Wednesday, December 2, 2015


Your correspondent J.H. (Nov. 20) states that Islam is a violent religion and "history indicates" that. She is wrong! When making such statements one should support them with evidence. History on the contrary has shown Islam to be a peaceful religion since its very inception. The spread of Islam between 600 and 800 AD was a peaceful one. People across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia Minor as far as southern Russia accepted the new religion en masse without any resistance. Jews could - often quite successfully - continue proselytizing their religion and lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim brethren. There is no historical evidence whatever of any battles or violent resistance from the populace waged against Islam. On the other hand there is an abundance of historical evidence available of  European "Christians" with the Bible in one hand and the gun in the other conquering whole continents and killing their inhabitants. We cannot blame Islam fro the crimes of a bunch of psychopathic renegades whose geneses has clearly been the result of our own aggressive policies towards them since WWII.
Published 'Press' 25/11/'15


Often overlooked are the root problems that have ultimately given rise to the "Islamic Sate". Terrorism is a global threat and this threat does demand solidarity amongst nations. Only concerted actions of all key players, both East and West can effectively resolve this problem. Right now Russia has taken the lead - embarrassing the United States - by taking the chestnuts out of the fire resulting from the US and NATO's "regime change" policies over the last two decades.
Published in the Chch Press 18/11/'15


Mr. H (Oct 27) in response to the recent letter of the Israeli ambassador, raised an interesting question when he rightly stated that Jews and Arabs both belong to the Semitic race. There is no doubt about that, but we have to make a distinction here. The Israelis who since 1948 populate the former Palestine British Mandate are genetically and ethnically of Russian and East European origin. They are the Ashkenazims, people who converted to Judaism many centuries ago. They are not the Jews of antiquity. Netanyahu's ancestors came from Belarus and Lithuania. His family name before 1910 was Mileikowski.  You will find many east European names in Israel today. There is a consensus amongst secular historians that Jews and Palestinians from antiquity were both Canaanites. The indigenous people of the region converted to Islam between 600 AD and  800 AD, which from then on spread rapidly to the east and west. Although Judaism became henceforth a minority religion, the two religions coexisted peacefully together until the usurpation of the Palestinian Mandate by East European immigrants after WWII
Published 'PRESS' 28/10/'15



208 Russia presents proof of Turkey’s role in ISIS oil trade — RT News

Russia presents proof of Turkey’s role in ISIS oil trade — RT News

Friday, September 25, 2015

205 How the Malaysian Airlines MH17 Boeing Was Shot Down. Examination of the Wreckage | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

How the Malaysian Airlines MH17 Boeing Was Shot Down. Examination of the Wreckage | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

The protracted investigations into the crash of the in July 2014 downed passenger plane MH 17 over eastern Ukraine appear to have political overtones, as attempts by some nations requesting the United Nations to set up a tribunal seem to indicate. Never before have such tribunals been asked for when planes were shot down: not in the case of the Iranian passenger plane shot down by the US over the Persian Gulf in 1988, nor of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerby the same year or the Russian plane downed by Ukraine in 1991. It's difficult to explain why - after more than a year of investigations - the introduction of such a tribunal all of a sudden becomes necessary and before the official investigations by the DSB (Dutch Safety Board) are finalised. It's quite clear that this is a ploy that carries all the hallmarks of a massive propaganda stunt in order to vilify and point the finger at Russia for vetoing the proposal, which Russia already had indicated would veto, realizing it was for propaganda purposes and the intention to blame Russia.
However it is precisely that by condescending to such unusual antics the reverse in fact could have been the case here, the reason being that the investigators are in a quandary proving that the plane was downed by a Buk missile.
So far hardly anything has been mentioned by the investigating authorities about the possible downing of the plane by other means, such as air-to-air wing rockets and canon fire from the SU25 Ukrainian fighter planes as shown in the evidence presented in the article above, corroborated by Russian radar released immediately after the plane was shot down, as well as by local people living in the area when interviewed as was shown on the BBC for a short while but suddenly been taken off the air.  (scroll down to relevant post below).  Never has the launching of a Buk missile been observed by any of the locals in the area.
An important point not to be overlooked is a possible motivation for perpetrating such an appalling crime. Could this have been a 'false flag' operation to create a pretext for sanctions, whip up military spending by NATO nations (to 2%) and deployment of US forces in eastern Europe ?


Thursday, September 17, 2015

203 The Toronto Hearings - 2011

This letter is to one of the regular commentators in the Christchurch Weekend Press.

Dear Sir,
I regularly read your weekly articles in the Weekend Press and I can also fully agree with last week's article (13/9/'15) on the refugee crisis urging to increase the quota of refugees to our country. Somewhere in your article you mentioned that the 'root causes' should be addressed that have given rise to the present influx of refugees into Europe from the Middle East. Those 'root causes' must surely be the result of the 'War on Terror', which started less than one month after 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan (7 October 2001; NB a military operation of such a magnitude must have been planned long before 9/11), followed by the invasions of Iraq, Libya and now Syria giving eventually rise to ISIS and some other terrorist groups under different names and subsequently the European refugee crisis.
So if we want to examine the root causes of  the current refugee problems in the world we have to question the official version of the 9/11 'investigation. Over the past years since that fateful day many articles have been published bringing to light a massive amount  of overwhelming and convincing evidence from literally thousands of experts in their fields: engineers, architects, demolition experts, university professors, historians, witnesses and testimonies from firefighters, policemen and ordinary citizens who happened to be there that day.  They all come to the same conclusion that the official version of 9/11 is a fraud of grandiose proportions, a 'false flag' operation or 'inside job' as it is often referred to.
I have followed intensively most of the evidence presented by these highly qualified scientists, and at the same time I am very much aware that anyone questioning the official version of the 9/11 report
is dubbed with a derisive snub 'Conspiracy Theorist'.  To simply shrug off all this evidence with such a cheap remark is not very intelligent and is downright dishonest.
W e all have a grave responsibility and news paper people in particular, to make the public aware of at least 'the other side of the story'. However it is clear that the other side of the story remains carefully hidden from the general public and the question is WHY?  For instance how many people  know that a third building, building 7 of The Solomon Brothers, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed in a perfect demolition fashion on its own footprint, same as the two of the WTC which were struck by planes. There are amongst these experts mentioned before, people who had lost their jobs for speaking out. Sadly 9/11 is not allowed to be discussed or debated within the mainstream corporate media.  But let me quickly emphasize that individual newspaper editors are not to blame for withholding this information, as I am well aware that if they do this will seriously jeopardize their careers. That's the reason why last week not a single word was mentioned about 9/11 not in the Perspective letters columns nor from the Press' regular columnists. I had contemplated submitting a letter to the Perspective page, but at the same time realized the futility to do so, which would have been a waste of time. The letter would most certainly have been rejected.
Mr VB you are an intelligent man endowed with good analytical faculties and literary skills, as you have demonstrated before. I am sure you must have followed the discussions and debates on 9/11 in some detail (I hope) and I am quite confident that you would never have dismissed it this with such a cheap remark as 'Conspiracy Theorists'
So in briefly summarizing the 'root causes' of the refugee crisis, we have to delve much deeper and understand who brought down the WTC towers (and tower 7) on 9/11, a 'False Flag' operation which ultimately heralded "The War on Terror", the rise of ISIS and consequently the current refugee crisis in Europe.

For the Toronto Hearings click on the links below:

Also recommended is the previous post 202

Sunday, July 19, 2015

198 A Blight Unto Nations | Kia Ora Gaza

A Blight Unto Nations | Kia Ora Gaza

For older posts on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict click on the year in the margin and scroll down.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

197 ▶ David Ray Griffin 2005 "The Truth Behind 9/11" - YouTube

▶ David Ray Griffin 2005 "The Truth Behind 9/11" -

This video has been removed by Youtube. It's obvious that this is censorship. The evidence presented was too powerful. However it can still be seen on my Facebook if you scroll down.

The post has been successfully reloaded, but there is a possibility that it will be removed again.

Friday, May 22, 2015

195 Freedom of speech

The following amended letter was submitted to the Christchurch Press in response to an article dealing with 'Freedom of Speech' dated 19 May 2015:

"The article by the chief editor Joanna Norris (19/05) got me rather confused. In 2009 I filed a complaint with the New Zealand Press Council on exactly the same grounds as quoted by Ms Norris which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights and relating to "freedom of Speech' Ms Norris obviously referred to Art 19 of the International Covenant of Civil Rights and Political Rights (ICCPR) and specifically sub 2, which states unambiguously:
Every one should have the freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice "
The issue I raised in my complaint to the Press Council was the fact that references to alternative sources of information, usually added in brackets, were consistently excised from my letters.  This in my opinion is inconsistent with the stated right 'to receive and impart information of all kinds, regardless of frontiers etc'.
It becomes very clear from Article 19 sub 2 grants the public the right to seek, receive and impart information from alternative sources !
However the Press Council accepted the then editor's argument that Art 19 sub 2 of  the  ICCPR  relate exclusively to (quote) "actions between government and its people" and the aforementioned Covenant has nothing to do with "freedom of  speech" when applied  to letters from the public submitted for publication in a news paper."

Letter submitted 25/05/2015

A Privilege, Not a Right !
In my unpublished letter in response to Joanna Norris' article (19/05) in which she asserted that 'freedom of speech/expression' is a universally accepted right in a democratic society,  I expressed my disagreement.  The former editor of the Christchurch Press and the New Zealand Press Council in adjudication 2094 (Van Meurs v. The Press; November 2009) stated that the article mentioned relate to 'actions between a government and its people' and does not apply to a person wanting to express opinions or 'seek, receive and impart information' via the media. The Press Council in agreement with the previous editor also stated that it is the 'prerogative' of the editor to accept and reject letters and references to alternative sources of information. These two irreconcilable views are difficult to explain. However, I accept an editor's responsibility to select those letters for publication which in his judgement are suitable for publication and in my experience editors have always been fair and lenient in this respect. So one must conclude that publications of letters are a privilege for which one should be grateful, not a right and should be appreciated by the letter writer.

So on the one hand we have the present editor of the 'The Press', Joanna Norris, who in a lengthy article went out of her way to assure her readers that freedom of speech/expression as formulated in the aforementioned Act (Art 19 sub 2) is a fundamental right and on the other hand  The New Zealand Press Council supporting a former editor, who ruled that the "ICCPR and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act "relate only to actions between a government and its people" !

How does one explain this enormous discrepancy in the two views ? Where is the evidence ?
Why would Joanna Norris go out of her way to stress this right to the readers of The Press (as she did once before) if the Act is not relevant ? 
Who has been hoodwinked here and taken for a ride ? The readers of the Press or I ?
These are the questions that should be answered with integrity and without resorting to evasions and subterfuge.

Reply from the editor Ms Norris:
"The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms the right of individuals to express themselves. It does not oblige any entity to publish those expressions and views. My interpretation of BORA is entirely consistent with the previous editor of The Press and The Press Council as articulated in that adjudication".

Reply Van Meurs:
"Thank you for your reply which is certainly much appreciated. However looked at it from the letter writer's perspective the Act is meaningless and merely a dead letter. My belief as expressed in my second letter that the publication of a letter is a privilege and not an absolute right is therefore probably the right one. So it's good to know where one stands here in this respect".

My comments:
The Act BORA (Art 19 sub 2) still makes strange reading. It unambigously states that imparting information is (quote): "regardless of frontiers"; "in writing and in print" and most importantly of all "through any other media of his choice".
1) There is no evidence provided that the Act applies to the "individual and his government" only, which would have been a limitation of its "frontiers".
2) If the Act is not "relevant" or applicable where it concern the individual and the media, why then does the editor goes to great length to devote a whole article quoting excerpts of the Act, without providing evidence of its limitations ?
3) Earlier this year I submitted an advertisement for publication of my blog, for which I was prepared to pay. My advert was turned down by the editor.
To be sure I am not claiming that letter writers should have an unlimited right of access to the letter pages. This in all fairness and for practical reasons would not be feasible.
However, once a letter is accepted for publication and complies with all the editor's rules, then in that case the editor has to accept the provisions as set out in the Act as quoted afore and should publish the letter without limitations i.e: "regardless of frontiers".
Reply HRC (abridged)
"the HRC is not in a position to provide anwers on this matter, as it does not fall within its jurisdiction".
Van Meurs (abridged)
When back in 2009 I filed my complaint against the New Zealand Press Council, it was the HRC who advised me to base my case on Art 19 sub 2 of the Act and sent me the entire text. I am not asking the HRC to enforce the Act or to take any action what ever. I am simply asking how the assertion that the aforementioned Act applies only to (quote): actions between a government and its people" can be reconciled with that which is quite unambiguously laid down in the Act. Do I not have a right to have that discrepancy explained ? Apparently  not .So in the absence of any explanation the only conclusion one can derive at is that the quoted assertion is
 false as it can nowhere be found in any legal document. Its simply an invention and subterfuge that makes no sense.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental democratic right, but however sadly missing in to-days biased news media. That is what makes Art 19 sub 2 so important. One cannot maintain that the occasionally published letter to the news paper constitutes "freedom of speech". Consistently barring references to other/alternative sources of information contravenes what is implicitly laid down in the Act and amounts to censorship. That should be of concern to the Human Rights Commission and anyone who takes freedom of speech seriously!
Reply HRC 13 July 2015
Section 3 of the NZBORA
"This Bill of Rights applies only to Acts done:
a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or
b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power or duty conferred and imposed on that person of body by or pursuant to law"
e-Mail to Editor of The Press 13/7/2015
"I finally received word from the HRC explaining the Bill of Rights Act. The former editor of The Press and The Press Council in its adjudication 2094 (2009) were absolutely right.
Part 1 of the Act under "General Provisions" sub 3, effectively blocks any right of freedom of speech as laid down in Art 19 sub 2, i.e. at least in context with the news media".


Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

190 Irans Nuclear Program

Letter to the editor published 8 April 2015

The US assertion that it were the sanctions imposed on Iran that made them come to the negotiating table, is a bit of a red herring. One could also maintain that the sanctions never worked and may drive Iranians into the Russian and Chinese camp. The hue and cry of the Israelis and their friends in Congress, that unless someone intervened, Iran could have the bomb within a few years unless Iran "was forced to stop", doesn't stack up with realities either. They have been saying this for the last 20 years. However Iran could unquestionably have produced a nuclear bomb many years ago if it had wanted to. Iran's nuclear program already started as early as the late fifties under the then Shah of Persia with US support. The country is endowed with a robust industrial base, exceptional engineering universities and a well educated population. Israel yielded a nuclear bomb within a few years, so did South Africa, India and even poor Pakistan and North Korea. So it is hard to believe that Iran had been unable to build the bomb within the last 20 years.


Letter to the editor published 16 April 2015 in response to a letter from Erin Eldridge.

Erin Eldridge made it quite clear in her letter (Press 10/04) that she is quite unable to refute the essential logic of my argument. I do not want to waste to much space on her outpourings, but one thing needs to be mentioned. What in fact is extremely naïve is to base bombing Iran, as advocated over the years by Netanyahu and his friends in Congress, on the misquoted allegation "wiping Israel of the map".
This is a misquote originating from a speech delivered by Ayatollah Khomeini to university students in the Farsi language.  What Khomeini actually said was: "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time".
Anonymous wire service translators translated this wrongly to: "Israel must be wiped of the map" and was subsequently used as a pretext to accuse Iran of secretly building an atomic bomb.
Iran has far more to fear from Israel than the other way round.



Sunday, March 15, 2015

188 Downing of the MH 17

The possibility of the MH 17 flight having been shot down by a ground-to-air missile was discussed by experts from the AAF (Federal Aviation Administration), the FBI, the Air Line Pilots Association, as well as the air traffic and operational officers.  They unanimously agreed that no proof of  anti- aircraft missile use has been provided to the public.
It is highly unlikely that the launch of such a missile would have gone unnoticed in the area, since the smoke trail left by the rocket in the air would have been witnessed and filmed by thousands of people. Virtually everyone these days carries a cell phone or i-pod.
One of the things settled on is that in the middle of the day, and if  indeed this were a Buk missile, the contrail would have been seen for 50 miles (80 Kms). The contrail itself would have been photographed by thousands of people and it would have been in minutes on Instagram, on Twitter and all over YouTube and none saw it ? You cannot fire a missile on a flat area in the middle of the day leaving a vapour trail into the air and no one has seen it.
There is no reliable information whatever, supporting that it was a Buk missile fired by either Russia or the Ukraine !
Besides a vapour trail being visible for a long time from great distances, would have located accurately the location from where the missile was launched, so it is highly unlikely that any of the two suspects - Russia and Ukraine - for that matter would have been so stupid to have used a Buk missile. 
Also in the extremely unlikely event that a Buk missile was fired with its distinctive vapour trail, it would most certainly have been mentioned in the Preliminary Report published last year by the Dutch Investigation Team.
However, this Preliminary report could also have reported that no condensation trail had been observed and one may wonder WHY ? To deliberately continue the controversy ?

Just consider the following. Could the Malaysian passenger plane MH 17 indeed have been downed by a Buk missile as suggested by western mainstream news media ? This is highly unlikely for the following reasons. The Russians could indeed have known that the plane was scheduled to leave Amsterdam 'Schiphol' airport at the given time and could have known its scheduled flight path.
However, what the Russians could NOT have known untill the last minutes, is that Kiev Air Control was to instruct the pilots to lower altitude and diverted the plane from its originally scheduled flight path over the east Ukrainian war zone !
That diversion of the flight path must have happened within the last half hour or so, when it showed up on Russian radar. Kiev could have thrown light on that, but remains silent, refusing to release the conversations between ATC and the planes' pilots, as has ben requested by Russia on several occasions. (Also the suddenly 'vanished' Spanish air controller could tell us more )
So the upshot is that it was totally impossible for the Russians to roll in from Russia and in broad daylight a Buk missile unit and make it ready to shoot down the plane within such an extremely short time span.
As I  have said before the ill-fated plane was not downed by a Buk missile. Neither Russia nor the Ukraine would have been so stupid to use a Buk missile, as it would have been too easily detected by its vapour trail and would have betrayed the location of the perpetrator of this crime.
The only credible explanation is that the plane was shot down in the air by jet fighters, as all available evidence and all circumstantial evidence so far is indisputably pointing in that direction.

PS.  Further down there is video footage of the launching of a Buk missile


Friday, February 13, 2015


The drums of war are getting louder and louder and the rhetoric of the war mongers more absurd by the day when accusing Russia of trying to "redraw the map of Europe" (Press 11/02). Surely only those not familiar with the map of the world may fall for it. However, after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent dismantling of the Warsaw Pact, NATO obviously became obsolete and could have been disbanded. It was not, but did promise not to "move one inch eastward". To-day NATO stands right at the borders of Russia. In 2008 US/NATO deployed a 'missile defense' system in Poland, ostensibly in response to a perceived threat from Iran. A year ago America engineered a coup detat in the Ukraine (illegal under international law) shortly before planned democratic elections scheduled for May of that same year and installed a regime composed of mainly ultra nationalist fascists and Neo Nazis in Kiev. Any wonder that ethnic Russians in the Ukraine revolt ? Over a million have already fled into Russia.

09/02/2015  "BOOTS ON THE GROUND"
Peter Clements is absolutely right (09/02).  ISIS can be defeated by a coalition of Middle Eastern countries and I would have added Israel, the most powerful military power in the region, if these countries were prepared to put "boots on the ground". That's why Syria, no doubt aided by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, has up to now fairly successful in freeing most of the country from ISIS terrorists. So why are most of these countries Peter Clements mentioned in his letter unwilling to engage ground troops ? Because ISIS is the result of failed American policy that backfired when through its allies, mainly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and possibly Israel in the background, they financed, trained and supplied huge quantities of weapons to the Syrian 'rebels' in an attempt to oust Bashar al Assad. That's still the long term objective of the US. Should New Zealand be drawn in such a conflict if that were to happen ?

I usually agree wholeheartedly with the sensible, well informed views of your correspondent Donna Mojab. However in her latest letter (06/02) she made a little slip-up when she stated that 'New Zealand has a proud history of peaceful and independent foreign policy'. That may have been so many years ago, but since New Zealand gave up here nuclear free status it has become a little subservient puppet of the United States. We are now pressured by the Obama administration to help to pay for America's disastrous foreign policies that backfired when through its allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and possibly Israel, these countries financed, provided weapons and training to the Syrian 'rebels' in their failed attempt to oust Bashar al Assad. It was Jordan that allowed the CIA to set up training camps within its borders. It is America that has the resource and the military power to defeat ISIS and New Zealand soldiers should not be put in harms way and be sacrificed for American mistakes.

Some of your correspondents maintain that the Koran is inciting violence. However Judaism, Christianity and Islam all belong to the same Abrahamic religions. May I point out that the God of the Old Testament on which Judaism is based, was a cruel, unjust and unforgiving God. During the last 500 years  west Europeans in their scramble for natural resources have literally killed millions of the indigenous with the Cross in one hand and the gun in the other. We utterly destroyed the old Inca and Aztec civilisations in Latin America and depopulated large parts of Africa in the trafficking and exploit of human beings. Because of our technological superiority northern European nations have enriched themselves by plundering the natural resources of those we regarded inferior and subhuman. This process is still on going yet even on a much larger scale. Millions of people in Asia (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia etc.) and in the Middle East killed, also in the quest of natural resources.. The colonization of Palestine resulted in the expulsion of its native population on pretexts of outdated biblical mythologies and with brutal force replaced with aliens of mostly east European origin. Are atom bombs, drones, napalm more civilized killing methods than the ones used by those who are hitting back as a result of what we have done to them over the past centuries ? 


Thursday, January 8, 2015

▶ 174 MH17 last minutes - YouTube

▶ MH17 last minutes - YouTube

Please note: At the end of this video the launching of a Buk missile is shown. These missiles leave a long vapour trail that lasts (depending on wind) at least ten minutes and is visible from distances up to 30 kms.  No such trail has ever been recorded or photographed, making it extremely unlikely that the plane was shot down by an surface to air missile.