Christopher T. George

It has recently come to my attention, that the use of the word ‘hero’ now has no meaning. A hero was once reserved for a person who committed a heroic action, such as running into a burning house to save a life, or diving into surf to save a life etc. but tonight, on Australian television, the word was used to describe a man who ate an onion, he was described as ‘an Australian hero’. Is it just me, or do other members also share my thoughts? I would be interested to know what you all think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Adam

I do know that in my adoptive country, the United States, members of the armed forces who served in Iraq as well as victims of terrorist actions such as 9/11 seem to be automatically termed as "heroes." Does finding yourself in difficult circumstances make you a hero? I don't think so, unless you showed yourself worthy of the designation by committing heroic acts. You are correct, Adam, the meaning of the term is being devalued.

All my best

Chris

Hi John, Andy, Graham, et al.

John, I am coming round to your view that this was an "execution" -- I do think though that the circumstances have to be considered, that London had just suffered a series of explosions with 56 killed including suicide bombers, then two weeks later seemingly another attempt to do the same thing. So it is not simply a cold blooded execution but must be looked at in context.

Chris

Hi all

I endorse the choice of all the artists so far mentioned. Several more outstanding songwriters to add to the mix--

David Bowie, Pete Townshend, Ray Davies, Elton John and Bernie Taupin, Lou Reed

And might I recommend the autobiography Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood by Eric Burdon (Thunder Mouth Press, 2001) for some wild stories from the Sixties music scene and onward... one teaser from which being that Burdon claims he was the "Egg Man" referenced in Lennon and McCartney's "I Am the Walrus."

All my best

Chris

All good points, I do believe that they have to make their own judgements, but putting five bullets into a 'suspected' bomber, while he was on the ground is a bit much, even with the problems with terrorism we are facing in the present day. I think it is highly possible that he was a terrorist, the police must have had some reason to go after him and kill him, even with the hightened alert at present, I do not believe they would kill a suspect without reasonable suspicion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Adam et al.

Crass as it sounds, I suppose part of the purpose was "to send a message" that the police can be as ruthless as their opponents.

Ex-Flying Squad officer John O'Connor had this to say about how the terror group operated and how they should be deal with: "They are utterly ruthless people and have to be dealt with in a ruthless way." "Massive Undercover Hunt" (Sky News, July 22, 2005)

Something else does occur to me, i.e., that the bombers might have set this up for this man to be killed in this manner, I mean they intentionally sent him without a bomb (if that is the case) but with a big coat to make it seem he had an explosive to provoke the police to kill him, to send a message to their own audience as another reason to join the movement. In other words, it could have been a set-up to make a martyr for the movement, a man seemingly unjustly killed, to make more converts.

Chris

Tom

Once again I will sincerely apologize for my sorely lacking intellect.

You see, IMHO, in your postings you seem to be baitng people to continue to read what you offer, dribble by dribble. I don't find it cogent, interesting and hardly coherent. I don't care to read 20 of your posts to get the info that could have been placed in one.

You are absolutely correct in that I don't have to read them and I certainly wont waste my time doing so.

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Charles and Tom

While perhaps not fully understanding everything Tom is posting it does seem to me that the information he is posting is interesting in, as I see it, showing the deep southern, conservative, Confederate/racist roots of Lee Harvey Oswald and of the people with whom he associated. So I at least do find the material Tom is posting to be interesting and I thank you for posting it, Tom.

One point, on whether Lee Harvey Oswald in declaring "I am a Marxist" meant Marxist as in a follower of Karl Marx or as in a follower of the Marks clan with whom he mixed, while I agree he might have been playing with words, I think he would know the statement would be going out across the country and that most people would think he meant Marxist as in Communist, and that is how he almost undoubtedly meant his declaration to be understood.

All my best

Chris

Further breaking news in Australia suggests the suspected bomber did not have any explosives on him at the time he was shot, only heavy clothing, although he was wanted in relation to yesterdays attempted bombings. I believe that the officers should not have shot a man five times, when he was obviously lying on the ground, unarmed, and disagree with the 'shoot to kill' policy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is clear that the man was assassinated. Police were sitting on him when they fired five bullets into him. I would have thought it would have been better to have interviewed him first before killing him. Not only might he have been innocent, he might have had a lot to tell them about the bombers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi John

Why was the man running, vaulting a turnstile, if he was not a "person of interest" in the case. For all the police knew, he might have been about to detonate a bomb. I would say, the police have to use their own judgement in protecting the public.

Considering that the fellows were apparently making the explosives in their bathtub(s) using fertilizer, it does appear they are not the most sophisticated crew. It could be either that yesterday's bombs were either not properly primed, or else as I believe I heard one expert say, the bomb mixture might have deteriorated with time. Still, worrying times in Britain right now!!!

I sent an e-mail to MSNBC last night. I travel every day through Washington D.C.'s Union Station and on the D.C. Metro but I see no evidence that bomb-sniffing dogs are being used as they are, I understand, on the transit system in London. The railway tickets of people boarding trains were checked for two days only after the July 7 London bombings but not since. Civil liberties people are protesting a plan in New York to randomly search commuters baggage. That would seem to me to be a small price to pay for any law-abiding citizen.

Chris

Hi Stephen

Indeed yes I am talking about the letter D'Onston sent to the police on 16 October offering his services to the City Police. As you will know, the "From Hell" letter makes the statement that the writer had "prasarved" the half a kidney and then fried and ate it (I am starting to feel hungry... it's almost lunch time here!!!). In his letter of 16 October D'Onston makes the strange statement that he would as the police to "preserve" his letter until he was well enough to visit them.

Yes I think you will enjoy the July issue of Ripperologist. I am sure it will create a lot of interest. We are now also putting together the September issue which will, in time for the Brighton convention in October, have new pictures and information related to Coroner Wynne Baxter.

I will look forward with anticipation to your post on William Bury.

All the best

Chris

Hi Ron

To answer your question about whether the ring worn by General Taylor in the above post might be a West Point class ring, such rings look like the following--

-- thus, along the lines of American college rings in general. The ring worn by General Taylor in the posted photograph of the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff with General Westmorland would appear to me to have a flat black or dark stone of square shape, not the oval stone in the photographs of West Point class rings. Also see "Class Rings, Miniatures, and A-Pins" on the West Point website.

All my best

Chris

For contrast lets examine the " Saucy jacky" postcard,recieved at the Central news agency, 1st Oct, 1888.

"I wasnt codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip. Youll hear about suacy Jackys work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldnt finish straight off. Had not time to get ears for police thanks for keeping last letter back( Dear Boss) till I got to work again.  Jack the Ripper.

Same faux jokey style, different hand, and where are those spelling mistakes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Stephen

The Dear Boss letter dated 25 September 1888 and by extension the Saucy Jack postcard, evidently by the same hand, do not appear to be by the same person who wrote the "From Hell" (Lusk) letter which was sent with the half a kidney allegedly from fourth canonical victim Catherine Eddowes and received by George Lusk, head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee on 16 October 1888. I think there is a fair case to be made that, given the neat clerkish hand in the first Dear Boss letter, that it could have been a journalist's prank to keep interest in the case stirred up, and, not inconsequently, invent a name that would keep the public's interest on the case -- though they probably could not have anticipated that the famous name "Jack the Ripper" would keep the the public riveted on the case for over a century!

Stephen, I don't know whether you know that Ripper theorist Thomas Wescott and I have hypothesized that the Lusk letter and the Openshaw letter, shown below, dated October 29, sent to Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw, the pathologist at teh London Hospital delegated to examine the half a kidney, might have been by the same hand. I have seen similarities between the handwriting on the Openshaw letter's envelope and the writing of suspect Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson who was a patient at that time in the very same London Hospital to which the letter was delivered!

Tom Wescott has made a case that D'Onston's knowledge of folk lore could account for the rhyme at the bottom of Openshaw letter: "'O have you seen the devle with his mikerscope and scalpul a lookin at a kidney with a slide cocked up', which comes from a folk tale known as "Duffy and the Devil" -- the mispellings and dialect very much mirror the mispellings and dialect in the "From Hell" letter, even if the latter seems to use Irishisms and Openshaw to use Cockney dialect.

Two other things to note are that 1) the Openshaw envelope is written straightforwardly with no messing about, "The London Hospital" and not "orspital" as in the letter, and 2) that though "From Hell" as so often pointed out is not signed "Jack the Ripper", as if that supports its greater likelihood to be genuine (along with the possibility that the half a kidney really was from Eddowes), but that the Openshaw letter, if in fact written by the same person is signed "Jack the Ripper."

By the way, Stephen, you may like to know, if you are not aware of it, that the new, July issue of Ripperologist will have a focus on possible links between the writing of Bram Stoker's Dracula and the Jack the Ripper case.

All my best

Chris George

For reference, see Jack the Ripper Letters on the Casebook: Jack the Ripper website as well as the fine book, Jack the Ripper Letters from Hell by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner (Sutton, 2001), and Thomas Wescott's essay "An Inspiration 'From Hell'.".

..........................

The backyard photos, if real, mean that Oswald did own the rifle supposedly used to kill JFK, and the gun used to kill Tippit. It also implicated him as a Communist, as he was holding Communist literature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK. Nic, in that case it seems to me, if the photos are genuine, that would still not mean Oswald used the weapons to kill. there is a certain 'theatricality' that doesn't make sense about the photos. Stephen mentioned in another thread that it's a copy of Militant and Worker, from two organisations that are historically opposed to each other. The Stalinists killed Trotsky only a few years previously. I've argued that on some issues however that these organisations would grudgingly appear to cooperate, for example on the need to support the Cuban revolution. Still there is something about the whole thing that doesn't make sense. It's almost as if they are 'advertisements', or 'job applications', perhaps. A convenient thing to use in framing Oswald? So I wonder, do they 'need' to be fakes to prove a conspiracy? JohnD

edit:: could genuineness and the way they have been used be indicative of a conspiracy? As far as I understand, only two of the photos originally appeared, the third some time later? However, the pose of the detective may indicate that this third photo was in possession of the authorities, and for some reason withheld. "Why?" I can't at this moment imagine. Perhaps for no significant reason. Again I'm not arguing the genuineness or otherwise of the photos (Marcels analysis of the shadows are interesting, worth looking into) but rather trying to understand their significance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi John

If Oswald was part of the conspiracy in some way, even if he was not the lone shooter, or if the CIA connived to make him a patsy, there might be circumstances in which he could have willingly allowed himself to be photographed with the rifle and the Communist literature. The common wisdom, almost from the beginning, though, seems to have been that the backyard photographs were faked, which is of course what Oswald himself said -- that his head had been pasted on someone else's body. To my eyes, the work of Jack White to show that a fellow Marine had been the person whose body was used doesn't appear totally persuasive. Again, as with a lot of these things, much is in the eye of the beholder. It has been pointed out that White's testimony before the before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations was not persuasive. However, as detailed on that link, possibly his questioners' attempt to discredit White for not understanding the principles of "photogrammetry" might conceivably be considered a lawyer's trick to dismiss the testimony of someone who really did have something useful to contribute to the investigation. I remain open minded at this point and am still looking into the backyard photograph question.

All my best

Chris George

Okay, you want coincidence?

The wife of Warren Caster of the TSBD was named Ruthanna. She went with Caster to the TSBD on 11/23 to collect some paperwork.

One of the people on the TSBD sixth floor according to "The Men on the Sixth Floor" was an Hispanic named Ruth Ann. (I'm confused. Wouldn't an Hispanic be named Ruthanna and not the other way around? Was Caster's wife Hispanic?)

Now, the "director of interpretation" at the Sixth Floor Museum is named Ruth Ann Rugg.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/r...9-1c17rowe.html

Three Ruth Anns in the TSBD? Give me a break! (I have never met a woman named Ruth Ann in my life, nor heard of one till the first sixth-floor Ruth Ann.)

Trivia question: How many Ruth Anns would it take to fill up the TSBD?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ron

Ruth Ann does sound though like a Southern or Texas name even though they may not be common round your neck of the woods.

Chris

I have to tell you that your posts are starting to become annoying with either the repeats of the same message posted multiple times, as just happened in this thread, or even when you post once, all the past posts by others collected to excess in your message before you say something new.  Can you go back in and delete some of those quotes of others that appear in post after post of yours, as well as the repeats of your own identical posts?

I don't think it's fair to single out Mr. Purvis for quoting past posts of others, no matter how long they are, before saying something new. Posters here are constantly posting long quotations of others that we've already read before saying something. It's annoying, time-consuming, and a waste of bandwidth. I've thought of suggesting that people learn how to delete stuff, but didn't want to sound cantakerous. Now that you've brought it up, I agree it's a problem but don't single out one person for it.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ron

I certainly don't mean to single out Tom Purvis, and certainly we all quote previous posters, it's just that whether for reasons of technical problems or whatever, there's been number of identical multiple posts coming from Tom today as well as long long long quoted back posts. I don't mean to offend and I don't mean to single out Tom since I do realise some of the problem is a computer glitch.

Chris

Thomas,

The coincidence I was referring to was that Tippit, whose real role in the JFK/LHO scenario is still a matter for speculation, shared his first two names with the chief conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. Until I read Buchanan's book I hadn't realised that Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy for which four people were hanged and several others recieved long sentences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Mark

I am not an expert on the Lincoln assassination but from my limited reading and knowledge of the Lincoln conspiracy I don't think it is by any means proven that, as you put it, the President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, was the "chief conspirator in the Lincoln assassination."

Davis might have had some foreknowledge that the assassination was going to take place, as would other top Confederates, but he may not have been an active conspirator. As you may know, the original idea was to kidnap Lincoln not to assassinate him.

My sense is that Davis might have known more about the early stages of the planning of the kidnapping plot than the assassination that ultimately unfolded.

An additional factor could be that, although we tend to be cynical in these times in which we live, back then, the assassination of another head of state would probably have been viewed as odious by a fellow head of state, when we consider the gentleman's code of honor that was given lip service and I think actually followed by most educated gentlemen of the time.

Best regards

Chris George

Hi Mr Purvis

Your posts are interesting and valuable. I am aware that as I believe you said yesterday, you are having computer difficulties... perhaps you are on slow dial-up or something? In any case, I have to tell you that your posts are starting to become annoying with either the repeats of the same message posted multiple times, as just happened in this thread, or even when you post once, all the past posts by others collected to excess in your message before you say something new. Can you go back in and delete some of those quotes of others that appear in post after post of yours, as well as the repeats of your own identical posts? If you can't do it, perhaps John Simkin or someone could. All this is hampering the readability of the forum. Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards

Chris George

I think a discussion of which events some argue are conspiratorial while others are convinced are mere co-incidence may help focus our thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tim

I'm sure you are aware of know the supposed list of "uncanny" coincidences between the Lincoln assassination and the Kennedy assassination that has been current since the time of the JFK assassination. You can read it at "Kennedy / Lincoln Coincidence"

One of these is "Booth shot Lincoln in a theatre and ran to a warehouse. Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and ran to a theatre."

But what if it was a set-up for Oswald to go to the theatre to make the eery coincidence with the Lincoln assassination more obvious, or else, perhaps even more significantly, to bring up an even more obvious parallel, the fact that Oswald's apprehension or death by shooting (if it had occurred) at a theatre would parallel gangster John Dillinger's end in a shoot-out Dillinger on July 22, 1934 at the Biograph Theater in Chicago. This might have been intended to set up Oswald in the public mind as a notorious criminal on the same level as Dillinger. See "FBI Famous Cases -- John Dillinger"

Incidentally, another web page takes a more skeptical look at the Kennedy - Lincoln assassination parallels and finds flaws in the well known urban legend. See "Linkin' Kennedy"

All my best

Chris

Interesting history. Jefferson Davis was one of the ringleaders in the coup which removed Lincoln, according to Thomas Buchanan in "Who killed Kennedy?"(1964).

Drawing parallels between the two assasinations, he describes how Davis, with Northern troops and imminent capture on the horizon, aided by his wife and her sister, emerged from his tent dressed as an old lady. Sadly, his army boots gave him away. He might have been Hoover's role model.

Another coincidence--Jefferson Davis Tippit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jeff. Davis Caught At Last. Hoop Skirts & Southern Chivalry. Philadelphia, J. L. Magee [1865]

Hi all

If there is any good to come out of the London bombings of Thursday, 7 July and the revelation that the suicide bombers were British-born Muslims, it might be that Muslims, at least in Britain, might be forced to face up to the problem in their midst and begin to take action against the radicals. It is less likely that Christian, western authorities can do this. The Muslim community itself has to act.

Best regards

Chris

Chris, one of the other problems with the snaps, is the leftist papers oswald holds in one. "The Worker" & "The Militant"if memory serves,one is the house paper of the CPA, the other of the SWP, the former a Stalinist organisation, the later a Troskist one. No dedicated Marxist would have made this faux pas, however to the DPD they were all just Commie bastards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve, you make an interesting point about the newspapers supposedly held by Oswald. I would also agree that to the Dallas Police Department it is likely that a Commie was a Commie was a Commie, without taking allowance of the different factions within the Communist movement.

All my best

Chris

Hi Marcel and John

Interesting information, Marcel, thanks for posting it. More correctly, from the look of the photograph of the actual Imperial Reflex 620 Duo Lens Camera (CE-750)camera used by Marina Oswald, it was silver and khaki not silver as such, although definitely was not "black" as Marina testified.

In regard to the backyard photographs, which it is alleged were hoaxed, and that Lee Harvey Oswald himself said were not him, and that his head had been pasted on another body, in retrospect, it would appear bizarre even in gun-crazy Texas to have yourself photographed in your own backyard with a rifle when you were planning to use it for criminal activities. The fact that the authorities quickly produced such a photograph, to convince members of the American public in 1963 of Oswald's guilt, seems very fishy.

All the best

Chris

Hi John

As I messaged you yesterday afternoon U.S. time, but perhaps a bit too close to the event for you to tune in, I learned at the last moment that Bob Woodward was going to be on line at the Washington Post yesterday afternoon talking about his new book The Secret Man about his major Watergate informant "Deep Throat" whom he now identifies as Mark Felt, former second in command at the FBI until his resignation in June 1973.

The chat session is at

Book World Live.

The following question, which I wrote based on your posts expressing reservations about the Felt-as-"Deep Throat" scenario did not get asked, either because Woodward chose not to answer it or else he didn't get to it.

Hi Mr. Woodward

I have great admiration for your work and that of Mr. Bernstein in exposing the Watergate scandal and the machinations of the Nixon administration.

My understanding is that Mark Felt resigned from the FBI in June 1973, and yet All the President's Men appears to describe Deep Throat still providing information six months later, including information about Nixon's Oval Office tape recordings. If Felt was Deep Throat, how was that possible, or did he continue to provide information after his retirement? Another aspect is that most of the important information that Deep Throat revealed did not come from the FBI. Instead it came from the CIA and the White House. How did Felt get hold of this information?

Best regards

Chris George

Hi Gary

Welcome to the Education Forum. I enjoyed your well-considered and well-written article, as well as the earlier article that you referenced, "In a warped reality. Two years on, the occupiers justify the war by embracing the irrelevant and ignoring the inconvenient". Excellent points made in both essays.

Best regards

Chris

I also didn't understand what Stephen Turner meant about the Zapruder film being given more credence than the witnesses. Can someone offer anything specific about that position?

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Bill

I recently started to read the book edited by Fetzer, Murder in Dealey Plaza, and Fetzer makes the point in the introduction to the book that the Zapruder film, for better or worse, has come to be regarded as the historical document that chronicles the Kennedy assassination. Then, of course, the book goes on to cast doubt on film with Jack White and others pointing out anomalies in the film. The case is made by Fetzer that while witnesses can be expected to disagree about what they saw, heard, or experienced, a cine film, presumably, "cannot lie." Fetzer, White, and their supporters appear to show that at the least the existing film appears to have been doctored, if not totally faked as White seems now to be saying, if you read his posts in this forum.

Best regards

Chris

The only eras in which America has been able to pass for anything remotely resembling a true "democracy" was during Lincoln's term, FDR's, and JFK's, that I am aware of. All other terms have been a paradox, due to the intentional extermination of the Native Americans, the slavery issue, and the equal rights issue, which have yet to be adequately addressed, and have always been swept under the rug in the hopes that it will either go away, or die away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Terry

Since persons of color and women were disenfranchised at the time of the Lincoln administration and for much of the nineteenth century eligible voters were bullied by machine politicians (Boss Tweed etc) or by street gangs, I don't see Lincoln's time or the rest of the 19th century as being a golden age of democracy. Civil rights were an issue during FDR and JFK's administrations so those examples don't really show us democracy at its best either. In fact, in terms of the population eligible to vote, the United States populace of today is probably best able to enjoy the fruits of democracy, although the flaws in the U.S. system with the electoral college and the inability to have a vote of confidence for lawmakers to call an election, unlike the British system, impair the ability to have democracy.

Your media and the European media portray America correctly, but the majority of Americans are unaware of Operation Mockingbird, and have been coerced pschologically into believing whatever is fed to them via NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Therefore, the impression that "the American people are not aware of what is happening..." is very much on the mark, but you can add to that, "nor do the majority want to know, but prefer to remain in the dark, as long as they're assured their most basic needs are going to be met." Case in point, I can only discuss what we're addressing here with a few people at my job. Three to be exact, out of fifteen, because the other ten are afraid to make what they believe to be waves in their lives, are fearful of what kind of a can of worms they may open up and find, and consider themselves totally helpless to change the pattern they feel has been allowed to evolve, because they view their vote as an exercise in futility. The two others are not citizens. I have heard only one of my colleagues mention remorse in casting her vote for Bush. And, that's probably because she never really listened to what my two like-minded co-workers and I were discussing until recently, and began observing inconsistencies in the Bush administration that ran counter to what she had been anticipating. 

The majority of the American people are more impressed by "showmanship" and the latest fashion, moreso than by content and quality. It's been successfully ingrained into their psyches by the media. Nor will they listen to something not presented as a sound byte, or a catchy slogan. They prefer everything pre-packaged, par-boiled, and easily consumable, with the minimum of effort required to read the fine print, or warnings on the labels. This is what I refer to as the dumbing-down of American, or of western intellect. And, they've bought it, wholeheartedly and accepted it, regardless of the consequences, or recognizing any responsibility their actions [in-actions] may have contributed to what they now find to be so inadequate.

They've allowed themselves to be led down a primrose path, and could care less about government policy, just as long as they're able to afford to send their kids to private schools, in order to avoid the stark and gutted realities of our inner cities' public school system. Those in California, who've voted for Scwartzenegger [sp.?] are finally coming to terms with his worthless promises. There aren't  enough textbooks to go around, and the ones that exist must be shared between students. People in California vote to keep their property taxes down, but as a result, shoot themselves in the foot, because their school system ends up taking it in the teeth. What about all those promises of Lotto money and the shot in the arm it would provide for the schools? Probably pocketed by the owners of the Lotto franchises. Let's face it, there's no pie in the sky scheme that's going to somehow miraculously come down and "amnesty" us out of this debacle. If people come to California, hoping to raise a family, they'd be better off looking to Oregon or Seattle to meet the educational needs of their children. Because, unless you're able to afford private schools, you'll be doing your children a grave disservice.

So, if we sound cynical, maybe we should heed the words of either George Bernard Shaw, or was it Noel Coward, or Oscar Wilde [pardon my lapse of memory here] who stated in so many words, "A cynic is not one to be thought of as a negative person, but one who is simply aware of his surroundings." Or, something to that effect. The majority of Americans are totally unaware because they choose to be ostriches and hide there heads in the sand.

A total embarressment before the rest of the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really think the American populace is complacent because they are living the good life and are not faced with enough economic woes to want to change the system, plus the media and popular myth tell them the American system is the best in the world, that they are better off than anyone else in the world, so there is no fire in the belly to change things. The situation in the Sixties when college students were faced with the draft and when blacks were fighting for their rights shows that groups of Americans can become mobilized when they have a personal reason to become active. At present, the large majority people in the U.S. populace believe they have no reason to become activists, and so many do not even vote for the same reason.

Best regards

Chris

I was quite appalled to see that immediately after the attacks all of the major news channels in ireland and britain had economic analysts on talking about how this would effect the market, have we become this greedy that the first thing we think of is "hows my money doing" when something like this happens. Balls to the money, what about the people.

If a bomb does go off in one of these two countries, I would immediately suspect CIA assets of being involved.

Thats quite a statement John, any ideas why they would do this, perhaps to get them to act in Iraq by helping via the UN.

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi John

I think protecting assets is certainly a concern to Western countries. I am going to Britain in October for a Jack the Ripper convention in Brighton, and there is come concern that attendance by North Americans will be affected by the bombings in London. On the other hand, I attended a similar convention in Bournemouth soon after 9/11 and there was a good representation of Americans and Canadians. A conspicuous absentee, however, was the American writer Tom Clancy, who was to be a guest of honor at the convention. His advisors told him not to travel. An asset too valuable to lose.

All my best

Chris

Hi, Terry

As you likely know the greatest push against the Indian was begun in earnest

during the Revolutionary war, and moreso during the war of 1812. Simply

because most tribes aided England and British Canada against the American

colonys and states.

Thanks.

Harry

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Harry

You don't think that the movement to eradicate or move aside the Indians would have occurred anyway, whether or not the Indians sided with the British? The Indians who fought for the U.S. side during the War of 1812 were treated no better than the ones who fought for the British. The simple truth is that "Manifest Destiny" meant that the Red Man was in the way.

All my best

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Chris

I am sure you are correct. Also, because The American Indian could not be enslaved like the Negro, was a consideration to reduce them.

Harry

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Harry

Yes I believe you have nailed it with that statement, Harry.

Chris