Sid Walker

Then at approx. 15:30 into the broadcast (which would put the time at 17:10 approx.) he said: So, from the time of the studio receiving word that WTC7 had fallen at 16:58 EST, to the next mention of it, 12 minutes passed. And during that time, the BBC did nothing to check the accuracy of the initial report!!! Obviously - because they let a report go out live about something which was as wildly inaccurate as it was possible to be! Almost the opposite was true! (ok, so they weren't actually BUILDING WTC7 at the time...!)Not only that, and contrary to his earlier assertions that no-one was telling the BBC what to say, effectively Richard Porter is admitting that someone DID tell them (i.e. "the wire")! In which case the BBC should be able to tell us who or what that source was - unless of course they want to be accused of not checking sources and getting back into the whole Andrew Gilligan/Hutton thing all over again! PapaLaz | 02.28.07 - 7:38 pm | # Here's another one... Oh dear. Perhaps Blue Peter will get dragged into this after all? The end of innocence? Sid, for the sake of clarity, do you believe that. A, The BBC was a co-conspiritor. or B The BBC was duped into reporting an event that had yet to happen. And perhaps you could explain how such an obvious deception aided the conspiracy. Thanks. I should point out that I have no rose tinted glasses as regards the BBC, 22 years ago I worked as a trade union organiser, and was very involved in helping to support the Miners. I witnessed night after night how ther BEEB distorted their coverage of the strike to toe the Thatcherite line, painting the Miners as wild Anachists, and the Police as defenders of freedom. Steve. I don't believe it is at all plausible to speak of a gigantic organization such as the BBC being 'involved' in a conspiracy, even a conspiracy to deceive. On the other hand, I do suspect there is a powerful conspiratorial network that has infiltrated the BBC's upper echelons (along with a lot of other organizations). Some complicit individuals are required to play their part - in positions of great influence - within all the major western media organizations. However, most BBC staff are unlikely to be in the know, IMO. Participating in a conspiracy such as 9/11 or 7/7 would not be by formal resolution of the BBC Board! It was similar in the case of the JFK assassination. In that unstance, one may ask whether the CIA, as an institution, was a conspirator? The answer is surely no! On the other hand, were key members of the CIA involved in the conspriacy? I'd say the answer to that is yes. ____________ In terms of how the premature articulation occured in this case, I think a competent Royal Commissioner could get to the bottom of the story in a few days. There aren't many people to interview in order to answer a key question... how did this story arise? It appears this may have been a stuff up by someone higher up the disinformation foodchain than a BBC insider ... because reports are now surfacing that CNN ran a similar story, also before the collapse occured. See Another Smoking Gun? Now CNN Jumps the Gun: On 911 CNN Announced WTC 7 "Has Either Collapsed or is Collapsing" Over an Hour Before it Fell Incidentally, this ex-CNN anchorman (Aaron Brown), seems to me to behave suspiciously in the video extract - consistent with the brief analysis cited above. I would say he is a candidate 'in the know' conspirator. He clearly seems to be scanning the skyline - and when he realizes WTC7 is still there, he ad libs his way out of the mess his script has got him into. I'd like to see him required to testify in court about this.

Then at approx. 15:30 into the broadcast (which would put the time at 17:10 approx.) he said: So, from the time of the studio receiving word that WTC7 had fallen at 16:58 EST, to the next mention of it, 12 minutes passed. And during that time, the BBC did nothing to check the accuracy of the initial report!!! Obviously - because they let a report go out live about something which was as wildly inaccurate as it was possible to be! Almost the opposite was true! (ok, so they weren't actually BUILDING WTC7 at the time...!)Not only that, and contrary to his earlier assertions that no-one was telling the BBC what to say, effectively Richard Porter is admitting that someone DID tell them (i.e. "the wire")! In which case the BBC should be able to tell us who or what that source was - unless of course they want to be accused of not checking sources and getting back into the whole Andrew Gilligan/Hutton thing all over again! PapaLaz | 02.28.07 - 7:38 pm | # Here's another one... Oh dear. Perhaps Blue Peter will get dragged into this after all? The end of innocence? Sid, for the sake of clarity, do you believe that. A, The BBC was a co-conspiritor. or B The BBC was duped into reporting an event that had yet to happen. And perhaps you could explain how such an obvious deception aided the conspiracy. Thanks. I should point out that I have no rose tinted glasses as regards the BBC, 22 years ago I worked as a trade union organiser, and was very involved in helping to support the Miners. I witnessed night after night how ther BEEB distorted their coverage of the strike to toe the Thatcherite line, painting the Miners as wild Anachists, and the Police as defenders of freedom. Steve. I don't believe it is at all plausible to speak of a gigantic organization such as the BBC being 'involved' in a conspiracy, even a conspiracy to deceive. On the other hand, I do suspect there is a powerful conspiratorial network that has infiltrated the BBC's upper echelons (along with a lot of other organizations). Some complicit individuals are required to play their part - in positions of great influence - within all the major western media organizations. However, most BBC staff are unlikely to be in the know, IMO. Participating in a conspiracy such as 9/11 or 7/7 would not be by formal resolution of the BBC Board! It was similar in the case of the JFK assassination. In that unstance, one may ask whether the CIA, as an institution, was a conspirator? The answer is surely no! On the other hand, were key members of the CIA involved in the conspriacy? I'd say the answer to that is yes. ____________ In terms of how the premature articulation occured in this case, I think a competent Royal Commissioner could get to the bottom of the story in a few days. There aren't many people to interview in order to answer a key question... how did this story arise? It appears this may have been a stuff up by someone higher up the disinformation foodchain than a BBC insider ... because reports are now surfacing that CNN ran a similar story, also before the collapse occured. See Another Smoking Gun? Now CNN Jumps the Gun: On 911 CNN Announced WTC 7 "Has Either Collapsed or is Collapsing" Over an Hour Before it Fell

I think this guy has a fairly accurate take on Bush's dilemma and the current see-saw in Washington between neocons and old fashioned neo colonialists. Like Edward Heath and Malcolm Fraser, I never appreciated the old school neocols until I saw what came after. I would say, however, that I think the article ends poorly. There are very tangible potential benefits for Israel's regional hegemony if Iran is reduced to the state of Iraq. Egging the USA into war is much more than a matter of 'testing' the USA's affection. Bush trying to satisfy two masters?

I'd be inclined to say 'links' - not the links. As it's my day to obsess about the BBC and its appalling betrayal of public trust to investigate the events of the day without fear or favour, a brief word about the BBCs treatment of the Hutton Inquiry. I happened to be in Britain at the time. Not ONCE did I hear or see ANY questioning of the official story of the Kelly death. By that time, several respected medics had written to the Guardian openly questioning the 'suicide' theory of Kelly's dath. Yet the BBC was silent, as far as I could tell, on anything that might steer debate awayy from the rather silly officially-sanctioned 'corridor' ('debate', as I recall, was almost entirely about whether the BBC had gone too far in its pusuit of Dr Kelly!) The BBC itself was a key 'victim' of this narrowing of public debate. Yet it chose to participate, cop a (virtual) caning, and actually lead the farce. The take-home messages of Hutton, for the credulous, were (i) the BBC is a fearless truth-seeking organization (ii) it sometimes goes too far in its pursuit of truth and (iii) Britain has a great political system with checks and balances. I wish. Like the 'security services', the BBC has clearly strayed so far from public accountability that it needs root and brqnch referom, if not abolition. I watch its appallingly biased 24x7 global 'service' by satellite here in Australia; ads for Fox are embedded in its programming (they'd never get a licence fee out of us lot!). I describe the BBC as 'Zionist-lite', to distinguish it from Fox and other 'full strength' distortions of reality. That's not to say it hasn't sported some very fine reporters. But the best don't seem to work there anymore.

That's a very good question. Though I am still very much in the 'official theory' camp, I'd like to see if something similar has happened before. If that's how you choose to deploy your time, Evan, best of luck! It's interesting to read the comments posted to the BBC put-down Conspiracy on conspiracy by Mike Rodin It doesn't appear the great majority of respondents have any greater regard for the BBC's honesty than I do. I think this is a serious problem for the crew who'd like to start another middle-eastern war very soon. When the BBC's carefully manicured believability starts to come apart at the seams, the spectacle really is cracking wide open. One by one, former LMM consumers are taking off their glasses and scratching their heads... I should clarify that the article by Mike Rudin - and the comments associated with it - predate the latest hammer blow to the BBC's credibility. Unless the BBC comes up with a much better explanation for the latest (premature articulation) farce, it may prove terminal to public trust in this organization and possibly to Auntie itself. Who wants to pay licence fees for a 'service' that lies about mass murder? Here are a few choice quotes that did get posted on the BBC website (one can only speculate about the others; I imagine the BBC has 'lost' them by now)

Why did The Warren Commission employ Arlen Specter to come up with a preposterous theory about a 'magic bullet' instead of providing us with the "simple and correct explanation"?

The BBCs rebuttal (emphases added).... __________________________________________________________ Anyone know of any comparable 'errors' in the history of the BBC... when a reporter reported an unprecedented catastrophic event before it actually took place? If the BBC does make a habit of this kind of ace reporting, it really should make use of its astounding competitive advantage. Here's a suggested slogan for the promotions department to consider... "Trust BBC News - We know what's happening before it happens!" ________________________________________________________ Here's the BBC policy on archiving - seriously breached on this occasion, if one is to believe Richad Porter. A question in Parliament on that topic alone would be useful. _______________________________________________________ Some relevant links from WhatReallyHappened.com: The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.' Videos - has vids to downlaod and an account of this story Larry Silverstein, WTC 7 and the 9/11 Demolition - more about 'Pull-it' Larry _______________________________________________________ Another article on the topic: Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7

Do you ever apply your scepticism to official narratives of conspiracies such as 9-11, Dave? Or is it - in such cases - reserved only for sceptics? I guess your scenario is POSSIBLE. Brown bear habitat on the surface of Mars is possible. But is it likely?

You really can't think of any other explanations, Kevin? I think you must really mean "explanations that uphold public confidence in the integrity of the mass media"

A extract or two from the comments posted at the Prison Planet article: Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance Then at approx. 15:30 into the broadcast (which would put the time at 17:10 approx.) he said: So, from the time of the studio receiving word that WTC7 had fallen at 16:58 EST, to the next mention of it, 12 minutes passed. And during that time, the BBC did nothing to check the accuracy of the initial report!!! Obviously - because they let a report go out live about something which was as wildly inaccurate as it was possible to be! Almost the opposite was true! (ok, so they weren't actually BUILDING WTC7 at the time...!)Not only that, and contrary to his earlier assertions that no-one was telling the BBC what to say, effectively Richard Porter is admitting that someone DID tell them (i.e. "the wire")! In which case the BBC should be able to tell us who or what that source was - unless of course they want to be accused of not checking sources and getting back into the whole Andrew Gilligan/Hutton thing all over again! PapaLaz | 02.28.07 - 7:38 pm | # Here's another one... Oh dear. Perhaps Blue Peter will get dragged into this after all? The end of innocence?

And there I was, thinking the spirit of intellectual curiosity was out of fashion in Cambridge. Don't be too alarmed, Stephen. No one is claiming the Blue Peter crew was involved.

From the Prison Planet article... Hmm... Anyhow, good you've written to the Beeb, Steve. Please keep us all posted.

Not to doubt your research, Kevin, which has apparently been thorough... however, I wonder if you could document your claims with specific references, rather than have the rest of us 're-invent your wheel'.

Here's another para... Official story apologists please step forward and tell those of us who are confused how all these miracles could come to pass? One simple explanation is that they were being told all day that it was most likely going to collapse, so they prepared a script so they were ready to go the minute it happened. Then they got bad info from someone that it had collapsed already, and the rest is history. Wouldn't be the first time that the news reported something before it was official. Very fast of the mark, Kevin! Your explanation is possible. Although why BBC staff were being told "all day" that an unprecedented total collpase of a steel-framed towerblock was about to occur is a loose end in your theory. A question in Parliament might be useful to help to clear up the matter. After all, the BBC is still accountable to the British public, isn't it? Now who would ask the question, I wonder? One would like to know WHO fed the story to the reporter and when.

Anyone else on the forum seen the following story? Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance Over 100 comments (and counting) are viewable at the base of the article - also well worth a look.IMO. The article begins: Here's another para... 9-11 (official) conspiracy theory apologists please step forward and 'explain' how such miracles could occur?

US Multi-War Assessment, Feb 2007 War on Poverty Update... Hmmm... forgot about this one decades ago. War over! War on Drugs Update... Peak levels of opium production in Afghanistan achieved through military intervention reminscent of the 19th Century Opium Wars. War on Terror Update This week's update supplied by that well-known radical English newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph... US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran by William Lowther and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph February 25, 2007 America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme. In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions. The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime. In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials. Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan. Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph. His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime." Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made. Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party. John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity." Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture. The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money. A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime. The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage." At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters. The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street. While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility. "It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. "All options are still on the table." The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business. Additional reporting by Gethin Chamberlain

I want to make a more serious point, as the thread may not survive for long on past experience. Stephen believed (still believes?) he can produce at least "one original, genuine, verifiable document that "reveals... the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination."" But he hasn't produced it here so far. John Geraghty wrote: Yet so far at least in this thread, the strongest eye-witness testimony offered to us has not proved substantial at all. Now, who is right and who is wrong about this vexatious issue? Paraphrasing Mao, perhaps it's too early to tell? That's what historical analysis is about. No-one has a monopoly of wisdom. The past is open to debate. The more open and complete the debate, the better chance an accurate consensus will develop. That's the way we typically discuss topics on this forum. Someone proposes the Apollo moon landings are faked. Others claim they weren't. Each party to the debate presents evidence and/or counter-evidence. Readers draw their own conclusions about the credibility of the various cases presented. It is, however, precisely that type of process that has been DENIED to the western world, since 1945, on the topic of the atrocities (real or imagined) of the Nazis durng World War Two. All manner of very silly arguments - arguments that sensible people would normally not accept for a moment - have been advanced to close down debate on this topic. The process probably began with Paul Rassinier, a French socialist, who soon after the war expressed doubts about the extent of alleged German atrocities. For his pains, this wartime member of the French Resistance who was actually interned in a German concentration camp for subversive activities, was branded a 'fascist'. The same reflex accusation has been used ever since to shout down other dissidents. We are now - in 2007 - on the brink of completely losing the chance of reviewing this important historical topic. It is already illegal to do so in a dozen countries. In all western nations, anyone taking up the issue is liable to suffer career difficulties at minimum. Here in Australia, there have been successful prosecutions by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council under the 'Equal Rights and Opportnities Act". There is a push right now to enact Europe-wide legislation that would ban open debate about the events of World War Two. There are moves afoot in the US Congress to enact 'hate crimes' legislation that would have a similar effect. The lights are going out on free debate - fast! It's really a last call for those who care for intellectual freedom. Wake up and do something about it! Use it - or lose it! Meanwhile, people like Ernst Zundel (a life-long pacifist) and Germar Rudolf (a chemist who, like Leuchter, got sucked into the issue when asked to appear as an expert witness... and refused to give false testimony) rot in jail. For protesting that - and above all for committing the the cardinal sin of showing that their dissent may have some rational basis - folk like me are branded "racists", "neo-Nazis" and worse. Duane on this forum, who apparently believes there were no lunar landings, may believe he's not taken seriouslyor given a fair hearing. He may even be right. But his freedom is not in jeopardy for stating his heterodox case. That basic right is denied folk like Zundel and Rudolf. It's time to end this appalling injustice - and to openly resist the betrayal of core western values.

I replied: Stephen subsequently said he would email me with the requested reference. Then he said he was busy on something else. I'm still waiting.STEPHEN REPLIED: Sid, at your suggestion we communicated by PM on this matter, I freely admitted to you that at the time I had been unable to locate any FIRST GENERATION documents, so please stop trying to make me look like a piker. I have plenty of photo copies, but as they come mainly from Jewish Holocaust sites I have not bothered to present them for one simple reason, you would not accept them, thats fair enough, but damed if I am going to waste my time......Steve. Stephen I thought I'd already heard all imaginable rationalizations for failing to provide supporting evidence for one's claims. Apparently not. Today Stephen Turner informs me that he could present the references he promised... but he won't, because, in his own words "...you would not accept them, thats fair enough, but damed if I am going to waste my time" In other words, there's no point debating me on this topic... because I won't accept evidence anyway, because of its source! That is rich from someone who, I suspect, routinely eshews key revisionist texts such as the writings of Butz, Rassinier and Faurisson (and who certainly shows indications of never having read any of them). Is this the level of historical analysis and debate that now prevails in Cambridge? The town has moved on! I wonder how Russell, Keynes - and other former denizens known for original thought and intellectual independence - would fit in these days? What would they say to Richard Evans over port in the Great Hall?

At this point I will defer to others on the forum with more experience in photographic analysis (but don't imagine you have me beat)

You'll need to do better than that. How about ONE piece of hard evidence that Woodstock was, in fact, faked? That shouldn't be too hard, should it? Others may require a much higher standard of proof - but that should get you started. You're the ones making the claim. So prove it... if you can! Have you SEEN the footage? Its pretty clear is is nothing but a fraud and a fake. Open your eyes and your mind! I know what I saw...the whole thing is NOTHING but a giant hoax! How much more proof do you need...just look at the footage! But...just to make you happy...the Feds were passing out that bad purple acid all over the country...and thats a fact! You need a reality check Sid! That won't do. I'm beginning to think you guys are just nutters (but I won't breach forum rules by suggesting it). Be specific, if you want to make your case. Get us started - if you can - with ONE case of fabricated evidence (photographic or video). After all, there's so much of it - if you are right - you must be able to find one or two specific cases of photographic or video evidence that are demonstrable fakes, on close examination. Ok, try this one. Are we to believe that 500,000 wonderful human beings, dedicated to peace, love and the environment would leave a mess like this? Its clealy a setup designed to cast these youth in a bad light. Its pretty clear to any reasonable person this photo was faked...heck even the shadows look wrong...AND WHERE ARE THE FOOTPRINTS! That's really daft. You won't see human footprints at that level of resolution. Show me one comparable photo where they are obvious. As to your cultural observations, I'm sad to say your image of the 60s was rose-tinted. I take it you were never one of the folk who stayed behind after rock concerts clearing up and earning good karma?

You'll need to do better than that. How about ONE piece of hard evidence that Woodstock was, in fact, faked? That shouldn't be too hard, should it? Others may require a much higher standard of proof - but that should get you started. You're the ones making the claim. So prove it... if you can! Have you SEEN the footage? Its pretty clear is is nothing but a fraud and a fake. Open your eyes and your mind! I know what I saw...the whole thing is NOTHING but a giant hoax! How much more proof do you need...just look at the footage! But...just to make you happy...the Feds were passing out that bad purple acid all over the country...and thats a fact! You need a reality check Sid! That won't do. I'm beginning to think you guys are just nutters (but I won't breach forum rules by suggesting it). Be specific, if you want to make your case. Get us started - if you can - with ONE case of fabricated evidence (photographic or video). After all, there's so much of it - if you are right - you must be able to find one or two specific cases of photographic or video evidence that are demonstrable fakes, on close examination.

This article in Counterpunch by Professor Leupp highlights who is pushing the war agenda. Emphases added. February 24 / 25, 2007 "An American Strike on Iran is Essential for Our Existence"AIPAC Demands "Action" on Iran By GARY LEUPP Former CIA counterterrorism specialist Philip Giraldi, comparing the propaganda campaign against Iran to that which preceded the war on Iraq, has recently declared, "It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps-demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux." He's only one of many in his field (including Vincent Cannistraro, Ray McGovern, and Larry C. Johnson) doing their best to expose the Bush-Cheney neocon disinformation campaign according to which Iran is planning to produce nukes in order to commit genocide, while abetting terrorists in Iraq who are killing American troops. Their efforts, and those of many others, are producing results. The mainstream corporate press is far more skeptical about administration claims pertaining to Iran than they ever were towards the equally specious claims made about Iraq on the eve of the 2003 invasion. The American people are now inclined to distrust claims made by nameless officials about Quds Force-provisioned IEDs and EFPs, etc., supposedly smuggled by "meddling" Iranians into Iraq. Unfortunately the Congress dominated by Democrats elected in a popular expression of antiwar sentiment has not taken a firm stance against an attack on Iran based on lies. Maybe given the nature of the power structure it simply can't. Giraldi matter-of-factly sums up the unfortunate politics of situation. In other words, the American Israel Political Action Committee is the main political force urging---indeed, demanding---U.S. action. That's the AIPAC already under scrutiny for receiving classified information about Iran from Lawrence Franklin, former Defense Department subordinate of Douglas Feith. (That's the neocon Feith who supervised the Office of Special Plans---headed by Abram Shulsky, the neocon specialist on Leo Strauss who currently heads up the Iran Directorate at the Pentagon---that shamelessly cherry-picked intelligence to support the Iraq attack. That's the Franklin who worked in the OSP, and was sentenced last month to 13 years in prison. Feith has not been indicted on any charge and continues to insist in defiance of reason and even a Pentagon internal investigation finding it "inappropriate" that his office's disinformation project was "good government." Small wonder Gen. Tommy Franks, formerly head of the U.S. Central Command, famously called Feith "the xxxxing stupidest guy on the face of the earth." Congressional investigations are just now getting underway into Feith's role in facilitating the invasion of Iraq.)That's the AIPAC embarrassed by the indictment of its policy director Steven Rosen and senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman for illegally conspiring to pass on classified national security information to Israel. Despite the already intimate ties between Israeli and U.S. intelligence (documented by Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski among others) it seems the Israelis felt obliged to spy on the Pentagon to learn just how inclined the Americans were to oblige them by attacking Iran. Now, as Israeli calls for a U.S. attack on Iran become more shrill by the day, AIPAC recognizes that the American people profoundly distrust Vice President Cheney and the nest of neocon liars he has sheltered. The Bush-Cheney war machine has been pretty well exposed, and that must worry the warmongers within the group. Israeli Defense Force chief artillery officer Gen. Oded Tira has griped that "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," adding that since "an American strike in Iran is essential for [israel's] existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iran issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure." Tira urges the Lobby to turn to "potential presidential candidates. . . so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran," while Uri Lubrani, senior advisor to Defense Minister Amir Peretz, tells the Jewish Agency's Board of Governors that the US "does not understand the threat and has not done enough," and therefore "must be shaken awake." Many Americans would find such statements deeply offensive in their arrogance and condescension. President Bush has indeed been weakened by the "Iraq failure" Tira acknowledges, arising from a war that the Lobby once endorsed with enormous enthusiasm. (As Gen. Wesley Clark put it way back in August 2002, "Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." Recall that that weapon was imaginary.) So now, the Israeli war advocates aver, the U.S. president needs to be helped to do the right thing and attack Iran by lobbyists who will use their power to force the fools in the Democratic Party, especially presidential candidates. Because Americans don't understand and have to be shaken out of their current skeptical mode. By who? By AIPAC, of course! The confidence expressed by these gentlemen (in the second most powerful political action committee in the country) is quite extraordinary. But alas, maybe it's warranted. Giraldi dispassionately concludes: One should ask these spineless politicians how they suppose the people will remember their votes and positions within weeks of the "immediate action" Tira and his allies in the Bush administration (most notably Condi Rice's deputy Elliott Abrams, the most powerful neocon remaining in the team) are demanding. Will they not be blamed for the total collapse of cooperation between the U.S. occupation and Iraq's Shiite majority, the fall of the current client regime dominated by Iranian allies, the intensification of Shiite militia attacks on U.S. forces, the broadening of the current two-front war to enflame all of Southwest Asia? One should ask those squirming manipulators blissfully ignorant of the Islamic world---clueless about the difference between Arabs and Persians or Sunnis and Shiites, coached almost entirely by State Department Zionists who don't bother to conceal their Islamophobia---to recognize that American Jewry is not generally pro-neocon nor united in support of an Iran attack. Indeed many American Jews are alarmed at Israeli/AIPAC efforts to push the U.S. into another crusader war on a Muslim nation. (A lot of them are in New York. Hillary might consult with them rather than suppose that her ticket to the presidency is the support of the Cheney-friendly Lobby. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that.) One should ask the Lobbyists as well as the government of Israel that they think they serve (as well as the people of Israel, honestly divided in their opinions) how the security of the Jewish State will be abetted by a generalized war between Israel's great patron and the entire Muslim world. When one plays this Islamophobic game of exploiting ignorance, fear, hatred and bigotry; when one conflates al-Qaeda with Iraq with Hamas with Hizbollah with Iran knowing that most Americans know little about the details and will be inclined to side (for now) with Israel against Muslims in general; when one lies (as the neocons do with such arrogance, supposing they will escape any consequences of the lies down the road)---then one invites a backlash. We live in a racist culture that easily slides into religious bigotry. Why use that culture (not so dissimilar to the German culture of the 1930s) so shamelessly---against Arabs and other Muslim peoples of the Middle East? One's disinformation with its murderous results in the Muslim world might just produce the ignorant conclusion that could sweep Middle America down the road: "The Jews made us do it." That's what the red-necks including a whole lot of today's brain-dead Christian Zionist fundamentalists will say as soon as everything goes wrong in the Middle East, Jesus doesn't come back and is nowhere in sight, and the three U.S. troops killed per day becomes six or ten for no good goddamned reason. "They have the money, they control the media and the politicians. They made us attack Iran and now look what's happening." That's what the ignorant who can one day cry "Nuke 'em all!" referring to Muslims, and the next day swear "xxxxing Christ-killers" will say. Is the Lobby's paranoia about Iran's uranium enrichment so severe as to risk that kind of assessment, that kind of blowback bigotry? We are perhaps arriving at a critical point in the history of the powerful Lobby, including its capacity to intimidate honest, critically reasoning people who do not embrace its fears, prejudices and preoccupations. It's under unprecedented scrutiny following the carefully argued paper by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" and Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid both published last year, to which it's reacted with its wonted technique of character assassination. The political power of the Lobby would appear to be reaching its zenith; and while it used its hand subtly in the build-up for war on Iraq, it now uses it in crude, bullying fashion. Israeli officials weren't publicly calling for the simple-minded Christian-Zionist Bush to "smite" Iraq to defend Israel in 2003, but now they're nervously demanding that Bush destroy Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent a "genocide" worse that that accomplished by Hitler! Their boldness betrays a confidence that they can indeed continue to shape American political discourse about the Middle East (to the exclusion of any audible Arab or Muslim voice) and that to challenge them is indeed "perilous." "Attack Iran! NOW! Or support GENOCIDE! and side with the new HITLER! Destroy Iran's nuclear facilities! NOW! Or reveal your thinly-disguised ANTI-SEMITISM!" That's the hyper-message calculated to stimulate an assault, to which the calm counterterrorism analyst Giraldi draws our attention. One could respond to the message with a polite, firm, principled refusal: No thanks this time, AIPAC. You're just not credible. Can't do it for you. My constituents aren't into more war, and they think this whole Iran thing's a lot of hype. I can't support nuking Iran, and frankly, I don't see how you can either. I don't think you speak for all or even most American Jews, and you can't scare me this time by accusations of anti-Semitism. I can't have an attack on Iran my conscience, sorry. I'd rather be defeated in the next election. Keep your money; I just can't do what you ask. Will the Congress targeted by the Lobby be able to say that? If it doesn't, all the belated, posturing moves to limit Bush's power, withdraw troops and end the imperialist war in Iraq will mean nothing. An attack on Iran will unleash the gates of hell. The attackers will argue that a new situation makes all prewar debate irrelevant (or even if encouraging doubt about the "existential" cause, downright treasonous). The fascistic proclivities of the administration will blossom immediately. The legal basis has been laid for the repression of the dissent an Iran attack will naturally inspire. Prison camps, suspension of habeas corpus. The proponents of the war are comfortable with these things, and the waters have already been tested. O nation miserable, With an untitled tyrant bloody-scepter'd, When shalt thou see thy wholesome days again? Can the American people allow this unelected unpopular administration, headed by a manifestly stupid sadistic fool, to continue to provoke international contempt and fear, while planning more carnage? Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

You'll need to do better than that. How about ONE piece of hard evidence that Woodstock was, in fact, faked? That shouldn't be too hard, should it? Others may require a much higher standard of proof - but that should get you started. You're the ones making the claim. So prove it... if you can!

Editorial 25/02/1007 Who is Really Behind all the Terror Attacks around the world? www.islamservices.org A recent survey by University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified." Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent. Reported (here) Nearly all Muslims including children know that majority of the acts of terror, especially 9/11, East Africa, London, Madrid, Bali, Bombay and Jakarta are not the work of Muslims and could not be the work of Muslims because besides not having a culture of terrorism, they just simply could not pull off such feats of technological and logistical sophistication. Muslims also know that almost ninety percent of the so called “suicide” bombings in Iraq are in actuality remote controlled explosive laden vehicles which have dead human bodies placed in driver seats patsies, who have no idea what has been loaded in the trunk of their cars to make it appear as suicide bombings (reported here). British secret service agents dressed as Iraqis were caught red handed with a explosive laden car with sophisticated remote controlled equipment in Basra-Iraq in 2005 and were arrested by Iraqi police, the British terrorists were released later by British forces in a raid (an act of terror by British)on the police station where they were held. Almost all cases of terror against Muslims brought to courts in Europe and America have been thrown out for lack of evidence and only a few people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence and in all these cases the defendants have vehemently denied their culpability. Yes there are acts of revenge and terror carried out by rogue elements in Iraq and there is some sectarian violence but it is nothing in comparison to the great numbers of acts of terror carried out by Mossad, CIA, and MI6. Majority of the reporting in mainstream media is biased and is based on deliberate lies put out by the secret services directly involved in acts of terror. Perceptions created by clever and manipulated reporting makes Islam and Muslim look evil, but the truth will come out as that is a law of nature. Human nature will ultimately reach the truth as the entire universe functions only on truth and one can not escape that.

If they're not interested, I have a suggestion: Woodstock never happened. Of course it never happened...it was just a bad trip from the purple acid... Was ALL the footage falsiified? Even Joe Cocker? Yep...just a figment...even Country Joe.... I don't believe you guys. I think you're having us on. Prove it!