Mark Stapleton

Now that I have had time to check you arguments and the sources underpinning them, I'll give it a try.

On May 2 (post #35), you posted this article from the HNN archives--a blurb promoting A Jay Cristol's upcoming book. You prefaced posting this link by claiming to Sid Walker that "actually there was a Hebrew linguist on board the Liberty":

USS Liberty: Israel Did Not Intend to Bomb the Ship

By A. Jay Cristol

Mr. Cristol is the author of the forthcoming The Liberty Incident.

Editor's Note: This summer HNN devoted a special edition to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 during the Six Day War, which resulted in the deaths of 34 Americans. Israel insists the attack was an accident. Many others contend it was deliberate, among them, James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets., which has attracted a great deal of attention. A. Jay Cristol, a federal bankruptcy judge in Florida, has spent 14 years researching the incident and has been allowed exlusive access to Israeli archives and officials. His long-awaited book, The Liberty Incident, will be published in March by Brassey. In the piece below, Judge Cristol critiques the claims advanced by Mr. Bamford. The judge's conclusion? Mr. Bamford is guilty of telling "tall tales."

Bamford: Describes the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as "unprovoked."

Fact: He completely ignores that the United States had publicly announced to the world at the United Nations Security Council only two days before June 8, 1967 that it had no warships within hundreds of miles of the combat zone. The chain of reactions were started by an Israeli army report of explosions at El Arish. Since Israel controlled the air and the ground, they made the assumption that they were being shelled from the sea and a warship was in eye view. In view of the U.S. public announcement, it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze grey warship sailing within eye view of the ongoing combat was an enemy vessel rather than a U.S. ship.

Bamford: "Israel fighters and torpedo boats assaulted the ship for more than an hour."

Fact: The air attack lasted about 12 minutes and was terminated as soon as the Israel Air Force determined the ship was not an Arab ship. While the Air Force was initiating rescue operations, the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling to the Liberty. The response of the Liberty was to begin shooting at the torpedo boats which thereupon began the torpedo attack. It lasted less than 15 minutes during which time the navy torpedo boats believed they were facing an enemy who initiated the shooting at them.

Bamford: The Israeli attackers used "cannon fire, rockets, heavy bombs, burning napalm and five torpedoes"

Fact: No rockets were fired at Liberty. No bombs, "heavy" or otherwise, were used. The attacking aircraft were not armed to attack a ship. Had they dropped the standard 500 pound iron bombs normally used against ship targets, the Liberty would very likely have been sunk in minutes. (During the battle of Midway in World War II, U.S. Navy dive bombers using standard 500 pound iron bombs sank three Japanese aircraft carriers in ten minutes.) Four napalm canisters [bombs] were dropped by the attacking aircraft. At least three and possibly all missed. The Liberty's doctor reported no treatment of any crew member for napalm burns.

Bamford: "Israeli reconnaissance planes had positively identified the ship"

Fact: A routine Israel Navy reconnaissance flight at dawn on June 8 sighted Liberty at about 6:00 A.M. steaming southeasterly and south more than 70 miles further west of El Arish. Positive identification was made and the information passed to Naval Intelligence Headquarters and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. Five hours later, the Liberty mark was considered old information and removed from the battle control board. At 11:00 A.M., shifts changed and the information about the Liberty was not known to the officer who assumed command. At about 1:00 P.M., when the presence of a ship steaming west, 14 miles off the coast of the Sinai and reported to be shelling Israel Army positions from the sea became a tactical issue, the Navy Officer in command did not know about the dawn sighting of Liberty many miles to the west.

Bamford: "Throughout the attack, according to survivors, the Liberty was flying a large American flag,"

Fact: Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over.

Bamford: "Nowicki heard both the pilots and the torpedo boat crew members referring to the American flag during the attack,"

"Nowicki also heard the pilots talk about the American flag."

Fact: No reference to an American flag was made on any radio intercept until 1512, approximately 30 minutes after the attack was over. I have obtained transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes which confirm this. I have an appeal pending before the National Security Agency for release of their tapes, which are the tapes described by Bamford. Release of these tapes by NSA will corroborate both what Nowicki originally told Bamford as well as the transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes. That is the attack was a mistake.

Bamford: [The Liberty] "had its name painted in English in ten-foot letters across the stern."

Fact: The name Liberty on the curved stern of the ship was not larger than 18 inches and because of the curvature of the stern, was extremely difficult to read under any circumstances. The ships identifier, "GTR-5" was painted on both sides of the ship near the bow and near the stern but only the number "5" was ten feet tall. The "GTR" was substantially smaller. It was the sighting of these markings by the second wave of aircraft that identified the ship as not an Arab ship and resulted in immediate termination of the air attack.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are the survivors and the captain of the ship."

Fact: The captain of the ship, William L. McGonagle, testified under oath before the U.S. navy Court of Inquiry on June 13, 1967 "I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack having been conducted in error." [emphasis added] [Court of Inquiry Record, p. 39] Bamford attributes rejection of the Israel explanation of mistaken identity to "The Survivors." This infers all the survivors. Again, this is not a true statement.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are ... Secretary of State, Dean Rusk and Chief of Naval Operations (and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Admiral Thomas Moorer;"

Fact: Dean Rusk never accepted the Israeli explanation but when I asked him in an interview at Athens, Georgia on April 5, 1989 on what evidence he based his opinion, he conceded that he never read the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry findings, the CIA Report, or the Clark Clifford Report. When pressed further, he said, "I did not make a career of studying the evidence."

Admiral Moorer was Commander in Chief Atlantic on the day of the attack on the Liberty and became Chief of Naval Operations on August 1, 1967. In two interviews in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 1989 and May 3, 1990, he explained that the Liberty's identity could not be mistaken because she was the "Ugliest ship in the Navy" and was larger in size than the Egyptian ship for which she was mistaken. The CIA Report concludes the opposite, that the two ships could be mistaken. Ironically, the findings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry were approved by Moorer's office while he was the Chief of Naval Operations.

Bamford: [The Liberty] never fired a shot."

Fact: This statement is a lie. The evidence has been undisputed for more than three decades that when the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling, the Liberty began shooting at them. Captain McGonagle, the commanding officer, testified to this under oath at the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry and reconfirmed it in a videotaped press conference on board Liberty when the ship returned to the United States. He may be observed on videotape telling of the Liberty firing at the torpedo boats in the Thames TV documentary, Attack on the Liberty, aired on British television on January 27, 1987.

Bamford: "The evidence that Israel's attack was deliberate is overwhelming." [He refers to] "the mountain of evidence in my book indicating that Israel knew the ship was American."

Fact: All attacks are inherently deliberate. The question is: did the Israelis attack knowing that it was an American ship. Ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence to establish that it was not a tragic mistake. Seven U. S. Presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, and Clinton have all accepted the conclusion that the attack was a tragic mistake. Still, more than two dozen conspiracy theories, most of which like Mr. Bamford's conspiracy theory, are based on false or erroneous premises, and have been circulating for years. They all start from the assumption that all the above investigations were wrong or a deliberate cover up; that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship; and the only question is: "Why". Bamford's book presents a mountain of allegations but no credible evidence to prove the allegations.

Bamford: Refers to Marvin Nowicki plus "another Hebrew linguist" who, he says, "is" confident that the Israeli attack was a deliberate attack.

Fact: Here again Mr. Bamford lies. Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy Hebrew linguist on the NSA EC-121 aircraft who heard the Israeli Air Force pilots' radio transmissions and supervised their recording, told Mr. Bamford exactly the opposite, that is Nowicki is certain the attack was a mistake. In an e-mail letter dated March 3, 2000, a copy of which was provided to me by Nowicki and which will be published in full in my forthcoming book, Nowicki wrote to Bamford, "...we recorded most, if not all, of the attack. Further, our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." Dr. Nowicki's letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal published on May 16, 2001 unequivocally contradicts what Bamford attributes to him. Nowicki said in the Wall Street Journal letter: "My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is the attack, ..., was a gross error." There are not one, but two other NSA connected Hebrew linguists that, according to Dr. Nowicki, have heard the tapes and share his - not Bamford's - alleged conclusions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT JUDGE CRISTOL: He is a former U.S. Navy carrier pilot, and a lecturer for the Department of Defense on the Law of Naval Warfare. He retired from my Naval service with the rank of Captain. He is professionally knowledgeable about air combat and naval matters. He has spent fourteen years researching one question about the Liberty incident: did the Israelis attack her knowing she was a U.S. ship ("No") or was it a case of mistaken identity ("Yes")? This study was his doctoral dissertation accepted in 1997 by the Graduate School of International Studies of the University of Miami and is on file in the Library of Congress.

The quotations attributed to Mr. Bamford were taken from a statement he published in the New Republic.

Okay Len, I'll make three observations/queries regarding this piece:

1. Who was the Hebrew linguist aboard the Liberty? What was his name? You said a linguist was on board so you should have no trouble answering this.

2. The circumstances surrounding the removal of the Liberty from the battle control board at naval headquarters are ridiculous, imo. I believe Evan also expressed surprise at such an explanation. A routine reconnaissance flight identifies the ship at 6am. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION WAS MADE and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. FIVE HOURS LATER THE LIBERTY MARK WAS CONSIDERED OLD INFORMATION AND REMOVED FROM THE BATTLE CONTROL BOARD.

Len, do you and A Jay Cristol expect researchers to be stupid enough to believe the subsequent attack was carried out without the IDF leadership being aware of who they were attacking? Do you expect me to believe that a defence force as efficient and highly trained as the IDF, in a time of war with vigilance and caution at its peak, would allow such a comical breakdown in military co-ordination to occur? Cristol then expects us to believe that when the shift change occurred after 11am, the officer who assumed command was not briefed about what had occured previously--that a marker for the Liberty had been placed on the control board and then removed because it was 'old information'. Pull the other one, Len.

Such a fanciful scenario would be more appropriate if it concerned the military of a small dictatorship in Central America or Africa--even then I would have trouble believing it--but I will never accept that the IDF could be so lazy and slipshod, especially in a time of war.

Your premise falls on this point alone (but wait, there's more).

3. The editor's note at the top of the article states that Cristol has been granted exclusive access to Israeli archives and officials. Hmmm, so others interested in seeking the truth of this matter are denied access to these archives and officials, one must assume. Why has this preferential treatment been granted exclusively to Cristol? What is his background vis-a-vis the state of Israel? His transition from Federal Bankruptcy Judge (in the state of Florida--a stronghold of support for Israel) to authoritative historian seems to have been remarkably seamless. Of course, he didn't move into the historian's profession at entry level---he was granted exclusive access to important historical information. So Len, naturally I have to ask the question, is Cristol as staunchly supportive of Israel as yourself?

Why did Israel attack USS Liberty?

By Raffi Berg

BBC News

June 8, 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6690425.stm

Nice of the BBC to assign an unbiased correspondent to report on the USS Liberty anniversary - but surely it would be cheaper and easier for the Beeb to subcontract the entire article to Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post?

Having said that, the reference to Peter Hounam's book on the USS Liberty is very useful. I wasn't aware of it before.

Yes I'm surprised they didn't enlist Mark Regev or (dare I say it) Phillip Adams to report the story:

NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH---On the 40th anniversary of the Liberty attack we have just discovered it was all an innocent misunderstanding. That is all.

(Now back to the war on terror)

This thread has also been useful insofar as the question of James Jesus Angleton's loyalties is concerned. The suspicion that JJA's loyalties lay primarily with the state of Israel has been further strengthened by links posted by Len Colby.

Nice try Mark but unsupported claims by anyone, let alone people with "axes to grind" proves nothing.

Why do you claim that the suggestion that JJA was Israel's man was made by someone with 'an axe to grind'? Do you have evidence in support of your claim?

My post is merely recognition that having had time recently to go through the thread in detail, I have come to the conclusion that:

1. Much of your argument that the attack on the Liberty was a case of mistaken identity is actually quite weak and

2. You provided further corroboration if JJA's treachery.

On the latter point you deserve credit. An own goal is still a goal.

You've done a fine job as moderator, as usual, Evan. Thanks.

It seems to me the matter to dispense with initially is whether anyone on the forum wishes to argue that the attack on the USS Liberty was an accident.

If so, that should be discussed.

If not, I suggest we move to speculation about motive...

I also have a personal theory about great courage that has yet to be acknowledged which relates to the Liberty incident. I'll roll it out when we come to discuss possible motives for a deliberate attack.

If there is to be a detailed debate about what happened and whether the Israeli attack could have been an accidental mistake, perhaps people with first hand recollections of the event (notably USS Liberty survivors) could be asked to participate?

Why did Israel attack USS Liberty?

By Raffi Berg

BBC News

June 8, 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6690425.stm

For former US seaman Gary Brummett, the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Middle East war has stirred painful memories.

As a 21-year-old third class petty officer, Mr Brummett was serving on board the USS Liberty off the coast of Egypt on 8 June, when, without warning, the vessel came under fire, first from fighter planes, then torpedo boats.

The attack, which lasted at least 40 minutes, resulted in the deaths of 34 of Mr Brummett's fellow crewmen, at least 170 injured and catastrophic damage to the ship.

Alarmingly, the assault had been carried out not by enemy forces, but by the US' closest regional ally, Israel.

Israel insists it mistook the Liberty for a hostile Egyptian ship, the El Quseir, and numerous US and Israeli inquiries have concluded the attack was accidental.

But for Mr Brummett and a growing body of conspiracy theorists, the authorities are guilty of a cover-up.

"I have more trouble with it today than when it happened because I know more of the facts about what was going on," said Mr Brummett.

"There's been an egregious wrong done here, there's been an extreme number of lies told to the American people and the American people do not know the truth about what happened."

'Sitting duck'

The attack on the Liberty - the gravest incident in the history of US-Israeli relations - has been a source of controversy for the past four decades.

Claim and counter-claim as to what happened have been fought out in every corner of the media, with the advent of the internet helping to reinvigorate the debate.

Israel's supporters say the incident is merely being used as a tool by critics to malign the Jewish state, while accusers say the attack was a war crime which has never come to light.

According to Israel, the incident was a tragic case of friendly fire occurring in the fog of war.

It says it believed the ship had been bombarding Israeli forces fighting in the Sinai, and that its pilots did not see any US flags (survivors say there were three) on the vessel before they opened fire.

Sceptics however claim the attack was premeditated and that the truth has been suppressed. The assertion of a cover-up was lent weight by a 2003 independent commission of inquiry which reported that the attack on the Liberty "remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress".

Among the most popular theories as to why Israel would take such drastic action against its superpower ally is that the Liberty, a $40m state-of-the-art surveillance ship, was eavesdropping on an Israeli massacre of Egyptian prisoners of war.

Israel strongly denies its troops executed Egyptian POWs, saying those who died in an incident at that time were 250 armed Palestinian fighters killed in action.

Another is that the ship had learnt of secret Israeli plans to invade Syria's Golan Heights two days later and had to be destroyed.

'US collusion' theory

Perhaps the most sinister motive is that put forward by journalist Peter Hounam in his 2003 book "Operation Cyanide". The attack on the Liberty was pre-planned, perhaps from at least a year beforehand

Mr Hounam claims secret elements within the US and Israeli governments colluded to bomb the ship and blame the attack on Egypt and their superpower ally, the Soviet Union, triggering massive retaliation which would ensure Israeli victory.

"The attack on the Liberty was pre-planned, perhaps from at least a year beforehand," Mr Hounam says.

"The Liberty was sent into a very dangerous situation, where it was, in my view, placed in a position to be attacked."

Mr Hounam says the intention was to sink the ship and kill everyone on board, but as the Liberty remained afloat the plan was aborted and has been hushed up ever since.

'Presidential order'

Successive US and Israeli inquiries, and the declassification of thousands of pieces of information, have done little to dampen suspicions.

One of the most powerful claims of a cover-up has come from retired US Navy lawyer Capt Ward Boston, counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry into the incident conducted just days after the event.

Capt Boston says the court's original findings, which he signed, were changed afterwards by government lawyers.

He also claims the president of the court, Rear Adm Isaac Kidd, told him he was ordered by US President Lyndon Johnson and Defence Secretary Robert McNamara to conclude the attack was a case of mistaken identity.

However, Capt Boston's version of events - and the notion that what happened was anything more than a tragic accident - are disputed by numerous academics and authors who have investigated the incident.

"It was a series of blunders by both the United States and Israel that resulted in a terrible tragedy and nothing more," says Jay Cristol, a federal judge and author of the book The Liberty Incident.

"All the official reports came to the same conclusion.

"Unfortunately there are a number of people who are on the other side of the Arab-Israeli conflict who think this is a way to attack the otherwise very strong relationship between the US and Israel, and they keep stirring the pot.

'No evidence'

It is a view with which historian Michael B Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem academic research institute, concurs.

"Many thousands of documents related to the Liberty have been declassified and in none of these documents will you find a scintilla of evidence to suggest any of these conspiracy theories are true," he says.

"The Golan one is the easiest to disprove because of where the Liberty was, not off the coast of Israel, but Egypt. Its listening devices weren't that powerful that they could listen in on communications in Tel Aviv.

"Moreover the Israelis were very upfront in telling the US that they planned to capture the Golan Heights and the Americans agreed to it.

"Regarding a massacre of Egyptian POWs, there's no evidence of that. And why would the Israelis try to cover up one atrocity by committing another?

He says the attack has remained a source of controversy because "it has all the ingredients of a good spy scandal. It involves espionage and it involves the Israelis, who are forever a focus of conspiracy theories.

"If I could prove the Liberty was attacked in a premeditated fashion, I would write it - it would be a great historical scoop - but the truth is far more mundane."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/midd...ast/6690425.stm

Published: 2007/06/08 11:19:19 GMT

That's one point of view but I think the jury is still out. I still tend to think it was deliberate as the Israeli's seem to have positively identified the vessel prior to the attack. I also believe LBJ put pressure on senior officers not to contradict the Government's line that the attack was a tragic mistake.

This thread has also been useful insofar as the question of James Jesus Angleton's loyalties is concerned. The suspicion that JJA's loyalties lay primarily with the state of Israel has been further strengthened by links posted by Len Colby. Good work Len.

As I've made clear on other threads, I am one of those who believes that the JFK assassination has - in broad outline - already been solved.

Final Judgment, in my opinion, identified the conspiratorial network ultimately responsible for JFK's murder and the subsequent cover-up. While others were involved in the conspiracy (and author Mike Piper acknowledges this), the key decision-makers were Zionists.

According to this hypothesis, a crucial reason behind JFK's murder was his policies on Israel and the Middle East.

In that context, it is interesting to speculate on how events might have evolved in Israel/Palestine had JFK remained in power for two terms.

Would the 1967 war - and it's outcome - have been at all conceivable with Kennedy in the White House?

Would the Israelis have been able to complete their production of nuclear weapons? (Johnson allowed Israel to do this)

Would the USS Liberty have been sunk in an 'accident' on Kennedy's watch? Would Kennedy have permitted a cover-up of such an incident?

Without Israel's 1967 land grab - which exceeded in scope Israel's failed expansionist push in 1956 - the current shape of the Hold Land and surrounding area would be very different. World attention would have remained focussed - after 1967 as before - on the original sources of Palestinian grievance, not the additional injustices of 1967 whose reversal has now become the center-piece of 'respectable' peace proposals.

I submit that, from what we know of Kennedy and his trusted advisers - and from what we have learnt since his death of his independent and fair-minded approach to Israel, Arab nations and the US Zionist lobby - it is inconceivable that events would have swung so far towards Israel's advantage during the 1960s had he survived.

If JFK had lived, the following outcomes were likely:

- no Israeli nuclear weapons

- no 'successful' expansionist Israeli war, such as the 1967 6-day war

- no US toleration of Israel's persistent refusal to honour the right of return for 1948+ Palestinian refugees.

- no willingness to let Zionist networks progressively dominate the American polity.

In other words, no militarily ascendant Israel, automatically supported by an infiltrated and essentially brainless US Government, such as we experience today.

It is true that other parts of the world might also have fared very differently had Kennedy and his Administration survived. Vietnam and Cuba spring to mind. Yet in neither case did the frosty and aggressive policies of Kennedy's replacements succeed in the long term. In 2007, Vietnam is united under Communist rule - and so is Cuba. If control of these countries was a key goal for the conspirators who killed JFK, they failed miserably.

In the case of Israel, by contrast, 'success' in perpetuating long-term injustice is rather blatant.

Good post Sid (I've been away from the forum for a while).

It's true that America's hard headed support for Israel and abandonment of any fair minded approach to the Middle East situation appears to be their only 'success' on the foreign policy scoreboard to date. If you can call the resultant toxic cesspool of hatred within the Middle East towards the US and Israel a success, that is. It's a shame that more Americans choose not to comment on the plight of the Palestinians after 40 years of cruel occupation. Perhaps Western sympathy towards oppressed people was exhausted by the global effort to rid the world of South Africa's apartheid regime. The apartheid regime was dismantled but South Africa is still here, proving that regimes can be pressured into changing for the better without the nation being 'annihilated'. The fact that the world's most powerful nation is totally incapable of influencing domestic Israeli policy towards the Palestinians strengthens my suspicion that Israel is indeed the missing piece in the JFK assassination puzzle, with the unconditional submission of the US to Israeli Middle East policy beginning almost immediately after JFK's demise.

Ahh, those dark secrets are surely the tie that binds.

Does anyone else find it odd that the Pentagon never informed its boss, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who was right there on the premises, that JFK had been assassinated?

According to McNamara, the story that General Taylor buzzed him and gave him the news is not true. According to McNamara, the story that some aide handed him a UPI dispatch about the shooting is not true either.

By McNamara's account (In Retrospect, p. 90), he was in a budget meeting when he received a phone call from Bobby Kennedy about 2 P.M. (1 P.M. Dallas time) informing him that JFK had been shot. McNamara says that "we simply did not know what to do," so he continued with his meeting on the budget. The meeting was adjourned about 45 minutes later when a second call came from Bobby (again, no word from anyone in the Pentagon to its boss) that JFK was dead.

In sum, the Secretary of Defense did not know that JFK had been shot till about half an hour after the fact (at which time he took no action whatsoever), and was not informed that the President was dead until about 45 minutes later. In neither instance did the information come from anyone in McNamara's own Defense Department. The news came from outside phone calls from the President's brother.

To me this is clear evidence of military complicity in the assassination. There is only one plausible explanation for the Pentagon not informing its civilian head and Cabinet member that the president had been assassinated. It was to keep him completely out of the way, like six other Cabinet members stranded together on an airplane over the Pacific Ocean, till "regime change" was successfully completed. All part of good planning.

I agree Ron.

The question of Taylor's presence in Dallas is unresolved, imo, and the story of the JCS meeting with West German delegates at the time of the assassination must be regarded with suspicion in light of this and the fact that LeMay was in Michigan.

One could speculate that Taylor may have been in Dallas to ensure that JFK's body was removed from Dallas and taken to Bethesda for 'autopsy' post haste. Who's going to argue with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

Keeping civilian department heads out of the loop fits nicely into the overall picture.

No wonder McNamara doesn't like talking about the assassination. He probably watched the events transpire with the knowledge that he was powerless to intervene. Anyway, his new boss had an urgent assignment for him to keep his mind off Dallas. Something to do with Vietnam.

Definitely the most improbable hypothesis advanced on this forum since Owen Parsons proposed that US foreign policy was biased towards the Palestinian cause.

Yes, that was a real knee slapper, Sid.

To Owen's credit, he later submitted that he had changed his view on this.

It's a pity he doesn't seem to post on the Forum any more. He's very bright and has a wide knowledge of many aspects of the JFK case.

How much longer are we expected to believe in the existence of this Ziocon arch-boogieman, absent even a cameo appearance in one of his many atrocities? (Pre-recorded videos don't count!)

Sid,

Bin Lid isn't dead, merely, like all good thespians, "resting" between cameos, albeit in a non-conscious state.

I thought I saw him yesterday in Haldon Street, Lakemba.

Has any other nation made unilateral political assassination State policy?

See Israel warns Hamas leaders

"Israel has said it will kill Khaled Meshaal, the exiled Hamas political leader "at the first opportunity"."

This is murder, plain and simple.

• Murder announced in advance.
  
• Murder unrepentant.
  
• Murder as policy.
  

Little wonder that Israel is suspected of a hand in so many assassinations worldwide, when its Ministers boast openly about their murderous intentions.

Thanks for keeping the Forum abreast of this, Sid.

One day they might realise that for every Hamas leader they kill, another 10 will spring up to replace them. Rabin obviously did.

Where did you read this about the motorcade meeting? Who else was present?

Oops--my mistake.

It wasn't a meeting where the motorcade route was discussed, it was Holmes' presence in Sorrels' office a few hours after the assassination where he and Sorrels viewed the Z film frame by frame--posted by you on this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=8953&st=0

The error acknowledged, it still seems a bit strange that the Postal Inspector was so intimately involved in this, in addition to his infamous questioning of LHO just before he was assassinated.

Thanks for posting that photo, Bernice.

First time I've ever seen a photo of Harry. I agree with John that the backyard, picket fence theme is a fitting one. I recently read that he was also present at the meetings in which the motorcade route were discussed. This fellow was everywhere.

Suspicious.

(extra: as an aside to aussie viewers: cosh and sunrise crew channel 7 are doing the JFK assassination now (8.25 am perth time) any moment with the bullet analysis and z film. For those not familiar this program it's usually a light morning news/entertainement program but the JFK piece will be on at any moment now)

They're calling it :The man who is reopening the Kennedy assassination case" in a few minutes, after the ads.

John,

Thanks for the heads up but it looks like I missed it. It's 9.54 am here in the emerald city.

Currently showing on that network is a program called 'mums and bubs'. I'm switching the TV off.

I'll be interested to hear what was said on Sunrise.

Well I guess that takes care of Gary's somewhat feeble explanantion for people being present on the underpass.

He'll have to do better than that, although I have the feeling he's arguing the case for a cause he doesn't really believe in.

I decided to place this in its own topic after "The 1963 Secret Service" thread degenerated into white noise. Many thanks to John Dolva for his response, quoted below.

I have pursued issues in the JFK assassination to a strong degree by the ages old question of "who were the most likely beneficiaries" of JFK's removal ?

... Unlike many, I believe that the support of LBJ and JEH had to be "insured" prior to any other steps being taken. The precarious positions which these two found themselves in 1963 politically, and LBJ's additional potential of being criminally prosecuted as well as being dropped from the Democrat ticket in 1964, almost insured their support and partcipation, merely by studying both their "character flaws and history" !

... I would like opinions on how a small number within the leadership of this group, could have "truly covertly" done this ? I feel that this would have been nearly impossible.

I often think that the question of cui bono? is often examined much too narrowly, and a very possible rationale for the whitewash that was the Warren Commission examined not at all. While by no means either exhaustive or definitive, consider these possibilities:

Why could not all of America have been perceived to the chief beneficiary of JFK's death? What greater motivation might some have had other than simple all-American patriotism? Patriotism, that is, as perceived by a relative few, with or without assistance from the official and semi-official circles most often mentioned as those with axes to grind?

Could not the WC (an appropriate acronym) have been the fruit of the realization that we'd never get at the evidence of the real perps' guilt, and that the lesser evil was in incorrectly and improperly "convicting" a man "in the press" (as it were ... but with an official imprimatur) than admitting that it was going to be extremely difficult if not actually impossible to catch the real killer(s) of the President of the United States, that the case would most likely go unsolved?

Sometimes it seems as if some of the WC assistant counsel went out of the way to get strange facts on the record, even if they never themselves made any follow-up to it or even gave any reason for why some of the questions they asked were asked. Were these but hints to future readers, or even to the perps that counsel was "onto" them, even tho' they'd probably get away with it?

. . . . .

Activists there are aplenty in this world, always have been, probably always will be. They're not of one political stripe or any other: consider the arch-conservative Silent Brotherhood that gunned down Denver broadcast personality Alan Berg, the more loosely-organized (?) folks who think nothing of bombing occupied abortion clinics, and at the same time the ultra-liberals who'll likewise perform outrageous acts in the name of ecology and endangered species (probably in their case killing more people out of naivete than actual malice), all simply to make a point about how the world should be in their view?

The Cold War world of 1963 was not far behind the days of the Communist-hunting campaign of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom many people still considered a true American hero and patriot. No matter your view on that subject, McCarthy's aims and tactics were celebrated by many as being the only true and correct way to root out the evil of the Communist menace from our democratic shores: "the Senator was a great American whose memory we must all revere" was how one conservative writer (below) put it in 1964.

... And John F. Kennedy - rich, young, Yankee, liberal, Democrat, Catholic - was going to simply give away our country to the USSR: not even sell us out, just give it all away. Or so went the outlook of - and outpourings from - the political Right, notably but not limited to the John Birch Society (JBS), "States Rights" parties, KKK and other conservative groups ... the "right-wing extremists," which the following author calls "the Bolshevik's code-word for informed and loyal Americans," that is, people just like you and me and all of us.

For a look at their version of Rush Limbaugh (on steroids!), read not only the WC testimony but also the collected works of one Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver (or "RPO" to his friends and adherents; the link is to a search index because the revilo-oliver.com main page is currently hacked). In one article, "Marxmanship in Dallas" published in the February 1964 JBS periodical American Opinion (and written around Christmas, 1963), he haughtily notes in reference to the assassination that "obviously, something went wrong in Dallas — in our favor, this time," which he goes on to characterize as

... an act of violence both deplorable and ominous — as ominous as the violence excited by the infamous Martin Luther King and other criminals engaged in inciting race war with the approval and even, it is said, the

active co-operation of the White House

. It was as deplorable and ominous as the violence of the uniformed goons (protected by reluctant and ashamed soldiers) whom Kennedy,

in open violation of the American Constitution

, sent into Oxford, Mississippi, to kick into submission American citizens, whom the late Mr. Kennedy had come to regard as his livestock.

Such lawlessness, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators or their professed motives, is as alarming as the outbreak of a fire in a house, and if not speedily extinguished, will destroy the whole social order.

[emphases added]

And such was the threat of John Fitzgerald Kennedy as President, whose loss to the world was not to be mourned:

Rational men will understand that, far from sobbing over the deceased or lying to placate his vengeful ghost, it behooves us to speak of him with complete candor and historical objectivity. Jack was not sanctified by a bullet.

The defunct Kennedy is the John F. Kennedy who procured his election by peddling boob-bait to the suckers, including a cynical pledge to destroy the Communist base in Cuba. He is the John F. Kennedy with whose blessing and support the Central Intelligence Agency staged a fake "invasion" of Cuba designed to strengthen our mortal enemies there and to disgrace us — disgrace us not only by ignominious failure, but by the inhuman crime of having lured brave men into a trap and sent them to suffering and death. He is the John F. Kennedy who, in close collaboration with Khrushchev, staged the phony "embargo" that was improvised both to befuddle the suckers on election day in 1962 and to provide for several months a cover for the steady and rapid transfer of Soviet troops and Soviet weapons to Cuba for eventual use against us. He is the John F. Kennedy who installed and maintained in power the unspeakable Yarmolinsky-McNamara gang in the Pentagon to demoralize and subvert our armed forces and to sabotage our military installations and equipment. He is the John F. Kennedy who, by shameless intimidation, bribery, and blackmail, induced weaklings in Congress to approve treasonable acts designed to disarm us and to make us the helpless prey of the affiliated criminals and savages of the "United Nations."

I have mentioned but a few of the hundred reasons why we shall never forget John F. Kennedy. So long as their are Americans, his memory will be cherished with execration and loathing. If the United States is saved by the desperate exertions of patriots, we may have a future of true greatness and glory — but we will never forget how near we were to total destruction in the year 1963. And if the international vermin succeed in completing their occupation of our country, Americans will remember Kennedy while they live, and will curse him as they face the firing squads or toil in brutish degradation that leaves no hope for anything but a speedy death.

"We will never forget how near we were to total destruction in the year 1963," he said, a destruction apparently circumvented primarily if not solely by the death of JFK. What "informed and loyal American" - what person just like you and me and the rest of us - would not consider it an honor to remove such a pestilence from the highest office of the land, that with the most influence and power over how our country moved ahead or if it even survived - if we even survived! - who aspired, it seemed to some, to destroy all that is "America" and "American?"

His re-election - which all seem to agree was in the offing - would have guaranteed it. All would be lost - our world today probably unrecognizable - unless RPO's "outbreak of a fire in a house" was in fact "speedily extinguished."

As I said: it is possible that "all of America" was the chief beneficiary. at least in the minds of those who perforce were able to plan and carry out the execution of the President, who may have been nothing less than patriots for whom the ends justified the means. As RPO also noted in another context, "there were enough honest and patriotic men on [the Dallas] police force" to identify and arrest Oswald (tho' "it required a gunman from outside to do the job" of killing him!).

Perhaps the final quoted paragraph above sums it up best as RPO notes that the US would in the end be well served if it survives now as a result of the "desperate exertions of patriots," whom he has already defined and identified with as informed and loyal Americans, honest and patriotic men who will, he said, "so long as there are Americans," carry JFK's memory "in execration and loathing" (let none say that RPO's speech was anything less than picturesque!). He defines Americans and patriots; is he saying also that their "desperate exertions" - as much as they hated shooting the SOB, he needed killing and someone had to do it - resulted directly in JFK's death?

If such people were in fact the perpetrators, how extremely fortuitous for "honest and patriotic men," those "informed and loyal Americans," those misnomered "right-wing extremists" to have a "Communist" to blame for killing the "Communist" President, the killer in turn being murdered by yet another "Communist" night-club owner cum "gunman from outside!" Talk about pervasive!

The question is: is it persuasive?!? Or is it merely a case of a strong offense ...?

John Dolva's response:

Really excellent summary IMO, Duke.

Further, (IMO): In reading RPO's artice one notes that the very FIRST thing he sets about to do is to set the stage for what follows in his writings, and this is verbalising in an academic tone a justification for it.

What I mean by this is that not only did he recognise that such ammunition was necessary for those who choose to follow his notions, but also he placed himself as a leading thinker, which serves a purpose of others not having to think, but rather feel the justification. Just accept the premise, and the rest is easy to assimilate. Following this non-sense, having justified the demolition of the 'Kennedy Myth', he then flows smoothly into the demolition, and then into the formation of a number of threads that have partly consumed the research community since then. He and others like him 'set the agenda'. One needs only (for oneself) see through the initial few pages to know what is to come.

As such his (and the writings of his compatriots like Ned Touchstone and Dan Smoo et al) contribution is easily put in context and applying a 'negative template' to it much can be understood.

One can almost get the impression that there is not just a little self-congratulation going on here and, recognizing the audience, a bit of information dissemination to boot....

Duke,

I think that was an informative and thought provoking post (hopefully this will mitigate the likelihood of my being on the recieving end of your acerbic wit).

These characters certainly displayed a special brand of insanity, based on hatred of any dissent from their narrow worldview. Fear was behind it all, imo, but someone like Steve Turner is more qualified than myself to comment on this.

As for them being the driving force behind the assassination, I doubt they had the reach to go it alone. Despite the obvious fact that Dallas was their home turf, there's all kinds of things required for an operation with the complexity and magnitude of the assassination of the Pres. Sheepdipping patsies, murdering witnesses and other recalcitrants, destroying evidence, arranging for the cabinet (most of) to be absent, garnering unanimous support from the mainstream media, establishing phony investigations etc, etc. It required more than affiliations within the DPD and other Dallas city officials, imo. And they would have felt mightily betrayed when LBJ subsequently gave them civil rights legislation for their trouble.

That said, its possible they may have been a driving force in persuading those in the power loop that this was the only way.

The most disturbing thing about your post is the possibility that others (such as Lemnitzer, Craig, LBJ, Hoover and some of the mega-wealthy, who were in the real power loop) actually shared the views of people like RPO but were more circumspect in expressing these views publicly.

Again, fine post.

I feel that they, including Greer and Kellerman, responded poorly to a very confusing situation.

Were I the limo driver, and hearing what I thought might be gunshots, as I looked at the "overpass" that was not cleared, and was probably THE most ideal position for a shooter, I would seriously have questioned, whether I should proceed toward the shooter.....or stop....there was no way to turn left or right, nor was it possibe to back up.

Who could clearly argue that if the driver thought that the assassin was to the front and above, that it may have not been the correct decision to "Stop and Clear the Car of Targets"!

Do you mean the people on the overpass in this picture? A picture , unlike the cropped version of it that doesn't show people on the overpass.

The question has to be; why were these people allowed to be there in the first place? Wouldn't that create some security issues?

Ok, let's say Greer thought what you guess he was thinking. It didn't work very well, did it?

So quickly speeding up to 50 or miles per hour in that six seconds just might have been a better idea?

"Just a thought"

"Another Colonel, the Frenchman Bastien Thiry, attempted in 1962 to avenge the honor of the French Army by assassinating General De Gaulle. He set up an ambush using submachine guns at an intersection in the suburbs of Paris one evening when the General's car was due to pass on the way to the airport. The car, an ordinary Citroen, was going about 40 miles an hour. On a signal from the Colonel (a brandished newspaper), the gunmen fired more than 100 rounds, but neither the General nor his wife nor the driver nor the security agent accompanying them was hit. The tires were shot out, but the driver accelerated immediately, and the General disappeared over the horizon."

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell15.html

I'll just bet the perps were well aware of the reason the De Gaulle assassination failed, and insured that wouldn't happen in the Kennedy assassination. It may have even been the same gang.

"The President's car was a Lincoln with a souped-up engine specially designed for rapid accelerations,..."

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell14.html

"The first bullet came from no. 1 and struck the President in the throat. The second apparently came from no. 4 and hit the President in the back. No. 3 hit Connally, and no. 2's bullet went through a traffic sign between him and the car. Then, as Young blood covered Johnson and spectators began to scream, there was a pause. Four seconds after they opened fire, the gunmen must have been dumbfounded. When the first shot strangled the President, no one moved. At the sound of the second, Governor Connally turned around and was wounded, but the driver still didn't budge, and Kellerman barely turned his head. The final shots awakened the agents in the back-up car, but Kellerman was still lost in his dreams, and Greer failed to react even to the whine of Halfback's siren. Four shots had been fired, and the car was still moving at the same speed. Despite the careful preparations and the skillful marksmanship, not only was the President alive, but he was not mortally wounded. His life depended literally on Greer's reflexes,..."

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell18.html

Whether the assassination of JFK was carried out by the same people as those who tried to get De Gaulle is an interesting question, but regardless of the answer one thing is almost certain, imo--the plotters who killed JFK learned valuable lessons from the De Gaulle incident. I agree the major thing they learned was that, above all, the driver must be nobbled. Greer's lethargy was no stroke of luck for the plotters, it was planned that way. An alert driver could have ruined the whole plan for them. Don't know how they did it, other than to include Greer in the plot--very risky but how else could they depend on his lethargic performance? It seems far more risky for the plotters to merely take a punt that the driver will obligingly react so slowly. I read somewhere that he disliked JFK but I know little about his personal background.

[quote name='Peter McGuire' date='May 20 2007, 10:05 PM' post='1029

I have long thought the same thing, like it was coming from a helicopter. Wasn't that mentioned in Farewell to Justice?

Peter,

I actually thought it came from a helicopter, too, the angle of elevation seemed that steep. Thanks for the tip about FTJ. I bought it some time ago and still have yet to read more than a few pages. It didn't really grab me.

Larry,

In a nutshell, we have evidence that the fatal head shot came from the area of the south end of the overpass. This source of the shot was persuasively argued by Al Carrier, and is also now the opinion of blood spatter expert Sherry Gutierrez. Now consider that we have a bunch of people on the north end, who would unwittingly distract attention from the south end, and we have a police officer who sees a non-existent train that blocks his view of the south end.

It all fits pretty neatly, doesn't it?

Ron

Hi Ron/Larry

The trees in this image appear to make good covering for a sniper from anyone who may be looking in that direction from the underpass.

Although, i think there eyes may have been diverted to the limo by this time.

I think it may also be possible to hit kenedy in the right temple from this position, although the windshield may pose a problem. ?

One way to divert peoples attention fron the SOUTH knoll, would be to make smoke and noise on the NORTH knoll.

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Robin, Ron et al,

The thread's taken an interesting turn here.

Could a bullet fired from the south knoll cause the damage inflicted on the right side of JFK's head?

Why not? I believe the consensus opinion is that an exploding bullet was used, so it's entirely possible, imo.

I've always wondered about the faint trail of the bullet seen in the Z frames fractionally before JFK's head explodes. It appeared to be coming from an impossibly high angle, which doesn't seem to fit with a shot fired from behind the picket fence. I've always considered this was because the speed of the bullet caused a kind of optical illusion when viewing the Z film--or maybe that the film had been altered, of course.

Anyway, it's an interesting question.

One of the reasons that Israel are often suspected in cases where prominent persons are murdered, especially when those persons have been in disputes with Israel, is because Israel have a proven track record of murder.

OK so when anyone who at anytime in their life criticized Israel is killed, commits suicide or dies in accident, agents of that country are guilty until proven innocent in your mind.

The bombing of the King David Hotel, the assassination of Bernadotte,

I agree with you both of these were horrible acts. The latter carried out by an extremist group outside the main Zionist movement (though yes their leaders decades later held important posts including PM). The British bear SOME of the blame for the former because they headquartered their military and intelligence operations in a civilian building and apparently ignoring a warning to evacuate it.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombi...david_hotel.htm

hit squads sent in to kill suspected terrorists in neighbouring countries

I won’t say I condone such actions but I don’t really loose much sleep over them either (except when innocent people are killed) and the Israelis are far from the only government to do this. I imagine if Australia were as frequent a target for terrorism as Israel it would use similar tactics.

as well as massacres involving innocents etc

You got me there, yes all too often the security, military and intelligence forces of Israel have committed atrocities

(that includes the USS Liberty, accident or no accident).

No because if it was an accident, as the evidence indicates it was, they though they were attacking enemy forces during wartime, most of the Americans died after the Liberty open fire on the Israeli MTB’s. By your logic the British are murders too because RAF pilots killed the crewmen of 6 British navy ships off the coast of France after D-Day and British Navy pilots attacked the HMS Sheffield thinking it was the very different and much larger Bismark.

I don't think the 'evidence indicates' the Liberty incident was an accident. I still believe the IDF knew who they were attacking. Please address any reply to that threrad.

I know you don't like accepting it Len, but Israel are proven killers. Pure and simple. You rush to their defence whenever there is a sliver of doubt

In the cases you and Sid cited in your previous posts the evidence implicating Israel is non-existent other than the victims had at some point criticized Israel sometimes even years before their deaths and the evidence they had nothing to do with it in most cases is quite strong.

but whenever there are unexplained deaths concerning persons who have had public disputes with that state, Israel is always a suspect, imo.

If someone is murdered or dies in a suspicious accident then it is reasonable to look at anyone who might have wanted them dead, but in the cases you cited except for Hobeika there is no real reason to suspect Israel.

Rubbish. Anna Lindh was a strong advocate of the Palestinian cause and a critic of Israel. That is motive enough for Israel wanting to silence her. Israel are proven killers.

Why? Because, as I said before, their track record incriminates them.

Then I’m sure you can cite a list of politicians with no ties to terrorism assassinated by the Israeli government in the last 50 years.

As for your questioning the motive for Israel wanting to murder Lindh, it's all speculation isn't it? Israel may have considered her a charismatic and dangerous adversary who may have had the potential to become a future leader of Sweden or high office holder in the UN, who could then influence many people with her arguments.

Yes very speculative, she was far from the only European politician critical of Israel and I’m sure she stepped on lots of people’s toes.

"This murder has similarities to the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer and, as in that case, I don't believe any official story about her being a random, unfortunate victim of a deranged lone nut killer. Someone else wanted her dead and there was nothing random about it, imo."

Too bad for you that you have absolutely zero evidence to back your belief (regarding the Lindh case). In this respect you are not very different from people who “don’t believe any official story about” evolution, the Holocaust or the Moon landings except they have been able to rationalize pseudo scientific/historical evidence to back their “theories”. Perhaps a better comparison would be to superstitious Brazilians who’ve told me things like throwing cold water into a very hot pan then drinking it cures hiccups or that showering after eating pig meat is life threatening, even being shown contrary evidence (people drinking “shocked water” not getting better and people who survived post-pork chop showers) doesn’t shake their beliefs.

An absurd rant--even by your standards.

Other than both victims were women who about the same age who apparently didn’t know their slayers what similarities do you see? I’ve yet to see proof Pinchot’s murder was a hit, though it might well have been.

"That's right, there's no proof he was murdered, although the explosion which led to the crash makes it a possible case of sabotage. In fact South Africa were reportedly unhappy with the purpose of his mission in the Congo, as were the Soviets. However, as I said before, he goes down in history with a question mark over his death and he must be counted among the deaths of those who had previously been in bitter dispute with Israel--proven killers."

It’s not even certain that there was an explosion or that it led to the crash. If he was murdered the Israelis would have to be low down on the suspects list because his last known dispute with Israel had been five years earlier and in 3 1/2 months he’d no longer be Secretary General.

"Mattei was definitely murdered. A bomb was planted on his plane, imo. I never said I suspected Israel to be involved in Mattei's death. The oil industry, in particular Texas, had strong motivation to kill this dangerous threat to future profits. He was the subject of an interesting thread in 2005:"

You’re sure he was murdered because you think there was a bomb on his plane? I looked at the thread and saw nothing conclusive. As with Pinchot and Hammarskjold his death may well have been a hit but I have yet to see compelling evidence. I never indicated I thought you suspected Israel

I find it incredible that you could doubt that Mattei was murdered. Why don't you post that on the Mattei thread--if you're game. Put your name on that thread and say you find 'nothing conclusive' that shows he was murdered--I dare ya'. The background circumstances surrounding Mattei's death make it almost a certainty, imo. Your stubborn refusal to put two and two together makes me think you just like arguing for the sake of arguing.

That's very sad news, Dawn.

Although Tim hasn't posted recently, I've always considered his posts compulsive reading. Highly intelligent and a very original thinker.

I don't know what else to say, except that I hope he can make it. 50 is way too young.

Shark attack victims sometimes claim to feel little pain. I once read an account of a victim who lost most of his leg describing the moment of the bite as like being hit with a pillow. It seems that in some circumstances the magnitude of the wound may be inversely related to the pain experienced.

Burns are very painful, as Jack alluded to. All the nerve endings are just below the skin.

As for being shot, I would imagine it hurts like hell. Old westerns make me chuckle when the hero laughs of his injury as a flesh would, then proceeds to act as if nothing happened.

As for JFK, I don't think he would have felt much after being immobilised. The pain from the the back shot was mercifully curtailed very quickly by the head shot.

If one looks hard enough they are likely to find evidence that fits their preconceived notions

One of the reasons that Israel are often suspected in cases where prominent persons are murdered, especially when those persons have been in disputes with Israel, is because Israel have a proven track record of murder. The bombing of the King David Hotel, the assassination of Bernadotte, hit squads sent in to kill suspected terrorists in neighbouring countries as well as massacres involving innocents etc (that includes the USS Liberty, accident or no accident). I know you don't like accepting it Len, but Israel are proven killers. Pure and simple. You rush to their defence whenever there is a sliver of doubt (and except for the killings Israel has signed off on, there is always a lack of certainty concerning their guilt), but whenever there are unexplained deaths concerning persons who have had public disputes with that state, Israel is always a suspect, imo. Why? Because, as I said before, their track record incriminates them. As for your questioning the motive for Israel wanting to murder Lindh, it's all speculation isn't it? Israel may have considered her a charismatic and dangerous adversary who may have had the potential to become a future leader of Sweden or high office holder in the UN, who could then influence many people with her arguments. If so, it's entirely possible that they decided to truncate her career there and then. She won't be influencing anyone with her arguments now. This murder has similarities to the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer and, as in that case, I don't believe any official story about her being a random, unfortunate victim of a deranged lone nut killer. Someone else wanted her dead and there was nothing random about it, imo. BTW, don't bother asking because I won't be getting into a tedious, nit-picking debate by responding to questions like, 'please cite evidence in support of your assertion that Israel are proven killers'.

Since the timeline of assassinations of prominent Swedish identities dates back to the assassination of Folke Bernadette in the 1940's, it could be argued that former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold be included, imo.

He was a vocal critic of Israel during the Suez crisis and was involved in heated correspondence with Israeli PM Ben-Gurion at the time (sound familiar?). Here's an excerpt from one of Hammarskjold's letters to BG in 1957, from Astucia's Opium Lords:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/lbj's_passi..._attachment.htm

You are convinced that the threat of retaliation has a deterrent effect. I am convinced that it is more of an incitement to individual members of the Arab forces than even what has been said by their own governments. You are convinced that acts of retaliation will stop further incidents. I am convinced that they will lead to further incidents….You believe that this way of creating respect for Israel will pave the way for sound coexistence with the Arab people. I believe that the policy may postpone indefinitely the time for such coexistence…. I think the discussion of this question can be considered closed since you, in spite of previous discouraging experiences, have taken the responsibility of large-scale tests of the correctness of your belief.

Hammarskjold was killed when his plane blew up over the Congo in September, 1961. Sabotaging a plane flight is easy when you have the right connections. Remember Enrico Mattei?

1) There is no evidence Hammarskjold was murdered. The plane crashed it hadn’t ‘blown up over the Congo’ (though the only survivor claimed he heard explosions before the crash).

That's right, there's no proof he was murdered, although the explosion which led to the crash makes it a possible case of sabotage. In fact South Africa were reportedly unhappy with the purpose of his mission in the Congo, as were the Soviets. However, as I said before, he goes down in history with a question mark over his death and he must be counted among the deaths of those who had previously been in bitter dispute with Israel--proven killers.

2) Since he had only a few months left in his term and was almost certainly going to be vetoed for a third one by the Soviets IF he was assassinated it was by someone with pressing motive, not over what he’d done 5 years earlier (the letter was written in ’56), which would have been people involved in the Congo dispute. Is there any reason the Israelis would have wanted him dead in 1961?

As for Mattei, I've haven't seen any credible evidence his plane was sabotaged but then again I'm not that familiar case. Do you have any evidence that a) "Sabotaging a plane flight is easy when you have the right connections" and Israel had "the right connections" in the Congo

Mattei was definitely murdered. A bomb was planted on his plane, imo. I never said I suspected Israel to be involved in Mattei's death. The oil industry, in particular Texas, had strong motivation to kill this dangerous threat to future profits. He was the subject of an interesting thread in 2005:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=4495&st=0

Fascinating.

Is it mere coincidence that prominent figures outspoken in their opposition to Israel and/or support for Palestine are often murdered? No chance, imo.

The Bollyn article's account of the Lindh murder is interesting in that the apparent inaction of the security guards in the shopping mall is faintly reminiscent of the Secret Service inaction in Dealey Plaza--the credibility of Bollyn notwithstanding. How difficult would it be to ascertain whether the security guards were 'actively inactive' given the possibilty that those responsible for the murder control the media reporting of the event. How fortunate that a lone nut was then presented on cue with the obligatory 'demons inside my head' line.

One wonders why he chose, of all people, a prominent champion of the Palestinians to be his victim?

With luck like this, Israel doesn't need American financial aid--they merely require a suitable stake with which to gamble at the world's major casinos and all the wealth they require will surely be theirs.

Since the timeline of assassinations of prominent Swedish identities dates back to the assassination of Folke Bernadette in the 1940's, it could be argued that former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold be included, imo.

He was a vocal critic of Israel during the Suez crisis and was involved in heated correspondence with Israeli PM Ben-Gurion at the time (sound familiar?). Here's an excerpt from one of Hammarskjold's letters to BG in 1957, from Astucia's Opium Lords:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/lbj's_passi..._attachment.htm

You are convinced that the threat of retaliation has a deterrent effect. I am convinced that it is more of an incitement to individual members of the Arab forces than even what has been said by their own governments. You are convinced that acts of retaliation will stop further incidents. I am convinced that they will lead to further incidents….You believe that this way of creating respect for Israel will pave the way for sound coexistence with the Arab people. I believe that the policy may postpone indefinitely the time for such coexistence…. I think the discussion of this question can be considered closed since you, in spite of previous discouraging experiences, have taken the responsibility of large-scale tests of the correctness of your belief.

Hammarskjold was killed when his plane blew up over Northern Rhodesia in September, 1961. Sabotaging a plane flight is easy when you have the right connections. Remember Enrico Mattei?

Sorry about the problem with the Cockburn link, this one should work.

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1067

Yes both Cockburn and Marcetti push the notion that Angleton put Israeli’s interests ahead of the US’s which makes their claims about his “memorial” all that more credible. They don’t cite any specifics or evidence. Anybody can claim anything they want. Cockburn is of course openly anti-Israeli and Marchetti had a few axes to grind with the CIA neither are neutral sources.

As for using the IHR website I googled about ‘Jesus’ and ‘his fabulous technicolor plaque by the garbage dump’ and that’s what came up.

Mark if you want to come up with evidence to back your claims and/or start a new thread go right ahead.

No “intellectual acrobatics” on my part, just trying to get you two to document your claims and citing evidence to back mine. Are there any famous contortionists from “down under”?

Hey, I found a few!

http://members.iinet.com.au/~strov/contort.iiNet.html

Len, thanks for that link to the Cockburn article.

It damages your credibility almost as much as the Marchetti piece. What about all that stuff about the weapons industry being the driving force behind the Israeli economy? A bit embarrassing if you are a loyal supporter of Israel. Don't worry, I already knew about that anyway.

It's a shame you shot yourself down with your own links. Then again, most gunslingers get shot down eventually. (although usually not by their own gun )

I understand your reluctance to start debates about LBJ's links to Israel and Israel's influence within the US decision making process. Who knows where they could lead?

An antidote to the only take on French economic life that I ever see in the major English-speaking mass media - which sells Sarkozy on the basis that at least he offers hope of solving France's "economic woes" with "harsh medicine".

Mark Weisbrot suggests these woes may be seriously over-stated, and the proposed cure a lot worse than the imagined disease.

A must read, IMO - along with this additional bilingual reference: France is not in decline and the last thing it needs is "reform"

Economic Misinformation Plays Major Role in French Election

Posted by SuperFrenchie

in Bashed in America (May 5, 2007 at 5:59 am)

-

The Mighty Frog Dollar[The following article was written by Mark Weisbrot and is reprinted with permission. It originally appeared on washingtonpost.com]

[French version]

The elections in France demonstrate the power of faulty economic analysis, and more generalized problems with arithmetic, to shape ideas and possibly the future of not only a nation, but a continent.The United States has faced similar problems with its debate over Social Security, in which the majority of Americans were convinced - based on verbal and accounting trickery - that the program is facing serious financial problems when the baby boom generation retires. (It isn’t).

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy, the right-wing candidate, has taken the lead after Sunday’s election with 31.2 percent of the vote, against Ségolène Royal, the left-of-center candidate of France’s Socialist party, who garnered 25.9 percent. They face a runoff election against each other on May 6.

The general theme that has propelled Sarkozy into the lead is that the French economy is somehow “stuck” and needs to be reformed to be more like ours. It is also widely believed that France needs to be made more “competitive” in the global economy, since competition is tougher now in a more globalized world.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been the most popular proponent of the idea that French workers must lower their living standards because of the global economy. “All of the forces of globalization [are] eating away at Europe’s welfare states,” he writes . . . “French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day.” For Friedman and most of the pundits, this is impossible.

It is important to understand that there is no economic logic to the argument that the citizens of any rich country need to reduce their living standards or government programs because of economic progress in developing countries. Once a developed country has reached a certain level of productivity, there is no economic reason for its residents to take a pay or benefit cut, or work more hours, because other countries are catching up to their level. That productivity, which is based on the country’s collective knowledge, skills, capital stock, and organization of the economy, is still there, and in fact it increases every year. To the extent that international competition is being used by special interests to push down the living standards of French or German or U.S. workers - and it is - it just means that the rules for international commerce are being written by the wrong people. It is a problem of limited democracy and lack of representation for the majority, not a problem that is inherent to economic progress.

Another mistake that is commonly made in this debate is to compare France’s income or GDP per person to the U.S., by which France lags: $30,693 for France versus $43,144 for the U.S. (these are adjusted for purchasing power parity). But this is not a fair comparison, because the French do not work nearly as many hours as we do in the United States. Economists do not say that one person is worse off than another if she has less income simply due to working fewer hours. A better indicator of economic welfare in such a comparison is therefore productivity, which is as high or higher in France as it is in the United States.

Now for some arithmetic regarding France’s notoriously high unemployment rate among young people, which shaped politics there and influenced world opinion during the youth riots in 2005. The standard measure of unemployment puts the unemployed in the numerator, and unemployed plus employed in the denominator (u/u+e). By this measure, French males age 15-24 have an unemployment rate of 20.8 percent, as compared to 11.8 percent for the US. But this difference is mainly because in France, there are proportionately many more young males who are not in the labor force - because more are in school, and because young people in France do not work part time while they are in school, as much as they do in the United States. Those who are not in the labor force are not counted in either the numerator or the denominator of the unemployment rate.

A better comparison then is to look at the number of unemployed divided by the population of those in the age group 15-24. By this measure, the U.S. comes in at 8.3 percent and France at 8.6 percent. Both countries have a serious unemployment problem among youth, and in both countries it is highly concentrated among racial/ethnic minorities. But the problem is not much worse in France than it is in the United States.

Sarkozy proposes making it easier for employers to fire workers, cutting taxes (including inheritance taxes), pushing back against the 35 hour work week, and other measures that will favor upper-income groups and owners of corporations. These measures will certainly redistribute income upward, as we have been doing in the United States over the last 30 years. But once again, there is little or no economic evidence that these measures will increase employment or economic growth.

Royal proposes a series of measures to boost economy-wide demand - including raising the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and state-subsidized employment. These make some economic sense, since they at least have a chance - mostly by boosting aggregate demand and spending power of consumers - to create more employment.

If France makes a historic shift to the right in this election, it will be largely due to economic misinformation.

Weisbrot is right on the money, imo.

Governments in western democracies, at the insistence of their corporate donors, are citing global competition as the justification for the necessary erosion of living standards for the non-elites. Abolishing collective bargaing and promoting individual contracts is merely a tool for lowering the cost of labour. Cheap labor is the holy grail for the corporate sector--that's why they also urge Governments to increase immigration. The fact that cities (such as Sydney) have chronic infrastructure problems eg, housing, health services, traffic congestion, public transport, shortage of water etc, doesn't bother the corporate elites. The corporate sector doesn't care about the overcrowding of cities---they just want that large pool of cheap labour to be there on call.

Critics will claim that Royal's plans would turn the clock back to the era of Government economic meddling and socialism. But Sarkozy's ideas, like those of Howard here in Australia, will turn the clock back even further--to the Dickensian era.

If Sarkozy wins and introduces those workplace reforms, the French will learn the hard way that there is strength in numbers.

An antidote to the only take on French economic life that I ever see in the major English-speaking mass media - which sells Sarkozy on the basis that at least he offers hope of solving France's "economic woes" with "harsh medicine".

Mark Weisbrot suggests these woes may be seriously over-stated, and the proposed cure a lot worse than the imagined disease.

A must read, IMO - along with this additional bilingual reference: France is not in decline and the last thing it needs is "reform"

Economic Misinformation Plays Major Role in French Election

Posted by SuperFrenchie

in Bashed in America (May 5, 2007 at 5:59 am)

-

The Mighty Frog Dollar[The following article was written by Mark Weisbrot and is reprinted with permission. It originally appeared on washingtonpost.com]

[French version]

The elections in France demonstrate the power of faulty economic analysis, and more generalized problems with arithmetic, to shape ideas and possibly the future of not only a nation, but a continent.The United States has faced similar problems with its debate over Social Security, in which the majority of Americans were convinced - based on verbal and accounting trickery - that the program is facing serious financial problems when the baby boom generation retires. (It isn’t).

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy, the right-wing candidate, has taken the lead after Sunday’s election with 31.2 percent of the vote, against Ségolène Royal, the left-of-center candidate of France’s Socialist party, who garnered 25.9 percent. They face a runoff election against each other on May 6.

The general theme that has propelled Sarkozy into the lead is that the French economy is somehow “stuck” and needs to be reformed to be more like ours. It is also widely believed that France needs to be made more “competitive” in the global economy, since competition is tougher now in a more globalized world.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been the most popular proponent of the idea that French workers must lower their living standards because of the global economy. “All of the forces of globalization [are] eating away at Europe’s welfare states,” he writes . . . “French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day.” For Friedman and most of the pundits, this is impossible.

It is important to understand that there is no economic logic to the argument that the citizens of any rich country need to reduce their living standards or government programs because of economic progress in developing countries. Once a developed country has reached a certain level of productivity, there is no economic reason for its residents to take a pay or benefit cut, or work more hours, because other countries are catching up to their level. That productivity, which is based on the country’s collective knowledge, skills, capital stock, and organization of the economy, is still there, and in fact it increases every year. To the extent that international competition is being used by special interests to push down the living standards of French or German or U.S. workers - and it is - it just means that the rules for international commerce are being written by the wrong people. It is a problem of limited democracy and lack of representation for the majority, not a problem that is inherent to economic progress.

Another mistake that is commonly made in this debate is to compare France’s income or GDP per person to the U.S., by which France lags: $30,693 for France versus $43,144 for the U.S. (these are adjusted for purchasing power parity). But this is not a fair comparison, because the French do not work nearly as many hours as we do in the United States. Economists do not say that one person is worse off than another if she has less income simply due to working fewer hours. A better indicator of economic welfare in such a comparison is therefore productivity, which is as high or higher in France as it is in the United States.

Now for some arithmetic regarding France’s notoriously high unemployment rate among young people, which shaped politics there and influenced world opinion during the youth riots in 2005. The standard measure of unemployment puts the unemployed in the numerator, and unemployed plus employed in the denominator (u/u+e). By this measure, French males age 15-24 have an unemployment rate of 20.8 percent, as compared to 11.8 percent for the US. But this difference is mainly because in France, there are proportionately many more young males who are not in the labor force - because more are in school, and because young people in France do not work part time while they are in school, as much as they do in the United States. Those who are not in the labor force are not counted in either the numerator or the denominator of the unemployment rate.

A better comparison then is to look at the number of unemployed divided by the population of those in the age group 15-24. By this measure, the U.S. comes in at 8.3 percent and France at 8.6 percent. Both countries have a serious unemployment problem among youth, and in both countries it is highly concentrated among racial/ethnic minorities. But the problem is not much worse in France than it is in the United States.

Sarkozy proposes making it easier for employers to fire workers, cutting taxes (including inheritance taxes), pushing back against the 35 hour work week, and other measures that will favor upper-income groups and owners of corporations. These measures will certainly redistribute income upward, as we have been doing in the United States over the last 30 years. But once again, there is little or no economic evidence that these measures will increase employment or economic growth.

Royal proposes a series of measures to boost economy-wide demand - including raising the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and state-subsidized employment. These make some economic sense, since they at least have a chance - mostly by boosting aggregate demand and spending power of consumers - to create more employment.

If France makes a historic shift to the right in this election, it will be largely due to economic misinformation.

Weisbrot is right on the money, imo.

Governments in western democracies, at the insistence of their corporate donors, are citing global competition as the justification for the necessary erosion of living standards for the non-elites. Abolishing collective bargaing and promoting individual contracts is merely a tool for lowering the cost of labour. Cheap labor is the holy grail for the corporate sector--that's why they also urge Governments to increase immigration. The fact that cities (such as Sydney) have chronic infrastructure problems eg, housing, health services, traffic congestion, public transport, shortage of water etc, the corporate sector doesn't care about the overcrowding of cities---they just want that large pool of cheap labour to be there on call.

Critics will claim that Royal's plans would turn the clock back to the era of Government economic meddling and socialism. But Sarkozy's ideas, like those of Howard here in Australia, will turn the clock back even further--to the Dickensian era.