By JOHN SPIRI
Special to The Japan Times
In a September 2003 article for The Guardian newspaper, Michael Meacher, who served as Tony Blair's environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003, shocked the establishment by calling the global war on terrorism "bogus." Even more controversially, he implied that the U.S. government either allowed 9/11 to happen, or played some role in the destruction wrought that day. Besides Meacher, few politicians have publicly questioned America's official 9/11 narrative — until Diet member Yukihisa Fujita.
In January 2008 Fujita, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan, asked the Japanese Parliament and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to explain gaping holes in the official 9/11 story that various groups — including those who call themselves the "911 Truth Movement" — claim to have exposed.
Fujita, along with a growing number of individuals — including European and American politicians — are leading a charge to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Three or four years ago I saw some Internet videos like 'Loose Change' and '911 In Plane Site' and I began to ask questions," Fujita said in an interview, "but I still couldn't believe this was done by anyone but al-Qaida.
"Last year I watched more videos and read books written by professor David Ray Griffin (a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont Graduate University who wrote the most famous Truth Movement book, 'The New Pearl Harbor') about things such as the collapse of World Trade Center No. 7. This building, which was never hit by an airplane, collapsed straight down. Between the videos showing the way it fell, and the numerous reports of explosions, many are convinced that this building was demolished."
Fujita's presentation to the Diet and Fukuda focused a great deal on yet another aspect of 9/11 that now quite a few around the world find extremely suspicious: the Pentagon crash.
"I don't think (a) 767 could have hit the Pentagon," Fujita reckons. "There is no evidence of the plane itself. Almost nothing identifiable was left on the lawn or inside. The official story says the entire plane disintegrated, but the jet engines in particular were very strong (two 6-ton titanium steel turbine engines). And the damage to the building is much smaller than the size of the supposed airplane. The official claims just don't fit the facts."
While some label that claim "wacky" and label critics of the official 9/11 story "conspiracy theorists," Fujita has impressive company. For one, former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, who was commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security until 1984, is quoted on the "Patriots Question 911" Web site as saying, "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.'
"So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
Fujita urges the Bush administration to put the issue to rest simply by showing videos that show the plane that hit the Pentagon. Instead, only a few grainy images have been released to the public. More disconcertingly, many videos taken by surrounding businesses were confiscated by the FBI immediately after the Pentagon explosion.
The Pennsylvania crash, like the Pentagon explosion, also yielded virtually no recognizable plane parts at the crash site. Rather, small pieces of debris were found up to 10 km away. The official story — that the plane "vaporized" when it hit the ground — is inconsistent with the evidence left by every other plane crash in the history of aviation.
Plane crashes always yield plane fragments, Fujita explained, which can be identified by the plane's serial number, but that's not the case for the four planes which crashed on 9/11. Strangely, the U.S. government managed to produce passports and DNA samples of individuals killed, but no identifiable plane parts. In an online article entitled "Physics 911," 34-year U.S. Air Force veteran Col. George Nelson notes, "It seems . . . that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view."
Fujita has largely relied on the voluminous amount of video and written material published in books and on the Internet, including the "Patriots Question 911" site, on which hundreds of allegations are leveled against the official story by senior officials from the military, intelligence services, law enforcement, and government, as well as pilots, engineers, architects, firefighters and others.
While not many other Japanese have taken an interest in this story, a few notable individuals besides Fujita have disputed the U.S. government's version, including Akira Dojimaru, a Japanese writer living in Spain. In his book, written in Japanese, "The Anatomy of the WTC Collapses: Flaws in the U.S. Government's Account," he uses photos, drawings and blueprints of the WTC buildings to back up his claim that buildings one and two could not have fallen in the manner they fell due to the plane crashes and subsequent fires. "And even if it was conceivable that they could fall due to the damage that day," Dojimaru wrote in an e-mail, "they never would have collapsed horizontally, and would have scattered steel beams and smashed concrete much farther than 100 meters."
For Fujita, it was Dojimaru's meticulous research, combined with the aforementioned Web sites, that convinced him the official story was nothing more than a house of cards.
One book that Fujita found unconvincing was the "9/11 Commission Report."
"The head of the 9/11 Commission is close with (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice and (Vice President Dick) Cheney. One commission member (Sen. Max Cleland) resigned, saying the White House did not disclose enough information."
On Democracy Now's radio show in March 2004, Cleland even went as far as to say, "This White House wants to cover it (the facts of 9/11) up."
More recently, a New York Times article in January quoted Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, as saying that "the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives," and concluded that that "obstructed our investigation."
Following the lead of Fujita, Karen Johnson, a conservative Republican senator from Arizona, has publicly voiced her doubts about 9/11 before the U.S. Senate. Inspired by Blair Gadsby — who on May 27 started a hunger strike to bring attention to the 911 Truth Movement — Johnson, like Fujita, is encouraging politicians to conduct a thorough, independent investigation.
Fujita, who worked for more than 20 years for the international conflict resolution NGO group MRA and the Japanese Association for Aid and Relief (AAR), has become something of a global cause celebre since his extraordinary questioning at the Diet. In February 2008, he participated in a conference at the European Parliament led by EMP Guilietto Chiesa calling for an independent commission of inquiry into 9/11. While in Europe, he met with NGOs from 11 European countries to discuss 9/11.
One month later Fujita spoke at the "Truth Now" conference in Sydney, Australia. One focus of these meetings was the Italian documentary "ZERO," whose release will mark the first time the 9/11 movement's message has moved from the "cyberworld" to public venues. Fujita has also spoken about his 9/11 doubts on two U.S. radio shows, one hosted by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, and another by Alex Jones of infowars.com.
He is also making ripples in Japan. Fujita was featured in a March 2 article by well-known critic Takao Iwami on "How to deal with doubts about 9/11" in the Sunday Mainichi weekly. He was also featured in a March 26 Spa! magazine piece headlined, "European conference discusses 9/11 doubts."
However, not everyone is enthralled with Fujita's bold line of questioning.
"One person showed strong anger towards me," Fujita noted, "and another (Japanese person) threatened my life. A few others advised me to be extremely careful."
Still, Fujita says, the vast majority — around 95 percent — have been positive.
"One man said, 'You're a true samurai.' Another man came all the way from Okayama in western Japan to thank me personally. And among other Parliament members, I received only words of encouragement and support."
While in Europe, Fujita met British former MP Meacher, who dared to question the official story when it was still considered gospel. Time, the Iraq war and well-sourced online videos are emboldening many people, including politicians, to step out of the cyberworld and voice their doubts in newspapers, magazines, theaters, and — most importantly — government chambers.
"Now Blair is gone, and Bush will soon be gone," Meacher told Fujita. "Our time is coming."
Friday, 29 July 2011
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Hackergate is not a revolution
I've seen a lot of hyped up analysis in The Guardian about Hackergate, calling it a revolution. It goes like this - the crisis at News International is bringing down the Murdoch empire, politicians are losing the fear, the country is changed forever. Like the banking crisis of 2008, and the expenses scandal in Parliament a year later, this is another seismic shock to the British social order. Yeh, right. As my previous post on Public opinion vs People's Power tried to point out, there is a huge difference between a crisis within the establishment, and a revolution. It's quite simple really. The ruling elite - financial, political and media - may be hit by a crisis, such has happened to all three in recent years, but it does not become a revolution unless they are overthrown. And if they are overthrown by an establishment coup, that too does not really count as a revolution. But Britain has not had any of this. All three elements of the ruling elite are firmly in place, despite these crises. In each case, after a lot of hot air, the system closed ranks. Furthermore, the people, who are the only force able to carry out a revolution, have been absent from the scene. And unless the people do more than write angry emails, unless they get organised and take to the streets, as they have done across the Arab world, there can be no revolution. Revolutions do not happen in the pages of newspapers, not even on Facebook. Facebook and other social media can help facilitate revolution, but only action of people and groups from outside the ruling circles can make a revolution. David Cameron has remained calm throughout the News of the World scandal despite the attempts of Labour's Ed Miliband to act as if he is the author of this 'revolution'. Miliband is very far from the revolutionary standard bearer. The entire political class is implicated in the corruption of the political and economic system. The two major parties, and now the Lib Dems, are culpable for overseeing the various crises inflicted on us. The only time Cameron has looked nervous is when the people have spoken, taken to the streets or shown their anger - over student fees, public sector cuts, the NHS and forests. Then he has retreated, or tried to give the impression of retreating.
Each time the people take part in actions to show their anger at the actions of government and their allies in business or the media, then the establishment will get nervous. But it is not in the power of any politician or news organisation to say when that anger will come, and over what issue. Murdoch may fall, but that still leaves all the other news barons to fight over the scraps.
So far it is clear that people care about the things that affect them - like cuts to services, the rights of students to an education and the NHS. There is no reason to believe that Hackergate will be anything different from the other revolutions that did not happen - banking and expenses. The bankers got away with it - we bailed them out. The politicians are still there, apart from the three that were jailed. They say that the British don't do revolutions, and that has largely been the case. And this is no revolution. Come back in a year and see how much our media and politics have changed. That's the only test that matters.
Each time the people take part in actions to show their anger at the actions of government and their allies in business or the media, then the establishment will get nervous. But it is not in the power of any politician or news organisation to say when that anger will come, and over what issue. Murdoch may fall, but that still leaves all the other news barons to fight over the scraps.
So far it is clear that people care about the things that affect them - like cuts to services, the rights of students to an education and the NHS. There is no reason to believe that Hackergate will be anything different from the other revolutions that did not happen - banking and expenses. The bankers got away with it - we bailed them out. The politicians are still there, apart from the three that were jailed. They say that the British don't do revolutions, and that has largely been the case. And this is no revolution. Come back in a year and see how much our media and politics have changed. That's the only test that matters.
Friday, 15 July 2011
Phone tapping scandal - when the cover up ends
The phone tapping scandal may offer some hope to the patient supporters of 9/11 'Truth'. Phone hacking was allegedly dealt with by the 2006 police investigation. It uncovered a handful of cases - instead of the thousands now revealed - and only 1 journalist and 1 investigator were jailed. Now the leaders of the Murdoch empire are caught in a firestorm.
Comparing 9/11 with phone hacking may seen strange, after all no one died from phone hacking, but 9/11 was a massive crime leading to a decade of war. What is interesting is that the political class ignored phonehacking for fear of the mighty Murdoch. The Guardian however was prepared to do some real investigation and eventually blew the story with the help of two Labour MPs - Chris Bryant and Tom Watson. In the case of 9/11, both political and media class will not entertain questions about the veracity of the official 9/11 story.Meantime organisations like Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are raising significant questions about massive inconsistencies in the official investigation.
Only Robert Fisk among mainstream journalists was bravve enough to question 9/11, while carefullu distancing himself from apparent conspiracy theorists. That was back in 2007.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth have really raised the lid on the deeply puzzling nature of the alleged story of how the four aircraft took off and were hijacked. The official data does not add up. Their website raises cast-iron questions from those who know. Such as the destruction of air traffic control tapes reported in the Washington Post.
Could 9/11 coverup ever blow up like phone hacking? Perhaps. But it would need new evidence or witnesses and some support within the system from politicians or media. Phone hacking was blown open by persistant investigative efforts by The Guardian's Nick Davies. And there was plenty of evidence coming out of the police's investigation Operation Motorman in 2006.
In contrast, there are no senior figures in the media or judicial institutions in the US (that I know of) who have ever called for the launch of an independent investigation into 9/11. Democrat Cynthia McKinney courageously accused the Bush administration of foreknowledge of the attacks in October 2001. She lost her seat in 2006 and later stood for the Greens. There is now a petition for such an investigation in New York, support for which is growing. The resistance to any new investigation will be intense from state institutions and the media because the stakes are much, much greater than they were in Hackergate.
Comparing 9/11 with phone hacking may seen strange, after all no one died from phone hacking, but 9/11 was a massive crime leading to a decade of war. What is interesting is that the political class ignored phonehacking for fear of the mighty Murdoch. The Guardian however was prepared to do some real investigation and eventually blew the story with the help of two Labour MPs - Chris Bryant and Tom Watson. In the case of 9/11, both political and media class will not entertain questions about the veracity of the official 9/11 story.Meantime organisations like Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are raising significant questions about massive inconsistencies in the official investigation.
Only Robert Fisk among mainstream journalists was bravve enough to question 9/11, while carefullu distancing himself from apparent conspiracy theorists. That was back in 2007.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth have really raised the lid on the deeply puzzling nature of the alleged story of how the four aircraft took off and were hijacked. The official data does not add up. Their website raises cast-iron questions from those who know. Such as the destruction of air traffic control tapes reported in the Washington Post.
Could 9/11 coverup ever blow up like phone hacking? Perhaps. But it would need new evidence or witnesses and some support within the system from politicians or media. Phone hacking was blown open by persistant investigative efforts by The Guardian's Nick Davies. And there was plenty of evidence coming out of the police's investigation Operation Motorman in 2006.
In contrast, there are no senior figures in the media or judicial institutions in the US (that I know of) who have ever called for the launch of an independent investigation into 9/11. Democrat Cynthia McKinney courageously accused the Bush administration of foreknowledge of the attacks in October 2001. She lost her seat in 2006 and later stood for the Greens. There is now a petition for such an investigation in New York, support for which is growing. The resistance to any new investigation will be intense from state institutions and the media because the stakes are much, much greater than they were in Hackergate.
As the western economy implodes, a way out?
This video is interesting in a week when the Atlantic western economies of US and EU seem to be imploding. It at least looks critically at the appalling absurdities of our money-banking system, suggesting solutions.
We have been told since the collapse of communism, that capitalism works because 'self-interest' - or greed - is 'human nature' and so capitalism, unlike socialism, works in harmony with that nature. This is bunkum - people's motivations are complex and they are hardly only selfish, never mind based mainly on greed, although in a societythat worships greed, you would expect greed to be an important motivator.
Communist economics was based on ideology - socialism, marxism etc - and terror. It failed because all power was monopolised by a small group of unaccountable leaders, while most people could not influence the decision of planners. Democratic planning is a different thing entirely from Stalinist or Maoist communism. It should be a far more rational system than our current model of dysfunctional capitalism.
Currently our leaders are offering austerity and privatisation as a way of 'solving' the debt crisis. It's as if no-one remembers the 1930s, when western leaders attempted to balance budgets by slashing spending, and maintaining the defunct gold standard (read Euro?). Britain's recovery began when we left the Gold Standard in 1931. But it was still a decade of austerity with government house building programmes providing some relief. In America and Germany the situation was far worse. Today, the Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on a way out of their debt crisis. In Europe austerity is the choice, despite it clearly not working in countries like Greece and Ireland.
We have been told since the collapse of communism, that capitalism works because 'self-interest' - or greed - is 'human nature' and so capitalism, unlike socialism, works in harmony with that nature. This is bunkum - people's motivations are complex and they are hardly only selfish, never mind based mainly on greed, although in a societythat worships greed, you would expect greed to be an important motivator.
Communist economics was based on ideology - socialism, marxism etc - and terror. It failed because all power was monopolised by a small group of unaccountable leaders, while most people could not influence the decision of planners. Democratic planning is a different thing entirely from Stalinist or Maoist communism. It should be a far more rational system than our current model of dysfunctional capitalism.
Currently our leaders are offering austerity and privatisation as a way of 'solving' the debt crisis. It's as if no-one remembers the 1930s, when western leaders attempted to balance budgets by slashing spending, and maintaining the defunct gold standard (read Euro?). Britain's recovery began when we left the Gold Standard in 1931. But it was still a decade of austerity with government house building programmes providing some relief. In America and Germany the situation was far worse. Today, the Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on a way out of their debt crisis. In Europe austerity is the choice, despite it clearly not working in countries like Greece and Ireland.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Will the innocent newspapers please stand up
It makes me worry when Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is quoted on the hacking scandal as saying ‘the pillars of the establishment are crumbling’. Hasn’t anybody told you Nicky, son of a banker, Westminster boy, you, too, are the establishment? Clegg gripe aside, it does seem all the politicians are rushing to show how zealous they are in their newfound hatred of News International. Old friends become enemies – while in the case of the Liberal Democrats, they can feel smug that they never had cause or opportunity to press flesh with Murdoch. But is all this focus on News International missing something?
It’s five years since the Information Commissioner presented his report ‘What Price Privacy?’ on illegal information gathering by the printed media. Its key findings, taken from police investigations under Operation Motorman between 2002 and 2006, showed The News of the World to be only number five on a list of newspapers and magazines trading in illegal information. Number one was The Daily Mail (952 transactions), followed by The Sunday People (802), Daily Mirror (681) and Mail on Sunday (266). The NoTW made a modest 228 trades. Best Magazine came in just behind The Sunday Mirror with 134 trades. Over 300 journalists were involved. Surely not all of this can have been justified as in the public interest? Those investigations only produced 2 successful prosecutions. No one involved was fined more than £5000.
‘What Price Privacy?’ made clear a full five years ago that newspapers were involved in rampant law-breaking – and no politician or policeman dared to stop them. Until now. My question. Will either of the two inquiries announced by David Cameron be looking at the whole trade in illegal information, beyond phone hacking at News International? Will other newspaper editors and owners be called to account for themselves? If they are not, then almost certainly most culprits in this business will breath a huge sigh of relief as they delete the last of the incriminating emails. Phew, Murdoch took the rap – and we got away with it!
Friday, 1 July 2011
'Public opinion' vs People's Power
We have heard a lot about 'public opinion' in recent days in relation to the public sector pensions strike. According to the media pundits, the government and the unions will need to keep public opinion on their side. Whoever doesn't will lose. But there is something more important than public opinion, and that is people's power. I don't know if Ed Miliband and the Labour party leadership understand this - they seem to feel the need to genuflect before the press overlords by condemning the strikers who are taking a stand against a government hell bent on squeezing the living standards and hard won rights of public sector workers. The ConLibDems are deviously setting public sector workers against other workers, trying to divide them on the basis of beggar my neighbour politics. Why should he keep his pension when I don't have one? We can't afford it they say, even though the experts say we can. Some people will fall for this line. Others may see that this is a ruse by a government of the rich and for the rich. What we can 'afford' is what we think important. It's a question of priorities. Unfortunately Labour will not make this argument - as a progressive force - one that defends the majority against privilege - it is utterly spent. It sees its fate as in the hands of the right-wing media and Britain's interests as those of big business. There is another way. To quote from a writer on Venezuela:
The building of People’s Power is a complex effort, less easy than taking the sky by storm or taking power – understanding power as an object. It’s about weaving consciousnesses, going about configuring new relations of power in a laborious and slow organizing effort – it’s about sowing the seeds of socialism in each individual and in each political space and territory that belong to the people. It’s about cementing, little by little, revolutionary hegemony. It’s also about destroying the backbone of the capitalist model, its anti-values and its individualist culture. This requires a great deal of patience and conviction because it responds to a different logic, to another perspective on power, distinct from those known to date on both the left and the right. We take on, with the passion of lovers, People’s Power and the daily efforts to go about germinating and cultivating it in the heart of the People.
We understand People’s Power as the transversal axis of the Revolutionary Project, as the alpha and omega of all transformations, as the primary source for the construction of the new Socialist State that substitutes the still alive Bourgeois State.”
It is precisely Venezuela’s attempt to consolidate People’s Power, a proposal based on the ideals of revolutionaries like Che Guevara, which make 21st Century Socialism such an important historical process to observe, understand, support and defend.
Without a revolutionary humanism to guide those who are building People’s Power, without the insistence that each person partake in the decision-making that will develop 21st Century Socialism, without a great love for and trust of humanity, the struggle for socialism will have lost its point of reference, its light on the walking path. In the words of Che Guevara, “the development of a socialist society makes sense only if it serves to transform people, if it multiplies their creative capacity, if it takes them beyond egoism. The transition towards liberty’s realm is a voyage from the ‘me’ to the ‘us’.”
In other words, it does not mean trying to get good headlines in the Daily Mail and betraying the people who fund and support you - Ed Miliband. It's about arguing for what is right and thinking about the future of society not just tomorrow's headlines or even the next byelection. Saying the wrong thing to win favour from the powerful, and even to temporarily assuage 'public opinion', which is moulded by the hegemonic forces, is not a political strategy - it is bankruptcy. If the hegemonic 'public opinion' is not challenged, it will never shift from the dominant values that preserve inequality and privilege and this irrational economic system.
The building of People’s Power is a complex effort, less easy than taking the sky by storm or taking power – understanding power as an object. It’s about weaving consciousnesses, going about configuring new relations of power in a laborious and slow organizing effort – it’s about sowing the seeds of socialism in each individual and in each political space and territory that belong to the people. It’s about cementing, little by little, revolutionary hegemony. It’s also about destroying the backbone of the capitalist model, its anti-values and its individualist culture. This requires a great deal of patience and conviction because it responds to a different logic, to another perspective on power, distinct from those known to date on both the left and the right. We take on, with the passion of lovers, People’s Power and the daily efforts to go about germinating and cultivating it in the heart of the People.
We understand People’s Power as the transversal axis of the Revolutionary Project, as the alpha and omega of all transformations, as the primary source for the construction of the new Socialist State that substitutes the still alive Bourgeois State.”
It is precisely Venezuela’s attempt to consolidate People’s Power, a proposal based on the ideals of revolutionaries like Che Guevara, which make 21st Century Socialism such an important historical process to observe, understand, support and defend.
Without a revolutionary humanism to guide those who are building People’s Power, without the insistence that each person partake in the decision-making that will develop 21st Century Socialism, without a great love for and trust of humanity, the struggle for socialism will have lost its point of reference, its light on the walking path. In the words of Che Guevara, “the development of a socialist society makes sense only if it serves to transform people, if it multiplies their creative capacity, if it takes them beyond egoism. The transition towards liberty’s realm is a voyage from the ‘me’ to the ‘us’.”
In other words, it does not mean trying to get good headlines in the Daily Mail and betraying the people who fund and support you - Ed Miliband. It's about arguing for what is right and thinking about the future of society not just tomorrow's headlines or even the next byelection. Saying the wrong thing to win favour from the powerful, and even to temporarily assuage 'public opinion', which is moulded by the hegemonic forces, is not a political strategy - it is bankruptcy. If the hegemonic 'public opinion' is not challenged, it will never shift from the dominant values that preserve inequality and privilege and this irrational economic system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
