Sid Walker

Pat Thanks for a much more civil post. Not quite sure what gave rise to your PS... to be clear, yes I do believe Sirhan Sirhan was the designated patsy. I believe he may have fires shots as some kind of Manchurian candidate. But he was clearly not alone in shooting. And he was no 'lone nut', as the official story would have us believe. The references you cite are of interest. It'd be great if you were more specific. But allow me some scepticism. Mankiewicz is very smart. If he'd been the full quid, IMO, he'd have pursued the anomalies of the RFK assassination case in later life - whistleblowing, in the manner, for instance, of Mark Lane. To my knowledge, he didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's been a consistent apologist for the official story. The picture you paint of Mankiewicz is of a rather saintly, idealistic left-winger, commited to the anti-war movement. That doesn't fit, for me, with his lengthy and very senior role at Hill & Knowlton. You are quick to come to Mankiewicz's defence, Pat - but what about the other victims here? Do you believe Sirhan Sirhan should still be in jail? He's been incarcerated since 1968! IMO, even if he was guilty, he should be out by now. But the indications are he was framed - while the criminals who pulled off this disgusting murder/frame-up have been living like Lords ever since.

This is really sad. You are directly insulted and instead of going off and replying in kind, you take a circuitous route full of rationalizations about "what does race/racist/racism really mean." And you actually seem more offended by what I had to say about your preferred sources than about what I am suggesting about you. I wish you would stand up for yourself more. To hell with those guys at Antisemitic Agenda Central and what they've prescribed as "the proper and appropriate modes of public discourse"; they're not the one's sticking their necks out -- you are.But anyway, I think what you've written above is a pretty good example of what Andy Walker (no relation) has previously referred to as "intellectual masturbation." You claim to reject the entire concept of "race," which sounds like it should do you credit -- very forward-thinking of you. But it seems more like an intellectual subterfuge to try to gain support for your overall arguments. You reject the concept of race; therefore you cannot be sympathetic to racists. And since you reject the concept of race, there can be no discussion about racism, nicht wahr? But even if I take you at your word, instead of just noting the rationalizing character of all you've written above, you (typically) reveal more than you seem to realize you're revealing. Evidently "the term racist...dates only from the 1930s" in the English language? You've made this point before, as I recall. It once again raises the issue of your raison d' etre, as it seems: you want to rehabilitate your heroes of the 1930s by throwing some onus on those who "first" described Nazism in terms of "racism." In other words, Nazis have gotten a bad press in history because "those in effective control of public discourse" have unfairly associated Nazism with the epithets of "racist" and "racism"? ("Help, help, I'm being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!") Your degree in anthropology and your evaluation of my analytic powers or intellectual honesty or lack of decency are no great concern to me. Even I have a degree -- as did Joe Goebbels, PhD -- and it's not you (or, of course, your ilk) I think about in terms of whether what I write has or will have any relevance or value, or how it will ultimately reflect on me. That will be decided by others, most probably long after I'm gone. No doubt the Marchetti article and the libel suit brought by Hunt are "landmarks"; and everyone who has some interest in seeing justice be done and for the truth to come out has much reason to be pissed that this all had to come in the form of an association with Willis Carto and Liberty Lobby.... It's somewhat like the Wernerhoff article, since he posits an FBI/ADL conspiracy angle behind Robert Kennedy's murder and the subsequent rubbing out of two possible suspects. But I assume you're aware that originally it was supposed to be Danny Joe Hawkins accompanying Tarrants on the bombing mission, and that Ainsworth was a last-minute replacement. Some people might look at that and say it was the man giving them their orders who made the arrangements to eliminate the two suspects....but instead we're asked to subscribe to the idea that it was the ADL (or World Jewry As Such?) that was behind it all. So just as in the case with Hunt and the Liberty Lobby, I think there's reason to ask whether this is not counterproductive if not in fact of a piece with a strategy of disinformation.... If there's something to Hunt's involvement in JFK's murder, fine; but it hasn't exactly been helpful to have an association with Carto et al in trying to get the word out to the larger public, has it?More to the point, I don't doubt that for you such publications "have contained some excellent content over the years." They cater to a particular audience, an audience inclined to believe in a Big Jew Threat, and I'm sure that audience has found them fulfilling in many ways. I don't expect that anything I have to say will "work for" you. I believe you are serving as a shill and mouthpiece for these interests, trying to gain respectability for them. Whether you do so "on your own recognizance" or as an employee I have no idea. But I will waste no more of my time than I have to, and I will not engage with you in extended debate about the merits of such sources. When I visited that site the first thing I saw was the nature of the literature it was selling; then I saw that Carto was the publisher. I then understood why you thought so highly of it, but I've seen more than enough of that type of propaganda the past several months...so naturally I'm not going to presume that a grain of sand (myself) can do anything about an ocean.... Once again, more than revealing enough: "organized Jewry." But it's nice to see some progress in that you're now using the term "Muslim" instead of "Moslem," as you've previously always referred to those who follow the Islamic faith. Like most people, I have plenty of blind spots. But not being "sensitive" to or knowledgeable about the issue of racism can hardly be considered one of them. I believe I may be one of the only members of this forum, for instance, who has commented upon the predominantly white look of the membership. And in my youth many years ago I spent plenty of time learning about the history of my country, something which would be hard to do without also considering issues of racism, white supremacy, slavery, segregation, bigotry, etc, etc, etc....A few weeks ago I was going to respond to one of your friends with a brand new thread. I decided against it, but I did then share my comments with him in a PM. In his post he had made an assertion about me being annoyed because you and he do such a remarkable job in being tough on Israel. This was my response: QUOTE ON I'm not "annoyed because [you] seem to team up with Sid Walker to give Israel a regular shellacking." For one thing, I believe that apologists for the Israeli government are more than happy to be given "shellackings" by critics whose anti-Semitism is suspected or apparent. This is a God-send, in fact, because they can say that criticism is being promoted by anti-Semites. Not much of a "shellacking," if you think about it....maybe even a little counter-productive, isn't it? No one who's ever read a single thing that I've had to say about Israel's policies could remotely think that my attitude is apologetic, or anything but critical. I'd be glad to provide you with plenty of evidence for that by a simple use of this forum's search function....but there's no need to do that for you, is there? You know very damned well what I've had to say on the subject(s), don't you? You know, for instance, that I regard Israel as having developed into a semi-fascist state wherein militarism, xenophobia and the promotion of the "organic unity" of the State as the highest value is rampant. You know that I have commented on the irony of this occurring for a nation established as a direct result of people fleeing from the fascist regimes of Europe in the 1930s and 40s. You know that I have commented on the similar irony of Israeli occupation and subjugation of the Palestinians in terms of a betrayal of the foundational event of Judaism, the Exodus from "bondage in Egypt." To put it succinctly, I decry what Israel has become as it represents a betrayal of ancient Jewish tradition as well as the entire rationale for the establishment of Israel in the first place. If Israel holds territories and the people within them under military rule, this is a betrayal of what all Jews must hold in common as the most meaningful foundation of their own identity, the Exodus. And if Israelis have learned to think of themselves as superior in contrast to Arabs who are regarded as inferior, while also upholding the values of militarism and allegiance to the State, then as I've often asked, what has Israel become....except the very damned thing that one would think it should never have become? But you already know all that, and you know all of that is true as to what I've had to say on the subject(s). And yet, like some others in this forum, you just assert what you want, even if it is a lie that can be proven to be a lie...and then you protest at being called dishonest and hypocritical. QUOTE OFF The problem is, even those of us who are inclined to be very critical of Israel have to think seriously about getting tied up with those whose larger agenda is noticeably antisemitic. I'll be no party to that, and I will make my opposition to that as clearly as I possibly can. As I've said before, the Nazi New Order that Adolf Hitler attempted to impose on Europe was not an "aberration" in the history of western civilization: it was the ultimate logical result of the darkest heritage of that civilization. And all the dead bodies, all the human lives snuffed out as if they were no more than bugs, might just as well have been Africans, Native Americans or Aborigines as they were Jews or Gypsies or Slavs. I'm real sure I'm not on the wrong side on this. And I believe "the real objection of most who profess disgust with Willis Carto et al" has to do with a sincere disgust with the lies and subterfuges and the overall agenda being promoted. And whether that agenda should be called racism or antisemitism or bigotry or simple hate is not a "nuance" that means much outside of the needs of its apologists to make it appear respectable and reasonable in public debate. Thank you, Thomas Paine. I'll try to remember this since, being an American, I'm not used to that kind of talk. Because the media outlets in question are so blatantly and pathetically devoted to the theme of a Jew Threat that even those few people who are somehow able to stand outside the vast power wielded by "the Israel Lobby" find that what your media outlets have to sell is reprehensible as such? This would help to explain why the media outlets you find so intellectually stimulating are attacked; there is some consensus about their character. I recognize you don't share such a nuanced view....because in your judgement it's all a question of an International Jewish Danger-Menace that controls most everything in existence. But not everyone is so blinkered or shares your premises, so some people might actually regard opposing the damn things as something of a moral responsibility....that is, at least when they can spare the time to do so. (Also, how can any of us expect to get elected unless we cater to Jewish interests?) Daniel You invite me to "stand up for myself" so I shall. I'll reply only to the part of your post that engages in the substantive issue discussed on this thread. The rest of your post is, IMO, verbiage and doesn't merit response. Here's the bit you wrote that has some relevance: I bolded the only part that's truly relevant. There. Not much, is it? If I missed anything else, please excuse me and do let me know what it is. Now, in response, I can say that I have read Wernerhoff's articles. Whether he's right or wrong I don't know - but he does give an explanation for the last minute 'switch' that put Ainsworth on the same outing (outrage) as Tarrants - an adventure that turned out to be a de facto suicide mission for Ainsworth. Here's the story he gives (most of it, of course and by his own acknowlegdement, based on Jack Nelson's Terror in the Night (1993):: So, who orchestrated the departure of Danny Joe Hawkins? It doesn't seem anyone really knows (no-one is telling, anyhow). Is the overall scenario outlined by Wernerhoff inconceivable? That is, could the shooting of Tarrants and Ainsworth have been an ADL/FBI setup - and a crucial part of their plan was to make sure Ainsworth was on the 'outing'? You apparently believe it is inconceivable, Daniel - but you don't say why. I'll be honest. I don't know the truth about this. I don't even know for sure that Wernerhoff exists. But it seems to me an angle worth exploring on the RFK assassination.

Sid, whether or not you're a racist is beside the point. You are right about that Pat. Whether other folk will chuck around unpleasant insinuations they are not willing or able to justify is more to the point. have you conducted any research on Mankiewicz beyond studying his heritage? Not a large amount, Pat. I'd certainly like to learn more. If you had, you'd see he was a Kennedy loyalist extraordinaire. References would be helpful. It flat out didn't happen that way Oh dear, here I am again - an agnostic in the presence of someone who KNOWS the truth and gets hot under the collar at any suggestion they might be missing the whole story. anyone who convinces themselves it did happen that way, simply because Mankiewicz was a Jew, is cognitively challenged. That's not the claim I made. It's a straw man argument. If Mankiewicz was involved, his (alleged) associations with the ADL were more significant, I'd suggest, than his parents' religion. Mankiewicz was extremely close to RFK References would be more persuasive than assertion. Bobby's death robbed Mankiewicz of his opportunity to make a difference. His career did not exactly come to an end at that time, Pat. You can't really believe he'd throw it out the window so that Sirhan could be used for propaganda purposes, could you? Of course not. You can't really believe that's my argument, can you Pat? Sirhan Sirhan, poor guy, was a patsy. Like LHO, I suspect that even his survival may not have been part of the original plan. As you are probably aware, the hypothesis that the slaying of RFK was orchestrated by Israeli-backed networks is really an extension of the thesis expounded in Final Judgement by Michael Collins Piper. If Piper is right about the JFK murder, the same players would have had a strong motive to stop RFK becoming President. They would have known that, as CEO of America Inc, he'd pose a grave threat to their freedom and prosperity.

Great idea. I understand he's currently working with Mohamed Al Fayed on the case of his son'e death (and the death of Lady Di), as reported in this rather derogatory article.

Good point Larry! It could also be argued the Bush gang are putting US civilians at risk by turning them into quasi-miliatry forces operating outside US territory. Does the Geneva Convention apply to mercenaries?

There was a time, in Britain, when intelligent people might refer to The Guardian or The Independent for informed news and current affairs analysis. These days, apparently, it's Morecambe Today. That's where you'll find a photo of Hillary Clinton and her future Vice-Presidential running mate, William Rodriguez. Hillary is sure to pick Rodriguez. He's young, articulate, good looking and will help garner the growing Hispanic vote. He also speaks for the 50+?% of Americans who have a vague idea they've been had (yet again, and again and again) over Pearl Habor, Gulf of Tonkin, JFK assassination, RFK assassination, MLK assassination, First Gulf War, OKC, 9-11, Iraq War... or one of many, many other crimes either sponsored within government or covered up through control of official channels). Here's an extract from Morecambe Today:

Jimmy Carter gave an interview to Australian Broadcasting Corporation morning radio, today. Apparenmtly it’s the only interview he intends to give an Australian journalist in the present round of controversy following publication of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. What a pleasure it was to listen to the voice of a sophisticated, honourable American with the skills to be President! What a shame he’s been out of office for 27 years! The interviewer’s questions were largely hostile – fed by the manic response the book has received from the Israel Lobby. But Carter was unflappable and breezed through. Paul Barry, the Australian interviewer, is not after all a specialist in the art of rubbishing the likes of Carter, Mandela and Bishop Tutu when it comes to the Palestine/Israel issue. Such specialists do exist, of course. However, not all of them produce consistently high quality output. One case in point is Deborah Lipstadt. In this op-ed, published in the Washinton Post and other worthy places, Lipstadt invents a new thought crime – and finds Carter guilty. The crime is Holocaust Minimization. Here's Lipstadt's op-ed (emphases added): I rather like Norman Finklestein’s comment: Why is this relevant to Iran?As the Xymphora blog points out in The debt we owe to Deborah Lipstadt Think Xymphora exaggerates? Check out Benny Morris’ article This Holocaust will be different in the Jerusalem Post. Bemoaning the weakness of the Israeli Government, he says: Morris is alarmed it may not... In other words, a respected Israeli academic and media pundit believes that pre-emptive attacks on another country using nuclear weapons are justified (as long as Israel or its proxies does the attacking). He is, however, anxious the Israeli Government may not have the bottle to carry out this eminently reasonable measure. I guess that ‘Holocaust Minimization’ Israeli-style – and it’s de rigeur (as opposed to the quite disgraceful variety exhibited by Jimmy Carter).

Len answers my question with another question. You are a natural politician, Len. Unlike (apparently) most of the folk on this thread, I am not an expert. I am not an engineer (with or without a degree in Engineering). I am not privy to inside info. I'm just a stubborn guy with my crap detector switched on. On Jan 23rd I wrote: I invited people to show that statement is untrue (if it IS untrue).That's when Len, in the manner of John Howard, asked another question (instead of giving a direct answer). I later repeated my question, somewhat rephrased: OK, I'll have a third go... On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity. Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition. Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind? If not, I humbly submit, the promoters of the official version of 9-11 suffer from a rather large credibility gap. Filling this this gaping hole with verbiage, huff and puff may fool a few folk some of the time, but hard questions can be evaded for only so long.

Thanks again for another interesting and informative chapter summary, Mark. I hope you keep going, despite the apparent lack of response from other forum members. Whereas ad hominem attacks on MC Piper are ten a penny, well-argued, documented attacks on the content of Final Judgment seem to be rare indeed. I found the comments about Abraham Feinberg towards the end of your summary fascinating. Here's what anti-Zionist Jewish American Alfred Lilienthal has to say about Feinberg in What Price Israel? 1953 -- 2003 (the particular extract is sourced from HERE)

Perhaps its the Israelis? If you pm me your ip I'll look into this for you Thanks Andy. I doubt it's the Israelis - rather too obvious. I've blame the Torres Straight Islanders. Happily, this morning the problem has vanished anyway. But I'll still PM you my IP, and I hope you'll PO your PM (Blair that is). I trust readers can figure out the meaning of PO

I\'m sorry to say that over the last couple of days this problem has been more or less constant. It\'s the reason my posts have strange backslash symbols. Posting via a proxy server, for some reason, the forum software doesn\'t handle apostrophes. Any advice and help fixing this would be much appreciated.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here. I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion. If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference. If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11. I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case. I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski. I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan. It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial. They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months. That was achieved, partly through their efforts. Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice. The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall. So are those responsible for the 911myths website. I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway: The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind. This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design. Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife. This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses. The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job. I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference. Peter. I\'ll make three points. 1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise. I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either. There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity. I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not. 2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question. Perhaps no-one noticed? This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition. As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no. If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after? Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you? It does to me. 3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition. But that is NOT a minor concession. It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge. I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago). Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"? If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition? New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know! If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11? The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11. It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely. IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder. If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

I\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here. I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion. If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference. If it\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11. I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \'9-11 conspiracy first responders\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case. I\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski. I believe this was part of the conspirators\' gameplan. It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial. They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \"9-11 conspiracy movement\" looked in other directions for the first few months. That was achieved, partly through their efforts. Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice. The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall. So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

1/ The fakers need not necessarily be \'the government\'. If indeed they were within the US Government, they\'d only be a tiny part thereof. 2/ The alleged cell calls were central to the promotion of this story - from the first few hours of day one - as a case of hijacking by Arab terrorists. If you recall, one of the alleged callers was none other than Barbara Olson, wife of the US Solicitor General. That account, for me, was crucial in pursuading me (and many others, I suspect), in the first few days, that the official story was no lie. The accounts of the cell phone calls therefore had a crucial function in the spinning the official story, from the outset. If the calls weren\'t, in fact, possible - then the entire official story of 9-11 is exposed as a gigantic fraud, That\\\'s the significance of Dewdney\'s \'Project Achilles\' work. The website cited above (http://www.911myths.com) that purports to debunk Dewdney\\\'s findings and analysis are, IMO, the 9-11 equivalents of John McAdams JFK Assassination website. Cleverly presented disinformation, quite pursuasive on a casual browsing.

The problem has recurred today. I can make this post and view the forum - but only through a proxy server. As I explained to John before - I have no idea what\'s causing the problem, which seems to occur periodically - and subsequently recitify itself after some time. It may be something on my own computer - but curiously, only access to this site seems to be affected. If anyone else gets the same problem it would be interesting to compare notes.

I'd missed this piece by Justin Raimondo when it was first published. Well worth a read, IMO (emphasis added)

Very interesting to read your account of what brought you to this point. It's almost the reverse of my own case. I tracked 9-11 closely - using the internet extensively - because the official story seemed bogus to me from very early on. Within a few months it became clear to me there were huge problems with the official story. Moreover, while I'd never been a great fan of the western mass media's honesty before, I never saw just how dishonest it can be until after 9-11. That was a revelation to me. Only after that did I start look backing at other 'conspiracy' debates such as the Kennedy killings. Until that time, I'd vaguely imagined something might be wrong about the official accounts but wasn't sure - and in any case, I thought that, given the passage of decades, it would be impossible to ascertain the truth with any confidence. I've changed my mind abou that. It is, I believe, easier than I initially thought. Once one accepts that these killings were not carried out in the manner claimed in the official stories, a key part of the mystery becomes: how could the mass media get it so wrong? One is then led to inquire who owns and controls the western mass media, what biases thse folk might they have and why? The answer is, I believe, not too difficult to figure out - but it's too much for most people to stomach or accept. In my opinion, each one of these crucial events (JFK, RFK, MLK, OKC, 9-11, 7/7... the list goes on) is a potential portal into the netherworld of clandestine power politics. The starting point, for each of us in each of our cases, is usually that our credulity over the specifics of a given case is pushed too far and something snaps. As to the real nature of the netherworld that resides on the the other side of these portals - that's the really contentious issue... It's my belief that active shepherding of opinion on that most crucial of issues takes place 'in real time'. You'll find it goes on in this forum - and practically every other public or semi-public space where these issues are discussed. So much is at stake it would indeed be surprising if that were not the case.

No. The statement was by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a man frequently described as Iran's supreme leader: "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state." As for the rest of it, Len, I think we have to agree to disagree. We are (I assume) both non-Farsi speakers. We are increasingly discussing the nuances of the Farsi language and risk appearing like two eskimoes debating the subtleties of tropical storms. I joined this particular debate, Len, because I thought the underlying issues at stake are extremely important. There can be little debate about that. The future well-being of the entire world may be at stake, as (nuclear) war is being proposed by some of those who insist the words of the Iranian President meant he was calling for the destruction of another country. I think those crucial issues have been ventilated and that's enough for me. There is no evidence - based on the statements of its leaders - that the Iranian Government wants war. There's a lot of evidence - based on the statements of its leaders - that the Israeli Government does want war. Yet again!

Tony Benn - the best Prime Minister that Britain never had, IMO - claimed the mass media, in modern society, plays the same role that the Catholic Church played in Medieval Europe. It sets the boundaries for popular belief. It defines what's respectable thought - and what's not. That's not to say it's impossible to think outside the box. Luther did it all those centuries ago - and he certainly wasn't the only critic of Papal dictats. But taking on the Church and its entrenched verities, in those times, was not for the faint-hearted or ill-educated. The same is true today. A minority see through the mass media's deceptions. Most do not. Nevertheless, I think it's clear that disbelief is waxing and the mass media's hex over the western mind set is loosening. Growing use of the term 'false flag' operation is indicative of the change that's afoot. People ARE waking up, one by one, ten by ten, hundred by hundred... Perhaps it is accurate to descibe humanity as a 'race'. We're in a race to wake up and overthrow the lying opinion-minders who repeatedly lead us to the slaughter-house. It's a race we must win.

So what did Ahmadinejad mean? Sid said comments have to be understood in context, I agree in the relevant part of his speech he said: Even if one doesn’t substitute 'This regime that is occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history.' with “wipe Israel off the map”, “wipe Israel away”, "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth" or other translations of the phrase from occicial Iranian sources the meaning seems clear. Ahmadinejad’s defenders point that he cited the examples of Saddam, the Shan and the Soviet Union as powerful regimes that came to an end, but this doesn’t support their contention he simply meant relatively peaceful regime change. Those regimes were dictatorships which in the latter two cases were overwhelmingly rejected by the populace they collapsed because force was no longer a viable option to suppress the will of the people. Like it or not the existence of the state of Israel is supported by the overwhelming majority of the people living within its boarders, the situations are not analogous. In Saddam’s case regime change was of course not a peaceful process and came about due to invasion by a more powerful army according to Lancer there have been about 600,000 more civilian death than there would have if he had remained in power and IIRC about 2 million Iraqis have fled the country many others have been displaced internally or had their home destroyed etc all this because the balance of power shifted from Sunni to xxxxe Arabs and this was in a country where the ousted regime was probably only supported by a small minority of the population . Presumably if regime change occurred under similar circumstances in Israel the results would be even bloodier as power would be transferred for members of one ethnic group and religion to another. The violence meted out by the two main Palestian factions against each other doesn’t bode well for how well they would treat Jewish Israelis if they came to power especially if Hamas came to dominate i.e. there would be little difference between regime change and ethnic cleansing. Welcome back Len. I'll not get into a detailed critique and rebuttal of your latest post in this thread. You now set out a much more detailed case that accepts much of the previous criticisms made of the simplistic "he said wipe Israel off the map" claim. In so doing, you make new points some of which may have merit. It appears you now accept that the correct translation of Ahmadinejad's words into English is - at the very least - debatable. That really is my fundamental point. In any FAIR appraisal of the President's comments, it is NOT possible to render his words in the simplistic way the western media is doing - not possible that is, without such gross over-simplification that, in this heated context, it amounts to deliberate war mongering. That's been my point all along. To claim Iran's President called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - without a lengthy justification of such an interpretation - amounts to gross intellectual dishonesty. IMO, you were gulity of that before. Now your position is more detailed and accepting of nuance, doubt and ambiguity. Unfortunately, but predictably, the western media remains stuck in simplistic attack mode. No "lengthy justification" dilutes its alarmist discourse. Joe Public is still being taken for a ride, manipulated into imagining that Iran is calling for war, when the reverse is true. A similar trick was used against Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion of Iraq. In that case, the western public was repeatedly told that Saddam had treated the weapons inspectors with contempt and was being evasive. We now all know that Saddam Hussein was being quite honest about Iraq's lack of WMDs - but that he was faced with the IMPOSSIBLE task of proving a negative to adveraries who had a pre-determined agenda to invade and were using WMDs as a pretext, irrespective of the facts. Back to the present. Is the Iranian Government calling for war? Is it really trying to raise the temperature? Writing in Global Research, Arash Norouzi comments: Not perhaps, the most flawless English - but clear enough in the context. Iran is not threatening the world. Others are threatening Iran.

Here's an article about the power of the Israel Lobby in the US Congress. It's from uruknet.info - so you probably won't find it via Google News, which has removed the uruknet sites from its 'News' listings. Abourezk hasn't been in the Senate since the 1970s. The Israel Lobby's standover tactics in Congress are probably more extreme now than in his day... _______________________ Letter from James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota to Jeff Blankfort on the Israel Lobby Jeff Blankfort December 4, 2006 The following letter was sent to me today by James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota, and he readily complied when I asked that I be allowed to forward it to my list because what he had to say is of the utmost importance, given last month's election and all the new faces in Congress, and the immediate previous posting to you and James Petras's article earlier in the day.. Dear Jeff: I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy. I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong. I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public. Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make. Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning. I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper. With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement. So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved. I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year. I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy. So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is." Jim Abourezk

See THIS link So there we have it. A conference is held, involving leading Zionist 'opinion formers', calling for Ahmadinejad to be brought to justice for "inciting genocide". The fact he actually never said the remarks he's accused of making is not, presumably, a relevant factor. But why should a little matter like the truth be allowed to stand in the way of a war these nutjobs have been trying to start for years? Meanwhile, Douglas Caddy posts an article suggesting that UFOs may be about to step in on Iran's side. Perhaps they come from a culture with more respect for the truth than Israel - or the USA under Israeli domination?

Ron I'd guess that fewer than 1% of the American population could put together a paragraph about Fight 93 - as you have done - that cogently summarizes key problems with the Government's official story. So.. again, I think you're too harsh on Joe Public. You tend to blame the victim, Ron. Perhaps some Americans don't care. But I think most Americans would care very much if they became as well-informed about 9-11 as you are - even more so if they saw how to help bring the real perpetrators to justice. As for the 'controlled mass media' - that's a whole different matter...

Actually and initially, by mentioning "people who are sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right" spreading misinformation, I had in mind the forum member who was posting the same.But as long as we're on the subject, since Willis Carto is the publisher of Barnes Review, and since Carto has been actively involved in promoting an antisemitic agenda for a half century, I would say "the Barnes Review folk" most definitely are more than "sympathetic" to the Ku Klux Klan and "violent racist whites." And the forum member who vouches for "the Barnes Review folk" and pleads for "decency" in characterizing them? He is transparent in promoting a Holocaust denial agenda, under the guise of "free speech issues" and "the tradition of the Enlightenment." But this isn't really about Holocaust denial; it's not about trying to "get the numbers right" or any other "niceties," or even whether David Irving should have been jailed for spreading the same chit. This is about people trying to rehabilitate the reputation of Adolf Hitler and Nazism in the process of promoting larger agendas. It's been going on for quite some time now. Wonder who will "win"? Ah, so it's me you had in mind, Daniel. So I'm the one you believe is "sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right"! Just a couple of points in reply. 1/ Having given the matter considerable thought over many years (and along the line tucking an anthropology degree under my belt). I don't believe the concept of race has any merit at all. What's more, I believe the term racist (a relative newcomer to the English language that apparently dates only from the 1930s) is usually used carelessly and in ignorance - or with deliberate malevolent intent. I am pushed to think of a single case where use of the term 'racist' helps clarify the issues at stake. It almost always, in my observation, muddies the waters. 'Race', 'racism' and 'racist' are therefore very useful terms for those in effective control of public discourse. They are ideal for the application of divide and rule policies. I don't believe there's any such thing as a 'white race', a 'black race', a Chinese or an English race. Even Australian Aborigines are likely to have had multiple orgins and are genetically (and in many other ways) heterogenous. Now, if that sounds to you like the belief system of someone "sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right" - well, I can't do anything about that, Daniel. But don't expect me to be impressed with your analytic powers or intellectual honesty. 2/ I am well aware of longstanding efforts to brand The Barnes Review, the American Free Press - and its forerunner The Spotlight - as 'racist'. I am no apologist for the publisher Willis Carto. You may, Danel, be able to dig out unsavoury remarks attributed to him, dating back over decades - comments I'd not make myself nor wish to endorse. However, all three publications, IMO, have contained some excellent content over the years. For instance, it was The Spotlight that published Victor Marchetti's article about CIA involvement in the killing of JFK - prompting Howard Hunt to sue unsuccessfully in a landmark case described by Mark Lane in Plausible Denial. So, while you attempt to reduce Willis Carto's work to "(promotion of) an antisemitic agenda for a half century" and claim "'the Barnes Review folk' most definitely are more than 'sympathetic' to the Ku Klux Klan and 'violent racist whites'", I'd say the situation is considerably more nuanced. And that, in essence, was my comment - the comment to which you objected so strongly. Here's what I said: I stand by those comments. Go to The Barnes Review website and check it out for yourself. I don't think you can support your vicious assault on my comments with specific references. But if you can, why not share them? You seem to imagine that merely repeating your complaint in a louder tone is the way to convince. Well, it doesn't work for me. I have no doubt that the real objection of most who profess disgust with Willis Carto, The Spotlight, AFP and The Barnes Review, is that they are frequently critical of (a) the State of Israel and its activities ( the Zionist Lobby, within the USA and elsewhere, and its activities, and © the power and activities of organized Jewry, in the USA and elsewhere. That objection, of course, has nothing to do with opposition to so-called 'racism' - if 'racism' means the vilification of a group of people because of their ethnicity, language, culure or religion. If 'racism' was your real concern, Daniel, you'd attack folk such as David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and other Zionist ideologues who have so much to say that's truly hateful about others, especially Muslims and Arabs. Strangely, Jewish 'racism' never seems to be much of a concern for those who wail about the evils of Willis Carto and his associates. It must be their blind spot. No-one should be above criticism - especially people and groups with plenty of wealth and power. That proposition is fundamental to to notion of a functioning democratic society. Deny it - or arbitrarily limit its application - and democracy itself cannot long survive. With so much of the mass media 'friendly terrain' for the Israel Lobby, one wonders why it feels the need to attack - with such venom - the handful of media outlets that are not?

There's a small problem with the scenario that Putin ordered Litvinenko's murder because of the imminent publication of the latter's expose of the 1999 bombings. These are not new claims - and Litvinenko has made them before. He has published extensively on this topic since 2002. Most folk in the west were probably unaware of these accusations (as they were unaware of Litvinenko himself). The liklihood is that many more are aware of him and his claims now he's dead. This doesn't exonerate Putin from foreknowledge of the 99 bombings - or from Litvinenko's murder. However, Litvinenko admitted in this reference that: Putin does not seem to me to have had much of a motive to kill Litvinenko in late 2006 - if his supposed goal was to 'silence' claims Litvinenko and Berezovsky had been making for years. For that reason alone, Putin fails the qui bono test, IMO. Having watched some of the prolific coverage of the Litvinenko murder on the BBC/CNN/Fox 24x7 spin machines, I'd say it's more likely Putin was framed.