Sid Walker

Pat Mark Stapleton's thorough response to your latest post leaves me free to pick up only on your strange last paragraph. Piper does not argue that Israel had 'no alternative' to murdering JFK. Most sane people believe there is always an alternative to murder. Unfortunately, that fact does not prevent all murders. Murderers do not always see things in the same light. By 1963, the Zionist leadership and Israel's 'security agencies' had established quite a substantial track record in the murder of foreign leaders (or the threat of it) - and in false flag operations that sought to pin the blame for atrocities on other parties. Lord Moyne and Count Folke Bernadotte were both victims of assassination. James Forrestal's death remains deeply suspicious - and many leads in that case point to Israel. We also now know that Ernest Bevin had been a target while British Foreign Secretary. For an early Zionist attempt to frame perceived enemies in the Arab world one need look no further than the Lavon affair. Forgotten ancient history? Not in Israel. Only last year, Israeli President Moshe Katsav presented surviving perpetrators of this horrible crime with letters of thanks.

Thank you Jeff - always nice to start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism I agree with you on this Andy. I do not consider myself a "supporter" of Israel, by any means. Yet even the most cursory understanding of history should enlighten one enough to realize that the Glenn piece is completely twisted and hateful. If Piper's book is anything like that, I wouldn't make it past the first chapter. The implication that Jews conspired with Nazis in order to create the momentum for Israel is one of the most offensive things I've ever read. Still it's worth reading this kind of propaganda in order to determine the reasons for its creation... This piece was clearly designed to appease Christians, and convince them they have more in common with Muslims than Jews. In order to do this, it seeks to turn history on its head, and depict the historical persecution of Jews by Christians, as justifiable, in that Jews have dared think they were the chosen people (when we all know it's the Christians, wink-wink) and are today, as ever, secretly running the world. (I love the way it implicates The Last Temptation of Christ, a movie made by an American Catholic, into this vast Jewish conspiracy--what rubbish!!) Goebbels would have been proud. The list that Jeff quotes from Mark Glenn is not the list I’d compile to make a similar point – but there would be considerable overlap. To describe Mark Glenn – or his website – as ‘racist’ is obfuscation. It’s like invading a country illegally – then describing any armed opposition as ‘terrorism’. Glenn’s perspective is far more universalist than the great majority of Zionists, who often have the chutzpah to present themselves as strong opponents of ‘racism’. To view some real racism / exceptionalism / supremacism, check out websites of Zionist extremists such as Daniel Pipes, who enjoy considerable mainstream legitimacy. The term ‘anti-Semitism’ is a misnomer introduced into the English language during the late 19th century. From the outset, the term has been consistently used to further the Zionist agenda. Interestingly, it was deployed by early Zionists such as Herzl to rationalize and promote the need for a separate Jewish State. They often spoke of anti-Semitism’ in somewhat enthusiastic terms. Given that many Jews at the time were nationalist (that is, pro-British, French, German etc) or internationalist in their perspective, a key initial task for Zionists was to weaken the assimilated value systems of a growing number of Jews. This was the basis for a considerable amount of common interest and actual collaboration between some elements of the Zionist movement and the Nazi State. Such collaboration has been well documented – see for example Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators A Reappraisal. Nazis and Zionists shared a common agenda: dislodging Jews from continental Europe. However, it appears that Hitler did not ultimately accept the Zionist goal of subjugating Arab rights in the Holy Land to those of Jewish settlers – and preferred to posit a ‘Jewish State’ in other locations. Throughout the post 1945 era, use of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ has been relatively consistent. It is now used to attack anyone perceived to threaten Jewish interests. ‘Anti-semitism’ has been successfully portrayed as a self-evidently horrible phenomenon, explicable only as a consequence of irrational hatred. Any ‘anti-Jewish’ views, it’s inferred and generally accepted, have no justifiable basis and are symptoms of mental or moral sickness. This neatly obscures the fact that all religions, cultures and societies are and must be regularly subjected to external criticism. It is no longer feasible for anyone on this planet – or for any group - to live in total isolation. We share a planet. We need to be able to discuss significant issues with each other. Religion, culture, society, ethnicity and national behavior cannot be out of bounds. These are central themes in humanity’s common discussion. Most of us on this forum live within a ‘western culture’. We expect that the religious beliefs and practices of Protestants, Catholics, Atheists, Hindus, Moslems etc are subject to open discussion and to criticism. We expect there will be similarly open discourse about (almost) all cultures, nations and ethnic groups. Why the almost? It has to be there, because cleverly inserted into the mindset of modernity is the assumption/inference/allegation that ANY criticism of Jewish religion, history, culture and practices is out of bounds to legitimate discussion. True, since the creation of Israel as a ‘Jewish State’ in 1948, there has not been an equal attempt to stifle all criticism of the Zionist nation and to apply the same exceptionalism to the State of Israel that’s applied to Jewish religion, history, culture or practices. Consequently, there’s continuing debate about whether one can be a critic of Israel without also being an ‘anti-Semite’. Most people baulk at such an automatic association – yet remarkably, it’s still a topic for debate. Yet topics such as Jewish religion, history, culture and contemporary practices and behavior are subject to different implicit rules. These rules differ for Jews and non-Jews. They may be summarized fairly easily… Jews may speak more frequently and openly on these topics and be more daring in their comments, but even they must also speak in generally positive terms. Otherwise… they are apt to be labeled ‘self-hating Jews’. We don’t hear much from ‘self-hating Jews’ on the mainstream media. Hardly anything, in fact. Non-Jews must be more careful. Positive commentary about Judaica is, of course, acceptable – and welcomed. Criticial commentary is not. I simply cannot recall ever listening to a BBC broadcast (radio or TV) that casts a critical eye on Jewish religion, society or culture. The closest is occasional coverage of Jewish fundamentalism within Israel. The Jewish religion in its many forms and the practices and behaviour of its millions of followers worldwide is a significant historical and contemporary phenomenon. Yet, to my knowledge, it has never been the subject of critical commentary on this major broadcasting institution within the Anglo-Saxon world. When has there ever been a BBC debate about the Talmud and its contents? I don’t believe it’s ever happened. The contrast with coverage of Christianity and Islam could not be stronger. Both these religions – and their followers – are subject with regularity to journalistic scrutiny. Fiery debates are permitted. BBC comedy regards these topics suitable for satire and parody. Yet implicit acceptance of ‘Jewish exceptionalism’ ensures the boot is NEVER on the other foot. The accusation of anti-Semitism against people who seek even-handed discussion about history, religion, culture and practices – even when discussion is about Jews –is self-referential. Denial is impossible. Accusers construe any attempts to explain why even-handed discussion is indeed desirable as further evidence of the ‘disease’. Whoever said that pseudo-psychiatry is dead? Back to the main topic of the forum – and this thread. I believe that the Israeli State, in cahoots with a limited but very powerful international network of Zionists, had the motive and the means to carry out the assassination of JFK and to cover it up for several decades afterwards. Other groups and networks may well have had the means and motive to murder President Kennedy 43 years ago – but could not have orchestrated a successful cover-up for so long. The disappointing quality of the ‘rebuttals’ so far in this thread has done nothing to dissuade me from my conclusion that Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment essentially solves this crime, by elucidating the networks ultimately responsible for it.

Claire Short has finally tired of the Party Whip. Her resignation statement goes some way to explain and rationalise her earlier hesitancy to desert Blair, which was used to help legitimize the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. It shows massive disappointment with the Nu Labour episode.

Pat, While I don't agree with your assessment of the theory, I welcome your participation as you seem to be able to discuss this most serious issue objectively, which unfortunately can't be said for certain other members. You may be right that Piper's personal opinions crept into his theory, I'm not sure about that, but lumping it with the WC or Case Closed is unfair, IMO, especially since you haven't read it. For one thing, it contrasts markedly from those two in that it is an attempt to broaden the parameters of the debate, while the other two are clumsy attempts to close it down. Insofar as tapes and admissions are concerned, of course there aren't--although former Israeli scientist Mordechai Vannunu has publicly claimed that Israel was involved. There was mob involvemnet, IMO, but not the type you are talking about. Jack Ruby, tied comprehensively to West Coast Jewish mobster Mickey Cohen shot LHO you know. He placed a call to Al Gruber before he did it. Since no cohesive summation of the theory appears to exist on this thread, I undertake to do this for those unfamiliar with the theory. I won't place myself in a time frame straightjacket--I've made this mistake before--but I will post the major elements and indications which give the theory a credibility which, IMO, places it at the forefront of all the existing theories about what happened that day. Mark A fine post. Your offer to summarize MCP's book for forum members is, I think, a great offer. Such a summary would be very useful. One footnote. A few weeks ago, I saw a note from Israel Shamir via one of the email lists I subscribe to. Shamir had been asked if Vanunu can be cited as a secondary, independent source on the theory of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination. This was his reply:

Yes, indeed. Were Catholics, Protestants, Cubans, Italians, Corsicans, Russians and all the rest of humanity quite so sensitive, we'd not be able to discuss the JFK assassination at all. But seriously, what attracts me above all to Piper's theory and leads me to believe it is substantially correct is that more and more 'clues' point the same way. Many of these were unknown (at least to Piper) when he completed the first edition. In a recent thread called "Would We Know The Truth If We Saw It?, ...what if the truth came out?", I wrote: Piper’s thesis has, in my opinion, the hallmarks of a theory that's essentially correct. A post I made about I.F. Stone was not derived from Piper’s book - I appear to have stumbled across that additional (minor) Israeli intelligence connection myself. That’s what one would expect from a ‘solution’ to a crime. If a theory is correct, other investigators are likely to find additional corroborating evidence. I think the question people may need to ask themselves is whether they really want the truth about the JFK assassination – whatever that truth may be? Those who do, to paraphrase George Orwell, may find it has been right in front of their nose (on this forum, for instance) for some time.

It may, I fear, be too much to hope for a rational debate in this forum about the theory expounded in Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment. Zionists - 'left' and 'right' - will make sure it doesn't happen, by foul and diversionary behaviour well documented already in this lengthy thread. Since February 2006, however, Piper has had a regular radio show on RBN. The show is fully archived and downloads are free - go HERE. Forum members may therefore judge for themselves whether Piper, on air, is knowledgeable and credible - or whether to believe the highly negative portrayal emanating from the likes of Gratz and Colby. Several recent shows focused on the JFK assassination and may be of particular interest for that reason.

With the Australian Broadcasting Service (ABC) news service closed once again - presumably due to industrial action that is rarely if ever reported to the much-suffering public - I notice this morning that the BBC world service has again replaced ABC news and current affairs coverage. Interesting how colonial legacies live on. Hence this morning the 'news' blaring out of my radio switched to a slightly more pervasive and insidious pro-Zionist spin than usual. Nevertheless, some interesting information could be extracted from the sloppy brew of artifically-sweetened factoids. The Beeb reports that landmines and cluster munitions continue to kill and injure between three and four civilians in Lebanon each day I guess the Israeli "take home" message was something like this: "if we can't occupy this particular part of middle eastern real estate, we'll create ongoing hell for those who do live there". The BBC report continues: "Israel insists that the munitions it uses in conflict comply with international law and says it is being unfairly singled out while the same munitions have been used for years by Western countries." Quite so. Of course, left out of the narrative is any mention of the role of the western Zionist lobby in influencing the UK and USA's criminal war exploits. The Independent tells us that Britain 'is blocking' cluster bomb ban, in true-to-form Churchillian fashion (long ago, that evil Briton defended the use of aerial bombing on the basis that it was a useful way to pacify natives). In this day and age, the atrocious position of the current British Government helps give the Israelis cover in a crowd. They can truthfully say "we're not the only war criminals". Without expressing any view on the cause of Princess Di's death, one may speculate how effective she could have been in this decade as an anti-landmine activist - someone well informed about Islam (through marriage?) who also had a worldwide following of tens of millions of people not typically exposed to the toxic subject of murderous activities undertaken by or at the behest of the Zionist State.

Well said.

Hi Andy. Without wishing to put you to too much trouble, could you define what you mean in this context by "anti-historical".

This man is clearly 'old Labour' with a normal skin (unthickened by years of crimes and hypocrisy). A Nu Labour apparachnik would: (1) Ensure the nurse was fired. (2) Have her put under surveillance so like-minded family and friends are added to a subversives database. (3) Arrange for her subsequent arrest under the anti-Terrorism laws. (4) Call the Chair of the hospital board and threaten funding cuts.

I'll second that John (except for your second sentence ) Len, you are famous. When can we expect the book, lecture circuit... even a movie?

They seek him here, They seek him there, Those 17 FBI agents and 10 postal inspectors Seek him (almost) everywhere!

Well, thanks Jack, but your applause may have been premature. Len's erudition and persuasive well-documented arguments are prevailing. After all, he has the western mass media and 99%+ of mainstream western politicians on his side. I shall add collapsing steel-framed buildings and molten steel at fuel fire temperatures to my list of things I must believe in to gain mainstream cred (along with magic bullets). As indicated by my previous post, I've never trusted skyscrapers. Turns out they can dissolve into dust and molten metal at any time.

Perhaps Len is right? His intriguing and carefully researched posts highlight one reason I no longer visit cities, except under duress. It's far too dangerous. Localized fuel fires easily lead to the collapse of entire towerbocks; gigantic steel framed structures frequently drop to the ground like matchboxes. Much safer to live deep inside a tropical rainforest, even in cyclonic conditions.

Until civil society in general shows some determination to defend core values of post-Enlightenment western civilization on freedom of thought and speech, I believe the Zionist lobby in the USA and elsewhere will continue to bully opponents and attempt to close down public debate on topics it would prefer to keep "off the agenda" (such as its own existence, power and use of strong-arm tactics). There are encouraging signs this may be happening. A few minutes ago, I began a post as follows, reproducing a post from the anti-war blog: When I went to check the link in my post, I noticed the content had changed as follows: In case the New York Sun article changes, here it is:

This post may raise the temperature of what was, until now, a relatively 'typical' exchange between Len, our resident stalwart defender of official verities and a few folk (Peter Lemkin included) seen to have suspicions about the official story or lack thereof. I feel the need to take Peter to task for his last post. Here's why... First, it was plagiarism. As far as I can tell, Peter reproduced, in entirety yet without accreditation, an article published in 2002 by a certain Mr RJ Ochs - see http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articl...ov_anthrax.html Now, this may have been no more than an inadvertent 'sin of omission'. But if so, I have a further question. Why did Peter make the post at all? Unlike many ‘conspiracy’ debates, where the likely perpetrator is far from obvious, in the anthrax case there IS, I suggest, a prime suspect. The real story here is that the US Government has failed to apprehend that suspect. Due process, it would seem, has not been followed. One can only infer this is to protect the suspect and his affiliations. Peter’s post, which reproduced a very old article that lists several possible suspects in the anthrax case and reviews the evidence against each of them, takes the debate back to a time, three or four years ago, when it was much more unclear what might emerge. At that time, for instance, Steven Hatfill hadn’t been persecuted for years and ultimately left alone because of a chronic lack of evidence. The 2002 article by Mr Ochs does, however, consider - and ultimately dismiss - the possibility that Israeli agents were responsible for the anthrax murders: I suspect that was Peter’s real motivation for posting this material. Here are the relevant paragraphs: Forum members can make their own assessment of the plausibility of Mr Och’s analysis. Among other things, he assumes a “level playing field” in the mass media in its reportage of Zionist crimes. Is there any evidence for that? Recall that it is now five DECADES after the Lavon affair and nearly four DECADES since the Israeli assault on the USS Liberty. The truth about these events has never been 'esposed' by the western mass media - even though the basic facts, in both cases, are no longer in dispute. In the Lavon affair, Mossad DID carry out attacks on US/British facilities in Egypt. In the case of the USS Liberty, Israeli aircraft DID attack and sustain their attack for a considerable time. In the light of such experiences of gross mass media bias - experiences that stretch over decades - why should we expect the western mass media to investigate a Zionist suspect in the anthrax murder case with any real determination to expose him as the actual culprit?

That the best you can come up with Len? It reminds me of the Talking Heads lyric: "Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens". Since the FBI refuses to apprehend the most likely suspect, it looks like this particular heaven will be eternal. But anthrax is soooo 2001, isn't it Len? How mean of us not to move along like good children and forget all about it.

Len... this Guardian journalist thought otherwise But perhaps we should both defer to your apparent certainty that it wasn't Atta's passport planted in the streets of NYC soon after 9-11. You appear to be closer to the falsifiers of evidence than either of us.

IIRC the names were only divulged a day or two after the attacks. On some of the flights stewardess identified the seat numbers of the hijackers. The authorities also found a bag belonging to Atta which wasn't transfered from the Portland flight to flight 11. That's the official story any way. No rmarkable intelligence needed. CNN got the info from the Feds not vice-versa I also recall that Atta's passport came fulttering down onto a dusty Manhatten street on that day of many miracles. You're right the 'intelligence' isn't remarkable, Len. I was being facetious. Telling sordid lies to disguise the real perpetrators of mass murder - and pin the blame on innocent patsies - isn't really intelligent. It's just plain evil. What's remarkable is that anyone out there still believes the lies of the mass media concerning false flags ops such as 9-11... and that any of us on this forum with independent minds bother to debate with the likes of you.

Well said John. 9-11 is modern day miracle. Speaking of which, the mass media in particular has performed veritable miracles throughout this entire affar. Never were so many 'served' so quickly by so few... The US Government may have been slow off the mark on 9-11... but the mass media was in top gear. From day one, CNN & co had the 'perpetrators' named and more or less convicted - so Americans knew who to hate before they went to bed on September 11th 2001. With such remarkable 'intelligence' in the mass media, one wonders why we need spooks at all?

It's approximately FIVE years since, in the aftermath of 9-11, a terror scare was unleashed on the USA that killed a few innocent victims and created a stampede in Congress to pass the first version of the PATRIOT Act. For nearly the same length of time, it's been clear that: (i) there is an obvious suspect who should be interrogated and held to account. (ii) the US Government has no intention of 'solving' this crime - although it is willing to ruin the lives of innocent people as a diversionary tactic. (iii) the mass media is effectively complicit in the criminal cover-up and also has no inention of seriously following up on this story and exposing the truth. To many of us dubious about the Government version of 9-11 but doubtful inside forces could be so outrageously criminal and so widely supported by the mass medai, the obviously phoney nature of the anthrax attacks and subsequent media follow-up helped clinch the matter. I was under the impression that civil cases may be brought in the USA in cases one might usually expect dealt with by the criminal justice system. The second OJ Simpson trial is a case in point. Isn't it time for Americans with sufficient resources to support the anthrax victims' relatives and friends and help bring a civil case against Dr Philip Zack?

Michael Meacher will be running for the leadership. However, he is unlikely to get much support. For many years he was a member of Blair’s government and kept quiet about subjects like privatization. He also supported the invasion of Iraq. He is after the left vote but he is unlikely to get it. I wasn't aware Michael Meacher supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq at the time. Does he still support the armed occupation of Iraq? More questions for John. How many candidates for the Labour leadership are known to be candidates at this stage? Where do you believe the 'left' vote likely to go?

This is a very good statement, Mr Meacher. Power to you and to your supporters in the British Labour Party! How about running for the leadership? Belated congratulations also for your 2003 article This war on terrorism is bogus". While I don't believe the article postulated the most plausible theory of exactly what actually happened on 9/11 (evidence that the planes were hijcked by Moselm extremists has been fabricated, in my opinion - and WTC 1, 2 and 7 were collapsed by controlled demolition), your opinion piece was on the right track - a very courageous public statement which begs the question why a lot more senior politicians haven't made similar expressions of doubt and disbelief. Have they been fooled, are they frightened of speaking out - or worse? I take issue only with one point you make in your September 27th 2006 artilce. While I realise this takes the thread into an area that may be deemed off-topic, I'd be most interested in your response and can't pass up this opportunity to ask for it. You write: I believe this is mistaken and that the 'two State solution' is a dead end. It's time to embrace an anti-Zionist position and advocate a unitary, one'State solution for the Holy Land, in which voting rights for a single electorate should be generously framed, and one person, one vote, one value the accepted rule. This was the position adopted - successfully, in the end - by opponents of the South African apartheid regime. The parallel with the Palestine/Israel connundrum is close - and the policy, in my view, should be essentially the same. It's time to stop advocating apartheid and/or ghettoization within Israel/Palestine, because (i) a viable Palestinian State cannot be built on discontinuous scraps of land left by Israel (far less than 20% of historic Palestine) (ii) Israel is intrinsically a project for a Jewish supremacist, expansionist (and nuclear-armed) State. The Zionist State cannot find peace with its neighbours, as the last sixty years have amply demonstrated. The only long-term salvation for Jewish Israelis who seek peace is through abolition of Israel and the absorbtion of its people into a disarmed, pluralistic, multi-cultural new State for all citizens of the Holy Land - a new State that could quickly become a dynamo for sustainable development in the region. In the 1970s, did the left ask South Africa to negotiate a two-state solution? Of course not! What's the difference now? Why should we now (or at any time) support sectarian supremacism? Edward Said never deviated from belief that a pluralistic Palestinian State is the real solution. It was the PLO's original policy - until cajoled into support for a 'two-State solution' State by apparently sympathetic western influences in the lead up to the Oslo agreement. Of course, promises made at the time to the Palestinian leadership have not been met and today's Palestinians can, with a clean conscience, say the deal is now off. Momentum for an equitable 'one State solution' for the Holy Land may be gaining ground once again. A lucid exposition of this proposal may be found, among other places, at the website of Israel Shamir (along with a lot of other fascinating material and good writing). I commend it to you and to other members of the forum.

Hi Dan I was also much taken with this extraordinary speech by Kennedy - and the associated State Dept position paper. It was, in fact, the subject matter of the first post I made to this forum - see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&hl=nations I'm still struck by how little discussion this attracts - and how poorly informed members of the peace movement remain about the time when a US President visited the General Assembly and proposed world peace - and a very tangible program to achieve it.

I will say one thing; if you were to interview a male [homo erectus] about the same topic there is a good chance that it couldn't be posted on the Forum, lol; but that is just an opinion. Robert, Homo erectus has been extinct for a long while. 'sapiens' is the term in vogue for our species, male and female, although it ncreasingly seems an.idle boast.