Sid Walker

Siamese twins enraged at Iranian Minister's 'divisive' remarks (How dare the cheeky Iranians talk back to their elders and betters!) Israel, U.S. storm out of UN nuclear forum By Haaretz Staff and Agencies The Israel and U.S. delegations walked out of the United Nations' disarmament forum in Geneva, Switzerland yesterday after Iran said Israel was the "real source of nuclear danger in the Middle East" and had a "dark record of crimes." Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Conference on Disarmament that Israel's nuclear weapons posed a "uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security" requiring action by the international community. In a statement, Israel's ambassador Itzhak Levanon to the UN in Geneva, said that he and his aides, and the entire U.S. delegation had "abruptly left the room as the Foreign Minister of Iran ... was in the middle of a vitriolic speech". A U.S. spokeswoman in Geneva confirmed the walk-out and called Mottaki's remarks "outrageous and divisive" at a time the forum was trying to find common ground on global arms issues. Vice Premier Shimon Peres said yesterday that a peaceful solution must be found to the Iranian nuclear problem, despite its president's vow to wipe Israel off the map. "I wouldn't like to darken the future with belligerent declarations," Peres said at a news conference when asked about the possibility of a preemptive strike. "I do hope that the problem can be solved economically, politically and psychologically." Peres is in Tokyo for a four-nation meeting today about Middle East peace that includes officials from the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and host Japan, as well as a two-day confidence-building conference that starts today.

Apparently 'Mohammed' was a water boarding champion, Ron. I wonder, does that make his confession more or less reliable? Also, when can we first expect this exciting new sport at the Olympics? China in 2008? Or London 2012?

That is a great headline, Michael. I imagine a similar headline on the death of J J Angleton, something like: "Jesus mourned in Israel!" Anyhow, nice to see this case is all tied up now. As 'Mohammed' is in 'safe hands', I wonder if we can all ask him questions? I'd like to inquire how he and his henchmen managed to down WTC-7 in roughly ten seconds. As a follow-up question, I'd ask why he send out tantalizing advance reports of the collapse of that mysteriously doomed 47-storey building to BBC News? Was it an Al Qaida cock-up - or a deliberate conspiracy to make this fine media institution appear foolish? Just how devious and mischievous are these fanatical Muslim extremists? I presume one writes c/o Camp X-Ray, Cuba?

A very interesting story, Paul. The online editions of In Fact are indeed a wonderful resource - thanks for the link! Does anyone know if IF Stone's journal is similarly available on the net?

Len, It's simple, although you prefer to make it complicated. The BBC/CNN report of the collapse of WTC-7, like every other media report, came from somewhere. There was a source for the report. What was it? Who provided that 'information'? That's the kind of thing we need to know. I imagaine in NYC the mayor's office was crucial. Perhaps that was the central clearing house for media reports that I posited earier? Perhaps there wasn't one? I don't care. It's not a guessing game. Just let's have the facts. Who reported what, when, from where? The public has a right to facts about activities carried out in the name of the public that made use of public resources. Not too much to ask, is it? In the case of private media institutions such as CNN, there is no equivalent public 'right to know'. However, what type of corporate citizen would deliberately withold crucial information about the 9/11 mass murders - and for what valid reason?

An interesting take on the current demand that Hamas 'recognize Israel' - or see continuing sanctions imposed against the starving Palestinian populace... Why does the Times Recognize Israel's 'Right to Exist'? March 12, 2007 By Saree Makdisi "As soon as certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity. No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment — even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is — at best — utterly nonsensical. First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so). Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years — and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"? For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since? If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn? Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask — let alone to answer — difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies. Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists — that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them. A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers. And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict — and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights. This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function. In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology — a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine — The Times is taking sides. If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell. Saree Makdisi, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, writes frequently about the Middle East. Source: Los Angeles Times, 11 March. 2007

??? Let's see of I can paraphrase that to make some sense out of a poorly phrased question. Do I believe there was at least one 'central scripting' office from which the media was kept appraised of the 'Government' response to 9/11 in NYC operating on the day? Yes. I think that likely. And not of itself improper, I should add. One would expect a central clearing house for issuing media reports in the event of a major national crisis. I'd like to know who worked in that office/s. Who made what statements and when? What records have been kept of statements released on the day - including bulletins such as announcements of the collapse of WTC-7? Are any records 'missing'. To paraphrase Betrand Russell's comment on the Warren Commission, if the official story is true, why the need for secrecy? Just release the records and let the people look. Who said what on 9/11 has necessarily become an issue because of curious 'mistakes' such as the BBCs premature annoucement. If Government and the media have nothing to hide, it would be sensible they release all records promptly to clear the air.

Click the link to Sign the online petition: My comment is listed as no. 2428:

- duplicate post -

I said your post had changed the subject not that it was off-topic, for the last few days we’d been discussing your belief that the BBC’ s mistaken report that 7 WTC had collapsed a few minutes before it did constituted a smoking gun. Wonderful attempt at rationalization, you theory lies in tatters but rather than admit defeat or try fruitlessly to continue defending it you feign disinterest. The “theory” was predicated on the belief the collapse was unforeseeable which has been falsified. Even Ron and John Gillespie who like you believe 7 was demoed seem to agree the report was a simple mistake. I doubt that even Mark the only person to voice support for your “theory” still thinks there is anything to it. You also objected that they hadn’t expained where they got the info from and they did. Oh humbug Len You are like one of those guys at parties who keeps arguing his point after most of the attendees have gone home or fallen asleep. If you want to think you've scored a victory, be my guest. "Winning aruments" is obviously of great importance to you. It's probably in your performance criteria. Outside of your fantasy world, Len, here are a few FACTS, now accepted, that were not widely known a couple of weeks ago. 1/ The unprecedented total collpase of WTC-7 WAS announced some 20 minutes in advance by the BBC 2/ The BCC reluctantly admitted this 'error' only when forced to do so by viewers 3/ The BBC claims to have lost large amounts of footage from 9/11 4/ Person/s unknown tried - but failed - to erase the crucial video material from Google and the internet archive 5/ Aaron Brown of CNN read the same premature newsfeed - but was able to adapt his story (in mid-sentence) to take account of the actual NYC skyline; he could see WTC-7 still standing at the moment he announced its collapse 6/ LIke the BBC, CNN did not admit its 'mistake' 7/ The BBC will not tell the rest of us the source of its over-enthusiastic story about the collapse of WTC-7. 8/ The BBC is much more widely perceived than before as an institution controlled by liars Did I miss anything significant? Now, what's in tatters?

Anyone know the last time Israel issued a travel advisory like this?

Thanks Don. I agree with what you say. However, in Oswald's first interview on the vid, it seems to me not the reaction of a guy who is a stranger to shenannigans. In the first interview, Oswald seems to be trying to size up what's happening and guage his options. A cool dude, given the circumstances. Not an everage guy off the street, who'd be cracking up with shock and disbelief. I'd still like to know the identity of all the other participants in the video... especaially the guy who was so certain of Oswald's guilt and his interviewers.

This is wonderful footage. Thank you! Can anyone identify ALL the speakers? Who for instance is the guy asked to sum up Oswald based on his knoweldge of criminal types? Who was the reporter who posed the question? Also, I can't work out one of the comments directed at Oswald by a reporter. What does he say - prompting Oswald to shrug? The sentence starts "You have been..."

Portillo, writing in The Times, has quite an interesting take on the latest row in Downing Street about 'leaks'. See Britain isn’t a police state, but it’s close to being a xxxx state Portillo concludes: Nicely put.

That's your opinion and you may be correct. The PNAC website may also avoid mentioning oil, I'm not sure, but IMO these people are in step with Brzzzzinski (sp) and Lewis and whomever else about the need to control energy resources where we are now not coincidentally fighting wars. This need was apparently underscored in the secret energy conference that Cheney held in Washington soon after taking office. We don't actually know nor are we entitled to know what was discussed and concluded. They may planned 9/11 right there. Those Americans who want to know (a smaller minority than those who are even aware of such a conference) must think they live in a democracy or something. Hard to square an analysis that PNAC is the 'key driver' behind US foreign policy with the following report about arm-twisting in the democrat-dominated US Congress.

Specter a xxxx? Certainly Accessory after the fact? Obviously. Fool? That depends on one's point of view. He probably thinks not. He's close to the top of the US political tree, posturing as a defenders of civil liberties and so far from arrest and indictment that the prospect is not seriously mentioned, even in forums such as this. I guess Specter would regard us as the fools. He got away with it. Those of us who regard him as a criminal accomplice to the cover-up of the President's murder haven't laid a glove on him, except by occasional protests in narrowcasts targeted only at minority interest groups.

Today's Sunday Times editorializes that it's the 'Endgame' for No 10. Perhaps Mr Blair has finally passed his 'use-by' date for the Murdoch Empire? Whereas Levy has the option of skipping off to Israel to escape 'anti-Semitic' persecution, Blair does not. Nor can Tony expect much protection from the army. I noticed an interesting thread on the British Army Rumour Service Forum. It is mainly concerned with the legal implications of Punching the Prime Minister. No one seems opposed to the principle of doing it. There's just concern about the practicalities. One poster has written to the Queen, asking Her Majesty to do it on their behalf - an elegant way of evading treason charges. If young Harry gets blown up in Basra, the fond grandma may well comply. Here's the Times Leading Article for March 11th 2007:

The subjectof this thread, Len, is 9/11. Please show me where my posts have been "off-topic". It's true that I don't pursue every point with you, back and forth, until my beard grows down to the floor. There are some sub-plots that. IMO, cannot be taken further, without boring all concerned. We have to agree to differ. I - and other readers have noted that you have argued against every possible objection to the official story. No doubt you shall continue to do so. As for your attempt to portray doubts about the official story as an "ultra-rightwing" deviation... well, you would say that, wouldn't you, Len? It's a line that worked well for a while. But it's not as efficacious as it used to be, because it is untrue and has been groslly over-used. In reality, the so called 'ultra-right wing' - like any other sector - is not a unified block. I notice for instance that Netenyahu is a keen exponent of the official story. Indeed, he was one of the first to articulate it - on CNN, as I recall, in the first hours after the 9-11 mass murders. In Britain, the BNPs Nick Griffin is apparently on your side. In the USA, the number of ultra-right wing loonies who claim to believe in the official story is extensive, from the President and V-P downwards...

A member of PNAC is by definition a zealot, signatory to the PNAC agenda (Pax Ameicana, "a new Pearl Harbor" etc.). The two most powerful PNAC zealots, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used to meet regularly in the White House. Rumsfeld has since resigned, leaving Cheney as chief PNAC puppet master. The bombing of Iran. In Britain they're represented by a U.S. lapdog named Blair. I'm not sure about the others. The PNAC's Cheney appointed himself as Bush's running mate in 2000. It was then just a matter of giving key government positions to fellow PNAC zealots like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the top two men at the Pentagon. You didn't know all this? No, but his eloquently stated position on gaining control of oil is reflected in the PNAC's imperialistic agenda. So... is Daniel Pipes in the "PNAC", Ron? David Horowitz? Martin Indyck? Is AIPAC part of the 'PNAC'? Is it that you don't believe a Zionist movement exists? Or that you believe the 'PNAC' is more powerful?

The "someone would have talked" argument is familiar to JFK researchers. The response that plenty of folk talk did needs documentation. It is not a service provided by the western mass media. There's a similar 'anti-inside job' argument. It goes something like this: "lots of people in the know would be talking about it" As we now know, in the JFK case, they were... Same with 9/11. Here's an interesting summary of comments by prominent conservative Americans about 9/11 unlikely to appear any time soon on the front pages of the controlled media: It's worth visiting the original on George Washington's Blog, for links to the original sources.

Can anyone please tell me when the 'Oil Lobby' - or any other lobby for that matter - got this kind of line-up at any its annual events?

I agree. But you and I do not run things. The U.S. is run by PNAC zealots, led by Cheney, who stole the 2000 election, when everyone thought at the time that it was George W. Bush who stole it. It was a coup d'etat, with Bush retained as a blithering puppet. Their agenda, as put in writing before they ever took power, is American world hegemony, Pax Americana, including control of the world's oil. The latter need was put in writing by Brzezinski in 1997 in his book The Grand Chessboard, according to which the key to world power is control of the vast oil reserves of Central Asia. All that was needed to get this world conquest ball rolling was, to borrow the PNAC's phrase, "a new Pearl Harbor," which obligingly happened seven months after Cheney took office. The result has been an absolute debacle, a world tragedy. But that's what happens when control of the world's one great superpower is handed to wild-eyed ideological sociopaths. Ron, You say "U.S. is run by PNAC zealots" What is a PNAC zealot, for heavens sake? When do PNAC zealots meet? Where are their conferences? What are they planning next? How are they also represented in Britain, France, Germany and Russia? How did a brand new organization come to 'run' the USA only a decade after its formation? I submit that you use misleading terminology. The word you really need, Ron, is Zionist. In Zionism we find a century-old movement with a rich international history and the potential to achieve great political power. It is Zionists who dominate US policy, Ron. Their project - and ultimate goal - has little to do with An 'American' Century, IMO. Americans will probably figure this out as the century progresses. Because you fail to recognize - or for some reason don't want to identify - the nature of the political movement that has gained ascendancy in your country's politics, you also seem to have a strange notion that the cock-up in Iraq is pure accident, that the neocons really did believe their own rhetoric about rapid victory and that the strength of Iraqi insurgency came as a complete surprise to them. I think that rather unlikely. A few questions to ponder. Do you also think the people behind the Iraq invasion really believed Iraq had WMDs? Do you believe they really intended to make Iraq an exemplar of a prosperous, modern Arab nation? Do you think that Rupert Murdoch's unswerving support for attacking Iraq is because he's a closet member of the PNAC? Is Brzezinski is a PNAC member too?

- duplicate post -

Distraction? There's no doubt in my mind that this is a "war for oil." The U.S. supports Israel, but we would not be in the mess we are in if it wasn't for oil and Cheney's PNAC coup of 2000. Most expensive oil ever, Ron. Cost of invasion / barrels shipped from Iraq since 2003 = very poor investment. Of course, things might 'improve' for American oil interests in Iraq. I'm aware US companies are grasping at long-term contracts. But without US troops there, they can't be sure any contracts signed will be honored, as they were clearly obtained under the duress of occupation. With US troops there, it'll keep being the most expensive oil ever. Take Britain. Blair joined the war - yet the CEO of only Oil major based in Britain specifically spoke out against the 2003 invasion beforehand. This was no war for oil, IMO. Easier for the USA to invade Venezuela than Iraq if direct military occupation of oilfields is the goal. But why bother? Easiest and cheapest just to buy oil on the world market. I even recall Richard Perle saying as much, when laughing off the claim it was a war for oil prior to the invasion. Just because the man's a xxxx doesn't mean he can't sometimes tell the truth.

Douglas, If the report is spurious, I was trying to imagine all the possible sources (motives in brackets): 1 - The Open Source Movement (idealism and whistle-blowing) 2 - Apple (commerical gain) 3 - Microsoft itself (blame the NSA!) 4 - Other US intelligence agenices (shame the NSA!) 5 - North Korea (mischief) 6 - Al Qaida (takes its cue from the CIA & Mossad) 7 - Bill Gates (spite) Have I missed anyone? If the story is true, this is just one more reason not to upgrade to Vista. Did we need any more?