Divided we fall

[Pikey]

Food for thought and worthy of further debate imo:-

[ian neal]

A few points in reply to the initial article and to Rich's reply

1) The initial article is old news, but as I say and Ian Crane says in reply, if others want to establish an alternative group or campaign to press for the truth about 9/11 please go ahead and do so. We don't all need to operate as one or even under one umbrella and surely events over the past year demonstrate that whilst there may be unity in calling for a new investigation, there is not unity in terms of how to campaign and on the basis of what evidence. I see a plurality of approaches to campaigning to be wholly positive (provided any squabbles between different approaches is kept to a minimum). I also note that rational 's promise to form an alternative campaign has come to nothing unless it is seriously under the radar.

2) In reply to Rich, I just say that I'm not aware of his offer although he may well have been made it. The campaign is open to offers of practical support and as things stand to chair/co-ordinate the campaign but these offers need to be specific and not general and vague and need to be backed up with the commitment to deliver. So for example the campaign needs both someone to manage the campaign site's content and make it dynamic and to establish a 'press office', but then this offer has been open for the last year since the last AGM.

Any proposal would I suggest need to show how these functions remain accountable to the wider committee in order to ensure that any one individual doesn't hijack these functions to promote their own practicular slant on 9/11. The system of 3 co-chairs that we currently have allows this but whoever steps up at the next AGM may need to propose an alternative way of making decisions.

I would argue that last year we were fairly active (see 2007 review) but also agree we (as in a collective we) could have done more. The failure to do so has everything to do with a lack of capacity (money, people, time) and practical offers of support and nothing as far as I can see to do with a controlling government hand. I fundamentally disagree with Rich when he says individual action is not encouraged. Whilst there will always be an issue about the extent to which individual action should be seen to be done under the campaign's name (since there is then a danger that the campaign becomes to be seen to reflect that individual's actions) from day one the network and later the campaign has actively encouraged people to do just that: To take the initiative and undertake individual action and indeed once I step down as co-chair at the next AGM, that is what I plan to do.

Pikey I know you strongly buy into the need for us to remain united and I agree, but this will only be possible if we unite under the same basic call for 9/11 to be reinvestigated whilst not worrying about the diverse range of ways that people go about campaigning for this goal. It also requires that the campaign develops the capacity to present itself professionally, but that is a challenge for someone else to take on.

[chrisc]