Mark Stapleton

I think Charles would be a good moderator.

FWIW.

Mark,

I agree that the Western Media can't be trusted. But I don't trust the opposite side either, having seen their propaganda machine (which is coming back to be fairly effective). I also am very wary of Brzizenski and his world view, because his theories IMO are a main reason for our occupation of Iraq.

How are you sifting through information to make conclusions?

Also I've read where Russia is at odds with the Azerbhaijan-Turkmenistan oil and gas supply lines to Israel and wants to take control of the Caspian Oil supply route, which could place Georgia in center stage.

Russia has, in the past, engaged in military aggression where it helped their agenda, also they have been the masters of propaganda and disinformation in the past, and Novosti seems to be very much players. Why do you think this case is different?

Hi Peter,

In a situation like this, I think the western media is useless as a source of credible information. The western media is merely a cheerleader for Washington.

The only source of information I use is the alternative media, including this forum. There was a good piece by Michael Klare posted on Common Dreams this week which backgrounded the situation well:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/04/10977/

I know the Russians have shown they are capable of brutal suppression at times and are determined to control the Caspian oil routes. However, if the roles of America and Russia were reversed, America would have secured control of those routes, with force if necessary, long before now, imo. The Georgians, despite the tragic loss of life, should be thankful that it wasn't US forces invading their country, as I believe they have even less concern for civilian casualties, as was shown in Iraq.

The US have a long history of subversive interference in smaller nations as well as being responsible for the invasion of some 45 sovereign nations since 1900. Further, their recent efforts to install missile defence systems in Poland and the Czeck Republic, fully aware of the discomfort caused to Russia, show they are prepared to ratchet up tensions when it suits their purpose. As the Buchanan article posted by Maggie points out, the US would never permit the Russians to carry out subversive activities in Cuba, Mexico or anywhere near their backyard. So why should Russia allow the US to do the same?

It will be interesting to see where this all leads. I think it's got a while to go yet.

Putin Walks into a Trap

By Mike Whitney

13/08/08 "ICH" --- - The American-armed and trained Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing an estimated 2,000 civilians, sending 40,000 South Ossetians fleeing over the Russian border, and destroying much of the capital, Tskhinvali. The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let's be clear, it wasn't. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.

Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev gave a good summary of events in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post:

"For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground....What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas....Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia...Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity." ("A Path to Peace in the Caucasus", Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington Post)

The question for Americans is whether they trust Mikhail Gorbachev more than the corporate media?

Russia deployed its tanks and troops to South Ossetia to save the lives of civilians and to reestablish the peace. Period. It has no interest in annexing the former-Soviet country or in expanding its present borders. Now that the Georgian army has been routed, Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have expressed a willingness to settle the dispute through normal diplomatic channels at the United Nations. Neither leader is under any illusions about Washington's involvement in the hostilities. They know that Georgian President Mikail Saakashvili is an American stooge who came to power in a CIA-backed coup, the so-called "Rose Revolution", and would never order a major military operation without explicit instructions from his White House puppetmasters. Most likely, the orders to invade came directly from the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney.

The Georgian army had no chance of winning a war with Russia or any intention of occupying the territory they captured. The real aim was to lure the Russian army into a trap. US planners hope to do what they did so skillfully in Afghanistan; lure their Russian prey into a long and bloody Chechnya-type fiasco that will pit their Russia troops against guerrilla forces armed and trained by US military and intelligence agencies. The war will be waged in the name of liberating Georgia from Russian imperialism and stopping Putin from achieving his alleged ambition to control critical western-owned pipelines around the Caspian Basin. Much of this "think tank" generated narrative has already appeared in the mainstream media or been articulated by American political elites. Meanwhile, the fighting in the Caucasus has diverted attention from the massive US naval armada that is presently sailing towards the Persian Gulf for the long-anticipated confrontation with Iran.

Operation Brimstone, the joint US, UK and French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran, ended just last week. The war games were designed to simulate a naval blockade of Iran and the probable Iranian response.

According to Earl of Stirling on the Global Research web site:

"The war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force. The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagen (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan."

Stirling adds: "A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border....American Marines, a thousand of them, have recently been in Georgia training the Georgian military forces... Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia...This could get bad, and remember it is just a strategic diversion....but one that could have horrific effects." ("Massive US Naval Armada Heads for Iran", Earl of Stirling, Global Research)

In June, former foreign policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, presented the basic storyline that would be used against Russia two full months before the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The article appeared on the Kavkazcenter web site. Brzezinski said the United States witnessed "cases of possible threats by Russia, directed at Georgia with the intention of taking control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline".

Brzezinski: "Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies..If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited". http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/20...6/13/9798.shtml

Nonsense. Neither Putin nor newly-elected president Dmitry Medvedev have any such intention. It is absurd to think that Russia, having extracted itself from two pointless wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan, and after years of grinding poverty and social unrest following the fall of the Soviet state, would choose to wage an energy war with the nuclear-armed US military. That would be complete madness. Brzezinski's speculation is part of broader narrative that's been crafted for the western media to provide a rationale for upcoming aggression against Russia. Brzezinski is not only the architect of the mujahadin-led campaign against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but also, the author of "The Grand Chessboard--American Primacy and it's Geostrategic Imperatives", the operating theory behind the war on terror which involves massive US intervention in Central Asia to control vital resources, fragment Russia, and surround manufacturing giant, China.

"The Grand Chessboard" it is the 21st century's version of the Great Game. The book begins with this revealing statement:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.....The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics."

This is the heart-and-soul of the war on terror. The real braintrust behind "neverending conflict" was actually focussed on Central Asia. It was the pro-Israeli crowd in the Republican Party that pulled the old switcheroo and refocussed on the Middle East rather than Eurasia. Now, powerful members of the US foreign policy establishment (Brzezinski, Albright, Holbrooke) have regrouped behind the populist "cardboard" presidential candidate Barak Obama and are preparing to redirect America's war efforts to the Asian theater. Obama offers voters a choice of wars not a choice against war.

On Sunday, Brzezinski accused Russia of imperial ambitions comparing Putin to "Stalin and Hitler" in an interview with Nathan Gardels.

Gardels: What is the world to make of Russia's invasion of Georgia?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Fundamentally at stake is what kind of role Russia will play in the new international system.(aka: New World Order) Unfortunately, Putin is putting Russia on a course that is ominously similar to Stalin's and Hitler's in the late 1930s. Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt has correctly drawn an analogy between Putin's "justification" for dismembering Georgia -- because of the Russians in South Ossetia -- to Hitler's tactics vis a vis Czechoslovakia to "free" the Sudeten Deutsch. Even more ominous is the analogy of what Putin is doing vis-a-vis Georgia to what Stalin did vis-a-vis Finland: subverting by use of force the sovereignty of a small democratic neighbor. In effect, morally and strategically, Georgia is the Finland of our day.

The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin's control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia.

In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdependent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force.

If Georgia is subverted, not only will the West be cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine." ("Brzezinski: Russia's invasion of Georgia is Reminiscent of Stalin's attack on Finland"; Huffington Post)

Brzezinski takes great pride in being a disciplined and rational spokesman for US imperial projects. It is unlike him to use such hysterical rhetoric. Perhaps, the present situation is more tenuous than we know. Could it be that the financial system is closer to meltdown-phase than anyone realizes?

It should be clear by Brzezinski's comments that Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia was not another incoherent exercise in neocon chest-thumping, but part of a larger strategy to drag Russia into an endless conflict that will sap its resources, decrease its prestige on the global stage, weaken its grip on regional power, strengthen frayed alliances between Europe and America, and divert attention from a larger campaign in the Gulf. It is particularly worrisome that Brzezinski appears to be involved in the planning. Brzezinski, Holbrooke and Albright form the "Imperialist A-Team"; these are not the bungling "Keystone Cops" neocons like Feith and Rumsfeld who trip over themselves getting out of bed in the morning. These are cold-blooded Machiavellian imperialists who know how to work the media and the diplomatic channels to conceal their genocidal operations behind a smokescreen of humanitarian mumbo-jumbo. They know what they are doing and they are good at it. They're not fools. They have aligned themselves with the Obama camp and are preparing for the next big outbreak of global trouble-making. This should serve as a sobering wake-up call for voters who still think Obama represents "Change We Can Believe In".

Richard Holbrooke appeared on Tuesday's Jim Lerher News Hour with resident neocon Margaret Warner. Typical of Warner's "even-handed" approach, both of the interviewees were ultra-conservatives from right-wing think tanks: Richard Holbrooke, from the Council on Foreign Relations and Dmiti Simes from the Nixon Center.

According to Holbrooke, "The Russians deliberately provoked (the fighting in South Ossetia) and timed it for the Olympics. This is a long-standing Russian effort to get rid of President Saakashvili."

Right. Is that why Putin was so shocked when he heard the news (while he was in Beijing) that he quickly boarded a plane and headed for Moscow? (after shaking his finger angrily at Bush!)

Holbrooke: "And I want to stress, I'm not a warmonger, and I don't want a new Cold War any more than Dimitri does....The Russians wish to re-establish a historic area of hegemony that includes Ukraine. And it is no accident that the other former Soviet republics are watching this and extraordinarily upset, as Putin progresses with an attempt to re-create a kind of a hegemonic space."

It is impossible to go over all of Holbrooke's distortions, half-truths and lies in one article but, what is important is to recognize that a false narrative is being constructed to demonize Putin and to justify future hostilities against Russia. Holbrooke's bogus assertions are identical to Brzezinski's, and yet, these same lies are already appearing in the mainstream media. The propaganda "bullet points" have already been determined; "Putin is a menace","Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire", "Putin is an autocrat". (Unlike our "freedom loving" allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt!?!) In truth, Putin is simply enjoying Russia's newly acquired energy-wealth and would like to be left alone. But it is impossible to be left alone when the US spends 24 hours a day pestering people. The world deserves a break from an extremely irritating USA.

So why are Brzezinski and his backers in the foreign policy establishment demonizing Putin and threatening Russia with "ostracism, isolation and economic penalties?" What is Putin's crime?

Putin's problems can be traced back to a speech he made in Munich nearly two years ago when he declared unequivocally that he rejected the basic tenets of the Bush Doctrine and US global hegemony. His speech amounted to a Russian Declaration of Independence. That's when western elites, particularly at the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute put Putin on their "enemies list" along with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Morales, Mugabe and anyone else who refuses to take orders from the Washington Mafia.

Here's what Putin said in Munich:

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign---- one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”

Every word Putin spoke was true which is why it was not reprinted in the western media.

“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”

Putin's claims are all indisputable, that is why he has entered the neocons crosshairs. He poses a direct challenge to---what Brzezinski calls---the "international system", which is shorthand for the corporate/banking cartel that is controlled by the western oligarchy of racketeers.

South Ossetia was a trap and Putin took the bait. Unfortunately for Bush, the wily Russian prime minister is considerably brighter than anyone in the current administration. Bush's plan will undoubtedly backfire and disrupt the geopolitical balance of power. The world might get that breather from the US after all.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20508.htm

Mike Whitney has a great perspective. The key point among many he makes, is that for Russia, with its recent accession to the top of the global energy supplier rankings, the last thing they would desire would be a military confrontation on their doorstep.

Note the role of the Western media--partners in crime with the Bush Government.

"<Removed>

Well good for you.

In any case we must take your posts with a huge grain of salt. After all how do we know that you are who you say you are? For all we know you are some super secret double agent( or maybe even part of a...team) sent to post things designed to make CT's look quite awful. Thats the clear impression I get from your posts.

Whats your real name again? Just WHO do you work for?

p.s.

I've made no insinuation. I asked a simple question. Mark has gone on AT LENGTH about the subect of Heroin ON THIS FORUM. Clearly Mark has a great interest in the subject of Heroin. Its a very fair question, in light of the continued questions about Len Colby by Mark and his ilk.

Yes, I do have an interest the this subject, Craig. In fact the broader issue of prohibition is a pet issue of mine because of the damage it causes in society. Post anything I've previously said---we're here to inform.

While I think Dave Greer and Peter McKenna made good points in their posts, I think Charles post #14 proves (to me, at least) that at least two people have posted under Len's banner.

I don't even know if this is against the rules but it does prove a point. That is, the Len Colby avatar is now suspect. I won't reply to it again until Len explains his rapid transformation from borderline incoherence to polished erudition.

Those critical of Charles for stating his case should remember this thread was started by John Simkin--in response to previous claims made about Len.

Those who regard this as a distasteful inquisition should remember that Len has made some distasteful and unjustified accusations about others in the past---when it suits him. There's no halo over Len and he seems to revel in all this--another concern, imo, as I know I wouldn't be comfortable to be under such close scrutiny, but as Charles correctly points out, Len has warranted this suspicion by his own actions over a long period.

The biggest problem is that Len has directly or indirectly caused some members to leave. Jan Klimkowski and David Guyatt have a lot to contribute to the political conspiracies debate and they wouldn't make the decision to leave lightly, imo. Frankly, I respect their opinions and research more than Len Colby's.

p.s. can someone throw Craig Lamson a side of raw meat or something?

<Removed by Mod>

I'd like to complain about this post.

I too, like Mark, miss Jan and David and think their contrabutions are needed.

Nor do I think setting up a mirror forum where those with like minds can meddle among themselves without Colbies.

<removed>

Both are criminal.

BK

Thank you Bill for your support but I have no problem with Craig's post.

Thanks again.

<Removed by Mod>

It took a while but the penny dropped.

<Removed>

But it's actually the most powerful painkiller known to science, with a very low cost base, is currently used in British hospitals (under the name diamorphine), and it has relatively few harmful side effects except of course, the addiction. Unfortunately, if it were to be made legally available then a lot of prescription drugs would become redundant and because the patent expired long ago, it could be manufactured generically and cheaply---all of which is too much for Big Pharma and its shareholders to bear.

Drug of the devil my ass.

Len didn't cause anyone to leave. It was their choice, not his.

Correct Kathy. But why did they make that choice? Because of........................?

INITIAL POST: The US, France and Britain support Georgia in the United Nations:

But one phrase calling on all parties to “renounce the use of force” met with opposition, particularly from the United States, France and Britain. The three countries argued that the statement was unbalanced, one European diplomat said, because that language would have undermined Georgia’s ability to defend itself. Belgium, which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month, circulated a revised draft calling for an immediate cessation of hostility and for “all parties” to return to the negotiating table. By dropping the specific reference to Georgia and South Ossetia, the compromise statement would also encompass Russia.

Go back and read it carefully. How does a statement to renounce the us of force prevent Georgia from defending itself? I obviously doesn't, but it would put pressure on Georgia to stop offensive military operations in South Ossetia.

We've seen this movie before. It is, as I predicted late last night, a repeat of the situation in the summer of 2006, when Israel conducted a campaign of air strikes in Lebanon, and the US and Britain rejected proposed UN resolutions that called for a cease fire. Expect the US, France and Britain to reject the new Belgium draft as well, as they will oppose any draft that does not place blame on the Russians, and responsibility for making concessions on them, in the hope that the war will go in favor of the Georgians. Again, as with the Israeli assault upon Lebanon, it is probably a forlorn hope, because there will be strong nativist popular Russian support for this conflict, as they perceive it as necessary to defend the people of South Ossetia against not just Georgia, but US and European sponsored aggression.

The situation is really quite shocking. The US and two of the dominant countries in the European Union are facilitating violent policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon and, now, Georgia. They are making demands upon Iran that increase the chances of war there as well. Germany is supportive in all instances, except this new Georgian adventure, probably because of its closer ties with the Russian Federation.

Few seem to understand that a red line has been crossed in South Ossetia. The US and the EU, with the assistance of Israel, is now openly using military force is in their political and economic competition with the Russians in the Caucasus and Central Asia. I try to avoid millenialist sensibilities, but, for the first time, I have become fearful that there is a horrifically destructive global conflict looming over the horizon. As US, Europe and Israel methodically go about increasing the number of tinder boxes, we can only hope that these conflicts somehow resolve themselves nonviolently. It is increasingly difficult to imagine that might happen.

I hope it doesn't escalate, but it seems the Russians have might have the situation under control for the moment.

While I think Dave Greer and Peter McKenna made good points in their posts, I think Charles post #14 proves (to me, at least) that at least two people have posted under Len's banner.

I don't even know if this is against the rules but it does prove a point. That is, the Len Colby avatar is now suspect. I won't reply to it again until Len explains his rapid transformation from borderline incoherence to polished erudition.

Those critical of Charles for stating his case should remember this thread was started by John Simkin--in response to previous claims made about Len.

Those who regard this as a distasteful inquisition should remember that Len has made some distasteful and unjustified accusations about others in the past---when it suits him. There's no halo over Len and he seems to revel in all this--another concern, imo, as I know I wouldn't be comfortable to be under such close scrutiny, but as Charles correctly points out, Len has warranted this suspicion by his own actions over a long period.

The biggest problem is that Len has directly or indirectly caused some members to leave. Jan Klimkowski and David Guyatt have a lot to contribute to the political conspiracies debate and they wouldn't make the decision to leave lightly, imo. Frankly, I respect their opinions and research more than Len Colby's.

p.s. can someone throw Craig Lamson a side of raw meat or something?

Comparisons to McCarthy came to mind.

Indeed they do -- to Charlie McCarthy. Another famous puppet from American vaudeville and early television.

Not having any qualifications in the subject nor being able to cite anyone who does has not stopped him from spouting his rubbish ad nauseam.

These guys just can't stop talking about themselves.

In cricketing parlance--unplayable.

There's still no satisfactory explanation from Len to the question posed by Charles in post #14.

I'm with Dawn and Charles in expressing doubt as to whether they were written by the same person. Personally I couldn't care less but in Len's case it's important because Len, like myself, Charles and others, posts here regularly and is a vocal advocate of his various positions within the political conspiracies subforum.

I wouldn't want to think that Len operates with an effective reserves bench, employed to make posts on his behalf but it looks that way to me. I always wondered how Len becomes (with great rapidity) an expert on a diverse range of issues.

Mike is correct. the Israel Lobby in the US has captured US foreign policy and this dates back to Dealey Plaza, imo. This has had detrimental consequences for America's relations with the rest of the world.

The debate as to whether US policy has been captured by the Zionist Lobby is over, since the Mearsheimer/Walt paper in 2006 proved it was true:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

What about this, Len?

Mark,

I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person.

As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis.

The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies.

Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion:

Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows:

Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen.

Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity?

Charles

Very good point, Charles.

The style of post, which can range from a single word or sentence to a long essay, is usually consistent, being a function of the writer's past experiences, etc. It would be very unusual for the writer to change his/her style so abruptly in under two days.

Len's 'answer' was a dismissal not a real explanation. John should take a look at this, imo.

It's the most telling point so far in the case against Len Colby.

What about this, Len?

Kind Readers,

Please review the following posts:

Post #53, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 9, 2008, 9:22 AM DST, east coast, USA

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

Post #66, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 11, 2008, 9:08 AM DST, east coast, USA

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent Maggie) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.

In your considered opinion, were they written by the same person?

Those two posts were not written by the same person---unless Len has more problems than we thought.

Yes, I saw this and thought much the same Mark. I remember watching a BBC doco on the Battle of Culloden and apparently butchers were some the best fighters the English had. I suppose it is an occupational hazard seeing all that flesh objectified.

FWIW

Yes, as a butcher he wouldn't be scared of blood and gore, Maggie.

The fact he died of syphillis looks like a strong indicator too. One would assume he picked it up from prostitutes, and then sought to get even. There also seems to have also been some animosity between Levy and his wife. Her comments about his behavior also fit neatly.

I wish a photo of Levy existed, but I don't think there is one.

p.s. thanks to Steve Turner for his efforts in getting JTR up again, and backgrounding the details of the case. How do you think Levy stands up as a suspect, Steve?

In fact, this is all about oil, and has nothing whatever to do with freem, moxy, or any other of the voodoo incantations so beloved of the Anglo-American elites and their mouthpieces in the commentariat. Saakashvili has committed a war crime and should be brought to book as a matter of urgency. Your inability to recognise and admit this very obvious fact is both staggering and contemptible.

Let's hope the Kremlin shows a degree of restraint long since lost by the exterminators in Washington.

Paul

Well said, Paul. Thanks to you and Maggie for the posts. Perhaps the first 'oil pipeline' war is at hand.

Can we guess who is behind this outbreak of violence and unrest?

A clue for Chris---someone's stirring up trouble in the neighbourhood. Life size photos of George Bush lining the highways? Ah, come on.

Interesting article, Don.

Sounds like Ford was a very active point man for the conspirators. What a sorry legacy Ford leaves in US history.

As for who were the two WC members who Ford claimed were unconvinced that JFK was shot from the TSBD, I would assume one of those was Hale Boggs. Don't know who the other might be.

I imagine that his wife has been threatened that she will lose her husband's pension if she says anything that questions the official story.

Estimated degree of probability: 99.99%

By chance I happened to see ' Jack the Ripper: The first serial killer' (2006) on TV last Thursday.

Has anyone seen this? Very interesting profiling techniques. Among the issues covered was the indication that JTR was most likely a local and a strong possibility that JTR was a butcher. Manna fron heaven.

I notice Casebook has been updated and expanded. More info has been discovered about Jacob Levy's background than I previously knew. Unless someone better comes along--and I think Levy is a relatively new suspect--he's far and away the most pristine candidate for JTR. On the information available, I can't find a single strike against him. He's my man.

Read it and weep:

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/jacoblevy.html

Unless Ivans was a nut with antisocial tendencies, there's no motive. I don't trust NYT reports, or anything from the corporate 'press'.

While the other countries are doing the dance, the US remains a wallflower.

Threadbare, especially when one recalls that President Bush met with Leahy and Tom Daschle, in January 2002 and asked them to not push the

Anthrax investigation because it would detract from the War on Terror. Huh? How did he not know that it would help the war on terror?

Of course these utterly responsible Democrats agreed to the President's request.

Yes, it smells very bad.

Some background from a previous thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8058

Don't Blame Me - I Voted Liberal

SO.........YOU were the one!

Glad you got that off your chest, Evan.