Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Transcript of the We Are Change interview with David Aaronovitch.
| Quote: | http://wearechange.org.uk
Link to WAC interview with David Aaronovitch, Show 5. Broadcast 8.11.2007
http://www.wearechange.org.uk/We%20Are%20Change%20Radio%205th%20Show.m p3
Interview begins at: 28:19 into the show
Transcript of We Are Change interview with David Aaronovitch
WAC: It's Andy from We Are Change Radio and we have David Aaronovitch a leading columnist in The Times, a very well known journalist. David, we've just been listening to your talk about, sort of, media and the sort of trust in media, new forms of media. How do you think it went ?
DA: It's interesting, I mean, I wasn't the expert there, the er, the Oxford academic Damien, he was much more knowledgeable than I was about issues of media regulation, er and so on. I think it was slightly anticipated that we would take, you know the usual, opposing views and in fact actually we came to a sort of agreement that whatever we thought was good or bad about developments of the old media, the rise of the new media, what we would have to do about it was pretty much agreed, which is, people need to be better educated really about how to use this incredible cacophonous new media that we're developing.
WAC: Sure, I mean there's a big, there's a lot, there's a big movement and the alternative media's rising and at the moment people seem to have lost a bit of trust within, sort of the established media, especially the sort of print media. How do you feel ?
DA: Well firstly, I don't even know, I mean, I can't be sure what you mean when you say those things and I don't mean by that, I'm gonna call you up on it, what I mean is, do we really know, when you say the alternative media is rising, what are our measures for it rising. We know if a newspaper loses readership, er, because the er, because the number of newspapers sold, falls. I mean um, is new media understood by the number of hits on particular sites? Is it understood by, you know, is it understood, in other words, we're in such a kind of complete state of flux, we don't actually really know terribly well what the usage of those media really are, we don’t always know who's using them, we don’t know whether those who use them trust them, or don't trust them, are intrigued by them, want to use them as mediums of debate rather than as mediums of gaining information and so on. In other words, the very fact is that they are, their one great advantage is, that we know so little in the sense about what's happening with them.
WAC: I mean, newspaper sales are quite low in the UK aren't they, per head of population?
DA: No. We have one of the highest penetrations of newspapers; but what this is true to say is that there is a long term secular demise and er decline in er in newspaper readership in Britain and it's not really being passed on in quite the same way from generation to generation. It's a slow decline it has to be said, er but nevertheless it's a decline but it will still take another century or so for us to disappear.
WAC: Because there are all this free newspapers etc and the new formats of the papers, there's much more competition with the new media now isn't there?
DA: There's huge, well there's a huge amount of competition within the, in a sense, well, newspapers are diversifying and most newspapers now have their own websites and their own interactive sites and blog sites and so on, which have paid advertising on them and so on and which now pay a part in their demographics and their business plans and so on, but by and large, newspapers are in competition with newspapers.
WAC: I mean, we were speaking with John ? who was the Chair of the meeting earlier and one sort of contrasting view that you said within the debate that we, when we spoke to him, we sort of asked him the question of what he felt about the actual news coverage on the day of 9/11 was and in the meeting you said it was fairly good coverage whereas John said to us when we interviewed him, that it wasn't very good coverage.
DA: Yeah, no, I think, I think, I mean this might be, this might be a distinction, I mean, it was immensely repetitive but in terms of understanding fairly quickly, what had happened, in terms of, you know what had broadly happened, I mean, all kinds of other things were going on, I mean, as I say, you know, people were in bunkers in places, half expecting attacks that then didn't come and that, but nevertheless, we broadly saw what had happened, we went to the places where it happened, spoke to the people who had seen it happen and so on and spoke to experts who, broadly speaking, got it right about who had done it and I think, I think that wasn't so bad.
WAC: Yeah, that's very interesting how, how that sort of, er, topic came up in today's discussion, I must admit, it surprised me. Um, I mean especially with your forthcoming book, um and these, er, you know, eye witnesses on the scene getting, you know, details wrong especially with the De Menezes thing, um, and er, I mean there's a, there's a lot, there's a lot of information, you can't help but being hit by these er alternative theories and some of them are completely crazy. Others, sort of, they demand a question because you think, well I don't know that from the official source and then . . .
DA: That's very interesting. You use a very interesting word there and it's, um, it's increasingly used, which is, an official source. Actually, these sources aren't official, what they generally are, what we really mean is, the generally accepted version of events, as it seems to have been pieced together by media organisations, and I mean and which you've put in, used a very interesting word, official source to it, it has to be said and I'm not suggesting that you are, this is generally the way in which people who wish to promote conspiracy theory, will speak about and it's a very interesting kind of a word because what it suggests is that there is a kind of corpus of, information, which is somehow or other, controlled and is given out to you under conditions of control and therefore, in a funny way is to be trusted in much the same way as you would trust the People's Daily in China, i.e. not at all.
WAC: I mean, I think what I was meaning by that, is that, um, you know, the government sources. I mean, that's, that's who do the investigations, that's, you know, you had the 9/11 Commission Report, um, that's what the British government take as what happened, um, you've got the er, the official government narrative of 7/7
DA: But by and large, the 9/11 story, which the conspiracy theorists wish to contradict, isn't really the 9/11 Commission Report, it is the generally accepted view of how the events happened that was pieced together by all sources in the weeks after the events.
WAC: I mean, for instance, I found a glaring omission in the Commission Report itself, in that building number 7 wasn't even mentioned at all.
DA: Because they didn't think it was important and actually of course, it isn't.
WAC: Well, it's a large building that went down, that most people don't know about.
DA: No it is. It is. It was badly damaged by the collapse of the other two buildings and so on. You can see them on the photographs. Sorry, I'm too, I know too much about this.
WAC. No, no. No that's fine. . .
DA: By looking at the photographs, you can see how badly damaged it was, er, completely structurally weakened and I think that the, because they could see that it was consequent upon the er, the fall of the twin towers earlier, that they didn't think that it was important in terms of, because their role was to explain why the thing had come about.
WAC: I mean you got to look at NIST for the collapse, the collapse of 7. I mean there's a building 7 report due out next year I think and it still hasn't actually been released and they've actually out sourced it to some Mexican company, I think it is now, to try and explain the collapse. I mean because, there were, buildings 3, 4 and 5 were a lot closer yet didn't collapse.
DA: No but they weren't as badly, as structurally hit as that . .
WAC: No. They were a lot worse . . .
DA: No, no, no. They weren't. But obviously they weren't because they didn't fall down. I'm afraid.
WAC: But you've got, but you've got the lack of funds that, that Commission Report had and I think 10 per cent of the funds for the Clinton, Lewinsky scandal, which seems incredible.
DA: Oh I don't, I don't know anything about that but I obviously, I don't know about how much, whether Ken Starr was more expensive than er, but I don't think you measure it in terms of funds, I think you measure it in terms of the er, whether or not they got to the heart of why it was, the erm, the authorities failed to intercept these hijackers.
WAC: I mean, back to the first question of the reporting on the day as such, I mean they had the sort of 19 hijackers names and details, sort of, on the news within, within hours as such, er, I mean, where did they access these photos from, um, for an attack that was allegedly a surprise. How did they manage to secure these . . .
DA: I don't think it was allegedly a surprise. It was surprise. Were it allegedly a surprise . . .
WAC: Well, 42 Presidential warnings from other countries . . .
DA: No, no, no, no
WAC: Virtually every second day, Bush was warned that Al Qaeda were due to attack . . .
DA: No, no, no, well it, well it wasn't quite, but I mean, he certainly wasn't told, look, there's a whole lot of guys who are going to take over planes and they are gonna do a new thing which is using box cutters, they're gonna work their way into the cabins and fly these planes directly into high buildings. I don't think he was told that twice . . .
WAC: I mean they've done quite a few, there was actually war games going on that morning, with that exact same scenario . . .
DA: Um. No.
WAC: . . . with planes being flown into the world trade centre.
DA: No. There weren't. There were no, that is, or if there were, that it is an utter first on me and I've trawled this literature from back to back.
WAC: Oh ok, well . . .
DA: No. I think you're mixing that up with the 7/7 . . .
WAC: No, no, no. no. That's Peter Power . . .
WAC: Let's bring it back to UK, because this is a London based radio station, um, so with 7/7 there was, er, there was Peter Power wasn't there, that, that . . .
DA: Yeah but it's all . . .
WAC: . . . he was running an exercise that day . . .
DA: Yeah
WAC: That is factual?
DA: I believe that there was an exercise run that day about er, about what would happen if something happened on the tube.
WAC: Yeah.
DA: But I mean, firstly, I don't think it was the first time such an exercise had been run . . .
WAC: No, of course not
DA: . . . and I bet subsequent exercises have also been run, without things blowing up on the same day.
WAC: But, as I say, there are all, the exact same 3 stations where . . .
DA: No, no, n-n-n-n-n-n-no
FX: (37:47) Cue Peter Power interview added post interview.
WAC: That's what Peter Power said, I'm just quoting Peter Power
DA: No, no. I don't, no you're not quoting Peter Power, bet you don't have the faintest idea what his actual quote is
WAC: He said the hairs went up on the back of his neck, they had to move from exercise to real time, um, sort of paraphrasing a bit there
WAC: And he repeated himself several times
DA: But he, no, hold on. But didn't say, and it was in these 3 stations and no others. And by the way what happened with the bus? Did they just get that one wrong? And anyway what are you suggesting? Because he had an exercise on somebody thought, actually, we'll have them in the same stations as the exercise. Why would that make any bloody sense? And how does somebody . . .[inaudible] . . . on the bus?
WAC: I just think that the government should investigate it really.
DA: Why? It's *. Why should the government waste an awful lot of money investigating what's absolute *? When none of it could possibly tell you that this was going to happen . . .
WAC: How do you know it's *?
DA: . . . and won't have any bearing on 4 jihadis who came down to London and blew themselves up
WAC: How do you know it's * though?
DA: What do you mean, how do I know it's *?
WAC: Well, because it's an opinion though
DA: No it's not
WAC: [inaudible] . . an opinion. It's only as strong, it's only as strong as our opinion.
DA: Er, well. Conceivably. But I mean on that basis, everything is equal with everything else.
WAC: There is one piece of factual information that the government definitely got wrong in their official narrative, which was that the, the train that the alleged bombers took from Luton . . .
DA: So they took an . . .
WAC: . . .was cancelled and they got that wrong and they announced that on the day of the Indian bombings in the House of Commons
DA: Doesn't. It doesn't, it doesn't matter.
WAC: What?
WAC: It was the biggest attack on British soil since the Luftwaffe.
DA: Hold on. I didn't say that the attack didn't matter and that's a, no, no, and that's a really interesting thing that you just did there. Isn't it?
WAC: In what way?
DA: Why did you, why did you answer to me in the way you did?
WAC: No, no, I said, that it . . .
DA: I said it doesn't matter whether the, obviously I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the train was er, and you say . . .
WAC: No, I say . . .
DA: . . . It's the biggest attack.
WAC: It matters that the government should investigate what is the biggest attack.
DA: No, no, no. Well hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Look . . .
WAC: Sorry.
DA: We know who did it. We know why they did it, because they told us. We know how they did it and we know where they did it. OK. So the only question was why those particular people weren't picked up before, OK . . .
WAC: Yeah, given that Crevice . . .
DA: Given that at least one of them and maybe more were actually on . . . and that seems to me to be er, it seems to be pretty evident that they didn't have the resources to follow everybody, they were following people they thought were more important
WAC: But on the, on the, the side of accuracy because as you, as Tony Blair said it would be a ludicrous diversion to have the er, an enquiry because it would take away from the security services work, but, when they released this official narrative with the train time incorrect, because it was actually cancelled, I think that was almost beyond incompetence . . .
DA: So they took a train 5 minutes later.
WAC: But where's the CCTV though? Because they didn't do . . .
DA: Look, look, look, look
WAC: If you're going to release an official government narrative . . .
DA: This is crazy . . .
WAC: Can I, can I finish?
DA: Yeah you can, but I know what you're going to say, because unfortunately I had to listen to Tony Gosling giving all to me on [audible] radio . . .
WAC: Oh not Tony Gosling.
DA: When you say "not Tony Gosling", Tony Gosling only says exactly what you do.
WAC: Well, I mean, I'm just, I mean, I, I think . . .
DA: No I know. You're just raising disturbing questions
WAC: I'm thinking it's er, it's er sort of a glaring inaccuracy in the government acount
DA: It's, it's an utterly unimportant inaccuracy
WAC: But how can you make a mistake like that though
DA: Well because . . .
WAC: Because they asked the police . . .
DA: . . . you thought that's what time they travelled down
WAC: Because they asked the police to . . .
DA: Almost certainly because they said, "What time, what time trains are they likely to have come down, what time train would have coincided ". . .
WAC: But don't you cross check that with CCTV?
DA: Well they may have done. They may not have done. But someone obviously said "Well we believe it was this train"
WAC: But then the government asked the . . .
DA: If it was cancelled, it was one five minutes later. What does it matter?
WAC: The government asked the police to explain why they got the train time wrong and journalists rang scotland yard and scotland yard said "We didn't provide the train times". So where are they getting these train times from? The timetable?
DA: Who cares?
WAC: Well, it shows incompetence . . .
WAC: I think the general public requires . . .
DA: No. The general public, certainly don't care
WAC: They do. I assure you they do
WAC: It shows incompetence in a government that is supposed to protect us from these people
DA: No, no it doesn't. It just shows that they didn't get the right times . . .the thing that might console you . . .
WAC: If they can't get a train time right, what can they get right?
WAC: Yeah, if they can't get that right . . .
DA: Because, well, because it's not important. It's not that important.
WAC: In a court of law it would be important, if you had to try these people . . .
DA: Um, in that case I think, if these people had still been alive, for instance, had it been the 21/7 bombers for instance, I think you'll find that the trains that they come down on would probably have to be [inaudible] . . .for evidential reasons, but we don't have to try anybody in 7/7, because they blew themselves and 52 other people up.
WAC: And the families? Their families? If they, you know, wouldn't you be concerned if your, a member of your family was killed and then accused, wouldn't you be concerned that they they got . . .
DA: No.
WAC: [inaudible] . . .justice
DA: No, no. I would, I might, I might wonder, what I had done that had failed to prevent my son from doing something like that, I could conceivably wonder that, but the one thing I don't think I'd wonder about was the train time that they bloody well came down from Luton on.
WAC: If um, I mean with regard to what's been reported in the US press, is Haroon Aswat who is supposedly the alleged mastermind behind the bombing. It's been reported in, you know, in the American press that he is an MI6 agent.
DA: Reported by whom, in what American press?
WAC: I can't remember the exact . . .
DA: Thank you very much.
WAC: . . .details for you. I could email them to you.
FX: (43:25) Cue John Loftus interview Part 1 added post interview.
DA: [inaudible] . . . write his name out to me and get it from a reputable source in the American press
WAC: That was an intelligence analyst . . .
DA: Who? The world is full of people who say they're intelligence analysts, who are fabulists
WAC: I'm aware of that. I am aware of that.
WAC: Yeah. Um, with regards . . .
DA: Yeah, but again. Listen to the way you gave it to me.
FX: (44:15) Cue John Loftus interview Part 2 added post interview.
DA: You just told me that it was in an Ameri, i.e. you suggested to me that it a reputable media source that said it and you don't know what, but you don't know what it was
WAC: I can't remember every single fact of everything in the top of my head . . .
DA: No, no, but I . . .
WAC: I should do, I should do.
DA: But I didn't ask you, I didn't ask you a question, I didn't ask you to represent it to me in any particular way
WAC: That's fair enough.
DA: That's how you gave it to me.
WAC: But I have seen on a source in Ameri, on a TV programme in America, it was one of the major, major um television news programmes, where they were interviewing an ex-CIA, I think he was an ex-CIA analyst or something like that, um I can't, where's and . . .what he said. He did state that Haroon Aswat was an MI6 agent and that the CIA could not arrest him . . .
WAC: I saw that . . .
WAC: . . . because they tried to arrest him and they got warned off by MI6
WAC: A reputable news source you would like to say
DA: What?
WAC: An American news network . . .
DA: No, no, no. You had a former CIA analyst, whatever that means, making that claim on a TV programme
WAC: But you'd hope that they'd check them out . . .
DA: and if that's what you told me
WAC: . . .and check their credentials out
DA: No, well you might hope that they would but you would hope in vain
WAC: I assume that they would
FX: (45:49) Cue John Loftus interview Part 3 added post interview.
WAC: There was one other thing, um, with the er, Dr Kelly book that you mentioned, I assume that's Norman Baker MP . . .
DA: Yeah
WAC: . . . that you're talking about. There's been a recent development in that; in that the Thames Valley Police under the Freedom of Information Act have announced that the, the pen knife, did have, had no fingerprints on it at all
DA: The pruning knife.
WAC: That's right
DA: The pruning knife.
WAC: Also, the suicide weapon
DA: Ah, look. I know what Norman Baker has claimed. I haven't seen anything that the police have said in response, so I simply don't know. I'm not disputing it. I'm not, not disputing it . . .
WAC: Oh
DA: . . . OK, whether or not it had, all I can say is, it would be more likely to have his fingerprints on it, if it had been a conspiracy.
WAC: So one final, one final question
DA: Which is pretty obvious isn't it? Because the one thing that you have all seen on the movies is when you print the guys, er, gotta make this, if we're gonna make this look like a proper job, we've gotta get his finger, his finger prints on it
WAC: Yeah, sure.
WAC: So one final question, sorry it's back to 9/11. Are you aware that on the FBI web site, Osama Bin Laden is the most wanted criminal, is not actually wanted for the attacks of 9/11?. They phoned up the FBI and asked them why is this reason and they said there's no evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11. This is from the director of communications, from the FBI.
DA: Sorry. If you will give me chapter and verse on where the American government has said, we don't believe that Osama Bin Laden was responsible in any way for the attacks on 9/11, I would love to see it.
WAC: That's er, no but the FBI have released a statement saying . . .
DA: No, no, well I haven't seen this FBI statement and so far . . .
WAC: Well if you go on to the FBI top ten . . .
DA: . . . and so far, and so far, and so far, some of your, no, no that's not the, what point you gave me. I don't know about the top ten and so on, but you made a different claim. You made a different claim about the FBI saying that there was no evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 . . .
WAC: But that's what they've said
DA: I haven't seen that. I haven't seen [inaudible] enough to know what the source for that is
WAC: It is the FBI. It's the head of communications for the FBI
DA: So, the FBI believes that the American government pulled down the 9/11 [inaudible]
WAC: No, no. That's not what they said. That's not what they said. They just said that they have no hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11 and that's why they can't put . . .
DA: What do you mean, hard evidence?
WAC: That's what they said. I, I . . .
DA: And you're sure that's what they said?
WAC: I'm sure that's what they said
DA: OK.
WAC: 100 per cent certain.
DA: That you can send, that you can provide me with a link etc
WAC: OK
DA: . . . but it wouldn't alter anything anyway
WAC: Well, no, no. That's fair enough. That's fair enough.
WAC: Well thank you very much for a full and frank interview. I'm sorry that most of it seemed to be . . .
DA: No you, buy the high, buy the whole lot
WAC: . . .taken up with er conspiracy theories
DA: . . . and I'm glad you do, because otherwise there would be no point you doing, you buy the farm
WAC: No we don't.
DA: Yes you do. You buy it all.
WAC: No, we just want a new investigation.
DA: Every bit, every bit of, every bit of rambling nonsense out there, you've picked it all up
WAC: No, no, no. We stick purely to the facts
DA: No you don't
WAC: Yes we are. Because we just want, we want . . .
DA: No you don't. You've made up a whole series of facts as you went.
WAC: We haven't made them up
DA: Oh alright, not made them up, but you have Chinese whispered them up
WAC: What about?
DA: So, a reputable news source, turns out to be, a so called CIA analyst on an American T, on an American current affairs programme documentary. It's not the same thing.
WAC: But sometimes I read something, something so reputable, a source . .
DA: No, no, no. OK. Let me tell you straight away. That is the real problem at the nub of what we are talking about because, if you're a trained journalist, you know to make that distinction.
WAC: Yeah, OK. That's fair enough.
WAC: Could you give us, because I did ask in the er, the hall, could you give us a definition of conspiracy theory?
DA: Er, yeah, but I have taken something like eight pages . . . in the introduction
WAC: Yeah sure. What does is say in the Oxford dictionary?
DA: What some people say is a conspiracy theory is a theory about conspiracies which is not true, but that's not the definition I use, because it's circular.
WAC: Because then surely, a theory about a conspi, a conspiracy is two or more people agreeing to do something . . .
DA: No, no.
WAC: . . . and a theory about that is . . .
DA: But we all know, but we all know that actually, when we use the term conspiracy theories, we're talking about something else, because of course, a conspiracy is anytime that anytime that two people decide to do something that they don't want other people to know about
WAC: That's right. So, in other words, the official story is also literally, a conspiracy theory
DA: And that's not what we're talking about. If you literally believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you're not talking about two people agreeing in secret to do something
WAC: That's, but we haven't said . . .[inaudible]
DA: Na-n-n-n-n-no. I'm just talking about that as an example, for instance.
WAC: Hmm
DA: When you say that the Jews are involved in a secret conspiracy to take over the world and subvert . . .
WAC: Who said that?
DA: . . . and subvert governments and so on. Loads of people have said that, including some 9/11 theorists as it happens but not all
WAC: I've never really heard anybody . . .
DA: No, because you're not living in Nazi Germany. That's what they said then.
WAC: Ok.
DA: and the [inaudible] has a history of conspiracy theories and they didn't start with 9/11. My God they didn't start with 9/11
WAC: I mean, the Reichstag Fire, was, is that, is that a conspiracy theory or is that fact?
DA: Yeah the Reichstag Fire, no, no. It's a theory and it is a conspiracy theory and it probably is, it probably is wrong.
WAC: Yeah, I mean what about erm False Flag Terrorism, have you heard that term?
DA: Yeah of course, false, of course I have
WAC: It comes form the pirate days when they used to er fly the wrong flag
DA: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
WAC: I mean these . . .
DA: There is one, well known example of a false flag operation, the Lavon affair in er, in Egy, Israel, 1953 . . .
WAC: Italy as well . .
DA: . . . it was, as almost all conspiracy theories, all real conspiracies are, a complete disaster
WAC: What about the Gulf of Tonkin?
DA: No, no.
WAC: What about . . .
DA: The American's thought they'd been fired on
WAC: What about Bologna train station?
WAC: Operation Gladio with the . . .
DA: No. no. Please don't pass every single one . . .
WAC: But no, I mean, that brought down the government didn't it?
DA: No.
WAC: P2
DA: No, no . .
WAC: Licio Gelli
DA: Licio Gelli, P2, may . . .I mean . . .
WAC: He was holding the strings of government was he not?
DA: No. He wasn't holding the str, he wasn't holding the strings of government . . .
WAC: And Berlusconi was one of his men.
DA: Enough !
WAC: Well, I mean this is all, that's all from the official government documentation from Italy
DA: Well, look, you say this, but, I have no idea whether it is from the official government documentation
WAC: No, no of course . . .
DA: It may be. It may be not
[inaudible]
DA: No, no, no, no. My problem is that every time you get a conspiracy theory, somebody says that this is all from the official documentation . . . it's always said
WAC: But you haven't [inaudible]
DA: Nobody says, actually I've got a conspiracy theory, nobody believes it, nobody . . . it has the authority of absolutely nobody, I've just made out the top of my head but I'll [inaudible]
WAC: Final question David. Would you not then support the families who are still pushing for a further investigation into the events of 9/11?
DA: No. I wouldn't.
WAC: Or 7/7?
DA: No, I wouldn't support, I wouldn't support either, I think it's a complete and utter waste of time and please note, there are quite a lot of families, probably a majority of families of people who were involved in 7/7 who are not pushing for a further investigation and nobody ever speaks about them.
WAC: OK
DA: Have you ever spoken to them?
WAC: No I have not spoken to those . . .
DA: No. Exactly.
WAC: . . . but I'll make a point of trying to. Thank you very much David. |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
