»Viele Punkte im offiziellen Bericht sind fragwürdig«

Ein japanischer Parlamentsabgeordneter will internationale Koalition zur Aufklärung des 11. 9. 2001 bilden. Gespräch mit Yukihisa Fujita

Ralf Wurzbacher

Yukihisa Fujita ist Abgeordneter der »Demokratischen Partei« im japanischen Parlament und Vorsitzender eines parlamentarischen Ausschusses zur Verteidigungs- und Außenpolitik.

Sie reisen gegenwärtig durch Europa, um eine »Internationale Koalition zur Aufklärung des 11. September 2001« zu schmieden. Was läßt Sie an der offiziellen Version des Tathergangs der Terrorattacken auf die USA zweifeln?

Ein sehr wichtiger Punkt ist der Zusammenbruch von Gebäude 7 des World-Trade-Centers. Es wurde nicht von einem Flugzeug getroffen – und dennoch stürzte es sieben Stunden nach dem Kollaps der Zwillingstürme in etwa sechs Sekunden wie in freiem Fall innerhalb seines eigenen Grundrisses zusammen. Außerdem standen die Schäden am Pentagon in keiner Relation zur Größe des Flugzeugs, das dort eingeschlagen sein soll. Und wo sind all die Videoaufnahmen der etlichen Überwachungskameras rund um das Pentagon?

Zwei Vorsitzende der offiziellen Untersuchungskommission in den USA zum 11. September haben geäußert, daß seitens der Regierung wichtige Informationen zurückgehalten worden sind und die Arbeit der Kommission stark beeinträchtigt war. Große Bedeutung hat auch der Antrag zur Amtsenthebung von US-Präsident George Bush, der vergangene Woche im Kongreß mit 251 gegen 166 Stimmen an den Rechtsausschuß weitergeleitet wurde. Der Antrag umfaßte 35 einzelne Punkte, zwei gingen konkret auf den 11. September ein. Der Antrag muß natürlich noch hohe Hürden passieren, bevor er vielleicht Konsequenzen hat. Dennoch zeigt sich im Abstimmungsverhalten eine deutliche Bereitschaft der Parlamentarier, Bush noch vor den Wahlen wegen schwerwiegender Vergehen zur Verantwortung zu ziehen.

In Deutschland wären Sie mit Ihren Zweifeln rasch als »Verschwörungstheoretiker« verschrien.

Ich selbst habe nie Verschwörungstheorien aufgestellt und auch nie über einen von den USA inszenierten Anschlag spekuliert. Es ist nur so, daß viele Punkte im offiziellen Untersuchungsbericht keinen Sinn machen. Ich war eigentlich auch der Meinung, Osama Bin Laden sei der Drahtzieher gewesen. Ein Blick auf die Webseite des FBI offenbart jedoch, daß nach Bin Laden nicht wegen der Verbrechen des 11. September, sondern wegen der Anschläge auf die Botschaften in Ostafrika im Jahre 1998 gefahndet wird.Sie haben Ihre Thesen im Januar anläßlich der Abstimmung über die Wiederbeteiligung Japans an der »Antiterrormission« Enduring Freedom (OEF) in einem halbstündigen Vortrag vor dem Unterhaus dargelegt. Fand Ihr Auftritt in der Öffentlichkeit Beachtung?

Es gab ein paar Zeitungsberichte, in denen die Notwendigkeit einer neuen Untersuchung unterstützt wurde. Mich haben zudem viele E-Mails von Bürgern erreicht, die mich darin bestärkten, die offenen Fragen weiter zu thematisieren. Die Abgeordneten meiner Partei stehen inzwischen fast alle hinter mir. Und es gibt sogar einige Parlamentarier der Regierungspartei, die sehr daran interessiert sind, die ganze Wahrheit zu erfahren.

Sie halten nach möglichen Verbündeten in Europa Ausschau, um die Causa 9/11 auf die politische Tagesordnung zu bringen. Wie erfolgreich waren Sie bisher?

In Großbritannien bin ich mit dem ehemaligen Umweltminister Michael Meacher zusammengetroffen. Er kennt weitere Abgeordnete, die ihn in seiner Forderung nach einer neuen Untersuchung unterstützen. Ich traf auch den ehemaligen Präsidenten der Deutschen Bundesbank, Ernst Welteke, der mir seine Erkenntnisse zu den verdächtigen Finanzspekulationen im Vorfeld des 11. September, als an der Börse auf einen Kurseinbruch von American Airlines und United Airlines gewettet wurde, wiederholt bestätigte. Er hatte sich zu dieser Problematik während einer Konferenz im September 2001 geäußert und sagte mir, ich könne seinen Namen in diesem Zusammenhang erwähnen. Im Februar wohnte ich der Vorführung des Films »Zero« durch den EU-Abgeordneten Giulietto Chiesa im Europäischen Parlament bei.

Sind auch deutsche Politiker interessiert?

In Deutschland hatte ich dieses Mal nur einen sehr kurzen Aufenthalt auf dem Weg nach Italien. Einige fruchtbare Sondierungsgespräche konnte ich dennoch führen, das soll in Zukunft vertieft werden.

http://www.jungewelt.de/2008/06-20/066.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOj7Nxcn6gg

Antwort: "Es geht darum, Angst zu verbreiten. Der Tod von Unschuldigen führt dazu, dass die Bevölkerung eines Staates nach mehr Sicherheit ruft. Die Geheimdienste bekommen mehr Macht, und die Verteidigungsausgaben werden erhöht. Außerdem kann man einen politischen Feind diskreditieren, indem man ihm den Anschlag in die Schuhe schiebt. .."

http://www.freitag.de/2008/18/08180301.php

Das ist ein Auszug aus einem Interview der Zeitschrift Freitag (Paul Zelik) mit dem schweizer Hisoriker und Friedensforscher Dr. Daniele Ganser.

Bei obigen Zeilen ging es um den Anschlag von Bologna, der 1980 von der Nato-Geheimarmee Gladio inszeniert wurde. Also ein Anschlag, finanziert und letzlich auch gesteuert von CIA und MI6, bei dem ganz bewußt zufällig anwesende Zivilisten getroffen werden sollten. Hintergrund des Anschlags war die Befürchtung dass Italien kommunistisch werden würde.

Ereignisse wie diese sollten den kritischen und mündigen Bürger eigentlich dazu veranlassen nicht alles zu glauben was sein Staat oder ein befreundeter Staat ihm erzählen will.

Trotz all der erwiesenen Lügen wird der US-Regierung immer noch geglaubt.

Wer fragt sich z.B. wie die US-Luftabwehr am 11. September 2001 derartig versagen konnte?

Wie groß die Wahrscheinlichkeit ist dass sowohl bei diesem Ereignis als auch bei den 7/7 Bombings in London gleichzeitig Übungen zum selbigen Thema stattfanden?

Wie es physikalisch funktionieren soll dass WTC 1, 2 und 7 in nahezu freier Fallgeschwindigkeit eingestürzt sind?

Noch nichts gehört von WTC 7? Dann wird es Zeit zu recherchieren. Schließlich wurde dessen Einsturz bereits vorzeitig von Fernsehsendern gemeldet.

...

aber zurück: Das Interview mit Daniele Ganser gibts bei http://www.freitag.de/2008/18/08180301.php

Interview

Die SPD sprach von Ku-Klux-Klan

IM GESPRÄCHDer Schweizer Historiker Daniele Ganser über seine Studien zu den Geheimarmeen der NATO und zur terroristischen Seite des Westens

Über Jahrzehnte hinweg unterhielten die NATO-Partner in Westeuropa so genannte "militärische Parallelstrukturen". Daniele Ganser - er lehrt an der Universität Basel Internationale Zeitgeschichte - hat in seiner Studie NATO´s Secret Armies nachgewiesen, dass diese Formationen oft mit Rechtsextremisten durchsetzt und in terroristische Aktivitäten verstrickt waren. Er stützt sich unter anderem auf Untersuchungen zum italienischen "Gladio"-Netzwerk, dessen Existenz 1990 von Premier Andreotti eingestanden worden war.

FREITAG: Ihre Untersuchung über die NATO-Geheimarmeen hat das US-Außenministerium unlängst zu einem Dementi gezwungen. Was ist an Ihren Forschungsergebnissen so spektakulär?
DANIELE GANSER: Ich habe zunächst nachgewiesen, dass NATO-Geheimarmeen existierten. Man mag aus militärstrategischen Gründen nachvollziehen können, warum es im Blockkonflikt so etwas gab. Trotzdem waren sie illegal. Das zweite wichtige Ergebnis der Untersuchung ist, dass diese Geheimarmeen von zwei NATO-Ausschüssen koordiniert wurden, dem Clandestine Planning Committee und dem Allied Clandestine Committee. Schließlich zeige ich, dass - hier ist die Beweisführung komplizierter - diese Geheimarmeen teilweise in terroristische Anschläge verwickelt waren.

In Italien bestand das Gladio-Netz nicht nur aus so genannten Stay-Behind-Einheiten, die im Fall einer sowjetischen Besatzung einen antikommunistischen Widerstand "hinter den Linien" organisieren sollten. Die Geheimarmeen scheinen in mehreren Ländern rechtsextremistische Terrorgruppen unterstützt oder sogar angeleitet zu haben - bis in die achtziger Jahre hinein.
Ja, für Italien, die Türkei, Belgien und Frankreich kann man das belegen.

Die Opfer der Attentate von Rechtsextremen wie 1980 auf dem Bahnhof von Bologna waren Zivilisten. Was für ein Interesse kann ein Staat daran haben, seine eigenen Bürger anzugreifen?
Es geht darum, Angst zu verbreiten. Der Tod von Unschuldigen führt dazu, dass die Bevölkerung eines Staates nach mehr Sicherheit ruft. Die Geheimdienste bekommen mehr Macht, und die Verteidigungsausgaben werden erhöht. Außerdem kann man einen politischen Feind diskreditieren, indem man ihm den Anschlag in die Schuhe schiebt. Diese Strategie hat durchaus funktioniert. Sie hat die NATO, die eine Schwächung von innen befürchtete, insgesamt gestärkt.

Antiken Vasen vergleichbar, die man ausgräbt

Sie beziehen sich auf die so genannte Strategie der Spannung, die in Italien viel diskutiert wurde. Die dahinter stehende Idee ist angeblich, dass die gezielte Eskalation des innenpolitischen Klimas eine autoritäre Lösung von Staatskrisen legitimieren soll. In den siebziger Jahren tauchte ein US-Militärhandbuch auf: das Field Manual 30-31B, in dem eine solche Eskalation propagiert wurde. Das State Department hat nun erklärt, dieses Handbuch sei eine sowjetische Fälschung. Sind Sie Falschinformationen aufgesessen?
Es ist sicher richtig, dass es für uns Historiker schwer ist, die NATO-Geheimkriegführung zu untersuchen. Fast alle Originaldokumente sind unter Verschluss. Wir kennen das SIFAR-Dokument von 1959 und das Handbuch 30-31B, das besagt, dass man gelegentlich Terror inszenieren muss, um politische Kontrolle zu bewahren. Theoretisch ist durchaus denkbar, dass dieses Manual von den Sowjets gefälscht wurde. Ich stütze mich in meiner Forschung aber auch auf Aussagen von Geheimdienstmitarbeitern aus den USA. Auf Ray Cline etwa, einen ehemaligen CIA-Führungskader, und den Ex-Chef der italienischen P2-Loge, Licio Gelli, der eng mit den USA kooperierte, um den Kommunismus in Italien zu bekämpfen. Beide haben erklärt, dass es sich um ein authentisches Handbuch handelt.

Im inszenierten Terrorismus sind nicht viele Leute aktiv. Wenn die Aussagen von solchen Personen mit Fakten übereinstimmen, kann man davon ausgehen, dass hier ein echtes Dokument vorliegt. Mir ist andererseits auch klar, dass die US-Regierung alles abzustreiten versucht.

Wie kann man als Historiker arbeiten, wenn fast nur Sekundärquellen zur Verfügung stehen?
Es liegt in der Natur von Geheimarmeen, dass diese außerhalb der Geschichtsschreibung bleiben sollen. Meine erste Rekonstruktion bestand deshalb darin, mir die Debatte in den verschiedenen Parlamenten anzuschauen, um zu wissen, was Verteidigungs- und Premierminister zu sagen hatten. Daraus ging klar hervor, dass es eine Gladio-Struktur gab. Außerdem sind geheime Waffenlager geborgen worden. Wir verfügen also über eine hard evidence, vergleichbar mit antiken Vasen, die man ausgräbt, um Geschichte zu rekonstruieren.

Schwieriger ist der Nachweis hinsichtlich des inszenierten Terrors. Derartige Anweisungen erfolgen nie schriftlich. Man wird kein präsidiales Schreiben finden, in dem steht: "Bitte inszeniert in Italien einen Terroranschlag und schiebt ihn den Kommunisten in die Schuhe. Gez. Richard Nixon." Die Befehlsstruktur im Geheimkrieg funktioniert anders. Die strategische Anweisung lautet: "Wir müssen den Kommunismus mit allen Mitteln bekämpfen." In solchen Anweisungen wird nicht konkret ausgeführt, was geschehen soll. Die Anweisung wandert die Hierarchie hinunter, und schließlich sind es Geheimarmeen, Special Forces und Geheimdienste, die Aktionen durchführen. Aber auch dort wird wenig schriftlich festgehalten.

Man kann daher Akteure befragen und auf Aussagen wie die des italienischen Neofaschisten Vincenzo Vinciguerra zurückgreifen, der Anfang der neunziger Jahre öffentlich erklärte: "Ja, wir haben diese Terroranschläge verübt. Ja, wir sind vom Geheimdienst geschützt worden. Ja, das stand in Verbindung mit der NATO." Ähnliche Aussagen finden sich gleichfalls in Frankreich und in Belgien.

Auch Brandt und Schmidt haben Geheimstrukturen gedeckt

Warum weiß trotzdem niemand darüber Bescheid, dass westliche Geheimdienste mit rechtsextremistischem Personal Parallelarmeen aufgebaut haben? Das müsste doch Anlass sein, ein ganzes politisches System grundlegend zu reformieren.
In Deutschland hatte die Ruhe wohl mit politischen Konstellationen zu tun. Als die Existenz der Geheimarmeen 1990 aufgedeckt wurde, standen die ersten gesamtdeutschen Wahlen an. Die SPD sprach von Ku-Klux-Klan und forderte zunächst einen Untersuchungsausschuss. Die christdemokratischen Verteidigungsexperten wiesen ihre sozialdemokratischen Kollegen dann allerdings darauf hin, dass auch die sozialdemokratischen Regierungen Brandt und Schmidt die Geheimstrukturen gedeckt haben. Auf diese Weise kam es nur zu einer Anhörung hinter verschlossenen Türen und zu einem klassifizierten Bericht. Darin wurde die Existenz der Stay-Behind-Gruppen zwar eingestanden, aber es wurde weder etwas zur Terror- noch zur Rechtsextremismus-These gesagt.

Es ist klar, warum bis heute nicht darüber geredet werden soll. Die NATO will sich als Anti-Terror-Allianz kommunizieren. Der Widerspruch ist offensichtlich.

Was weiß man überhaupt zu Geheimstrukturen in Deutschland?
Ein Untersuchungsausschuss des hessischen Parlaments stellte bereits in den fünfziger Jahren fest, dass Stay-Behind-Einheiten aufgebaut und ehemalige Nazis dafür rekrutiert worden waren. Offenbar vertraute die CIA auf die antikommunistische Gesinnung und das technische Wissen der ehemaligen SS-Offiziere. In Hessen wollte man diesen Skandal damals aufdecken. Vor Bundesgerichten kam es in der Folge jedoch zu Freisprüchen. Man hat das in Hessen nicht verstanden - immerhin hatten die Geheimgruppen Todeslisten mit den Namen von Gewerkschaftern und linken Sozialdemokraten angelegt. Weitere Ermittlungen wurden abgeblockt, seitdem hat man das Thema in Deutschland nicht mehr untersucht.

1980 sorgten rechtsradikale Gruppen für eine Anschlagswelle: auf das Münchner Oktoberfest, eine jüdisches Verlegerehepaar und ein Asylbewerberheim. Über diese Attentate wird kaum geredet. Gleichzeitig haben Angehörige der Münchner Oktoberfestopfer immer wieder behauptet, eine gründliche Aufklärung des Anschlags sei innerhalb der Behörden blockiert worden. Stehen uns hier noch Enthüllungen bevor?
Die Einzeltäterthese, mit der man den Anschlag in München erklären wollte, ist nicht sehr überzeugend. Die Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann, aus der der Attentäter stammte, war alles andere als isoliert. Leute aus dem Täterumfeld haben 1980 ausgesagt, sie hätten Waffen und Sprengstoff von Heinz Lembke, einem NPD-Mann aus Norddeutschland, erhalten. Man hat diesen Lembke damals völlig in Ruhe gelassen, die Ermittlungsbehörden sind der Information einfach nicht nachgegangen. Ein Jahr später sind Unbeteiligte dann zufällig auf ein Waffenlager Lembkes gestoßen. Der wurde festgenommen und führte die Ermittler zu 33 Munitions- und Sprengstoffdepots in der Lüneburger Heide. Lembke kündigte weitere Aussagen an und wurde kurze Zeit später erhängt in seiner Zelle gefunden.

Hier passt alles zusammen: Wir haben große Depots mit NATO-Kriegsmaterial, das nicht von einer Einzelperson erworben worden sein kann. Der Rechtsextremist Lembke hat Waffen an eine andere rechtsextremistische Gruppe, die Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann, weiter gegeben. Diese Gruppe verübt nachweislich Terroranschläge.

Man fragt sich schon, warum hier nicht nachgehakt wird. Es wäre leicht zu überprüfen gewesen, ob Lembkes Waffenlager Teil der NATO-Geheimstruktur waren. Der BND verfügte über ein Verzeichnis aller Stay-Behind-Depots. In Italien hat man anhand solcher Verzeichnisse nach 1990 die Depots geräumt. Irgendjemand musste im Ernstfall ja wissen, wo die Waffen und der Sprengstoff liegen.

Der Ausnahmezustand wird zum neuen Paradigma des Regierens

Man hätte also überprüfen müssen, ob Lembkes Waffen etwas mit der NATO-Geheimstruktur zu tun hatten ...
... und ob der in München eingesetzte Sprengstoff von Lembke stammte, und wer von der Kooperation zwischen den Rechtextremisten wusste. Wenn die das unter sich ausgemacht hatten, würde es bedeuten, dass man diese Gruppen nicht kontrollieren konnte. Schon das hätte die Stay-Behind-Struktur grundsätzlich in Frage gestellt. Noch brisanter wäre selbstverständlich, wenn ein derartiger Anschlag aus politischen Gründen erwünscht gewesen wäre. - Wir wissen das nicht. Aber man muss festhalten, dass die Ermittlungen an entscheidenden Stellen abgebrochen wurden und bis heute blockiert sind.

Der Philosoph Giorgio Agamben hat nach 2001 davon gesprochen, dass der Ausnahmezustand zum neuen Paradigma des Regierens wird. Ist es nicht eher so, dass es in den vergangenen 60 Jahren immer wieder eine schleichende autoritäre Ermächtigung der Exekutive gab? Geheimarmeen und informelle Netzwerke tragen Züge eines Parallelstaates. Solche Strukturen stellen sicher, dass Linksregierungen den Staat nicht kontrollieren können und Machtkontinuität auch nach einem möglichen Regierungswechsel gewahrt bleibt.
Absolut, Machtzuwachs von Exekutiven jenseits der parlamentarischen Kontrolle beobachten wir Historiker immer wieder. Als 1990 die Existenz der P 26, der Schweizerischen Geheimarmee, öffentlich wurde, waren die Leute schockiert, weil es eigentlich unmöglich ist, dass eine bewaffnete staatliche Struktur existiert, die von der Legislative nicht kontrolliert wird. Mit solchen Strukturen, von denen auch im Parlament kaum jemand etwas weiß, schafft sich die Exekutive einen Machtvorsprung.

Das Gespräche führte Raul Zelik

Daniele Ganser Die NATO-Geheimarmeen. Inszenierter Terror und verdeckte Kriegführung, Verlag Orell Füssli, 29,80 Euro

http://www.freitag.de/2008/18/08180301.php

[googlevideo=http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=945405493000735497]

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=945405493000735497

In this acclaimed Lannan foundation lecture from September 2002, Roy speaks poetically to power on the US' War on Terror, globalization, ...the misuses of nationalism, and the growing chasm between the rich and poor. With lyricism and passion, Roy combines her literary talents and encyclopedic knowledge to expose injustice and provide hope for a future world.

Arundhati Roy - The Day of the Jackels

[googlevideo=http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6609791038027873153]

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6609791038027873153

Talk by Arundhati Roy from May 2003, filmed at the United for Peace and Justice Teach-In.

Arundhati Roy Interview - Enough Rope 2004

[googlevideo=http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=2014530406074866968]

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=2014530406074866968

Arundhati Roy is interviewed on Australia's Enough Rope in 2004, before accepting the Sydney Peace Prize.

DAM/AGE: A Film with Arundhati Roy

[googlevideo=http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5268815252249892078]

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5268815252249892078

In October 2001, the supreme court in India charged Aundhati Roy with contempt of court. This is the story of the events that led to her arrest.

Artikel auf deutsch: http://www.lebenshaus-alb.de/cgi-bin/cms/mt-view.cgi/1/category/302/

ARUNDHATI ROY | A LIFE FULL OF BEGINNINGS AND NO ENDS http://www.chitram.org/mallu/ar.htm

Übersicht über Bücher, Artikel, Essays: http://www.geocities.com/chinthacn/authors/Roy-A.htm

Books

Power Politics

"America has always viewed oil as a security consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary. Few of us doubt that the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil."

Arundhati Roy, author and activist

War Talk

"In America, the arms industry, the oil industry and the major media networks-indeed, U.S. foreign policy-are all controlled by the same business combines."

Arundhati Roy, author and activist

An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire

Articles

New WorId Disorder - War is peace. So now we know

"The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all of the world's weapons, and they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction-chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in modem history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war. For all its appalling sins, the Taliban just isn't in the same league."

Arundhati Roy, author and activist

The Algebra of Infinite Justice
Shall We Leave It to the Experts?
Fascism's Firm Footprint in India

Arundhati Roy, author and activist

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Arundhati_Roy/Arundhati_Roy_page.html

Arundhati Roy: Was Indian Parliament Bombing Yet Another False-Flag Attack?

The Guardian Friday December 15, 2006

India's shame

Mohammad Afzal is due to hang for his part in the 2001 attack on India's parliament building. But was he only a bit player? And is the country trying to bury embarrassing questions about its war on terror?

By Arundhati Roy

Five years ago this week, on December 13 2001, the Indian parliament was in its winter session. The government was under attack for yet another corruption scandal. At 11.30 in the morning, five armed men in a white Ambassador car fitted out with an improvised explosive device drove through the gates of Parliament House. When they were challenged, they jumped out of the car and opened fire. In the gun battle that followed, all the attackers were killed. Eight security personnel and a gardener were killed too. The dead terrorists, the police said, had enough explosives to blow up the parliament building, and enough ammunition to take on a whole battalion of soldiers. Unlike most terrorists, these five left behind a thick trail of evidence - weapons, mobile phones, phone numbers, ID cards, photographs, packets of dried fruit and even a love letter.

Not surprisingly, prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee seized the opportunity to compare the assault to the September 11 attacks in the US only three months previously.

On December 14 2001, the day after the attack on parliament, the Special Cell (anti-terrorist squad) of the Delhi police claimed it had tracked down several people suspected of being involved in the conspiracy. The next day, it announced that it had "cracked the case": the attack, the police said, was a joint operation carried out by two Pakistan-based terrorist groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Three Kashmiri men, Syed Abdul Rahman Geelani, Shaukat Hussain Guru and Mohammad Afzal, and Shaukat's wife, Afsan Guru, were arrested.

In the tense days that followed, parliament was adjourned. The Indian government declared that Pakistan - America's closest ally in the "war on terror" - was a terrorist state. On December 21, India recalled its high commissioner from Pakistan, suspended air, rail and bus communications and banned air traffic with Pakistan. It put into motion a massive mobilisation of its war machinery, and moved more than half a million troops to the Pakistan border. Foreign embassies evacuated their staff and citizens, and tourists travelling to India were issued cautionary travel advisories. The world watched with bated breath as the subcontinent was taken to the brink of nuclear war. All this cost India an estimated pounds 1.1bn of public money. About 800 soldiers died in the panicky process of mobilisation alone.

The police charge sheet was filed in a special fast-track trial court designated for cases under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Some three years later, the trial court sentenced Geelani, Shaukat and Afzal to death. Afsan Guru was sentenced to five years of "rigorous imprisonment". On appeal, the high court subsequently acquitted Geelani and Afsan, but upheld Shaukat's and Afzal's death sentence. Eventually, the supreme court upheld the acquittals and reduced Shaukat's punishment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. However, it not just confirmed, but enhanced Mohammad Afzal's sentence. He was given three life sentences and a double death sentence.

In its judgment on August 5 2005, the supreme court admitted that the evidence against Afzal was only circumstantial, and that there was no evidence that he belonged to any terrorist group or organisation. But it went on to endorse what can only be described as lynch law. "The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation," it said, "and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."

Spelling out the reasons for giving Afzal the death penalty, the judgment went on: "The appellant, who is a surrendered militant and who was bent upon repeating the acts of treason against the nation, is a menace to the society and his life should become extinct." This implies a dangerous ignorance of what it means to be a "surrendered militant" in Kashmir today.

So, should Afzal's life be extinguished? His story is fascinating because it is inextricably entwined with the story of the Kashmir Valley. It is a story that stretches far beyond the confines of courtrooms and the limited imagination of people who live in the secure heart of a self-declared "superpower". Afzal's story has its origins in a war zone whose laws are beyond the pale of the fine arguments and delicate sensibilities of normal jurisprudence.

For all these reasons it is critical that we consider carefully the strange, sad and utterly sinister story of the December 13 attack. It tells us a great deal about the way the world's largest "democracy" really works. It connects the biggest things to the smallest. It traces the pathways that connect what happens in the shadowy grottoes of our police stations to what goes on in the snowy streets of Paradise Valley, and from there to the malign furies that bring nations to the brink of nuclear war. It raises specific questions that deserve specific, and not ideological or rhetorical, answers. What hangs in the balance is far more than the fate of one man.

For the most part, the December 13 attack was an astonishingly incompetent "terrorist" strike. But consummate competence appeared to be the hallmark of everything that followed: the gathering of evidence, the speed of the investigation by the Special Cell, the arrest and charging of the accused and the three-and-a-half-year-long judicial process that began with the fast-track trial court.

The operative phrase in all of this is "appeared to be". If you follow the story carefully, you will encounter two sets of masks. First, the mask of consummate competence (accused arrested, "case cracked" in two days flat), and then, when things began to come undone, the benign mask of shambling incompetence (shoddy evidence, procedural flaws, material contradictions). But underneath all of this - as several lawyers, academics and journalists who have studied the case in detail have shown - is something more sinister, more worrying. Over the past few years the worries have grown into a mountain of misgivings, impossible to ignore.

The doubts set in as early as the day after the parliament attack, when the police arrested Geelani, a young lecturer at Delhi University. His outraged colleagues and friends, certain that he had been framed, contacted the well-known lawyer Nandita Haksar and asked her to take on his case. This marked the beginning of a campaign for the fair trial of Geelani. It flew in the face of mass hysteria and corrosive propaganda that was enthusiastically disseminated by the mass media. But despite this, the campaign was successful, and Geelani was eventually acquitted, along with Afsan Guru.

Geelani's acquittal blew a gaping hole in the prosecution's version of the parliament attack. The linchpin of its conspiracy theory suddenly tuned out to be innocent. But in some odd way, in the public mind, the acquittal of two of the accused only confirmed the guilt of the other two. There was bloodlust that had to be satiated. When the government announced that Afzal, Accused No 1 in the case, would be hanged on October 20 2006, it seemed that most people welcomed the news not just with approval, but with morbid excitement. But then, once again, the questions resurfaced.

To see through the prosecution's case against Geelani was relatively easy. He was plucked out of thin air and transplanted into the centre of the "conspiracy" as its kingpin. Afzal was different. He had been extruded through the sewage system of the hell that Kashmir has become. He surfaced through a manhole, covered in shit (and when he emerged, policemen in the Special Cell pissed on him. Literally.) The first thing they made him do was a "media confession" in which he implicated himself completely in the attack. The speed with which this happened made many of us believe that he was indeed guilty as charged. It was only much later that the circumstances under which this "confession" was made were revealed, and even the supreme court was to set it aside, saying that the police had violated legal safeguards.

From the very beginning there was nothing pristine or simple about Afzal's case. His story gives us a glimpse into what life is really like in the Kashmir Valley. It is only in the Noddy Book version we read about in our newspapers that security forces battle militants and innocent Kashmiris are caught in the crossfire. In the adult version, Kashmir is a valley awash with militants, renegades, security forces, double-crossers, informers, spooks, blackmailers, blackmailees, extortionists, spies, both Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies, human rights activists, NGOs and unimaginable amounts of unaccounted-for money and weapons. There are not always clear lines that demarcate the boundaries between all these things and people; it is not easy to tell who is working for whom.

Truth, in Kashmir, is probably more dangerous than anything else. The deeper you dig, the worse it gets. At the bottom of the pit are the Special Operations Group and Special Task Force (STF), the most ruthless, indisciplined and dreaded elements of the Indian security apparatus in Kashmir, which play a central role in the Afzal story. Unlike the more formal forces, they operate in a twilight zone where policemen, surrendered militants, renegades and common criminals do business. They prey upon the local population, particularly in rural Kashmir. Their primary victims are the thousands of young Kashmiri men who rose up in revolt in the anarchic uprising of the early 1990s and have since surrendered and are trying to live normal lives.

In 1989, when Afzal crossed the border to be trained as a militant, he was only 20. He returned with no training, disillusioned with his experience. He put down his gun and enrolled himself in Delhi University. In 1993, without ever having been a practising militant, he voluntarily surrendered to the Border Security Force. Illogically enough, it was at this point that his nightmares began. His surrender was treated as a crime and his life became hell. Afzal's story has enraged Kashmiris because what has happened to him could have happened, is happening and has happened to thousands of young Kashmiri men and their families. The only difference is that their stories are played out in the dingy bowels of interrogation centres, army camps and police stations where they have been burned, beaten, electrocuted, blackmailed and killed, their bodies thrown out of the backs of trucks for passers-by to find. Whereas Afzal's story is being performed like a piece of medieval theatre on the national stage, in the clear light of day, with the legal sanction of a "fair trial", the hollow benefits of a "free press" and the all pomp and ceremony of a so-called democracy.

In documents submitted to the court, Afzal describes how, in the months before the attack on parliament, he was tortured in the camps of the STF - with electrodes on his genitals and chillies and petrol in his anus. He talks of how he was a constant victim of extortion. He mentions the name of Deputy Superintendent of Police Devinder Singh, who said he needed him to do a "small job" for him in Delhi. (Singh has subsequently admitted on record to having tortured Afzal in exactly the ways Afzal has described.) Afzal has also said that from the time he was arrested up to the time he was charged (a few months), his younger brother Hilal was held in illegal confinement in a police camp in Kashmir. As ransom.

Even today, Afzal does not claim complete innocence. It is the nature of his involvement that is being contested. For instance, was he coerced, tortured and blackmailed into playing even the peripheral part he played? In a gross violation of his constitutional rights, from the time he was arrested and right through the crucial phase of the trial when the real work of building up a case is done, Afzal did not have a lawyer. He had nobody to put out his version of the story, or help him or anyone else sift through the tangle of lies and fabrications and propaganda put out by the police. Various individuals worked it out for themselves. Today, five years later, a group of lawyers, academics, journalists and writers has published a reader (December 13th: The Strange Case of the Parliament Attack, published by Penguin India). It is this body of work that has fractured what, only recently, appeared to be a national consensus interwoven with mass hysteria.

Through the fissures, those who have come under scrutiny - shadowy individuals, counter-intelligence and security agencies, political parties - are beginning to surface. They wave flags, hurl abuse, issue hot denials and cover their tracks with more and more untruths. Thus they reveal themselves.

The essays in the Penguin book raise questions about how Afzal, who never had proper legal representation, can be sentenced to death without having had an opportunity to be heard, without a fair trial. They raise questions about fabricated arrest memos, falsified seizure and recovery memos, procedural flaws, vital evidence that has been tampered with, false telephone records, false testimonies, legal lacunae, material contradictions in the testimonies of police and prosecution witnesses, and the outright lies that were presented in court and published in newspapers. They show how there is hardly a single piece of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

And then there are even more disturbing questions that have been raised, which range beyond the fate of Afzal. Some of these are critical for a country that is claiming to be a responsible nuclear power. Here are 13 questions for December 13:

Question 1: For months before the attack on parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that parliament could be attacked. On December 12 2001, the then prime minister, AB Vajpayee, warned of an imminent attack. On December 13 it happened. Given that there was an "improved security drill", how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?

Question 2: Within days of the attack, the Special Cell of the Delhi police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. They said the attack was led by a man called "Mohammad" who was also involved in the hijacking of flight IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.) None of this was ever proved in court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on CCTV. Two Congress party MPs, Kapil Sibal and Najma Heptullah, demanded in parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. They said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, "I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The closed circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men." If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?

Question 4: Why was parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?

Question 5: A few days after December 13, the government declared that it had "incontrovertible evidence" of Pakistan's involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal's "confession", extracted under torture (and later set aside by the supreme court), what was the "incontrovertible evidence"?

Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 attack?

Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages and landmines were being planted in their fields?

Question 8: In a criminal investigation, it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. The police have not managed to show how they connected Geelani to the attack. And how did the police reach Afzal? The Special Cell says Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the December 13 attack?

Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the STF of Jammu and Kashmir police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?

Question 10: Is it plausible that organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?

Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to "Mohammed" and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?

Question 12: On December 19 2001, six days after the parliament attack, police commissioner SM Shangari identified one of the attackers who was killed as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000 and immediately handed over to the Jammu and Kashmir police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If police commissioner Shangari was right, how did Yasin, a man in the custody of the Jammu and Kashmir police, end up participating in the parliament attack? If he was wrong, where is Yasin now?

Question 13: Why is it that we still do not know who the five "terrorists" killed in the parliament attack are?

These questions, examined cumulatively, point to something far more serious than incompetence. The words that come to mind are complicity, collusion, involvement. There is no need for us to feign shock or shrink from thinking these thoughts and saying them out loud. Governments and their intelligence agencies have a hoary tradition of using strategies such as this to further their own ends. (Look up the burning of the Reichstag and the rise of Nazi power in Germany in 1933; or Operation Gladio, in which European intelligence agencies created acts of terrorism, especially in Italy, in order to discredit militant groups such as the Red Brigades.)

The official response to all of these questions has been dead silence. As things stand, Afzal's execution has been postponed while the president considers his clemency petition. Meanwhile, the Bhartiya Janata party (now in the opposition) announced that it would turn "Hang Afzal" into a national campaign. But it does not seem to have taken off. Now other avenues are being explored. The main strategy seems to be to create confusion and polarise the debate on communal lines. In the business of spreading confusion, the media, particularly television journalists, can be counted on to be perfect collaborators. On discussions, chat shows and "special reports", we have television anchors playing around with crucial facts, like young children in a sandpit. Torturers, estranged brothers, senior police officers and politicians are emerging from the woodwork and talking. The more they talk, the more interesting it all becomes.

One character who is rapidly emerging from the shadowy periphery and wading on to centre-stage is deputy superintendent Devinder Singh. He was showcased on the national news (CNN-IBN), in what was presented as a "sting" operation with a hidden camera. It all seemed a bit unnecessary, however, because Singh has been talking a lot these days. He has done recorded interviews, on the phone as well as face to face, saying exactly the same shocking things. Weeks before the sting operation, in a recorded interview with Parvaiz Bukhari, a freelance journalist, he said, "I did interrogate and torture him [Afzal] at my camp for several days. And we never recorded his arrest in the books anywhere. His description of torture at my camp is true. That was the procedure those days and we did pour petrol in his ass and gave him electric shocks. But I could not break him. He did not reveal anything to me despite our hardest possible interrogation ... He looked like a 'bhondu' [fool] those days, what you call a 'chootya' [idiot] type. And I had a reputation for torture, interrogation and breaking suspects. If anybody came out of my interrogation clean, nobody would ever touch him again. He would be considered clean for good by the whole department."

This is not an empty boast. Singh has a formidable reputation for torture in the Kashmir Valley. On TV, his boasting spiralled into policy-making. "Torture is the only deterrent for terrorism," he said. "I do it for the nation." He did not bother to explain why or how the "bhondu" that he tortured and subsequently released allegedly went on to become the diabolical mastermind of the parliament attack. Singh then said that Afzal was a Jaish militant. If this is true, why was the evidence not placed before the courts? And why on earth was Afzal released? Why was he not watched? There is a definite attempt to try to dismiss this as incompetence. But given everything we know now, it would take all of Singh's delicate professional skills to make some of us believe that.

The official version of the story of the parliament attack is very quickly coming apart at the seams. Even the supreme court judgment, with all its flaws of logic and leaps of faith, does not accuse Afzal of being the mastermind of the attack. So who was the mastermind? If Afzal is hanged, we may never know. But LK Advani, the leader of the opposition, wants him hanged at once. Even a day's delay, he says, is against the national interest. Why? What is the hurry? The man is locked up in a high-security cell on death row. He is not allowed out of his cell for even five minutes a day. What harm can he do? Talk? Write, perhaps? Surely, even in Advani's own narrow interpretation of the term, it is in the national interest not to hang Afzal? At least not until there is an inquiry that reveals what the real story is and who actually attacked parliament?

A genuine inquiry would have to mean far more than just a political witch-hunt. It would have to look into the part played by intelligence, counter-insurgency and security agencies as well. Offences such as the fabrication of evidence and the blatant violation of procedural norms have already become established in the courts, but they look very much like just the tip of the iceberg. We now have a police officer admitting - boasting - on record that he was involved in the illegal detention and torture of a fellow citizen. Is all of this acceptable to the people, the government and the courts of India?

Given the track record of Indian governments (past and present, right, left and centre) it is naive - perhaps utopian is a better word - to hope that today's politicians will ever have the courage to institute an inquiry that will, once and for all, uncover the real story. A maintenance dose of pusillanimity is probably encrypted in all governments. But hope has little to do with reason.

http://www.mujca.com/roy.htm

Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy has turned down an award from the Sahitya Akademi in New Delhi because of her opposition to Indian government policies.

Sahitya Akademi, which was launched by the government in 1954 and calls itself India's national academy of letters, has asked her to reconsider.

Award winning author Arundhati Roy, centre, celebrates on Thursday March 7, 2002 after being released from Tihar Jail in New Delhi.
(AP photo)

"We are trying to persuade her to reconsider her decision," said an academy spokesman. "We are telling her that the [Sahitya] Akademi is intellectually and culturally, purely autonomous, although it is funded by the government."

A jury unanimously chose her book of essays, The Algebra of Infinite Justice, as winner of the Sahitya Akademi award. The prize includes a plaque and 50,000 rupees ($1,300).

The essays, written from 1998 to 2003, are a denunciation of the hubris of the rich and the powerful and the plight of the poor and the homeless in India.

Among the targets in her essays are the nuclear industry, dam building and economic policies of the Indian government.

Even today this government "shows a continuing commitment to these polices and is clearly prepared to implement them ruthlessly and violently, whatever the cost," she said.

Roy, who won the 1997 Booker for her first novel The God of Small Things, said in her letter declining the award that "we are witness to police lathicharge on workers in Gurgaon, the killings of those agitating against big dams in Manipur and of tribals demonstrating against a steel unit in Orissa."

Roy has reiterated she cannot accept the honour from an institution linked to a government whose policies she opposes.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/01/16/arundhati-roy.html

Cynthia McKinney
-- Former Georgia Congresswoman and Green Party Presidential candidate

• War on Terrorism = War on Freedom
• "Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere Strategie dazu, die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren" (Daniele Ganser)
• siehe auch Naomi Wolf: “The End of America. Letter of a Warning to a Young Patriot”

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5737803648155551416

“WASHINGTON, YOU’RE FIRED!” was born out of sheer frustration with abuses in our current political system and it gives a voice to Americans across the country.

From the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts and law enforcement abuses to the wrongful imprisonment and torturing of legal enemy combatants and misuse of the FBI and NSA -- nothing is taboo in this disturbing look at the last seven years of fundamentally flawed terror-related spy bills, how they affect you, and what you can do about it.

Bills such as the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the John Warner Defense Act have crippled the U.S. Constitution and have weakened the liberties that Americans once thought they could never lose. The loss of Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus, coupled with a new definition of “torture” are just the tip of the Orwellian iceberg. If enacted, HR 1955 will for the first time put “thought crime” laws on the books, robbing citizens of their right to freedom of conscience thought.

The American people know in their hearts that a problem exists in our current political structure and their solutions are simple, direct, and honest. Washington, You’re Fired captures the spirit and zest of an old fashioned Boston tea party and captivatingly delivers the audience an education into legislation that will affect them and generations of Americans to come.

"Washington, You're Fired" is a chance for every American to play a serious game of political "catch-up" minus the partisan punch lines. We'll examine both sides of the political aisle exposing some of the most damning laws ever enacted in any country, while at the same time providing the audience with solutions and a game plan.

ein Film von William Lewis & Keith Abel. http://www.washingtonyourefired.com/

What if the President of the United States had ordered the NSA to data-mine the electronic communications of every single American... BEFORE the attacks of September 11 had even occurred? What if every email, every phone call; every time you surfed the Internet, your private communications were being siphoned into a gigantic dragnet funded by a forty-five billion dollar budget and carried out in cooperation with the FBI, AT&T, and Verizon? Compelling first-hand testimony and whistleblower accounts, punch holes in the official "war on terrorism" excuse that has been used to dismantle the U.S. Bill of Rights and tip the scales of executive checks and balance in this country.

The United States stands at a threshold where one man, the President of the United States, has been granted dictatorial ruling powers by the U.S. Congress. The President, any president, now holds solely in his or her hands the power to become judge, jury, and executioner. Is this the kind of government that our founding fathers enshrined forever in the U.S. Constitution? Will the American people recognize their loss of civil liberties and rise up to affect change in Washington or will they drift even further into a state of affairs that is quickly beginning to resemble that of a 1940's police state; complete with a National ID, a Homeland security force, and enough "terrorist-related" spy laws to know what color underwear you have on at this very moment...

Do the American people even know the names of the Bills that were used to exterminate the U.S. Constitution? Chances are, the answer is no... "Washington, You're Fired" is a chance for every American to play a serious game of political "catch-up" minus the partisan punch lines. We'll examine both sides of the political aisle exposing some of the most damning laws ever enacted in any country.

Bills such as the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the John Warner Defense Act have crippled the U.S. Constitution and have weakened the liberties that Americans once thought they could never lose. The loss of Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitaus; coupled with a new definition of “torture” are just the tip of the Orwellian iceberg. If enacted, HR 1955 will for the first time put “thought crime” laws on the books, robbing Americans of their right to freedom of conscience thought.

We will examine constitutional issues as they relate to the Katrina disaster, the President's illegal spy program, NSA data-mining, FISA's secret court, the illegal wiretapping of millions of Americans, the re-defining of "privacy" rights, frightening Executive Orders and "terror-war" legislation.

We don't just drop the bomb and run... In "Washington, You're Fired" you'll be shown what to look for in any candidate for political office, plus we provide the tools necessary to enable all of the people to make informed decisions about their political candidates. Problems and solutions are addressed by man on the street interviews with people who think just like you do... and a few who don't, but that's America... right?

“Washington, You're Fired” is a powerhouse of information that every person in this country must fully comprehend before casting their vote in 2008 or in any election for that matter. Get a copy today and share it with someone you care about.

With featured guests: Constitutional Attorneys - Jonathan Turley & George Burns, Jr.

Special appearances by: Ann Wright, Meria Heller, Charles Goyette, Kate Mucci, and plenty of others!

Written, Produced & Directed by William Lewis
Co-Written & Produced by Keith Abel
Featuring the music of Poker Face, the Apollo Symphony Orchestra, & others

http://www.bridgestonemediagroup.com/wyf.html

.

einige Webseiten, die im Film vorkommen:

http://www.senate.gov/

http://www.house.gov/

US Oranisations:

Bill of Rights Defense Committee http://bordc.org/

The Civil Rights Coalition for the 21th Century http://civilrights.org/

Center for Constitutional Rights http://ccrjustice.org/

Not in our Name: http://notinourname.net/

Declaration of Peace http://declarationofpeace.org/

Informations:

http://www.indymedia.org/

http://commondreams.org/

http://www.newswithviews.com/

http://www.truthout.org/

http://globalresearch.ca/

http://takebackwashington.com/

.

http://meria.net/

http://1100kfnx.com/

http://v911t.org/

KZs bauen sie in Amerika, aber doch nicht bei uns ...

uns gehts doch gut in unserem Staat ...

ach ja die zunehmende Überwachung, die zunehmende Einschränkung der Bürgerrechte - das ist doch nur um uns vor den Terroristen zu schützen ...

Das Schweigen ist der Tod der Freiheit

Zuerst folterten sie einen kleinen Gangster.
Ich habe geschwiegen,
ich war kein Krimineller.

Als sie einen Soldaten folterten, der über die Schrecken des Irakkrieges sprach
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war kein Verräter.

Als sie einen Strafverteidiger einsperrten
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war kein Rechtsanwalt.

Als sie einen Vater festnahmen, der einem Regierungsmitglied die Meinung sagte
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich hatte nie zu bedeutenden Politikern gesprochen.

Als sie den Tod einer mutigen Fernsehmoderatorin forderten.
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war kein Fernsehstar.

Als sie Friedensaktivisten vor dem Regierungssitz verhafteten
habe ich nichts dazu gesagt,
ich war noch nie am Regierungssitz.

Als sie jemanden abführten, der ein Transparent trug.
habe ich nicht protestiert,
ich habe noch nie ein Transparent getragen.

Als sie einem engagierten Pfarrer mit Gewalt das Bein brachen
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war kein Geistlicher.

Als sie mich holten
gab es keinen mehr,
der protestieren konnte.

(nach Martin Niemöller - aus: George Washington’s Blog)

[die Links sind leider teilweise nicht mehr aktuell] http://politblog.net/krieg-terrorismus/das-schweigen-ist-der-tod-der-freiheit.htm

!!! INESTIGATE and take AKTION !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI9mAm6xInw

Bob Dylan: Masters of War

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

PEACE TRAIN (Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam)

Now I've been happy lately
Thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be
Something good has begun
I've been smiling lately
Dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be
Something good's bound to come

For out on the edge of darkness
There runs the peace train
Peace train take this country
Come take me home again

Peace train sounding louder
Ride on the peace train

Hoo-ah-eeh-ah-hoo-ah
Come on the peace train
Peace train's a holy roller
Everyone jump upon the peace train
Hoo-ah-eeh-ah-hoo-ah
This is the peace train

Get your bags together
Come bring your good friends too
Because it's getting nearer
Soon it will be with you
Come and join the living
It's not so far from you
And it's getting nearer
Soon it will all be true

Peace train sounding louder
Ride on the peace train
Hoo-ah-eeh-ah-hoo-ah
Come on the peace train

I've been crying lately
Thinking about the world as it is
Why must we go on hating?
Why can't we live in bliss?

For out on the edge of darkness
There rides the peace train
Peace train take this country
Come take me home again

Peace train sounding louder
Ride on the peace train
Hoo-ah-eeh-ah-hoo-ah
Come on the peace train

Come on, come on, come on
the peace train...

2004 wurde Yusuf Islam die Einreise in die USA verweigert (Cat Stevens: Sänger löst Terror-Alarm aus)

Best UK Documentary: Dean Puckett for ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

http://www.londonindependent.org/

Der Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYLWFDS62jA

http://www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk/

siehe auch: http://www.myspace.com/theelephantintheroom

Wie weit gehen seine Lügen? Wo hat selbst ein notorischer Lügner Skrupel?

Glauben wir nur Lügen, wenn sie groß genug sind oder nur wenn (fast) alle daran glauben?

Wer macht sich eigentlich die Mühe nach Lügen zu suchen?

Wie weit besteht unser Weltbild aus Lügen? Ein Lügengebäude?

Ist das Verschweigen der Lüge auch schon eine?

Wer lügt alles mit? Was wohl erfahrene Journalisten dazu sagen?

Na ja, aber die beschäftigen sich doch wohl meistens mit dem Herunterbeten offizieller Verlautbahrungen und Einschätzungen. Was ist eigentlich aus dem investigativen Journalismus geworden? Sind die Massenmedien noch mehr als Medienagenturen-Ausstoßorgane?

Hierzu eine Anregung von www.stoplying.ca :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

Seid kritisch, macht euch selbst auf die Suche nach der Wahrheit und glaubt nicht (nur) den Wasserträgern.

Zum Vertiefen noch ein empirisch errechnetes Lügenbeispiel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ja61XCLEAE

Involved in http://www.brusselstribunal.org/, http://perdana4peace.org/, ...

When we talk about False Flag Operations, we have to understand what our government is capable of doing.

[Wenn wir über Operationen unter falscher Flagge reden, dann müssen wir verstehen wozu unsere Regierung fähig ist.]

[googlevideo=http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5642883381859670899]

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5642883381859670899