Sid Walker

Important not to confuse Blairs here... but there a minor storm over a report that Sir Ian Blair was seated at "top table" with Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy, at the Jewish Security Trust's annual dinner. The Press Association report says they say they didn't converse much. A Scotland Yard source said: "The commissioner did not discuss details of the investigation into alleged abuse of honours with Lord Levy." Rather a ho-hum story, I thought. Not much there. But perhaps not. The Guardian report refers to the Jewish Security Trust. I presume what's meant is The Community Security Trust. This is from the CST website: Who could complain about that?However, it is not without its critics. Some are concerned that the CST is a vigilante group. The CGT, on the other hand, points out it has received support - indeed praise - from the police. And so it has. British Muslims see it differently, from experience. This is from the Islamic Human Rights Commission's 2002 report on Muslim Profiling: Now there plenty more to say about the CST, which inter alia keeps a large database of information on other Britons - and dissembles about it when asked to fess up under the data laws. Here's a brief extract from David Irving's website: Irving has, of course, been demonized in the public mind (one wonders how - and by whom?) Less easy to dismiss as a 'neo-Nazi' or 'anti-Semite' is Craig Murray. His whole article Levy, Blair and Injunctions is well worth a read, IMO. Here's an extract:

Contrary to mass media spin at the time, we now learn - as suspected - that the assault on The Lebanon War was planned in advance. Report from Reuters:

A very interesting article, Mark. When it comes to Blunkett's reaction, "there are none so blind as those who will not see" His reaction parallels James Callaghan (then Home Secretary) when the Wootton report was released, all those decades ago in the Autumn of the Summer of Love. Americans, more dramatically, call it 'The Fall'. Some time ago, the Gay movement began a program of systematically outing closet homosexuals who proved themselves to be rank hypocrits while enjoying the comforts of power. I recall Peter Tatchell led the charge in Britain. At the time, I felt uneasy about this. It seems to me people have a right to private lives, wheover they are. I want politicians in power who are competent, caraing and honest about public policy. I don't care about their secuality. Whether they have a right to gross hypocrisy - hypocrisy that involves pontificating about 'morals' they don't really share, or persecuting others over victimless 'crimes' that they themselves have committed and/or still commit, well, that's another matter. Tatchell felt not. I think he has a point. Back to the 'War on Drugs'. I myself know ay least one MP who - at least in earlier years - "passed the dutchie" as they say in Brixton, London. Whether the individual concerned inhaled, I cannot say. I didn't take much interest at the time. I imagine there's plenty more politicians in the same boat... to say nothing of lawyers, journalists, captains of industry... This particular MP sits in a Parliament that some years previously enacted the most remarkable legislation to make it easier to convict Cannabis offenders. It reversed the presumption of innocence with respect to charges of 'possession' (I thought that breaches the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, but I'm old fashioned). There is no longer a right to jury trial in such cases; defendents must prove their innocence if illegal plants are found on their property. Consider how one might do that with a large rural property. How can landowners possibly know every plant growing on a few hectares - let alone tens, hundreds or thousands? This is playing fast and loose with our civil liberties, breachig international obligations in order to intimidate more victims into pleading guilty and keeping the racket operating smoothly. It seems to me those responsible for such laws endanger themselves - along with everyone else. Have they never heard of frame-ups? It only takes a political enemy to 'plant' one small plant on one's block - then arrange for an anonymous tip-off to the police - and it's camera, lights... action! Odd it doesn't happen more often. That it does not is probably a case of 'honor among thieves' - and another testament to the essential decency of the long-suffering general public.

As usual, Chomsky: (1) Underplays and de-emphasizes the role of the Israel Lobby in driving US middle east policy (2) Implies that the US (not Israel) is the prime mover behind possible attacks against Syria and Iran and that they are primarily motivated by American (not Israeli) hostility. (3) Hypes up the 'War for Oil' distraction that helped fool a lot of the peace movement earlier in the decade - and at the time of the First Gulf War in 1990. ________________________ As Noam Chomsky's has given us his take on these topics so often already, one wonders why he just keeps repeating it? I guess 'repetition' is needed in any soft sell - and there's always a new cohort of suckers to welcome into the fold?

By comparison, it would appear to be a bigger whitewash than was the WC. Personally, I have also spoke with Anita Hill years ago, and rest assured that she is considerably more believeable than is Arlen Specter. 99 cents is about what it is worth to find out that one is a xxxx, when in fact they already know that they are a xxxx. Tom: I totally agree. I watched the hearings and completely believed Anita Hill. David Brock who wrote a smear book about Hill has also confessed in "Blinded By the Right" that he lied about both Hill and his Clinton articles. Interesting that Specter is now preceived as a liberal. Dawn Specter was spewing just yesterday about the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act to spy on the public. Methinks his Warren Commission experience taught him ALL about the executive branch's misuse of the Justice Department for political purposes. Some contrived nonsense about a single-bullet theory, which Specter was forced to concoct to save the Oswald did it foregone conclusion, tells me so... The irony is that the creators of the conclusion--Johnson and Hoover--NEVER believed Specter's lie manufactured to save the conclusion, and told others as much. Talk about biting the hand that feeds.. How ungratefu! Kid yourself not! Specter is still a master of diversion and distraction from his true nature. Fortunately (or unfortunately for him) he is also subject to political blackmail for his actions on the WC. Anyone who has read his book and believes the hogwash about why he voted Not Guilty against Clinton, would believe the WC also. Spot on Thomas. I find Pat's suggestion that Specter was 'forced' to concoct the SBT is bizarre. Where's the evidence for that, Pat? As for Specter's current posturings - I'd be inclined to treat them with the scepticism one usually reserves for a serial xxxx.

Lord Tony Benn? I bet he tops the vote! What a sweet irony!

This short video gives me better insight into the geography of the assassination site than anything I've seen before. Well done!

Interesting post, Ron. But I don't share your pessimism. I do agree that the paucity of official information is a disadvantage. Nevertheless, the times are different. The Internet is the key. Plus the fact that many people around the world have, by now, spent a lot of time looking at 'hidden history'. We have the JFK research community, among others, to thank for that. I think the general level of naiveté, among the few who are deeply interested in these topics, is probably much lower than in 1963 - or '68. I find your acceptance of the BBC story rather odd. Have you watched the BBC footage of Jane Stanley's report? If you haven't done so already, I also suggest watching Aaron Brown on CNN tell the same story - then change in mid-sentence when he sees, with his own eyes, that WTC-7 is still standing. Very suss! Combined with improbable stories about lost tapes, active attempts to "pull" the story involving Google and archive.org, determination to shield the BBC reporter from questions, and unwillingness to say who was responsible for the erroneous story in the first place - all documented above in this thread... well, if that doesn't seem strange to you, we must have different thresholds of suspicion. I simply do not believe that CNN and the BBC cannot establish the identity of the source of the false story that WTC-7 had already collapsed. If they have nothing to hide why don't the tell the rest of us who that source was? Why the secrecy and dissembling? As the BBC story has particular relevance to the British, I'd like to ask Brits on the forum for impressions on how this story is playing on home turf? Of course, there's effectively a mass media blackout on the story. But is it being talked about in pubs and living rooms? Or is everyone still dreaming of their next summer holiday, watching the cricket and worrying about their weight and pasty complexion?

Good post Mark!' Yes, unemployment might go up - and quite a few secondary sources of income would dry up. However, considerable additional consumer spending power would be freed up. This must surely be taken into the equation. Economic modellers would have fun working it out. Perhaps they already have? My impression - but it's only that - is that not much changes when "recreational drugs" are decriminalized (are there any recent instances of full legalization in modern societies? I can't think of any). As most of the jails are close to full anyway, they just stop building new ones. Lawyers and police work less overtime. Psychiatrists find something else to do. Social workers still find plenty to keep themselves busy. Prelates preach about something else. Sociologists get re-employed studying the impacts of decriminalization. The media finds something else to shock us with. Organized crime... moves on to 'solve' other 'market failures.

In the early 1950s, the State of Israel ratified the ‘Geneva Conventions’, including the 4th Geneva Convention relating to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power. Its neighbours – Jordan, Syria and Eygpt –also ratified or acceeded to the 4th Geneva Convention around the same time. All four nations are therefore 'Contracting Parties' to the Convention. The 40th anniversary of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza approaches. We are also one year away from the 60th anniversary of the occupation of other parts of Palestine (recall that the UN Partition plan assigned only 55% of Palestine to the Zionists - not the 78% seized in 1948, then extended to 100% in 1967). On either count – four decades or six – that is a very long occupation. Yet while officially embracing the norms of civilized modern States, Israel has shirked the responsibilities of an occupying regime. Other GC signatories have let Israel get away with this to an increasing extent. These days, Israel is really not held to account at all for the welfare of those under its occupation. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.makes for an interesting read. Here are just a few of its terms: If things were getting better for those under continuing occupation, this interminable illegal occupation would be bad enough. But of course, things are getting worse. Much worse. Today, at the same time I read that Israel and the US determined to withhold any funding to the Palestinian Authority, I also discover a story that has attracted less fanfare: UN’s warning about Gaza: 80% of Palestinians are starving You cannot fool all the people all the time forever - and Israel's honeymoon with world public opinion is well and truly over - despite a pro-Zionist bias in the western mass media. A recent poll commissioned by the BBC rather sheepishly admits that Israel... tops the world 'negative list': Long? Almost 40 years at the lowest estimate! Controversial? Try illegal and criminal! Although the notion of a 'Two State Solution' is dangled in front of the Palestinians like an ever diminishing, ever-receding carrot to encourage good behaviour, I fear it is a mirage. There is only one feasible and humane 'solution' to the woes of the Holy Land, in my opinion. It’s the 'South African Solution'. The sour fantasy of a ‘Jewish’ State that will be a "light unto nations" needs to be seen for the dangerous distraction and impediment to human evolution that it always was (a colonialist, supremacist venture at the sunset of that era, just when the rest of the world was ready to move forwards). The wall of hate must be torn down (this could be a BIG tourist event!). Within 100% of the British Mandated Territory of Palestine, ONE secular, democratic State, free of weapons of mass destruction and mass repression, is all that's needed, all that's really viable and all that's desirable. That State would be for all who can legitimately claim citizenship: everyone born in the land of Palestine or Israel as well as anyone who can prove descent (not fable - genuine, proveable descent!) from a Palestinian or Israeli. As an act of generosity, the privilege of citizenship should also be offered to those who immigrated to Israel or Palestine within their own lifetime. Such a State would not be a 'Jewish' State, nor would it be defined by any other religion. It would be a State for all its people, like any normal modern State, with considerable human skills to help lead the economic, political, social and cultural recovery of the region. It would be much closer to the Balfour declaration than the current reality: a monstrous, deformed State of Israel/Indefinitely Occupied Palestine, widely reviled and armed to the teeth with weaponry that could set ablaze the whole world.

Chance the Gardener in Being There, articulated the essence of the TV age with the immortal words "I like to watch". We miss you Peter Sellers! Your take on the War on Terror would have us all in stitches. Here are a few short vids to take up the slack... 911 Truth: Arrested for Handing Out News Publication World Trade Center 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition - includes the famous Silverstein "pull it" footage. Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7. A treat for those who speak Dutch; English subtitles for the rest of us. This video is especially well done; the expert is given a hypothetical, before he's told the event described took place on 9/11. These are examples of the type of investigative journalism Brits pay licence fees for the BBC to undertake. In Australia, we pay taxes for the ABC to do this work. It's really a bummer to discover these well-paid leeches are actually part of the problem - not the solution - and that bloggers on a shoestring so a better job reporting important news. As of now, to find out the latest on the WTC-7 saga, don't bother with Goggle News. Use Google Blog Search - or some other facility for finding out what honest journalists are saying. Of course, there are a lot of silly and dishonest blogs. Each of us has to make our own choices about what to believe. But leaving that choice to corrupted, unaccountable institutions such as the BBC is clearly a recipe for ignorance and worse.

A very interesting article, Mark. The possibility of inhalers had never occured to me. But yes, that would solve (or at least reduce) the lung damage issue, and allow for safer yet effective self-medication (or intoxication, depending on one's point of view). I also agree with your list of War on Drugs 'beneficiaries'. At one time I believed that when enough progressive MPs of my generation or younger were in power, they'd change at least Cannabis laws to bring these laws more into line with their own cultural practice. But of course a disproportionate number of such politicians are lawyers. Many of them have a proud record defending the underdog - and made a tidy income defending drug cases. Some still do. Then there's the counselling and rehab services... never to forget hundreds of thousands of small time dealers. Most of these folk are probably Labor voters and would take a dim view of anyone who put them out of business. It all goes to show, I guess, that when it comes to industry policy, one should give more credence to disinterested observers than participants with direct pecuniary involvement. As Scott said earlier in this thread, for a sane take on the Drugs War at the time of its inception, Milton Friedman takes some beating.

It's nice to get your contributions, Len, as it helps keep the rest of us up-to-date with the official story as it evolves. You are apparently familiar with the vernacular used in Controlled Demolition circles. I cannot compete on equal terms, as I live a quiet life by comparison. But can you tell us how you know what CD insiders really mean when they say 'pull"? And what on earth, on your account, did Larry Silverstein mean when he referred to "pull it" when speaking of WTC-7 on PBS in 2002? Tug on the cables?

It's nice to get your contributions, Len, as it helps keep the rest of us up-to-date with the official story as it evolves. You are apparently familiar with the vernacular used in Controlled Demolition circles. I cannot compete on equal terms, as I live a quiet life by comparison. But can you tell us how you know what CD insiders really mean when they say 'pull"? And what on earth, on your account, did Larry Silverstein mean when he referred to "pull it" when speaking of WTC-7 on PBS in 2002? Get the cables out?

Now this really is an excellent idea. Far better to flog honours on the open market. It could all be done via a suitably crafted website. But what to call a rationalized Upper Chamber? - The House of Rich Twits? - The House of Big Egos? - The House of Plutocrats? None seems quite right - yet all three are preferable to the 'sexist' Lords. Some consideration should also be given to the powers of the refomed chamber. I thought one should suffice - the power to have it's own 'reality TV' show on commercial networks. That would involve the public and give us all a chance to expel the most noxious pomposities every week or so. They could, of course, pay to rejoin.

As you're back, Mark, an update on the 30+ year old 'War on Drugs. Latest indications are that this may prove a great year for business! Thanks to deft work by NATO in 2001, with 'aftercare' continuing to this day, Afghanistan is now in peak opium production. No more pesky Islamic scruples! In fact, it looks like Afghani hash will be making a comeback too - along with plenty of cheap smack. Notice the other key benefit of an invasion. Record crops can be now be blamed on 'insurgents', the Taliban etc. At the time the Taliban were in power, when opium production declined sharply, that wasn't really going to work. Now, not only is business booming - official spokepersons can once again wring their hands and blame it on someone else. Read all about it...

There's a new international sport. At presents, Canadians lead the field. It's called "Still Looking for Jane". The basic idea is to interview the BBC about the WTC-7 story and record the converation. Unable to trust the mass media any more to report news to the public, the public has taken to reporting news about the mass media. The winner of this particular game gets Jane Stanley on the line. No-one has managed it yet... I'm sure that when she surfaces, Jane will become a celebrity, very much in demand at 9-11 Truth Meetings all over the world. Read Phone Calls to the BBC about WTC-7 for more.

Here a good summary of how this story (the BBC's premature account of the collpapse of WTC-7) exploded and evolved over the last week. Elements within the BBC, Google and archive.org, it appears, conspired to impede the progress of story - but on this occasion the activist community seems to have them beat.

Len, The Fox 'Lone Gunmen" story is not, as I understand the term, a theory. It's a fact. You seem to object to any interpretation of this fact other than "co-incidence". I won't press the point, except to say that whoever it was who said that an attack such as 9-11 had never been envisaged (Condi Rice, as I recall) was telling a dreadful porky. It was very much alive - before the due date - in the minds of Hollywood scriptwriters - as it was in the minds of those carrying out "anti-terror" drills on that morning.

An interesting new article by Jerry Mazza deals with another case of amazing 9-11 prescience... this time in fictional form. The Lone Gunmen went to air on Fox TV in March 2001. According to Mazza, it was seen by an estimated 13.2 million Fox TV viewers Lone Gunmen? Geddit? No Conspiracy! Mazza's whole article is quite long, and I won't reproduce it here in full. But it is well worth a read, IMO, to better understand the connections between some of the the Zionists at the center of the 9-11 mass muders. It's in Online Journal: Rupert Murdoch: Fox in the henhouse AS a footnote, I understand that Lowy is the richest living Australia, while Murdoch is the richest ex-Austalian. Perhaps 9-11 was an Australian assault on the north hemisphere - part of a devious plan hatched by John Howard (visiting the USA at the time) to end the American Century and make Sydney the new financial capital of the world?

I agree with you in one sense, Dave. Too much focus on the BBC premature articulation story could detract from a bigger mystery. How did the earlier reports that it might collapse come about? After all, althought he Twin Towers had collapsed, that event was unprecedented. Any building in NYC could be under suspcion for being rigged with explosives at that stage in the drama. Fire alone, for the umpteenth time, has never caused a 47 story towerblock to collapse - anywhere in the world. The collpse of WTC-7 could not have been predicted by honest firemen and engineers. It would be nice to know where the first reports of possible collapse came from. They seem to me to have been intended to create a perception of 'normalcy'... reported imminent collapse followed by reported collapse. What seems to have happened is that someone got the scheduling wrong and a note announcing collpse came out too early in the day. Watch the Aaron Brown (CNN) tape. Unlike the BBC reporter, he clearly looks at the skyline while he's reading the annoucement. Quick as a flash, he changes the story he's narrating. That, for me, is a major smoking gun. There's an interesting aticle on Prison Planet 9/11 Not First Example Of Media Scripting & Foreknowledge? It mentions the New Zealand / Oswald story that gets a run in Oliver Stone's JFK movie. I've been rather doubtful about that myself... but it's another topic. In the comments, someone wrote: That seems to me akin to the general live reporting of 9/11 on TV (but then again, I believe both the JFK assassination and 9/11 were inside jobs). In both cases, the electronic mass media showed premature certainty about what eventually transpired to be the official story. Somehow, opinion was lead. We need to know the identity of those sources.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours. Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building. You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one. There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department. No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself. Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event. Um, yeah, whatever. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was not responding to the BBC thing persay but rather commenting on a funny thing I noticed on the news last week which was why I edited out most of his post when I quoted it. What's with the attitude? Attitude? Not sure what you mean Matthew. I post here because I'm interested in learning - and sharing - what I understand to be the truth about important events. I get rather tired of people who only seem to want to argue a point - however irrational. It seems to be a common trait among posters who, for what ever reasons, invest time supporting the official line on 9/11. Gee, sorry, there must not have been any attitude there. I guess the phrases dropping by on the bike honour us all with most erudite and convincing There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department and probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event. really weren't in your post and wouldn't have looked to most like you were annoyed that I even bothered to post something even somewhat in supoort of an opposing viewpoint to yours. I must have been mistaken. Matthew, I had no idea that today's bikers are such delicate souls. My deepest apologies if I gave offence. But seriously, how about keeping to the topic of the thread? For wit and cynicism about 9-11, I'll stick with the Wonkette. She writes with a keyboard, not a dashboard.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours. Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building. You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one. There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department. No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself. Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event. Um, yeah, whatever. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was not responding to the BBC thing persay but rather commenting on a funny thing I noticed on the news last week which was why I edited out most of his post when I quoted it. What's with the attitude? Attitude? Not sure what you mean Matthew. I post here because I'm interested in learning - and sharing - what I understand to be the truth about important events. I get rather tired of people who only seem to want to argue a point - however irrational. It seems to be a common trait among posters who, for what ever reasons, invest time supporting the official line on 9/11.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours. Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building. You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one. There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department. No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself. Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event.

Len, that's a refreshing comment, which would put you in the top 10% of the population for open-mindedness, by Australian standards, at least until recently. From 2002 to 2006 inclusive, a remarkably high percentage of Australians purported to be absolute experts about David Hicks and his alleged crimes - up to and including the Prime Minister himself, who found Hicks guilty in absentia on numerous occasions, both in Parliament and in the media. For some reason, the five year anniversary of Hick's incarceration seemed to be the turning point for Australian public opinion. Why five years? Why not one, or three. or four years? It's a mystery. One of life's imponderables - akin to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 and the precognitive powers of the BBC. Anyhow, 'middle Australia' seems at last to have tumbled to the idea that five years in solitary confinement wearing an orange boiler suit and being subjected to bizarre additional torment - with little prospect of an eventual fair trial and no support from the Australian government - does not constitute a 'fair go' for this young man. Australians like a 'fair go'. It's a cultural thing. Like cold beer. The newly awakened spirit of "give the bloke a fair go!" has emboldened the Labor Opposition. It was very quiet on the issue until recently, but now seems to have found its voice. Now here's my theory, for what it's worth... In Australia, where public opinion is concerned, almost all roads lead to Rupert Murdoch. I suspect someone high up in the Murdoch Empire decided to throw the 'fair go' switch over Hicks a few months ago. Labor does little without a green light from the Murdoch Media. It craves reassurance that a new political line will not be subjected to ridicule and vilification. That's understandable. After all, Labor is a party of Government. It tries to win elections. It's hard to win an election if 80%+ of the national daily newspapers announce that your policies are excreable and your leaders shysters. In fact, as far as I know, it hasn't been done once since the rise and rise of the Murdoch Empire. I wonder if five years of utter hell for a young Aussie is too much - even for Rupert Murdoch? After all, it's been reported elsewhere that the thoughts of Chairman Rup are occasionally subject to minor variation. Didn't I read in one of his hundreds of Australian newspapers that Murdoch now believes Climate Change may not be a greenie con after all - and that he's even edging towards the staggeringly enlightened view that something should probably be done about it at some stage?