Sid Walker

Back to the strange story of "Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29" News coverage of this story is - at least as far as my internet research can ascertain - a classic demonstration of the western world's "free media" in action. There are a handful of grumblings on blogs, but a Google News search continues to bring up one story only. Here' it is in today's Google News Search for "Bernard David Shapiro" at the site Stuff.co.nz: Symphony musician charged over explosives Stuff.co.nz, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... At the bottom of that entry, Google tells us: n order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 1 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. I took Google up on this invatation and repeated the search for b]"Bernard David Shapiro"[/b] with omitted results included. Here's what came up: Symphony musician charged over explosives Stuff.co.nz, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives Tarankai Daily News, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives The Press West Coast, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives The Southland Times, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives Manawatu Standard, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives Waikato Times, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives The Timaru Herald, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives Northland Independent Community, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives The Nelson Mail, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives Auckland stuff.co.nz, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives Independent Community Newspaper, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives Marlborough Express, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives The Dominion Post, New Zealand - 11 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives The Press, New Zealand - 10 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... Symphony musician charged over explosives Stuff.co.nz, New Zealand - 10 Apr 2007 Bernard David Shapiro, 35, a french-horn player, was allegedly found with a cache of weapons, including military-style explosives, on March 29. ... This is a much more effective system of mass media control of public opinion than the USSR model. In New Zealand and the rest of the English-speaking world - unlike the former USSR - most people still actually believe they have a free media and diversity of opinion. Incidentally, anyone know if the above newspapers happens to share a common owner? If so, I wonder who that owner might be?

Hiw to explain the the strafing of lifeboats? (whether the vessel was believed to be American or not) My understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that this is disputed. If it did occur, and under any circumstances, I could appreciate why it might happen but would still object to it. This is from A Report: War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967, Submitted to the Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, June 8, 2005. The footnotes refer to the testimony of two surviving US sailors. I have no idea whether the accuracy of their accounts is disputed, or if the torpedo boat crews mistook life rafts for Eygptian warships. Perhaps the Israelis were using LSD at the time? It was the sixties, after all However, unless someone comes forward to refute these veterans, I think we may take it that the attacks on life rafts actually took place - and that at least some of the attackers behaved as though they intended to sink the ship and kill ALL of its crew.

"Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" Suggested subtitle for Naomi's article: "A left-wing critique of the current US Government and the lurch towards authoritarianism that doesn't mention Zionism, the Israel Lobby or neocons even once. Quite an achievement really. I'm sorry to sound a discordant note, but to me this article is > 90% obfuscation and < 10% illumination. Ms Wolf's second point - 'Create a Gulag' - makes we wonder if we grew up on the same planet. In which 'fascist' country did that term originate? Point 8 is ludicrous. The author makes no case whatsoever that the Bush Administration is even close to controlling the press - nor could she, becuase it is clearly not true. Skirting around who actually may exercise control over the press, she speaks about 'lies' as though the Dubya gang invented them - then she writes: "In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit." On that basis, Naomi, America has been fascist since AT LEAST late November 1963. All in all, this is left gatekeeping in the Chomsky / Monbiot tradition, IMO. I'd say more about what I believe to be her distorted historical analysis, but having not been called a 'fascist' myself all day, this time I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Hiw to explain the the strafing of lifeboats? (whether the vessel was believed to be American or not)

You've done a fine job as moderator, as usual, Evan. Thanks. It seems to me the matter to dispense with initially is whether anyone on the forum wishes to argue that the attack on the USS Liberty was an accident. If so, that should be discussed. If not, I suggest we move to speculation about motive... I also have a personal theory about great courage that has yet to be acknowledged which relates to the Liberty incident. I'll roll it out when we come to discuss possible motives for a deliberate attack. If there is to be a detailed debate about what happened and whether the Israeli attack could have been an accidental mistake, perhaps people with first hand recollections of the event (notably USS Liberty survivors) could be asked to participate?

I believe the topic merits its own thread, Evan and clearly Len has a lot of material to contibute. Is it possible to port across any of the previous discussion - or at least put in a link to it?

You mean ordinary Americns taking out these guys Stephen? I'm sure the possibility has occured, to them if not to the American people. That, I suspect, is what underlies recent moves to set in place the esentials for a Police State... and the USA is not the only country affected by this sinister attempt to consolidate plutocratic power. Yes Sid, the super-duper rich parasite class. Go get em. Thanks for the link, I love when asked why the census didnt include anyone earning above $300,000 ayear the aparatchick claimed. "The census bureau's computer could not handle the higher amounts." Yeah. When I read that, I wondered whether I should lend my PC to the Census Bureau. They must still rely on the abacus. I wonder if the IRS does better?

I have bolded a few selections in this powerful article by James Petras, written late last year. I think Petras' analysis is just about spot on.

Pascal Boniface, cited above, is mentioned in this Counterpunch article of the French Presidential election and its potential significance.

Was Bryon Butler your father? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tv_and_radio/1297975.stm I wondered if you might be related to the famous psephologist and co-inventor of the Swingometer?

You mean ordinary Americns taking out these guys Stephen? I'm sure the possibility has occured, to them if not to the American people. That, I suspect, is what underlies recent moves to set in place the esentials for a Police State... and the USA is not the only country affected by this sinister attempt to consolidate plutocratic power.

It seems that the far-right were willing to support Sarkozy and therefore Le Pen got squeezed. The same thing happened to the British National Party (BNP) when Thatcher was leading the Conservative Party. Sarkozy appears to wants to introduce the kind of "economic reforms" associated with Thatcher and Blair. Let us hope for France's sake that Royal wins. I agree. The are marked similarities between the selling of Thatcherism and the selling of Sarkozy's 'tough medicine' economic policies. The same was true of Merkel's rise to power in Germany, when comparison's with Thatcher were, for obvious reasons, even more common - but as luck would have it, Merkel failed to win an outright majority.

Actually Mark wrote that, are you his sock puppet or do you not remember what you did and didn’t write? :) No you'd be (or Mark would be) standing on quicksand! The amount of coverage the story received at the time was comparable to shootdowns of KAL 007 and Iran Air 655. Perhaps that’s because “news and CURRENT affairs” are by definition of recent events not ones that happened 20 – 40 years ago. Such coverage focused on Arab/Islamic terrorism because that is the meilu that OBL rose out of. I don't remenber much discussion of the IRA either. As for the Lavon Affair the planned bombings were only meant to inflict property dammage This report was featured on the front page. However, at least in the lead paragraph, it: (1) uncritically promoted the notion that the attack was accidental There was no reason at the time to doubt that the attack was a mistake, in a similar vein it was assumed the US Navy erred when it shot down an Iranian airliner. Though the Reagan administration milked it for propaganda purposes must people made a similar assumption about KAL 007. All three events received a comparable amount of coverage in the NY Times. http://tinyurl.com/3x8h4c , http://tinyurl.com/244kug 1) The crew had not yet spoken out and when they did the Times covered it. http://tinyurl.com/33ghfm 2) There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so. It’s normal for the number of casualties to be inaccurate in preliminary accounts and normally the earliest numbers are undercounts. Just about every time a natural or manmade disaster strikes we are rejoined with an ever grown number of fatalities. In case you failed to notice, that was an editorial. The editorial page of the Times gets almost as much attention as the front page.No there were over 20 more stories about the incident through July 31 including one on page 1, coverage was roughly comparable to that surrounding the two most famous shoot downs civilian airliners. In a few years how many people will talk about the death of Pat Tillman or the Canadian troops bombed by the US? How many people know that after D-Day the RAF attacked 6 ships from the Royal Navy in broad daylight of the French coast sinking 2 and damaging 2 others resulting in 78 deaths and 149 wounded. http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/FriendlyFir...iendly_fire.htm How many know that a US destroyer accidentally fired a torpedo at the USS Iowa while US President Franklin D. Roosevelt was on board? http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd579.htm Are wartime attacks on enemy targets supposed to be humane? "…on a US naval vessel have received similar treatment in the US media had the Eygptian or Syrian armed forces been responsible for this 'accidental' attack? I think not." No it wouldn’t have but that’s because the US and Israel were allies and relations with Egypt and Syria strained to say the least. If theoretically Kuwaiti or Saudi forces had attacked an American target shortly before either Gulf war it would have been perceived as accidental and but if Iraqis have done so it would have been perceived differently. Assuming the Iranians really thought the British sailors were in their territorial waters don’t you think they would have reacted quite differently if it had been Russian sailors? I'm distressed to say that you are right and I am wrong Len. Mark did write "no coverage at all". I did not. Because I had written something quite similar, I mistook your reply to him as a reply to me. My apologies to both! You have found one fault in my arguments, Len. Congratulations are in order. It has only taken you a year Back to the USS Liberty. I think the truth is that we are both right in parts. My parts, I'm pleased to say, are much larger than yours. The attack on the USS Liberty did receive some coverage in the US mass media. I doubt it received a level of coverage equivalent to the shoot down of KAL 007. I don't have the time or resources to do a comparison that proves that - but I'd wager good money on it. Mass media coverage of the Liberty assault may have been comparable to coverage of the shoot down of the Iranian civilian airliner - or to coverage of the lethal Israeli attack on a Libyan civilian airliner in 1973. However, the coverage it did receive amounted to promotion of the bogus story that the USS Liberty attack was an accident. That simply wasn't true. Was the mass media misled by US and Israeli Government officials who deliberately lied? I'm sure that happened to some extent. But the US mass media also showed no enthusiasm for digging beneath the official story and uncovering the truth. No protests from the media, for example, that the US Navy blocked all testimony about Israeli actions. In the words of James M. Ennes Jr, the lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty on the day of the attack, discussing the Liberty attack in 1993: Instead of determining whether the attack was deliberate, the Navy blocked all testimony about Israeli actions. No survivor was permitted to describe the close in machine-gun fire that continued for 40 minutes after Israel claims all firing stopped. No survivor was allowed to talk about the life rafts the Israeli torpedo men machine-gunned in the water. No survivor was permitted to challenge defects and fabrications in Israel's story. Even my eyewitness testimony as officer-of-the deck was withheld from the official record. No evidence of Israeli culpability was "found" because no such testimony was allowed. To survivors, this was not an investigation. It was a cover-up. Public exposure of what really took place when the USS Liberty was attacked was a slow process. It occurred in spite of - not because of - the US mass media. Intimidation by the Israel Lobby also played a role in the cover-up. To support Liberty survivors in their quest for justice was not a great career step for US politicians. See this story, for example: Adlai Stevenson supported USS Liberty Senator Adlai Stevenson III in 1980, his last year as a United States Senator from Illinois, invited Jim Ennes to his Senate office for a private, two hour meeting to discuss the USS Liberty attack and cover-up. Following the private meeting, Ennes was invited back the next day to discuss the attack with members of Stevenson's staff, along with members of the staff of Senator Barry Goldwater and members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In that meeting, staff members told Ennes that they found his story convincing, but that they would recommend to both senators that they not pursue an investigation because an investigation would only antagonize Israeli interests while "nothing good could come of it." Goldwater accepted that staff recommendation. Stevenson did not. Instead, Stevenson called a news conference in which he announced that he was convinced that the attack was deliberate and that the survivors deserved an investigation. He would, he said, spend the remaining few weeks of his Senate term attempting to arrange for an inquiry. Almost immediately, the government of Israel contacted the White House and offered to settle the outstanding $40-million damage claims for $6-million -- an amount equal to one dollar for each Jewish victim of the Holocaust. Vice President Walter Mondale quickly agreed to that offer just before Christmas while Congress and President Carter were on vacation. The Department of State followed immediately with a press release, reported on the front page of the New York Times, which announced, "The book is now closed on the USS Liberty." Indeed, from that point on, it was impossible to generate any congressional interest in the Liberty at all. Senator Stevenson's staff told me later that they felt the settlement was directly related to Senator Stevenson's announced plan to hold an inquiry, and was engineered to block forever any inquiry plans. Israel did subsequently pay $6-million in three annual installments of $2-million each. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said later that he considered the payments meaningless, as Congress merely increased the annual Israeli allotment by that amount. Adlai Stevenson later ran for Governor of Illinois. He was strongly opposed by Israeli and Jewish interests. He lost. Many feel it was his support for the Liberty that cost him the election. Many also feel it was Stevenson's experience with the Liberty that has intimidated other Members of Congress who might otherwise support the survivors. Finally, Len, you wrote: There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so. I agree with the first of those two sentences. Once again, Len, you are partly right! The second is more problematic, to say the least. Anyhow, this is already a long post. Let's leave the topic of motive for further posts...

This article by Pascal Boniface, written just before the recent poll in which both Royal and Sarkozy won a place in the final ballot for President, gives an interesting overview of French relations with Israel and Arab countries since World War Two - and discusses the significance of the coming contest.

Whether Mr Wolfowitz's girlfriends are spies is a matter of less importance , I would haver thought, to the question of whether Wolfowitz himself is a spy. He certainly has an interesting bio. Here's Stephen Green, writng in Counterpunch in 2004:

No, we have a 9/11 conspirator heading the World Bank. He conspicuously found something else to do during the 9/11 attacks just like his fellow conspirators at the top of the U.S. defense command. Wolfowitz told another lie in the same interview when he said that Rumsfeld realized immediately what hit the Pentagon and that's why he rushed outside to see the damage. Rumsfeld himself told ABC News that he, just like Wolfowitz claims about himself, "had no idea" what hit the building ("a bomb?"), and went outside to see what had happened. Rumsfeld actually went outside, roaming around and playing medic, so that the people trying to do something in the War Room in defense of the nation couldn't find him. Pentagon officials are on record as looking for their leader in vain. Rumsfeld showed up at the War Room sometime after 10 am, when the attacks were all over, to gain "situational awareness." Wolfowitz was sent to an "undisclosed location," since the loss of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both in any subsequent attack would have been a crippling blow to America. These guys don't even bother to get their stories straight. The Arrogance of Shock and Awe.

That's an illuminating extract Ron. IMO it is simply not credible. Even I, after witnessing the plane hit the tower at around 11pm Australia time, with no direct responsibility for the lives and welfare of the American people, realized there was something worth watching (for once) on TV. Also, my memories of those moments are rather clear. Do we really have a nincompoop with a fuzzy memory heading the World Bank? He seems to remember expensive presents for his girlfriends.... Perhaps he responds to nagging?

The truth about the deliberate extermination of millions of jews, socialists, communists, homosexuals, gypsies and other victims of the holocaust is well established. One does not have to be a member of a "cult" religious or otherwise to accept this truth. Rather one merely has to be a sentient rational member of the human race with just a smidgeon of respect for genuine historical enquiry and evidence. The mental health and well being of those who seek to deny the holocaust should surely be something of an immediate concern. Especially when it has to be be added, as in your case Sidney, to an apparent pathological hatred of jews which leads you to the most fantastic jewish conspiracy theories based I might add on not one shred of evidence, and an oft expressed penchant for French Nazis. Your attempted projection of your fixed belief insanity onto me is not something which surprises me. If someone like you "turned up on my doorstep" I would have to set the hounds on you The more vitriol, scorn and deliberate misrepresentation you mete out, Andy, the more you make my point. On this topic, you avoid substantive issues and simply hurl abuse. Meanwhile, the BBC reports that European Interior Ministers have reached agreement on new laws that will "make incitement to racism an EU-wide crime, but... stopped short of a blanket ban on Holocaust denial". How this overtly innocuous proposal would be applied in practice is the big question.

The NY Times ran several stories about the incident in 1967 including at least 2 on the front page. http://tinyurl.com/33ak44 http://preview.tinyurl.com/33ak44 A quick comment on this one point. You are quite correct, Len. When I wrote "no coverage at all", it was not accurate. Had I used the qualifier 'almost', however, I think I would be on quite firm ground. In years of watching TV news and current affairs, for instance, I cannot recall ever seeing a mention of this remarkable episode. Likewise, I have never once noticed the Lavon Affair mentioned. In all the dicussion, post 9-11, about terrorism and historical precedents, it was simply absent from mainsteam public discourse. Interesting also to see HOW the USS Liberty attack was covered in 1967. I refuse to pay for the full article. But here's the first paragraph of the archived NYT article from June 9th 1967: This report was featured on the front page. However, at least in the lead paragraph, it: (1) uncritically promoted the notion that the attack was accidental (2) significantly understated US casualties. (The accepted eventual toll was 34 US sailors dead and 174 wounded). By the next day, the NYT relegated the story to page 32. This second NYT report was more accurate with casualty figures, but seems to have been even more emphatic than the assault was accidental. By that time, of course, the story as a whole was heading for the Memory Hole. Would this story of a vicious attack on a US naval vessel have received similar treatment in the US media had the Eygptian or Syrian armed forces been responsible for this 'accidental' attack? I think not.

Are you saying it is weak because it does not emphasise the role Israel is playing? You are sounding like someone who has an obsession. Personally, I found Scott Ritter's last paragraph simplistic. Like Hitler he appears to be trying to show that it is the Jews rather than capitalism that is the problem. There are political reason for this position. For example, Hitler was funded by capitalists who had economic reasons for wanting increased arms production. Bush finds himself in the same position. The fact that some of these people may be Jews is irrelevant. The answer is yes, I do find Pilger's article deficient because it underplays the decisive role of the Israel Lobby in pushing America and Britain into these post 9-11 wars. The following discussion between Norman Finklestein and James Petras is instructive, IMO. Where their positions differ in this debate, I believe Petras to be correct. Finklestein's line is similar to Pilger's - but when he is pushed, in the dialogue, to defend it in detail in a way that Pilger isn't in a solo opinion piece. I think Petras shows the weakness of Finklestein's arguments. Blaming capitalism in general is not an adequate explanation. It says nothing we don't know already. It's true that we live in a capitalist world. That explains plenty - but doesn't explain everything. All countries are not at war all the time. To understand why Iraq was attacked at this time and by the nations that attacking it - and why there are now such huge pressures to further attack Iran - one needs more information than the simple statement "capitalism is to blame". That's like saying "money is the source of all evil". It's occasionally a useful slogan - but not much more. I don't agree with you about Ritter's concluding remarks. Is he is trying to shock Americans? Yes. He's saying "regain your national sovereignty - or stop pretending that you have it". In the circumstances - given the overweening power of the Zionist lobby and its evident ability to push the USA (and its closest allies) into fruitless bloody wars - that sounds to me like fair comment. Finally, just in case there is any misunderstanding, I am not saying that Finklestein is wrong because he's 'Jewish'. There were Jews who got the story about the Iraq War correct (IMO) from day one. Their voices are almost never heard in the western mass media. Jeff Blankfort was one of them. Obsessed? Yes, perhaps I am rather obsessed about how humanity can regain a peaceful and positive agenda - and weeding out the conceptual, ideological and criminal obstacles that at present obstruct the emergence of such an egenda. Zionism is not the only problem we face... but as time goes by, it is emerging as a far more serious problem than I ever imagined in earlier decades. It is so dangerous, apart from anything else, because of its quite enormous wealth, commercial power, media influence and brutal determination to stamp its authority on the world as a whole, without regard for the common good.

Thanks for your courteous reply Charles. As you point out, we seem to agree about plenty. I'd like to focus my reply on your third point, a reply to my question: "Given its inherent circularity, please explain how this notion (truth denial) helps advance understanding in any way at all?" You wrote: I share your view that "conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth". However, I'd like to say that I came to that view because I was able to hear all sides of the debate. There are, in reality, many perspectives on the assassination. There are many theories about what happened, one of which, of course, is the official Warren Commission story. I found it frustrating at times that there were so many views. How could I ever find a way through the maze of assertion and counter-assertion? In the end, I feel I made it... at least to what I believe is a better than elementary understanding of this important historical event. I did so by spending a lot of time thinking about it. Especially useful to me were debates between people who already knew a lot more about the topic than I did. In open multi-sided discourse, I find, it is easier to glean who's honest and who isn't, who advances logical arguments and who doesn't. Now, contrast the 'Holocaust', another significant historical event. Please note I did not introduce this topic into the thread. You did. In this case, it is next to impossible to find closely argued dialogue on matters of substance between those who promote the official view about what happened and those who are critics of this official narrative in a fundamental way. Why is this so? One thing is for sure. Reluctance to debate is on one side only. The dissenters seek debate. Those who promote (and enforce) the official 'Holocaust' narrative, on the other hand, refuse genuine dialogue, limiting their response to ever-louder assertions that their views are self-evidently correct - and often quite vicious ad hominem attacks on their opponents. The parallel you seek to draw between these two historical events and their subsequent evaluation as historical events is therefore, IMO, quite misleading. It is more than 60 years after the Second World War, yet we are still waiting for an open debate about what really happened during that important period of history - a carefully considered dialogue, free from hateful assertions that one side of the debate can only possibly be motivated by malice. Indeed, not only are we still waiting for the debate. There is, in fact, an active push - orchestrated by the Zionist lobby - to make such debate illegal worldwide. I have no doubt that, if this push is successful, it will impinge on our freedom to discuss the JFK assassination (and many other important events). The books of Michael Collins Piper, for instance, would probably be banned under such a regime. Discussion about the possibility (some would say likelihood) that JFK's murder was coordinated by high-level Zionists would thereby be severely constrained. We might have to refer to Piper's ideas without mentioning him by name. On this forum, Andy would probably argue that threads covering his theories must be deleted to comply with the new law. If ever the precedent is set to close down free speech on one topic - worldwide - it's not hard to imagine its extension to other topics... perhaps to any other topic that might be deemed 'anti-Semitic'. That is why, IMO, this topic is very important and worth discussing. Humanity is, IMO, on the brink of a very serious mistake, a mistake that would, in effect, help perpetuate the worst legacies of the Second World War ad infinitum. It should be resisted - especially by historians, whose very subject matter is at stake. Suppose etymologists were told that, from now on, they could only discuss one of the many families of beetles within pre-determined legal guidelines as to what was true about that subject matter and what was not. I imagine they would roar with laughter first up... then, when they realized this was not being suggested in jest, they would be utterly outraged. In this era at least, (most) historians seem to be a more timid and malleable lot.

John, I think this is a rather weak piece by John Pilger, although I hadn't seen it before and I'm grateful you posted it. Pilger's article says almost nothing about WHY Britain is re-engaging in direct colonialism - and is now part of the gang of jackals that seeks to destroy Iran. following two disastrous invasions of sovereign countries under false pretexts. As a corrective, here is a recent article by Scott Ritter in Trurthdig: The Final Act of Submission Ritter says it's time to hoist the Star of David over the White House just so we're all clear who's driving policy in Washington. His remarks may as well apply to Britain.

Charles Do you have any evidence for the claims you make in the first two paragraphs? Incidentally - and perhaps more importantly - can you explain why you believe the concept of 'truth denial' has any utility if one's goal is to ascertain the truth? After all, how can one know what's truth denial and what isn't - until one knows what the truth actually is? How can one know the truth without free debate between differing beliefs and perspectives? Given its inherent circularity, please explain how this notion (truth denial) helps advance understanding in any way at all? Also, while it has become fashionable in recent decades to declare War on just about everything (Poverty, Drugs, Terror etc). what grounds do you have for believing that a War against 'Untruth' will be any more successful? Who would you put in charge as Commander in Chief?

I agree with you entirely Daniel and would add that the only possible motivation behind denying the holocaust is to attempt to rehabilitate the ideology of National Socialism to the mainstream. We should remember that the Nazis who were tried at Nuremburg didn't "deny" their crimes - their "defence" was that they were following orders. The ultimate calumny of denial is left to present day Nazis. There is a motivation that you conveniently skip over, Andy. That is the motivation to establish the TRUTH. You claim to know it already. In your belief system, everyone who doesn't accept your version of the truth regarding World War Two is either bad or mad. I have met folk who think this way before, occasionally on the doorstep. As they believe they already know the truth (usually they are members of a religious cult), there is little use debating with them. Most of them, however, do not presume to incarcerate other people who do not share their beliefs - nor do they advocate laws that have that effect. I gather, by contrast, that you and Daniel do. Furthermore, you brand those who oppose this repressive behaviour as 'fascists'. Sweet irony! Daniel wrote: I presume Daniel may be referring to my views. If so, he misrepresents them. He also misrepesents what was actually going on at the trials where witnesses such as Dr Vrba and Mel Mermelstein were cross-examined under oath. In both cases, they were PROSECUTION witnesses. They were testifying AGAINST other people or organizations. They had no NEED to carry out those prosecutions or be party to them. The suggestion that Vrba, Mermelstein and other 'Holocaust survivors' should "be more charitable and forgiving, as good Christians should" is not one I often hear, although IMO it may well be a good idea (for them and for us all). At this stage, it's not clear what they really experienced during World War Two - and therefore what they might 'forgive'. Their own testimony about their alleged experiences has been shown to be riddled with falsehoods. Even though they did well on the lecture circuit, their testimonies fell apart when they were under oath (and hence exposed to the risk of perjury) and subjected to serious cross-examination by the defence. Foregiveness is meaningless in such circumstances. As the South Africans showed the world a few years ago, genuine reconcliation must be based on TRUTH.

As this thread has largely morphed into a discussion about gun control, here's my 2 cents worth. It seems to me there several reasons why private citizens may want to own guns. These include: 1/ Sport 2/ Pest control 3/ Self-defense 4/ Distrust of a heavily armed Government I have some sympathy for the first two of these. Shooting as a sport has no appeal to me personally, but who am I to say what daft games people should or should not play? I object to duck shooting and similar activities, but that's the basis of ecological and humanitarian considerations. If folk want to shoot at clay pigeons, as far as I'm concerned, it's up to them. Also, IMO, guns have a legitimate (although often over-used) role in the control of unwanted animals. Point 3 - the self-defense 'need', I regard as highly problematic. I feel safer unarmed - even in the company of others who are armed. I can appreciate the arguments of people who take a different view about this, although in general I think they take much greater risks than I do. Point 4 - distrust of government, is an argument for which I used to have no sympathy at all, but about which my views have changed radically in recent years. It is because of point 4 that I have shifted from someone who reflexively supported tighter restrictions on gun ownership to someone now generally distrustful of additional controls. In part, this is because I have delved sufficiently into the cases of the Port Arthur massacre (Australia), Dunblane (Britain) and Columbine (USA) to believe there was probably a lot more to these three spectacular mass killings than we have been told in the mass media. Suspicions abound that one or more of these atrocities were 'black ops' in some form or another. Just as 9-11 was quickly leveraged to enact a raft of authoritarian 'ant-terror' laws, with almost universal mass media backing, so Port Arthur and Dunblane were used to achieve significant tightening of gun laws. In the case of Port Arthur - the largest mass killing in Australian history as far as I'm aware - there was no coroner’s inquiry, no inquest, no trial. A 'lone nut', identified on the day, was effectively kept in isolation for months, then persuaded to change his initial plea to guilty on the grounds of insanity. One of Prime Minister's Howard's first acts in Government was to argue against an inquest (his reason was that as the 'lone nut's' guilt was obvious, there was no need to put the relatives of victims through any more suffering!). When I observe an anti-gun agenda pushed in this manner by essentially the same people who promote false flag operations such as 9-11 or the London bombings, it gives me pause for thought. I used to think that point 4 was just for 'ultra right-wing' paranoiacs. Now I believe the truth is more complex. That's what gun-averse liberals and lefties are intended to think by criminals who don't give a hoot about public safety. By all means let get rid of guns. Let's get rid of standing armies as well - as well as unaccountable, misnamed 'intelligence agencies' that presume to have a 'license to kill'.