Monday, 15 August 2011

I accuse you, UK government!

Working shifts as I do now, I don't always manage to watch the news. Thus I missed the beginning of the London riots.
Looters outside a shop in hackney. Photograph: Kerim Okten/EPA
When first I heard of it, I thought there was a lack of analyses in it. I mean, seriously, multiple day riots in the nearby UK, is not what you expect, if you're a Swede! Naturally you ask what on earth has gone wrong! But there was no answer to that on the news. I thought that probably I had already missed that...

Several days later, with riots still going on(!!!), Swedish news report that the start of the riots was when a father of four was shot to death by the police. They also explained that the police had earlier let on that the man had shot first, but that investigations had now shown that the man's gun had never been fired...!

This was reported on the same day as UK prime minister David Cameron went out with the statement that they were going to evict people who had been involved in the riots, and their families, from government subsided homes...


...Ok, that's not the analysis I expected...

And that's where, for a moment, I thought that maybe it was not the UK I was hearing about. It sounded so much like Tunisia a few months back! This was just what you would expect from any underdeveloped country with a despotic regime: Police brutality sparks riots as the poor people turn to rage, feeling that they've had more than they can take. The despotic regime answers by more oppression against these poor people, creating more frustration and largening the divide between the people and the power, disillusioning the youth, but thinking that the method will work if they just manage to scare everybody into obedience, into hiding their true feelings. A terror regime.

My fiance laughed when he heard about it, and said: "This could just be Kenya!". (He's Kenyan.)

But it wasn't Kenya. And it wasn't Tunisia. It was no country that we have - up till now - considered underdeveloped. It WAS in fact the UK.

UK government, rethink!! Where's the love?? You can never create a society where people are happy and prosperous by terrorising the population! By kicking out the innocent children, parents and spouses of rioters on the street! By creating a larger and larger divide in society, between the rich and the poor, or between the masses and the few in power! Don't you know that people who feel like they belong to the society are productive members of it, whereas those who feel like they are outsiders and as if society would be happier if they just seized to exist, often do lots of harm to this same society, as well as to themselves, and people in their proximity? Well, to which category do you think the poor children and spouses that you are about to send to the streets will belong?... Maybe that is why collective punishment is prohibited by international law. It creates more bad than good.

Well, you had better do better. If your goal is for your country to stay rich and prosperous, with a largely happy, loving and creative population, simply if you want to make a country where people can have good lives, now and in future, then you'd better build the foundation: A population where everybody feels included. Where they feel that their rights are being respected, and if not, then they can protest and know that society will bring them justice.

If on the other hand your goal is simply to stay in power as long as possible, and you don't care which methods you have to use or how your people feel, or for that matter, that you may do great harm to your society that it will take future governments a generation or two to fix... Well, perhaps even then you should consider doing better. We all know what happened to the Tunisian government, after they had sparked the rage of their poor, and then tried to stop the riots with more oppression.

Sunday, 14 August 2011

A critical eye on the power

A friend of mine told me that my last post was quite "conspiracy theoretical and stupid". It made me sad. Especially for that expression "conspiracy theoretical". As if it were a descriptive adjective. And what description might it hold? Probably something like 'paranoid, insane, ridiculous and of course very wrong'. But that would be the same as saying that those in power would never conspire; that it would be paranoid, insane, ridiculous and wrong to question the ever altruistic cause of powerful people!...

The next day I remembered something. I remembered that I myself had said something spookily similar, less than 3 years ago! A dear acquaintance of mine said something about 9/11 being an 'inside job', and I brushed it off, amused, saying that I think it's so comical with suchlike conspiracy theories. But then ey said one thing, after which I pretty much shut it and listened. And checked out more and kept looking into it all the way till now, and with time I came to bitterly eat my words...

WTC collapses

What ey said was this: Look at how the buildings fell. If they would have fallen in an uncontrolled way, following an unsymmetrical damage, then why did they fall so symmetrically? Straight down into a neat little pile of dust! That's just how buildings fall when demolished by explosives, and it takes quite some measure of engineering skill to achieve this. Further they fell with a speed close to that of free fall. The official version says that every floor fell on to the floor below and made also that floor collapse, but in that case every floor that broke the fall would slow the process down. Instead the buildings fell nearly as if they had no resistance at all... As if they just pulverized...

That became very tough for me (as an engineer) to digest. Now when, for the first time, I thought about this, it really occurred utterly strange to me that the buildings would fall in quite that manner.

Just now I realize that ey probably said one more thing, that at the time I didn't know whether to believe or not, but which has later turned out to be true: There was one more building, several blocks from the twin towers, called 7 WTC. It also fell. There has been an official explanation saying that the collapse of the twin towers somehow started a fire inside building 7, making it collapse, but the big official investigation whose job it was to investigate everything around the terror attack of 9/11/2001 didn't even mention the collapse of building 7 in their report. On the whole it has been rather quiet around it, hasn't it?...

But my critical friend said he would need to read from a physicist sorting out this with the twin tower collapse and all. Are there more out there who would like this? Well, we can arrange it. Here is:
Physics 911,
created by a "Scientific panel investigating 9/11", consisting of scientists, engineers and other professionals.

But why stop there? While we're at it, why not also check out:
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Veterans For 911Truth

...and perhaps a few more. "When you have ruled out the impossible, what remains is the truth, regardless of how improbable it may seem", as Sherlock Holmes said. That is precisely what the above organisations are doing; ruling out things that are impossible.

(A final note, here at the end: Not even the FBI believe that Osama bin Laden is guilty of the 9/11 attack; just look at their website! (edit: they have changed it now, but I printed it here.) And how can so many news media report bin Laden as having been among FBI's "top 10 most wanted", but happen to omit the fact that what he was wanted for was bombing embassies in Kenya?!... You see, they only put up wanted pictures where a criminal charge has been formally filed. And so a formal charge must exist for the terror attack in Kenya. But not for 9/11...)

Thursday, 11 August 2011

Karolina reports Swedish news for feature on Osama

Osama bin Laden

This text is a translation of the original report in Swedish.

The points to report have been taken from the Swedish Agency for Radio and TV, their site on Rules for SVT, SR och UR. Basically my report looked just like this, but I have changed the web-addresses to hyperlinks, as well as added some.

Thank you for your report
A copy of the report will be sent to the e-mail address you provided.
Program: The Swedish news program "Rapport"
Channel or station: SVT2
Date of broadcasting: 2011-05-02
Time of broadcasting: 10:30 pm

Elaborate why you wish to have the program tried:
A lack of impartiality and objectivity

"Program leaders, reporters and others who may be perceived as representing the program company must not make judging statements, or take sides in controversial issues."

In this feature it was said time after time, by both interviewers and interviewees, that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attack on the WTC in 2001. This fact is disputed and has not been proven in a valid trial; thus is highly controversial (see for eg. Michael Ruppert's lecture The Truth and Lies of 911, Dylan Avery's film Loose Change or this short film clip: 9/11 Truth Search: Planes didn't take twin towers down).

"Controversial issues or occurrences may not be treated one-sidedly, so that the version or viewpoints of only one side clearly dominate."

In this case it was clearly the official American standpoint that dominated, even stood completely unquestioned.

"If a clearly defined party is subjected to strong criticism or severe accusations, he or she should as a rule be allowed to defend themselves in the same program."

In this case of course the defined and accused party was dead, but it would have been easy to find old recordings and news articles where Osama defends himself against the accusations about the 9/11 attack (eg. the article CNN: Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks or the 1 min episodes NBC: Bin Laden & Taliban Deny 9/11 Involvement, Taliban Diplomat Condemns Attacks 1/2 and 2/2). Otherwise one could probably have found some living person who could have defended Osama, for example those quoted in the youtube film clips above.

"Features must not be misleading, for example by leaving out important pieces of information."

In claiming that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attack, Rapport left out utterly important pieces of information, such as:

-that bin Laden himself denies involvement in the mentioned attack
-that there is a substantial people's movement that strongly questions this official standpoint
-that no binding evidence has been presented that bind bin Laden to this crime

Thus the feature was strongly misleading.

Complainant: Karolina Hagegård

We can also ask ourselves why Osama bin Laden is dead and not arrested. Would it perhaps have been quite hard to convince an independent court to find him guilty, in a fair trial? How very embarrassing that would have been!...