Nyhetsbildet – Nyheter for aktivister

Fremtiden avhenger av deg! Spre denne informasjonen – websiden – videre!

Archive for mai, 2008

South Africa and Israel

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 30, 2008

Jane Hunter writes in her text Israel and South Africa – Israeli Foreign Policy from 1987 that lsrael’s ties with South Africa, in the time before the end of the apartheid system, seem to be especially disturbing to many who follow Israel’s international activities. Perhaps it is natural that Israel has been castigated more harshly for its arms sales to South Africa than for its sales to other countries: first, because there has been for a decade an arms embargo against South Africa; and second, because of the unsurpassed criminality of the white regime and the uses to which it puts the Israeli-supplied weapons.

It has also been said that those arms sales are understandable, given the striking similarities between the two countries in their day-to-day abuse and repression of their subject populations, South African blacks and Palestinians under Israeli rule; in their operating philosophies of apartheid and Zionism; and in their similar objective situations: «the only two Western nations to have established themselves in a predominantly nonwhite part of the world,» as a South African Broadcasting Corporation editorial put it. That understanding, however, is somewhat superficial, and the focus on similarities of political behavior has somewhat obscured the view of the breadth and depth of the totality of Israeli-South African relations and their implications.

Israel’s relations with South Africa are different than its interactions with any of its other arms clients. That Israel gave South Africa its nuclear weapons capability underscores the special nature of Tel Aviv’s relations with the white minority government and begins to describe it – a full-fledged, if covert, partnership based on the determination of both countries to continue as unrepentant pariahs and to help each other avoid the consequences of their behavior.

According to Federation of American Scientists (FAS) South African projects to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s and 1980s «were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel.» Chris McGreal has claimed that «Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa’s development of its nuclear bombs». However, United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of November 4, 1977 introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, also requiring all States to refrain from «any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons».

This year Israel marked the 60th anniversary of its declaration of independence in May 1948, which for the Palestinians immediately became a continuing disaster. In the text South African Statement on 60th anniversary of Apartheid Israel by ANC, May 24 2008, they write ”Apartheid was a gross violation of human rights. It was so in South Africa and it is so with regard to Israel ‘s persecution of the Palestinians!» and

«We fought apartheid; we see no reason to celebrate it in Israel now! Apartheid was a gross violation of human rights. It was so in South Africa and it is so with regard to Israel ‘s persecution of the Palestinians!

We, South Africans who faced the might of unjust and brutal apartheid machinery in South Africa and fought against it with all our strength, with the objective to live in a just, democratic society, refuse today to celebrate the existence of an Apartheid state in the Middle East .

While Israel and its apologists around the world will, with pomp and ceremony, loudly proclaim the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel this month, we who have lived with and struggled against oppression and colonialism will, instead, remember 6 decades of catastrophe for the Palestinian people. 60 years ago, 750,000 Palestinians were brutally expelled from their homeland, suffering persecution, massacres, and torture. They and their descendants remain refugees. This is no reason to celebrate.” …

However, George Bush visited Jerusalem to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary and talk up what has to be the most bizarre proposal yet for achieving peace: a «shelf agreement». This, Bush explained before he set out, ”would be a «description» of a Palestinian state to be hammered out between the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert before the end of the year. The idea would then be to put this virtual state on the shelf until the time might be right for it to be turned into a reality. In perfect step, Tony Blair announced that he has succeeded in negotiating the removal of three checkpoints and one roadblock on behalf of the Quartet of big powers and the UN – out of a total of 560 throughout the West Bank – but Israel will only actually remove them «in the future».” In other words, it’s business as usual, as the crisis of occupation deepens.

Britain’s prime minister Gordon Brown made a surprise visit to the Israel’s Independence Day reception at the Israeli embassy in London. Brown was the first British prime minister to attend the reception since Tony Blair in 1998, when Israel celebrated its 50th anniversary. Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor told JTA he didn’t know until the last minute whether Brown would attend the 60th birthday event. According to Brown Britain will continue to be “a true and constant friend of Israel in good times and in bad” and that:

We will never reduce our efforts to secure for Israel a future free from terror, a future where – alongside a viable Palestinian state – children and the children of all your neighbours can believe in a brighter future.”

With his father, a church minister, being a frequent visitor to Israel, he said he learned of the fight for a Jewish homeland, the Balfour declaration and the promises made, some of which have been honoured and some which have been broken. “I learned of the ancient dream of the Jewish nation becoming reality in the modern state of Israel,” Mr Brown went on.

Nadine Gordimer

Also the former anti-apartheid activist and Nobel-prize winning author Nadine Gordimer is accused of lending her support to the oppression of Palestinians by joining in “Israel at 60” events. Gaza lecturer Dr Haider Eid, has written Gordimer an open letter:

”Dear Ms. Gordimer,

I am a Palestinian lecturer in Cultural Studies living in Gaza. I happen to also have South African citizenship as a result of my marriage to a citizen of that beloved country. I spent more than five years in Johannesburg, the city in which I earned my Ph.D and lectured at both traditionally black and white universities. At Vista in Soweto, I taught your anti-apartheid novels My Son’s Story, July’s People and The Late Bourgeois World. I have been teaching the same novels, in addition to The Pick Up and Selected Stories, to my Palestinian students in Gaza at Al-Aqsa University. This course is called «Resistance, Anti-Racism and Xenophobia». I deliberately chose to teach your novels because, as an anti-apartheid writer, you defied racial stereotypes by calling for resistance against all forms of oppression, be they racial or religious. Your support of sanctions against apartheid South Africa has, to say the least, impressed my Gazan students.

The news of your conscious decision to take part in the «Israel at 60» celebrations has reached us, students and citizens of Gaza, as both a painful surprise, and a glaring example of a hypocritical intellectual double standard. My students, psychologically and emotionally traumatized and already showing early signs of malnutrition as a result of the genocidal policy of the country whose birth you intend celebrating, demand an explanation.

…”

South African writer Nadine Gordimer defended her decision to attend a writers conference in Israel saying that her «comrades» should have no doubts about her «solidarity with the struggle – our struggle – against apartheid.» She said she decided to attend after arranging to meet with Palestinians as well as Israelis and that her invitation came not from the Israeli government but from Mishkenot Sha’ananim, the international cultural center in West Jerusalem that organized and hosted the event.

The Alternative_Information_Center (AIC), a joint Palestinian-Israeli NGO, which according to its Mission Statement «engages in dissemination of information, political advocacy, grassroots activism and critical analysis of the Palestinian and Israeli societies as well as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict«, established in February 1984 by Israeli activists from the Revolutionary Communist League (previously Matzpen-Jerusalem) and Palestinian leftwing activists from the West Bank, and who is particularly disturbed by the participation of Nobel Prize winning author Nadine Gordimer, called on those who are working for social justice, along with Palestine solidarity groups from around the world to contact the participating authors, particularly those from their home countries, and encourage them to boycott this event in solidarity and support of a just peace for Palestinians and Israelis.

According to Boycott the International Writers’ Festival in Jerusalem:

”It is not possible that Israel continues to deny the human and national rights of the Palestinian people, to impose a deadly siege on the Gaza Strip and publicly flaunt its international political commitments by building additional settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, while its authors and cultural figures are honored with visits by distinguished international authors. Israeli society must be told loudly and clearly that it cannot act with complete impunity toward the Palestinian people and still enjoy privileges and honors of a law-abiding state. Most Israeli authors and other cultural figures have deep concern for the opinions of and working relationships with international authors, such that this boycott can make a substantial impact within Israeli society.”

The British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BCUP) urged Gordimer to reconsider her trip, saying it was «dispiriting» that a writer of her standing was prepared to appear in a city that was under military occupation and «founded on ethnic cleansing». According to the BCUP:

«By taking part in an event substantially funded by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, you (Gordimer) will be lending credibility to a state that has for decades subjected Palestinian towns and villages to collective punishment and that boasts of its extrajudicial killings.»

However, Gordimer said she was not going to Israel under the «auspices» of the Israeli government, but was honouring an invitation by the Konrad Adenauer Institute.

According to Israel Business Today, September 1, 1999, the Konrad Adenauer Institute Konrad Adenauer Institute of Germany or Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) together with its local representative in Israel Dr. Johannes Gerster organized a visit to Israel by the former German Chancellor Dr. Helmut Kohl, who visited Israel from October 31 to November 3, 1999. He met the Israeli government and economic leaders during his trip and was awarded an honorary doctorate by the Weizmann Institute of Rehovot, something that would improve the relations between the Germany and Israel.

Konrad Hermann Josef Adenauer was a German statesman. Although his political career spanned sixty years, beginning as early as 1906, he is most noted for his role as the first Chancellor of West Germany from 1949–1963 and chairman of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from 1950 to 1966. He was the oldest chancellor ever to serve Germany, leaving at the age of eighty seven.

KAS, the largest of the politically affiliated research foundations in Germany, with an annual budget of around €100 million, most of which it receives from government, is a German research foundation associated with that country’s CDU. Nationally and internationally, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation for Civic Education and the promotion of European integration, support art and culture, encourages talented students and doctoral students with scholarships and documented and researched the historical development of Christian-democratic movement. Like all political foundations tries, as a think tank for their party opinion on society, therefore. Abroad, the KAS has 67 offices and supports 200 projects in addition to the «help for self-help» in 120 countries with close political parties and organizations.

In the beginning of the 1950s the Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and the CDU Federal Executive debate the creation of a training and education centre to promote young politicians. December 20, 1955, the Society for Christian Democratic Education Work was established in Bonn as the precursor of the KAS. It was renamed after the former Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1964 and the Konrad Adenauer Institute was set up in 1966. It funds policy research, in the mould of a think tank, but the larger part of its sponsorship is research in the social sciences not directly connected to framing policy. It has close links to the right-wing of Germany’s Christian Democratic Party (CDU).

Posted in Israel/Palestina | 1 Comment »

Blackwater går til sak mot San Diego by

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 29, 2008

Leiesoldatsfirmaet Blackwater går til sak mot San Diego by for å få åpnet deres “yrkesskole”. San Diego nekter selskapet å installere en våpentreningsskole under dekke av å være en “yrkesskole.” Blackwater hadde planer om å åpne sin fasilitet i Otay Mesa, et steinkast fra den amerikansk-meksikanske grensen. Selskapet hevder å ha multi-million kontrakt med marine som går ut på å trene opp seilere.

Her for Blackwaters klage.

Her for San Diego Peace Resource Centers webside

The action alert

Posted in Militærindustrielle kompleks | Leave a Comment »

Fattigdom

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 25, 2008

Christian Aids nye rapport tar for seg det globale skattesystem som lar verdens rikeste slippe unna deres ansvar mens man samtidig dømmer de fattigste til fattigdom, nød og død. Situasjonen skriker på oppmerksomhet. Rapporten forutser at illegal, handels-relatert skatteunndragelse alene vil være ansvarlig for omkring 5.6 millioner døde barn i de fattige landene mellom 2000 og 2015. Det er nesten 1000 barn hver dag. Halvparten av disse er allerede døde!

Download the report (2mb PDF)

Listen to a podcast about the report

Posted in Økonomi | Leave a Comment »

Osama bin Laden fritatt for 911

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 24, 2008

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

Deaths: 2,998 (excluding the 19 hijackers)

Perpetrator(s): al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden, see also Responsibility and Organizers on the right hand column

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the September 11, 2001 attacks is clear and irrefutable.[58] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks.[59] Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On 16 September 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar‘s Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.[60] Bin Laden is reported to have complained as recently as November 2007 of the lack «of evidence admissible in court» tying him and his organization to the 9/11 attack.[67]

However, a «White Paper» by the U.S. government, documenting the case against bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization concerning the September 11 attacks, publicly promised by Secretary of State Colin Powell, was never published. In 2006, Rex Tomb of the FBI’s public affairs unit said, «The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11″.[118] So far, the U.S. Justice Department has not sought formal criminal charges against bin Laden (or anyone but Zacarias Moussaoui) for the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)

Thursday, June 17, 2004

”The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no «collaborative relationship» between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.”

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to be a principal architect of the September 11 plot.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, inter alia, and additionally known by at least fifty aliases[1]) is a prisoner in U.S. custody for alleged acts of terrorism, including mass murder of civilians. He was charged on February 11, 2008 with war crimes and murder, and faces the death penalty if convicted. He was a member of Osama bin Laden‘s al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Kuwait rather than Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda’s propaganda operations from sometime around 1999.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was «the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks». He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los AngelesU.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention at Guantanamo Bay, Mohammed testified before a closed-door hearing in Guantánamo Bay. According to transcripts of the hearing released by the Pentagon, he said «I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z.» The transcripts also show him confessing to: organizing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the Bali nightclub bombings; and Richard Reid‘s attempted shoe bombing. He also confessed to planning attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London, Pearl’s murder in 2002, and planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton.[42]

On March 15, 2007, BBC News reported that «Transcripts of his testimony were translated from Arabic and edited by the U.S. Department of Defense to remove sensitive intelligence material before release. It appeared, from a judge’s question, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had made allegations of torture in US custody». In the Defense Department transcript, Mohammed said his statement was not made under duress but Mohammed and human rights advocates have alleged that he was tortured. CIA officials have previously told ABC News that «Mohammed lasted the longest under water boarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk.».[43] Legal experts say this could taint all his statements. Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, M.D., an expert in false confessions, observed from the testimony transcript that his concerns about his family may have been far more influential in soliciting Mohammed’s cooperation than any earlier reported mistreatment [44].

Ali Khan, the father of Majid Khan, another one of the fourteen «high-value detainees», released an affidavit on Monday April 16, 2006, that reported that interrogators subjected Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s children, aged six and eight years old, to abusive interrogation.[39][40][41] Ali Khan’s affidavit quoted another of his sons, Mohammed Khan: «The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs, and were denied food and water by other guards. They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding.»

Zacarias Moussaoui is a French citizen of Moroccan descent who was convicted of conspiring to kill Americans as part of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. As a result of his conviction, he is serving a life sentence at the Federal ADX Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. However, prosecutors in Moussaoui’s drawn-out trial had difficulty directly connecting him to the 19 participants.

During the trial, Moussaoui initially stated that he was not involved in the September 11 attacks, but that he was planning an attack of his own. According to the Associated Press, three jurors decided Moussaoui had only limited knowledge of the September 11 plot, and three described his role in the attacks as minor, if he had any role at all. Following sentencing, Moussaoui recanted his trial testimony stating he was not a member of the September 11, 2001 conspiracy, but «part of another al-Qaeda plot which was to occur after September 11.»[6]

On April 3, 2006, Moussaoui was found to be eligible for the death penalty. Before leaving the courtroom, he was reported to have shouted, «You will never get my blood. God curse you all!»[3] Later that month he withdrew his qualifications and again admitted guilt on all charges levied by the prosecution. On May 3, 2006, a jury decided against the death penalty for Moussaoui. The next day, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. As he was led out of the courtroom, Moussaoui clapped his hands and said, «America, you lost… I won.»[4]

FBI: No hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11

The FBI Can’t Link Bin Laden to 9/11? Why Is This Not News?

9-11 Attacks: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11

Why War? CIA, FBI Staffers See No Link Between Iraq, al Qaeda

Where are those Iranian arms in Iraq?

The Lie of the Century

Posted in 911 | 1 Comment »

Patriots Question 911

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 24, 2008

Many well known and respected:

Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials

Engineers and Architects

Pilots and Aviation Professionals

Professors

Survivors and Family Members

Entertainers, and Media Professionals

have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their statements. It is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibilities related to building design, construction, and other areas of engineering, demonstrates that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.

Contact Your Local 9/11 Truth Group!

Demand a New 9/11 Investigation!

General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Additionally, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 – 2001. Awarded Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Viet Nam and numerous subsequent medals and citations. Graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point.

  • Video interview ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos 3/5/06: «I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. … We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.»

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect – Member, American Institute of Architects. A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

  • Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07: «Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true. Tonight I will present to you the very clear evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives.»

Rob Balsamo – Commercial airline pilot. Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. 4,000+ total hours flown.

  • Statement to this website 7/23/07: «In May 2006, I was watching Glenn Beck’s show on CNN. The Department of Defense had just released the infamous «5 frames» of stop-action video of the pentagon attack. Beck showed the frames and commented, «You can see a 757 in 10 seconds flat! Either that or a naked Michael Moore heading for the buffet! This should put all those conspiracy theories to rest». While watching it, I’m thinking to myself, «I can’t see any 757.” And I’m asking myself, “Are there still unresolved questions regarding 9/11?» So I started poking around on the Internet trying to find anything I can to back up the government’s story because I didn’t want to believe our government might have had something to do with 9/11. Early on, I came across Operation Northwoods. It blew me away that elements of our government had seriously planned acts of terrorism inside the United States to justify invading Cuba. Consider that 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean had said, «The greatest failure of 9/11 was lack of imagination», yet just under 40 years prior, elements of our own government imagined perpetrating such an event! In late summer of 2006, I co-founded the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to more formally conduct research on the aviation-related aspects of 9/11. In August 2006, Pilots for 9/11 Truth received from the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) a copy of the Flight Data Recorder data of Flight 77, which, according to the official account, hit the Pentagon. We analyzed the data and announced our conclusion on 3/26/07 that «The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.» Much more information about this can be found in our video documentary and our press release. So now, a year after I began looking into the events of 9/11 and having devoted a lot of time and effort researching those events, I’m frustrated because we haven’t been able to find anything to confirm the government’s story. And what’s worse is that the FBI and NTSB refuse to even discuss with us the many obvious problems we found in the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder. I continue to work with my colleagues at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to grow the organization and to continue our research into the aviation-related aspects of 9/11, looking for confirmation of the government’s story.»

  • Audio interview by Mike Chambers 2/6/07: «I just recently — quote, unquote — woke up back in May [2006] due to a video that I saw on mainstream media telling me that I could see a 757 in ten seconds flat going across the Pentagon lawn. And from there I did my research and here I am now … with Pilotsfor911Truth.org. When I started my research I said to myself, I am going to do everything in my power to figure out and back up the official story, the government’s story — the government fairy tale, I now call it — so I can have faith and believe in my government. We have gotten to the point where I haven’t been able to find anything to confirm the government’s story. Now, we received the flight data information through the NTSB back in August [2006]. … The files that we originally received from the NTSB shows the aircraft too high to have hit the light poles. They can see that on Pilotsfor911Truth.org Full Analysis. And of course in our film Pandora’s Black Box Chapter 2. … The flight data recorder raw file that we have just decoded … it’s still showing too high for the Pentagon. … It shows the radar altimeter at 273 feet. That means 273 feet above the ground. OK? The Pentagon only gets up to 77 feet.»

David Ray Griffin, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology and Co-director of the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology. One of the founding thinkers of Process Theology. Recent books include; God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (2004), Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific Naturalism and Christian Faith (2004), Religion and Scientific Naturalism (2000), and Reenchantment without Supernaturalism (2000), Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem (1998), Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality (1997). Editor of the SUNY series in Constructive Postmodern Thought. Author and editor of several books that question the official account of 9/11, including; The New Pearl Harbor (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004), 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak Out (2006), Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God (2006), Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007), 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (2008).

  • Video of Speech 9/14/06: «The official story is false. … Now why is the official theory an outrageous conspiracy theory? Because every one of the major elements in it can easily be shown to be false.»

  • Essay: «The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, ‘Omissions and Distortions.’ … Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.» [List of 115 lies follows.]

William Rodriguez – WTC survivor. An American Building Maintenance employee for twenty years, responsible for inspection and maintenance at the World Trade Center, who held the master key for the stairs. He was the last person to leave the building on September 11 and has been credited with saving many lives. For his efforts, he received the National Hero Award from the Senate of Puerto Rico. Founder, Hispanic Victims Group.

  • Article 6/24/05: Regarding an explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center North Tower on 9/11, prior to any airplane impact. «When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking,» said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. … [Editor’s note: At this point, Mr. Rodriguez was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane’s impact point at floors 93 to 98.] «Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above,» said Rodriguez. «Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.» But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling «explosion! explosion! explosion!» David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. «He was burned terribly,» said Rodriguez. «The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below. «I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. … «I disagree 100%with the government story,» said Rodriguez. «I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower. «And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers.»

Editor’s note: Despite hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions throughout the Twin Towers by doomed victims, survivors, emergency service personnel, reporters, and bystanders, the 9/11 Commission Report contains virtually no mention of them and entirely ignores them in its conclusions. Graeme MacQueen‘s analysis of oral histories of 9/11 taken from 503 FDNY survivors reveals more than 100 FDNY personnel reported explosions in the Twin Towers.

Charlie Sheen – Golden Globe-winning actor who has appeared in more than 50 feature films. His appearances include Red Dawn (1984), Platoon (1986), Wall Street (1987), Young Guns (1988), Major League (1989), The Rookie (1990), Hot Shots! (1991), The Three Musketeers (1993), The Arrival (1996), No Code of Conduct (1998), Rated X (2000), Good Advice (2001), and the television series Spin City and Two and a Half Men. Son of actor, Martin Sheen, and brother of actors: Emilio Estévez, Ramón Luis Estévez, and Renée Estévez.

  • Summary of interview The Alex Jones Show 3/20/06: «Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government’s version of events. Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, «That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.» «We’re not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue,» said Sheen. «It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions.» Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago. «It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning.»

A PERSONAL NOTE ABOUT THIS WEBSITE

I believed the official explanation of 9/11 for four and one-half years. During that time, I remember becoming angry at news stories about people who challenged that explanation. However, in the Spring of 2006, I saw the documentary, Loose Change, on the Internet. Although not an entirely objective documentary, it raised many serious and disturbing questions about the events of 9/11 that I had previously simply accepted without much critical thought.

And so I began a several month period of researching the events of 9/11. I found a great deal of material challenging the 9/11 Commission Report on websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and many others. I attended a lecture by David Ray Griffin. I learned much about what has become known as the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Much of the information and most of the rather limited media coverage about the 9/11 Truth Movement focuses on a handful of college professors, such as: David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, James Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, William Woodward, and A.K. Dewdney. In August 2006, I began searching for statements about 9/11 by senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials. Because of their experience in intelligence gathering, espionage, terrorism, and covert military operations, I felt their opinions about 9/11 would be valuable. I was surprised by the amount of their criticism of the official account of 9/11 that I found scattered around the Internet. I had learned of virtually none of this criticism through newspapers, television, or radio news sources.

I feel this criticism by experienced professionals is extremely important and that it has been seriously under-reported. This website was launched in September 2006 in an effort to provide an easily accessible reference collection of their public statements.

I continued my research and found that many more than just a handful of professors had publicly questioned the official account of 9/11. However most had received negligible media coverage. In January 2007, a new section of the website was launched that featured statements by over 100 professors.

I strongly desire to increase this collection of statements by responsible individuals who question the official account of 9/11. If you are aware of any similar statements made by 9/11 survivors or family members, or senior military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, government officials, or professors, engineers, architects, or pilots, I would greatly appreciate knowing about them. Please contact me at alan.miller (at) PatriotsQuestion911 (dot) com. Additionally, if you find any errors in this material, please let me know.

I don’t claim to know what really happened on 9/11. I cannot examine the facts of the matter first hand. And I don’t have the experience to know what’s possible and what is unlikely regarding terrorist activities or military operations. For that analysis, I need to rely on experts. I greatly value these individuals’ statements because many of the government employees have spent large portions of their careers studying espionage, terrorism, and military operations throughout the world and personally planned and carried out United States’ military and intelligence activities. I also greatly value the statements by the professors who have devoted their careers to understanding and teaching the truth about a wide variety of subjects.

My objective, at this point, is to have our government launch a new, extremely thorough, independent, and totally impartial re-examination of the terrible acts of 9/11 and the events leading up to them. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the above listed experienced individuals, the current 9/11 Commission Report is seriously inadequate in explaining what really happened.

I also want to acknowledge that none of the information on this website is the result of any original investigation on my part. I have merely researched and compiled public information available on the Internet. I want to thank those in the 9/11 Truth Movement for their efforts over the last five years in conducting a great deal of research and for keeping the Movement alive in the face of both ridicule and indifference.

Demand a New 9/11 Investigation!

9/11 is the most important event in American history since December 7, 1941, when Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbor. The magnitude of the impact of 9/11 on America and the rest of the world cannot be overstated. The terrible acts of 9/11 and the events leading up to them deserve a thorough, independent and unimpeachable investigation. And if some rogue element within the U.S. government is responsible for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, as several of these individuals allege, it is critical that that be disclosed and forcefully dealt with.

For the sake of those who died on 9/11, their families, the American people, and for the sake of peace in the world, please continue to seek the truth about 9/11. Demand a thorough and impartial reinvestigation of 9/11.

Lastly, I’d like to share with you some pertinent quotes from Teddy Roosevelt and Mark Twain.

«Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.» – Teddy Roosevelt

«To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.» – Teddy Roosevelt

«Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.» – Mark Twain

«In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.» – Mark Twain

Sincerely,

Alan Miller

911 Groups

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth: «Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.»

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are a non-partisan association of Architects, Engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the ‘collapses’ of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01.

The Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001.

The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations.

The Norwegian 9/11 Press Conference Group Association Statement: «The Norwegian 911 Press Conference Group was established on a private initiative in January 2007 almost as an emergency solution to what we perceived as a systematic unwillingness by the Norwegian mainstream media to present, discuss and analyze a wealth of indisputable facts that each indicated or proved that the terrorist attack in USA on 11. September 2001 must have been an inside job. With ‘inside job’ we mean that a network of persons from the top echelons of the American Establishment, administration, government and intelligence planned, directed and executed the terrorist act.»

LINKS TO 9/11 RESOURCES

A wealth of information about 9/11 is available on the Internet and in books and videos. I cannot list them all. However, the following links are good places to begin looking for information.

9/11 Truth Movement Sites

911Truth.org

9/11Blogger.com

Physics911.net

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Complete 9/11 Timeline

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

9/11 Information Center

Killtown

9/11Proof.com

Veterans for 9/11 Truth

Nineeleven.co.uk

9/11 Truth Videos

9/11: Press for Truth

Loose Change

9/11 Mysteries

David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 The Myth and the Reality

9-11 Ripple Effect

Painful Deceptions

911revisited

911 Eyewitness

Improbable Collapse

9/11 Commission Report and Defenders

9-11Commission.gov

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Popular Mechanics

9/11 Families

WTC United Family Group

Families of September 11

September 11th Families Association

Peaceful Tomorrows

9/11 Truth Petitions

New York City Ballot Initiative for a New 9/11 Investigation

War Is Illegal Petition

Architects and Engineers Petition for a New 9/11 Investigation

Prominent Americans and 9/11 Family Members for a New 9/11 Investigation

Petition for the Release of CIA Documents Pertaining to 9/11

Petition For An Independent International Truth Commission On 9/11

Justice for 9/11 Petition for a New 9/11 Investigation

Citizens Request for the FBI to Review 9-11

Scholars Petition for Release of 9/11 Information

Posted in 911 | Leave a Comment »

Every War is Preceded by a Big Media Lie

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 24, 2008

Today, Bush threats Venezuela and Ecuador. Tomorrow, Iran? And after that, who’s next? With, as the puppet, President Uribe, drug dealer and Indians slaughterer (four millions refugees). This one Uribe pretends that proofs of Chavez support to terrorism and militarization of the region have been found in the indestructible Raul Reyes’s (FARC) computer. Mainstream newspaper reflect this propaganda campaign for the next Bush’s war. Let’s recall how many times USA and those same medias have manipulated us. Every major war is ‘justified’ by what will appear as disinformation, short list :

1. VIETNAM (1964-1975) :

– MEDIA LIE : August 2 and 3 (1964), North Vietnam forces are accused by US government of attacks against two US military ship in the Tonkin Bay.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER ON : No ships have been ever attacked. That was a White House’s pure invention.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : To impeach Vietnam independence and to maintain the US domination in this region.

– CONSEQUENCES : Millions of victims, genetic malformations (Orange Agent), massive social problems.

2. GRENADA (1983) :

– MEDIA LIE : The small Caribbean island is accused to install a Soviet military base and to attend to the life of US doctors.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER ON : Completely false. US president Reagan invented all of that from scratch.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : To impeach socials and democratic reforms of the Prime minister, Bishop (who was murdered). Reagan said ‘We cannot allow communist apaches to take over our private garden…’

– CONSEQUENCES : US Marines invasion, brutal oppression et restoration of Washington control over the country.

3. PANAMA (1989) :

– MEDIA LIE : The US marines invasion was setup to arrest president Noriega accused to be a drug dealer.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER : CIA agent, Noriega claimed Panama Channel sovereignty at the end of the lease. Unacceptable for USA.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : To maintain US control over this strategic communication way.

– CONSEQUENCES : US bombing killed from 2 to 4000 civilians, ignored by medias.

4. IRAQ (1991) :

– MEDIA LIE : Iraqis stoled incubators in Kuwait-city maternities.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER: Total invention produced by Hill & Knowlton advertising agency, paid by the Emir of Kuwait himself.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : To impeach middle-east to gain independence against USA domination and to maintain Israel military control over the region.

– CONSEQUENCES : Uncountable amount of victims during the war, followed by a long embargo, medication included.

5. SOMALIA (1993) :

– MEDIALIE : Mister Kouchner presents himself as a hero of a humanitarian campaign in Somalia.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER: Four US companies had bought a quarter of Somalia underground, rich of oil.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : To control a military strategic region.

– CONSEQUENCES : Unable to control Somalia, USA maintains the country in a total chaos.

6. BOSNIA (1992 – 1995) :

– MEDIA LIE : US Firm Ruder Finn and Bernard Kouchner denounced so called ‘Serb’s extermination camps’.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER : Ruder Finn and Kouchner lied. Those camps were for war prisoners ready for exchange. Muslim Bosnian President Itzebegovic admitted it.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : To destroy the socialist Yugoslavia, its social coverage system, to submit the area under multinationals control, to control strategic Danube river and balkanises roads.

– CONSEQUENCES : Four years of terrifying war for all nationalities (Bosnians, Serbs and Croats). Provoked by Berlin, prolonged by Washington.

7. YUGOSLAVIA (1999) :

– MEDIA LIE : Kosovo’s Albanese were genocided by the Serbs.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER : Pure invention as admitted by Jamie Shea, official NATO speaker.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : To impose NATO control over the Balkans and its transformation as the World Wide Police Force. To install US military base in Kosovo.

– CONSEQUENCES : 2000 victims of NATO bombing. Ethnic cleaning of Kosovo by UCK covered by NATO.

8. AFGHANISTAN (2001) :

– MEDIA LIE : Bush wanted to take revenge after 9/11 and to capture Bin Laden.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER : There is no proof of the existence of the Al-Qaida organisation. Anyway, Taliban had proposed to extradite Bin Laden.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : To military control this strategic Asian region, to build a pipe line across Afghanistan to control energy supply of South Asia.

– CONSEQUENCES : Long term occupation and massive increase of opium production and traffic.

9. IRAQ (2003) :

– MEDIA LIE : Saddam has dangerous massive destruction weapons, stated Colin Powel at UNO, test tube in his hand.

– WHAT WE’VE LEARNED LATER: White House imposed to its services to falsify (Libby case) or to create false reports.

– REAL OBJECTIVE : All oil resources control and possibilities to blackmails rivals : Europe, Japan, China…

– CONSEQUENCES : Iraq in chaos and civil war, women conditions back to submission and obscurantism.

10 VENEZUELA – ECUADOR – (2008 ?) :

– MEDIA LIE : Chavez supports terrorism, imports weapons, is a dictator (Final pretext has not been chosen yet).

– WHAT WE’VE ALREADY LEARNED : Many medialies have been already downplayed : Chavez shooting at his people, Chavez anti-Semite, Chavez militarist… The game continues…

– REAL OBJECTIVE : US major companies wants to keep control over the continental oil and others resources. They are afraid of the democratic and social liberation of Latin American.

– CONSEQUENCES : Washington leads a global war against the entire south continent: putsches, economical sabotages, blackmails, installation of US military bases next to the natural resources…

CONCLUSION:

Anyway, every war is preceded and justified by a massive media lies campaign. And our inventory is far to be complete! To impeach wars is to denounce those media lies the sooner as possible and in the largest way. Thanks for circulating this article, for translating it into other languages if possible (available in French, a Spanish version is coming soon) and to sending us the translation. In the news war, you are the real force!

MICHEL COLLON

The Revolution will not be Televised:

Irsk dokumentar om kuppforsøket mot Chavez i Venezuela i april 2002

Posted in USA | Leave a Comment »

Ban on Cluster Bombs

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 23, 2008

About 560 delegates from around 122 nations and non-governmental organisations are convening today in Dublin (Ireland) for a 12-day conference aimed to clinch an international treaty that will outlaw the use, production and stockpiling of cluster bombs by its signatories and to clinch a global ban on cluster munitions.

More than half of the 76 states in the world that stockpile cluster munitions are taking part in the negotiations, along with a majority of the weapon producers, although some like Germany, France Italy and Japan want a transitional period first. However, the three biggest producers of cluster bombs; the United States, historically the world’s largest producer, stockpiler and user of cluster bombs, Russia and China, together with Israel, India, and Pakistan, oppose ban proposals and have veto power on the U.N. Security Council. None of the three is represented at the talks in Dublin.

The objective, ambitious due to the obstacles posed by nations that produce and use what the Pope yesterday defined as “deadly weapons”, is to draw up a binding ban in the example of the Ottawa Treaty adopted in 1997 for the banning of anti-personnel landmines.

Washington says the weapons have an important military use, although it wants their use regulated. The United States favors U.N.-organized talks in Geneva that seek nonbinding rules for using cluster bombs and cleaning up their consequences.

More than 100 countries are taking part in the talks. Delegates will point out that the vast majority of cluster bomb victims are non-combatants. Opponents of the weapon received the backing yesterday of Pope Benedict XVI, who called for a “strong and credible” treaty to end their use.

The two sets of weapons at the heart of the argument are the M85 and the M73, munitions fired, respectively, by artillery and rockets. British officials claim these are “smart” weapons which minimise the risk of “collateral damage” and are essential for military operations. The M85 is meant to self destruct and not pose a lingering threat to civilians. However, according to the United Nations, 300 civilians were killed or injured in Lebanon, where Israel used the weapons in 2006.

An Apache helicopter can launch 684 M73 bomblets in one attack. They were used by the Americans in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Their use was criticised by US forces, who had to negotiate unexploded cluster munitions on their way to Baghdad. The first two British soldiers killed in Kosovo were casualties of Nato cluster bombs they had been trying to clear. Senior Foreign Office sources said the UK was not prepared to give up the M73 and the system was “non-negotiable”. There was said to be flexibility over the M85, but the Ministry of Defence is expected to resist losing them.

Cluster munitions are large weapons that contain dozens or hundreds of smaller submunitions. They cause unacceptable humanitarian harm in two ways. First, their broad area effect kills and injures civilians during strikes. Second, many submunitions do not explode, becoming de facto landmines that cause civilian casualties for months or years to come. Four out of every ten people killed or injured by cluster bombs are children.

Cluster bombs are built to explode above the ground, releasing thousands of bomblets primed to detonate on impact. But combat statistics show between 10 percent and 40 percent fail to go off and lie primed in the target area to kill and injure civilians.

Cluster munitions include a variety of weapons that can spread up to hundreds of bomblets over a target area. Up to 30 percent fail to explode, posing a threat to civilians for many years after a conflict.

The International Committee of the Red Cross says some 400 million people in countries and regions like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Russia’s Chechnya live in effective minefields, under daily threat of maiming from cluster bombs.

Other campaigners say at least 13,000 civilians are known to have been killed or injured by the bombs — used heavily most recently by Israel in its 2006 war against Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon — in recent years.

UNICEF deputy executive director Hilde Frafjord Johnson, speaking on behalf of 14 United Nations entities that form the United Nations Mine Action Team, said the UN wanted cluster bombs banned. She said the weapons had a horrendous humanitarian, development and human rights impact.

Ms Johnson said the extensive use of cluster munitions in southern Lebanon in 2006 was a tragic reminder of how they caused death and serious injury of civilians. “Sometimes, the presence of unexploded sub-munitions forced populations out of their homes and prevented those already displaced from returning home to rebuild their lives and communities.”

Pressure groups have battled for a decade to ban the bombs, because the small bomblets dropped on airfields and enemy tanks do not always explode during wartime and have been blamed for killing and maiming civilians later.

Cluster bombs are fired by cannon or dropped from aircraft and release hundreds of smaller bomblets in the air that are supposed to explode upon impact. In Israel’s 2006 war against the Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, the bomblets’ failure rate was around 30 to 40 percent, and the United Nations said up to a million unexploded bomblets were left after hostilities ceased.

It is claimed that at least 18 civilians have been killed and 136 wounded in Lebanon by unexploded bomblets since the August 14, 2006 ceasefire in the 2006 Lebanon War.[21] In August 2006, the UN’s Mine Action Coordination Center in Tyre, Lebanon, raised an alarm over the post-conflict impact on returning civilians of unexploded cluster bombs allegedly used by Israel against Hezbollah occupied village staging areas.[22]

Israel immediately after the cease-fire gave the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) maps indicating the likely locations of unexploded ordnance, to aid the international attempt to clear these areas and avoid injury to the population. However, these maps only showed the general location of unexploded ordnance and were not useful for systematic clearance of areas contaminated by cluster munitions. Immediately after the ceasefire, Israel distributed warning notices to the residents in the areas of warfare, and recommended that they wait a few days before returning to the south until the UNIFIL forces cleared the area of unexploded ordnance. Clearance experts have estimated that it will take 12-18 months to remove the immediate threat from unexploded ordnance from southern Lebanon.

In Vietnam, people are still being killed as a result of cluster bombs and other objects left by the US and South Vietnamese military forces. Estimates range up to 300 people for every year.[19] In post-war Kosovo unexploded cluster bomblets caused more civilian deaths than landmines.[20]

The international negotiations in Dublin, to conclude on May 30, are part of the so-called Oslo process, that begun in February 2007 in Oslo, where convoked by Norway some 46 nations, including Britain and Italy, approved a joint statement calling for a ban, as of 2008, on the “use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster bombs. In the three previous conferences, held in Lima, Vienna and Wellington, the participants drew up a proposal to be presented in Dublin and submitted to a vote in Oslo in December.

“It will be the biggest disarmament and humanitarian treaty to be signed in more than a decade”, said Thomas Nash, coordinator of the international Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC). Some nations, including France, South Africa, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan and Great Britain, are seeking the amendment of an article that aims to ban the participation of states that use cluster bombs in joint military operations; the US alone in its stockpiles, according to the CMC, has an estimated between 700 and 800-million of these ordnances, which in 60 % of cases the victims are children.

Each bomb can contain up to 650 submunitions that based on reliable studies have a dispersal of several hundreds of meters, while in 40 % of cases they remain unexploded and ready to detonate.

Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday called on governments to adopt an international convention banning the use of cluster munitions, on the eve of the conference on the issue in Dublin.

The pope spoke during a visit to the northern Italian city of Genoa, ahead of Monday’s opening of a 12-day conference aimed at sealing an international treaty banning their use.

“I hope that thanks to the responsibility of all participants we will get a strong and credible international instrument” to ban the weapons, he said during Angelus prayers in one of the city’s square. “We have to remedy the errors of the past and avoid their repetition in the future,” he added.

Pope Benedict prayed for the victims of cluster munitions and for their families, pointing out that some of those directly affected by the weapons would attend the Dublin conference.

In Ireland, the country’s Catholic bishops, have called on the Government to ban the use and promotion of cluster bombs.

The Catholic organisation Pax Christi has expressed surprise that such legislation has not already been enacted. The comments come on the eve of the international meeting in Dublin which it is hoped will spearhead the negotiation of a global ban on the highly controversial munitions. Meanwhile, the Irish Commission for Justice and Social Affairs and Trócaire have also called on the Irish Government to pass laws banning cluster bombs.

A senior U.S. official said Wednesday that a proposed treaty banning cluster bombs would hurt world security and endanger U.S. military cooperation on humanitarian work with countries that sign the accord.

American officials are frantically warning their allies not to sign the treaty as it now stands, because it would undermine Nato and criminalise British soldiers who fight alongside them. Under the terms of the so-called Oslo process, any member of the military fighting alongside a country like the US, which refused to join the treaty, must face “criminal penalties”.

A senior state department warned that under the treaty, British frontline troops who call in artillery support or air strikes from an American warplane, all of which carry cluster munitions, could be hauled into court. The treaty could also lead to further overstretch of British forces, because the UK would have to deploy its own air cover instead of relying on the US Air Force.

British soldiers fighting alongside American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would face criminal prosecution if the government goes ahead with plans to sign a treaty limiting the use of cluster bombs, senior US diplomats have warned. Mr Brown has already irritated the White House by keeping his distance diplomatically and reducing British troop numbers in Iraq.

The British Government is accused of being the chief obstacle to the signing of a treaty to ban cluster bombs, which have maimed and killed thousands of civilians worldwide. Countries that have suffered the impact of the bombs, humanitarian groups and former commanders of British forces have called for the UK to drop its insistence on retaining cluster munitions, a stance, they say, that is likely to scupper hopes of securing an agreement at the international conference.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials said yesterday that the British negotiators would be seeking exceptions from the ban for certain weapons: the M73 fired from rockets on a helicopter, each containing nine sub-munitions, and the M85, delivered by artillery shells, each containing 49 sub-munitions. Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, which is campaigning for the total ban, said that any attempts to water down the treaty should be rejected completely.

Campaigners say the Government must live up to Gordon Brown’s promise last year “to work internationally for a ban” on weapons that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. “Insisting on keeping some weapons and saying they are not negotiable is a deal breaker,” said Simon Conway, a former British Army soldier who is director of the pressure group Landmine Action. “The position of the UK is a huge stumbling block to achieving a comprehensive treaty. Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, has told me himself that he did not believe the M73 was appropriate for counter-insurgency operations.”

Stephen Mull, an assistant secretary of state, briefed reporters at the State Department to explain why the United States was not attending a gathering in Ireland of representatives of more than 100 nations working on a treaty to ban the bombs blamed for killing or maiming civilians as their minibombs explode months or years after they are dropped.

That sort of language has the US government concerned. Two senior American diplomats told The Sunday Telegraph that they are worried Gordon Brown will cave in to demands from campaigners, many of whom are based in London, to sign the treaty even if they cannot get the details changed. “We anticipate that the UK will be under the most public pressure of any country in Europe,” the senior diplomat said.

Britain has already angered campaigners by insisting that the armed forces will continue to use a limited range of modern cluster munitions, which leave fewer of the unexploded bomblets that kill children. That leaves ministers even less room for manoeuvre.

Critics see parallels with the way the Labour government has approached negotiations in Brussels, vowing to water down unappealing legislation but then zealously enforcing it at home. When Britain signed up to the International Criminal Court, Labour passed war crimes legislation in the UK, which was then used to prosecute frontline soldiers in Iraq, to the fury of many in the military. In this case the government would again have to pass laws that could put its own soldiers in the dock.

Patrick Mercer, the former Tory security spokesman, said: “The spectacle, yet again, of our fighting men being hauled into court is unacceptable. The practicalities of fighting alongside our allies are difficult enough already. If we sign and many of those on the frontline with us don’t, this is going to erode our troops’ fighting confidence even further.” Other Nato countries like Greece, Turkey and Croatia have also refused to join the so-called Oslo process, meaning Britain would face complications fighting with them too.

There is no guarantee that Britain will be able to change the treaty. The UK is one of just 20 nations, including France, Australia, Japan and Canada, that want aspects of it changed – and more than 40 votes against a draft would be needed to block the two thirds majority that could adopt it. If Britain fails to get its way the government will have no option but to sign or leave the conference, something they have said they would not do.

American officials say they are not taking part in the Oslo process because military rivals like Russia and China have refused to sign. The US instead wants cluster bombs included in a worldwide treaty on conventional arms which would include all the major military powers.

Thomas Nash, the coordinator of the Cluster Munitions Coalition, which wants a total ban, said that the whole point of the treaty is to “stigmatise” the use of cluster munitions and those who cooperate with countries that use them.

“It is an established concept of law that if something is a crime, helping someone do it is also a crime. We want the UK government to ban cluster munitions and British forces to not do anything at all to encourage, induce or assist in their use. If that means UK troops have to curtail some of their activities with the US, that’s what will have to happen.”

He said he expected Britain to pass laws that limit the individual criminal responsibility of soldiers if they unknowingly participated in a cluster attack. But he added: “If a British soldier was embedded with US forces and has to press the button on a cluster bomb, that’s a problem.”

Mull, acting assistant secretary for political-military affairs, said a draft of the treaty would criminalize military cooperation with the United States or other countries that have cluster bombs and do not sign the document.

That would hinder humanitarian work of the type the United States is involved in now in Myanmar and China, he said. American warships and planes often are used to respond to earthquakes, typhoons, cyclones and other disasters around the world.

“This would have very grave implications,” Mull said. “With one stroke, any country that signs the convention as it is now and ratifies it, in effect would make it impossible for the United States or any of our other allies who rely on these weapons to participate in these humanitarian exercises.”

Mull said it is crucial for the U.S. military to be able to respond to humanitarian disasters quickly and with as few impediments as possible.

A critic of the U.S. position, Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, said in a telephone interview from Dublin that it was outrageous for Mull to link U.S. military humanitarian work with the United States’ “failed policy on cluster munitions.”

Mark Hiznay, senior researcher in Human Rights Watch’s arms division, said from Dublin that it is premature for the United States to criticize a treaty that is still being negotiated.

“There are a lot of countries here trying to solve the problem,” Hiznay said, including many that produce and use cluster bombs. “If the United States was really very concerned about it, they’d be here in Dublin standing up for their interests; they’re not.”

The negotiations in Ireland, begun in Norway last year, seek to impose maximum restrictions on cluster bomb manufacturing, sales and storage. But myriad arguments loom over defining what a cluster bomb is and whether to exempt the most technologically reliable or precise systems.

There are said to be divisions within the Government over the Dublin summit. Lord Malloch Brown, Foreign Office minister for Africa, Asia and the UN, is reported to have said he would be “uncomfortable” about a compromise that leaves some cluster bombs in the UK arsenal. The Environment Secretary, Hillary Benn, favours an overall ban.

Some of the most senior British former generals and Nato commanders urged the government yesterday to agree to a total ban on cluster bombs, describing them as “inaccurate and unreliable.”

Lord Ramsbotham, a fomer British Army general and chief inspector of prisons, is among a number of distinguished senior officers, including General Sir Rupert Smith, General Patrick Cordingley and Field Marshal Lord Brammall, who have asked the Government to sign the treaty. Lord Ramsbotham, who flew to Afghanistan yesterday as part of a parliamentary delegation, said: “I am going to ask the commanders there whether they intend to use cluster weapons and I would be very surprised if the answer is ‘yes’. There are moral objections to using cluster munitions, but tactical ones as well. They were designed to stop Soviet armour in the Cold War. There is no place for them in the type of warfare we are seeing now.”

The nine former commanders, including Field Marshal Lord Bramall, ex-Chief of the Defence Staff, General Lord Ramsbotham, a former Adjutant-General, General Sir Rupert Smith, who commanded the 1st Armoured Division in the 1991 Gulf War, and General Sir Michael Rose, a former Director Special Forces, declared: “If we are to be accepted as legitimate users of force then we must demonstrate our determination to employ that force only in the most responsible and accountable way.”

Amnesty opposed the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International spokeswoman Margaret Taylor said any declaration that fell short of calling for a complete ban on the destructive weapons would be a failure. Ms Taylor said cluster bombs, which could be fired, launched or dropped by aircraft or artillery, were more lethal than landmines yet there was no international treaty on their use.

Simon Conway, director of Landmine Action, said: “If Britain is to be a force for good in the world, the Government should totally ban these weapons – no exemptions, no loopholes.”

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), concluded at Geneva on October 10, 1980 and entered into force in December 1983, seeks to prohibit or restrict the use of certain conventional weapons which are considered excessively injurious or whose effects are indiscriminates.

The CCW consist of a set of additional protocols first formulated on October 10, 1980, in Geneva and entered into force on December 2, 1983. As of February 2008, there were 106 signatories and 106 state parties to the convention. Some of those countries (including the United States) have only adopted two of the five protocols, the minimum required to be considered a signatory.

The convention has five protocols:

· Protocol I restricts fragmentation weapons

· Protocol II restricts landmines

· Protocol III restricts incendiary weapons

· Protocol IV restricts blinding laser weapons (adopted on October 13, 1995, in Vienna)

· Protocol V sets out obligations and best practice for the clearance of explosive remnants of war, adopted on November 28, 2003 in Geneva [1]

The aim of the Convention and its Protocols is to provide new rules for the protection of military personnel and, particularly, civilians and civilian objects from injury or attack under various conditions by means of fragments that cannot readily be detected in the human body by X-rays, landmines and booby traps, and incendiary weapons and blinding laser weapons.

CCW along with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) serves as an umbrella for protocols dealing with specific weapons. The Convention and its annexed Protocols apply in the situations common to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, including any situation described in Additional Protocol I and Protocol II to these Conventions.

CCW lacks verification and enforcement mechanisms and spells out no formal process for resolving compliance concerns. A state-party can refute its commitment to the convention or any of the protocols, but it will remain legally bound until one year after notifying the treaty depositary, the UN Secretary-General, of its intent to be free of its obligations.

Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War regulates the clearance of AXO (abandoned explosive ordnance) and UXO (unexploded ordnance), such as unexploded fragments of cluster bombs. Countries such as Laos (following the Vietnam War) and Lebanon (following the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) are heavily contaminated by unexploded cluster bombs.

Areas with significant unexploded cluster bomb submunitions:

· Nagorno Karabakh

· Lebanon

· Indochina (especially in Laos and central Vietnam’s former demilitarized zone).

· Kosovo

· Afghanistan

· Iraq

· Western Sahara

Countries that have been affected by cluster munitions include:

Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Montenegro, Pakistan, Russia (Chechnya), Saudi Arabia, Serbia (including Kosovo), Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Vietnam, and Western Sahara

Cluster Bomb Ban News – Military Industry Today

Cluster Bombs — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress

HRW: Documents on Cluster Bombs

Why Ban Cluster Bombs?

Cluster Munition Coalition

Campaign the Singapore Government to Stop Producing Cluster Bombs

Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW)

Cluster bombs protest in Dublin

Cluster Bomb Protest In Dublin

Lie-down protest targets cluster bombs

Street protest gives public taste of cluster bomb hell

Make it Happen Protest March

Children protest over cluster bombs

Posted in Militærindustrielle kompleks | Leave a Comment »

Spørsmål om uranammunisjon

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 23, 2008

Internasjonal Kvinneliga for Fred og Frihet (IKFF) avdeling Bergen har samarbeidet med ”International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons” siden 2005 for å få til et forbud mot utarmet uran (DU).  Vi arrangerte et seminar om dette tema i Oslo 5. april 2008 der det ble  vedtatt å sende brev til Forsvarsdepartementet med oppfordring om følgende tiltak:

1. Vi ber Forsvarsdepartementet om å sette i verk en ny medisinsk undersøkelse for å kartlegge både fysiske og psykiske skader hos de ca 13 000 norske veteranene og soldatene som har vært og er i områder der DU har blitt brukt.

2. Vi ber om at de soldatene som blir sendt til krigssoner i dag blir testet

for DU i urinen, før og etter tjeneste ute.

3. Vi ber om at det bevilges penger til og opprettes en forskerstilling ved Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt (FFI) som skal undersøke helseeffekten av indre lavdosestråling fra menneskeskapte radioaktive isotoper, og fra bearbeidde naturlige isotoper (eks. DU).

4. Vi ber om at det snarest blir laget en rapport om helseeffekten av våpen og ammunisjon som inneholder DU, og om Norges syn på dette, som skal sendes til FN for behandling i den 63. Generalforsamling til høsten.

Punktvis begrunnelse for våre anmodninger:

1. Av de 5500 norske soldatene som deltok i Bosnia/Kroatia fra 1995 til 2004 har noen fått kreft i ettertid, som de selv tror kan ha sammenheng med oppholdet i krigssonene. Bergens Tidende hadde 1. oktober 2007 et intervju med Oddvar Haugsdal som var alvorlig syk av beinmargskreft og han trodde at sykdommen hadde sammenheng med et 15 måneders oppdrag i Bosnia i 1998 og 1999, i områder der det var blitt brukt uranammunisjon. Han refererte til seks andre som hadde fått leukemi etter oppdrag i Bosnia, og tre av disse var allerede døde.

2. Oddvar Haugsdal døde i desember 2007. I intervjuet ba han Forsvaret om å gjennomføre en ny undersøkelse av alle norske veteraner som har vært i krigssoner. Undersøkelsen i 2001 som ble gjennomført for kort tid etter at mange av de norske tjenestegjorde i Bosnia, var for mangelfull og ga bare et øyeblikksbilde. Kreft og andre sykdommer utvikler seg over mange år. Derfor bør det komme en ny undersøkelse nå. Bergens Tidende hadde i januar og februar 2008 reportasjer om UNIKOM 1 som ble sendt til Irak i 1991, og intervjuet 46 av de 67 deltakerne i gruppen. Det kom fram at flere i gruppen hadde fysiske og psykiske symptom som lignet på ”Golfkrigsyndromet”. De fleste opplevde å ikke ha blitt fulgt opp av Forsvaret.

3. Soldatene Norge sender til Afghanistan kan komme til områder der uranammunisjon har blitt brukt. Derfor bør også disse undersøkes og følges opp med regelmessig helsesjekk. Blant annet bør urannivået i urinen måles før og etter endt tjeneste.

4. Vi har blitt gjort oppmerksom på fra kompetent hold at det i dag ikke finnes kompetanse i Forsvaret på helsekonsekvensene av radioaktive stoff som sivile og soldater får inn i kroppen gjennom mat, drikke og innånding. Vi vet at dette skjer i moderne kriger som Norge deltar i, og vi trenger å utvikle fagmiljø som kan hjelpe Forsvaret med å håndtere problemene.

5. I desember 2007 ble det stemt over en resolusjon i FNs generalforsamling der man ba alle medlemsland om å legge fram informasjon om helseskadene etter bruk av DU for Generalsekretæren. Man vil deretter lage en rapport som skal legges fram på FNs neste Generalforsamling i 2008. Det var Indonesia som tok opp dette på vegne av ”the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries”. Dette ble vedtatt med 136 stemmer mot fem. 36 land avholdt seg fra å stemme, blant disse var Norge. Vi viser til uttalelser i brev fra Forsvarsdepartementet til oss fra 9. mars 2007 hvor det heter: ” La meg understreke at Regjeringen tar den uro som fortsatt finnes rundt bruken av ammunisjon med utarmet uran, med stort alvor.[…] Departementet vil imidlertid fortsatt følge nøye med i saken. Vi vil følge opp eventuelle nye opplysninger som skulle fremkomme.” Vi mener at å bidra til at bruken av DU i ammunisjon og våpen blir diskutert i FNs Generalforsamling er en god og riktig måte for den norske Regjering å vise dette store alvoret på. Den offisielle fristen for innsending er slutten av mai 2008, men rapporten kan taes imot fram til juli. IKFF håper derfor at et kompetent utvalg alt er godt i gang med arbeidet. Vi ber om en orientering om denne saken og spør om det er mulig for oss å bidra, eventuelt å få sendt over rapporten på høring?

IKFF er uenig i Regjeringens uttalelse om at det ikke har vært mulig å påvise negative helsekonsekvenser etter bruk av ammunisjon med utarmet uran. Vi kan vise til rapporter fra Italia hvor 90 veteraner etter oppdrag i Bosnia og Kroatia har dødd av leukemi, og ca fire hundre er syke. De vant fram i retten og fikk medhold i at DU har vært medvirkende årsak til sykdommen. Alle syke og de pårørende til de døde har fått erstatning. Vi viser også til vårt brev til departementet av 13. februar 2007. For utfyllende info om dette tema anbefales: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/178.html

Med dette forventer vi en realitetsorientert saksbehandling med et snarlig svar.

Vennlig hilsen

Dagmar K Sørbøe, lege Eva Fidjestøl, kjernefysiker Susanne Urban, arkitekt

leder IKFF Norge faglig ansvarlig leder IKFF avd Bergen

Vedlegg: Eva Fidjestøl: Uranian Weapons, WILPF Norway 2007

Kopi sendt til: Utenriksdepartementet, Miljøverndepartementet, Kunnskapsdepartementet

Stortinget v/Forsvarskomiteen, Utenrikskomiteen, Energi- og miljøkomiteen, Helse- og omsorgskomiteen, SIOPS – FN-Veteranforening for skadde i internasjonale operasjoner

http://www.ikff.no

http://www.wilpf.int.ch

http://www.peacewomen.org

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org

Siste nytt:

The European Parliament has passed its fourth and most far-reaching resolution yet against the use of uranium weapons. MEPs have called for an EU and NATO-wide moratorium and global ban.

The resolution reflects an increasingly outspoken position from the European Parliament on the issue of uranium weapons. It begins with a call for EU member states to submit reports on DU to the UN Secretary General in line with last year’s General Assembly resolution and classifies DU along with cluster bombs and landmines as inhumane. In response to the wealth of new information on DU’s threat to health, it then requests that the European Council and Commission launch studies into areas where DU has been used.

It calls for a halt to the deployment of military and civilian personnel in areas where DU has been used and urges member states to provide information on DU hazards to service personnel and civilian organisations.

The resolution goes on to request that an environmental inventory recording the use of uranium weapons is set up and that a financial mechanism is put in place for victim assistance in contaminated areas.

EU and NATO member states are finally urged to impose a moratorium on DU’s use and to redouble efforts that may lead to a global ban. Moreover it calls on the EU to take a lead in working towards this goal if a link is made between uranium weapons and ill health is proved.

The resolution was proposed by the Greens/European Free Alliance. ICBUW acted in an advisory role during the drafting of the text.

The outcome of the vote:

Total votes 521.

In favour: 491

Against: 18

Abstentions: 12

Posted in Militærindustrielle kompleks | Leave a Comment »

An Antidote to Bush's Increasingly Deranged Pronouncements

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 23, 2008

INTERVIEWER: If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?

GEORGE BUSH: «Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened… The biggest issue we face is, it’s bigger than Iraq, it’s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.»

An antidote to Bush’s increasingly deranged pronouncements is this wonderful tirade by Keith Olbermann, the presenter of MSNBC’s Countdown programme.

Will they never learn? War criminals are not wanted here. George Bush will visit Britain Between June 9 and 16. The last time he was here, in November 2003, it provoked one of the biggest mid-week demonstrations in British history, with up to 300,000 on London’s streets. Since then his war of terror has led to the loss of over a million lives and spread from Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan, Somalia and Kenya, with ever intensifying threats suggesting Iran is next.

When Condoleezza Rice visited in March 2006, it turned into a public relations disaster, with large demonstrations in Liverpool, Blackburn and everywhere else she went. Only last week the fanatical warmonger John Bolton, formerly Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations and vociferous advocate of an immediate attack on Iran, cancelled a planned visit to Bristol for fear of the anti-war demonstration that was planned to meet him.

We’re sure that everyone who has opposed George Bush’s war policies and the slavish support he has received from the British government will want to make their voice heard when this warmonger-in-chief visits the UK. Stop the War will of course aim to organise the largest possible protest against George Bush’s visit. More details to follow shortly.

Posted in USA | Leave a Comment »

Palestine: Fra Balfour til T. Blair

Posted by Fredsvenn den mai 23, 2008

En interessant video som dokumenterer britenes rolle vedrørende Israels kolonisering av Palestina og palestinernes fortsatte lidelse under Israels brutale okkupasjon fra Lord Balfour i 1917 til Tony Blair i 2008.

YouTube – Lebanon Israel Facts the Media Isn’t Telling You

YouTube – Gaza: The Killing Zone – Israel/Palestine

YouTube – Chomsky and Dershowitz debate Israel and …

YouTube – Apartheid Paradigm Palestine-Israel Noam Chomsky Annapolis

Boycott Israel Campaign! – Video : Free Palestine @ Youtube …

YouTube – Blair thinks he should be hanged over Iraq?

Posted in Israel/Palestina | Leave a Comment »