Who really blew up the twin towers? Guardian 5/9/06

[alogren]

Good article in today's Guardian (but buried in education section!):
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1864524,00.html

[scubadiver]

I think the "education" section is an appropriate place to put it!

[Ally]

great actually!!!

[Skeptic]

best we can hope for at the moment I guess

[Mark Gobell]

This is fantastic news.

Instead of moaning, you may like to consider, rejoicing and welcoming this article.

Then breathe in, breathe out. Calm down. Get back to work.

Our evaluation of it should not be a dismayed knee jerk but one of celebration of a very important development.

This is only the second mention by the Guardian of Scholars for Truth: http://st911.org

Has Scholars for Truth received any coverage in the UK mainstream media prior to the Guardian's piece of 7th August 2006 ?

I have searched the UK msm newspapers and have not found one mention of Scholars for Truth apart from these two articles from The Guardian.

We want publicity, well we've got some here.

I would urge you to read this again and again.

Pull it apart and consider the many messages.

If you are still dismayed then you may need to adjust your expectations.

No title in the msm is going to do what we may think should be done in a "big bang". Period.

We should appreciate the fact that The Guardian was the first to break the story of ST911 in the UK mainstream media in this article on August 7th in case you missed it: (see full article below)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5998153,00.html

and followed it up with today's piece.

Well done to The Guardian and to those from this forum who have managed to retain their attention.

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind . . .

=============================================

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving

Monday August 7, 2006 2:01 AM


AP Photo NYOL902

By JUSTIN POPE

AP Education Writer

Kevin Barrett believes the U.S government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners.

These men aren't uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall, over the protests of more than 60 state legislators. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University whose mainstream academic job has made him a hero to conspiracy theorists.

Five years after the terrorist attacks, a community that believes widely discredited ideas about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, persists and even thrives. Members trade their ideas on the Internet and in self-published papers and in books. About 500 of them attended a recent conference in Chicago.

The movement claims to be drawing fresh energy and credibility from a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

The organization says publicity over Barrett's case has helped boost membership to about 75 academics. They are a tiny minority of the 1 million part- and full-time faculty nationwide, and some have no university affiliation. Most aren't experts in relevant fields. But some are well educated, with degrees from elite universities such as Princeton and Stanford and jobs at schools including Rice, Indiana and the University of Texas.

``Things are happening,'' said co-founder James Fetzer, a retired philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, who maintains, among other claims, that some of the hijackers are still alive. ``We're going to continue to do this. Our role is to establish what really happened on 9/11.''

What really happened, the national Sept. 11 Commission concluded after 1,200 interviews, was that hijackers crashed planes into the twin towers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, filed 10,000 pages of reports that found fires caused by the crashing planes were more than sufficient to collapse the buildings.

The scholars' group rejects those conclusions. Their Web site contends the government has been dishonest. It adds: the ``World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions'' and ``the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.''

The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

But some worry the academic background of the group could do that anyway.

Members of the conspiracy community ``practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he's seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side,'' said FR Greening, a Canadian chemist who has written several papers rebutting the science used by Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. ``It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science.''

Faculty can express any opinion outside the classroom, said Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors. However, ``with academic freedom comes academic responsibility. And that requires them to teach the truth of their discipline, and the truth does not include conspiracy theories, or flat Earth theories, or Holocaust denial theories.''

Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries.

``Tenure gives you a secure position where you can engage in controversial issues,'' Fetzer said. ``That's what you should be doing.''

But when asked what did happen in 2001, members often step outside the rigorous, data-based culture of the academy and defer to their own instincts.

Daniel Orr, a Princeton Ph.D. and widely published retired economics chair at the University of Illinois, said he knew instantly from watching the towers fall that they had been blown apart by explosives. He was reminded of watching an old housing project being destroyed in St. Louis.

David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor, acknowledges this isn't his field, but says ``I'm smart enough to know ... that fire from airplanes can't melt steel.''

When they do cite evidence, critics such as Greening contend it's junk science from fellow conspiracy theorists, dressed up in the language and format of real research to give it a sense of credibility.

Jones focuses on the relatively narrow question of whether molten metal present at the World Trade Center site after the attacks is evidence that a high-temperature incendiary called thermite, which can be used to weld or cut metal, was involved in the towers' destruction. He concludes thermite was present, throwing the government's entire explanation into question and suggesting someone might have used explosives to bring down the towers.

``I have not run into many who have read my paper and said it's just all hogwash,'' Jones said.

Judy Wood, until recently an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University, has been cited by conspiracy theorists for her arguments the buildings could not have collapsed as quickly as they did unless explosives were used.

``If the U.S. government is lying about how the buildings came down, anything else they say cannot be believed,'' she said. ``So why would they want to tell us an incorrect story if they weren't part of it?''

In fact, say Greening and other experts, the molten metal Jones cites was most likely aluminum from the planes, and any number of explanations are more likely than thermite.

And the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report describes how the buildings collapsed from the inside in a chain reaction once the floors began falling.

``We respect the opinions of others, but we just didn't see any evidence of what people are claiming,'' institute spokesman Michael Newman said.

Wisconsin officials say they do not endorse the views of Barrett, an adjunct, but after investigating concluded he would handle the material responsibly in the classroom.

That didn't mollify many state legislators.

``The general public from Maine to Oregon knows why the trade towers went down,'' said state Rep. Stephen Nass, a Republican. ``It's not a matter of unpopular ideas; it's a matter of quality education and giving students their money's worth in the classroom.''

In a July 20 letter obtained by The Associated Press in an open records request, Wisconsin Provost Patrick Farrell warned Barrett to tone down his publicity seeking, and said he would reconsider allowing Barrett to teach if he continued to identify himself with the university in his political messages.

BYU's physics department and engineering school have issued statements distancing themselves from Jones' work, but he says they have not interfered.

At Clemson, Wood did not receive tenure last year, but her former department chair, Imtiaz ul Haque, denies her accusation that it was at least partly because of her Sept. 11 views.

``Are you blackballed for delving into this topic? Oh yes,'' Wood said. ``And that is why there are so few who do. Most contracts have something to do with some government research lab. So what would that do to you? The consequences are too great for a career. But I made the choice that truth was more important.''

``If we're in higher education to be trying to encourage critical thinking,'' Wood says, ``why would we say 'believe this because everybody else does?'''

---

On the Net:

Scholars for Truth: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

[Ally]

five years on and the guardian have only managed 2 articles that aren't full bore hit pieces,

nearly every week they they perpetuate the myth about islamofascists from leeds blowing up the underground,

now they threw us a crumb, nothing more.

not taking anything away from st911 but the guardian are as cuplable as those who blew up the wtc

[IronSnot]

No they're not.

[brian]

Like the Time article and others it is a hit piece with just enough input to claim fair reporting. It is obviously a result of the growing awareness but designed to ridicule rather than inform. Designed to put off rather than encourage inquiry.

Still, it shows we are winning.

AL Kennedy in the Guardian last year was more subtle

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,1481191,00.html

[Ally]

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks Brian for the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,1481191,00.html

Full story here in case it goes down the memory hole:

The war on paperclips

I worry that I'm turning into a conspiracy theorist

AL Kennedy
Wednesday May 11, 2005
The Guardian


OK, I'm paranoid and depressed. My new government of troglodytes, murderers and spivs barely elongates the customary scream I give upon waking. What troubles me more is our rulers' inevitable recommencement of the war on terror *.

To begin at what we're told is the beginning, we have 9/11 - the one in the US, not the earlier one in Chile when covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents and handed the country to a commerce-friendly, torture-loving, far-right junta. Now if 9/11/2001 is so important, why is it so hard to find out what happened?

The FBI, as we know, blocked all manner of investigations into the plot in the run up to its execution, whether these involved highly specific warnings from its own agents or from government sources in Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, the Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco and Russia.

Meanwhile, I worry why the nearest military aircraft weren't scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked flights when this is standard procedure and why, when more distant jets were finally aloft, they flew at less than half speed, thus failing to prevent the impacts at the twin towers and then, it would seem, managing to shoot down Flight 93 when its passengers may already have overcome its hijackers.

It would, of course, be easier to know what happened to Flight 93 if there weren't - according to educated estimates - three minutes of the cockpit recording missing. It would, equally, be handy to have access to the black boxes from the other crashes. Firefighters at Ground Zero have repeatedly stated that three of the four possible black boxes there were found and taken away by government agents.

And these worries are maybe less important than the ones about clear links between the Pakistani ISI, the CIA and the men named as the 9/11 hijackers. Or the mysterious inability of anyone to capture Osama bin Laden, who fled from Tora Bora, possibly being evacuated by helicopter, and then escaped to Pakistan unhindered.

So while Chinese paperclips are now made out of vital 9/11 evidence and almost every implicated party goes free, we and our controlling US interests continue fearlessly to terrorise countries unconnected with the attacks, to place permanent military bases near oil reserves and pipeline routes, to harass and murder Muslims anywhere we can, and to foment terrorist resistance at every opportunity. The UK unmasks non-existent ricin plots and threatens us with ID cards, but we can't supply our troops in Iraq with working radios or a legal causus belli.

But you'd never want to think that on 9/11/2001 covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents and handed the country, if not the world, to a commerce-friendly, torture-loving, far-right junta. That would make you a paranoid, depressed conspiracy theorist. And, take it from me, that just wouldn't be comfortable.

==============================================

Again, I view the Guardian's May 2005 article as entirely positive.

At no time does it denigrate conspiracy theorists. On the contrary it portrays life as a conspiracy theorist as uncomfortable, perhaps alluding to the perceived comfort of those who continue to consume the OCT, the Comfortably Numbists or Coincidence Theorists.

The author is depressed and paranoid, she wakes up screaming and describes her indifference to Bliar's government of "troglodytes, murderers and spivs". She is concerned about "our rulers' inevitable recommencement of the war on terror *."

The meat of the article is wrapped inside an actual conspiracy that history tells us did happen, the CIA's coup in Chile on 11th September 1973 and the current conspiracy of the new 9/11.

The parallel between the CIA in Chile and the fascist dictator Pinochet on 9/11/1973 and the CIA in the USA and Bush on 9/11/2001 is crystal clear:

"...covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents and handed the country to a commerce-friendly, torture-loving, far-right junta. Now if 9/11/2001 is so important, why is it so hard to find out what happened?"

The main contents of the article are manna for us, covering facts such as:

The FBI deliberately thwarted investigations into the many warnings given to Bushco about 9/11 from foreign governments, the NORAD stand-down, the probable shooting down of Flight 93 by the tardy USAF, UA93's missing 3 minutes from the CVR, "los disparos" black boxes from whatever crashed into the Twin Towers, the clear links between the ISI, CIA and the alleged hijackers, the Tora Bora non-mission and the bearded one's alleged escape, the criminal disposal of WTC evidence, no indictments, USA imperialism, military bases on the pipeline routes, war on Islam, the fake ricin plot, ID cards , the UK's ill-resourced military campaign, and still no legal justification for the 9/11 Wars.

I'm smiling.

Finally, it draws the reader back to view the, as yet not fully accepted, conspiracy theory about the most recent 9/11, through the 20/20 lens, provided by what we now know to be factually correct about the former conspiracy theories surrounding the CIA's first 9/11:

But you'd never want to think that on 9/11/2001 covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents and handed the country, if not the world, to a commerce-friendly, torture-loving, far-right junta. That would make you a paranoid, depressed conspiracy theorist. And, take it from me, that just wouldn't be comfortable

Because knowing all of this and speaking out about it always results in name calling and demonisation. If you're not careful, in paranoia and depression. In a word, uncomfortable.

A discerning reader of this article is being asked to understand the epithets and the difficulties.

That's not negative, it is entirely positive and should be applauded not derided.

It helps to disseminate some of the major known problems with the gaping holes in the official narrative of 9/11, describes a known, indisputable, 33 year old CIA backed precedent and serves to deconstruct the pejorative term "conspiracy theory".

Today the Guardian publishes an article describing scientific based WTC demolition theories, authored by Professors and academics. Not conspiracy theorists of the "usual" genre.

The Guardian was the first to publish details about Scholars for Truth, http://st911.org on Aug 7th 2006 and today mentions them again. Two msm articles in a month.

Thats a precedent for the UK mainstream media and I call that progress. Huge progress.

The Guardian deserves top marks IMO.

More of the same please.

[Ally]

[Mark Gobell]

Ally

Your frustration is clear, but not always appropriate or understandable.

Would you think it fair to call somebody who could wield a handsaw, a cabinet maker ?

All are not huntsmen who can blow the huntsman's horn . . .

[ian neal]

Since these articles have a habit of becoming unavailable online after a few days it is probably worth copying for posterity


Who really blew up the twin towers?

As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 nears, Christina Asquith finds academics querying the official version of events

Tuesday September 5, 2006
The Guardian


Shards of glass and dust from the World Trade Centre towers sit on Professor Steven Jones's desk at Brigham Young University in Utah. Evidence, he says, of the biggest cover-up in history - one too evil for most to believe, but one he has staked his academic career on exposing.
The attacks of September 11, Jones asserts, were an "inside job", puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending and expand Israel.

"We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone," says Jones. "We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."

While this sinister spin strikes most American academics as absurd, Jones, a physics professor, is not alone. He is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth, a recently formed group of around 75 US professors determined to prove 9/11 was a hoax. In essays and journals, they are using their association with prominent universities to give a scholarly stamp to conspiracy theories long believed in parts of Europe and the Arab world, and gaining ground among Americans due to frustration with the Iraq war and opposition to President Bush's heavily hyped "war on terror".

Their iconoclastic positions have drawn wrath from rightwing radio shows and caused upheaval on campuses, triggering letters to newspapers, phone calls from parents and TV cameras in lecture halls.

In the Midwest, 61 legislators signed a petition calling for the dismissal of a University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, after he joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Citing academic freedom, the university provost defended Barrett, albeit reluctantly.

A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll taken during the summer indicates that Americans are increasingly suspicious of the government's explanation of the events of 9/11: 36% said it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, or took no action to stop them, "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East".

For most of the world, the story of 9/11 begins at 8.45am on September 11 2001, when American Airlines flight 11 smashed into the North tower of the World Trade Centre. But, tumble down the rabbit hole with Jones, and the plotline begins a year earlier, in September 2000. A neoconservative group called Project for a New American Century, which included the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the vice-president, Dick Cheney, brought out a report arguing for a global expansion of American military and economic supremacy, and for the US to transform itself into a "one-world superpower". The report warned that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

Excuse for aggression

The group, in concert with about 20 others, orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 as an excuse for pre-emptive global aggression against Afghanistan, then Iraq and soon Iran, the academics say. And they insist that they have amassed a wealth of scientific data to prove it.

It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn't burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.

The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones's desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.

What's more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11.

"The planes were just a distraction," says Professor James Fetzer, 65, a recently retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota. "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."

But Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims "bad science". Barnett was a member of the World Trade Centre Building Performance Study, one of the government groups that investigated the towers' collapse.

Reluctantly, he has familiarised himself with the scholars' claims - many of them have emailed him. Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire, Barnett agrees. However, his group and others argue that the planes' impact weakened the structures and stripped off the fireproofing materials. That caused the top floors of both towers to collapse on to the floors below. "A big chunk of building falling down made the next floor fall down, and then they all came down like a deck of cards," Barnett says.

The collapse of WTC 7 was also unusual, he admits. However, firefighters do not usually let a fire rage unabated for seven hours as they did on the morning of September 11, because they had prioritised the rescue of victims. "The fact that you don't have evidence to support your theory doesn't mean that the other theory is true," Barnett says. "They just made it up out of the blue."

Since the attacks, the US government has issued three reports into the events of the day, all of which involved hundreds of professors, scientists and government officials. The 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group, issued a 500-page, moment-by-moment investigation into the hijackers' movements, concluding that they were connected to Osama bin Laden. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, filed 10,000 pages of reports examining the towers' collapse. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency weighed in, examining the response to the attacks.

"To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards," says Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoke College. "After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."

But Barrett says the experts have been fooled by an "act of psychological conversion" not unlike the tactics CIA interrogators use on their victims. "People will disregard evidence if it causes their faith to be shattered," he says. "I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."

Misleading the public

History has revealed that governments have a tradition of misleading the public into going to war, says Barrett, and the next generation of Americans will realise the truth. "Europe and Canada are way ahead of us on this."

The 9/11 scholars go to great lengths to portray themselves as rational thinkers, who have been slowly won over by a careful, academic analysis of the facts of the day.

However, a study of the full extent of their claims is a journey into the increasingly absurd: Flight 93 did not crash in Pennsylvania but landed safely in Cleveland; desperate phone calls received by relatives on the ground from passengers were actually computer-generated voices from a laboratory in California. The Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines Flight 77, but by a smaller, remote-controlled A-3 Sky Warrior, which shot a missile into the building before crashing into it.

Many of the 9/11 scholars have a history of defending conspiracy theories, including that the CIA plotted both the Lockerbie bombing and the plane crash of John F Kennedy Jr and his wife, and that "global secret societies" control the world.

Professor Robert Goldberg, of the University of Utah, wrote a book on conspiracy theories, Enemies Within: the Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. He recounts a history of religious and political leaders using conspiracy theories for personal and political gain. The common enemy is usually Jews, big government or corporations. The public laps it up, either because these theories are more exciting than the truth, or out of emotional need.

"What the conspiracy theorists do is present their case with facts and figures: they have dates, meeting places and always name names," he says. "The case is always presented in a prosecutorial way, or the way an adventure writer presents a novel. It's a breathless account. They are willing to say hearsay is a fact, and rumour is true, and accidents are never what they seem.

"One of the stories is that a missile hit the Pentagon, and all the data is there. But what is missing is: what actually happened to the plane and the people on it? Conspiracy theorists avoid discussion of those facts that don't fit."

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the public's willingness to believe conspiracy theories parallels their dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. In recent years, the American public has felt misled over false claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11.

Many fear infringements on their civil liberties now the National Security Agency has gained access to phone billing records from telecommunications companies, the Bush administration has engaged in wiretapping without court warrants and there are thousands of cases of indefinite detentions of American and foreign citizens without trial. Those who criticise the Bush administration's "war on terror" are accused of being unpatriotic.

By taking their criticisms to such extremes, though, the scholars risk caricaturing the opposition. None the less, they are pushing on, and imploring Congress to reopen the investigation.

"We're academics and we're rational, and we really believe Congress or someone should investigate this," says David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor and 9/11 scholar. "But there are a lot of crazies out there who purport that UFOs were involved. We don't want to be lumped in with those folks."

[foliagecop]

Just a nit-picky point, Mark. AL Kennedy is a 'she', not a 'he'. She - Alison - is also a stand-up comedian of some repute. In fact, I saw her tonight at The Stand in Edinburgh, where she performs every month. She comes across a bit like a female Dylan Moran, although not as funny. She does make me laugh, but she can be a bit hit and miss. And tonight was more miss than hit, although she did end on a high (God, this is turning into a comedy review, and a pretty poor one at that).

Unfortunately, she doesn't include any 9/11-related material in her act. Shame, because the actions of the PTB are so ripe for comedy.

[Mark Gobell]

Foliagecop - thanks for the correction - edits made.

How interesting, a comedienne and a journo.

[Ally]

[Reflecter]

Edit : My favourite part of the Guardian article is the Title. So you admit someone did BLOW UP the towers?

I would say I am happy the articles occurred, in the TIME, Daily Mail and Guardian as much needed coverage of some kind. They descend into hitpieces after good starts but do at least air some of the concerns. Unfotunately they focus well upon missiles and other such areas whilst leaning toward stating Theorists are mad in some manner.

Mark, Many thanks for the link to the Paperclip article which is awesome. That was put very well and I think the author is upon our side. Is he still with the Guardian? He had guts to get that printed. It still all beats the Marina Hyde and Mark Kermode pieces in the past which is refreshing.

[Mark Gobell]

NP Reflector

Actually it was Brian who provided the original link to the May 2005 article by Alison Kennedy and foliagecop who informed me that he was in fact a she.

See previous posts where foliagecop tells you she is a living, breathing comedienne.

Agreed, that the articles are to be welcomed coming from a near standing start.

They have to give both sides of the coin, so it's de rigeur to use the CT Nut job stock "balance" I guess.

I just posted about another msm article here http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3692

Where the entire article is devoted to our case and only the last single sentence claiming these theories are discounted.

It seems once the hole in the net is prised open, many go through.

[Reflecter]

Sorry to Brian and Foliagecop for missing that.

[TimmyG]

atleast it's not an all out attack on the 9/11 truth movement like most other mainstream publications tend to practice.



it's still not very good though is it?

[ian neal]

I think this answers the Guardian's question

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5959363953955396469&q=emenem

[Mark Gobell]

Christina Asquith expands her original Guardian article in the South Africa Mail & Guardian.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=283578&area=/insight/in sight__international/