Sid Walker

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?

The first eyewitness account was provided by Rudolf Vrba (Walter Rosenberg). The son of a sawmill owner, he was born in Slovakia on 11th September, 1924. At the age of fifteen he was expelled from his high school in Bratislava, under the Slovak puppet state's version of the Nazis' Nuremberg Laws. After the outbreak of the Second World War, Vrba, like other Jews in countries occupied in Nazi Germany, was rounded up and sent to concentration camps. In 1942 Vrba arrived in Auschwitz. On 9th April 1944, Vrba and his friend, Alfred Wetzler, managed to escape. The two men spent eleven days walking and hiding before they got back to Slovakia. Vrba and Wetzler made contact with the local Jewish Council. They provided details of the Holocaust that was taking place in Eastern Europe. They also gave an estimate of the number of Jews killed in Auschwitz between June 1942 and April 1944: about 1.75 million. In June, 1944, the 32-page Vrba-Wetzler Report was published. It was the first information about the extermination camps to reach the free world and to be accepted as credible. In September 1944 Vrba joined the Czechoslovak partisans and was later decorated for bravery. After the war he read biology and chemistry at Charles University, Prague, took a doctorate and then escaped to the west. He worked in Israel from 1958 to 1960 at the biological research institute in Beit Dagan. He then moved to Britain and worked for the Medical Research Council. Vrba's memoirs, I Cannot Forgive, appeared in 1963. They were later republished as I Escaped from Auschwitz. In 1967 Vrba became professor of biochemistry in the pharmacology department of the medical school of the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada. Rudolf Vrba died of cancer on 26th March, 2006. This is a passage from Vrba's 1944 report. The crematorium contains a large hall, a gas chamber and a furnace. People are assembled in the hall, which holds 2,000. They have to undress and are given a piece of soap and a towel as if they were going to the baths. Then they are crowded into the gas chamber which is hermetically sealed. Several SS men in gas masks then pour into the gas chamber through three openings in the ceiling a preparation of the poison gas maga-cyclon. At the end of three minutes all the persons are dead. The dead bodies are then taken away in carts to the furnace to be burnt. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWvrba.htm Dr Vrba's testimony at the first Zundel Trial is HERE At least, I understand it's an accurate transcript of the court proceedings. if anyone disputes that, do please let me know. I provided a quotation about Dr Vrba's trial in a previous post on this thread. Anyone who's interested can read the original testimony on which that comment was based. It's not a short transcript and I doubt many folk will find time. It is also rather gruesome in parts - because very gruesome claims made by Dr Vrba are subjected to rigorous cross-examination. Those that do read it can make their own assessment about the credibility of Dr Vrba as a witness. An extract follows below, with emphases added. One final comment about Dr Vrba. His book, published in 1963, carried the title "I Cannot Forgive". It was co-authored with Alan Bestic. "I cannot forgive" is not an expression typically found acceptable in western culture, with our two-millenia deep Christian heritage. We have learnt, over the millenia, not to glorify emotions such as vengefulness and hatred. Dr Vrba's book title is, in fact, quite typical of Shoah literature, in that it provides apparent justification for ongoing hatred and bitterness. This is not, in my opinion, a positive cultural influence. Moreover, in Dr Vrba's case, it appears from his own court testimony that the utterly heinous crimes he was apparently unwilling to forgive were actually events he failed to witness in person - contrary to his initial, very influential claims in the mid-1940s and his own memoirs published in the early 1960s. Had Dr Vrba had been more truthful - to himself and to the world - about his own experiences and recollections, he may well have enjoyed his life more fully, forgiving more and hating less. Fo a similar reason on a grander scale, I believe that rigorous, thorough and intellectually honest reappraisal of the alleged "eye-witness testimonies" of Vrba and others is long-overdue.

John I shall try to track down Morris' movie. I may gain a different impression on a second, more complete viewing. I was NOT trying to imply in this thread that he cannot be trusted because he is Jewish. I merely pointed out that his own website contains a biography which says that he's Jewish and has relatives who died in the Holocaust. That background is relevant background, I submit, to an evaluation of his movie about Leuchter and Irving. It doesn't mean he's necessarily a xxxx. If I gave the impression I believe that, I did so unintentionally and withdraw it without qualification. As I pointed out previously, David Cole is also of Jewish origin. So is Gilad Atzmon. So is Paul Eisen. So is Israel Shamir... People who read the works of Edward Said typically know he's of Palestinian origin. That doesn't (or shouldn't) be taken to imply that he's an unreliable source about Palestine. But it is relevant background. The case of Errol Morris is no different, IMO. Why should it be?

Signs of Second Thoughts? Let's hope so! The following article is interesting partly for its content, partly the comments. This is not, after all, the Guardian or New Statesman. It's The Times! If the first ten comments are at all representative of contemporary Times readers, no wonder Tony Blair shows signs of backing off. He probably doesn''t want his wife lynched in Selfridges by fellow shoppers. Fears grow over Iran

Thanks Andy I am working through the homework you have set me. I am willing to look at all sources with an open mind. I'll also wait to see if John Geraghty wishes to present a single instance of definitive eye witness proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. The task may be harder than he imagines. In 1983, Simone Veil said the following in an interview with France-Soir: I assume the translation into English of her words is correct. If not, please point out the inaccuracy. I have bolded the part that John wishes to contradict. Less erudite than others on this thread, I'll only present one piece of background reading, for John Geraghty or anyone else who wishes to navigate these choppy waters. It is an article specifically directed to the topic raised by John Geraghty: the question of eye witness testimony. It's Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz by Robert Faurisson, written, I understand, more than a decade ago, but I don't think it has been supeceded or disowned by its author in subsequent years. I'd be grateful if anyone can point out specific inaccuracies or falsehoods in Faurisson's article, which, inter alia, explains the importance of the Zundel trials in the 1980s for those of a revisionist perspective on these matters - especially the first case in 1985. It was the only occasion when self-professed witnesses to Nazi homical gas chambers faced the type of cross-examination typical in judicial proceedings. This is Faurisson's account of the testimony of Dr Vrba at that trial:

John If you really wish to have this question answered (I may be able to do so... or may not), I must ask that you cite a specific eyewitness account. It isn't good enough to say "there are many/scores/hundreds/thousands of such accounts". Please just cite one (two is you have time) and I'll try to respond to that. But it must be specific and refererenced to a primary source. Some time ago, Stephen Turner started a thread called "The Holocaust, tragedy, or Zionist lie., Sorry everybody but this needs nailing." I asked what evidence there was that Hitler condemned millions to death in purpose-built gas chambers. He replied: 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. So, John, please give me one eye witness account of a "Jew forced to tend to the gas chambers and assist in the genocide" and I'll respond to it if I can. If it seems like really solid evidence, I may come to share your view about the certainty that the Nazis mudered millions of internees in homicidal gas chambers. After all, I wasn't there myself. What happened is a puzzle to be worked out. I retain an open mind and seek to be guided by the evidence.

Len You are quite right that one doesn't see many interviews with flat earthers, moon hoax proponents, or creationists in the “mainstream western media”. I also agree that's because few people take such ideas seriously. You are also quite right that John does not advocate censoring Irving, Zundel or Leuchter. However, some folk do - and they have quite a lot of influence. Irving is now out of jail - but Zundel's 'rendition' nightmare continues. I don't know of any flat earthers, moon hoax proponents, or creationists in jail for thier beliefs. Do you? If there were, I expect the medoa would take some interest in their case. One might see them, for instance, interviewed on that spiffing BBC program 'Hardtalk'. Here's a brief personal anecdote. A few years ago, when I was much more naive, I corresponded with Philip Adams - a well-known personality in Oz who has a daily radio program called 'Late Night Live' on ABC radio. Adams interviews interesting folk from many parts of the world. I heard him interview Richard Evans, an Oxbridge History Professor and one of David Irving's most prominent critics. The interview took up the entire hour-long show. Evans was not really 'interviewed; Adams allowed him free reign for the entire program. There were no hostile questions. Perhaps this is 'soft-talk'? Anyhow, I emailed Adams, and asked if, in the interests of balance, he would also interview Irving - either on hs own or best of all in debate with Evans? I was genuinely interested to hear a debate. I thought it would also make for good radio. Adams replied that he'd be happy to interview Irving, but doubted Irving would have the courage for such an encounter. I then emailed Irving, sent a copy of Adam's email, and asked if he would, in fact, like an interview on Australian radio. He quickly replied that he would - but doubted the invitation would hold. He was right. Adams never replied to my response, which included Irving's reply. Adams, in short, was not being truthful when he said he'd welcome an interview with Irving. He was not accurate when he said Irving would decline. It was the other way round. I have since discovered that while revisionists are typically willing to debate their opponents, the reverse is not the case. Evans, Lipstadt and the rest claim it's because they don't want to lend unwarranted credibility to their opponents. They like to use the same 'flat-earther' analogy, Len. I suspect, however, the real reason they won't debate Irving, Faurisson, Butz and others is not because they believe a debate would be easily won. I think they are scared they couldn't compete in a FAIR debate. But... I would be delighted to be proven wrong about this. Perhaps you could use your influence, Len, and pull off the first free debate on this topic of the new century? You also asked me "Why (I) think the article from a partisan (i.e. revisionist) site which does not include any citations “is a rather more accurate and balanced bio than Wikipedia’s”? That's simple! I claimed the bio in the revisionist site was more balanced because the Wikipedia article was SO extremely unbalanced, citations or not. No, Len, I didn't get into the cyanide residue debate. Do you really want that debate here? If so, chemist Germar Rudolf has published a susbtantial amount of relevant material worth reviewing. Here's an example. Perhaps Rudolf could be asked to join the Forum from his prison cell in Germany, where he currently awaits sentencing for thought-crime after yet another case of US 'rendition' of anti-Zionists to hostile third countries lacking the benefits of basic civil liberties such as free speech. Finally, Len, you said "So you’re saying we can’t trust Morris because he “is Jewish and… lost relatives in the Holocaust”?" No, I am not sayng that, Len. I am saying it is information pertinent to considering Morris' movie and his evident bias against Irving and Leuchter. But in truth, whether one supports - or opposes - the official Holocaust narrative is not determined by an accident of birth. I believe it has more to do with having the opportunity to see and hear both sides of the story (most people only see and hear one side) - and the willingness to stand up to pressure, sometimes applied with subtelty, sometimes not. Some gentiles are among the most passionate advocates of the official version of events. Some Jews doubt the official line. In the latter case, which is quite rare, 'offenders' are often persecuted and intimidated into retracting. David Cole is the quintessential example - a brave young Jewish American who visited Auschwitz, produced a video that queried the official story - then experienced such a barrage of threats and hate from organized Jewry in the USA that he published a rather tragic retraction. Paradoxically, Cole's story really helps buttress the revisionists case As the CODOH site claimed: There's more about this story HERE While visiting that unusual website, it's also worth checking out the Six Reasons page.

I remember the Dr Death ‘documentary’ a year on Australian SBS TV a year or so back, but unfortunately wasn’t able to watch it closely. I recall some very effective cinematography. It’s frustrating I didn’t see it all, because I wasn’t able to establish whether my observation was true throughout the entire program. From the segments I observed, although Irving and Leuchter were occasionally heard speaking, they were never interviewed in the normal sense of the word. The extracts – and context – certainly presented them like one of John Dolva’s case studies in psychological abnormality. If they are such basket cases, however, one wonders what all the fuss is about? After all, no-one is required to read any of David Irving’s books, nor do they have to read Leuchter’s reports. (Most people – including most historians – are happy to do precisely that, I suspect, relying only on secondary sources reported in the mainstream media when forming their opinion of these two men and their work.) So why not let them both have a voice? Why not allow them to be interviewed - and participate in open debates on these hot topics? If they really are as daft as their portrayal by Mr Morris, such exposure would surely benefit the cause of discrediting their views. The sheer folly of their positions would become apparent in fair and open debate, wouldn’t it? Yet if anyone is able to find an interview of any length with either of these gentlemen in the mainstream western media this century- electronic or print - please let me know. I must have missed it. In my observation, David Shayler stands more chance of getting an airing. Turning to the Wikipedia article… I don’t know about anyone else, but I find Wikipedia a tad unreliable on lots of ‘hot’ political and historical topics. I don’t discount what Wikipedia has to say, but at the very least, I like to look at its Discussion tab to see comments left by participants in its editorial process. The most interesting stuff, I find, often doesn’t appear on the front page. In the case of the Leuchter article, there is a great comment: Magabund, I suspect, has it about right. The purpose of the (front page) Wikipedia article is not to inform and raise questions. It’s to propagandize and instill a false sense of certainty.Let’s just examine just one of its many unfair and ludicrous insinuations. Right at the end of the extract selected by John, Wikipedia says:: That is a cruel distortion of what happened. It makes it seem that Leuchter perjured himself on Zundel’s behalf for a fee, in order to forge himself a lucrative career as an expert perjurer. In reality, Leuchter’s previously successful career has been in ruins since his involvement in the 1980’s Zundel court case. THIS article, written sympathetically, tells that rather sad tale. Does anyone - apart from a Wikipedia insider - really dispute it? I suspect the article is a rather more accurate and balanced bio than Wikipedia’s exercise in character assassination. On another thread, John, you recently replied to James Fetzer : Why should one expect the Errol Morris ‘documentary’ be any different?This extract from a New York Times Review suggests he may not approach the topic of Mr Leuchter and his research with an entirely open mind: That's a point of view shared by many in our era. But it is only a point of view. It is not obligatory to believe what Mr Morris says, is it? Errol Morris is a skilled filmmaker. He was able to draw on plenty of footage to pillory Messrs Irving and Leuchter in a quite artistic manner. Both of them, I imagine, realized they had been conned and set up once they saw the movie. Rather like Jim Fetzner felt after the BBC mauled him over 9-11, I guess. Incidentally, it’s interesting to see Ernst Zundel mentioned on the forum – for the first time, I think, since he was sentenced to five (more?) years in jail by a German court for thought crimes. His story is summarized HERE. The article is written with a positive spin - instead of the extremely negative slant predicatably served up by Errol Morris, Abe Foxman, the BBC, Wikipedia and other demonstrably biased sources. I present it in the interests of balanced debate.

The next time George Monbiot shows up at this fdorum, he might like to critique the following article. It's restrained, well written and apposite, in my opinion. Skepticism, Ideology and the 9/11 Controversy After years of stonewalling, the liberal media (and by this I mean avowedly left-leaning journals such as The Nation and The Progressive) have finally addressed the widespread skepticism surrounding the official version of the 9/11 attacks. To the surprise of much of their readership, however, both journals remain solidly skeptical of the skepticism, and instead have followed Popular Mechanic's lead in debunking and ridiculing the 911 Truth Movement. In September of 2006, Matthew Rothschild, writing in the Progressive said of the 911 Truthers, "almost all of their major assertions are baseless. And their own theories have such gigantic holes and require such monumental leaps of logic that they discredit themselves...The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere." Several months later, Christopher Hayes wrote in The Nation of the 911 Truth Movement's Dangers. He finds it strange that "tens of millions of Americans...seem remarkably sanguine about [the prospect of government complicity in the deaths of 3,000 Americans]. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding? This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. ...the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders." Echoing these sentiments, George Monbiot wrote recently in the Guardian that the 911 truth Movement was a "virus", and after two weeks of intense online debate, is now reiterating his position, claiming that it is harming other progressive causes: "Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow." The message in these progressive-left reactions to 911 counter-narratives is that skeptics are discrediting liberalism generally and opposition to the Bush administration in particular, and that in doing so are derailing all the good that liberals hope to accomplish in their traditional areas of concern. Unfortunately, Rothschild, Hayes and Monbiot are through the looking glass and don't realize it. Their assumptions are leading them to engage in the very illogical thinking for which they berate their opponents. For starters, they remain rigidly confined by conceptions of political ideology, as if engaging in debate over the destruction of two of the tallest buildings in the world had anything to do with traditional notions of Left/Right. Pointing out that skyscrapers cannot free-fall without the prior removal of structural resistance is not left-wing dogma; it is rational, empirically provable science. What they also do not reflect upon is that the act of skepticism transcends ideology. The Enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot wrote that “skepticism is the first step on the road to philosophy” -- and neither skepticism or philosophy are ideological. Indeed, as Jon Lebkowsky wrote several years ago on the Greater Democracy website: "[A philosophy is a guide], a general construct meant to help you think. An ideology is something else. It's rigid, dogmatic. It doesn't respond to facts or circumstance. It brooks no dissent. Even practical liberalism, if treated in this way, can do great damage." And it is these influential liberals in question, not 911 skepticism, that is doing great damage to progressive causes -- and not just because they appear to be turning progressives against each other. Their own rigidity, dogmatism and intolerance for dissent will only serve to undermine all they would otherwise hope to accomplish -- in terms of the environment and social equity -- and for one fundamental reason: Quite contrary to Monbiot's assertions, it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism. The war on terror is such a potent metanarrative that it is driving a host of policy decisions -- even in an otherwise progressive nation as Canada -- that are sucking resources away from human needs, ecological conservation, climate change prevention and adaptation, poverty alleviation and peacemaking. Until this metanarrative is dismantled and revealed for the lethal and cynical fraud it is and always has been, causes supported by progressives will never be properly addressed. 9/11 may not have changed everything, but until this controversy can be openly addressed in the media and through a more objective investigation, we may be unable to change anything.

- Christie Whitman, US EPA Administrator, September 18th 2001 See 9/11 Sucks 12 Years From Bravest Lungs on firehouse.com for something rather more factual.

My quip about credibility was a cheap shot I just couldn't resist, Len. Apologies. I really don't have time, right now, to read your paper, try to review it fairly and in context and reply at length. I would certainly read Rodriguez' reply - and might participate in an ensuing debate. Readng your attack on him in conjunction with his reply would be useful. IMO, the 9-11 'Truth Movement' is comprised of genuine independent thinkers, people who jump on bandwagons - and disinfo agents playing various roles. Figuring out who is what is, of course, a major problem for anyone seeking the truth about 9-11. It was intended to be thus from the outset. The folk who pulled off 9-11 had experience. The apparent confusion makes it easier for folks like Monbiot to throw up their arms and claim the whole '9-11 Truth Movement' consists of nutcases. Yet I think it's clear who's winning the contest for public opinion. It took a very long time for an institution like the BBC to build up its widespread credibility. It won't take nearly as long to lose it.

I wonder if John Simkin would like to invite William Rodriguez to join the forum? He could then answer your original critique in person, Len. Rodriguez' website is HERE. Regarding your question, Len... I like to keep an open mind. Please don't ask my opinion about your credibility, however, as an honest response mught cause offense

It great to see baby boomers debating something that really matters: our favourite rock and roll idols and the true meaning of lyrics we've been humming for decades. Personally, I am a Keith Richards' fan. Still climibing coconut palms after all these years. If anyone has a pact with the devil, it's Keith.

Who is the author oif this ripping yarn, Len - or is it original work?

When the real reason for eliminating JFK is known, it will be something of this magnitude. You don't take out a President unless there is some real , big reason. I am not saying it is this one. Just that it was as big. There may well have been a range of reasons for killing JFK. But, in my opinion, only one network was capable of carrying out the hit, spinning a cover story and orchestrating a cover-up that has lasted for decades. The Zionist network alone fits the bill. Israel's support network had motive. It had the contacts and the means. It could spin a cover story and keep it going for decades. It could also help weave silly conspiracy theories that helped distract the punters and discredit the idea of a conspiracy (anyone remember the Gemstone File?) On the left, it could deliver key left gatekeepers such as IF Stone and Chomsky to uphold the official story with improbable and very out-of-character argumentation. More recently, it has given us Gerald Posner. It has also, over the years, systematically attacked Kennedy's reputation and record, suggesting that even if JFK was assassinated, the policy consequences were not significant. It was also in a position, nearly five years after the Dallas murder, to murder RFK, complete with cover story, patsy and extended cover-up. And of course, it didn't stop work in 1968... Incidentally, there's a footnote to this story about Vanunu that I noted selsewhere in the forum but repetition will do no harm. On an email newsletter, I came across correspondence from Israel Shamir that indicates he gave Vanunu a copy of Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper, and Vanunu subsequently became convinced of Piper's thesis. In other words, Vanunu should not be taken as an indepndent source on the claim of Israel's involvement in the JFK assassination. Speaking of the heroic winner of the Right Livelihood Award - when WILL Vanunu's freedom to travel and speak freely be restored? His continuing involuntary detention in a country where he no longer - very understandably - feels at home a disgrace and makes a mockery of Israel's pretensions as a free society based on the rule of law. Apparently the basis for this detention is a regulation dating from the time of the British mandate.

Very, very moving. Thanks for posting that Peter. I don't recall hearing the song before - certainly never listened to the lyrics. The best 9-11 lyrics I've heard are Les Visible's Have I got it Right? Talking 9/11 Blues. Check it out HERE along with his other songs.

Hi Myra I like your take on this. Have you seen a short thread entitled Freedom From War - The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World? I still find JFK's disarmament proposals staggering for their audacious abandonment of nationalistic 'one-upmanship' in favour of a commonsensical, step-by-step approach to building global trust and securing worldwide disarmament. I also find it remarkable how little comment this speech and the associated State Department Paper attracts.

This was Posner two weeks after 9-11, as reported rather sceptically on Slate's Chatterbox: Note that by September 25th, Posner felt able to express with certainty that Bush was "right" to view 9-11 as an "act of war". That's not careful, scholarly analysis. That's playing the role of pack leader, echoing the angry calls of other 'warcons' in a veangeful chorus designed to appeal to the very lowest aspects of western culture: arrogance, self-righteousness, vindictiveness, bigotry and outright thuggery The article also refers to Posner's involvement in the Gore-Lieberman push for the Presidency in 2000. Apparently Posner was on Gore's side. Unfortunately (or perhaps not), around this time Gore began to back away from his earlier desire for the Presidency, preferring to forge a decent career as environmental activist extraordinaire. Perhaps Gore had decided by then he'd rather not end up like JFK at roughly the same time of life - with the likes of Posner penning best-selling accounts of his assassination by Islamic extremists?

While most people look at the Middle East as a dreadful mess - and wonder how anyone could be mad enough to start yet another war, it may be instructive to look at things from a Zionist perspective. At one time, Israel felt surrounded by enemies - including but not limited to Libya, Eygpt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Today, only two remain: Iran and Syria. All the rest have been tamed and now have US-approved and compliant regimes. Even though the perfect pyschological moment may have passed for launching a further attack and completing Israeli domination of the region, the 'corridor of opportunity' for doing so may contract further in the future. That's the Zionist dilemma this year. Go now - and risk worldwide chaos that will be widely blamed on Israel? Or wait, and risk further constraints on Israel's ability to knock off its remaining perceived arch-enemies while still enjoying unquestioning US support and connivance? There is, of course, a third option. That is to go the way of peace. It's never too late to take that third way, as Rabin showed to his credit.

... but not, apparently, a day off in Rio during Carnival

I posted the following also on the "Conspiracy of Conspiracies' thread. We seem to have paralllel debates in progress... Well George, put me down as another reader you have failed to convince. Your initial article - and this more recent follow-up - is a real beat up, IMO. You paraphrase and ridicule your opponents. You grapple only with the extremities and weaknesses of your opponents' positions. You do nothing to weaken my concerns that 9-11 was a Zionist false flag operation, in the tradition of the Lavon Affair but on an much, much grander scale as befits our modern times. You describe, for instance, the work of physics911.net and David Ray Griffin as a "concatenation of ill-attested nonsense". That's a nice phrase, George. It's effective writing. But is is it a serious rebuttal? I don't think so. Most irritating of all, to someone like me, is the way you patronize those of us who believe there are serious flaws in the fundamental workings of our society, failings of morality, justice and accountability with major socio-political implications, exemplified by pyrotechnic mass sacrifices such as 9-11, rather obviously unsolved murders such as the JFK assassination - and above all the failure of academia and the mass media as a whole to examine such issues without fear or favour and try to establish the truth. You suggest we should spend time instead on more serious issues such as campaigning for the environment, human rights or an end to hunger - and that we have allowed ourselves to be distracted by illusions and trivia. It's plausible argument. But if I may indulge in analogy too, it's like ignoring the stench of a rotting corpse in the kitchen cupboard (don't go there!) while trying to keep the benchtop spotlessly clean. At some time, the smell makes the kitchen utterly unihabitable even if all observable surfaces are clean and tidy. Since 9-11 hijacked the global agenda in the direction of new wars and a ludicrous 'War on Terror', focus on serious global issues has been effectively impossible. The struggle for truth and justice is ultimately the same as the struggle for peace and well being.

Well George, put me down as another reader you have failed to convince. Your initial article - and this more recent follow-up - is a real beat up, IMO. You paraphrase and ridicule your opponents. You grapple only with the extremities and weaknesses of your opponents' positions. You do nothing to weaken my concerns that 9-11 was a Zionist false flag operation, in the tradition of the Lavon Affair but on an much, much grander scale as befits our modern times. You describe, for instance, the work of physics911.net and David Ray Griffin as a "concatenation of ill-attested nonsense". That's a nice phrase, George. It's effective writing. But is is it a serious rebuttal? I don't think so. Most irritating of all, to someone like me, is the way you patronize those of us who believe there are serious flaws in the fundamental workings of our society, failings of morality, justice and accountability with major socio-political implications, exemplified by pyrotechnic mass sacrifices such as 9-11, rather obviously unsolved murders such as the JFK assassination - and above all the failure of academia and the mass media as a whole to examine such issues without fear or favour and try to establish the truth. You suggest we should spend time instead on more serious issues such as campaigning for the environment, human rights or an end to hunger - and that we have allowed ourselves to be distracted by illusions and trivia. You claim "9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity" and give a rather odd analogy involving a neurotic squirrel. It might seem at first reading a plausible argument. But if I may indulge in analogy too, your approach is like ignoring the stench of a rotting corpse in the kitchen cupboard (don't go there!) while trying to keep the benchtop spotlessly clean. At some time, the foul smell makes the kitchen utterly unihabitable, even if all observable surfaces are clean and tidy. Since 9-11 hijacked the global agenda in the direction of new wars and a ludicrous 'War on Terror', focus on serious global issues has been effectively impossible. The struggle for truth and justice is ultimately the same as the struggle for peace and well being.

It is an interesting point. If Bush is all powerful, why did he fail to plant WMD in Iraq. Why was he unable to plant information in the US to show that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11? The New Con memo called for a "Pearl Harbor" incident. 9/11 was not actually that. We have clear evidence who bombed Pearl Harbor. Yet 9/11 cannot be traced back to Iraq or Iran. If it was a conspiracy, it was not a very good one. No one I've ever met believes that Bush & co are "all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful" No one I know who has really thought about 9-11, and who disbelieves the official account, believes it was a "Government conspiracy" (whatever that might mean and however it might be operationalized in practice). The lack of WMDs in Iraq connundrum was a topic of live interest in 2003. Why disn't the US/UK fake the evidence? (like they have done on so many occasions) Ah, but bettter still, why not have a debate in which both the western left, as well as the right, can participate with vigour and verve, while setting up Bush and a few honchos serve the fall-guys when (not if) things go sour? 9-11 was clearly not a "Government conspiracy". The claim that does need testing, in my opinion, is the claim that 9-11 was a Zionist false flag operation. The parallel with Pearl Harbor should not be taken too far. Yes, 9-11 cannot be traced back to Iraq/n, while the Japanse clearly bombed Pearl Habour. So what? No-one is suggesting that a 'new Pearl Habour' means an exact action replay. We get the same response pattern to 9-11 observed many years before in the case of JFK's assassination. At first, tame mainstream left voices (such as I.F. Stone or in this case David Corn & Chomsky) come out quite early on and say "how outragous and simplistic to claim the Government might have been so evil (or so competent!)! Shame!!!". Later on, as more and more people came to disbelieve the official account of the JFK assassination, rival camps are established within the disbelievers. Any notion that Zionists were responsible was chased out of mainstream discourse. That worked well for at least three decades. A similar plan is, I believe, in progress over 9-11. However, it's much harder to disguise Zionist participation in a false flag operation directed against Zionism’s enemies than it is to disguise Zionist participation in an assassination where everyone initially looks the wrong way (eg. at Cuba, Vietnam, the Soviet, the ultra-right wing etc). This false flag op (9-11) was designed to make Israel’s enemies look like poison. That could not be disguised – it was the whole point of the show. 9-11, IMO, was a desperate gamble to put Israel and support for it in the west back in the 'moral high ground', in a context where the world was losing sympathy for the Zionists' supremacist, war-promoting policies. It happened only a few days after the UN Conference on Racism in South Africa, at which Israel (and its US stooge) was widely pilloried. 9-11 and its murderous aftermath gave some bounce to a dying cat, for a while...

Note that the following article leaves one possible strategy undiscussed: 1/ Genuinely oppose a war against Iran 2/ Be seen to genuinely oppose it. Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran Forward Staff | Fri. Feb 02, 2007 While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran. In early advocacy efforts on the issue, Jewish organizations stressed the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel in light of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calls to “wipe Israel off the map.” Now, with concerns mounting that Israel and its supporters might be blamed for any military confrontation, Jewish groups are seeking to widen their argument, asserting that an Iranian nuclear bomb would threaten the West and endanger pro-American Sunni Muslim states in the region. Jess Hordes, Washington director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that the strategy of broadening the case against Iran was not an attempt to divert attention from the threats to Israel. “It is a fact that Iran is a danger to the whole world,” Hordes said. “We are not just saying it to hide our concerns about Israel.” Yet many advocacy efforts, even when not linked to Israel, carry indelibly Jewish fingerprints. Last week, Jewish groups claimed victory when the United Nations approved a resolution denouncing Holocaust denial, with Iran’s regime as the obvious target. Additionally, numerous Jewish activists are pressing in advertisements and Internet appeals for Ahmadinejad to be indicted in The Hague for incitement to genocide. In warning of possible scapegoating, insiders point to the experience of the Iraq War. Since the initial invasion in 2003, antiwar groups have charged, with growing vehemence, that the war was promoted by Jewish groups acting in Israel’s interest — even though the invasion enjoyed bipartisan backing and popular support, and was not at the top of most Jewish organizations’ agendas. The Iraq backlash prompted former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to order in 2005 that his ministers keep a low profile on Iran. Now, however, Jewish groups are indeed playing a lead role in pressing for a hard line on Iran. The campaign comes at a time when President Bush’s popularity has reached record lows and members of both parties are cautioning against a rush toward war. Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, addressed the fears head-on last week in an address to Israel’s prestigious Herzliya Conference. Lamenting what he called “the poisoning of America,” Hoenlein painted a dire picture of American public discourse turning increasingly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel in the year ahead. Hoenlein dated the trend to the 2005 arrest of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, on charges of passing classified national security information. Hoenlein argued that the Jewish community made a major mistake by not forcefully criticizing the arrests. Speaking via video, Hoenlein listed several events that had occurred since then: the release of the essay criticizing the “Israel Lobby” by two distinguished professors, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer; the publication of former president Jimmy Carter’s best-selling book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”; the suggestion by former NATO supreme commander and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark that “New York money people” were pushing America into war, and claims by former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter that Israel is pushing the United States to attack Iran. “In the beginning of the Iraq war they talked about the ‘neocons’ as a code word,” Hoenlein said. “Now we see that code words are no longer necessary.” He warned that the United States is nearing a situation similar to that of Britain, where delegitimization of Israel is widespread. “This is a cancer that starts from the top and works its way down,” he said. “It poisons the opinions among elites which trickle down into society.” According to Hoenlein, such critics tend not only to delegitimize Israel but also to “intimidate American Jews not to speak out.” He called on American Jews to take action against this phenomenon, saying that Christian Zionists seemed at times more willing than Jews to fight back. Another instance of casting blame, less widely reported, was attributed to former secretary of state Colin Powell. In a new biography, by Washington Post writer Karen De Young, Powell is said to have put at least some of the blame for the Iraq war on Jewish groups. The book, “Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell,” claims that Powell used to refer to the pro-war advisers surrounding former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld as the “Jinsa crowd.” Jinsa is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a hawkish think tank that supported the Iraq war. Thomas Neumann, Jinsa’s executive director, said he was not offended by Powell’s reference, although he was surprised that the former secretary of state would single out a Jewish group when naming those who supported the war. “I am not accusing Powell of anything, but these are words that the antisemites will use in the future,” Neumann said. Whatever worries exist about a negative backlash over Israel, they have not deterred Jewish and pro-Israel activists from publicly pressing for tough U.S. action against Tehran or invoking concern for Israel. A particularly forceful argument for a hard line against Iran appeared this week in The New Republic, a Washington insider journal widely viewed as a bellwether of pro-Israel opinion. The lengthy article, written by two respected Israeli writers, Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi, both fellows at the Shalem Center, a hawkish Jerusalem think tank, names Iran as the main threat to Israeli survival, regional stability and to the entire world order. This theme has been echoed in publications and press releases put out by most major Jewish groups, including Aipac and the Conference of Presidents. “The international community now has an opportunity to uphold that order,” Oren and Klein Halevi wrote. “If it fails, then Israel will have no choice but to uphold its role as refuge of the Jewish people. A Jewish state that allows itself to be threatened with nuclear weapons — by a country that denies the genocide against Europe’s six million Jews while threatening Israel’s six million Jews — will forfeit its right to speak in the name of Jewish history.” Debate in Washington intensified last month when the U.S. military began to move against Iranian agents in Iraq. The spotlight has now turned to the Democratic-led Congress, with both hardliners and doves anxiously seeking to gauge lawmakers’ reactions to the crisis. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, an outspoken critic of Bush’s foreign policy, last week introduced a non-binding resolution requiring congressional approval for any American military action against Iran. “To forestall a looming disaster, Congress must act to save the checks and balances established by the Constitution,” Byrd said in a statement when presenting his proposed resolution. In the House, Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas introduced a resolution calling on the administration to adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations and to engage with Iran. Also in the House, the 70-member Progressive Caucus held a public forum last week on alternatives to preemptive war against Iran. Many Democrats, however, are treading lightly. Though many favor talks with Iran — including Rep. Tom Lantos of California, chair of the House International Relations Committee — there is still no significant move in Congress toward barring the president from taking military action against Iran. Congressional sources speculated this week that Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, might take the lead on such a measure. On January 11, Biden sent a letter to Bush stating that Congress has not authorized any military incursion into Iran or Syria. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, also stressed the need for congressional approval prior to any military action. A Democratic staffer described this week the sense of frustration Democrats are feeling over the president’s stance toward Iran. “The administration has now the worst of all worlds,” the staffer said. “It blocked any diplomatic channel with Iran and at the same time cannot generate the needed sympathy for the issue among the Russians and Chinese in order to apply pressure on Iran.” Jewish organizational officials and pro-Israel lobbyists on Capitol Hill downplayed the possibility that Congress might play a significant role in limiting the administration’s response to Iranian nuclear ambitions. “It is very premature,” one lobbyist said. “The administration has no war plan and Congress has no plan to block such a war.” If military action is ultimately needed to deal with the issue, it will be difficult to secure public support, because the administration “lied” about intelligence before the Iraq war, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat. “The fact that the administration lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq means that if we get into a real problem with Iran and if it’s coming to a crunch there, God forbid, about nuclear weapons, it will be very, very hard for the administration to convince anybody just because they have a record of such dishonesty,” Nadler said. “The administration lied about Iraq, and one of the consequences of lying is that people don’t believe you even when you’re telling the truth.” Nathan Guttman in Washington, with reporting by Daniel Treiman from New York.

I'd like to launch the thread with a classic one-liner from Imperial Britain: