The PIS returns! Here is the agenda for this week's meeting, which takes place Wednesday at 1pm, in our new location of Room 109, Alice Hoy Building.
No smoking
Why is it that, if you is sitting in a drinking establishment with politically interested people, you can play devil's advocate on all manner of issues - defend the Iraq war, agree solemnly with the PM that fighting climate change must not be at the expense of the economy - but if you refuse to agree wholeheartedly with this new smoking ban of Bracksy's in bars and restaurants, you are looked at like you have just escaped from an asylum?
Is it possible that this ban is actually lousy policy?
Pakistan
Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's semi-benevolent dictator, is in a spot of bother. A few months ago he dismissed a judge, as dictators are inclined to do, but all hell's broken loose ever since, both with Pakistan's democrats, and, more worryingly, with its Islamists. Tensions reached a new high just the other week, with the storming of the Red Mosque. And the latest Newspoll finds he has made up hardly any ground on Kevin Rudd.
To take all this instability and supersize it, the Bush Administration, defying the general hope that its dumbest ideas are behind it, is planning on sending American troops into Pakistan.
What's going to happen in Pakistan? Is Musharraf going to have to get off the fence, and choose between a long-promised return to genuine democracy, or a metamorphosis into all-out dictatorship? Or, will Pakistanis choose to overthrow him first?
And: should America's policy of supporting Musharraf as an ally in the 'war on terror' be revised? Has it contributed to this whole mess?
Marriage
So less people are getting married, and those that do are getting married later in their lives. Is this regrettable? Or is there an upside? For example, maybe if our PM had remained an ineligible bachelor and hadn't tied the knot to Lady MacBeth, we would have been spared 11 years and might still live under the rule of law... Discuss.
Federal politics
Are the Coalition going to lose?
Should they switch to Costello?
How 'bout this Haneef business?
To be followed immediately by Hawkey Card-priced beer at PA's, on Grattan Street, from 2:15.
Previously, at the PIS ...
PIS President Dave Fettling won his second term. It was the narrowest election margin in the history of the Society.
One week later, he was inaugurated under a bleak overcast sky and with a record low turnout. While running the meeting that week, he was frequently interrupted and contradicted, leading to whispers he may already have become a 'lame duck PIS President'.
Despite this the President was talking big: 'Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it', he told the assembled media at the Prince Alfred hotel.
Meanwhile the PIS's mascot, the two-headed dog, was hospitalised again at the end of May, spending a night in Eltham East Veterinary Clinic. Flowers, get-well cards and Schmackos from concerned members of the Political Interest Society poured in. The dog is beloved by the PIS.
Blanche, wife of former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who agreed to become the official patron of the Political Interest Society in February of this year, wrote an apologetic letter to the PIS Committee apologising for her husband's poor attendance record at the club. But as she explained, "he's been hitting the turps pretty bad ever since the Keating! musical became a hit".
What sort of semester is it going to be for the PIS? There's ample evidence that the club is headed for disaster.
The Young Liberals on campus, who attempted to crush the PIS four years ago, 'like the Soviets into Czechoslovakia in 68', as their then President described it, have been growing alarmed at the leftward turn in the Society's emails. While the Libs cautiously welcomed the election of Dave Fettling back in 2006, they have noticed of late his growing tendency to don army fatigues, smoke cigars, talk about a 'politically interested utopia', and refer to his Secretary, Eddie Clarke, as 'Raoul'.
We tried to get a quote from the Young Libs, but they didn't answer.
Then we tried again and they answered and they said that they were all gay.
After being released from the vet in June, the two-headed dog has returned to the ranch he calls home, but has been feeling dizzy and lethargic. All PIS members are to pray for him.
Thomas Friedmann in his regular New York Times column has asked the question, 'Is Dave Fettling the PIS's Mikhail Gorbachev?' Friedmann pointed out that the Soviet Union was going swimmingly until Gorbachev launched 'glasnost', which is Russian for 'going to the pub', and 'perestroika', which is Russian for 'stupid emails'. Gorbachev, says Friedmann, 'attempted to reform the unreformable...as a result, the whole Empire came crashing down'. Hmm.
And the University of Melbourne Student Union has launched an investigation after two rank and file PIS members were caught breaking into the Clubs & Societies office and tampering with files.
But I'm sure it's nothing.
Sunday, 29 July 2007
Saturday, 28 July 2007
A win for justice?
The case against Dr. Haneef crumbled to bits and pieces, after Howard, Ruddock and Andrews celebrated this witch hunt as victory in the "war on terror". Now, without a visa, Dr. Haneef has to pay about 120$ per day for his detention, until he goes back to India. As he couldn't pay his rent while he was held without charge, he has lost his flat, which was searched by about 300 police forces to find no evidence.
No one as yet is willing to take responsibility for this act that concerns all foreigners in Australia. The anti-terror laws have no regulations for compensation, as they seem to be designed to make anyone a terrorist, no matter how flimsy the evidence is.
Dr. Haneef isn't the first one who felt the injustice of Australia's anti-terror laws. The Barwon 13 still wait for their trial, after more than a year in solitary confinement in a high-security prison. Faheem Lodhi will spent 22 years in prison for something, that can't even be described as a thought crime. Jack Thomas, by the media prejudiced as Jihad Jack, still suffers from a constraint order, being subjected to a curfew and restrictions which means of communication he is allowed to use.
And finally, David Hicks, who was subjected to five years in American torture camps, is held as a terrorist in jail, and will enjoy a similar constraint order like Jack Thomas, once he is a "free man" again.
David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef are not allowed to talk about their treatment, which would be essential to determine how Australia treats basic human rights. Human Rights Organisations consider solitary confinement as a form of torture, especially over long periods of time, and all of the former experienced this totalitarian treatment.
So much I would appreciate Philip Ruddock taking his hat for his repeated abuse of the anti-terror laws, I don't see this happen. Mick Keelty might end up to be the scapegoat, and/or Kevin Andrews, but this seems as well not too likely. However, it would satisfy my concept of justice and accountability in a democracy to see some heads rolling, though it wouldn't make up for the damage done to the victims of the witch hunt, nor would anyone pay back the taxpayers money used to pursue this paranoid trials.
Just personal responsibility could move Ruddock, Keelty or Andrews to resign, legally there is no reason. All of them can hide behind the anti-terror laws, which are the core of the problem. This legislation opened a back-door to circumvent to the rule of law, and thus can be abused by anyone in a position of power.
Although the media, especially The Age, played an important role to prevent the next innocent man being subjected to a life in prison, it is far from being innocent. Terrorists are an extremly rare breed, luckily, and the threat posed by them is far less than the threat by car accidents or suicide. However, reporting permanently about terror related topics maintains fear among the population, and the illusion of a real threat. But this paranoia is never backed up by numbers, because the numbers speak simply a different language.
I'm really curious who, if anyone, will take responsibility for this abuse of power. As mentioned, I would appreciate simply abolishing the anti-terror laws, which would automatically prevent especially Ruddock from interfering with the judiciary system.
The damage done to the life and reputation of Dr. Haneef can not be undone. He is one of 20,000 foreign physicians working in Australia (out of 50,000), and at least people from muslim backgrounds might no longer be willing to take the risk of supporting the Australian medical system.
Well done, Mr. Keelty. Well done, Mr. Andrews. Well done, Mr. Ruddock. Well done, Mr. Howard.
No one as yet is willing to take responsibility for this act that concerns all foreigners in Australia. The anti-terror laws have no regulations for compensation, as they seem to be designed to make anyone a terrorist, no matter how flimsy the evidence is.
Dr. Haneef isn't the first one who felt the injustice of Australia's anti-terror laws. The Barwon 13 still wait for their trial, after more than a year in solitary confinement in a high-security prison. Faheem Lodhi will spent 22 years in prison for something, that can't even be described as a thought crime. Jack Thomas, by the media prejudiced as Jihad Jack, still suffers from a constraint order, being subjected to a curfew and restrictions which means of communication he is allowed to use.
And finally, David Hicks, who was subjected to five years in American torture camps, is held as a terrorist in jail, and will enjoy a similar constraint order like Jack Thomas, once he is a "free man" again.
David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef are not allowed to talk about their treatment, which would be essential to determine how Australia treats basic human rights. Human Rights Organisations consider solitary confinement as a form of torture, especially over long periods of time, and all of the former experienced this totalitarian treatment.
So much I would appreciate Philip Ruddock taking his hat for his repeated abuse of the anti-terror laws, I don't see this happen. Mick Keelty might end up to be the scapegoat, and/or Kevin Andrews, but this seems as well not too likely. However, it would satisfy my concept of justice and accountability in a democracy to see some heads rolling, though it wouldn't make up for the damage done to the victims of the witch hunt, nor would anyone pay back the taxpayers money used to pursue this paranoid trials.
Just personal responsibility could move Ruddock, Keelty or Andrews to resign, legally there is no reason. All of them can hide behind the anti-terror laws, which are the core of the problem. This legislation opened a back-door to circumvent to the rule of law, and thus can be abused by anyone in a position of power.
Although the media, especially The Age, played an important role to prevent the next innocent man being subjected to a life in prison, it is far from being innocent. Terrorists are an extremly rare breed, luckily, and the threat posed by them is far less than the threat by car accidents or suicide. However, reporting permanently about terror related topics maintains fear among the population, and the illusion of a real threat. But this paranoia is never backed up by numbers, because the numbers speak simply a different language.
I'm really curious who, if anyone, will take responsibility for this abuse of power. As mentioned, I would appreciate simply abolishing the anti-terror laws, which would automatically prevent especially Ruddock from interfering with the judiciary system.
The damage done to the life and reputation of Dr. Haneef can not be undone. He is one of 20,000 foreign physicians working in Australia (out of 50,000), and at least people from muslim backgrounds might no longer be willing to take the risk of supporting the Australian medical system.
Well done, Mr. Keelty. Well done, Mr. Andrews. Well done, Mr. Ruddock. Well done, Mr. Howard.
Monday, 16 July 2007
Risk assessment
I got my numbers wrong in the previous posting, sorry for that. Let's do the math again.
New York, 9/11/01: 2974 casualties
Bali, 10/12/02: 202 casualties
Madrid, 3/11/04: 191 casualties
London, 7/7/05: 52 casualties
Mumbai, 7/11/06: 209 casualties
Glasgow, 6/30/07: 0 casualties
Total: 3628 victims of terror, so I should I have said far less than 5,000 people were killed by terror in this century in the western world.
According to the Food and Agriculture Administration of the UN, more than 25,000 people starve daily. The daily loss of life due to our economic system is five times higher than the death toll due to terror in the last six years.
About 2,000 to 2,500 people annually committed suicide in Australia in this millenium.
According to the Lancet study, 655,000 people were killed in Iraq from March 2003 to June 2006. Assuming a similar rate of killing for the period from July 2006 until now brings the number up to 850,000 (conservatively). The estimate of about 150,000 to 250,000 during six years of war in a country with more than 30 million population seems very conservative, however, as both areas are still war zones just estimates are possible.
The use of Depleted Uranium and daisy cutters bombs increases civilian casualties even without actual fights, intoxicates former arable land and turns farming into a deadly adventure. The website Afghanistan after Democracy gives you an idea of the mutations caused by DU (warning: very graphic images).
Although the US rulez "war on terror" killing game is far from over, it is virtually impossible to catch up for the terrorists.
Terrorists: 4,000 Governments: 1,100,000
Corporatism (death by starvation): 60,000,000
(all estimates for 21st century)
I consider myself in first place as an Earthian. The winner in this cruel game are corporative interests fostered by governments, the loser is humanity.
And all of that because of the myth of scarcity. In the height of the cold war, 1983, Richard Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century stated:
Bucky Fuller, Grunch of Giants (emphasize not in the original)
PS: I kind of feel very uneasy as international student in this country right now. The way in which Dr. Haneef is treated reminds me very much of the dark times in Germany. He is - in the view of the government, represented by Mr. Andrews - guilty by association, and while being here an temporary visa, the century old legal principle of "guilty until proven innocent" seem not to apply any more in Australia. While Ms. Payne, the judge that tried to keep up legal principles, granted him bail, because there is simply no evidence backing his alleged support of a terrorist group, the minister of immigration knows better than a judge.
This arbitrary interpretation of legal principles scares me a lot. I wouldn't be surprised, if in the near future the slogan "Don't buy at muslim shops" is propagated. It seems like the government has decided to scare skilled immigrants off. I'm used to live in a relatively free society and to speak my mind. But neither the Liberals nor Labour seem to have a problem to mix up legislative, executive and judicative powers, so that one of the basic principles of democracy, the separation of powers, has been abolished.
Martin Niemöller
I don't know whether one of you will speak out, when someone comes for me. But as long as terror paranoia can justify arbitrary decisions like in the case of Dr. Haneef, without any public outrage and severe consequences for those in government making their own rules, I feel like history is repeating. And I still doubt that 88 Australian victims in Bali justify the abolition of civil rights and centuries old legal principles.
PPS: Obviously, 2002 was the climax of terror victims from an Australian perspective. Rational Fear provides data as it was collected by the World Health Organisation. For your convenience, I pulled the data for people between 20-24 for this year to help you a bit in your personal risk assessment.
In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for men in that age group were:
1. 84 (0.012%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 48 (0.007%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
3. 18 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
4. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, traffic accident (V031)
5. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours - Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours, unspecified place (X679)
6. 15 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified, unspecified place (X429)
7. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
8. 13 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
9. 12 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)
In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for women in that age group were:
1. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 8 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
3. 7 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
4. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Myeloid leukaemia - Acute myeloid leukaemia (C920)
5. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
6. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, passenger, traffic accident (V436)
7. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
8. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)
I'm very tempted to kindly ask the next one, who wants to remind me of the threat that terrorism poses, to commit suicide. The age group 40-44 which pushes suicide to the second place (for males), but just because the counting distinguishes between different methods of suicide. Once you made it to 55, the suicidal tendencies decrease. Women tend to be less suicidal, but it's still the primary reaper for females between 15 and 30.
New York, 9/11/01: 2974 casualties
Bali, 10/12/02: 202 casualties
Madrid, 3/11/04: 191 casualties
London, 7/7/05: 52 casualties
Mumbai, 7/11/06: 209 casualties
Glasgow, 6/30/07: 0 casualties
Total: 3628 victims of terror, so I should I have said far less than 5,000 people were killed by terror in this century in the western world.
According to the Food and Agriculture Administration of the UN, more than 25,000 people starve daily. The daily loss of life due to our economic system is five times higher than the death toll due to terror in the last six years.
About 2,000 to 2,500 people annually committed suicide in Australia in this millenium.
According to the Lancet study, 655,000 people were killed in Iraq from March 2003 to June 2006. Assuming a similar rate of killing for the period from July 2006 until now brings the number up to 850,000 (conservatively). The estimate of about 150,000 to 250,000 during six years of war in a country with more than 30 million population seems very conservative, however, as both areas are still war zones just estimates are possible.
The use of Depleted Uranium and daisy cutters bombs increases civilian casualties even without actual fights, intoxicates former arable land and turns farming into a deadly adventure. The website Afghanistan after Democracy gives you an idea of the mutations caused by DU (warning: very graphic images).
Although the US rulez "war on terror" killing game is far from over, it is virtually impossible to catch up for the terrorists.
Terrorists: 4,000 Governments: 1,100,000
Corporatism (death by starvation): 60,000,000
(all estimates for 21st century)
I consider myself in first place as an Earthian. The winner in this cruel game are corporative interests fostered by governments, the loser is humanity.
And all of that because of the myth of scarcity. In the height of the cold war, 1983, Richard Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century stated:
In 1970 it could, for the time, be engineeringly demonstrated that, applying the most advanced know-how to the conservation and use of the world's resources, we can, within ten years of from-killigry-to-livingry reoriented world production, have all humanity enjoying a sustainably higher standard of living than any humans have ever heretofore experienced. It could be further demonstrated that we can do this while simultaneously phasing out all further Earthians' use of fossil fuels and atomic energy.
Bucky Fuller, Grunch of Giants (emphasize not in the original)
PS: I kind of feel very uneasy as international student in this country right now. The way in which Dr. Haneef is treated reminds me very much of the dark times in Germany. He is - in the view of the government, represented by Mr. Andrews - guilty by association, and while being here an temporary visa, the century old legal principle of "guilty until proven innocent" seem not to apply any more in Australia. While Ms. Payne, the judge that tried to keep up legal principles, granted him bail, because there is simply no evidence backing his alleged support of a terrorist group, the minister of immigration knows better than a judge.
This arbitrary interpretation of legal principles scares me a lot. I wouldn't be surprised, if in the near future the slogan "Don't buy at muslim shops" is propagated. It seems like the government has decided to scare skilled immigrants off. I'm used to live in a relatively free society and to speak my mind. But neither the Liberals nor Labour seem to have a problem to mix up legislative, executive and judicative powers, so that one of the basic principles of democracy, the separation of powers, has been abolished.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller
I don't know whether one of you will speak out, when someone comes for me. But as long as terror paranoia can justify arbitrary decisions like in the case of Dr. Haneef, without any public outrage and severe consequences for those in government making their own rules, I feel like history is repeating. And I still doubt that 88 Australian victims in Bali justify the abolition of civil rights and centuries old legal principles.
PPS: Obviously, 2002 was the climax of terror victims from an Australian perspective. Rational Fear provides data as it was collected by the World Health Organisation. For your convenience, I pulled the data for people between 20-24 for this year to help you a bit in your personal risk assessment.
In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for men in that age group were:
1. 84 (0.012%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 48 (0.007%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
3. 18 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
4. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, traffic accident (V031)
5. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours - Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours, unspecified place (X679)
6. 15 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified, unspecified place (X429)
7. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
8. 13 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
9. 12 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)
In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for women in that age group were:
1. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 8 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
3. 7 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
4. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Myeloid leukaemia - Acute myeloid leukaemia (C920)
5. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
6. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, passenger, traffic accident (V436)
7. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
8. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)
I'm very tempted to kindly ask the next one, who wants to remind me of the threat that terrorism poses, to commit suicide. The age group 40-44 which pushes suicide to the second place (for males), but just because the counting distinguishes between different methods of suicide. Once you made it to 55, the suicidal tendencies decrease. Women tend to be less suicidal, but it's still the primary reaper for females between 15 and 30.
Friday, 13 July 2007
Let's hear some experts
Most of the club members are well aware that I don't believe the official myth of 911. And I'm well aware that some of you are pretty annoyed whenever I bring up the topic, while others happily use my different opinion on that matter for ad hominem attacks and put the tinfoil hat of a conspiracy nut on my head.
However, I feel mature enough to stand the heat and not to give in to peer pressure. Especially as I don't spread any particular conspiracy theory, but ask for explanations of physical phenomena that insult my understanding of basic principles of science.
One of the key issues remains the question why and how the trade center building 1, 2 and 7 collapsed. The most intelligent reply I heard about this topic asked for some statements by engineers (thanks, Sophie), which might have a better idea about structural integrity of building, and the ways and reasons why buildings might collapse.
A lot of literature has been published about 911, and you might happily say by conspiracy nuts to make a big buck. But it when comes to making money out of 911 other names come to my mind. Larry Silverstein for example, the lease holder of the WTC complex made several billion dollars just a few months after signing the lease contract for the buildings. Or Halliburton, which overcharged the US government for the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but remains a primary supplier for the US army.
And probably you'll think it's just a publicity stunt, when celebrities like Charlie Sheen or Rosie O'Donnell raise their doubts about the official story. They lack - just like me - the professional credibility assumed by anyone the media calls expert.
Yet some experts use their knowledge to investigate on their own, with the little evidence that is left since most of debris of the collapsed buildings was sold off as scrap metal to China. Pr. Steven Jones, physicist, got hold of samples from the debris of the WTC, and found in it the chemical signature of thermate, an explosive used for controlled demolitions.
Richard Gage, an architect that designs steel-framed highrisers, held a lecture at the Sonoma State University to explain why he came to the conclusion that the buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down in a controlled demolition. You can find the link to the presentation on the left side of the "Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" website, and although the quality of the video is not too stunning, it is well worth watching. For a quick fix in better quality check the the first part of the lecture held in Canada.
The chairman and final editor of the 911 commission report, Philip Zelikow, is not only a participant of the occult Bilderberg meetings and co-author of a book with Condoleeza Rice (and thus not really "independent from the government"), but also, according to Wikipedia, an expert for the creation of public myth. Decide for yourself who might be more competent to explain why fire can or cannot destroy a huge steel construction in a neat, symmetrical fashion.
So for those of you who want to hear some expert opinion about the collapse of the World Trade Center building, have a look at the Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth or Scholars for 911 Truth website, before you refrain to the next unsophisticated ad hominem attack when I mention this topic.
You may wonder why I bring up 911 so persistently, which is easy to answer. 911 is used as a general excuse for abolition of civil rights world wide and the murder of about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia will spend 10 billion dollar on its "war on terror" in the next 5 years (according to The Age), which resembles more and more the endless war described in Orwell's 1984.
I think its absurd to claim to live in a civilised society when more tax payers money is spend on war than on education or health. Unless you buy into the doublespeak idea that citizen are civilians, which can be bossed around like the Aboriginal communities by the army.
We study at one of the most prestigious universities of the world, which implies that we will (possibly) earn better wages and therefore pay more taxes than average Joe. This means we contribute more to support governmentally initiated murder.
Less than 10,000 people were killed by terror in the 21th century in the western world (none in Australia), whereas western governments killed about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And historically seen, most governments abused their population at will. Full suffrage for all citizens just happened in the 20th century, in Australia less than 50 years ago. Good luck in numbing your conscience with luxury and trusting the government.
However, I feel mature enough to stand the heat and not to give in to peer pressure. Especially as I don't spread any particular conspiracy theory, but ask for explanations of physical phenomena that insult my understanding of basic principles of science.
One of the key issues remains the question why and how the trade center building 1, 2 and 7 collapsed. The most intelligent reply I heard about this topic asked for some statements by engineers (thanks, Sophie), which might have a better idea about structural integrity of building, and the ways and reasons why buildings might collapse.
A lot of literature has been published about 911, and you might happily say by conspiracy nuts to make a big buck. But it when comes to making money out of 911 other names come to my mind. Larry Silverstein for example, the lease holder of the WTC complex made several billion dollars just a few months after signing the lease contract for the buildings. Or Halliburton, which overcharged the US government for the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but remains a primary supplier for the US army.
And probably you'll think it's just a publicity stunt, when celebrities like Charlie Sheen or Rosie O'Donnell raise their doubts about the official story. They lack - just like me - the professional credibility assumed by anyone the media calls expert.
Yet some experts use their knowledge to investigate on their own, with the little evidence that is left since most of debris of the collapsed buildings was sold off as scrap metal to China. Pr. Steven Jones, physicist, got hold of samples from the debris of the WTC, and found in it the chemical signature of thermate, an explosive used for controlled demolitions.
Richard Gage, an architect that designs steel-framed highrisers, held a lecture at the Sonoma State University to explain why he came to the conclusion that the buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down in a controlled demolition. You can find the link to the presentation on the left side of the "Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" website, and although the quality of the video is not too stunning, it is well worth watching. For a quick fix in better quality check the the first part of the lecture held in Canada.
The chairman and final editor of the 911 commission report, Philip Zelikow, is not only a participant of the occult Bilderberg meetings and co-author of a book with Condoleeza Rice (and thus not really "independent from the government"), but also, according to Wikipedia, an expert for the creation of public myth. Decide for yourself who might be more competent to explain why fire can or cannot destroy a huge steel construction in a neat, symmetrical fashion.
So for those of you who want to hear some expert opinion about the collapse of the World Trade Center building, have a look at the Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth or Scholars for 911 Truth website, before you refrain to the next unsophisticated ad hominem attack when I mention this topic.
You may wonder why I bring up 911 so persistently, which is easy to answer. 911 is used as a general excuse for abolition of civil rights world wide and the murder of about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia will spend 10 billion dollar on its "war on terror" in the next 5 years (according to The Age), which resembles more and more the endless war described in Orwell's 1984.
I think its absurd to claim to live in a civilised society when more tax payers money is spend on war than on education or health. Unless you buy into the doublespeak idea that citizen are civilians, which can be bossed around like the Aboriginal communities by the army.
We study at one of the most prestigious universities of the world, which implies that we will (possibly) earn better wages and therefore pay more taxes than average Joe. This means we contribute more to support governmentally initiated murder.
Less than 10,000 people were killed by terror in the 21th century in the western world (none in Australia), whereas western governments killed about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And historically seen, most governments abused their population at will. Full suffrage for all citizens just happened in the 20th century, in Australia less than 50 years ago. Good luck in numbing your conscience with luxury and trusting the government.
In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs that fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep the people frightened".Orwell, 1984
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)