astro3
Suspended
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: 9/11 Truth press releases |
 |
|
The complete failure of the 9/11 and/or 7/7 Truth campaign to produce press releases which impact on current news disinformation, such as the 21/7 trial, is a serious problem IMO.
Though this is a primary goal of any campaign nobody seems to want get it moving.
Is it possible for small groups of campaigners to prepare press releases and attach a list of individuals who endorse each release?
Here's an example of a press release that was prepared... but for whatever reason not endorsed by the new national 'committee' of four so was never sent.
This idea of simply calling the press with a list of names of people who endorse the release could be a way of getting at least a little press coverage of these issues.
It also seems impractical to me to get more than a handful of people in this campaign to agree to almost anything therefore making any press coverage, vital to any campaigning work, almost impossible.
| Quote: | FREE THE 21/7 THREE
The Jury of the 4-month Kingston ‘July 7’ trial failed to reach any agreement, however the young men accused (Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem and Mohammed Shakil) have not been released.
There have been previous arrests made by HM Government over the dreadful bombing of central London in 2005, which wrecked the Gleneagles Summit of world leaders: first the Egyptian chemist Magdy al-Nashar, arrested in Cairo, on the grounds that he had been renting the flat 18 Alexander Grove which was the ‘bomb factory.’ His laptop was confiscated and found to be full of – music. He was released with no charges. Then Naveed Fiaz, Hasina and Arshad Patel, Imran Motala and Khalid Khaliq were subsequently arrested, from the Dewsbury and Beeston areas of Leeds, all released with no charges.
The three young men were charged under the Explosive Substances Act of 1883. At no stage did the Prosecution allege that these three had any interest in explosives, still less knowledge of how to construct a bomb. They allegedly went on a ‘reconnaissance mission’ on 16-17th December, 2004, when they visited London. At no stage did these three even visit a London Underground station on this weekend visit. Instead, they did such things as visit the London Aquarium and enjoy seeing the fish. The jury were evidently not convinced that such activities had any connection whatsoever with the Explosive Substances Act.
Recalling the central axiom of British justice that citizens are deemed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty, we here call for the Three to be released. We conjecture that this 4-month Kingston trial with ten barristers cost the taxpayer around forty million pounds, and we deplore the notion of starting another such trial in January, which is we gather HMG’s present intention.
A thorough and exhaustive trial at Kingston County Court has not found them guilty- therefore, let them be released.
We further note that the Heathrow liquid-bomb hoax trial is also completed, having run for a similar four months. This is another case of British Muslims being accused of virtually nothing – no bombs on planes, no explosions, with persons arrested not even having plane tickets – and a nebulous charge involving possible intention of the arrested. We deplore the way the flurry of anti-terror legislation has made it possible for arrests to be made when it is not evident that any crime has been committed and it is obvious that being a Muslim was a central factor in the arrest. The jury has to-date returned no verdict after over a month of deliberation (since July 28th).
UK Phantom Terror trials, 2006-8, targeting Muslims, summary:
1. The Old Bailey ‘Crevice’ trial so-called (March 2006-April 2007), where five men were given life imprisonment, because they may have been intending to do something with a sack of fertiliser.
2. Then the July 21 trial at Woolwich (January-July 2007) saw three men each given 40 years, when the sole injury caused by their chappati-flour ‘bombs’ appears to have been an asthma attack suffered by a bystander.
3. The Heathrow ‘lucozade’ or ‘liquid bomb’ trial started in April 2008 at Woolwich Crown Court, where 8 men were charged with possibly intending to buy air tickets and blow themselves and other passengers apart with a ‘binary munition’ that would (allegedly) be synthesised in the toilet.
4. Then the July 7 trial at Kingston County Court had three men charged with ‘conspiring’ to cause explosions, in consequence of a pleasant trip to London.
All four of these trials displayed an overtly racist tenor, whereby white barristers passed judgement upon brown-skinned Muslim youths. For two of these cases (2 and 3), some or all of the accused did seem to have had an intention of causing a public nuisance. As far as we can tell, the motive seems to have been fairly ethical, namely a protest against war.
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
