involved in a conflict of some kind. It has an insatiable appetite for war, and the drive is led by weapons manufacturers (many of whom are led by republican figures), otherwise known as ‘war corporatism’. What the US establishment stated as its aim in PNAC was to turn the world into it’s global marketplace, with every country depending on America for something. This is not a conspiracy; PNAC promotes the ‘unbridled use of war to clear a path for US interests’. 9/11 was merely a pretext, Bush Jr, merely a figurehead.
And now to NORAD, The North American Aerospace Defense Command. NORAD’s job is to protect the United States and Canada against attack from the air, and they are key in understanding why no fighter jets were scrambled to shoot down those planes on 9/11. On June 1st 2001 The Vice President Dick Cheney ordered Rumsfeld to allow him to take control of NORAD, now this was the first time in history a President or VP was in direct control of a military agency. The consequences of this were huge because it meant that while he had control, Rumsfeld did not, and therefore the generals, who work for Rumsfeld were powerless to give shoot down orders to fighter jets. Standard procedure states that it is the Generals who have the power to shoot down hijacked aircraft but on June 1st, there were left helpless.
On the morning of September 11th 2001, NORAD was on day two of a week long training exercise called Vigilant Guardian, which was a simulation of terrorist attacks on the WTC complex and targets such as the White House, using hijacked airliners. And there are two points to make about this. One is, if you’ve been following me so far, then you will see like I do, that this was most likely organized to coincide with 9/11 so that between the training exercise and the Cheney takeover, there would be no way of stopping those hijacked airliners for confusion and helplessness among the military and air traffic control.
The other point is that after 9/11, for weeks and months in their press interviews, Bush, Condaleeza Rice and other officials stated left, right and centre that they had no knowledge of 9/11 and that they couldn’t even imagine this possibility, they could never have perceived that the US could have been attacked with airliners. So why was the military training for this very event?
It doesn’t add up.
An air traffic controller who is part of the truth movement also made a good point when he said that if you are a normal pilot, flying a personal aircraft, and you go off course for just five minutes, the air force would scramble a jet so fast it would be behind you within minutes and you would be ordered to comply, because that’s how any country secures itself from attack. And yet on 9/11 NORAD was stood down for an hour and fifteen minutes while hijacked airliners floated around US airspace hitting important targets. It’s a curious coincidence that all of these training drills and other anomalies all happened to coincide on that fateful morning.
Anyway my conclusion is that there were strange goings on at NORAD that day, and its all too much of a coincidence for my liking, and PNAC shows us that the American administration does have a plan for world domination, and the conspiracy theorists and truth movement aren’t crazy. Take from this what you will.
Tomorrow is my finale! I shall draw together everything I have mentioned, Show you who benefited from 9/11 and how (and how its not who you think) and finally present my theory on what really happened on September 11th 2001.
Welcome to part three of my 9/11 articles. The culmination of many years of watching documentaries, reading books and internet researching 9/11.
Today 9/11 anomalies, which I will present in bullet point form, because it’s the easiest way for this section…
Unexplained explosions. Despite the fact that one plane hit each tower on 9/11, there were many more than two explosions heard that day from ground zero. Ground floor explosions were reported despite the planes hitting around a hundred floors up from the ground. In the lobby before the towers fell, fire fighters reported all of the 3” glass windows to be smashed out and people were filing out with horrific injuries. One of the caretakers in the towers reported a large explosion which shook everything in the room, coming from one of the basement floors, and shortly after, a colleague came to him with massive sections of skin missing and one arm hanging off his body, he had clearly been injured in an explosion. What explosion would this be? Even the caretaker did not know when questioned after the events. It was put to him perhaps it was an explosion in the gas kitchens, but the kitchens were electric and so far no other alternative has explained what happened. The same janitor also reported the ground shaking around 10 seconds before the towers fell. As if this weren’t enough, many at the scene, including a BBC news crew reported a massive explosion after the tower was struck, coming from much lower, seemingly underground. If, as I mentioned in part one, the basement columns were blown through to weaken the structure, as is standard in controlled demolitions, this could certainly account for the explosions around the basement floors and the lobby windows being smashed out. In the chaos of the rest of the day these stories have been forgotten, or covered up.
Senior officials knew it was fixed. Do not believe for one second that those who question the official story of 9/11 are a bunch of left wing agitators, students, and crack pots. The 9/11 truth movement includes demolition experts, university professors, victims’ families and rescue workers. Many reports from the emergency workers who were there that day have not been reported widely; in fact mainstream media channels have bluntly ignored them. Probably because what they have to say is highly controversial. One senior New York fire fighter is quoted as saying “There were definitely bombs in that building” before adding that other fire fighters knew about it too, but they were too afraid of losing their jobs to speak out. The senior fire chief went on to say “The emergency services, the police, the medics, the fire crews they all know it was an inside job!” John Schroeder was a FDNY fire fighter and is now a truth movement activist who also stated that “something wasn’t right that day”.
Unusual power cuts, evacuations and workmen. In the weeks before 9.11, the twin towers experienced unprecedented power cuts which left the building without any security, and the same weekend, workmen with toolboxes and masses of cable worked extensively through the building. During the same period, many workers reported a noticeable dust coating almost every surface in the building, it was reported to be a grey dust, like powdered concrete, and drilling could be heard on many floors. In fact drilling noises were a common report in those weeks. Many people reported noises like pneumatic drilling and heavy machinery being moved around, on floors that were supposed to be empty, like floor 34 and floor 98. Both of these floors were supposed to be deserted and the elevators wouldn’t even stop at them unless you had a security pass. There were also unusual evacuations in the weeks preceding 9/11, and just days before the day itself, and the sniffer dogs which operated in the building every single day were removed. Perhaps because they would find something?
World Trade Centre 7. The most damning piece of evidence for me revolves around WTC 7. This building was never hit on 9/11 and yet it fell in exactly the same way, straight down into its own basement. As I mentioned in part one, the towers could not have fallen because of the damage they sustained, and WTC 7 sustained even less damage, it wasn’t hit by a plane and although it was hit with some debris and small fires occurred, that was all. And yet it came down in exactly the same way. I think to understand what went on it is important now to mention exactly what WTC 7 was. It was a building in the World Trade Centre complex which held offices for the CIA, Secret Service, Department of Defence, Exchange Commission and numerous banks and insurance companies. As well as all of these it also held the Mayor’s emergency bunker, a bunker which he is supposed to shelter in when emergencies such as that of 9/11 occur, and yet he didn’t use. Did he know it was going to collapse? The insinuation here is that the WTC 7 building could easily have been used as the headquarters for planning the 9/11 attack, and was demolished to remove all trace of evidence. It also held records of the 70 billion dollar electricity swindle case which could have seen Enron go through a messy and expensive court case and be forced to pay out unbelievable sums of money. When that tower fell, all these records were lost.
Fireproof passports? Whether you subscribe to all the theories around 9/11 or not, I’m sure I can get you on side with one issue. Do you believe that one of the hijackers aboard a plane that flew into one of the towers could have had his passport recovered from the rubble of ground zero? A passport, made of paper, supposed to have survived not only the explosion, the fireball, the impact, the crush of rubble and the subsequent fires that started, and landed safely on the top, only then to be discovered by a government agent. This is one of many implausible claims that are supposed to be believed. Of the same level of implausibility is the explanation as to how the FBI claimed to know every single hijacker just a few days after the event. Apparently hijacker Mohammed Atta left a piece of luggage behind at the airport before he hijacked a plane, and in it he left a terrorist training manual (essential reading for all jihadist commuters) and a list of all his accomplices, presumably in case he forgot their names? Or perhaps it was his Christmas card list? As I say, highly unlikely considering the genius’s these guys would have had to be to pull this operation off.
Put options. Why was there a massive increase in bets on the stock market predicting that American Airlines and other aviation companies’ stocks would drop? In the weeks before 9/11 huge and unusual spikes were noticed in activity of this kind, with these ‘put options’ being placed in countries such as Germany, Switzerland and the UK. As yet, unexplained. Someone knew what was about to take place.
Experts discredit story. And finally, despite all the desperate claims of government officials, those guys, with the training in two seat airplanes they are supposed to have had, could not have pulled off the manoeuvres air traffic control saw them making on the radar, nor could they have flown those planes so accurately into those targets at such high speed with such minuscule experience, and these aren’t my claims, they are the assertions of aviation experts and pilots with thousands of hours experience flying passenger jets.
I intend to wrap this up soon, and present to you my alternative version of events. Tomorrow I shall run through some more anomalies which I think are evidence that 9/11 was pre planned and on Friday I shall tell you why I think it was done, who benefitted, and why you should give the events of September 11th a long hard think.
And again, my aim is merely to perhaps make you think twice about what you think you know. Or perhaps just to add weight to suspicions you already have.
It’s not a concrete theory, merely a series of evidence and anomalies.
The Pentagon Attack. In Plane Sight.
On 9/11 it was not just the twin towers that were hit with aircraft, the Pentagon, the US military headquarters was hit too. Or was it? There is undeniable footage to show planes hitting the north and south towers, there is no such evidence that one hit the Pentagon.
But before we look to the lack of evidence, let’s just consider another strange idea which we often don’t question. We’re told that the Pentagon was hit by a plane, we saw footage and smoke and presumed what we saw was what we were told we should see. But the Pentagon is one of the most heavily defended buildings on the earth. It resides in themost heavily guarded airspace on earth (the area around the White House and historic monuments, 16 air force bases cover this area alone), and yet after two planes had already hit the towers, and others were presumed hijacked, another was allowed to hit the Pentagon? Seriously? The Pentagon has anti aircraft missile defences to protect the building; wouldn’t you prepare these if you knew there were hijacked airliners flying into buildings?
It is not just the implausibility that doesn’t make sense, but also as I mentioned at the start the lack of evidence. The hole made in the front of the Pentagon was just 5 metres wide, but a commercial jet of the type that was hijacked is 38 metres wide, and there were no impact holes for the engine or the landing gear, which are incredibly solid items, that don’t just disappear.
Then there is the strange lack of debris on the lawn outside the Pentagon. It simply did not look like a plane had crashed there. Compare the Pentagon scene to the Lockerbie bombing pictures, there’s a hell of a lot more mess at Lockerbie. And how was this explained? Well we are supposed to believe that the major parts of the plane were ‘vaporised’ on impact. This, scientists have agreed, is simply not possible. The main sections of an aircraft, the fuselage, engines and landing gear are made of highly tempered steel alloys and wouldn’t even melt at 3000 degrees centigrade. They could not have been pulverised by a concrete wall at that speed.
This brings me neatly to the next point. Because of the geography of the area around the Pentagon, with the raised freeway and then the Pentagon sitting in the low ground behind this, the hijacked plane would have had to fly very low to the ground, go over the freeway, and down again into the Pentagon, at an altitude at which it would have been impossible even for an expert pilot to maintain high speed. Put simply, the trajectory which the plane would have been forced to follow would be impossible for an experienced pilot, and yet the hijackers, we are told, had not flown a commercial plane before, and had only recently learnt to fly small two seater aircraft. It does not make sense and it has not been adequately explained.
And finally, to the most damning fact of all. Why, if we are told a plane definitely hit the Pentagon, and despite the fact that there were 80 or more CCTV cameras in parking lots and business premises covering the route the plane would have taken into the Pentagon, is there no clear video of that plane? Well perhaps because immediately after the incident, the FBI went around and took every single tape covering the building and confiscated it. I think anyone would find that suspicious. Further suspicion is warranted when you know that not one second of footage was released until the families of the victims demanded that it be released, and even then, the FBI released two videos, one showed nothing of any use at all, and the other, simply showed an explosion. The FBI claimed that the plane had passed between one frame and the next, that’s why it could not have been seen.
80+ cameras and no plane in sight!
Actually what you could see from the footage was of some value. A trail of white smoke can be seen in one of the camera frames. But Jet engines don’t emit white smoke you say? Correct…
…But missiles do.
If you’re wondering where I’m going, stay tuned for part three tomorrow, when I will show you some unusual anomalies among the activities of September 11th.
Thursday … Evidence of a pre-planned government operation.
Friday … Who benefited from 9/11, the failed commission and conclusion.
Today I intend to publish the first of 5 articles. My aim is merely to make you think twice about what you think you know about 9/11. Many of you will disagree. Some of you may be outraged. But all I ask is that you consider the arguments for at least a moment, and read all 5 articles through the week.
Also, I do not claim to have a concrete theory. To do so would be arrogance. I will merely point out facts and anomalies surrounding 9/11 that need answering. Facts gathered through three years of watching documentaries, reading books and internet researching.
Today I give you part one.
The Scientific Evidence Relating To The Twin Towers Collapse.
To be blunt and get straight to the point, the government explanation of why the twin towers collapsed on 9/11 is scientifically impossible. Never, that is NEVER, in the history of mankind’s construction of steel framed buildings have any EVER collapsed due to fire alone. Steel simply has too high a melting point. The core theory the US government used to explain the towers collapse was the Pancake Theory. This stated that the heat caused a floor to collapse, which then smacked the floor below and so on until the tower fell. This was later proved to be wrong by scientists and so the government came back with a new theory, this time completely computer based, the Inward Bowing Theory. This stated that the heat in the towers caused the floors above to bend and therefore curve downwards, which eventually pulled the walls in, and the towers collapsed on themselves. This theory has also been proved to be scientifically impossible. It was also discovered by one researcher, who later lost his job over this, that the computer parameters the government used were manipulated to make their theory work, e.g. figures were doubled or halved, until the computer models proved their theories correct. Since these two failed theories, there has been no alternate theory provided to explain what happened.
At the core of the issue is this. To even soften steel beams, you need temperatures far hotter than those created in the towers. Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough and there wasn’t enough oxygen. If there was then the fires would have been bright orange and red with clear smoke, but they weren’t they were a dull orange, and the smoke was thick and black, this indicates an oxygen starved fire. The whole government theory focuses on the heat of the fires, and denies science. The only way the jet fuel could damage steel is with an added catalyst. I’ll come to this later. (Check out the fires in 9/11 footage and compare it to the skyscraper in Madrid which burned much hotter because it was under construction and the fire therefore much more oxygenated, even the Madrid tower did not fall).
In addition to this, when you watch the footage, the towers fell at almost free fall speed. This may not seem like much, but it’s very important. Not to bore you with too much science, but the Law of Conservation of Momentum states that given the height of the towers, objects falling from that height, with NO RESISTANCE would hit the ground in around 10 seconds. The towers fell in just under 15 seconds. This means there was almost NO RESISTANCE under each floor as it fell. If those towers fell because of the collapse of their weakening structures, they should have taken around 45 seconds to fall completely. What this suggests is that there had to be explosions to bring down those towers at the speed they fell. Explosives would also suggest a reason as to why when the towers fell, massive beams of steel were ejected far away from the building, you can see them in footage, just flying out. If the government explanation is true, and fires caused the collapse, then why were these beams broken into pieces and ejected so far out like that.
So how much evidence supports the idea of explosives being the cause of the collapse? Well, a fair bit. The most overwhelming evidence is the discovery of thermite, a military explosive used as a catalyst for hotter temperatures to cut through steel, at ground zero. Analysis of dust blown out of the collapse shows particles of molten metal, molten metal remember cannot be produced unless temperatures of 2750 degrees Fahrenheit are reached, and jet fuel in open air can only reach a MAXIMUM of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. Also, molten metal can be seen spewing from the building before the collapse, molten metal indicates something much hotter than a jet fuel fire.
When other large buildings have fallen due to structural failures, the rubble always contains items which were in the building before it fell…common sense of course, but at ground zero, one fire-fighter stated he never found anything bigger than half of a telephone keypad. Everything had been obliterated, blown to pieces. Normally you could expect to find office chairs, desks, bits of computer, metal railings, but of all the furniture, nothing was found bigger than half a keypad.
And demolition experts have agreed, the footage of 9/11 is textbook footage of a controlled demolition. The way two million tonnes of debris falls into its own basement like that. The collapse would be a lot messier if it fell apart due to structural failure.
But how would explosives have been planted?
Well between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush was the president of the company which supplied security to the twin towers. Marvin Bush is the brother of George Bush Jnr. In 2000, an 8 million dollar security system was fitted. Was it only wiring for the security system that was fitted?
And finally, Frank De Martini, the construction manager of the towers has stated on record that those towers were designed specifically to withstand the impact of multiple jet engine aircraft. That means they were designed not only to withstand the impact, but the resulting fires too. But still they fell…
All of this raises a lot of questions, and I have much more to say on the subject too. But I would like to tackle this massive issue one day at a time.
Tomorrow … The Pentagon Attack.
Wednesday … 9/11 Anomalies, a collection of facts and coincidences.
Thursday … evidence 9/11 was a pre planned government operation.
Friday … The failed commission, who benefitted from a pre-planned attack, and my conclusion.
I was dismayed to see on here earlier, an article, one of many, on why the UK should leave the EU. It lead with the usual sensational argument which centred around how much EU membership costs us and how unhelpful all the bureaucracy can be…blah blah blah, etc etc.
It seems some people, well one person in particular, have completely misread what I have written in my previous article about the EU. In fact the response seems rather over emotional. So let me address the points made about my article shall we…
Firstly, what I said was, I was dismayed to read the article posted earlier which opposed membership of the EU. The EU happens to be a subject close to my heart. My fellow blogger however seemed to interpret this as me saying that I oppose free speech and any opinion that differs from my own. Kind of a jump wouldn’t you say? Neither did I say that her post was irresponsible. Nor did I imply it. In fact I would even go as far as to suggest that her over emotional response to my article suggests that it is perhaps she who has a problem with opposing points of view, the fact that she had to exaggerate what I was saying so greatly certainly suggests that. Frankly I welcome other opinions. I’m a politics student; It’s important to value other opinions, which is why I don’t expect to have my opinion manipulated into some kind of anti free speech rant under her scrutiny. I suspect the author is merely going for some cheap shots in order to obtain some equally cheap laughs. In further answer, I single out right wing red tops because they are papers in my experience, not concerned with accurate reporting and more concerned with sensationalist rabble rousing, misinforming the public.
Secondly, I never even mentioned the EU single currency, and frankly, not being a master economist, (and it wouldn’t matter if I was because even the best economists disagree with one another because economics isn’t an exact science, it’s a collection of theories) I never stated I agreed with the single currency. In fact I will happily admit that I’m not sure if it can work. I’m also not sure if I could propose an alternative to a single currency. I’m happy to state all this because unlike some, I don’t claim to have all the answers.
Thirdly, the stories about wasted money within the EU are very often exaggerated. I would check your sources again on the dancing classes, because it sounds much like a number of erroneous stories that have come out about the EU in the past, such as the story that they were banning bananas that weren’t of a certain curvature, which also turned out to be a load of junk. In fact stories of this nature are frighteningly common. Then again you can’t rely on The Sun and the Daily Heil (sorry, Daily Mail) newspapers for quality balanced journalism.
And as for being attacked for being on ‘shaky ground’… I’m not the one who goes on to question climate change. I think those who doubt climate change are on much shakier ground than mine. You know, people in glass houses and all that…
Furthermore, I never stated that some nations ‘know best’. I suggested that the EU working together produced better results and decisions than single nations acting solely in their own interests. The point I was getting at was that issues that affect multiple nations are difficult to co-ordinate a response to when no one is in co-operation. The EU removes that problem.
And my biggest problem with the critiques levelled at my article were that the British people don’t like the ECHR decisions because they are, quote ‘awful’. Well I didn’t realise I was being attacked by an expert in international law and the voice of the people. I myself will make no such claims to expertise, I will however point to a couple of examples where the ECHR and HRA have helped to over-rule the UK government for making its own awful decisions. Did she know that if it weren’t for the ECHR, corporal punishment in schools would not have been abolished? It took the ECHR to enforce a decision upon the UK to change its rules. The ECHR also ruled that the German government could not limit females in the military to non combat roles even though it wanted to. The fact that we are signed up to the HRA also allows our supreme court to interpret the HRA and point out to our government where it is violating law. For example many cases of human rights violations by this government have only been stopped because the ECHR pointed out that government policy was unfair, and a violation of human rights. For example the Czech Roma case where people were prevented from boarding planes to the UK because of their ethnicity. The 2001 terrorism legislation that aimed to lock people up without charge was also ruled unconstitutional and scrapped because of our commitment to European values. Unfair legislation will go unchallenged unless there is a higher body, like the ECHR who can point out that the legislation is unfair.
The only reason some British people oppose Human Rights and the European courts decisions as my fellow blogger pointed out is because they see them as only defending the rights of people who ‘don’t deserve rights’ which is a demonstration of their own prejudices, not a failing of the system. There is as much truth to the claims that the EU courts make awful decisions as there is to the claim that it regulates the curvature of bananas!
In summary, my article wasn’t actually a direct response to hers. Neither did I attempt to address any of the points she made. I was merely making an over arching comment on the nature of EU criticism, and why we should avoid the bandwagon. The direct criticism I received in return was frankly comical. Perhaps I should avoid posting in the future to avoid the wrath of self important ‘Libertarian Conservatives’ who have a mind to blow my comments out of all proportion? I think not.
Libertarian Conservatives - now there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Supposing that the Bin Laden death isn't all a conspiracy and he actually was killed in his compound as Obama announced; do you think it was right that he was shot outright as an act of war or do you think that he should have been brough to trial like an other human being, however complicated?
Well that is difficult to answer considering my standpoint, but if i were to be pushed to answer then i would have to say i don’t believe anyone has the right to take someone’s life whether it is part of a legal process i.e. the death penalty or as part of a war/conflict. I would never condone murder and I would always prefer a free and fair trial. But with the American establishment such as they are I don’t believe a fair trial would ever have been possible. Either way, I find it difficult to answer your question because I have always found the ‘war on terrorism’ and all that goes with it a very suspicious issue.
I was dismayed to see on here earlier, an article, one of many, on why the UK should leave the EU. It lead with the usual sensational argument which centred around how much EU membership costs us and how unhelpful all the bureaucracy can be…blah blah blah, etc etc.
But to lead with this argument is to behave as irresponsibly as our right wing red tops, and focus on the least important aspect of the entire debate, and here’s why I say this…
We’re too quick to forget in this country that we are a declining power in this world. Gone is the empire, gone are the days of marching into other countries and taking what we need to maintain superiority and gone is the respect based upon fear that many countries have viewed us with in the past, and rightly so, and yes we are still a superior economy, but even that is waning. The future as you are all aware lies not with Europe but with China, India, Russia, and Brazil, along with some other successful East Asian economies. And what does this have to do with our EU membership?
Well, one of the core ideas of joining together in Europe is that we may form an economic block that will maintain our relevance in the coming age.
To prattle on about parliamentary sovereignty and independence being undermined by EU decisions is to miss the point entirely. We need to be part of something bigger than just our own island if we want to avoid becoming the pawns on the chess board of the future, instead of the bishops, kings and queens. Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Romania, big or small we are nothing without each other, and this will become obvious as time rolls on.
Beyond visions of the future, back in the here and now, European membership offers us far more economically than we are often aware of.
1. Free Trade. Trade with EU countries now accounts for over 60% of UK’s trade (compared to 16% for US). This has helped create jobs in the export sector and is an important determinant of UK growth.
2. Lower Prices for Consumers. Free trade and increased competitiveness of the EU has enabled consumers to benefit from lower prices, at least for some goods.
3. Regional aid. Areas like South Wales and the North East of England benefited from European regional grants which helped the local economies improve.
4. Harmonisation of Rules and regulations: These have reduced costs for business operating on the continent
5. EU rebate (negotiated by Mrs Thatcher) means that membership of the EU costs effectively very little.
And politically, the EU is vital too…
1. All member countries contribute to the development of a United Europe. We all elect representatives and we all take part. This in turn enhances all the democracies of Europe. It’s not as the red tops suggest, a group in which the rich subsidise the poor with no return and no say.
2. All member states co-operate militarily to ensure each other’s safety. An invasion of Europe although unlikely would never be allowed to proceed because it is in every nation’s interest to protect the continent.
3. States of the European Union have virtually no boundaries between them, meaning movement without visas and freedom to work anywhere in the EU. On a cultural level this also helps to tie us all together, and enrich all cultures with elements of others.
And beyond all the major issues listed above, the EU is involved in ensuring all member states tackle climate change, poverty both foreign and domestic, it offers a further appeal court if a nation had acted unfairly in its legal processes and many other issues which affect our daily lives. Left to their own devices, it is inconceivable that nations would ever group together to do anything that wasn’t purely for their own benefit.
So all I ask is that when figures are quoted of how much the EU costs, instead of gasping in sheer horror and running to complain to your MP, you first consider two things. Firstly how much we actually get in return…because it’s A LOT. And secondly, subsidising weaker economies within a union helps us all to remain stronger as a unit. And without each other, in the future European power will be a mere relic, consigned to the text books of history. I fear it is only then that we will realise the importance of co-operation.
I’ve just had a strange epiphany. My local radio station was playing ‘with or without you’ by U2, and I suddenly thought. That’s kind of like the US, UK special relationship. Yes ok perhaps I have a few screws loose, but hear me out.
Through the storm we reach the shore – (World War Two?) You give it all but I want more – (US loans to re-build the UK?) And I’m waiting for you – (To drag us into the next conflict?)
And you give yourself away And you give yourself away And you give And you give And you give yourself away
(General infiltration of US culture and money into the UK?)
My hands are tied
My body bruised, she’s got me with
Nothing left to lose
(The way Britain looks after decades of collaborations with the US? Nothing to win and tied to them with no shred of dignity left?)
OK, so perhaps I read a little too much into it. But still you see my point. Anyway it got me thinking, after all the talk of a ‘special’ relationship, or an ‘essential’ one or a ‘slightly more advantageous than an alliance with Turkmenistan’ one or whatever they want to call, what are we actually getting? Does anyone know for sure?
The historical reasons are clear enough. We are all well aware of the necessity for a strong relationship to exist in the 30’s and 40’s between the US and the UK for the defence against Hitler’s Germany. And again in the Cold War, the US needed to base military functions over here and collaboration against Stalin was overall quite welcome. It was a necessary relationship and it achieved its aims…eventually. The point is it made sense!
But where is it going? In the last 10 years it has dragged us into two illegal wars and made us an ally to one of the world’s most hated and feared, militarily aggressive nations the world has seen. We have been targeted by terrorists numerous times for our collusion with the Americans and as a result our security is compromised and our nation has to devote a lot of time and energy to the defence against terrorism. As a side note, I would never condone terrorism but if two nations came rampaging their way through my country, destroying infrastructure (except the oil well’s…hmm) and installing their brand of ‘democracy’ I think I’d be a bit pissed too.
So if militarily we’re now strapped to a raging bull, how about economically – any benefit there? Well although the US is the biggest investor in the UK economy and the UK is likewise the biggest investor in the US economy, we do have many other nations right on our doorstep, both in Europe and further afield in Scandinavia and North Africa which could be just as useful to us than the single arrogant entity of the United States.
But really I think this alliance is about one thing… the winner’s club. The UK is no longer a world power militarily and soon won’t be an economic one either. In reality I think the UK is merely walking around the playground with its bigger, older brother for protection from the nations it used to beat up, before they grew stronger than their bully. It is, as Obama said, an ‘essential’ relationship. But essential only for the UK, the US doesn’t need us, but that’s too embarrassing for us to admit.
So where now? Well I think the UK should cut loose its chains and join the 21st Century. Participate much more in Europe and look for its allies there. I would welcome the infiltration of European culture far more than the destructive American ‘culture’ we’ve suffered for the last 50 years and perhaps we might even be spared the disaster of participating in conflicts of oil and military dominance, and also spared the embarrassment of all this, ‘special’ ‘essential’ ‘necessary’ ‘utterly ridiculous’ relationship rubbish. And maybe we can also get rid of this preposterous “my penis is bigger than your penis rubbish” which is at the heart of our retention of our overpriced piece of junk nuclear deterrent.
Either way, if we retain a special relationship with America we lose any chance of regaining our already battered reputation as a sensible democracy. If we ditch it, we may slide faster into obscurity. Either way there’s not much point siding with the Americans. It merely makes us look bad.
With or without you…we’re still a nation sliding into obscurity….Not quite as catchy I admit.
It never ceases to amaze me how brazenly see-through Conservative policies can be. I was honestly hoping David Cameron would drop his big society idea, in realisation that its transparency is clear to us all, but yesterday he tried to re-launch the doomed policy … again. And it’s not that I don’t agree with his sentiment. I rather like the notion of a more cohesive society where charities and individuals get stuck into their community issues and work together for a better future. But I see two fundamental problems with this.
1. Irreversible Social Shift. It seems what Cameron is chasing is an idea of community long since lost in this country, in part thanks to his beloved Thatcher. It’s very difficult to imagine the 1950’s ‘pull together’ spirit every really returning. In modern times we would rather communicate on Facebook than face to face. We would rather play video games than sports. We would rather shut our windows and doors and complain about the house alarm that’s been going off for 3 days next door than actually see if our neighbour isn’t lying dead on her kitchen floor. I feel we have shifted irreversibly into individualism.
2. Inappropriate Timing. At a time when we are still hauling our broken economy out of the harsh icy waters of recession, when unemployment is high, wages are low and not keeping up with inflation, and the general outlook is gloomy, Cameron is launching his notion of society based on more charitable contributions, more volunteering and more community involvement. Does anyone else see the issue with that? When you’re unemployed you should volunteer? When you’re struggling to get by you should be more charitable? When your community is riddled with crime and social deprivation (exacerbated by cuts to social projects and policing) you should get out and tackle it yourself? No. What Cameron is doing is trying to shield attention from the grotesquely savage cuts he is making to our services, and trying to supplement what will be the shortcomings of the state with your involvement. It doesn’t take a genius to see through all this. And likewise it doesn’t take too much common sense to realise that people should perhaps be encouraged to get involved with their communities and be more charitable when they have some spare income, when times are good. How can he ask this of people now? It is the least appropriate timing, and he is the least appropriate proponent.
Instead of selling us this ‘big society’ what Cameron should really just say is ‘well you’re on your own now so you might as well look after each other’. I think Ed Miliband is right in saying that what we actually need is a solid effort from government to improve the job market and supply more affordable housing for young people and furthermore to encourage more responsible lending by banks, because its only when we have got everyone back to work that we can start seriously tackling the deficit.
And it’s a shame because from what I read in the i newspaper today, some of Cameron’s policies are actually quite good, even a little socialist in nature, for instance being able to donate to charity at cash machines and a ‘round the pound’ scheme where customers can round up their bills and donate the extra pounds or pennies to charity. Those are great ideas, but the very fact that they’re being launched now is in my opinion, the reason why the big society will fall on its arse, along with this government.
“Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others”
-Emma Goldman”—(via stoneflowersloft)
Total lack of interest in the news = 10 Reasons to hate the Tory Bastards. ENJOY!
Ten Reasons To Hate The Tory Bastards.
1. Hypocrisy. During the current economic downturn when they’re telling you to tighten your belt and go without, they never had it so good. 18 out of the 23 cabinet ministers are millionaires with vast fortunes. How exactly are they supposed to understand how their decisions affect regular people when any impact on their finances is non existent?
2. They’re the Tories. They privatised everything we the tax payer owned and replaced it with business monopolies that work so well…like the trains…or the energy companies…or the buses… I use bad examples like those because there are no good ones. The ERM disaster where they wasted billions in a failed attempt to rescue the currency and then had the bare faced cheek to say they would have done it the same way again. And the miner’s strike where Thatcher essentially waged war against her own people after she took their jobs and livelihoods and unsurprisingly they rioted. To mention but a few.
3. George Osbournes Smug Face.
4. David Camerons even smugger face.
5. Private school boys. 67% of the cabinet were educated at private schools compared to 7% nationally. Tagging on from point one, when you’re born into a family that can afford it all, even your education, how likely are you to understand the harsh reality of deep scything cuts on things like bus services or EMA?
6. Bankers get us in, the poor get us out. While I’m not going to engage in too much banker bashing it has always been and will always be an entirely valid point that it was not the construction worker, the nurse, the carpenter or the bus driver who drove our economy into meltdown. It was the greed of those much higher up. And yet where do the cuts fall hardest? Yes that’s right, the Tories favourite cash cow – the poor.
7. Same old Tories. Further to point 6, if you voted Tory hoping you’d get a new, fresh, vibrant brand of representative Tory and what your surprised that what we got was the same old tax the poor and be-friend the rich attitude then perhaps some political education is in order.
8. They Sunk AV. A fairer voting system which would have seen them win the seats they were due, not the massive majorities our system produces unfairly for them at present.
9. They clearly don’t know how to get us out of recession. Despite no government ever getting out of a recession with cuts alone and warnings that not providing enough programmes for growth may push us towards a double dip recession or even just a protracted exit from austerity the Tory wise guys still cut ever deeper and do ever less for growth.
10. They’re going to dismantle the NHS. Even Thatcher wasn’t bold enough to try but here comes David. The looming spectre of death. Literally.
“It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it’s more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody’s blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, the capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It’s only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely.”—
Not to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon but I have to agree with many of the alternate views of this Bin Laden nonsense. Can anyone else foresee a different narrative here? Something along the lines of …
Osama Bin Laden, who was for many years a CIA asset, funded and trained by the USA, who has acted as a figure head, a poster boy if you will for international atrocities in recent years, is suddenly killed in a triumph of American foreign policy (an oxymoronic phrase as well as a merely moronic one) and heroism, thus ending the war on terrorism. No wait! That won’t do, because with Bin Laden dead what is there for us to fear? And if we’re not scared then we don’t need the government to protect us. Ok, perhaps the narrative is Bin Laden killed heroically (thus massively increasing Obama’s chances of getting re-elected) but despite his death, we should all remember to be vigilant as revenge attacks are highly likely. Yes, that sounds about right. In fact, isn’t that what the media has been telling us in recent days? Oh wait it is! Call me cynical but my strong opinion is that the “war on terror” is a pseudo conflict, its only aim being to keep us all scared. Scared why? Because scared people are the easiest people to govern. Yes, the aim is to keep us all scared to the point where all of America’s bogus wars are seemingly justified, despite sketchy evidence, because we believe that attacking them over there helps to protect us over here, we believe that murdering a million civilians in Iraq somehow prevents us from attacks here. All we are doing is justifying America’s pursuit of continuing world dominance. If America was concerned about Islamic fundamentalism then they wouldn’t have ignored the advice of some of their top diplomats, many of whom warned that occupying Iraq and Afghanistan would INCREASE not decrease the amount of anti-American sentiment, and allowing many countries in the middle east, Pakistan included to become training grounds for actual terrorists.
No, the killing of Bin Laden is not about the death of this character, whether fact or fiction, it is about a much bigger set of issues - Espionage, Double standards, Military power on the international stage and Government control.
Read through the bullshit on the news. Buried at sea? Pakistan knew nothing? Lived in a compound near a military base undetected for years when America has been hunting him for a decade? America won’t release a picture to confirm his death?
Too many coincidences,
Too many LIES.
“People should not be afraid of their government. Government should be afraid of its people.”
The past three years have been a disaster for most Western economies. The United States has mass long-term unemployment for the first time since the 1930s. Meanwhile, Europe’s single currency is coming apart at the seams. How did it all go so wrong?
Well, what I’ve been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it’s mostly the public’s fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate’s foolishness.
So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn’t just self-serving, it’s dead wrong.
The fact is that what we’re experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren’t responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes.
Let me focus mainly on what happened in the United States, then say a few words about Europe.
These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?
The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.
So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn’t the man in the street.
President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party’s ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.
Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America’s political and pundit elite.
Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that’s who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.
So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America’s deficit. And much the same is true of the European crisis.
Needless to say, that’s not what you hear from European policy makers. The official story in Europe these days is that governments of troubled nations catered too much to the masses, promising too much to voters while collecting too little in taxes. And that is, to be fair, a reasonably accurate story for Greece. But it’s not at all what happened in Ireland and Spain, both of which had low debt and budget surpluses on the eve of the crisis.
The real story of Europe’s crisis is that leaders created a single currency, the euro, without creating the institutions that were needed to cope with booms and busts within the euro zone. And the drive for a single European currency was the ultimate top-down project, an elite vision imposed on highly reluctant voters.
Does any of this matter? Why should we be concerned about the effort to shift the blame for bad policies onto the general public?
One answer is simple accountability. People who advocated budget-busting policies during the Bush years shouldn’t be allowed to pass themselves off as deficit hawks; people who praised Ireland as a role model shouldn’t be giving lectures on responsible government.
But the larger answer, I’d argue, is that by making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they’ll do even more damage in the years ahead.
I am no legal expert, and the seemingly shady, smoke and mirrors world, of super-injunctions is frankly baffling to a casual onlooker. That we don’t know how many there are, or who has taken one out, or what they’re protecting, can be alarming to those of us who believe strongly in the freedom…
AV – Why the UK has cut off it's nose to spite it's face.
So the UK has said no to AV. Although with a vote of 67% against change it was not so much a no, but more of a resounding F*** off to the alternative vote system. So now that the right wing press can get back to its usual diet of racism, intolerance and telling you what else gives you cancer, and the Conservatives can sleep safely in their beds while the rest of us can’t sleep for worry of what they’re going to cut next, what are we left with? A perfectly good electoral system that is fair, allows people to express their individual preference and produces strongly supported MP’s who represent their constituency? Well no. Put simply what we the British people have voted for is the maintaining of the status quo (which is terribly British in itself) and in this case, the status quo is woefully inadequate.
Whilst trying to avoid the festering swamp which was the AV debate I would like to point out some simple points which I believe the electorate may have wanted to fully understand before the referendum, points which were never made clearly.
Firstly, the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system encourages you to vote tactically. So what? You say. Well this may sound normal, but have a think. If you were devoted to an idea, or a political ideology, or you were dedicated to a particular party/candidate and you wanted to express this by voting for a candidate who you thought would best represent you, but you lived in a constituency where the conservatives or labour almost always won (The Electoral Reform Society estimated that of the 650 constituencies, 382 (59%) were safe seats in 2010), how confident would you feel that your vote could make a difference? I should think not at all. In short, a lot of people are forced to vote for someone they wouldn’t normally vote for in order to avoid wasting their vote.
Consider then that you wanted to vote for one of the two main parties, and the previous point didn’t apply to you. Fantastic then, your vote will definitely count for something! Well actually no. Because FPTP isn’t concerned with voters preferences as a whole, it merely gives the first candidate to reach the slimmest majority, the victory, so all the people who voted for the candidate who came second (often just a few per cent off the winner) and the people who were brave and voted for a smaller party, who’s candidate came third, fourth and so on, and the people who voted for the winner who had already won and didn’t need the extra votes, well ALL of those people wasted their vote. It counted for NOTHING. Only votes cast for the winning candidate matter, and only those votes which made them first. And those votes are usually cast by around just 30-35% of the constituency, so one third of the people in your area choose your MP. In fact, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes. So the MP’s we send to Westminster under FPTP actually only have the support of around a third of their constituents. What a great system.
But who cares eh, there’s always a winner and it’s a strong system so let’s just keep it. Well actually FPTP not only produced a hung parliament this time around in 2010 but has done so 6 times through the 20th century. Twice in 1910, again in 1929, again in 1974, and with by-elections and resignations both the Callaghan government of 1978 and the Major government of 1996 lost their slim majorities and parliaments became balanced/hung. So FPTP doesn’t necessarily create stability as is claimed.
Its clear to see now that the AV referendum was turned by the media and Nick Clegg’s own failings into a popularity vote on the Lib Dems. And naturally they were annihilated. However I believe the UK has thrown away the chance to seriously improve the health of this country’s democracy. AV would have made everyone’s vote more powerful. It would massively reduce the number of votes that counted for nothing and it would produce MP’s who actually had true consent of voters to represent them, ergo quite possibly increasing voter turnout which is so shockingly low as it is. It wouldn’t have cost any more to run an election under AV and the system is already widely used around the world to great effect. But the fact is we threw it away because most of us listened to the papers, and David Cameron, and never thought to question why they didn’t want it. Well they didn’t want it because it would make it harder for them to win, year, after year, after year like they do now. And we were so wrapped up in hating Clegg that we threw away a once in a lifetime chance to actually change this country’s constitution. Something very few people ever get the chance to do. If AV was a “sorry little compromise” then First Past the Post is a “pathetic attempt at democracy”.
We may never get to vote in another referendum, and quite frankly those of you who voted no to AV don’t deserve to.