Sid Walker

Under normal circumstances, someone who, acting under his own volition, sought to negotiate peace is not deemed a 'war criminal'. IMO, the long term incarceration of Hess (longer than even Sirhan Sirhan, so far...) - was a monumental act of cruelty and cynicism. The episode speaks volumes about how the Second World War has never really ended. We are consequently still affirming, in protracted action replay, the Allies' war-winning propaganda of that era, which may be summarized in vaguely familiar terms: Peace is War Slavery is Freedom Strength is Ignorance Speaking of 'Strength', what books or other references have most historians on the Forum used to help form their opinion of Hess and the appropriateness of his treatment after his capture? Does anyone here have serious criticisms of Irving's book about Hess - or is there just a conspiracy of silence to avoid discussing this rather detailed biography, like one avoids mentioning a cross-dressing uncle at family gatherings?

I have sympathies with Jim in this case. Any director with an axe to grind can make what he/she wants out of an interview - especially given plenty of footage to choose from. BBC spin is slick - up there with the best in the world. Demonization is easy. I'd like to see this program. Is it online?

That's the best definition of "anti-Bush" I've ever seen Pat. It may help explain why he had it in for Saddam Hussein.

According to this reference, ADL chief Abe Foxman is alarmed: If Foxman is correct, the Zionist movement has a very serious problem. True, most of the "third" would be in impoverished, disempowered and terrorized parts of the world. Nevertheless, contemporary networks are fluid and global in reach. Such a widespread view (if it really is so widespread) would necessarily be held by some people in most if not all countries. If one person in three believes Israel was truly behind the attacks - despite the incessant barrage of worldwide news propaganda claiming the direct opposite - the belief clearly must have some legs. Another thing to note, if Foxman is correct. The notion that Israel was behind the attacks finds virtually no expression in the western media - not has it ever since 9-11. Despite that, this belief apparently enjoys significant minority status. Surely it is unacceptable that such a large minority belief continues to be marginalized, denied expression and effectively banished from mainstream discourse? Especially when it is only a matter of the appropriate explanation for a significant historical event...

Does everyone else get to see the 'The West Wing', as we in Australia currently do? It was recently moved by the ABC to Saturday evening - prime time for those of 'mature age' who no longer treat Saturday night as an obligatory party. Martin Sheen plays a very decent President. He's an heroic character, cast in the mould of Roosevelt but rather more ethical. Everyone in the show is smart and talks at least ten times faster than Dubya. In recent episodes, the electoral cycle has progressed. The Dems and Repugs have both picked candidates. Both are tough, highly intelligent and essentially well-meaning guys. The show is highly recommended - in hour-long weekly doses - as an antidote to reality, as otherwise shown 24x7 on the major TV news networks. I suspect it is an Operation Mockingbird job, designed to help maintain morale as our civilization plunges towards spook-directed perdition. It would be nice if The West Wing put up a slate at the next US election. A national unity ticket in which all concerned made no pretence of being anything other than actors. I bet they'd win easily.

A most interesting read, Bill. Very publishable. Why did Ian Fleming choose the name 'James Bond'?

A couple of paras about Wolfowitz by Charley Reese. That's the world economy, Charley! Selection Criteria for World Bank Chief Essential 1/ Must have completely screwed up at least one country for no good reason. 2/ Must have demonstrated experience in formenting war-monguering lies at the highest level.

In Australia, there's a national talkback radio program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation called 'Australia Talks Back". It's one of the programs I used to listen to regulaly, convinced I was listening to the authentic voice of (more often than not) intelligent Australians. After 9-11 I thought I'd call in and express doubts about the official version of events in a calm and rational manner. I managed to get one call in - but was hustled off rather quickly once the content of my call became apparent. A couple of callers mentioned interest in my call in their subequent comments. On subsequent occasions with ATB, I found call vetting increasingly stringent. Callers are typically asked to state beforehand what they want to say. Argumentative producers/vetters filtered out my call, saying it was off topic or throwing up other objections. These days, if I bother to call on hot topics, I lie about what I plan to say. I dislike doing that, because I have a general preference for honesty... but it does represent a more effective strategy. I have no doubt at all that Australia's ABC is policed so "arguments" flow happily along pre-determined lines. It is, for instance, quite acceptable to express disgust against the Iraq War. It is also fine to express disgust over Islamic terrorism. But some things are - or have been - out of bounds. On a couple of occasions, I've called up late night ABC talkback radio. Most chatter is light-hearted, but occasionally serious topics are covered. I've been quite struck, on every occasion that I called the ABC, how well-informed presenters appear to be on topics that, if one only tracked the mainstream media, are effectively invisible. They trypically don't react, for instance, to a call about the US Israeli spy-ring of 2000/1 by challenging the story of quizzing the details. They don't express surprise. They just hustle the caller off-air, ASAP. As I've kept my quantity of calls over the years quite low, my interventions are unlikely to have attracted special black marks. I doubt I've really shown up on the corporate radar. What I've experienced seems to me a matter of general ABC policy. The experience has certainly made me wonder... I think it's remarkable that David Shayler made it onto the Beeb at all. Very encouraging actually. I wonder if he gets any more invitations, now he's shown how persuasive he can be?

It is not in the interest of the Labour Party to dump Blair now. The Labour Party will do very bad in the local and regional elections in May (they will lose control of most of the councils under its control, including Scotland and Wales). The plan is to blame Blair for these results. When he resigns in June the future leader will start with a clean slate. It is hoped that by the time the next General Election takes place, Labour will be in a position to win. This might be true if an "outsider" wins the leadership battle. However, I suspect, that if someone closely identified with Blair becomes leader, they are likely to lose their majority. I believe it is impossible for the Tories to win an overall majority in the next election. Thanks John. That kinda makes sense. I still cannot understand, however, why Labour decided to abandon these local and regional elections so long in advance. They affect the party's base for national elections and have significance in their own right. Labour strategists can't relish yet more of a wipe-out at local level. Why not put in a new face with sufficient time to get an electoral bounce up by May? I speculate, but it seems to me this is really about ensuring Britian's continuity of policy in the Middle East, from Palestine to Iran (not forgetting Iraq), at least over the next few months. Of course, that would not be the overt reason prsented to Caucus. Keeping Blair in place would have to be sold to Caucus using different arguments - perhaps along the lines you've suggested. Not for the first time, Labour's troopers in Parliament vote for an absurb strategy that is not in their real interests, because taking orders from above (as long as the orders are sanctioned by the mass media ) is something they really do excel at.

It is absolutely beyond my ken why Tony Blair is still in power. Don't the normal processes of caucus operate any more in the Labour Party? Can't his fellow Labour MPs terminate Blair's leadership with a no-confidence vote? If they can do that, why don't they? Forgive my ignorance. These days, I mainly rely on the BBC to keep me informed about Britain. Like Labour Caucus, the BBC doesn't seem to work any more either - not, at any rate, to inform people about British politics. These days it specializes in hatchet jobs on the '9-11 Truth Movement' and whipping up hyteria to support the latest and next USraeli wars.

I guess we get to meet the ones who screw up, Len. The small team of Mossad agents that was arrested after behaving very suspiciously in NYC, was not, it seems, top of its class for 2000/1 Nearly 200 Mossad agents were arrested in the USA between 2000 and 2001. But the total number operating in the USA at the time is unknown. It may have been significantly higher than the number arrested. Clearly, a big operation was underway at that time. The general public to see the show that was put on - and occasionally, when operatives mess up and the curtain gets stuck, the public catches glimpses of behind-the-scenes action. Actually, it's rather a joke that Israeli agents still operate undergound in the USA. After all, so many of Israeli operatives have held and/or continue to hold key positions of power in the Administration or on Capitol Hill - and operate in plain sight. I suspect Israelis such as the Urban Movers are used to co-ordinate blatantly 'anti-American' actions - activities that couldn't be safely entrusted to the CIA or any of the many American spook agencies, because they involve flagrant violence against Americans and their interests. For these operatives, security must be "tighter than tight" - and a bolthole in the Holy Land comes in handy.

Over the years, I have enjoyed reading many of George Monbiot's articles immensely. I am not, therefore, inclined to be hostile to this esteemed member of the Forum. However, I think if George chooses to post articles in the forum - articles that already enjoy wide audience reach - it woiuld be a very nice courtesy if he is also willing to participate in some dialogue. Having just read his article about 9-11 sceptics, I would like that very much. I'll limit myself to one sub-topic for starters, as I know George must be busy. George: What is your explanation for the Israeli spy ring operating in the USA in 2000/2001? It is discussed on another thread in this forum, kindly started by an active participant from South America, Len Colby. In particular, what is your theory about the Israelis arrested in NYC on Spetember 11th 2001, described in Christopher Ketcham's recent article in Counterpunch? What were they up to, George? As you are clearly au fait with the subject of 9-11 in some detail (sufficient to have written a damning rebuttal of the doubters' case, a rebuttal published in a major British newspaper and worldwide via the web) - you will surely have already heard of this odd affair. How do you explain the remarkable co-location of the 'hijackers' and these energetic folk from Israel? How do you explain the evident failure of the US justice system to pursue this case of some 200 foreign (Israeli) spies operating in the USA - with quite remarkable apparent connections to the 9-11 disasters? It was, after all, the largest spy network ever to be busted in the USA. How could the US Government behave so irresponsbily as to release these spies so they could return to Israel, leaving behind so many unanswered questions relating to 9-11? (Recall that the Israelis were released within weeks of September 11th - in stark contrast to the fate of my countryman David Hicks, picked up in Afghanistan around the same time the Israelis were going home - and incarcerated ever since at Camp X-ray for alleged links with 'Al Qaida'). You seem to claim, George, that doubting the official version of 9-11 is akin to madness - and that there's nothing wiorth knowing about 9-11 that the experts haven't already answered. How come - when this issue alone represents a huge an uninvestigated Loose End?

Very true Myra. And it wasn't only America's leadership that was systematically 'culled'. I have a soft spot for Ben Barka. He was disappeared in 1965.

I agree. Indeed, as I communicated directly to Antti, I didn't take offence at your comments John - I just disagreed with them and said why, in a manner that was intended to bite, but not abuse. I'm sorry if anyone thought I strayed across that line. Anyhow, as I indicated before, it will be interesting indeed to see how this thread progresses further with strict controls on ad hominem attacks and off-topic rants. I'm all for it

I hadn't seen the following suggestion before, Len. Perhaps I simply missed it. It's on the middle page of Ketcham's Counterpunch article. It’s not entirely clear when they were filming.Many people started filming the towers before the 2nd crash. If they really were Mossad agents in on the biggest attack on the US in 60 years why would they have acted in such an obvious attention drawing way next to their conspicuous company van? I'd luv to hear you theory about Bollyn and Hufxxxx do you think they are "Zionist agents"? LOL Eye witness reports claimed these young Israelis were not just filming (you're right, Len, many folk in NYC had their cameras out by that time). These guys were celebrating. When later asked why, they claimed it had something to do with Israeli solidarity with the USA. That's a far-fetched explanation for celebrating after the second strike on the towers. It's clearly a nonsensical explanation for why they'd have been celbrating before the second strike... at which time, most people in NYC assumed it was merely an accident. The speed at which these guys 'realized' the whole show was an attack by Arab terrorist also boggles the mind. They probably beat CNN to the punch on that. As to why they chose to celebrate so openly, Len... your guess is as good as mine. I imagine they were asked that question by their superiors when undergoing debriefing back in the Promised Land. Why, for that matter, did numerous people in the know place punts on the stock market, just prior to 9-11, to make a few millions out of the predictable consequences of the disaster? Perhaps they just couldn't help themselves? Like the Urban Moving Systems crew, these profiteers probably felt very confident there would be no serious investigation of anyleads that pointed back to Israel and its supporters. If so, they were right. As for Bollyn & co, I won't bite, thanks. How should I know if and by whom these pathetic individuals are paid for spreading disinformation and formenting confusion. Huffsmidt acknowledged long ago that his half-sister, from whom he claims to be long-estranged, just happened to marry one of Rupert Murdoch's boys. Huffsmidt's radio chum, Mr Bradford Smith, spent months trying to get his fans to sign up personal accounts with MySpace. Go figure. It is obvious that these 'chips' were cashed in in a rather dismal attempt to discredit Michael Collins Piper and two organisations he works with closely: American Free Press and the Republican Broadcasting Network. The silly Bollyn/Huffsmidt/Bradford Smith mindgames, late last year, may have fooled a few thousands of people for a few months. I doubt they did better than that. It was a waste of good agents, really. Still, plenty more where they came from?

I have no personal objection to God joining the forum. Perhaps John and Andy would agree to a Trinity?

I apologize if I caused unwarranted offence to John Dolva in previous posts on this thread - and if I strayed from discussing the topic of the thread itself. Antti believes the following breached forum rules, and explained his psotion in these terms: The forum rules in question are: Forum members might care to speculate on how this thread might have taken a different and more productive turn if such stringent moderation had been in place from the outset. Piper himself, for instance, might still be on the thread. He would not have arrived at the thread after it was already several pages long to discover an unpleasant trail of ad hominem attacks directed at him. Discussion that was NOT closely related to the book Final Judgment would have been greatly reduced. So would the length of the thread! I shall have to watch my p's and q's under a new and much more stringent moderation regime - but I can also see potential benefits, if it is appled with fairness and in an even-handed manner.

Nicely said Norman. It does strike me that it's a case where very interesting potential debate is snuffed out by the reflexive oppositionalism of two poorly argued cases. A lot of people in the scientific community go into lockdown over this, imagining their 'opposition' consists only of irrational scripture-fanatics. Because of that, interesting nuances get left out, almost every time the subject of Evolution is raised. We should all be grateful to Len Colby for starting a most stimulating thread. Not for the first time, Len! Kudos! At the risk of offending neo-Darwinian dogmatists even more than I have done already, here are a few more thoughts on the topic... It seems to me that neo-Darwinism has become rather fixated on the 'demand side' of evolution. It focuses on the way that genomes here on earth change over time, due to selection pressures operating on associated phenotypes. So far, so good. But what generates the genetic material on which selection pressures operate? Most 'neo-Darwinists (t least when I last checked) limit their consideration of organic evolution to this planet alone. It's assumed that it has all happened here on earth. Random mutation alone is the neoDarwinian explanation for generating the diversity that selective pressures work upon. There is no real evidence that this can account for the major saltations in evolution - but defenders of the faith claim that any other suggestion is inherently unscientific. Nor is it really possible to disprove the neo-Darwinian hypothesis. The stalemate may be broken by developments suggesting that what Francis Crick called 'panspermia' is more likely than not. In other words, organic life may be a very widespread phenomenon - galactic or possibly even more universal than that. Although natural selection on earth may operate rather mechanically, in the manner of Dawkin's "blind clockmaker", there's no necessity that also applies to the processes generating and distributing new genetic material. An analogy. An observant red blood corpusle, witnessing events in its part of the world (inside the veinous system of a single mammalian body), might conclude that "natural selection" accounts for the composition of red bloodcells over time within its world. It sees the process whereby damaged or weakened cells are gobbled up and disappear. Some red cells survive. Some die. The overall fitness of the population of red bloodcells is thus maintained. It would be harder, however, for that bloodcell to theorize about other parts of the process that are, nevertheless, important to the whole system. An example is what happens in the bone marrow. This 'supply side' is a crucial part of the overall story of blood and what happens to it. The neo-Darwinian paradigm, IMO, will eventually be supplanted by theory that reflects a more complete view of organic life and its development over time, a view that's likely to extend far beyond the one small planet in the universe that we've studied so far in any detail at all.

There's a rather unpleasant recent footnote to this story. Chris Bollyn was arrested and beaten by police in Chigago, after he himself had called the police to report on suspicious and intimidating activities in his own suburb. His post-release account is HERE. Bollyn was working on a follow-up article to his American Free Press article on Comverse and its Israeli founder who has fled US justice. This article was mentioned in my previous post on this thread. There's an even more unpleasant second footnote to this story. It involves an allegation I believe to be correct about Christopher Bollyn and his collaborator Eric Huffsmidt. Both these gentlemen, up to some six months ago, appeared to be playing significant, creative and genuinely independent roles in the so called '9-11 Truth Movemnet' They have since turned out to be something entirely different. It's a long story and a story i do not propsoe, in this post, to tell. However, I have no doubt this is correct. It's sad, but not the first time this kind of thing has occured, as anyone familiar with the JFK assassination saga is aware. I don't usually get into such accusations. They are unpleasant and often add to the high level level of general confusion - much of which, I have little doubt, is deliberately formented by disinformation agents. However, in this particular case, on re-reading this thread, I notice that I earlier gave apparent endorsement to Bollyn's work. I now withdraw it, for the record. No doubt some of Bollyn's articles about 9-11 contain some correct and important information. But I now feel quite confident they also contain deliberate disinformation, skillfully blended into the mix.

I hadn't seen the following suggestion before, Len. Perhaps I simply missed it. It's on the middle page of Ketcham's Counterpunch article.

Mark Stapleton has put a lot of work into compiling a summary of Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper. It's a project in progress. I think he's done a fine job so far. Inter alia, this summary provides Piper's critics wih an opportunity to show where he has things wrong. If Piper's book was as disreputable and unimportant as you suggest, given this is a forum with JFK experts a-plenty, one might have thought that by now Piper's thesis would be in ruins, demolished by numerous sharp criticisms and exposes of Final Judgment's factual errors. In fact, there has been... almost complete silence. I should acknowledge the main exception: silly and rather spiteful posts like your recent contributions - posts that have about as much to do with the book Final Judgment as the lyrics of Boris the Spider.

A few recent additions to already available references about this intiguing story. _______________________________ Chris Ketcham's latest article, finally published in Counterpunch: Cheering Movers and Art Student Spies - What did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks? _______________________________ Was Israel Tracking the Hijackers Before the 9/11 Attacks? - a Democracy Now story and link to interview. _______________________________ Gerald Shea's memorandum dated September 15th 2004 to the: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE With the title: Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a Public Inquiry _____________________________________________________

Your last two posts in this thread, John, indicate how low some folk will go in their determination to hijack real discussion of Piper's thesis, by diverting the 'debate' - a debate they are actually unwilling to join with rational arguments - into ad hominem slurs and suchlike. Disappointing, John. As they say in soccer, "Play the ball, not the man!" If you can.

Jack clearly expressed his desire to present his case. I was curious to see what sort of evidence he would present. "The idea of a genuine debate on this rather interesting topic - a topic far less open and shut than I imagined before reading Michael Denton, Fred Hoyle and others - probably never occured to him." Wrong again! There is no serious scientific debate Hoyle an astronomer is one of the few real scientists to express any doubts (though I won’t pretend to understand the math enough to judge the merits of his case), Denton has long since backed away from his doubts about evolution and was one of only 2 or 3 people with advanced degrees in a field related biology to cast doubt on evolution this century. You are perfectly entitled to start the thread, Len. Please don't imagine for a moment I am trying to stifle your free speech Perish the thought! I should remind you - or whichever definitive source you relied upon for your devastating rebuttal of my rather modest claim the matter is not completely "open and shut" - of an irritating little detail. For most of us, it is now a new century. You really should update your calendar. Or maybe it's the rest of us who must get with the times? In this new century, since 9-11 when "everything changed", perhaps all matters are "open and shut"? There are only certainties, discussed by real people of various professions. All other discourse is just illusion. We are therefore most fortunate on this forum, Len, to have you here, a source so close to the Oracle. Yes, I am aware that Denton changed his views. No, it isn't true that Fred Hoyle is "one of the few real scientists to express any doubts" (doubts, that is, about the completeness of natural selection and random mutation to account for all observed evolutionary changes to organic lifeforms). Not unless we cede to you all rights to define 'real scientists'. Perhaps we should? After all, you already know which scientific questions are - and are not - worth asking. You already know what's "open and shut" - and what's not. So why shouldn't you get to pick 'real scientists' - just like you already arrogate to yourself the right to identify 'real historians'? Why not imprison 'fake scientists' for good measure?

I have to admit that the existence of George Bush is a telling argument against "Intelligent Design".