Sid Walker

Google Censors Uruknet! A recently-applied Google News 'whiteout' of the uruknet websites is about the most blatant a case of Google censorship I've observed. Read the story HERE Uruknet asks that folk opposed to search-engine censorship of an important website covering the debacle in Iraq and related events send a complaint to Google News. I visit uruknet.info regularly. It has an excellent email newsletter service for those who wish to subscribe, free of charge. Uruknet's articles vary in quality - but I believe understanding Iraq and the Middle East without uruknet would be a considerably harder task. Google's spook-squad clearly share my opinion - and reveal their agenda by banning this site (without even fessing up to the ban) while allowing Google users to find practically every pro-invasion website in existence.

Here's an interesting article about the infamous 'Wipe off the Map' controversy. It's by Arash Norouzi - see "WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century Norouzi has no especial fondness for the current Iranian Government - but can't bear to see his native language so crudely distorted by war-monguering liars. Here's a pithy extract (emphasis added):

Alternative scenarios? Try Operation Pearl by the same author. Decisive proof for any scenario will be hard to obtain, IMO, as long as the criminals who orchestrated 9-11 remain in effective control of the US Government. What is clear, IMO, is that the essential 9-11 narrative is bogus. It's a hoax. The likelihood, furthermore, is that it's a hoax that involved no actual 'Arab hijackers' at all. The 'War on Terror' - a 'war' that flowed directly from 9-11 - is therefore as valid as a 2-dollar bill.

Thanks Bill. Those who believe that others may believe whatever they wish seem to be in a minority, these days. We should stick up for each other My views on the Pentagon strike were influenced to a considerable extent by THIS ARTICLE. I guess if we are to discuss that much-discussed topic once again, we should do it elsewhere.

The case of this woman and her strange tales only became an issue because (a) John mentioined her in one of his posts (2) he took great umbrage at a quip I made at her expense. Why did I make that quip? Because her story, as related by John, sounded utterly unbelievable to me. Jack White's post in this new thread - which goes into more (occasionally gruesome) detail than I knew existed when I made the quip - helps explain why. So what's the truth about 'T Carter'? I don't know - and don't much care either. The evidence I've seen of the Pentagon debris - or scarcity thereof - suggests a large jet airliner was not responsble fo the damage on 9-11. However, that IS off topic. My free advice to T Carter, for what it's worth (nothing), is to tone down her stories if she would like them to be more widely believed. Too many 'co-incidences', too much 'inside info', not enough evidence... She needs to change the ratio. Specialist advice is available. Finally, when someone says "There is no debate" I experience a strong sensation of deja vu. Where have I heard that phrase before?

John, One other minor point about 'T Carter'. This page on the COPA site says "Researcher T Carter explains her relation to flight 93 which slammed into the Pentagon September 11th, 2001." Yet Flight 93 didn't fly into the Pentagon - on anyone's account of what happened! The plane that (supposedly) did that was Flight 77. Presumably it's just a typo? It had me confused, because this thread was initially about Flight 93... Anyhow, the next line says "She is a flight attendant and one of her usual routes was Flight 77 - the plane that went into the Pentagon." Perhaps you can clear this up for us and for posterity?

John, You have me concerned that I may inadventently have cast aspersions on a decent human being. So I googled a little more for T Carter. Here she is! .... All of which is interesting and most praiseworthy. It does not, however, fully explain the staggering co-incidence that this same person, with so much prior interest in the topic of conspiracies, was also "was a regular stewardess on that flight (93?) and had witnessed one of the alleged hijackers doing a pre-911 test flight" BTW, John, do you know what "inside information on disinformation related to telephone calls associated with this flight" T Carter has to share?

- duplicate post deleted - see next -

John I've already explained - in my previous post to Bill - the extent of my comment. It was a light hearted quip. Had you provided references to this woman and her output, revealing her background - and not left me to google her up and take pot chance - I might have come sooner to your indubitably sound and very respectful opinion of her. Do you have any such references, by the way?

It's an accusation I don't usually make lightly, Bill. In this case, it was a quip - and in no way directed at you. I'm well aware of the destructive, unproductive directions that discussions on these important topics take once folk start accusing each of being spooks. I have no idea whether T Carter is for real or not. Perhaps she is? But if she is, I would suggest she's ham-fisted in the extreme. The following citation almost cries out for disbelief: What's she up to now, I wonder. Does she have a full name - or does everyone call her 'T'? Does anyone have more recent references about 'T Carter', her theories and remarkable first hand experiences?

Once again, I rather think Shamir is closer to the truth than the largely orchestrated chorus of western talking heads...

Sid, I'm sure Bill can tell you about a lady named T Carter. She was an air hostess on the route of the plane that hit the pentagon. Obviously she was not in work that day. many of her friends died in the crash. She was allowed into the crash area following the incident. She had to identify the arm of her best friend, which still had a friendship bracelet that T had given her on it. Most of the people that believe that a plane did not hit the pentagon dismiss T's story without investigating it or verifying it for themselves. She spoke at the 2002 COPA conference about it. A lot of people proclaiming to be 'researchers' into 9/11 simply state that they don't believe her. Research is not a case of what you believe, it is what you can prove. I thought that this story might interest you Sid, All the best, John Well, she's a new new for me, John. As you didn't provide a reference, i thought I'd google her up. So I googled "flight 93" and "T Carter". First and only liunk was to the COPA 2002 conference. Here she is... So it seems that T Carter is what the cricketing community call an "all-rounder". Not only does she claim to have witnesses one of the 'hijackers' doing test flights. She also was a regular on Flight 93. She can also put a presentation together about the MLK assassination. And you tell me, John, that some folk think she may not be the full quid? A disinformationalist, even? Surely not! How could anyone be so horrid! Whatever happened to the Age of Innocence?

In Rumsfeld speaks of the "plane shot down over Pennsylvania - although he's not necessarily a trustworthy source One wonders, indeed, whether Rumsfeld could lie straight in his coffin? Flight 93 seems to have been - like the Pentagon hit that same day - a case no apparent corpses - yet subsequent DNA analysis enabled almost perfect confirmation of the respective flight lists. Oh, the wonders of modern science! This page on the physics911.ca site is well worth a look - as is the rest of that fine website

Additional Jude Wanniski references: 1) Fallujah and Those Mass Graves by Jude Wanniski in antiwar.com, November 6, 2004 It's written, once again, in the form of a memo - this time to David Broder of the Washington Post... This material helps explain, I think, why it was so important to hang Saddam before the "gassing" charges against him could be heard - and those claims of "gassings" subjected to a modicum of scrutiny.2) Jude Wanniski discusses his chapter in the book Neo-conned!: The (Bogus) Case Against Saddam.

I don't know about 'Venom of the Zionist Viper', Mark. No responses can mean no interest - or no substantive criticisms. Either would be telling, as I aim to present a documented case that since 1990 well over a million Iraqis have been, in effect, murdered through the foreseeable consequences of western military and politicial actions. A society that was prosperous and on the brink of achieving 'first world' status has become ruined and immiserated. I'll argue that this cruel demolition of Iraqi society has been consequence of deliberate manipulation of Anglo-American politics by the Israel Lobby, to ensure these nations serve as 'enforcers' of Zionist policy. In the process, the American and British people as a whole have been repeatedly misled. The major culprit in this deception has been the Anglo-American mass media, which has displayed an overwhelming Zionist bias. There has been parallel manipulation and deception in other countries. Nevertheless, it's appropriate to focus on the USA and Britain, as these two nations have been the major 'players' in the demolition of Iraq. Others, such as Australia, have played relatively small supporting roles in the Zionist-orchestrated assault on Iraq. There are, I believe, a preponderance of British and American participants on this forum. No comments at all would suggest moral and intellectual bancruptcy within the Anglo-American intelligensia. Supportive comments would strengthen what I believe is a clear case for massive reparations to the Iraqi people. Critical comments are welcome too - and will help test the accuracy and weight of my case that The Destruction of Iraq 1990-2007 has ultimately been driven by Zionist policies, sold to the Anglo-American destroyers via a program of delberate manipulation and deception. Now, I made an article by Richard Curtiss 'Exhibit 1'. Curtiss quotes an Israeli Brigadier General admitting (bragging?) that Anglo-American false 'intelligence' on Iraqi WMDs was made in Israel. It goes to the heart, in my opinion, of the issue of ultimate responsibility for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I’ll make 'Exhibit 2' the large corpus of material left to us on the subject of Iraq by Jude Wanniski. Wanniski was a conservative American economist of Polish origins. As he explains in THIS INTERVIEW, he was a contemporary and colleague of some of the leading 'neocons' of today in the 1970s and 80s.. Wanniski broke with the neocons over Iraq in the 1990s. In the last years of his life, understanding Iraq's recent history became a central interest. In the main interview featured on the webpage referenced above, Wanniski covers a lot of ground. In particular, he reviews the origins of the 1990/1 attack on Iraq under the 'leadership' of George Bush Snr. It's true that the falsehoods and trickery Wanniski exposes were not solely the work of the Israel Lobby. For instance, US military 'intelligence' was co-opted to make a false case for the First Gulf War by facilitating false reports of Iraqi troops massing by the Saudi Arabian border. Indeed, in 1990/1, the despicable role played by the Kuwaiti Emir and his cronies was a key factor. However, the Zionist Lobby was decisive in the campaign to demonize Saddam that began, in the western media, during the 1980s and hasn't ceased since. For those who prefer to read rathern than listen, there's a page HERE full of links to Jude Wanniski's writings, largely but not entirely about Iraq. Here's a sample: Those who believe that – whatever else – Saddam was a villain because he “gassed his own people” might like to start with this memo to John Ashcroft . It’s classic Jude Wanniski: Wanniski reportedly died at his deak of a heart attack in 2005.

At the grand strategy level, Wikipedia is putting its faith in systematic referencing of all its content, to improve quality and thereby credibility. I can't see it moving to 'real names only' as a policy for editors. I use my real name, but I respect the reasons others have for not doing that. Ah well, Charles. I think we'll have to agree to differ on editorial anonymity. Wikipedia shall, no doubt, keep its golden egg. I'll keep my suspicions. In any event, thank you for responding to the points I raised. I'm intrigued by the case of the 16 year old from New Jersey who's Wikipedia's no 1 expert on European artistocracy. It gives new meaning to the notion of mis-spent youth

The rationale is the goose and the golden eggs. Internal debate has always raged on just this issue: but the point that has always won out is this: the mission statement is 'write the encyclopedia', with everything else subordinated. People have numerous reasons for guarding their privacy: some are Internet-related, i.e. general things such as child protection apply. One you might not have thought of is this: junior untenured academics wanting shelter if they disagree with senior academics, who one day will have decision-making power over their careers. The new Citizendium site is set up much more on a traditional academic model. The jury is still out on whether they'll be able to make it work. (They have more cash than Wikipedias has ever seen.) Charles - thanks again for replying. People do indeed have many good reasons for guarding their privacy - on and off the net. However, the question is whether it's appropriate to maintain anonymity when contributing entries to the most widely-read encylopedia in the world. In my opinion it isn't - and such a policy is bound to lead to increasing suspicion and distrust. Of course, it's easy to be an armchair critic. In fairness, creating an online encyolpedia of Wikipedia's size is a remarkable achievement, whoever lies behind the project! Nonetheless, I believe Wikipedia's editorial anonymity policy must be superceded if Wikipedia wishes to gain long-term credibility as a bona fide venture - a venture that at least attempts to uphold principles of accountability even though clandestine forces may get involved in the project (just as they are involved in academia and the mass media) It's hard to imagine folk with the smarts to create Wikipedia in the first place are unable to devise a successful plan to achieve greater transparency and accountability over time - while still safeguarding the golden egg. After all, the 'golden egg'- at this stage in the project - has already been laid.

I agree that this is an utterly amazing fact. If it was April 1st, I'd suspect an elaborate hoax at our expense. However, BBC Scotland appears to confirm the story. I especially enjoyed this brief extract: On the prohibition of contemporary witchcraft-type activities... I rather think such laws do exist: laws on the statute books in various jurisdictions against heterodox beliefs and incantations - not to mention laws against unapproved potions. We also have laws against unlicenced flying.

Of course, an alleged assassin's opinion about who orchestrated a murder is not put forward here as decisive evidence. However, there's an interesting twist. In my previous post, I cited the claim that MLK may have been about to come out strongly against Israel and equate Zionism with Racism. That would have been big news in the late 60s - and might well have influenced millions to take another look at Israel and the USA's deepening 'friendship'. When I first began looking into these matters a few years ago, it seemed there was no chance MLK was - even pontetially - anti-Zionist. After all, he was the author of this widely reported statement, wasn't he? Just one problem... apparently King never wrote that letter.According to Camera and Tim Wise writing in ZNet, the Letter by Martin Luther King a Hoax. True to character, Camera covers for the offficial Zionist line - even at it admits the hoax. Congressman John Lewis apparently thinks King might have wanted to say what he never actually wrote - and Lewis comes up with alternative pro-Zionist quotations . Does anyone know if they're accurate and/or confirmed by other sources? The Lewis statement, which Camera asssures us IS accurate AND may BE CITED, is reproduced below, after opening comments from Camera: Some folk sure seem to be working VERY hard to keep alive Martin Luther King's alleged infatuation with Zionism - despite a diminishing stock of (real) evidence.

According to this transcript of a speech by Michael Collins Piper presented to the Zayed Centre crica 2003: Piper has a radio program, and repeated this claim on air on Mon., January 15, 2007: Listen to it HERE (click on the link for the date and locate the discussion between Piper and 'Gene from Texas' - about 4/5ths of the way through the program). Piper says James Earl Ray initiated correspondence with Piper, had strong views on the Martin Luther King assassination - and that Ray believed the "Mossad and American Jewish elements were those who orchestrated the assassination". Anyone on the forum like to confirm, deny or amplify?

I propose this new thread on the topic The Destruction of Iraq 1990-2007 If I could use a longer subtitle, it would be How western powers - notably the USA - were manipulated into attacking and progressively destroying Iraq in the period 1990-2007 Every step of the way, I believe, Iraq has been 'set up' by hostile forces. But who? While earlier history is also relevant, I think there's value in looking at the last 17 years as a discrete period. That's the period that the USA and Britain has been involved, once again, in military assaults on Iraq from the air and on the ground. There have been three main phases: 1/ the set up over Kuwait and subsequent Gulf War (1990-1) 2/ Sanctions, air strikes and "inspections" (1992-2002) 3/ Invasion, chaos and instigation of civil strife (2003 - ?) At every stage in this systematic demolition of what was - less than 20 years ago - one of the most prosperous and progressive nations in the region, the main losers have been the bulk of the Iraqi population. Their plight - like that of the Palestinians - has intensified, over time, into what now seems like a permanent horror story. As an initial 'supporting exhibit', here's an article by Richard Curtiss in the Palestine Chronicle: How Israel Manipulated Western Intelligence Agencies. It deals with the run up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Here are the first few paragraphs: A strong case can be made, IMO, that the Zionist Lobby (that is, the State of Israel and its iternational support network), has been on the offensive against Iraq since the 1940s. Whereas Britain and America in general have moved, since the 40s, towards adoption of a neo-colonial, "hands-off" approach to relations with countries such as Iraq, the Zionist fixation with weakening this old enemy demanded a 'hands'on' approach. After 1981, Israel has prefered that the main thrust of 'hands on' involvement has come from its western proxies, the USA & Britain (I guess Australia deserves a minor mention too). But how to do it? How to get the Governments of these English speaking 'democracies' motivated to attack - and sustain attacks against - a country that presents no threat and did plenty of good business with all three (oil, guns, wheat, butter & the rest) Curtiss, I believe, helps expose how it was done in 2003, in part by direct quotation from an Israeli brigadier general. Incidentally, has anyone else on the forum read The Jews of Iraq by Naeim Giladi? Important background, IMO - which shows Zionist hatred for the pluralistic society that was Iraq extends back over many decades - and how Zionist agents have been willing to use false flag operations to fragment Iraqi society. Giladi should know. He was one of them. But he matured into a wiser and very courageous man, determined to get out the truth as he saw it.. a story you won't see fatured in the Western mass media any time soon.

Here's an extract from The Crime Library's account of the RFK assassination mystery, showing LA police assigned to the case were desperate to downplay the significance of the "Girl in the Polka Dot Dress". Yet it seems an initial police report indicates she whe was a key suspect, possibly in custody - see THIS

Len Colby wrote: Our exchanges increasing are becoming a waste of my time. My first inclinationwas to say "you got that right, Len!" However, I believe nailing lies - on the public record - is important, especially when those lies are part of an attempt to start yet another war with unforeseeable consequences that may be more terrible than any speculation so far on this forum. Len Colby wrote: How else are we to interpret the phrase “wipe Israel away”, I've already explained that, Len. Don't just repeat the phrase. Look at the sentence that contained it. Look at the context. Re-read the parable of the playground... Len Colby also wrote: I'm going away for a few days so won’t be able to spend much if any time here for a while. We shall all miss your erudition

Perhaps he's in Cuba, researching the Castro Government's highly effective hurricane survival strategies? Here's another quote from Oxfam's fascinating report Weathering the Storm: Lessons in Risk Reduction from Cuba: If I lived in Florida, with criminal incompetents like FEMA ultimately responsible for my safety in climatic disasters made ever more likely because the Dubya gang are in charge of US climate change policy... well, a trip to Cuba might seem like a very good idea. Perhaps, for his safety and well-being, he might decide to stay?

Perhaps Len, with his amazing ability to limit the human toll of aerial agression, could design a strike on Israel that would destroy only its WMDs (Dimona, Nes Ziona and the rest) "and perhaps a few casualties". The mullahs might be interested in that, Len. But I doubt they'd believe you, either.