Sid Walker

I regret that such an inquiry - in the public domain - is simply not possible at this time, not in the English-speaking world and I have no doubt the prospect of it is even more remote within Germany. To inquire - with real integrity - why Hitler was so popular in Germany during the Nazi era (not universally popular, of course, but nevertheless very popular by contemporary standards), one would need to have a full, honest and rational discussion about the Nazi leadership and German society under Nazi rule - reviewing not just negative aspects, but positive aspects also. Yet such a discussion would create a furore in the over-heated atmosphere we still live in today, more than 60 years after the war's end, in which anti-German Allied war propaganda has congealed into something resembling quasi-religious dogma. To discuss why "so many (Germans) actively or passively supported the Holocaust" one would need a full, honest and rational discussion about that subject. Unfortunately, that is even less possible.

Douglas didn't specify which March, so a more precise answer would be "it's too soon to say". An even more precise answer would take into account the probable disconnect between what George Bush plans and what actually happens. Here's a recent report indicating that Nixon was kept well out of the loop over the Yom Kippur War: Book says Kissinger delayed telling Nixon about Yom Kippur War to keep him from interfering. Does anyone really imagine that if the blue meanies want to start a hot war with Iran, they'd let Dubya plan it? Kissinger would probably advise not to wake him until it's over.

Sid, Is this a quote from Rosie O'Donnell? Or are you re-posting the '9/11 truther's' Theory? Not a Rosie O'Donnell quote. What I quoted was a comment to the News Hounds asrticle (I did explain this). It was, I thought, a succinct and fairly accurate account of 9-11 sceptics' essential problem with the official story of the WTC collapses. It was written by someone called "brisa".

The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show. See John Gibson and Michelle Malkin Whip Up Frenzy Over Rosie O'Donnell and ABC 163 comments have been posted to this article and counting. A hot topic! I couldn't resist re-posting this comment here. IMO it puts the CD argument clearly, in relatively few words.

Actually Mark believe it or not our views on the Bush administration aren’t that different, I believe he and his administration intentionally “sex up” and faked the evidence against Iraq to jutify war they had previously decided upon. But just because I don’t like Bush I’m not going to say he is always 100% wrong and people who oppose his are always right, that’s too simplistic. FWIW it was Sid not I who brought the issue up here insinuating (with out any real evidence) this was an intentional provocation of Blair and his perpetual werewolf the dreaded “Zionists”. IF he hadn’t brought it up I wouldn’t have mentioned it. As in the Cold War I think both sides are to blame you accuse me of being one-sided but that epitaph seems better suited to you. One thing's for sure - the master of bodge and spin has lost his credibility in middle Britain. Not enough torque to start a war, Tony? Back to the Israelis... The Iranians and Iraqi don’t seem to differ that much on the sea boarder as this map from Iranian TV demonstrates both sides agree that it extendens southeast from the Shatt al Arab thus the fact that the position was closer to Iran than Iraqi is irelevant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6502805.stm The Iranian claim is undermined by the fact it seems to have given two accounts of where the British boat was the 2nd set of coordinates being closer to it shores while the first was in Iraqi waters On 24 March the Iranian government told the UK - according to the UK's Ministry of Defence - that the merchant vessel was at a different location, but still within Iraqi waters. When the UK pointed out to the Iranians that the location they had given was within Iraqi waters, the Iranians provided a "corrected" location, nearly 1 nautical mile away (1.9km) from its first position but within Iranian waters. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6502805.stm I find this excerpt of the Wikipedia entry about the incident more convincing than Murry’s editorial, there are links to references in the original (unlike Murry who doesn’t source his claims): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_...n_force_at_site Funny that Sid would cite Murry to bolster his case the incident was an intentional provocation by the British when Murry’s position seems to be that it was a misunderstanding (which Blair is exploiting). Also funny that he seems to think that a couple of people’s comments to an online editorial are at all indicative of how people in “middle Britain” feel about Blair. It could well be the case that he has indeed “lost his credibility” amongst them (I don’t trust him) but the cited evidence is woefully insuficient. Len Not for the first time you "summarize" my argument, gradually shifting the goalposts so you end up distorting my words. To clarify my position, yes, I do believe there is a conspiracy against Iran, directed mainly by the Zionist leadership, but not limited to Zionist interests alone. I think that's not a very contentious position to hold in April 2007. It's rather obvious. Was this particular event an "intentional provocation by the British"? I don't know. I didn't say that. It is, however, exactly thr type of incident feared by people who, like myself, have been anxiously watching the pressure ratcheted up against Iran and the seemingly inexorable roll out of US-Israeli war preparations. Will Iran be actually attacked by the US/Israel... even Britain... this (northern) Spring or over the next year or so? I don't know. When this thread started, March was the feared month for the outbreak of war. This week, there are rumours of a strike at Easter. Will the mad beasts of war actually be unleashed? I don't.know. I don't even know for sure that the principal advocates of a military assault have made up their own minds. As I said in previous posts, my analysis, FWIW, is that the warmongers have a tough choice before them... Hold back - and they "risk", over time, reduced ability to push the USA and Britain into war against their Chosen Enemy No 1, as popular revulsion against blood-soaked neocon policies eventually gains firmer political expression in these English-speaking countries. Attack Iran now, and they could well generate a level of chaos that pitches the world into a major economic recession - then face an unprecedented backlash from swelling numbers of people in the western world who are fast waking up to who has been driving this insane war agenda. The classic "solution" in such circumstances has been to pull a paradigm-shifting false flag operation. 9/11 - coming only days after the UN Conference on Racism - was the quintessential instance of this murderous approach to winning arguments and influencing people. But 9/11 fooled almost all the people for only so long. Then came the fiasco/disgrace of the non-existent Iraqi WMDs and a bloody, unsuccessful war fought on false pretences. A major false flag atrocity to justify attacking Iran could backfire badly - and lead to the final unraveling of this disgusting conspiracy of supremacists, murderers and racketeers.

I don't mean to be rude, Peter, but you have a talent for tortuous and circular arguments, the main import of which seems to be "nothing to see here folks!"

Uh, the steel frames in the middle of the building are the column supports for the pedastel cranes. There are some steel columns, they ae the framing columns for the central shaft, but the lattice shaped structures are pedastel crane supports, which typically are moved up as each floor is completed. Peter, Whether the lattice shaped corner structures were temporary, as you suggest, or permanent, the point remains: what on earth happened to the solid steel cores of the two towers?

9/11 CONTROVERSY FOR BEGINNERS on the What Really Happened website has superb photos of the WTC under construction, showing the mighty steel frame at the center of the towers. A brief extract from the accompanying text:

Writing in today's Daily Mail, Craig Murray explains: How I know Blair faked Iran map If the Daily Mail carries on like this, it will confirm my dear grandmother's view that the Mail is the best newspaper in Britain - although it took 50 years to see her vindicated It sounds like Mail readers are on the up as well. Here's a selection of comments posted to Murray's article: One thing's for sure - the master of bodge and spin has lost his credibility in middle Britain. Not enough torque to start a war, Tony? Back to the Israelis...

Larry Chin writing in Online Journal is not optimistic - see Is UK-Iran marine incident part of larger war provocation plan?. He sees a potential leading role for Britain in the threatened assault on Iran and reminds us of British black ops of the recent past in neighbouring Iraq: Meanwhile, Dave Lindorff in Counterpunch is keeping an eye on the oil market. Anyone knowing the date of an attack is poised to make a killing in the market, as they say. Lucky neocons! War: the ultimate racket.

The French Election 2007 blog is a usful English language reference about the coming election. The recently released Royal poster here is probably one reason her campaign is bouncing back. A lot of Frenchmen probably share my view that she's better looking than any of the other candidates. Seven years of pleesant viewing must count for something. No doubt who American neocons would like to win - and it's not Royal. Even Bayrou is a little too much like Chirac for their taste. They prefer a real team player: Apparently a recent bout of riots is expected to give Sarkozy a bounce - see the Guardian's French riot boosts vote for right. If it were not for the entry of Le Pen, the cynic in me would predict that April will be a very riotous month in France. However, Sarkozy may have to beware playing the riot / fear & loathing / terror card too freely, lest it comes back to bite him.

I strongly recommend this remarkable presentation by former BBC journalist Alan Hart in which he introduces his new book and ends by outlining a stark choice for the Holy Land: one State of harmony, or disaster for all. Hart gives some fascinating insights into the 6-Day War of 1967, and mentions his personal role over a decade later in tentative negotiations between Arafat and Peres, while Peres was in opposition and Begin was PM. Hart says his role as an intermediary was funded by Lords Sieff and Victor Rothschild, supported by Jimmy Carter and the UN Secretary-General and known also to King Hussein and Anwar Sadat. According to Hart, Peres told him at their first meeting that it was already too late for a Two-State solution!. No Israeli PM would ever shoot Jews to clear the settlements. As Hart points out, Jewish settlements in the West Bank that then housed some 70,000 now house several times as many illegal settlers. It seems to me the last two decades of talk about a Two State solution has been one huge wind-up. Only Rabin, in the mid-90s, seemed to take it seriously - and he was gunned down. Even so, during Rabin's tenure as PM, new illegal settlements were built. Hart's vision for what could be in the middle east is inspiring and beautifully articulated. It requires the defeat of the Zionist movement.

A new article about this saga. I've highlighted a few key sentences...

I give up on this 'debate' Len. If you want to believe that the WTC-2 fires were major, widespread and very, very, very hot, you have a perfect right to do so. That's religious freedom. Believe what you like.

Actually, that is precisely what I think should have happened. If it it was an Iranian naval vessel, then I have no doubt that is what would happen. Followed by a diplomatic protest, no doubt. This was a regular inspection of a non-Iranian commercial vessel going to a non-Iranian port. The actual location of where the inspection took place is in dispute. The correct action would have been to demand they leave at once. Evan, do you think the allied naval presence in the Persian Gulf is provocative? Do you think this is relevant in the context of the capture of these sailors? Do you think Bush plans to attack Iran, or force Iran into provoking an attack? That's interesting Evan. I think you are so right - that's what the RAN should do. It's good to know there are people in Australia's military who have cool heads and a sense of fair play, like you. But to be blunt, I find the scenario quite unbelievable. I have no doubt at all that the presence of the Iranian navy anyhwere near Australia would send Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Rudd and the entire Australian mass media into apoplexy. If Australia's policy on this is truly as you suggest, I think we should let the Iranian military know that we don't mind them in this part of the world, as long as they stay within international waters (and even if they cross that line, no worries - we'll just politely ask them to leave). Iran's navy must be feeling a little hemmed in closer to home and would probably like to hold defensive exercises somewhere else. Perhaps we should encourage Iran to cut a deal with one of the independent island nations in the south Pacific, so they'd have somewhere to berth as well - like Britain does in Iraq. Despite our best efforts, Australia has been struggling to keep the peace in the Solomon Islands. Maybe it's time for Iran to have a go? Mark's three questions are excellent and go to the heart of this issue, IMO. I'm looking forward to your answers on them, as well.

Agreed, Mark. However, while I think Sarkozy was the initial choice of the Zionist lobby, they's probably find François Bayrou acceptable - and I suspect this accounts for his rise and rise (as Sarkozy's unpopularity became apparent). If Royal or Le Pen look like winning in the second round, I'd think they's be well advised to use food tasters, wear bullet-proof vests and look out for men with prickly umbrellas.

I imagine that Blair does feel concern. However, not as much as he should, nor enough to do anything about it, if it means upsetting George Bush. It would not surprise me to find the prisoners being placed very close to where the Iranian's are developing nuclear energy. Not that this would stop the US and Israel bombing the buildings. John Why do you "imagine that Blair does feel concern. However, not as much as he should, nor enough to do anything about it". What evidence is there for that? Wouldn't a PM who was truly concerned negotiate for their release? I understand a simple apology may well suffice to solve this "crisis". Is that too much a man with such (allegedly) great concern for these poor "hostages"? Must Blair behave like a rather effete parody of Maggie Thatcher chucking a wobbly? I guess Iran views these British sailors as illegal immgrants and / or spies. Does their point of view count for nothing?

John Pilger was interviewed by Phillip Adams on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Late Night Live earlier this week on the topic of RFK. Pilger apparently was present at the time of Bobby Kennedy's shooting. He talks about that - and the Kennedys - in this interview. He saw Sirhan fire a shot, or so he says. He also says he saw the polka dot girl and her consort run away. It is an interesting account. As you will hear, he is no fan of RFK or the Kennedys. His views are roughly where mine were at until late 2001. In fact, John Pilger was probably a significant ideological influence for me until that time. I don't know whether John Pilger is a gatekeeper or a fool. How he can believe there was a second assassin of RFK (ie. it was a conspiracy) - yet treat this as though it's a not very remarkable manifestation of "violent America" (nothing much going on here folks, don't look too deeply) - is quite beyond me. Adams, I feel quite sure is a 'left gatekeeper'. I corresponded with him directly some years ago about a few topics (eg. 9-11, David Irving) and found him to dissemble without any apparent scruples. He commands considerable respect here in Australia as a 'left wing intellectual'. That makes him quite dangerous, IMO. Occasionally Adams makes the claim his show covers all sides of the debate about the middle east. What a fibber.

This is going to emerge as a big story over the coming months. John R. Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN was giving Blair advice on C4 the other night. Bolton pointed out that the Iran hostage crisis brought down Jimmy Carter and urged Blair not to appease the Iranian government and instead to take decisive action. Unfortunately, John Snow, the interviewer did not know enough about American history to ask him the necessary follow-up questions. Bolton was praising up Reagan's strong measures against Iran when in fact he got the hostages out by buying their freedom with illegal arms deals. In reality, Blair cannot take strong action against Iran. Nor can he do secret deals with the Iranians like Reagan did. The hostages that Iran want to exchange, are controlled by the US. Bush has already made it clear that these men will not be released. This situation will once again highlight that Blair has little power to influence world events. All he can do is ask the US for help that they will not give. There's differences between the 1980 hostage crisis and this one. Carter, I believe, was (and is) a decent man, who was genuinely concerned about the fate of the American hostages. The whole event was siezed upon and manipulated to spook Carter, destabize his adminstration and ultimately eject him from office. In this case, the so called 'hostage crisis' is a much sought-after casus belli - or at minimum a useful way of keeping the Iran pot boiling hot. Blair has rather gleefully announced he "won't negotiate". Does anyone really imagine Blair feels genuine, deep anxiety or concern for the Britons held in Iran? I can't see it myself. The man is a fraud, dangerously close, in my books, to qualifying as a pyschopath.

Sarkozy to exit, stage right, after first round? The report says: "A recent poll announced that over 50 percent claimed they were afraid of Sarkozy. " I think that's a very insightful question to ask in opinion polls. Here's a new population policy for Britain. with political spin-offs. Poll all Britons about whether they are absolutely terrified by Tony (what will he get us into next?) Blair! Those who say no should be press-ganged and dispatched to Iraq or Afghanistan, or encouraged to take boating excursions in Iranian waters.

Perhaps the Iranians should have just asked the Brits to leave? I'm all in favour of peaceful resolution of conflict. I do wonder, however, how would a boatload of Iranian sailors fare if intercepted off the coast of Christmas Island, Evan? Would the RAN politely ask them to head north? Would these Iranian sailors get a Christmas Card from Alexander Downer? Would Mad Mullahs Paul Kelly, Adrew Bolt & co congratulate the Oz Government on the 'Insiders' for speedy, peaceful resolution of the crisis? I have more sympathy with the Iranians than most westerners, having kept a general eye on the west's behaviour towards that beleagured nation over the last few months, years and decades. Even in recent weeks there have been: (1) Iranian Diplomats kidnapped in Iraq (2) An Iranian General spirited away (kidnapped?) in Turkey (3) Reports that western-funded saboteurs are operating within Iran. (4) New sanctions applied after arm-twisting in the UN, punishing Iran for actions quite legal under the NPT (5) A ramp-up in war chatter in western capitals (Tel Aviv, London, Washinton. How much provocation do we expect the Iranians to take before they say "no more"? I suspect the game has been to push, keep pushing and pushing Iran again until we find its snapping point. It disgusts me to see Australia, once again, tagging along in support of Anglo/US/Israeli agression. What does regime change in Iran have to do with genuine Australian interests, for heavens sake? What about the over-riding global priority to make peace, not war? I imagine someone may wish to nit-pick over my list of recent Iranian grieveances. To be honest, I don't pretend to know the real story in each of those cases. Sorting out wheat from chaff, info from spin in every media story is a job beyoind the resources of most of mere mortals. I do, however, have a memory. and recall the media machine has lied us into wars many times before. I recall the British, US and Israeli Governments have made wars aplenty before - always blaming it on the other side. Australia's genuine interests have nothing to do with the war plans of the Zionist crazies and other assorted lunatics who seem to believe they have the right to play Russian Roulette with the health of humanity and the whole planet.

Latest in this saga, of course, was the arrest a few days ago of a dozen or so British sailors enjoying an innocent cruise in the pleasant waters of the Arabian Gulf. The arrest is a terrible outrage against humanity. I know this for a fact, because I heard Tony Blair say so on BBC TV. Both Mr Blair and the BBC have a reputation for honesty second to none. The British released GPS data which proves the sailors were in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters. British soldiers, of course, have a "right" to go wherever they please in Iraq. Unfortunately, the precision accuracy of the British case is not quite as decisive as one might imagine, as the marine border itself is disputed in that area. See below. Can't the Anglo-US-Israeli war criminals, scratching for a pretext to bomb yet another independent nation, do better than this? Incidentally, it is interesting to speculate on the fate of a boatload of Iranian sailors caught on the boundary of British territorial waters in the English Channel - and how the BBC might spin that story to the ever-trusting British couch potato public.

It seems to me that if Gary is right about this, a number of new questions arise. How (or why) did CNN get this story so wrong? What was Jack Valenti's actual role at the time, before and after the assasination? What is documented about the role played by the Bloom agency?

I received this email from Gary Mack and post it here with his permission:

I found this rather interesting review of the Martin Allen book at Amazon.com: