Mark Stapleton

This part doesn't make sense to me the "extreme right" JBS/ Liberty Lobby etc. was an is extremely anti-Semitic and thus strongly anti-Israel. Ah, you slipped one in there, Len. There's no rule book which says 'right wing' and 'pro-Israel' are mutually exclusive, to my knowledge. Lemnitzer is a strong candidate as a conspirator, IMO, for all the aforementioned reasons. As NATO chief he could be implicated in any French or other European connection, if there was one.

Very interesting thread and contributions. As an Australian, I'm disappointed to learn that the 'centre right' coalition has displaced the incumbent leftist coalition. Persson may have been fine tuning the welfare system but I fear it might be a case of not realising what you have until its gone. When politicians like Mr. Reinfeldt say things like "we have to compete in a global market", what they mean is that labor must be made much cheaper in order to compete with and resemble the labor rates in the emerging global economies ie. India and China. Unskilled or semi-skilled labor intensive industries simply get shipped over there, if they haven't gone already. Globalisation is a zero-sum game and should be embraced with great caution by nations who have comparatively high living standards. Your admirable welfare state is the foundation of your living standards, IMO. Globalisation's disciples will surely point to the welfare state and demand its removal, by claiming it is not practised by your competitors around the globe. They'll basically say you have no right to it because few other countries have it. Reinfeldt should have been made to spell out what the real implications of globalisation would mean for the average Swede. Obviously Persson ran a poor campaign, as Polly pointed out.

Latest figures on America's economic performance show that increased productivity doesn't necessarily translate to higher living standards, according to this short piece by Jared Bernstein: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0917-24.htm

Define "death throes." Do you actually see America on the verge of collapse? Or headed dfor a slight decline? I suspect the latter. I believe today's inter-locking economies insures that if America collapses, it will drag most of the world down with it. A significant decline. I think America will be supplanted as the world's preeminent economic force by China and the EU. America built its economic success in the 20th century, when oil was cheap. The era of cheap energy is now over, IMO, but America retains a massive reliance on increasingly expensive carbon based fuels. It's a real handicap. Successive Governments have failed to face the issue, partly because of oil industry influence, partly because of the political unpopularity of such measures. Serious threats to America's oil supply, such as war in the Middle East, combined with its huge military spending and level of debt, could cause an economic collapse, IMO. Also, America will have to address the growing economic problems faced by its population. Working poor and working homeless is a distinctly American phenomenon. The War on Terror has resulted in a massive wealth transfer away from the public and into the hands of the military and armaments industry and its shareholders. It can't be sustained long term, especially since America posesses very little social welfare infrastructure to cushion the fall for those who are adversely effected by this wealth transfer. Also, globalisation has cost America its manufacturing base. Widespread economic hardship will force people to focus on what's important. Only then will they force their leaders to curtail the massive waste of public money caused by stunts like the war on terror, the war on drugs and military adventures in foreign countries.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not attempting to defend the British Empire. I agree that it was just as unpleasant as the current American Empire. If we do a body count the British Empire was far worse than the one being led by Bush. I was only trying to show the added problems that a modern empire has to endure. There is another major difference between past empires and the present one. Empires were usually popular with the masses. Only those with a fully developed political consciousness opposed the development of the British Empire. (Of course, some members of the middle and upper classes opposed it on moral grounds.) The home populations benefited economically from these foreign adventures. For example, the ruling classes in Britain were able to give the working classes a higher standard of living because of the exploitation taking place in other countries. This is the main reason that Marx was proved incorrect with his theory that capitalism would result in a lowering of the standard of living of the working class in industrialized countries to the point where a revolution would take place. In that sense, imperialism saved capitalism. The American Empire is much more difficult to justify to the masses back home. It is clearly a very expensive operation. It has also resulting in the deaths of a lot of Americans. Unlike the British Empire, it is not producing a higher stand of living. Nor does it provide more jobs for Americans. In fact, the main concern of modern industrialists is to use its military might to guarantee its investments. This includes obtaining cheap labour in the underdeveloped world. The American Empire is more about selling jobs than obtaining new ones. What is more, it can’t even keep the price of oil down (the reason Rupert Murdoch told us why we had to invade Iraq). The only way the empire can be sold to the American people is by the notion that life would be far worse without it. That is, a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. (In the past it was a world ruled by communists.) We are constantly being told that the war on terror is really a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the occupied people. It is also a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the American people. So far, the American media has gone along with this nonsense. However, with the growth in alternative news sources, this also will prove to be a losing battle. A very neat summation, John. I submit that the reason the US media maintains this lie is because they have a large financial stake in it. Peace and international co-operation doesn't sell advertising space. Pretty soon now the citizens of the US should realise the 'War on Terror' is merely another brand label being used to line the pockets of its sponsors. It might take a few more thousand 'working homeless' for this to sink in. The empire is in its death throes.

Perhaps if you based your comments on research rather than what you might have picked up in the back of your cab this week then they may emerged a little less touched . Your comments about my "intolerance" belies the fact that your views and comments, no matter how foolish, continue to be expressed and discussed here. You're actually quite a nasty little fellow, aren't you? You hand out insults like boiled lollies. What's in my basket so far, let's see: deeply foolish, badly informed, antipodean holocaust denier and purveyor of foul prejudices (although you were probably directing this last one more at Sid). Describing you as intolerant was probably a bad choice of word on my part. Rude, provocative, patronising and insulting are better, I think. btw, I'm actually unemployed at the moment but thanks for the suggestion. You're obviously badly informed.

Your comments are "foolish" because they allege that Hitler's war service has been covered up in mainstream history books, which isn't the case, and leave out some other aspects of his service, as Andy outlined. Gee. I find your continued support of Mr. Walker, even after he had outed himself as a holocaust "revisionist," to be intellectually dishonest. Especially so, since prior to that you had been defending him from these charges. Why has his "revisionism" now become kosher? Mr. Walker, by the way, is the king of intellectual dishonesty. Witness his recent exchange with Len Colby, wherein he invited Len to "blow me." This was after complaining of alleged "smutty language" directed at him. After his hypocrisy was pointed out, Walker denied any sexual connotations to this phrase. After being corrected with the dictionary definition, Walker pointed to some song lyrics containg the phrase "blow me away," asserting that that was what he really meant (I guess?). The man's intellectual fraudulence extends beyond his holocaust "revisionism" to just about every subject he touches. It's like being transported back in time to the Spanish Inquisition. Renounce your support for Sid Walker or face the consequences. Notice the subtle, almost imperceptible changes to the wording of the charges to suit the Inquisitors? I said some historical outlines leave out Hitler's courage during WW1. I didn't make the blanket assertion that "Hitler's war service has been covered up in mainstream history books". Never underestimate the Inquisition. Well hello, Owen--good to see Andy's sent you in to bowl a few overs. He was starting to get carved up. Maybe you can break this annoying partnership. Intellectual dishonesty is the new charge, eh. What's a holocaust revisionist? Someone who denies the event occurred? Well that's just dopey. Someone who thinks some aspects of the accepted historical narrative are inaccurate? Maybe that's an issue worth debating. Some evidence to support such an assertion would help but nothing would surprise as the official story on many controversial issues can often turn out to be a lot of rubbish. Regular Forum readers know that. I've grown to mistrust certain 'official stories'. Sid Walker as the king of intellectual dishonesty? Sorry, can't agree. This seems to irritate the hell out of you, Andy and others, doesn't it? Let it go. Who cares if someone disagrees with your point of view? Why is it so important that I agree with your view? Sorry, Owen--no soap. Is Len up next or have you changed the order?

Another perhaps more valid reading of Stephen's motives may be his frustrations at seeing so many threads on this formerly educational forum hijacked by deniers and revisionists in the usual disingenuous way that such idiots operate. How much better to invite them to reveal their foul prejudices openly and honestly? As regards you. In your comments about Hitler you come over as deeply foolish. Hitler was indeed decorated for bravery in WW1 - As a teacher of this period I do not know of a textbook which omits this fact. He was also described as unsuitable for positions of leadership by his superiors and as someone who was deeply emotionally unstable with a pathological hatred of Jews. You are not a heretic you are just badly informed - your friend Sidney however gives me much more cause for concern. Considering the fact that you are a teacher, it's you who gives me great cause for concern. If people disagree with me, that's fine. You have shown yourself to be far less tolerant. And your views about Americans (which you still failed to address), well that's even more cause for concern. I stand by my "deeply foolish" comments about Hitler.

Equally interesting is your failure to address the questions asked of you by Stuart Wexler and Sid Walker in regard to your post in this thread in which you implied Americans are of low intelligence: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=7775&st=15 Was your failure to respond to the posts in that thread because you don't want your personal feelings about Americans exposed? Concerning this thread, I'll say this. Firstly, if you claim I'm a holocaust denier then you are a fool. Second, my contention, which seems to have annoyed Steve Turner so much, is that Hitler's genocidal regime was not unique in history. Steve says it is, I disagree. Further, Hitler displayed great personal courage during his service in WW1. It's on the record. The latter is hardly relevant but it is a fact which is, I believe, often omitted in historical outlines of Hitler. If holding these views makes me a heretic, I'm a heretic. But for your provocative post, I wouldn't have joined this thread because I believe it is no more than an ill-tempered response by Steve Turner to what he was reading in the other thread.

It's hard to believe that Bush is actually sane after listening to some of his statements. Bush states that acquiring nuclear weapons would enable Iran to blackmail the free world. How? America posesses the weaponry to destroy Iran many times over and this is exactly what would happen in the unlikely event of Iran committing suicide by launching a nuclear attack. Does North Korea blackmail the free world? Have they destroyed "our freedom"? Bush follows it up by stating that he won't let it happen and no future US President can let it happen either. These are the words of a man who has lost his grip. Apparently America has the divine right to determine the nuclear capability of other sovereign nations, now and in the future. When JFK tried to prevail upon Israel to curtail its nuclear ambitions, Israel claimed he was infringing upon their sovereignty and that they had the right to formulate their own security policy. Israel was right, although they lied in assuring JFK they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region. If America fears a nuclear war in the Middle East, will they ask Israel to dismantle their weapons or is it OK for our side but not OK for the other side? America knows damn well that Iran would not launch a war which would result in its certain annihilation. The real fear is that Iran's pending nuclear capability will balance the region and prevent the US and Israel from acting as though this region was their personal property. Ahmadinejad seems to be lucid and intelligent. George Bush seems to be.....George Bush. The media tells us daily that Iran is a nation of demented fanatics, bent on destroying ''our freedom", while America is the voice of reason, determined to spread freedom, peace and prosperity around the globe. What a surprise to discover that it's actually Ahmedinejad who is sounding reasonable and Bush who is sounding like the rabid fanatic. It's no wonder America is terrified of a free and open debate with Iran. On this issue, they don't have a leg to stand on. In the 1983 election campaign, when former Aussie PM Malcolm Fraser refused to publicly debate then Opposition leader Bob Hawke, the Hawke camp ran television commercials with an empty chair cast as Hawke's opponent. Ahmadinejad's team should follow suit.

Once again the Iranian leader has challenged Geoge Bush to a public and open debate. And once again George Bush has gone to ground: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0907-06.htm I thought the leader of the world's most advanced society would jump at such an opportunity to charm the Iranian 'fanatic' with his erudite logic. But no. Silence. What are we to make of this?

Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities. Hi Steve, thanks for the comprehensive reply. The consciousness that developed in Nazi occupied Europe, and in the decades after the 2nd W/W that what the Nazi's peretratored was something historically new, and exceptional was not based on any historical computation of the suffering of the victims in relation to other groups of victims, it was a judgement about the nature of the crime. So, I propose it was not some particulrity of Jewish suffering, or of the other targets of of Nazi barbarism, Gypsies, Trade unionist's, Socialists, Communists, Prisoners of war(over 3 million russians are in this catagory alone) Gay people, the Disabled, Poles, Free Masons, and on and on, but a particularity of the Nazi offence, an offence against Humanity itself, that stands out, and thus makes it unique. Its uniqueness does not lie in its choise of victims, it relies in some qualities inherent in the offences of the perpetrators. This uniqueness, it seems to me has three characteristics, all of which acted together in a vile synergy to create an evil that is singular. 1, The industrialization, and Bureaucratization of murder. using the full resources of the modern state. Sorry Steve, I don't follow. I thought Stalin utilized the resources of the State when he starved millions of his own people in collectivising the farm sector between the wars. Moreover, shipping many others to Siberian gulags is also utilising state resources, IMO. Yes mark, but the intent wasn't to starve them to death. In other words he didn't decide to murder these people because they were peasants. Its the intent here thats important Stalin knew they would starve and didn't care anyway. 2The comprehensiveness of intent. in which the aim was to eradicate an entire people from the face of the Earth, FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON. Well, I think Hitler's reason was that he believed the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world at that time. Hitler was wrong in believing this but he didn't exactly embark on his genocidal path for no particular reason, as you state. He probably also saw the Jews as also being responsible for Germany's suffering after WW1. As far as comprehensiveness of intent is concerned, you've failed to show why Hitler's genocidal tendencies were more horrifying than that of all others throughout history. And Hitler didn't kill all the Jews, Steve. Wealthy industrialists and others who could be useful in establishing the third reich were spared. Hitler no more believed that the Jews were responsible for all the evils in the world, than I believe I am Brad Pitt, fascism, by its nature needs a constant stream of scapegoats, the Jews served this purpose, and nothing more. If a suficient number of black people had been present in Germany at the time no doubt they would have been responsible for all the etc, etc.This is what I meant by "no particular reason"ie they [posed no threat to the German state. Hitler believed all the worlds problems should be sheeted home to Jews. He also believed they were responsible for socialism, which he hated. Hitler was greatly influenced by the writings of Henry Ford, btw. A large photo of the great American industrialist hung in Hitler's office. How many average Americans know this, I wonder. He also, strangely enough, admired Lenin, but thats another story. 3,Spiritual murder. A devotion to destroying the Humanity of the victims before killing them, a blanket impulse to sadistically humiliate, and dehumanise. These are where its uniqueness lies. Steve, have you ever read "The Gulag Archipelago"? Plenty of sadistic dehumanising of victims was present in Stalin's regime. I have little doubt that victims of despotic regimes throughout history have endured similar treatment. The ancient Romans knew how to humiliate and dehumanise, I would have thought. Mark, it is my contention that it is the synergy of of the above that makes it unique, of course there have been other monsters, and will be in the future. I disagree with your contention, Steve. As to the future, its is highly unlikely that the World will witness another Stalin, or Pol Pot, those are crimes of History, their time come and gone. Fascism however threatens both the present, and futurity, and is why we must learn the lesson's of Nazi Germany. This is don't understand at all. If Stalin and Pol Pot's time has come and gone, why hasn't Hitler's? Fascism is a threat, yes, and wasn't that what Stalin was, in disguise? The greatest threat today comes from religious fundamentalism, both Muslim and Christian, and from letting fear dictate that we must destroy other nations and people in pursuit of amorphous enemies. The threat of death by colectivisation is as dead as Monty pythons parrot, Fascism is a continuing threat to mankinds peace, and security. Neo Fasicst parties are growing all over Europe as Capitalism once more makes ordinary people pay for its failures. . The fact is that others, like Stalin's, wiped out a far greater number of innocent people with equally practised cruelty. Mark, you no doubt have the figures to back up this remakable claim? who are you relying on here, Figes. 7 million deaths during the mass starvation campaign to remove the Kulak class trumps Hitler already: http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm Not to mention the purge of 33,000 of his own military officers and the endless stream of soldiers he sacrificed in trying to capture Berlin. All the best, Steve. One more quick point, how many more millions do you believe would have perished if the Nazi's had won the 2nd W/W. a gas chamber in every major city in Europe, and Russia perhaps?

A very welcome and promising development, Steve. More power to Ali Berro and the Scottish legal team.

According to today's Telegraph Mirror, July 26 has been pencilled in. It also stated the following: His popularity has plunged after a string of Government scandals over sleaze and mismanagement as well as controversy over the Iraq war. Of course the Telegraph Mirror is owned by Murdoch so you don't really get the full truth. They didn't mention Lebanon. Our PM, Poodle Howard, is also firmly controlled by the US, Israel and Murdoch. Any time a journalist questions Israel's actions in Lebanon, Howard almost jumps out his chair to defend the indefensible. Murdoch's flagship publication in this country,The Australian, called for a pre-emptive strike on Iran on two separate occasions last week. Scum like Murdoch doesn't give a damn about deaths or casualties, he just wants to make (more) money. BTW, I wonder what the neocons running the US have in mind for our October surprise? I'm tipping an invasion of Syria on the pretext of funding terrorists and, wait for it,...WMD's!! They could be the same ones they failed to find in Iraq . Only this time they'll "find" them. They won't make that mistake twice---no siree. You read it here first.

Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities. Hi Steve, thanks for the comprehensive reply. The consciousness that developed in Nazi occupied Europe, and in the decades after the 2nd W/W that what the Nazi's peretratored was something historically new, and exceptional was not based on any historical computation of the suffering of the victims in relation to other groups of victims, it was a judgement about the nature of the crime. So, I propose it was not some particulrity of Jewish suffering, or of the other targets of of Nazi barbarism, Gypsies, Trade unionist's, Socialists, Communists, Prisoners of war(over 3 million russians are in this catagory alone) Gay people, the Disabled, Poles, Free Masons, and on and on, but a particularity of the Nazi offence, an offence against Humanity itself, that stands out, and thus makes it unique. Its uniqueness does not lie in its choise of victims, it relies in some qualities inherent in the offences of the perpetrators. This uniqueness, it seems to me has three characteristics, all of which acted together in a vile synergy to create an evil that is singular. 1, The industrialization, and Bureaucratization of murder. using the full resources of the modern state. Sorry Steve, I don't follow. I thought Stalin utilized the resources of the State when he starved millions of his own people in collectivising the farm sector between the wars. Moreover, shipping many others to Siberian gulags is also utilising state resources, IMO. 2The comprehensiveness of intent. in which the aim was to eradicate an entire people from the face of the Earth, FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON. Well, I think Hitler's reason was that he believed the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world at that time. Hitler was wrong in believing this but he didn't exactly embark on his genocidal path for no particular reason, as you state. He probably also saw the Jews as also being responsible for Germany's suffering after WW1. As far as comprehensiveness of intent is concerned, you've failed to show why Hitler's genocidal tendencies were more horrifying than that of all others throughout history. And Hitler didn't kill all the Jews, Steve. Wealthy industrialists and others who could be useful in establishing the third reich were spared. Hitler was greatly influenced by the writings of Henry Ford, btw. A large photo of the great American industrialist hung in Hitler's office. How many average Americans know this, I wonder. 3,Spiritual murder. A devotion to destroying the Humanity of the victims before killing them, a blanket impulse to sadistically humiliate, and dehumanise. These are where its uniqueness lies. Steve, have you ever read "The Gulag Archipelago"? Plenty of sadistic dehumanising of victims was present in Stalin's regime. I have little doubt that victims of despotic regimes throughout history have endured similar treatment. The ancient Romans knew how to humiliate and dehumanise, I would have thought. As to the future, its is highly unlikely that the World will witness another Stalin, or Pol Pot, those are crimes of History, their time come and gone. Fascism however threatens both the present, and futurity, and is why we must learn the lesson's of Nazi Germany. This is don't understand at all. If Stalin and Pol Pot's time has come and gone, why hasn't Hitler's? Fascism is a threat, yes, and wasn't that what Stalin was, in disguise? The greatest threat today comes from religious fundamentalism, both Muslim and Christian, and from letting fear dictate that we must destroy other nations and people in pursuit of amorphous enemies. You haven't convinced me that Hitler's regime was uniquely horrifying and deserves vilification over and above all other despotic regimes throughout history. The fact is that others, like Stalin's, wiped out a far greater number of innocent people with equally practised cruelty. It may have been fashionable, post 1945, to claim Hitler's barbarism as unique but the fact remains that it isn't, and to make this claim is irrational, IMO. Steve, I hope you are fully recovered from your illness, and look foward to your reply. Regards, Steve.

Only by degrees. I'm not sure at which point they cross the line and they are not finished yet (anyone want to take bets on an Iran invasion before November?). They have probably murdered 300,000 Iraqis and Afghans already, Bush I's sanctions would add another 500,000 children alone. The total premeditated destruction of a nation's infrastructure, including water and food supply, the use of depleted uranium (which will continue to cause cancer, birth defects and kill for billions[with a B] of years), the use of white phosphorous (very nasty stuff) in an aggressive war on a people whose ability to fight back was destroyed during the first Gulf war. We made sure they didn't have WMDs and then we stuck it to 'em using the most powerful and advanced armed forces the world had ever seen following a secret concerted aerial bombardment campaign which lasted months and started way before the official invasion. I personally think, that once you get over killing say 50,000 and using illegal weapons and deliberately targeting civilian populations, I think you've reached the big time. The only difference is these guys are doing it in our name and we can't quite bring ourselves to see them for what they are. It's about oil, and introducing free-market liberalization and creating civil war to get Arab to kill Arab and is no different than any other illegal military campaign which we have a long history of waging - all without being held accountable for our illegal activities. Stalin and Lenin were up there with Hitler and I don't see them being vilified in quite the same way. Mass murderers are mass murderers - just because we do it in the name of removing WMDs, regime change, removing a mass murderer, bringing democracy to the middle east and it gets announced on the BBC just after an item about a three-legged dog over-coming adversity doesn't make it any better...We've murdered more Iraqis than Saddam did. When we add up all the deaths in the coming years from DU we made end up exterminating the entire nation of Iraq(what's left of it) - maybe that was the plan. He also said: Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities. And: I have to agree with you on this point – I think this is the most dangerous time anyone has lived in. Bush is a retarded drunken psycho (thank G*d he’s not running the show ). They will not stop until the middle east is in ruins and won’t shirk a confrontation with China or Russia to achieve their goals. I see wars in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, N. Korea, Libya and many more places… Good post Steve. Puts it all in perspective, IMO. And: Yip, can’t argue with that.

Certainly not, Bush, along with most rich boys would rather leave the fighting up to someone else. But thats not really what this thread is about. Regards, Steve.

It is a muddled mess. The shells found were AUTOMATIC. The shells in evidence were REVOLVER. But automatic shell casings would have all been EJECTED IN THE STREET. The casings which Poe put in an empty cigaret pack were found in the YARD of the Davis sisters on the corner, at least 50 feet from the shooting scene. It remains an important question 40+ years later. But there is no answer. Jack I was under the impression that domingo benevides provided the first shells to the police. He said, and this is paraphrasing "these are the bullets that killed the officer". Then, later, the Davis sisters found shells, one was found while the police were there and then one was found after the police had left. At least that was my understanding of the events. Yes, Chuck--that's my understanding of events too. It's all academic of course because the shells found at the scene were not the ones presented to the WC and Officer Poe couldn't identify his markings on the four cartridges shown to him in June, 1964. I was reading through some documents and found a strange situation regarding the gunshot residue tests done on Oswald. Are we to believe that the original casts were just thrown away and then sketches were made to offer as evidence of the pattern shown on the casts? This sounds like one of the episodes of the twilight zone. A very badly made episode at that......jeez. What fun it would have been had Oswald survived and the whole mess went to trial. All the mistrials, appeals and retrials due to the DPD's wilful negligence would probably still be going on today.

I always liked this one: Representative FORD. You saw him take the shells out of the gun? Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; he was shaking them. Representative FORD. He was shaking them? Mrs. DAVIS. He was shaking them. I didn't see him actually use his hand to take them out. I mean he was sort of shaking them out. Representative FORD. Did you find this one bullet at the point where you saw him shake the gun? Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; it was around the side of the house. Steve, I think you've cracked it--they were special shells which, once discarded from the firearm, crawl to the nearest shrubbery and hide. Is it possible the shells from the murder weapon could be found fifty feet from Tippit's body? It seems the DPD was also very reluctant to hand over the bullets extracted from Tippit's body, save for one very mutilated specimen. A cynic would suggest this was because the DPD (and whoever was directing them) knew that they could not be matched with Oswald's weapon. Hale Boggs expressed concern at the three month delay in the DPD in handing over the (remaining three) bullets to the FBI and asked counsel why the delay and what certainty was there that these were the same three bullets that had been extracted from Tippit. The hapless Congressman obviously thought the WC was conducting an investigation---not a coverup.

It is a muddled mess. The shells found were AUTOMATIC. The shells in evidence were REVOLVER. But automatic shell casings would have all been EJECTED IN THE STREET. The casings which Poe put in an empty cigaret pack were found in the YARD of the Davis sisters on the corner, at least 50 feet from the shooting scene. It remains an important question 40+ years later. But there is no answer. Jack Thanks Jack. It's a mess all right, one that would have surely been laughed out of court had Oswald ever stood trial for the Tippit murder. * Benavides picks up two shells, apparently from the shrubbery at 10th and Patton, and puts them in an empty Winston cigarette packet and hands them to Officer Poe. Seargent Hill testifies that Poe shows him the packet containing three shells, and orders him to mark them for identification. *The other two shells are found by Barbara and Virginia Davis and are handed in to an officer who was later questioned by a Commission attorney. Does anyone know who this was? * The shells are absent from a police list of evidence compiled on the day of the assassination, and a ballistics catalogue turned over to the FBI the next day. They are not included in a police property clerk's list compiled on November 26. On November 28, the four shells used in evidence are handed over to the FBI as a seperate package. * At the Tippit murder scene, Seargent Hill radioed in that the shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol, reinforcing a description of the killer's weapon from an eyewitness, broadcast minutes earlier. There's no real mystery. Tippit was shot with a semi-automatic pistol. The DPD produced the bogus shells, well after the event, to frame Oswald. They also lied about the bullets recovered from Tippit, claiming initially that only one badly damaged bullet was retrieved. The other three showed up in March. The issue of the shell casings being found in the yard, or shrubbery, can still be explained, IMO. Don't have an answer yet, but there must be one.

Apologies if this has already been covered (I looked through the Tippit threads and it wasn't mentioned). Aside from the anomolies concerning the bullets removed from Tippits body not completely matching the make and manufacture of the shells handed in to the DPD, and the fact there was no unbroken 'chain of evidence', as required by the law, concerning these shells, the biggest obstacle to be overcome in concluding that Oswald killed Tippit is this: Why would a murderer who has just pumped four bullets into a policeman then pause to remove spent shells from his revolver---on the spot? Wouldn't he run away and remove the shells later, where he might be safer? Isn't it much more likely a semi-automatic weapon was used to kill Tippit, not a revolver. Of course, this would make Oswald innocent, as he was arrested in possession of a revolver. Any help here is greatly appreciated as I'm no expert on guns.

Steve, I must respectfully disagree, at least partially. No one condones Hitler's brutal extermination of millions of Jews, or his role in WW2, and I, for one, have never stated there is no moral distance between Bush/Blair and Hitler. However, I disagree that the rest, or other aspects of Hitler's life and times, are mere "semantics". Rather, they are facts. Hitler, for all his other failings, posessed great personal courage. You can dispute the overall significance of this fact in the context of his historical legacy, but it is still a fact, easily verified by a study of his military career. This is my point. When analysing history, or someone's role in it, all the facts should be presented. Ignoring some of the facts because they are inconvenient leaves one open to the charge of rewriting history. This, in turn, raises the inevitable questions about one's motives. Many historical narratives (but not all) seem reluctant to acknowledge that Hitler posessed this trait, one which is admired by most rational people. For the record, I also think Hitler was a poor Commander who made several crucial tactical errors, was a megalomaniac and had a deeply psychotic hatred of Jews. He was not fond of blacks either and the 1936 Olympic Games would have irked him greatly. But the man had balls. He risked his life many times for the cause he felt was worth dying for--the fatherland. Are you willing to debate that George Bush has more personal courage than Hitler had?

Do you think context is going to add/detract very much from the sentiment of many of these quotes? I accept that some of the quotes are less specific than others, but those attributed to Churchill appear specific enough. I have no particular like for the Nazis, in my view they are just one more group who perpetrated crimes against their own people and those of other countries. They are just one in a long line of murderers, their ideologies or position on the political spectrum don't appear to have made a jot of difference to their actions. Stalin, Pol-Pot, Lenin, Bush (Sr & Jr) and even Blair are all cut from the same cloth. Some murder their own people and others murder foreigners. I detest anyone who rationalizes murder, particularly of innocents, to further their cause. If we lose the (aggressive) wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, heaven forbid, are actually held responsble, Bush and Blair could just as easily be tried as war criminals as Georing. Their actions are no different from any other butchers of innocent men, women and children. We in the West are just a little better at spinning our ultimately identical actions in the facade of good intentions, but still kill for oil, or control of the Suez/Panama canals, or to remove leaders who fail to allow western market liberalisations to ravage their countries and their people, or opium, or even water. The point of my quotes was simply to further re-inforce the idea of the winners of conflicts (re-)writing history. I don't think it is possible, any more(if it ever was), to accept what we are told about major historical events 50 years after the fact, as it is often indistinguishable from propaganda. Incubator babies, Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian gulags, The Gulf of Tonkin, Crucified Canadian Soldiers (WWI) all turned out to be lies. Truth is the first casualty of war. Why would anyone think that WWII was any different? Steve, I agree with Sid that yours is a fine post. When the winners (re)write history, they sometimes feel compelled to stretch things a little too far. One thing that has always amused me has been the tendency of some historians to blacken every part of Hitler's past. However, there is one thing that cannot be taken away from Hitler by historians, regardless of his failings in other areas. I'm referring to the fact that Hitler possessed extraordinary personal courage. Hitler served every day of WW1, except for two short periods when he was wounded by shrapnel in 1914 and gassed in 1918. He always volunteered for the most dangerous missions and regularly served as a messenger between the trenches, perilously dangerous activity. He recieved the Iron Cross third class, the Iron Cross first class and the Bavarian Military Medal of Honour. These were real medals earned in battle, not ceremonial ones like the one LBJ "earned" as an observer on a bombing raid in New Guinea in 1942. Testimonials from his former Commanding Officers were glowing, to say the least. I wonder how many people with only a passing interest in history actually know this about Hitler? Very few, I would guess. Giving Hitler credit for anything has long been regarded as heresy.

Thanks for that, Sid. Very interesting. I didn't know about Ahmaninejad's letter to Ms Merkel. The more I read about leaders like Dr. Ahmaninejad and Hugo Chavez, the more I feel they are forming a loose alliance which is proving to be a constant irritant to the US and Israel. I'm calling this emerging alliance 'the axis of common sense'.

So what? A majority of Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Are they right? You've got to understand why a cult of cynicism has developed. When Governments and the media lie constantly about major issues, people become understandably suspicious about what they're being told. JFK, MLK, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Iran Contra, WMD's in Iraq, the War on Drugs etc, etc. The public are now becoming aware that they have been the victims of 'spin' for decades. The righteous indignation you express with any opinion which deviates from the Government/Media gruel being fed to the masses just makes you look like the looney. How many intelligent people still think LHO was a lone assassin? Apart from a few who are being paid to say it, only you apparently. The Government and media have a very poor track record when it comes to honesty with the public. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me black is white. The endless murders, lies, wars and coverups have been designed to line the pockets of powerful elites at the expense of everyone else. That's a fact you will have to learn to accept--when you finally grow up. Re 9/11, I saw the buildings collapse and I don't know if what these scientists are saying is accurate. What I do know is that Rumsfeld, Chaney and others were using charter planes and avoiding commercial airlines in the leadup to 9/11. I know 9/11 allowed the Bush Administration to exchange civil liberties for added security. And I know that Bush and the media have long history of lying to the public. The only thing obscene and preposterous is your constant defence of the indefensible.