http://life.lege.net/

[Leif Erlingsson]

Jag såg själv BBC:s dokumentärfilm som TV 2 visade söndagen den 31 juli 2005 klockan 21.15, "Why we fight". Och jag skrev till samtliga ledamöter i riksdagens försvars- och utrikesutskott och ställde dessa frågor med anledning av de ämnen filmen tog upp:

Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:40:10 +0200 (MEST)
From: Leif Erlingsson <leif@lege.com>
Subject: BBC4 / TV 2 förra söndagen: "Why we fight": Rov-kapitalism vs. demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter ?

Från: Leif Erlingsson, Katrinebergsvägen 70, 146 50 Tullinge
Till: Ledamöter i riksdagens försvars- och utrikesutskott

Hej.

Jag undrar om svenska politiker känner till uppgifterna i den BBC dokumentärfilm som TV 2 visade förra söndagen (31 juli 2005) klockan 21.15, "Why we fight"?

Jag hoppas på personliga svar från flera av er, då jag har mycket svårt att föreställa mig att ni är helt eniga i dessa frågor. Det handlar ju delvis om hur man uppfattar verkligheten - det är helt enkelt delvis existentiella frågor - och endast medlemmar av manipulativa så kallade "sekter" brukar vara helt eniga om hur verkligheten ska tolkas.

I BBC dokumentären i söndags (från 2005) nämndes att vid samtliga krig USA startat de senaste 50-60 åren så hade opinionen / allmänheten grovt manipulerats. Som t ex att man visste om anfallet mot Pearl Harbour men avsiktligt inte informerade dem där, för att det skulle bli oskyldiga amerikanska flottister anfallna av onda krigiska japaner.

Flera andra exempel togs upp, där man till och med själva fejkade händelser, som motiv för krig. Angående det nu aktuella 60-års-minnet av de första atombomberna så nämndes att Japan försökte få fred med USA i ett halvår innan atombomben fälldes över Hiroshima, men att President Harry Truman inte alls ville lyssna, eftersom han absolut ville använda atombomben.

Dokumentären tar givetvis upp lögnerna som motiverade och motiverar Irak-kriget - där MYCKET grova krigsbrott begångna av USA konstaterats (se mitt förra mail av den 12 juli 2005). [ Se http://life.lege.net/viewtopic.php?p=41#41 samt den enda reaktionen, på http://life.lege.net/viewtopic.php?p=44#44. ]

Bl a innefattar denna manipulation bevisligen att terrorist-anfallen mot USA den 11 september 2001 skulle ha skett utan tämligen omfattande inblandning från topparna av det amerikanska etablissemanget, vilket alltså inte var fallet: Delar av etablissemanget har kunnat bevisas ha varit inblandade.

Möjligen finns här även internationella kopplingar inom de innersta kretsarna av näringslivets toppar. Professor David Ray Griffin, se mitt PS längre ned, där hans anförande inför "National Press Club, June 22, 2005" finns med i sin helhet, konstaterar att:

Eftersom mycket allvarliga invändningar mot den officiella historieskrivningen i stor detalj gjorts i ett antal böcker och vittnesmål som den officiella utredningen hade tillgång till när den gjorde sitt arbete, men eftersom de flesta av dessa frågor HELT IGNORERADES av den officiella utredningen, som om frågeställningarna inte alls existerade, så måste man dra den logiska slutsatsen att de ursprungliga - ej bemötta - påståendena måste äga sin riktighet.

De är i varje fall den bästa förklaring som finns att tillgå.

Professor David Ray Griffin gör jämförelsen med amerikansk juridik, där åklagaren presenterar sitt fall, och om inte försvaret ens bemöter de punkter åklagaren tar upp, så får det anses bevisat att åklagaren har rätt. Inom vetenskapen är det på ett liknande sätt. En hypotes som inte bemöts får tills vidare anses som det närmsta man har kommit sanningen. I USA finns det ingen annan domare än allmänheten just nu som kommer att döma mellan den grovt ofullständiga och missledande officiella rapporten och de andra rapporter, som böcker såsom:

• "The Terror Timeline : Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11--and America's Response" av Paul Thompson (måste beställas begagnad då förlaget förbjudit export)
  
• "Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack" av Eric Hufschmid
  
• "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" av David Ray Griffin, bygger på "Painful Questions" ovan och cooperativeresearch.org
  
• "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions" av David Ray Griffin

En nyckelmening från filmen står ut. Den gick ungefär som att striden står mellan kapitalismen och demokratin. (Länkar till filmen följer som PS 3 längst ned i mailet.)

Dokumentären tar upp ett antal mycket brännande frågor, men den allra viktigaste anser jag vara hur ni ställer er till att USA manipulerar världsopinionen genom att dölja sin egen mycket stora inblandning i terrorattackerna den 11 september 2001 ?

Som professor David Ray Griffin konstaterade inför the National Press Club, June 22, 2005 - se PS nedan - så är det ju dessa händelser som redan möjliggjort två krig - det mot Afghanistan och det mot Irak. Dessutom skulle det troligen kommande kriget mot Iran inte heller ha varit möjligt utan att världsopinionen manipulerats angående terrorattackerna den 11 september 2001.

Därför är jag mycket intresserad av hur ni var och en ställer er inför dessa uppgifter. Jag hoppas verkligen att ingen av er är så nonchalant att ni bara avfärdar det hela som "dumheter!". För den som gör det, den hade också varit svensk Nazist år 1944. Så illa är det tyvärr, är jag rädd. (Se mitt förra mail av den 12 juli 2005, där jag nämnde grov krigsbrottslighet, som jag av någon märklig orsak ej fick någon reaktion på.) [ Se http://life.lege.net/viewtopic.php?p=41#41 samt den enda reaktionen, på http://life.lege.net/viewtopic.php?p=44#44. ]

Jag är också intresserad av om ni funderar på kopplingar mellan förövarna av 11 september 2001 och vårt eget land, då Sverige och amerikansk krigsindustri hänger ihop (var det inte likadant för 70 år sedan också, med Nazi-Tyskland?). Fanns det månne även svenskar som var förvarnade om 11 september? Och hur pålitlig är svensk säkerhetstjänst? Vems ärenden går de?

Kort sagt, har ni någon plan över hur vi ska rädda Demokratin och de Mänskliga Rättigheterna?

Jag sänder detta brev med kopia till ett flertal av mina vänner.

Med vänliga hälsningar,
Leif Erlingsson

PS: Här nedan följer ett tal av professor David Ray Griffin vari han hävdar att det numera är bevisat att USA:s ledare har varit helt delaktiga i terrorattackerna den 11 september 2001:

Address at the National Press Club, June 22, 2005

9/11 AND THE MAINSTREAM PRESS
by David Ray Griffin, professor & theologian

After the attacks of 9/11, I accepted the "blowback" thesis -- the attacks were payback for US foreign policy.

About a year later, a colleague suggested that the attacks were orchestrated by our own government.

My response was that I didn't think the Bush administration---even the Bush administration---would do such a thing.

A few months later, another colleague suggested that I look at a website containing the massive 9/11 timeline created by Paul Thompson. This timeline, I found, contained an enormous number of reports, all from mainstream sources, that contradicted the official account.

This started a process that led me to publish "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11," which summarized much of the evidence that had been discovered by previous researchers---evidence, I concluded, that provided a "strong prima facie case for official complicity."

In a criminal trial, once the prosecution has presented its initial case, the defense asks the judge for a dismissal on the grounds that a prima facie case for guilt has not been presented. However, if the judge declares that such a case has been made, then the defense must rebut the various elements in the prosecution's case. The defense cannot simply ignore the prosecution's case by stating that it is "too outrageous to be dignified by a response." If the defense fails to offer a convincing rebuttal, the prima facie case is presumed to be conclusive.

The Bush administration responded to the charges against it as a defense attorney would, declaring them too outrageous to be taken seriously. President Bush himself advised people, perhaps especially reporters, not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." What the president really meant is that people should not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories except his own, according to which 19 Arab Muslims defeated the most powerful and sophisticated defense system in history and also defeated the laws of physics, bringing down three steel-frame building in a way that perfectly mimicked controlled demolition.

In any case, what was needed at that stage was someone to play the role of the judge, determining, from an impartial perspective, whether a prima facie case for the guilt of the Bush administration had been made.

This role should have been played by the press. But the mainstream press instead offered itself as a mouthpiece for the administration's conspiracy theory.

The role of the impartial judge has, nevertheless, been played by civil society, in which tens of millions of people in this country and around the world now accept the 9/11 truth movement's contention that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks.

The fact that the president was finally forced to appoint a 9/11 commission provided an opportunity for the Bush administration to rebut the allegations made against it. You might assume that the 9/11 Commission would have played the role of an impartial jury, simply evaluating the evidence for the competing conspiracy theories and deciding which one was more strongly supported.

The Commission's investigative work, however, was carried out by its staff, and this staff was directed by the White House's man inside the Commission, Philip Zelikow, a fact that the mainstream press has not emphasized. Under Zelikow's leadership, the Commission took the role of the prosecution for the Bush administration's brief against al-Qaeda. In doing so, it implicitly took the role of the defense for the Bush administration. Accordingly, an important question to ask about The 9/11 Commission Report, especially since we know that the Commission had many copies of The New Pearl Harbor, is how well the Commission rebutted the prima facie case against the Bush-Cheney administration, which was summarized in that book.

In a second book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I showed that the Commission simply ignored most of that evidence and distorted the rest. I will summarize a few of the 115 sins of omission and distortion that I identified.

The New Pearl Harbor reported evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive. David Harrison of the Telegraph interviewed two of the men who supposedly died on Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, one of whom said that he "had never even heard of Pennsylvania," let alone died there. The Associated Press reported that Waleed al-Shehri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco about two weeks after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, nevertheless, suggested that al-Shehri was responsible for stabbing one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.

The New Pearl Harbor cited reports that although Mohamed Atta, the supposed ringleader, had been portrayed as a devout Muslim ready to meet his maker, he actually loved alcohol, pork, and lap dances. Zelikow's commission, however, said that Atta had become "fanatically" religious. They also claimed that they could find no credible explanation as to why Atta and the other hijackers went to Las Vegas. The mainstream press has let the Commission get away with these obvious contradictions.

People who have seen Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 know that President Bush was in a classroom in Sarasota when he was told that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, a sign that the country was suffering an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the president just sat there. Many critics have asked why he did not immediately assume the role of commander-in-chief, but the more important question is why the highly trained Secret Service agents did not immediately rush him to safety. Bush's location had been highly publicized. They should have worried that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on them at that very moment. And yet they allowed the president to remain at the school another half hour, thereby implying that they knew the president was not a target.

The 9/11 Commission's only response was to report that "[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did not think it imperative for [the President] to run out the door." The Commissioners evidently accepted the implied suggestion that maintaining presidential decorum was more important than protecting the president's life. The mainstream press has had no comment on this remarkable response to that remarkable incident.

Another big question created by the official story is how the hijackers, by crashing planes into the Twin Towers, caused them and Building 7 to collapse. One problem is that Building 7 was not struck by an airplane, and steel-frame buildings had never before been caused to collapse by fire alone, even when the fires had been much bigger, hotter, and longer-lasting. The Commission avoided this problem by simply not mentioning this fact or even, incredibly, that Building 7 collapsed.

Another problem, which I mentioned earlier, is that the collapses had all the standard features of controlled demolitions. For example, all three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed. The Commission even alluded to this feature, saying that the "South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds." But it never explained how fire plus the impact of an airplane could have produced such a collapse.

Controlled demolition was also suggested by the fact that the collapses were total, with the 110-story Twin Towers collapsing into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each tower had consisted of 47 massive steel columns, which extended from the basements through the roofs. Even if we ignore all the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. Zelikow's commission handled this problem with the audacious claim that "[t]he interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft."

James Glanz, a science writer for the New York Times, co-authored a book in 2003 entitled The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. This book contains an extensive discussion of the construction of the towers around the 47 interior columns. And yet when the Commission in 2004 published its incredible denial that these columns existed, the Times did not protest.

Another example: Breaking those massive steel columns would have required very powerful explosives. Many survivors of the towers have reported hearing and feeling explosions. But the 9/11 Commission failed to mention any of these reports. William Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors about feeling and hearing a huge explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower, then rescuing people from its effects, but neither his name nor any of his testimony is found in Zelikow's final report.

The mainstream press has also refused to report Rodriguez's story, even though NBC News spent a day at his home taping it.

The Commission also failed to address the many reasons to conclude that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77. The Commission in particular failed to subpoena the film from the video cameras, confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attacks, which could at least clear up one of the questions---whether the attacking aircraft was a Boeing 757.

The Commission did allude to one problem---the fact that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, was known to be completely incompetent, incapable of flying a Boeing 757, let alone performing the remarkable maneuver reportedly executed by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The Commission handled this problem simply by saying in one place that Hanjour was considered a "terrible pilot" while saying elsewhere that he was given the assignment to hit the Pentagon because he was "the operation's most experienced pilot." The mainstream press has not pointed out this contradiction.

The Commission also failed to discuss the considerable evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military, perhaps when passengers were about to wrest control of it. The Commission dealt with this problem only indirectly, by claiming that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until 10:10, which was at least four minutes after Flight 93 crashed. In support of this claim, the Commission said that Cheney did not enter the Operations Center under the White House until almost 10:00 that morning. To make this claim, however, the Commission had to contradict all prior reports. It also had to delete Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given during the Commission's public hearings, that when he got down there at 9:20, Cheney was already in charge. Even such an obvious lie, supported by such blatant suppression of evidence, has elicited no murmur from our mainstream press.

There are dozens of other omissions and distortions the press has allowed the Commission to get away with. For example, the Commission's endorsement of the claim by General Richard Myers that he was on Capitol Hill that morning ignores Richard Clarke's report, in Against All Enemies, that Myers was in the Pentagon, participating in Clarke's videoconference. Also, the Commission's account of why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted contradicts the account that had been told since shortly after 9/11 not only by the U.S. military but also by the press, in thousands of stories. But the press now, like Gilda Radnor, says "Never Mind."

In any case, as these illustrations show, the 9/11 Commission, which had the opportunity to rebut the prima facie case against the Bush administration, failed to do so. This means that the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report needs to be recognized as a decisive event, because it was the moment at which the prima facie case against the Bush administration became a conclusive case.

What we need now is a press that will let the American people in on this development---which is most important, given the fact that the official story about 9/11 has provided the pretext for virtually every other horrible thing this administration has done.

PS2: Exempel på sådant du inte kommer att få veta av våra media:

• Att det måste anses bevisat att 11 september 2001 är en insider-historia, då den officiella 9-11 utredningen helt förtiger många frågeställningar. Som utredningen hade tillgång till i bokform, video och genom vittnesutsagor - t ex angående byggnad 7, som liksom de två tornen föll på ett sätt som exakt efterliknar kontrollerad sprängning, trots att den låg längre bort och inte träffades.

Det största problemet är vår egen förnekelse. Sanningen finns redan helt öppen - det är bara att ta till sig! Allt står klart, alla bevis är i dagen. Men du kommer inte att få höra detta av våra politiker - som vill förbjuda spridande av denna typ av information. "Verklighetskontroll" kallade Orwell det.

PS3: Länkar angående dokumentärfilmen som visades på TV 2 förra söndagen (31 juli 2005) klockan 21.15, "Why we fight":

Intervju med ressigören av BBC dokumentärfilmen "Why we fight": http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/eugene-jarecki.shtml
BBC dokumentärfilmen Why we fights hemsida: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/why-we-fight.shtml
Piratkopierare har lagt ut den på nätet för nedladdning - http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3354648 - , men det är ju olagligt, så om ni har missat att se den rekommenderar jag att ni kontaktar TV 2 för en privat visning.

____________________

[Leif Erlingsson]

Varför är USA i Irak?

Denna förklaring hittade jag på den följande länken, som en kommentar på en Blogg. Helt fräckt citerar jag det i sin helhet här, med länk tillbaka till orginalet:

[Leif Erlingsson]

Results for William R. Clark
Sökning på William R. Clark, om den mänskliga naturen och petrodollar. Jag postar detta här mest för att en anonym kommentar på min blogg hade länkproblem - buggar i blogg-programvaran - så genom att gå via detta inlägg så kan det fungera....

(Blogg inläggen bakom denna länk.)