Sid Walker

In the holocaust example you appear fixated with, sane people conclude that there is really nothing to debate. You miss my central point, Andy. "Sane people", on whose behalf you are apparently qualified to speak, may "conclude that there is really nothing to debate" about many topics. However, they rarely feel the need to enforce their sense of certainty with harassment, legal bans, imprisonment, beatings and the occasional murder. One is reminded of witchcraft trials so ably dramatized by Arthur Miller. The quintessential example of a group of people who've concluded "there is really nothing to debate" is a lynch pack.

How much longer are we expected to believe in the existence of this Ziocon arch-boogieman, absent even a cameo appearance in one of his many atrocities? (Pre-recorded videos don't count!) The latest White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots scare was uncritically reported by the spook-run Australian Broadcasting Service this morning. Do they think the public are such duffers we'll buy this absurdity forever? Perhaps they are right?

"Comment is free" says the Gruaniad - but it tends to be quite unfree on this topic and the Guardian is a prime offender. This one must have slipped in under the radar. I imagine someone in the Guardian editorial offices will get fried as a result. The key paragraph is the penultimate (emphasis added). Answer? There really isn't one, is there? Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?

Has any other nation made unilateral political assassination State policy? See Israel warns Hamas leaders "Israel has said it will kill Khaled Meshaal, the exiled Hamas political leader "at the first opportunity"." This is murder, plain and simple. Murder announced in advance. Murder unrepentant. Murder as policy. Little wonder that Israel is suspected of a hand in so many assassinations worldwide, when its Ministers boast openly about their murderous intentions.

Don't like the messenger? No problemo! Just shut down the whole university Ah... it was to prevent an epidemic of 'holocaust denial'. We quite understand! (Well, actually...)

I'm sure Sid knows, but others may not: Hamas was founded by Israeli intel. to attack the secular PLO. This tactic has a long pedigree in the Arab world. British intel. founded the Muslim Brotherhood to attack secular Egyptian nationalists. Paul As I understand it, you are correct that Israeli "intelligence" assisted the Muslim Brotherhood and related Islamic groups, including Hamas, especially several decades ago as a counter to secular Arab nationalism. However, I think it would be mistaken to see the current situation in Israel/Palestine in simple terms: Hamas = Israeli asset ; PLO = authentic voice of Paletinians. My gut feeling is that (1) Hamas has never been a clear-cut (100%) Israeli asset (2) Israel has done its level best to infiltrate both organisations (Hamas and the PLO) over the years (3) in neither case has it been wholly successful (4) since Arafat's demise (murder?), Hamas may indeed be a more authentic, less-infiltrated movement for Palestinian rights than the PLO - and was perceived as such by a majority of Palestinians at their last election. At least since Hamas won the elections, I think Israeli influence has been stronger within the PLO, and my concern is that some of its leadership may have cut sordid deals with Israel to maintain their funding and positions. Abbas himself seems to me to cut a rather pathetic figure, beholden to his stingy overseas sponsors and reliant more on the goodwill of his adversaries than the support of his own people. He certainly lacks the moral authority of Yasser Arafat to represent and promote Palestinian interests on the world stage.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul continues to outshine the competition, according to the long-suffering public. The mass media is rather less excited about this, and is still shuffling the pack of stooges and charlatans designated as 'credible candidates'. Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg is putting out feelers about buying the election outright. (Who needs a Party anyway?)

Ron, First, well done for a charming and well-written story. Every great tale has a canine angle, and you've both found it in the JFK case. I think that looking for perfect rationality in all the activities surrounding Ruby's actions is probably searching for something that doesn't exist. It seems likely to me that Ruby was called to duty in a rush, because LHO was unexpectedly still alive. Ruby can't have been happy about it and was flustered. He and his controllers were patching up a bodged job on the fly. They couldn't plan their operation like clockwork. Their main objective - other than killing LHO - must have been to make a plausible story stick in the public mind in the long run - a story, that is, compatible with Ruby's claim to be acting on impulse. Because I personally also believe that elements of the Zionist lobby were ultimately responsible for the JFK assassination, I also believe that the most crucial objective of all when crafting the public image of Ruby was to downplay his Zionist affiliations - and make it seem that if he was lying, it was a mob (rather than Israeli) scam.

Hi john, I'm gutted to hear about this. Were there any specific personages or topics which received more attention from the hacker than others. Also, do you not maintain the files offline on your own PC for example. If so was this affected in any way. I hope you get the full site up and running again shortly. Regards Gary I am still away so I will not able to to get the whole of the site up until next week. They destroyed the whole of my website plus the back up copy. My service provider has been able to reconstruct part of my site with a backup they made in February 2006. I have a copy of the whole site hidden with friends. Hopefully I will be able to replace the material destroyed over the weekend. I have been in the Highlands investigating the assassination of someone by the British Secret Service during the Second World War. I believe it was part of a massive cover-up concerning a deal between Churchill and Hitler. I will post details on the forum when I get back next week. I'm confused about what I'm seeing then when I go to a page on Spartacus then. I'm seeing pages for everything now. Regardless, during the outage I consistently used googles cached versions of the pages, for example: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:OLB3p...lient=firefox-a Perhaps the cached versions can provide some material that was lost? I can view source on them. Regardless again, the site needs to be mirrored on a separate server, and have external (tape) backup. There is also the Wayback archive - see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.sp...choolnet.co.uk/

To which one might add the curious case of Alan Johnston, the disappeared BBC correspondent in Gaza. Now who could possibly want to drive all foreign correspondents out of that particular area? If the group responsible turns out to be Al Qaida-linked, we'll know for sure its a pseudo-gang operation; and a prelude to something nasty for the people of the area. Paul On cue, Gaza in turmoil; and the media again embroiled/targeted. Gaza erupts in renewed violence Last Updated: Wednesday, 16 May 2007, 18:14 GMT 19:14 UK “Staff in the building that houses most of Gaza's broadcasters were forced to seek refuge for several hours in one room as Fatah gunmen traded gunfire with Hamas militants on the ground.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6663141.stm One could be forgiven for concluding that media focus upon what happens next is not wanted. Let's hope this isn't the prelude to another Sabra and Shatila. A strange thing about Alan Johnston's disappearance is that the Palestinian President has claimed Palestinians know whereabouts of kidnapped BBC man: Abbas The implications of Abbas claiming that are disturbing - whether Johnston has been grabbed by (1) an Israeli hit squad (2) a Palestinian group with utterly insane and counter-productive policies.

I'm sorry to hear about your hacker woes, John. My flippant comment was based on a misunderstanding - I thought Myra was referring to brief forum downtime.

An excellent principle Ron. Reminds me of Oscar Wilde: "I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar, and often convincing."

Citation? Try this in the Scotsman. 12th March 2002: Phalangist’s murder may be part of pattern Surprised you need a reference on the murder of the Nassars, Len. Sao Paulo's your home turf, isn't it? No real motive? Are you kidding, he was the main leader of those opposed to Syria’s presence in his country. Many such movements don’t survive the deaths of their leaders. Coming from a totalitalian country where dissent isn’t permitted they could have under estimated the reaction of the Lebanese. Funny when a critic of Israel in Sweden or Germany dies you suspect Israel, when a critic of Syria in Lebanon (then controlled by Syria) is murdered you suspect Israel! Israel didn’t really benefit that much Hezbollah is part of the weak coalition ruling Lebanon. I’m sure the Israelis would rather deal with Syria than their more radical proxies. Protraying Hariri as an enemy of Syria began within hours of his death. Perhaps YOU, Len, could draw on your vast research capability and find me a credible reference that indicates Hariri was truly "the main leader of those opposed to Syria’s presence in his country"... a reference, that is, pre-dating his assassination? Not saying it doesn't exist... but from the reading I've done, Hariri's policies to Lebaon's neighbours were a lot less monochromatic than the CNN/Fox/BBC view that locked in as soon as the man could no longer speak for himself. His 'removal', of course, was advantageous to Israel's mad and murderous plan to conduct broadscale punitive assaults on The Lebanon. Hysterical anti-Syrian 'world reaction' led to a Syrian withdrawal, leaving only Hezbollah to resist Israel's high-tech bully boys (aka the IDF). But we digress... what does this have to do with Anna Lindh? Notn much, perhaps, yet a Europe in which Anna Lindh played a prominent role was a Europe more inclined to stand up to well-connected mass murderers, IMO.

The following article, if accurate, suggests there may already be a way out of this particular crisis... No Organic Bee Losses

Interesting reference, David. Thanks

A very good post Bob. These criminals take us for mugs! The latest 'Conservative Voice' has a hilarious article about Wolfowitz, U.S. Jews Must Protect Wolfowitz is Scott Sullivan's headline. Then he proceeds to mangle historical metaphors. "Wolfowitz is most likely innocent, like Captain Dreyfus" "Bush thinks that he is Nixon, Ahmadinejad is Mao, and that the US and Iran will cooperate, as the US and China did in the 1970’s." "The problem with this picture is that Ahmadinjad is not... Mao, he is a Hitler, and the US cannot do business with Hitler." Now this is all very disturbing. A severe case of mistaken identities, perhaps? It seems The Last Judgment and Armageddon are playing at once inside the author's overheated imagination. Will Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon also play star roles in his melodrama? We should be told! Sullivan is very clear about what American Jews should do next... Ah, the contemporary ideological (mis)uses of (mangled) historical analysis! There are some constants - unchanging Commandments that Sullivan believes have served American Jewry well over time. They include: Thou Shalt Hate Germans Thou Shalt Hate Arabs and Moslems Thou Shalt Look After Thy Buddies' Careers, as Thou Expecteth Them to Look After Thine Thou Shalt Assert that US Interests, Israeli Interests and the Interests of Jews are One, Indivisible and Divinely Ordained. Until he's safely ensconced in another high-spending, civilization-destroying key role, ask not what Paul Wolfowitz can do for you... ask what YOU can do for Paul Wolfowitz!

Rule 1 in the 'How to Steal (Another) Election Handbook'... ... is to decide - then enforce by media diktat - which candidates are 'marginal' and which are not. Never mind what the public thinks. Here we go again

I've been unable to reach Spartacus all night, Is it just me? I was asleep and didn't notice. Highly recommended

I think that's right. Israel can hardly have it both ways. Either its long reach and deadly strike is to be feared - or not. As the extract of Hammarskjold's letters to Ben Gurion well demonstrates, the UN Secreatary General - as long ago as the 1950s - clearly believed that fear was Israel's strategy. The western mass media plays a helpful role. Routinely, Israel is barely mentioned as a suspect when a suspicious death, such as the assassination of Anna Lindh, occurs. The Hobeika murder was an exception. Shockingly, that was treated as something of a joke - a variation on the theme of "he got what was coming to him". Indeed, other potential witnesses against Sharon were also murdered around the same time (one in South America!), a spate of murders exceeding the bounds of plausible deniability. This was blatant, gangland-style pretrial elimination of key witnesses - yet it provoked only polite acquiescence (with the occasional chuckle) in the western mass media... certainly no outrage or concern to STOP the murders. Why on earth not? In most assassinations there is NO attempt to investigate Israel as a serious suspect. The murder of Hariri in The Lebanon is a classic case in point. Qui bono? Israel, of course! Who gets accused and scapegoated - without any real motive or hard evidence? Syria - of course! Standing up to Israel and calling for justice for the Palestinians requires a lot of courage, given the likelihood of vilification in the mass media. It becomes downright discouraging if this call for justice also has a significant negative impact on life expectancy - and when even if one is unfortunate and joins the select but steadily growing club of 'terminated' ex-critics of Israel, if anyone gets blamed it's likely to be allies! I presume that's the strategy of the tough guys who control the Zionist movement. A paranoid culture that regards the world as replete with potential enemies and glorifies 'tough-guy' behaviour may regard this as very clever. It is, however, psychopathic. All of which, needless to say, while relevant to this thread as it has evolved, makes no assumptions about what really happened to Anna Lindh. Her death does needs to be properly investigated. There are indications that hasn't really happened - not so the public can be confident that justice has prevailed. Leaders such as Anna Lindh and JFK belong to the world, IMO. Their deaths are tragedies of global significance. This isn't just a matter for the Swedes - any more than investigating 9-11 is a matter only for Americans. Two specific questions. Is the in-store footage of the time before Lindh's attack really compatible with the 'random act of violence' assertion? What more can be discovered about the killer's background and associates?

Thanks to all three for your comments and suggestopms. The Lockerbie link was fascinating Paul. I hope some of the Swedes on the forum do share any info they feel would be of interest to the rest of us. There's been little coverage of Anna Lindh's death in the western media. Certainly no credible investigative reporting I can find. Christopher Bollyn wrote a September 2003 article in American Free Press which seems to me to ask some of the right questions. However, IMO Bollyn has since effectively been outed as a purveyor of disinformation. Consequently I'd not be surprised if some of the detail in the article is false. Yet agencies of the Israeli State must be a prime suspect... IF the official story of Lindh's assassination doesn't represent a genuine, comprehensive account of what really happened in the assassination. This January 20th 2003 article by Gary North indicates why: International Assassination Squads True, the UPI story to which North refers was disowned by the Israeli Government. Nevertheless, it's hard to believe the assassination threat was pure invention by UPI - or that the "former Israeli intelligence officials" were either invented or engaging in outright mischief. This seems to me the way a threat would be issued in a skillful standover operation. Plausible deniability is built in from the start. 2003 also saw the mysterious suicide?/accident? of Jürgen Möllemann in Germany, another outspoken critic of Israel who had also enraged Germany's organized Jewish lobby. Of course, the year previously, Elie Hobeika was blown to pieces in the streets of Beirut: Something of a pattern? A message to others to toe the line?

Thanks Jack A fascinating article by an author with an interesting track record.

Perhaps you should let the BBC know about this, John, so it can restore its misplaced 9-11 archives

Try telling that to an Austrian judge in proceedings where truth is no defense, Len. Incidentally, isn't Brazil as 'down-under' as Australia?

Well Mark, I hope you are wrong, but fear you are correct. The French are about the find out from personal experience. One of the things I found most revolting in 80s and 90s debates about 'economic rationalism' was the assumption, implicit in so much of the discourse, that the only way to encourage the poor to work harder is slash the welfare net and minimum wage - while the only way to encourage the well off to work harder is to tax them less and pay them more. Whatever happened to equality? Whatever happened to leisure? Homo economicus is a rather sad animal. I had a personal theory that Royal might prevail, in the second round, simply because (1) it was a genuine election in which ballots are counted accurately and (2) she is very a very charming and appealing lady. Perhaps someone slipped bromide in the water supply?

Not sure if your remarks were in response to my post or not, Daniel. Anyhow, to be clear, I think a strong case can be made that Churchill was a war monger and Hitler did really want peace - at least in relations between their two respective countries. Hitler had more warlike tendencies towards the USSR, which he loathed with a passion (the feeling, I think it's clear, was entirely mutual). However, I think it likely the other 'great powers' could have restrained Hitler and discouraged him from attacking eastwards... had that been their real intention. In other words, I think it is true that the impulse for war in 1939 came primarily from the west. However, I think it would be mistaken to see Churchill as the key player in triggering war. In late 1939, he was still a rather marginal character, although his star was once again on the ascendancy. Hitler was not, of course, exempt from blame. His desire to resolve the Danzig issue was understandable and probably justified. The citizens of Danzig did, it seems, overwhelmingly want union with Germany, Hitler's proposal for a land corridor was not unreasonable. Poland, it seems, did not negotiate in good faith. Nevertheless, invading Poland was a high risk strategy. One might also take the position it was immoral. Similar debates surround the invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi army in 1990. Saddam had a point - and was probably encouraged to go ahead by winks and nods from the American Government - but it was still rash to invade. However, both Saddam and Hitler were fooled into thinking that they could take a gamble and gain their territorial aspirations - then negotiate with with the rest of the world from a position of strength. A fatal mistake in both cases. In Hitler's case, he might also have thought that if the western powers objected to his invasion of western Poland, they might do so in an even-handed way and condemn both Germany and the USSR (which invaded the Baltci States and eastern Poland shortly afterwards). How wrong he was. ___________________ As to the use of history, I think it this a complex issue. The 'official' version of WW2, in which Hitler WAS the ultimate evil dictator and sole perpetrator of the war, certainly has its contemporary ideological uses. I object to many if not all of them. Might violent anti-Jewish sentiments might be unleashed if there if full and open debate about WW2? I doubt it very much There is nothing inherently vengeful in a revisionist analysis of WW2. By making it possible to regard WW2 as yet another war that need never have been fought, it provides the basis for a consistent anti-war position. None of the bloody wars of the 20th century were necessary, IMO. True, they prompted acts of great courage and spurred on technological advances in war-related fields. Yet all of them, on balance, were a bloody stupid waste of human life and effort. The USA was better off by far in its pre-war, pre-CIA condition... a regional hegemon yes, but not an aggressive super-power with a secret state apparatus borrowed from the British but expanded and bloated to the point of global malignancy. Europe - from Ireland to the Urals - would have been better off to avoid the devastation of WW2 war. Peace was also possible - and much preferable to war - in the far east as well. If one believes - as you do - that many millions of Jews died in WW2, it is hard to argue that the Jewish people would not have been much better off without WW2 as well. Whatever the figure, WW2 clearly plunged millions of European Jews into a dangerous and terrifying maelstrom in which many perished in quite horrific circumstances. They would have been better off without it, wouldn't they? Most fundamentally, one cannot build a secure future on shaky ground. We need the firm rock of historical truth - or at least an honest attempt to ascertain the truth. Even white lies are dangerous if they are on a grand scale and require legal sanction for their maintenance. The ultimate villains of WW2, IMO, are the powerful people who orchestrated it. They almost certainly did not suffer from the war. They profited. After the war, they were more powerful than ever. It is in the common interest of humanity as a whole to expose and restrain those whom Bob Dylan called the Masters of War.