Sid Walker

Interviewed on the ABC's 7.30 Report current affairs this evening, analyst Hugh White from the Australian National University 'confirmed' that oil had, indeed, been in the minds of strategic planners in the west. He added that the gulf region has been western strategists sights because it is oil rich. A staggering contribution to human wisdom! Although there was great determination to dismiss this line of analysis in 2003, it's actually the only argument in favour of this appalling invasion and occupation that makes at least some sense to ordinary folk. Outright oil imperialism in a age of scarcity... I wonder if the 'revelation' in Australia is a trial balloon? If it flies here, it may become the quasi-official line throughout the west. At least it makes the war appeal to basic human weaknesses such as greed and selfishness. Personally, I've always believed the "war for oil" line, promoted so heavily by the left and anti-war movement in 2003, is itself a 'limited hangout'. The ultimate driving force behind the destruction of Iraq, IMO, has been the perceived self interest of the State of Israel and its international cheer squad. The Iraq war - and all the rest of the recent wars in the region - may more accurately be described as 'wars for Israel'. The day that dirty little secret is 'revealed' on Australian prime time TV... that's when I'll feel a genuine truth revolution is underway.

A very good question, Mark. Rather too sophisticated for the Telly. It like to serve up its terror doses undiluted by qualifications or thoughtful questions. Just goes to show that Those who preach at you often deceive you

I'd be interested in some account of how you think this was achieved. I must say there was something rather strange, to me, about Johnson's re-appearance. Very scripted. I watched the ceremony on the Beeb. He was in full oratorical flight and didn't seem messed up like released hostages I've seen before. But then again, I have a suspicious mind. If you believe the kidnappers were really an Israeli front, Michael, how and why was the 'official' story sold to the world? Why hasn't the Hamas leadership blown the whistle?

I see you're another one who moonlights as a psychoanalyst, Daniel. It seems like a popular hobby. Back to the terror front. Yesterday evening and through to this morning, the Australian airwaves were filled with the chatter of experts, discussing the meaning and significance of the latest arrestee in this truly global terror scare. A doctor! In Australia! What did this mean? What lessons can we learn? Whatever next!!!? Patients who watched the telly from their hospital beds must have spent an uneasy night... What a difference a day makes! "I'm no terror bomb plotter" says Dr Mohammed Asif Ali, released without charge by Australian police after questioning in connection with attempted attacks on London and Glasgow. As a consequence of this new information, is this evening's news in Australia filled with the chatter of remorseful talking heads, humbled by their premature babble the night before? Not even a smidgen of it! One thing these folk do not have is shame. On to the next terror-alert-panic-scare-paranoia-piffle-nonsense...

Fidel's take on the Family Jewels...

I am afraid the only prize Sidney is likely to win is if we put one up for gullibility. He clearly has a problem with the concept of "evidence". Quoting a religious astronomer does not constitute evidence for the existence of god. It would of course take us down the road of a discussion about natural selection - as neither of us is a biologist that could be at most amusing. It is my considered impression however that Hoyle's views are pretty much blown out the water by biologists such as Dawkins. Just as a quote from a religious astronomer lacks rigour when cited as evidence for the existence of god so does quoting discredited American execution technicians and Canadian Nazis when trying to dispute the testimony of tens of thousands of holocaust victims. Sidney you have a problem with evidence. We can agree Sidney that "the truly rational mind cannot be chained. It must be free to consider and reconsider all topics". However there is a very real danger of leaving one's mind so open that one's brain plops out. Having said this I am glad that Sidney has decided he wishes to discuss these matters with me. With this is mind I will be starting a thread on the role of religion in education later today after I have indoctrinated some more children. For now and for here perhaps we should return to the original topic of this particular thread as I see there have been interesting developments overnight - not content with killing you with superbugs the NHS appears to be widening its approach http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgo...est/6265608.stm Perhaps when you start the new thread Andy, you could provide at least one of the exact Dawkins references that persuaded you he has "pretty much blown (Hoyle) out the water". I've been looking myself for a detailed refutation of Hoyle by Dawkins. Thanks in anticipation. Please speak for yourself regarding lack of biological education, Mr Walker. Not for both of us. If you feel like a booster, I suggest a look at this review on Gert Korthof's excellent website. Another smidgen to add to your collection. Your snide remark about the NHS finding new ways of killing its clients is noted. I guess you're looking for a private hospital with a 'No Arabs, No Muslims' sign over the door? FWIW, the official version of the latest Anglo-Australian bomb saga, as evolve, continues to strike me as implausible in the extreme. I'd like to say "we shall see"... but with the recent gutting of the judicial system aka new 'terrorism' laws, it's not at all clear whether we ever shall. Especially when so many people like you - supposedly left wing with concern for civil liberties - still serve as apologists for the growing police state, instead of vocal and potentially influential opponents.

This is very interesting Charles. I recall hearing Ralph Schoenman discussing Plame and her husbands interesting careers in rather more detail than one obtains from the Washington Post. It is almost as though the entire debate has been a stage-managed distraction. Something Democrats and Republicans can argue over, while the real action is elsewhere.

You are of course wrong about zealotry - if you were to provide me with the smallest smidgeon of a scintilla of evidence that my atheist world view is incorrect then I would consider altering it ... this is an important difference between a faith head and a rational human being Challenge accepted. Of course, it all depends what one means by atheism - or theism, for that matter. Words are just signifiers. Different people use them to signify different meanings. I lifted these quotes from a Christian website, as I know that'll put you in an attentive frame of mind I think that constitutes more than a 'smidgeon of a scintilla of evidence', on any fair-minded and rational assessment. Now I'd like to claim the prize. Please consider altering your "atheist world view". While we're at it, how about reconsidering some of your other views on history and current affairs? The truly rational mind cannot be chained. It must be free to consider - and reconsider - all topics. I'm sure, deep down, as a fellow enthusiast for the wit and wisdom of Voltaire, you agree with me on this Andy. In which case, I suggest you reconsider calling me a 'neo-Nazi' without even a scintilla of provocation. I'm sure it wouldn't be good for your reputation to be seen agreeing with 'neo-Nazis', real or imaginary.

Clearly not the only factor I'd agree. However the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as moderate religion. Religious faith requires the believer to suspend rational thought and is therefore in itself an open invitation to the sort of fundamentalism which allows the believer to bully, kill and maim with impunity. This is just as true of the Born Again nutters who appear to have such an influence over the Bush administration as it is of the Taliban. As it is clear that no one else is even remotely interested in discussing this point and given that the very suggestion that religion may be a dangerous problem seems to lead to the relatively thoughtful descending into a disturbing and offensive rage (maybe I touched a nerve), and the less informed hurling the racist label in my direction, I shall from now on detach myself from this thread. I for one am quite willing to discuss this topic with you Andy, although I agree it should be on a separate thread. Richard Dawkins' forum, as one might expect, has many members with views such as yours. There's plenty of discussion about his book, The God Delusion, here. I put one condition on my participation, however. If religion - and the nexus between religion and politics - is to be discussed, let it be a full and open discussion. By all means let's cast a critical eye over the Koran and the Bible. Let's look at the Talmud too. Similarly, let's review religious extremism in ALL its manifestations. If we are to discuss the complex relationship between religious affiliation and political/economic power, let's do it holistically and in full, without bars or restrictions that betoken bias, whether explicit or implicit. Let's also include all those noble things that religious people do not only for the sake of their religion but becuase their religion creates in them a deep sense of community and compassion for others. I am no churchgoer nor even religious, so I am not sparking off out of a desire to protect my faith. But to categorically belittle, demean and demonise religion on the scale I have seen here is, in my view, unbalanced, unreasonable, lacking in objectivity and not at all dissimilar to outright zealotry itself. In saying this I am fully cognisant of the role religion has played in the history of the world. More wars are started out of religious differences than I can shake a stick at. Millions upon untold millions have died a bloody and cruel death because of religion. I am also aware how easy it has been for the religiously inclined to be hoodwinked and manipulated -- albeit some are catching on. Some have even caught on. And why stick to just the three mentioned? The history of mankind is a history of religion of all sorts. Spinning Dervishers, Taoism, Buddhism, the beliefs of those bloodily razed by the church. We could even include the Alchemists of the middle ages who protected their beliefs from a jealous church by hiding them behind a bewildering array of symbolism hinting at earthly treaures like gold. There are any number of them. David I agree with you David. The facile rubbishing of religion calls for some resistance, even on the part of secular folk like you and me, lest we discard the baby with the bathwater. I also agree that no religion should be exempt from scrutiny and criticism in a really satisfactory discussion. The reason I mentioned the Jewish religion in particular is three-fold. First, in my opinion, it IS effectively shielded from open scrutiny in modern western society. Second, there's some evidence that extremist adherents to the Jewish religion have achieved positions of enormous power within western society (largely undiscussed in the mainstream media). Third, there's some evidence that extremists adherents to the Jewish religion collude in efforts to vilify and weaken others religions, most notably (in recent times) Islam. I'll refer to my home turf, although I believe similar comments can be made of Britain, Canada the USA and most of continental Europe. In Australia, religious affairs programming on our national broadcaster appears dominated by Jewish extremists. Rachael Kohn, for instance, refused to voice even a word of criticism about the behaviour of any Jewish settlers in the occupied territories during an interview on Late Night Live some years ago! ABC religious shows regularly discuss Christianity in unflattering terms. Discussions about why Islam promotes extremism are staple fare. Judaism, by contrast, is only mentioned in a grovelling, wholly positive manner. This is not open rational debate. I presume that an egalitarian socialist with secularist leanings such as Andy Walker, who is deeply committed to the principles of the Enlightenment and regularly quotes from Voltaire, would be shocked if he knew about this egregious one-eyed approach to discussing religion and power. That's why truly open discussion is so important, if we are to discuss the topic at all. Most people are simply unaware of this bias in contemporary western culture.

I guess that when war crimes, mass murder, grand theft and election rigging go unpunished, it would be most unfair to trouble anyone unduly over minor offenses such as perjury and obstructing justice. Perhaps we should have a whip round to help poor Scooter pay his fine?

Spot on, in my opinion Gary. Well said!

It might be worth joining in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5165 I think I'll steer clear of that one, John. Interesting, but rather too much sex for me. Not that I'm a prude. Just that I hold the rather simple view that Church and State should stay out of people's bedrooms, and enter only in the event of loud screams (with exemptions to even this rule for registered masochists). I'm more interested in the nexus between religion and politico-economic power, a topic which is much less discussed. It is, IMO, much more important.

Sid, I've been worried about SBS for some time now. For non-Aussies, the SBS is one of two national television broadcasters and also broadcasts radio and online programmes in many languages. Established under the Special Broadcating Act, 1991, its role under its charter is to inform, educate and entertain and reflect Australia's multicultural society. The Act also states that the SBS will have programming and operational independence from the Government, although whether this precludes SBS from ideological independence from the Government is another issue entirely (especially since the Government pays most of the bills, limited advertising being permitted) The current board of directors includes Christopher Pearson, founding editor of the Adelaide Review, right wing journalist and former advisor and confidante to Prime Minister John Howard: http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=1200 I have noticed a change in the tone and content of SBS docos and general news reporting which roughly dates back to Pearson's appointment in October 2003. Some excellent docos are still broadcast but many dubious ones, such as recent hatchet jobs on JFK and his 'loose' morals are also shown. Recent docos dealing with the Middle East seem to broadly reflect the US/ Israeli point of view. SBS news reporting in regard to real or suspected incidents of terrorism unfailingly lays the blame at the door of Muslim fundamentalism even before all the facts have been established. As such, I longer regard SBS as reliable or independent when it comes to issues such as this. Interestingly, Pearson's term expires in October 2007. If he seeks another term, I've got no doubt Howard will grant it as it seems that Pearson has been quite effective in reminding the other Board members that it's the Government which holds the purse strings (so it's plainly in their interests to see things his way). If Pearson doesn't seek re-appointment, I would recommend the Government appoint one David Oldfield to continue its slimy agenda. A former right wing MP in the NSW State Legislature, Oldfield was arguing on radio a few days ago that extremists in the Muslim world are not a small minority, but are, in fact, a reflection of mainstream Muslim sentiment and that the Islamic faith, being violent and hostile to western society, should be confronted with force at all times. The only thing he forgot to say in his feverish tirades was that they hate us for our freedom. Both the SBS and ABC are utterly corrupted institutions, IMO. I'm not saying all journalists who work therein are part of the scam. But there's a culture of conformism and avoidance of hot button topics. Several good journalists such as Geraldine Doogue and Terry Lane survived by piping down. Both got their knuckles wrapped by the Zionist lobby. Both got the message and made an accommodation with power. If either the ABC or SBS provide a forum for rational debate about 9-11 - to give but one example - it will be because the BBC does it first. Indeed, they'll probably play a BBC tape (as occurred with the Beeb's limited hangout documentary The Power of Nightmares) Australians have been robbed of a free media to a more extreme extent than perhaps any other 'western democracy'. It's sad. The SBS and ABC provide an illusion of public interest and freedom from vested interests. But when push comes to shove, an illusion is all it is. Great gardening programs. Cookery and sport are well covered. A good sprinkling of cultural programs, movies and other entertainment. When it comes to religion, spookery and global politics, however, Australia's public broadcasters are occupied territory. Strict monitoring and checkpoints everywhere you look.

Clearly not the only factor I'd agree. However the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as moderate religion. Religious faith requires the believer to suspend rational thought and is therefore in itself an open invitation to the sort of fundamentalism which allows the believer to bully, kill and maim with impunity. This is just as true of the Born Again nutters who appear to have such an influence over the Bush administration as it is of the Taliban. As it is clear that no one else is even remotely interested in discussing this point and given that the very suggestion that religion may be a dangerous problem seems to lead to the relatively thoughtful descending into a disturbing and offensive rage (maybe I touched a nerve), and the less informed hurling the racist label in my direction, I shall from now on detach myself from this thread. I for one am quite willing to discuss this topic with you Andy, although I agree it should be on a separate thread. Richard Dawkins' forum, as one might expect, has many members with views such as yours. There's plenty of discussion about his book, The God Delusion, here. I put one condition on my participation, however. If religion - and the nexus between religion and politics - is to be discussed, let it be a full and open discussion. By all means let's cast a critical eye over the Koran and the Bible. Let's look at the Talmud too. Similarly, let's review religious extremism in ALL its manifestations. If we are to discuss the complex relationship between religious affiliation and political/economic power, let's do it holistically and in full, without bars or restrictions that betoken bias, whether explicit or implicit.

Great piece on yesterday's Whatreallyhappened page (July 1): http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ I confess - I find it strange. It must be childs play for the authorities to track back to the person/s who set up this site. Also, with the NSA's massive UKUSA wide Echelon system eavesdropping on all electronic messages in real time, it is hard not to consider that the authorities would have had advanced warning of this event, based on the foregoing website message alone. In which case why wasn't preventative action taken and the warning level elevated before the attacks, rather than waiting till they were over to do so? David I agree gentlemen. Thirded! These must be regarded as stories for the credulous. I recall after 9-11 for a while the term "terrorist chatter" came into vogue. We were asked to believe that our spooks were able to monitor terrorists chatting on the web - but never catch them in the act. The results of chatter observation was reflected in the colour-coding of the terror alert. It was around this time I began to realise that most of not all of the information we are fed by "terrorist experts" is pure invention. I used to be very cagey about treating each new terrorist alarm with great caution, expecting at some point to be caught wrong-footed if I sneered at every new official account. However, after what now seems like an endless succession of bogus terror, I really don't care much any more. Perhaps every now and again one of these atrocities or plots will be the handiwork of bona fide Islamic extremists, acting without prompting and without the influence of agent provocateurs. The west is insulting Muslims so much, so often, that it would be amazing if there was no comeback at all. The amazing thing seems to be that there is so little. Consequently, the spooks feed our diet of terror, almost entirely through their own efforts. One big false flag parade... Andy - and others - may well dispute this claim. My challenge to them is to prove that I am wrong. And here's the rub. The nixing of judicial due process for 'terrorism' cases in recent years means that it is, in reality, quite impossible to prove a skeptic wrong. We don't have fair trials any longer for 'terror suspects'. We clearly have utterly biased media reporting. None of these incidents become the subject of open, accountable inquiries. 'National security' is used to justify a level of secrecy that necessarily prevents outsiders from making an informed judgment about what is really happening. This poses a very serious threat to our civilization. I fear we are squandering a fine inheritance that was grounded in the rational and essentially egalitarian principles of the Enlightenment. We've allowed devious, unaccountable sectional interests to eat away at our basic freedoms and erode the integrity of our democratic system. Once we had a reasonable vehicle for achieving common goals. It needed improvement, for sure. But largely speaking, it worked. Instead of taking care of it, or obtaining a genuine upgrade, we've allowed the old car body to deteriorate. It's now consumed by rust and can't be trusted any longer. One kick and the whole chassis could easily fracture.

Meanwhile, back to the war front... I see my choice of satellite TV stations are now all chattering identical piffle about doctors in Queensland. Apparently there has been an outbreak of the terror virus over here, as well. The WoT is getting close to home! Heavens, how terribly overworked our spooks must be! My heart goes out to them. Astonishingly, when these vile shysters fall ill, they still get free treatment in public hospitals from overworked doctors and nurses, just like the rest of us. Truly, the miracle of forgiveness reigns supreme.

Thirded - and this is where I came in... "Thirded"? Are you counting yourself twice Paul? Yawn I watched the first 30 minutes or so. Its the same crap as other “Truther” “documentaries” misconceptions, distortions, misinformation (no Arab names on the manifests) documents selectively quoted out of context, intellectual dishonesty etc etc. If any of its “champions” want to highlight any specific points it made, along with an indication of where they appeared in the video I’ll reply. I particularly liked the fact a BBC documentary couldn't bring itself to include eyewitness accounts from, er, BBC reporters. Shifty types, you understand, not to be trusted. I think it's called 'self-denial'. Len reminds me of the kind of friend you don't take to the movies twice. Demands to know the storyline before the show begins. Munches popcorn noisily. Shouts 'boring' after 20 minutes and walks out in a huff, loudly repeating his glib, know-all 'review' in the foyer on the way out to anyone who'll listen.

Oh dear. Just when Britons were enjoying the services of overseas doctors greatly boosting the skill-base of the NHS, it transpires that that dark-skinned, friendly man bustling around the ward in a white coat may, in reality, be planning to blow up the local airport. Neurologists seem particularly prone to this especially virulent form of the islamofascist virus (perhaps because they mess around with a lot of brains?) According to Mr Murdoch's newspapers, one such had the audacity to drive along the Motorway with his wife. Happily the plods were on hand to stamp out this dangerous threat to western values. See Arab doctors held over bomb plot Who writes the scripts for Britain's spooks these days? Eric Idle?

On a lighter note, I see that a new pyrotechnic craze may be about to sweep the free world. Not book-burning. Not flag burning. Not even bra burning.... Welcome to on air script burning. Such good fun, it will doubtless attract a whole new generation to the noble profession of presenting the 'news'.

Speaking of "spinning terror yarns", here's another example from the post 9-11 War on Everything. There's a superb piece of media deconstruction by Arash Norouzi in this article: Caught Red-Handed: Media Backtracks on Iran's Anti-Israel 'Threat' The case of the BBC is given some detailed attention. It has shifted ground a little in its mistranslation of the Iranian President's comments, but studiously overlooks its own role in the deception. The British establishment really does have a world-class talent for combining duplicity with hypocrisy.

It's probably also worth pointing out that, when it comes to the WoT, Australians are expected to accept the official British narrative (relayed to us on Sky TV and the Beeb) without question. In July 2005, London experienced some nasty bomb atrocities. Therefore Australia legislated in late 2005 to tighten yet further our 'anti-terrorism' laws. These happened to include prohibitions on supporting Hezbollah. Anyone suggesting that we look a little more carefully into univestigated crimes halfway around the world before rushing to change our own laws is treated in one of two ways. If they are 'regular Aussies', they are loony conspiracy theorists. If they are Muslim Australians... they are (you guessed it) extremists. Whoever thinks up these strategies, IMO, is very sick indeed.

Yesterday evening Australian time, I witnessed both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS TV - both public broadcasters - uncritically relay the latest official version of the latest British bomb atrocities/mysteries. Both devoted considerable time to an analyis of how many Islamic extremists in Australia we should be concerned about. The chain of 'reasoning' ran something like this. - In Britain, MI5 currently keeps tabs on 3000 'Islamic extremists' - in Australia, taking the lower size of the Moslim population into account, that amounts to a few hundreds. - claims there are thousands of Islamic extremists in Australia who might be about the blow us (and themselves) up at any moment are exaggerated. It's mote like a few hundred. The maths was reasonably accurate and fair minded - but that's all. The rest of the analysis, of course, is assumption at best, downright lie at worst. The intended effect, I guess, would be to create even greater disaffection, anger and paranoia in the Islamic community, while generating even more anti-Islamic resentment, hostility and paranoia in the non-Muslim community. Now, both SBS and the ABC ran this nonsense. I imagine something similar was running on the commercial channels. Note the use of reverse psychology. The argument presented to the public by these spinners poses as liberalism. The storyline is: "Alarmists exaggerate when they say there are thousands of insane Muslims in Australia itching to kill us all... there are ONLY a few hundred". In this way, the anti-Islamic extremists who have siezed control of our airwaves in a long, slow coup, pose as moderates. Sneaky, unscrupulous and utterly evil.

Douglas, I also enjoyed parts of this fictional dialogue, although occasionally the words Spengler put in Putin's mouth struck me as more dangerous than the authentic ramblings of Bush himself. The author concludes with the curious proposition that the way to gain the respect of Muslims is to kill MORE of them and over a much longer period. To paraphrase, "they hate us because we don't kill enough of them". Now that really would be a cultural difference!

You are not all ears you are all mouth and what pours forth from that orifice is neither instructive nor helpful. You are a fool if you believe that the religious attacks on the UK, Australia and the USA have been inspired by anything other than misguided god heads hoping for a quick route to paradise and a large number of virgins. In answer to your question cited above the banning of the religious indoctrinination of children would be a start So, Andy, when do you start closing down Protestant and Catholic schools? Or is it just one form of religious indoctrination you're opposed to? The form favoured by people, say, with darker coloured skins than you? And not inspired by anything other "misguided god heads"? You mean Saudi Arabia, the CIA and ISI didn't pump all that money into religious schools in the 80s? We imagined this? You're attack on Sid was truly appalling stuff, unworthy even of a Sun editorial. Thanks Paul. But compared with some past performances, Andy's cuffing was rather mild. Check him out when he gets really riled.

Google may well archive the forum. However, I don't know how one might access Google archives. In addition, until quite recently it seemed many pages weren't spidered by Google and were probably absent from Google's database. Andy fixed the spidering, but it's not obvious to me at any rate how many pages may have been missed by Google. The only publicly-available internet archive I know about is the 'Wayback Machine'. This is Wayback's entry for the Education Forum: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://educat...um.ipbhost.com/ It does provide some kind of backup. People can make their own judgment about whether it's sufficient. The Wayback Machine has been a feature on the web for some time, and may prove to be a permanent free service, but who can guarantee that? IMO, relying on Wayback is a risky strategy. Crucially, while some - possibly most - past content could be retrieved from external archives, it wouldn't be possible to restore the forum as a functioning entity from pages archived by Wayback or Google. I feel I've taken this issue as far as it's appropriate. I don't want to be a nuisance. My only concern is only to ensure continuity of what is, I believe, a fine forum and a valuable historical resource. Andy manages the technical side of the forum and is clearly doing a fine job. Downtime is minimal. However, responsibility that isn't shared can be burdensome. If I was in Andy's shoes, I'd want a few copies of the forum database distributed around the world, from time to time. Just in case...