Sid Walker

Just turned on my radio - ABC - to keep abreast of the offical lies of the day for those resident down under, only to discover the cricket has taken over. Again! I switch off in disgust. Cricket is a sport to be played on a nice day, especially in the clubhouse beer garden afterwards. Watching is slow and tedious. Listening is sheer torture. Especially when the result can be predicted with accuracy using a one-sided coin.

If the assault on Iran does proceed as some are predicting, I think we can safely say that 2006 was the end of an era. One observation that makes me especially alarmed is that the (zionist) mass media is now spinning the proposition that the neocons have lost power and influence since 2003. I just watched the BBC World 'Service' replay this theme in a special 'insight' into current US politics Now, it may be true that some independent-minded Americans in positions of influence are increasngly disturbed about the policies of the Bush Administration, but the implication is being cast that if Bush launches another mad and very much expanded war in the middle east, it will not at the behest of the Zionist/Israeli lobby at all - but his own personal adventure, a gamble "to save his political skin". Spin and lies? I think so. I usually avoid speculation about the near future... When will the next terror attack strike? How many dead in Iraq next month? It's usually just a way to get dizzy. The only ones who really know are the would-be perpetrators - and they must constantly need to adapt their plans, in any case - to deal with the unexpected. However, this new war proposition has such serious potential consequenees that it is appropriate to get out the maps and play scenarios, just like they do in Washington (and presumably in Tehran as well). The President of Iran, it is said, is quietly confident that there will be no attack. This may be based on a realistic assessement of Iran's ability to wreak havoc on the world economy in retaliation. However, I fear it may also be based on a misapprehension. The Iranian Government may not realise the callousness of the warmonguers they face - and how they are perfectly willing to risk the health of the world economy to consolidate their power. Indeed, that may even be part of the game plan (watch out middle classes - your histoirical lucky run may be about to end). Let's look, as others have done, at the scenario of a massive assault on Iran. I's hard to imagine the Iranians NOT retaliating by creating havoc in the Straights of Hormuz. Blocking the straights to shipping would not be hard. The miracle really is that this narrow but crucial oil 'corridor' has operated so well for so long. Making the straights effectively unusable would cut the flow of a very high proportion of the world's oil (is it more than 50%? I'm not sure... but it's a huge slice of the oil extraction pie). This would precipitate an oil shock on a scale that would make 1973 seem minor. Presumably a massive global recession would follow in short order. Meanwhile, violence flares throughout the middle east. The US / Israeli / British? gangster-invaders move to control the most oil rich parts of the Gulf and at least one major route to get oil out of the region. Is there an alternative to re-opening the Straights of Hormuz? A pipeline / pipelines through Saudi Arabia? The mind boggles. Do they have a plan to occupy southern Iran on a permanent basis? Northern Saudi Arabia? The mind boggles again. As an envonmentalist, I should say that there is some cold comfort in this scenario. Just as the US skies became somewhat cleaner (on a very temporary basis) in the days following 9-11, oil scarcity and sky-rocketing fuel prices would force a reduction in oil usage. But what would be left of our civilization, now on a permanent war footing, locked in endless conflict, our mass media controlled, our civil liberties in tatters, our 'post-war' prosperity a memory, our society increasingly divided into rich and poor, visions of global peace and harmony mere relics of happier times. The mind thrice boggles. In my opinion, the one thing likely to stop this next war is if the ultimate perpetrators estimate that it might blow their cover for ever and a day - and that they could be named, blamed and brought to justice if they take this fateful extra step of turning proposals for a 100 years war into the real thing. After 1990, after 2001, after 2003, after Walt and Mearsheimer... only fools would NOT hold the Zionist lobby accountable if there is an attack on Iran with the horrific, entirely predictable consequences. Are most of the western intelligensia really such fools?

I read your interesting analysis earlier Robert. Frightening and plasuible. It's direct relevance to this topic is unclear to me - except insofar as Blair is one of the 'Gang of Three'. However, I do believe the scenario you outline merits its own thread in the forum.

Apparently two of the sons are with the Blairs. Interestingly, this could develop into a sex scandal. In 2003 Robin Gibb revealed in a radio interview that his wife, Dwina is a lesbian who loved three-in-a-bed sex. Later that year, this was confirmed by Dwina, who claimed that she often invited friends to join her and Robin to take part in their sex games. Is that the reason Tony and Cherie were invited to Miami? Maybe, Tony is negotiating with Dwina about funding an academy school that specializes in the teaching of religion. It might be controversial as Dwina is a Druid. However, that has stopped Blair allowing creationists from funding academies. It has been estimated that the Blairs have enjoyed “free holidays” worth more than £775,000 since 1997. One of the most interesting providers of these holidays is Alain-Dominique Perrin. His company Richemont, owns a large stake in British American Tobacco. It is of course the lobbying of the tobacco industry that started Blair’s corruption via the Bernie Ecclestone affair. It is also the reason why Blair fought a rear-guard action against the demands to have smoking banned in pubs. John This is all very interesting and quite tittilating too. I had no idea the Blairs shacked up with pagan troilists on clandestine Caribbean Yuletide trysts. Whatever next? It makes Profumo look like a boy scout. Notice how what is arguably the biggest crime of all slips in under the radar, almost unnoticed. Amidst the furore about sex, cigarettes and 'alternative lifestyles', few will notice that the Blairs torture their own children with Bee Gees music. Happy new year from down under!

I am disgusted to the pit of my stomach by the spectacle of televised murder-to-order, hyped up cruel, snide and suited sheisters whose excited chatter I've been hearing, on and off, throughout the day on my zionist-spin only lie-machine (aka satellite TV). IMO, history will record that Saddam Hussein was a strong leader who helped take his nation to new levels of prosperity. Sadly, he was suckered into embarking on wars by fake western allies - then stymied and eventually crushed by US & British Governments that no longer serve the interests of their respectives peoples - governments subverted, corrupted and ultimately controlled by agents of a foreign power. I just watched images of Hussein on his way to the gallows. I wonder whether, in similar circumstances, poodles like Bush or Blair would show such calm and dignity. As for Olmert, would that snivelling drop-kick have mustered the courage to walk? I doubt it.

The farcical 'Hutton inquiry' into the Kelly affair showed how 'inquiries' can be managed to run rings around the truth. Not once did Hutton even consider the evidence for murder! A generation earlier across the Atlantic, the Warren Commission served a a prototype for cover-ups dressed up as 'public inquiries'. Nevertheless, there is surely some value in holding inquiries. Apart from anything else, inquiries are undoubtably incovenient for the perpetrators of heinous crimes - who are trypcially forced to state an (improbable) case in some detail and actively defend their lies. If nothing else, historians can pick over these lies after the event. Even more importantly, perhaps, is the need to follow due process when investigating all deaths. Coroner's inquiries and / or inquests play a crucial role that should not be usurped or circumvented. In this context, I understand that the London bombings of July 2005 - in which scores of people died - led to neither a Coroner's Inquiry (or inquest) or any manner of public inquiry. It is now nearly 18 months later. Am I correct about this? Can anyone who's been watching this more closely, perhaps from within Britain, please fill in the detail? If it IS indeed the case that there has been close to zero due process in subjecting these heinous crimes to proper public scrutiny, I have a fuirther question. Are Brits generally aware of this? Where are the demands for a full public inquiry into the 2005 London bombings?

This post put on whole new perspective on Cliff's famous "We're all going on a - Summer Holiday!" Incidentally, were junior Blairs on the trip? I would have thought that was the real reason for secrecy. In my day, any kid so naff as to stay at a Bee Gees mansion with parents would be teased mercilessly. It just wasn't worth the risk.

Was the whole thing a hoax? Or was it an over reaction? Or was more or less as we were told? To be honest I haven't looked into it enough to say, but I have yet to see any evidence it was the former. The PosionPlanet article Sid cited is no exception. All it establishes is that "A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges..." . The arrticle claims that he was "THE alleged ringleader " but he is only identified as having A key role in articles I've seen [CNN for example said he "...allegedly had a key operational role in the suspected plot." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12...plot/index.html ]. Thanks for being so honest Len, for wearing your honesty on your sleeve and for sharing your CNN hyperlink. I'd forgotten about the storming of internet cafes. That was a nice dramatic touch. Evidence does seem to be at a premium in this strange case... yet just a few months ago, our heroic mass media, including the ever-reliable CNN, was flinging inference and supposition around like confetti at a wedding. That was around the time this 'plot' was 'exposed' and non-passpost holding Moslems were rounded-up urgently lest they down the trans-Atlantic fleet. As far away from the epicentre as Australia, toothpaste tubes were confiscated and airline travellers experienced large queues. Shame about the (lack of) evidence. Still, I guess the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We can't let the terrorists win! Anyone for ricin toothpaste? Perhaps it was uncouth of me to suggest the 'intelligence agencies' might have been perpetrating a hoax. Their main goal seems to be keeping the population in a semi-permanent state of Islamophobic terror. And that's no hoax.

A bit rough that Time Berners-Lee doesn't get a mention.

Alleged Liquid Bomb Plot Credibility Crumbles This is just a little housekeeping to clean the decks for the new year. I think it's nice if we're all clear what bogus State-sponsored terror we're still supposed to believe was 'real' - and what's been quietly dropped from the official narrative of the WoT. This is a useful role for the historically minded to perform, as the mass media these days are too busy concocting new phoney terror to tidy up loose ends.

(excepted from the Education Forum, 1st April 2007 and brought forward for Christmas 2006) We never went to Australia Approximately 230 years ago, it became necessary to find a new home for the bulging surplus of human flesh crammed into Britain’s debtors’ jails. The crisis was sparked by a newly-independent USA, now under the control of the White Knights of the Jesuit Order of the Sacred Thorn, unwilling to accept any more criminal scum from the Protestant motherland. Back in London, elite Etonian Wall-Gamers were besides themselves with alarm. The Privy Council met in emergency session. Something had to be done! Now, those with subtle minds may already have realized that these momentous events overlap in time more or less precisely with the adult life of Franz Anton Mesmer. The ever-reliable Wikipedia informs us: “(Mesmer’s) exact activities during the last twenty years of his life are largely unknown.” Indeed they were! It can now be revealed, drawing on irrefutable new evidence, that after experiencing successive rebuffs at the French court, Mesmer was recruited by agents of the satanic British Crown (devilish chaps who have since morphed into the United Nations). Mesmer was assigned a fiendish task. He worked diligently until his death in 1815 to accomplish his goal. His job was nothing less than to create the grand and permanent illusion of an entire continent – somewhere you could let criminals rosm free, while in reality they were eking out their days sedated, with rotting teeth, permanently confined within diminutive English sitting rooms. Suffice it to say, the plot worked – although there were moments, especially early on, when the truth nearly slipped out! The French revolution was a key part of the cover-up, as the French aristocracy figured out the hoax after sending warships along the alleged coastline and finding absolutely nothing there. (A footnote to history: it was a French Admiral who coined the term ‘Terra Nullius’, borrowing a term from Latin that was subsequently misused by the Brits to grim effect!) These dangerous whistleblowers were guillotined as a subliminal warning to others. Rendered in contemporary English, that message was: “Wanna lose your head too, smartass?” Dumbed down to plebian levels, even Frenchmen became active propagators of the great Australia hoax. Jacques Cousteau, for instance, made several movies about the so-called Great Barrier Reef in underwater tanks situated just off the Cote d’Azur. To stay on the safe side, it was necessary to ensure that World Wars One and Two were fought elsewhere. These were real wars and genuine corpses were required. Yet over time, with better technology and more audacious social engineering policies, maintaining the illusion of Australia has become easier. A recent poll indicated that more than 99% of ‘Australians’ believe in their continent. Sprawling 'imaginary' detention centers have been built by Haliburton in the southern Newspookistan desert, just in case ‘dellusionals’ cause any trouble and try to escape their semi-detached houses. Indeed, maintaining the illusion of Australia has become simplicity itself following the latest change to the imaginary ‘cross media ownership restrictions’ in the land affectionately known as ‘down under’. One, lonely publisher - Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd – now has a share in virtually every newspaper available to the so-called ‘Australian public’. What’s more, most ‘Australians’ don’t even know that! Australians are not renowned for high intelligence. Consequently Australia remains an experimental ‘real democracy’, in which election results aren’t even rigged by electronic voting. The gamble has paid off so far. Politicians who slavishly follow pro-American and pro-Zionist policies are reliably elected via old-style paper ballot. Need more proof? Consider kangaroos. Every year, it’s alleged, millions of these improbable beasts are slaughtered. Where do all the bodies go? Why don’t they show up on our dinner plates? Think about it! Incidentally, have you ever really seen a kangaroo – except on television or in the controlled virtual environment of a zoo? If you did, chances were you were ‘in Australia’ – the modern term for ‘mesmerized’. Really – a hopping herbivore with a pouch! I ask you. Is it likely? Whatever next? A duck-billed mammal ha ha!!! Australians who refuse to believe in their virtual continent sometimes reside within secure institutions, but denial of the existence of Australia is legal in all western countries. In the free world at least, there have been no known cases of incarceration, job loss, beating up, murder or deportation for Australia-denial. Regrettably, there have been instances of self-conceived ‘Australian Aborigines’ dying in custody, bemoaning the alleged ‘reality’ of their fate. There are signs that Australia-denial is becoming the conspiracy theory de choix for those keen, for whatever reason, to propose ‘penalty-free’ conspiracy theories. A Hollywood blockbuster is rumored for 2008. Here's what key commentators have to say... The ADL’s ever-vigilant Abe Foxman remarked: “We don’t have a view on Australia denial, although the existence of the Australian Jewish community is not up for debate.” Comment from Australia’s major independent think-tanks has been muted. The left-wing Australia Institute did not respond to inquiies. It was closed to the public for a day while staff and directors brainstorm a new color-coding scheme for terror alerts that may be more suitable for use by those radically challenged with color-uncertainty syndrome. A spokeswoman and key analyst for the Lowy Institute said “Of course, we are concerned about the prospect of instability in Australian futures, but overall we think the market has handled this well. We remain cautiously optimistic in the mid term”. Interviewed by Tony Jones on the ABC TV Lateline program, Gerald Henderson of the Sydney Institute made a characteristically insightful contribution to the debate: “Tony, Australia-denial is a relatively benign delusional state, apparently related to sunstroke and excessive exposure to virtual cricket matches displayed on old fashioned television screens. With the introduction of LEDs, I’m sure it will be brought under control. Mr Henderson continued “After all, there are real issues of free speech involved here. The Sydney Institute vigorously opposes discriminatory measures against any individual or group. These people are entitled to their views, however repugnant those views may be to mainstream Australians. This principle is at the core of liberal values in a modern democratic society.” “Mr Henderson concluded: “Australians must be careful not confuse this topic with Holocaust Denial – a different phenomenon, more akin to leprosy – a real threat that presents a pressing danger to our freedoms and Ozzie way of life!” He explained “’Holocaust Denial’, (also known as Hate Thought) is a crime against humanity born of perverted neo-Nazi proclivities. It takes years of intensive psychiatry to rectify. This shows the limits to free speech in a liberal society! No-one can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre! We can’t let the terrorists win!” Asked to explain photos of earth taken from the Moon, several of which clearly depict the Australian continent, Ms Conspira C. Y. Nerd of www.no-australia.biz gave a curt restort: “Don’t get me started on that moon hoax!” Since this story broke on Fox TV earlier this month, the MCC has received thousands of phone calls from Englishmen appalled that the national cricket team is so bad it loses repeatedly to entirely imaginary opponents. “Who’s really bowling us out?” they demanded to know. Questions have been raised in the House of Lords about whether the ashes exist and if we can really believe anything at all under New Labor. John Howard, Prime Minister of ‘Australia’, had the last word. Quizzed on talk-back radio whether, in view of recent technological enhancements to virtual warfare techniques, large-scale wars could be held down-under in future, Howard was non committal. “We’ll certainly look at it closely” he replied cautiously. “At the end of the day, the War on Terror comes first, along with the American alliance. I always like to mention the cricket too, in this context. Don Bradman was a great Australian. Truly great! “Of course, these days Australia’s national interests demand the defeat of Islamic extremism worldwide. “As Australians, we'll do what we can! "I expect the private sector to contribute too” Mr Howard concluded with a wink. Later, a Howard insider hinted Fox Studios in Sydney could have plans to take the War on Terror to an entirely new virtual terror level in the new year. On the Dow overnight, News Ltd rose another five percentage points.

When someone is locked up for no good reason and in a manner that constiututes a gross violation of the principle of free speech - I'm inclined to come to their defence. It's just the way I was brought up. Sometimes I may lack the courage or time to defend someone in distress and under attack - but I know in my heart that it's the right thing to do. Does that mean I necessarily support or defend every comment the person I defend ever makes? I think a rational, unbiased person would conclude it does not. Turning now to the actual content of the two dreadful, shocking, racist, beyond-the-pale remarks and scribbles quoted by John, material so grave that it led John to state "I don't agree with this type of 'free speech'" - a remark which calls into question his commitment to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution... May I presume these are about the most shocking prose and verse of their ilk that is attributable to Mr Irving? That seems a reasonable presumption, as they were featured prominently by opponents in court proceedings involving David Irving over the last decade. I doubt that either Deborah Lipstadt and her lawyers, or Jeremy Jones & co in the antipodes, would pull punches when dealing with Mr Irving. I miagine they'd cite the very worst and most shocking material they could find. If so, they seem to have brewed a storm in a teacup. Irving's speech com through as rather tasteless, pompous and racist to me (although it'sd worth reading the whole thing, if you are to read any of it - there are other bits his opponents do not so readily quote). But is it really the basis for lifetime banishment from civilized society? Do these remarks really constitute a case for jailing someone - or for preventing them from speaking at public events or having access to the mass media? Should we really abandon the commitment to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights because of remarks such as this? If so - and if such anti-racist zeal is applied with equality across the board - it will indeed make for an interesting and dramatic thinning out of the range of talking heads currently paraded in front of us in the western media - and the ranks of our jails will swell with racist hacks, especially of the pro-Zionist variety.. I understand that neither Irving's speech to a London Club, nor his ditty, were ever intended for publication. They were ferreted out by Irving's enemies. The ditty, to me, is likely to be equally offensive to Jews and Rastafarians. I doubt that many of the former or the latter would care much for David Irving as a father-in-law, for that matter - yet organized Rastafarianism seems to have taken the rebuff in its stride. Why does Jewish lobby obsess over it quite so much? After all, they discovered it themsleves, in the legal sense, having obtained access to vast quantities of Irving's notes in the run up to the Lipstadt trial. Irving did not offer it for publication. It was a scribbled note - among thousands upon thousands of other pieces of paper taken in 'discovery' by the Lipstadt defence team. This is not to 'defend' Irving's comments or, God forbid, his poetry. I don't care to do that. More importantly, I don't need to do that in order to defend his right to make speeches or poetic jottings. That was Voltaire's crucial and oft-quoted point. It remains unanswered, I note, in all contributions to this thread to date that have been hostile to Irving. Besides, playing the quotation game cuts more ways than one. I, for instance, can easily come up with bloodcurdling, racist, sectarian and quite obnoxious comments by people who are generally revered in modern political culture. How about this from Winston Churchill?: Don't even get me started on the recurrent, quite blatant racism of modern Israeli leaders...Today's IHT - that organ of respectability - informs us that an Israeli think tank says only military strike will stop Iran In essence, the article assists war monguers in making a case for an unprovoked violent (and possibly nuclear) assault on a nation of some 60 million inhabitants. Do you consider that hate speech, John? Or is your opprobrium restricted to safe targets like David Irving, a man who, whatever else his shortcomings, has never been known to advocate mass murder or illegal wars? So what is really going on in this debate? Why we are having a debate AT ALL about whether people should be jailed over their historical views? The courageous Israeli author Israel Shamir suggest a reason, in his latest article entitled They met in Teheran. Shamir concludes:

I think we would all appreciate it if you desisted from publicising Neo Nazi literature here. I wish you a healthier New Year. Hmmm. May we infer, Andy, that you - a professed and proud anti-Nazi - reject the principle of free speech and instead support the banning and criminilization of views on matters historical if you deem them unpalatable? Quite wrong again Herr Valker.... and who are "we?" - God forbid that there is more than one Neo Nazi here.... You are free to reveal your ignorance on this forum as often as you like - this should be self evident by dint of your continued presence. Given your acerbic wit, astonishing erudition, prolific output and vigorous commitment to free speech, you are truly the Voltaire of this forum, Andy. Once again, seasonal felicitations - from a less foggy part of the world. Thanks for the tip, Andy. I'll check the New Year sales for affordable geiger counters and avoid parcels marked 'Polonium'

I think we would all appreciate it if you desisted from publicising Neo Nazi literature here. I wish you a healthier New Year. Hmmm. May we infer, Andy, that you - a professed and proud anti-Nazi - reject the principle of free speech and instead support the banning and criminilization of views on matters historical if you deem them unpalatable?

I remember reading years ago in a biography of Ernest Hemingway (I believe his widow wrote it, but I'm not sure) that one of the symptoms of the (alleged) mental illness that would drive him to "suicide" was his belief that he was under FBI surveillance. I remember thinking, yep, he must have become pretty wacky. Why in the world would he think the FBI had him under surveillance? That's how stupidly naive I was at the time about the U.S. government. I also remember thinking similar things about similar claims. It has been a long, slow shock to realise just how deeply the spook state has penetrated almost every significant sinew and nerve ending of our body politic in the western world. In my opinion, a central task for humanity in this new century must be to consign these clandestine criminal networks, that operate under the cover of 'state security', to the dustbin of history. Purporting to be necessary for the protection of modern society, these networks have, in reality, corrupted the modern world with their sordid, bigotted agenda and their willingness to use lies and murder to further their goals - include destablising and/or killing inconvenient elected leaders and popular heros. I hope and pray that in future, saner, times, people will look back with wonder and amazement at how we - in this era - blithely permitted 'our' intelligence agencies to control archival releases about their own misdeeds, allowing them to ensure that release of information is so long in comng that the perpetrators of crimes within any generation of spooks are effecively shielded from justice. We need real accountability for our 'intelligence agencies'. If we can't have that, we'd be better off without them. Given that they have spent the last century demonstrating the proposition that they are inherently unaccountable - I believe abolition is the way to go.

I presume Mr Macintyre knows what an absurdity that is? Historical revisionists have been trying to join proponents of the Holocaust in real and meaningful debate from the outset. But real and meaningful debate has never suited Holocaust promoters. They have never (to date) agreed to have their case scrutinized in the public view by critical scholars. Here's a simple test, for starters, to see whether the Times has really turned over a new leaf and now truly supports open discussion on this topic - so what it alleges to be the 'lies' of revisionsists may be overcome by force of argument, not the jailer's key. Will this war-promoting, spook-infested rag provide Irving with a full right of reply to Macintyre's graceless opinion piece (equal number of words, no edit)? Will The Times provide a platform for revisionists - and full scrutiny of what they are really saying - as called for by Macintyre in its own pages? How about an article by Robert Faurisson or Arthur Butz to get open debate underway? Anyone who believes that's likely may also be interested in a free trip with Santa on Christmas morning (just show up at the north pole on time). This is the usual sick obsessive nonsense from Sid Walker. To claim that the "work" of Irving, Faurisson, Leuchter (or any of the other vile anti semites he often pleads an impartial hearing for) amounts to anything more than billious illogical racism makes me deeply concerned for Sid's own mental health and well being. Well, thanks for your concern Andy - and a Happy Christmas to you and yours. By the way, have you actually read any of the books in question? If so, which ones? Many of Irving's book are available as free download from his website, just in case you can't find any in your school library.

I am glad to see that David Irving is finally back in Britain, a free man. His year-long incarceration was a shameful episode in modern European history - an epsode that is not yet over, because the Kafkaesque and anti-rational laws that criminalize unorthodox historical views remain on the statute book in numerous European countries - and many people remain in jail as a consequence. Now observe the chattering, conformist armchair critics move into hyperdrive. With only views such as theirs permitted expression in the western mas media, it's relatively easy to sell hate-soaked inversions of the truth to the credulous. Here's one particularly noxious example of today's crop, courtesy of Google News search. Ben Macintyre, writing in Murdoch's Times of London (the rag that regularly supports illegal wars against Israel's perceived enemies) proclaims: 'Let the Holocaust deniers speak out - David Irving's repulsive views should be heard'! I presume Mr Macintyre knows what an absurdity that is? Historical revisionists have been trying to join proponents of the Holocaust in real and meaningful debate from the outset. But real and meaningful debate has never suited Holocaust promoters. They have never (to date) agreed to have their case scrutinized in the public view by critical scholars. Here's a simple test, for starters, to see whether the Times has really turned over a new leaf and now truly supports open discussion on this topic - so what it alleges to be the 'lies' of revisionsists may be overcome by force of argument, not the jailer's key. Will this war-promoting, spook-infested rag provide Irving with a full right of reply to Macintyre's graceless opinion piece (equal number of words, no edit)? Will The Times provide a platform for revisionists - and full scrutiny of what they are really saying - as called for by Macintyre in its own pages? How about an article by Robert Faurisson or Arthur Butz to get open debate underway? Anyone who believes that's likely may also be interested in a free trip with Santa on Christmas morning (just show up at the north pole on time).

deleted repeat post

Thanks for the tip Bill. You may be right - although I long ago concluded that trying to foretell the next insane false flag terrorize-the-community operations to be carried out by elements within our misnamed western 'intelligence agencies' is rarely productive. I suspect the millions won through suspicious trading activity in the run-up to 9-11 were not pocketed by clairvoyants - or even by skilled independent anlaysts - but by insiders unable to restrain their own greed.

Prouty notwithstanding, I've read the article you've linked to in post #3 and find it sorely wanting, while you present it as being somehow dispositive. It is not. It is a cursory and superficial (not to say snide) dismissal that raises as many issues as it purports to dismiss. Not the least of those issues is subsequent related legislation that was passed after Kennedy had very abruptly been taken out of the picture. I am not Pollyana enough or whack enough to posit that Federal Reserve directors huddled in back rooms and plotted or had the means to carry out the murder of John F. Kennedy, or that issues connected with the Federal Reserve policies and practices constituted some sole motivation for the murder. In the balance, for someone like Professor Flaherty to submit the equivalent of a senior high school paper as a final judgment on the non-relationship of the Federal Reserve to moneyed interests already in the play seems to reflect badly on schooling taking place at the College of South Carolina. Ashton ****************************************************** "Prouty notwithstanding, I've read the article you've linked to in post #3 and find it sorely wanting, while you present it as being somehow dispositive. It is not. It is a cursory and superficial (not to say snide) dismissal that raises as many issues as it purports to dismiss." And, snide is how Ron Ecker seems to come off to me, regarding Prouty. "I am not Pollyana enough or whack enough to posit that Federal Reserve directors huddled in back rooms and plotted or had the means to carry out the murder of John F. Kennedy, or that issues connected with the Federal Reserve policies and practices constituted some sole motivation for the murder." Exactly! And, you won't find any sole entity to hang it on, or point the finger to, either. Because, it was a group comprised of a combination of those above mentioned who utilized the services and representatives of their own private armed forces of covert operators; police [peace (?)] officers, be they Metro or S.W.A.T. Teams; goon squads, be they modern day Ivy League educated Mafioso family lieutenants; working in collusion with the connections they all held [bought] within both, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. Dismantling The Federal Reserve was only ONE of the major mortal sins this power base held JFK in contempt for, all sweeping generalities Ron Ecker may sttribute to my comments, aside. Ron's approach to this topic - on my reading - is that he maintains an open mind about the Fed, it's role, significance and means of operation - and Kennedy's relationship with it. He is willing to embrace an unorthodox view on these topics, but will not do so without convincing evidence. Part of the process of establishing such evidence would be to debunk orthodox viewpoints in rigorous debate. If that's being 'snide', I please guilty also.

Piper may well be on the money in regards to LBJ's policy switch on Israel, a move calculated to endear him to the pro-Israel lobby in his own party. A cunning move on LBJ's part, no doubt, but not evidence of Israeli involvement in the assassination. Instead Piper offers us his hindsight bias along with the old familiar fallacy of POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC. No, Raymond. Piper does not do that. What's more, if you know enough about philosophy and logic to splash around a little Latin, you probably know that too. You would have a point, if the book Final Judgment consisted only of the specific chapter Mark has just reviewed for us. But of course, it does not. The book Final Judgement is not equivalent to Chapter Six of that book. That's a logical fallacy! In Chapter Six Piper explores the issue of how US policy to Israel shifted after the assassination, from a reasonably even handed approach in Kennedy's day to fully within the Zionist camp under Johnson. Had Piper found no indication of such a shift, the central thesis of his book would be a lot less plausible. As it is, he found copious evidence for it. Much of this came to light decades after the events in question. These days, it's better known. Heck, it appears that you yourself accept that the shift actually occured. Speaking personally, I went through several decades not aware of it at all. True, during that time, I was no modern history scholar - but I followed news and current affairs avidly and liked to think I was reasonably well informed. In all the many discussions I recall about the JFK assassination during that time, I do not once remember hearing anything about the pro-Israel shift in US foreign policy following the demise of JFK. I submit that had the pro-Israel tilt in US foreign policy under Johnson been more widely known earlier - and above all had the communications between Kennedy and Ben Gurion been known at the time - I and millions of others would have at least taken cognizance of the possibility that Israel and elements within organized Jewry were behind the assassination. As it was, the idea never occured to me until well into this new century. My suspicion that Piper may indeed be 'on the money', not just in relation to Chapter 6 but in his overall thesis, is heightened by the rather dismal quality of 'rebuttal' served up by his critics, at least to date. Any chance of you guys fielding your first eleven on this thread?

Well, Mark... it appears no-one on the forum wishes to dispute the massive shift in US policy towards Israel that occurred following the assassination of JFK, which your summary of Final Judgment Chapter 6 so ably describes. A shift so stark that, with the benefit of hindsight, it has the characteristics of the policy aftermath of a silent coup d'etat. By 'silent', I mean clandestine, not explicit and not generally recognized as a coup at the time – as this massive policy shift was widely overlooked, obscured and crowded out by other events assigned prominence by the mass media. Perhaps you could continue your exposition of Final Judgment, when time permits? I wonder whether there is any substantive opposition to Piper's main theses in Final Judgment? Does all ‘opposition’ really boil down to name-calling and other efforts to divert attention from the case he makes?

Robert Fisk: Mystery of Israel's secret uranium bomb Alarm over radioactive legacy left by attack on Lebanon Published: 28 October 2006 Did Israel use a secret new uranium-based weapon in southern Lebanon this summer in the 34-day assault that cost more than 1,300 Lebanese lives, most of them civilians? We know that the Israelis used American "bunker-buster" bombs on Hizbollah's Beirut headquarters. We know that they drenched southern Lebanon with cluster bombs in the last 72 hours of the war, leaving tens of thousands of bomblets which are still killing Lebanese civilians every week. And we now know - after it first categorically denied using such munitions - that the Israeli army also used phosphorous bombs, weapons which are supposed to be restricted under the third protocol of the Geneva Conventions, which neither Israel nor the United States have signed. But scientific evidence gathered from at least two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri, the scene of fierce fighting between Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli troops last July and August, suggests that uranium-based munitions may now also be included in Israel's weapons inventory - and were used against targets in Lebanon. According to Dr Chris Busby, the British Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, two soil samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs showed "elevated radiation signatures". Both have been forwarded for further examination to the Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire for mass spectrometry - used by the Ministry of Defence - which has confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples. Dr Busby's initial report states that there are two possible reasons for the contamination. "The first is that the weapon was some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (eg, a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash ... The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium." A photograph of the explosion of the first bomb shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium. Enriched uranium is produced from natural uranium ore and is used as fuel for nuclear reactors. A waste productof the enrichment process is depleted uranium, it is an extremely hard metal used in anti-tank missiles for penetrating armour. Depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, which is less radioactive than enriched uranium. Israel has a poor reputation for telling the truth about its use of weapons in Lebanon. In 1982, it denied using phosphorous munitions on civilian areas - until journalists discovered dying and dead civilians whose wounds caught fire when exposed to air. I saw two dead babies who, when taken from a mortuary drawer in West Beirut during the Israeli siege of the city, suddenly burst back into flames. Israel officially denied using phosphorous again in Lebanon during the summer - except for "marking" targets - even after civilians were photographed in Lebanese hospitals with burn wounds consistent with phosphorous munitions. Then on Sunday, Israel suddenly admitted that it had not been telling the truth. Jacob Edery, the Israeli minister in charge of government-parliament relations, confirmed that phosphorous shells were used in direct attacks against Hizbollah, adding that "according to international law, the use of phosphorous munitions is authorised and the (Israeli) army keeps to the rules of international norms". Asked by The Independent if the Israeli army had been using uranium-based munitions in Lebanon this summer, Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorised by international law or international conventions." This, however, begs more questions than it answers. Much international law does not cover modern uranium weapons because they were not invented when humanitarian rules such as the Geneva Conventions were drawn up and because Western governments still refuse to believe that their use can cause long-term damage to the health of thousands of civilians living in the area of the explosions. American and British forces used hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) shells in Iraq in 1991 - their hardened penetrator warheads manufactured from the waste products of the nuclear industry - and five years later, a plague of cancers emerged across the south of Iraq. Initial US military assessments warned of grave consequences for public health if such weapons were used against armoured vehicles. But the US administration and the British government later went out of their way to belittle these claims. Yet the cancers continued to spread amid reports that civilians in Bosnia - where DU was also used by Nato aircraft - were suffering new forms of cancer. DU shells were again used in the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq but it is too early to register any health effects. "When a uranium penetrator hits a hard target, the particles of the explosion are very long-lived in the environment," Dr Busby said yesterday. "They spread over long distances. They can be inhaled into the lungs. The military really seem to believe that this stuff is not as dangerous as it is." Yet why would Israel use such a weapon when its targets - in the case of Khiam, for example - were only two miles from the Israeli border? The dust ignited by DU munitions can be blown across international borders, just as the chlorine gas used in attacks by both sides in the First World War often blew back on its perpetrators. Chris Bellamy, the professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University, who has reviewed the Busby report, said: "At worst it's some sort of experimental weapon with an enriched uranium component the purpose of which we don't yet know. At best - if you can say that - it shows a remarkably cavalier attitude to the use of nuclear waste products." The soil sample from Khiam - site of a notorious torture prison when Israel occupied southern Lebanon between 1978 and 2000, and a frontline Hizbollah stronghold in the summer war - was a piece of impacted red earth from an explosion; the isotope ratio was 108, indicative of the presence of enriched uranium. "The health effects on local civilian populations following the use of large uranium penetrators and the large amounts of respirable uranium oxide particles in the atmosphere," the Busby report says, "are likely to be significant ... we recommend that the area is examined for further traces of these weapons with a view to clean up." This summer's Lebanon war began after Hizbollah guerrillas crossed the Lebanese frontier into Israel, captured two Israeli soldiers and killed three others, prompting Israel to unleash a massive bombardment of Lebanon's villages, cities, bridges and civilian infrastructure. Human rights groups have said that Israel committed war crimes when it attacked civilians, but that Hizbollah was also guilty of such crimes because it fired missiles into Israel which were also filled with ball-bearings, turning their rockets into primitive one-time-only cluster bombs. Many Lebanese, however, long ago concluded that the latest Lebanon war was a weapons testing ground for the Americans and Iranians, who respectively supply Israel and Hizbollah with munitions. Just as Israel used hitherto-unproven US missiles in its attacks, so the Iranians were able to test-fire a rocket which hit an Israeli corvette off the Lebanese coast, killing four Israeli sailors and almost sinking the vessel after it suffered a 15-hour on-board fire. What the weapons manufacturers make of the latest scientific findings of potential uranium weapons use in southern Lebanon is not yet known. Nor is their effect on civilians.

Interesting find Mark. However, if the 'plot' as descibed in this extract is to be taken at face value, one can only say that it took an awful long time to come to fruition. Piper's book first appeared in the 1990s. Why take so long to 'frame' the intended patsies? Quite a contrast with the remarkable rapidity with which Lee Harvery Oswald and Mohammed Atta were fingered...

Does it ever worry you Sid that a large number of sane people regard you as obsessively and deeply anti Semitic?? It would worry me more, Andy, if I felt compelled to resort to name-calling, in response to reasoned arguments and documentation presented by opponents in debate.