Sid Walker

You have again exposed yourself as a Nazi supporter - where and when you fart is of no interest to us, but at least we all now have final confirmation of what you are. Incidentally your contributions from both ends are rather similar in terms of their value and worth. Hi Andy Are you saying that everyone who votes for Le Pen in the coming election is a Nazi? Just interested in seing where you draw the boundary of your opprobrium. Another question... Does a proud 'anti-Nazi' like you support banning Le Pen's Party? Would you advocate banning his participation in this election? How about incarcerating Le Pen and his supporters... or dropping large bombs on his headquarters? I ask, because I'd like to get a more complete picture of the respective policies of 'Nazis' and 'anti-Nazis'? It's my understanding, for instance, that 'Nazi' Le Pen supports free speech on all historical matters. Do you? It is reasonable to deduce that a man who consistently denies the holocaust, champions the cause of Nazis such as Zundel and Irving, invents fantastic Zionist conspiracy theories about just about every topic he can think of, and now openly supports the platform of French fascists is at the very least a "Nazi supporter." Your continued insistence that Nazis support free speech is ridiculous and not worthy of further comment. You may reflect if we give you a bit of time to think about it that you have been afforded free speech on this forum. You may also reflect that mature democracies do allow political participation from a broad spectrum of ideologies. The rest of your recent post is just nonsense. I'll respond to this point only, Andy. For the record, I never 'insisted' that "Nazis support free speech". But you, Andy, cannot have it both ways - not as long as there are people who refuse to be intimidated when your behaviour becomes unpleasant and authoritarian. Either you claim I am a 'Nazi' - and therefore admit that at least ONE 'Nazi' DOES support free speech - or you desist in branding me with this term. You will not find any material I have written anywhere - or statements I have made on any occasion - that argue against free speech. On that matter, I have been consistent all my adult life. Puerile, spiteful invective usually misses its intended target. This case is no exception.

Len My key aim in this thread is to highlight the egregious double standards that are applied in the so called 'War on Terror'. Indeed, I'd argue that the double standard is really what this bogus 'War' is all about. It is a deliberate attempt to bait, weaken and terrorize an entire culture: the 'Muslim World'. At various times you actively requested additional examples. I provided some. Odd you now complain about this. I mentioned the USS Liberty as another striking example of western mass media double standards. True, the incident predated the 21 Century WoT. Yet the falure of the US media on that occasion to speak up for US forces viciously attacked by another nation will stand for all time as the quintessence of Zionist bias in the US media. On another thread, the question has been posed: "who controlled the US media in 1963?" The case of the USS Liberty provides a partial answer. They were the kind of people who, just a few years later, could impose an effective news blackout concerning a murderous Israeli attack on a US naval vessel.

You have stumbled across the thing that so infuriates Trots and Leninists about the SPGB analysis viz. socialism will be achieved when a sufficient number of people believe in and understand socialism - no need for "vanguards" or dictatorship. Yes, it does infuriate them. I remember seeing Corin Redgrave speaking at a function years ago. I asked for his views about the viability of a moneyless economy. He took it as an opportunity to lambast the SPGB. Rather odd, I thought, as no-one brought up SPGB by name. To hear him excoriate this tiny party, you'd think that it alone stood between the working class and earthly redemption. On the other hand, the idea that the masses will vote for socialism once they properly understand it, and that the SPGB need only keep offering this 'solution', while in many ways appealing, does not seem to have developed any traction. The SPGB started, a hundred years ago, as a tiny group dedicated to a unique approach to realizing their dream - and that's exactly how they remain, 100 years on. I must lack the patience of a true believer. 100 years seems to me like an awful long time in politics.

In this clip Kucinich not only says he is interested in a 9/11 inquiry - but states that there will be one done by the Domestic Policy Committee which he chairs - perhaps beginning around September of this year.

Dreadfully sorry to have caused you such a lot of work over this unfortunate Mexican Parliament business, Len. A touchy subject, eh? Shades of the USS Liberty - another event barely mentioned in the western media because the offenders didn't fit the approved profile?

Let us deal in reality here Degsy Leninist ideology IS elitist and thus the antithesis of socialism. All the Leninist/Trotskyite parties I have ever had the misfortune to encounter have been just a little more than "imperfect" – in fact rule by any of those the spotty bourgeois "vanguards" would be infinitely far worse potentially than the elites they pretend to oppose. If you want to oppose privatization do so with intelligence vision and theory - that would be a good starting point One of the many interesting things about the SPGB is it's remarkable longevity. It is the oldest extant Marxist party in Britain as far as I know and predates the Bolshevik revolution. Therefore it is possible to see what they believed about the Russian revolution at the time. I did that, many years ago, and found it fascinating. As I recall, they rejected the Bolshevik's siezure of power and predicted the eventual demise of the Leninist experiment, arguing that genuine socialism could not be centrally imposed.

You have again exposed yourself as a Nazi supporter - where and when you fart is of no interest to us, but at least we all now have final confirmation of what you are. Incidentally your contributions from both ends are rather similar in terms of their value and worth. Hi Andy Are you saying that everyone who votes for Le Pen in the coming election is a Nazi? Just interested in seing where you draw the boundary of your opprobrium. Another question... Does a proud 'anti-Nazi' like you support banning Le Pen's Party? Would you advocate banning his participation in this election? How about incarcerating Le Pen and his supporters... or dropping large bombs on his headquarters? I ask, because I'd like to get a more complete picture of the respective policies of 'Nazis' and 'anti-Nazis'? It's my understanding, for instance, that 'Nazi' Le Pen supports free speech on all historical matters. Do you?

Are you kidding?

Anyhow, this interesting discussion will soon come to an end, if one is to believe the FT: EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial Defenders of the orthdox version of World War Two history will no longer suffer the indignity of scratching for evidence to defend their position in rational debate And so it was that the Enlightenment in Europe came to an end... not with a bang, but a whimper.

Sure

I didn't see the story reported in the mainstream media either Mark. I encountered it first in one of the places Len would rather folk don't look. The Mixican papers seem to confirm the story - but NO follow-up at all (that I noticed) in the western mass media. This is from a newsgroup posting on misc.activism.progressive: So, if this account is correct, it wasn't a complete non-story in the Ministry of Truth, just a once-only story. One could be excused for missing it, among the hudnreds and hundreds of daily references to 'Arab terrorism'.

Here's the report carried in Diario de México, 11th October 2001. I trust the translation is accurate?: You won't like the source of that article, either, Len. Ah, how much easier life would be (for some) if all the critics of Zionism were snug in jail following prosecutions in which truth is no defence!

The words Blair, Bush and Olmert are obviously profanities too obscene to mention in front of young children. Whereas blair and olmert are no great loss to the language, avoiding the term 'bush' presents more difficulties, especially to Australians. Still, if Myra can do without half her vocabulary, it doesn't seem too high a price to pay in the interests of common decency. The way forward is to find acceptable alternatives, depending on the intended meaning. For example: Not too much effort to be polite, is it? There is also the delightful word 'motte', which can get you out of trouble on most occasions.

"The technique of infamy is to start two lies at once. and set people arguing which one is true"

No Sid I am quite aware of the meaning of the word “Semitic” and you failed to consider the possibility I didn’t find your attempt at humor funny because it wasn’t rather than due to a lack of a sense of humor on my part. No I got your point nor did I ever indicate I didn't, but it was poorly made. There are many reasons other than ethnicity for Shapiro not being a suspected terrorist. Similarly as per your proposed scenario obviously anyone independant of their ethnicity trying to enter a building wearing explosives would be considered a terrorist, a suicide bomber with political and/or religious motives with known ties to terrorist groups would be considered a terrorist if they were Arab, Irish, Austalian or Brazilian. You may have a point but it would depend on the circumstances, if the Syrian was a loner with previous signs of being psychologically unbalanced and no known connections to terrorist or radical religious or political groups it probably wouldn’t be considered terrorism. A good example would be the guy who killed Mier Kahane, most people considered him to be a “lone nut” rather than a terrorist. Yes. It is one thing which, if you are a young Arab living in a western country post 2001, may well lead to a 20+ years in jail. Please cite an example of “a young Arab living in a western country post 2001” who received a lengthy jail sentence SIMPLY for “possessing explosives” in his house when there was no evidence he was “planning on using them to harm anyone”. Miracles can happen, for once you said something I can agree with, I also “believe that laws should apply equally to all” but you have failed to produce any evidence that Arabs (or Moslems) would be treated differently than someone who belonged to another ethnic group (or practiced a different religion) if explosives were found in their house. Regarding your claim that "obviously anyone independant of their ethnicity trying to enter a building wearing explosives would be considered a terrorist".... you may like to check out this report from mid-October 2001: Two Israelis arrested with bombs in the Mexican Congress Both were walking armories. Both were subjected to the inconvenience of overnight detention, then flown (first class?) to Israel. Rather better treatment than the average Arab might receive in those circumstances, don't you think? You further claim that I "have failed to produce any evidence that Arabs (or Moslems) would be treated differently than someone who belonged to another ethnic group (or practiced a different religion) if explosives were found in their house." I don't know what might convince you about that, Len. I'll offer Craig Murray's report on last year's 'Airline Plot' as Exhibit A. In their case, there weren't even any bombs! Those still in custody for that heinous 'Airline Plot', I understand, face very long prson sentences indeed. They have been charged under new 'anti-Terrorism' laws which are really a charter to lock up whoever is deemed a threat for as long as the State pleases (what Universal Declaration of Human Rights?) Contrast the fate of three young 'Americans' who burnt down NINE churches down in the southern USA recently. A terrorist act perhaps? At the very least a hate crime? Not at all! Read this fascinating account by an informed and disgusted commentator:

Chill out Len, Most people today, of course, who speak a Semitic language, speak Arabic. To understand my earlier post, the reader needs (a) a sense of humour ( an understanding of what the philological term 'Semitic' really means. I should have realized you may not qualify on either count. My point, in case you really didn't get it, my central point is that the bogus 'War of Terror is really an assault on a certain 'profile'. If a young man from South Korea shoots a group of American students, that's a 'mass killing' or 'atrocity'. If a Syrian student does the same thing, it's 'terrorism". Geddit? You wrote: Yes. It is one thing which, if you are a young Arab living in a western country post 2001, may well lead to a 20+ years in jail. Now, I realise that you may not share my view (how could a defender of modern Israel share it?), but I happen to believe that laws should apply equally to all. We shouldn't have one law for Arabs and Moslems, and other laws for other people, even though this may be the norm in Zionist-occupied Palestine...

Another interesting theory on the vexing issue of what is causing CCD Are Cell Phones Killing Bees?

In many ways your most disturbing (and revealling) post so far. I'm not sure what you mean, John. Perhaps a response isn't needed. Nevertheless, I think it may, because I detect an insinuation that I have 'revealed' something 'disturbing' about my views by posting the Le Pen interview approvingly. Well, my interest is in calling it as I see it. The extracts I bolded from the Le Pen interview, IMO, indicate decency and fairness to the Arab and Muslim world - and in particular to Palestinians who have now been in exile or under occupation since almost as long as anyone can remember. That decency and fairness is sorely missing in mainstream political discourse these days. Most major western politicians have been intimidated into toning down their condemnation of Israeli apartheid and exhibit double-standards when responding to Israeli behaviour. I think de Gaulle - whatever his many faults - had a genuine interest in asserting French interests, even when it brought him into conflict with the Israelis who were keen on the continuation of French colonialism in north Africe. JFK showed the same willingness to stand up to aggressive hustling by the Israelis and their domestic lobby - as did Carter on his good days. The rest of the US Presidency has gradually tilted not so might rightwards as in the direction of Zion. Likewise most European nations. It has been in the interests of Zionists to portray Le Pen as beyond the pale. For all I know, he and his supporters may well have said silly things over the years. But what is offensive in the inteerview I quoted? Anything? Le Pen, as I understand it, has a restrictive approach to immigration. In that respect, he's probably in step with a majority of Europeans. Not me. I happen to have an unusual view that anyone on planet earth should be able to go wherever they please, as a birthright. When I quote an extract from someone's writings - or a speech they have made - it does not consititute absolute endorsement. I do not thereby stand behind their entire life work. It does not make me 'right-wing' if they are known to be right-wing, or vice versa. Having said all that, if I was French and faced with Sarkozy v Le Pen in the second round this year, I'd vote for Le Pen, based on what I know now of their repective policies. If saying that in this forum is like farting during High Mass, so be it.

Le Pen interviewed by the Lebanese Press (emphases added). Not quite the lunatic racist monomaniac portrayed by the mainstream western mass media? On topics covered by this interview, he more faithfully embodies the original Gaullist tradition than Sarkozy. Le Pen's interest in genuine independence and justice for the Arab world is reminiscent of JFK.

Very funny Myra. Incidentally, I did a WHOIS search to establish who owns the domain "inyourdreams.com" It's a lady called Elizabeth Kennedy who lives in Ann Arbor Looks like she'll be getting some interesting offers I hope she's not a prude

I don't know how many Forum rules my previous post broke. None I think. But maybe you can point them out for me? And I see you're already calling for moderator assisstance. Oh dear, oh dear. I assume the first sentence of your second paragraph, despite all its grammatical errors, means you're backing away from the lone nut theory. Good choice. It's a cold and lonely place. Even moderators can't help you when you're sitting out there. Like I often say, if a thread can save just one person from falling for the lone nut theory, then it's all been worthwhile. Nice thread, Craig. Oh My Mark, I've never embraced ANY theory when it comes to the murder of JFK, LN or otherwise because I simply don't really care who did it or why. I enjoy working on the photographic aspects of any number of subjects. So you see I'm not 'backing away" from anything. I suggest you take a close look at the last sentence of your post to find your rule breaking. I need no help from the mods dealing with you, but if there are to be rules they need to apply to everyone...you included. Nice try. For someone who claims not to need moderator assisstance, you sure spend a lot of time denouncing others for breaking the rules. I'm glad you've stated your position on the JFK assassination. You don't care who did it or why. Very patriotic. I've known very few Americans who feel this way. You have no opinion, except that you take exception when film alterationists express theirs. Correct? And despite the fact that you don't care who killed JFK, you have a strong distaste for those who suggest there was a conspiracy. Right? There's probably a word to describe those who feel this way. Can't think of it at the moment. Spooky?

John, that's ~80/day internally. Externally we are responsible for many thousands per day averaged over time...Haiti, Iraq, Sudan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Nicaragua, Guatamala, etc. et al. ad nauseum WW2-present. The single most violent nation on Earth since WW2, despite the PR image otherwise. (I also think the number 80 sounds too low.) Common Dreams reports that US Forced to Import Bullets from Israel as Troops Use 250,000 for Every Rebel Killed On that basis, each US soldier posted overseas to promote democracy at the point of a gun needs a separate Environmental Impact Assessment. I preume that ghetto gangsters are more frugal with their ammo?

Someone in America has a memory longer than two years - and here's the evidence! Interesting to see this article in Jared Kushner's New York Observer.

Looks can be deceiving, Sid. Perhaps it's Craig's way of hinting that he works for Steven Spielberg?

IMO, Craig's shilling for dubious causes would be more effective if his avatar wasn't so peculiar. Sorry, Craig. I don't mean to be rude. But no human has a braincage as large as that.