Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 274 Location: North West London
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: Milan Rai's book-Launch - Rachel Remembers
Milan Rai's book-Launch - Rachel Remembers
Character-assassin Rachel North has described my contribution to the Book launch of Milan Rai, (12th April, 2006, Pluto Press, on the July 7 London bombings) as follows:
Quote:
As to real life harassment, the first time I met Kollerstrom was when he turned up and heckled and barracked the book launch of peace activist and writer Milan Rai with his pals in April 2006, where I was giving a supporting speech. Demanding the floor to talk about 'synthetic terror' and the 7/7 bombers being innocent in front of people who had lost limbs in the bombings in the audience. Nice man.
… I remember when he tried to take over a book launch held by respected peace-activist, Milan Rai about the 7/7 bombings and the Iraq war, getting onto the floor to make a speech about his conspiracy theories, saying the 7/7 bombers were innocent. (‘Blairwatch.’)
A substantial proportion of the audience there consisted of persons who inclined to a hypothesis of Islamic innocence, an option which Rai's book did not remotely consider. His book gave a fairly mainstream view and there were murmurings that Pluto Press had fallen short of its radical reputation in publishing it. The Chair generously agreed to let a representative of the July 7 ‘truth’ community make a short statement, on the understanding that this would limit further ‘sceptical’ comments from the audience. I was startled to be selected, with Belinda inviting me to speak, at about ten minutes’ notice. I went up and held forth. Members of the audience may have been startled to hear about the theory of ‘synthetic terror,’ Peter Power’s drill etc. I was stopped abruptly by the Chair after the agreed-upon 3 minutes and went back and sat down. Various people complimented me on that impromptu performance. Overall I’d say that meeting expressed a fine British sense of fair play, in which two very different views were cordially presented.
Obviously Rachel will always represent events with hate and venom, but we know that.
A month or two earlier, Rachel had barged into our London 9/11 meeting and did exactly what she is here accusing me of doing – taking over the meeting. None of us knew who she was! Speaking quite loudly and agitatedly, she pushed David Shayler off centre stage – and that isn’t easy to do! Let’s hear KG’s account:
Quote:
She appeared out of the blue at a meeting at which David Shayler, the MI5 whistleblower, was speaking; or, trying to speak, as she made a point of interrupting. Her belligerence staggered us then, and, not having been polite enough to give us her name when we introduced ourselves to her, we had no idea why she was so insistent on rebutting Shayler.
At one point, when it was pointed out that on 7/7 there had been ‘terror drills’ scheduled for that day at exactly the very stations at which the explosions occurred, she smugly told us we were wrong; basically, we were all fools and she, the mystery woman, knew the truth. As we struggled with this ignorant attitude, someone named Oliver pulled out a silver mobile, pressed a button, and announced: “Listen.” He had a good recording of the original conversation that was broadcast that day by the BBC which ought to be enough to convince even the most stubborn of fools.
But no, mystery woman proceeded to tell us that Peter Power, the man on record who was in charge of conducting these terror drills, made it up; silly man, he just wanted attention for his firm! Incredulous looks passed around the room, and we tried to reason, but in vain. Power, we pointed out, was no morbid creature who would want this kind of negative attention. He was a man with a solid background who did not need to have his firm associated with bad luck. http://www.schmoo.co.uk/9.11.7.7.htm
(this account also describes how I was invited to speak at the Rai book launch for three minutes)
Many of us will recall this event. I was propping up the bar when RN came up to me and started to speak in an articulate manner about religious beliefs of young British Muslims. She asked for my blogging name and I told her (astro3) – and she gave me her e-address (which I never used) something about Rachel@ ‘upthepole.’ This led to me being edified about pole-dancing, on a later occasion, of which I had not previously heard. I doubt whether Rachel failed to recognise me when she was sitting on the panel next to Rai at his book-launch and I came up and spoke. Her words quoted above, about how she first me, cannot be true.
RN’s account of this event suggests that her memory of the past is unreliable. Her blog on the day after the book-launch stated that ‘They were courteously given three minutes to put their case to the floor,’ which vanished in her later, character-assassination on 'Blairwatch.'
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:08 am Post subject:
I was at that meeting. This fiendish woman is a liar.
This unusually vicious creature is not satisfied that Nick, an honest man and the most gentlemanly of persons, has lost his livelihood.
Maybe she too is honest in her views......but the truth is that she, like the rest of those who violently attack 9/11 Truthers, is not prepared to argue the details of 9/11.......however she is more than happy to deal the vilest and most dishonest abuse while presenting herself as one of life's greatest victims.
We should take heart from the fact that most of the people who attack the assertions of the 9/11 Truth movement seem to be similarly lacking in integrity.
The majority of those who accept the government CT are, of course, either ignorant of the facts or keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
Back to the meeting.
A few of us addressed questions to the panel. These were politely asked and fairly graciously if inadequately (in my view) answered.
My own question to the historian and author (forget his name...anyone able to help) was along the lines, "You have just described your latest book which outlines the crime that is the War on Iraq and the other crimes of world capitalism and its barbarous agenda. You have called these people everything but pure evil....so why do you baulk at the suggestion that these same forces might also have had a part to play in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.
He looked embarrassed by the question, mumbled something inconsequential and we all moved on to the next question.
Because of the obvious numbers of 9/11 Truthers present and because so many of us were wanting to ask questions. The panel said that the meeting 'wasn't for us' so someone (Belinda?) asked the panel if one of us might make a short outline to the meeting about 'where we were coming from'. They agreed....and Nick spoke for a few short minutes. He explained our position clearly, concisely and without any rancour against the panel, like the gentleman he is.
Rachel was showing her 'nice' face that evening. There was nothing whatsoever contentious about the way the meeting was held, excepting that the panel would have preferred that we were not there. There was no anger, nor abuse at all....as I remember.
To say Nick harassed anyone or that he 'demanded the floor' is simply not true.
There might have been the occasional heckle, actually there probably was (after all, these 'peace campaigners' were, in our view, giving a free pass to the real criminals behind the "War on Terror") but I can't remember any real anger or anything that could fairly be described as even rude in the context of such a meeting.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject:
Has Rachel somehow mistaken Nick for either Noel or Kenyon?
I was there too and Rachel is certainly lying.
Nick, in fact, 'saved the day' with a very sensible speech where he talked about the two factions not squabbling, fighting the same enemies of truth and peace in different ways.
The one time I saw Milan Rai speak, I was probably pretty rude
While not doubting this guy's peace pretensions, his aptitude to spout the established media's lying constructs as the 'Truth' is damned annoying
You know - the Guardian said this, the Observer said that, the Independent said the other, so that proves the Muslims think and do this and that. It gets very tiresome. I don't blame the audience for some interloping
Anyway I thought he'd done his extremely crappy book on 7/7. He's done another job? _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject:
He's a protege of Chomsky, isn't he?.....or just a big fan?
You know Chomsky is a fraud and a dishonest man because towards the end of his rubbishing of the 9/11 Truth movement he says, "And even if were true...so what?....it doesn't matter."
Whhhaaatt? It doesn't matter? How can any sentient being say and believe such a thing?....never mind perhaps the world's best known professor.
"It doesn't matter".....just think about that for a moment.
If everyone knew what happened it would change everything.
Is the only reality......that which the mainstream media are prepared to report and is the only reality up for debate......that which is couched in terms defined by the media and mainstream academia.
This old fraud is as disgusting as the criminals he is protecting. He is too intelligent not to know what he is doing. He makes a devastating case against 'the American government'....but his barbs are harmless, harmless harmless.......the people he is advising everyone to detest are not the government at all.
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: book launch
I was also there, and can say that, sitting very close to Noel as he spoke, I was struck by his polite and mild mannered delivery. There were questions put which Milan Rai avoided, claiming to the audience that he just had answered or 'covered' the questions. In retrospect, that might be now construed as shouting.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: book launch
I don't know who you are but you're talking rubbish Al. Both Noel and Kenyon on, separate occasions, stood up and were shouting and wagging their fingers at Milan. I was sitting in the row behind them.
alwun wrote:
I was also there, and can say that, sitting very close to Noel as he spoke, I was struck by his polite and mild mannered delivery. There were questions put which Milan Rai avoided, claiming to the audience that he just had answered or 'covered' the questions. In retrospect, that might be now construed as shouting.
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 500 Location: South London
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:43 am Post subject:
I was there. I do recall that someone interrupted Rachel North when she was entering rant mode, to say "straw man argument". It was a very affective intervention. It shut her up. If it was Noel, well done, Sir.
Mark Curtis said 90 ? 99 % of terorrism was state terrorism. We all clapped. The other side never mention this in their reporting. _________________ Follow the numbers
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject:
I was there.
Since the book launch was being hosted by Quaker Peace and Social Responsibility (QPSR) and since I'm a Quaker, some days prior to the meeting I phoned Friends House and spoke to the Quaker staff member who was organising the event. I told him I was unhappy that QPSR was sponsoring an event about which Quakers were divided; that our Society had always believed in not presuming someone's guilt prior to their trial or a thorough indepndent inquiry, and that sponsoring this event implied endorsement of Milan's theory of Muslim guilt. Whatever the arguments he made it clear the event was to go ahead.
I spoke publicly twice, as I remember, the first time was a heckle of Rachel who had kicked off by attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement for opinions which the movement does hold. I immediately regretted that heckle as I thought it implied I was there to make trouble. My heckle was almost an involuntary response to a surge of anger I felt at being misrepresented by Rachel. I believe I actually used the expression that Rachel was "setting up an Aunt Sally" rather than "a strawman argument" as Numeral remembers, but the meaning of both experssions is roughly the same - so no matter - thanks Numeral.
My second contribution was politely to ask the panel as a whole whether they believed in the common law principle of innocent until proven guilty. As a result of that, some friend of Milan's wrote in a blog whose main aim seemed to be to make out that these "Truthers" were weird people, that I was a "man with a Brian Sewel voice" and that Nick was a "man in a crumpled suit".
Nick, it had been arranged in advance, was to outline in three minutes the truth movement's objection to Milan Rai's argument. This I thought he did excellently and politely.
I spoke quietly to Milan after the meeting, also to Tony Gosling who surprised me by saying he though we should all have kept quiet.
At no time in my recollection did I shout nor wag my finger.
I also spoke after the meeting to the Quaker organiser who told me Maya Evans had never chaired a meeting before. It showed, particularly when Annie Machon's book was quoted by someone, but the chair refused to let her comment on the grounds that she was "sitting in the wrong part of the room".
It is interesting to observe how Milan and Maya are regarded by the peace movement. They have both earned their stripes as bona fide peace campaigners, by both getting arrested and convicted of organising illegal demonstrations: Milan at Paliiament Square, Maya by reading out the names of the Iraqi dead at the Cenotaph - Just the sort of activities Quakers are inclined to approve of.
The Quaker organiser told me afterwards he had looked at nineeleven.co.uk and decided there was nothing convincing in our arguments, particularly since he said he had read on that website that someone had written there was no bus bomb in Tavistock Square, clearly a ridiculous argument since the walking wounded from that bomb had turned up at Friends House seeking first aid. Clearly, therefore was the implication, we were not responsible people worth taking seriously. I have never been able to find a post on this website which claims there had been no bomb in Tavistock Square.
The lesson from that meeting for me, was that nineeleven.co.uk must be divorced from the 9/11 Truth Campaign and the campaign must have an effective website which advances its official policy only.
Lesson number two was that, if we attend other people's meetings, it takes a great deal of skill and self-discipline to get points across convincingly.
Mark Curtis has, I believe, written about false flag terrorism and ought to be an ally. I got the feeling he was rather uncomfortable sharing a platform with the other speakers.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
and that Nick was a "man in a crumpled suit".