Sid Walker

A Minister in the German Government who criticized Israel's use of cluster bombs in the Lebanon has been accused of... you guessed correctly! The concluding paragraphs are revealing... Of course, Germany isn't in serious trouble with its overlords, having just supplied another two nuclear-capable Dolphin submarines to the country in the middle east with REAL nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, in his recent letter to the hapless Ms Merkel, asks the right questions: Ms Merkel, it is said, does not intend to answer the President's letter. As his missive touches on matters historical, apart from any other considerations, Ms Merkel is probably following legal advice. No doubt she doesn't want to end up in a cell next to Germar Rudolf or Ernst Zundel.

As an Australian, I have to acknowledge that Ozzies show far less intelligence at election time than Americns. At least in the USA the powers that be find it necessary to fiddle the count. We don't even have that excuse in Australia - and have re-elected war criminal Howard three times.

Even by American standards? Could you please explain that. Indeed Andy. Your apparent anti-Americanism is of concern, because it is not in this instance critical comment about US Government policy or actions, but an insulting remark pertaining to the intelligence of Americans as a whole. I trust you do not really consider Americans - as a people - less intelligent than Brits or others? If so, where's your evidence? More importantly, do you have any evidence for the proposition that Dr. Ahmaninejad is: (i) dimunitive in physical stature, or (ii) a 'racist'? The matter is of some current importance, as malicious (and in my view, quite unjustifiable) claims about Iran and its leaders are being widely hurled around in western public debate at present, helping to create an atmosphere conducive to a military assault on Iran that could precipitate World War Three.

Well said, Mark - although I'd be more inclined to use the word 'contempt'. Talking heads who serve as reflexive conspiracy deniers treat their readers and viewers with contempt - and that's what they merit in return.

You’ve got that a bit backwards, you are the one who made an extraordinary claim. A claim not backed AFAIK by any legitimate historian (but quite popular with neo-Nazis and other apologists for Hitler). Since you think it merits discussion perhaps you can oblige yourself. The way I look at it a person who makes an extraordinary claim but presents no evidence to back it up and then tells someone who questions that claim to debunk him is a “lazy xxxxx”. The burden of proof lies with you. How can I (or anybody else) debunk a claim that hasn’t been articulated? Len, Like others of your ilk that I’ve encountered in cyberspace, you feel you have a right to define what’s an “extraordinary claim”. You typically focus on topics from Zionism’s psychological heartlands - topics that have been ceded by the left as a whole to its Zionist members for a very long time … the topic of Jewish economic power (discussed by Marx, but not by most of his modern followers), the history of the (allegedly never-ending persecution of the) Jewish people, the history of Jewish suffering during World War Two, the influence of the Zionist lobby in modern history and the contemporary world. You pick statements that offend your sense of orthodoxy about those topics. You then start a debate – perhaps even a new thread – based on your assault on those statements. You attempt to portray the statements as self-evidently beyond the pale. For good measure, you impute bad, evil… even ‘Nazi’ motives. What is this really about Len? Judging by your past postings to this forum, you didn't seem to have a close interest in the detail of events triggering World War Two until now. I suggest what it’s really all about is the attempt to frame current events in terms of a stilted, simplistic and misleading portrayal of the history of the Second World War. This is a project of today’s war lobby. It is brilliantly critiqued by Jim Lobe in this recent essay: Fascism" Frame Set Up by Right-Wing Press I’m sorry to say this Len, but I believe you are a small cog in that gigantic, disgusting war lobby. Not content with unprovoked assaults on Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and the Lebanon in recent years... you and your chums want morenew wars. The list of immediate additional targets is obvious - I just have to turn on my TV to see spokespeople for the war lobby name them. Funnily enough, they just happen to be Israel's greatest perceived enemies. I don't think so. While no expert in this area of history, I understand there’s at least a case to be made that he launched Operation Barbarossa because he had accurate intelligence that the USSR was preparing to attack German forces. Hitler wanted to get in first with a decisive military strike. Now, how's about you answer a question or two… Was Stalin manipulated into invading Poland and Finland in late 1939? Why did these assaults not precipitate declarations of War against the USSR by Britain and France? Did it? Do you have evidence for that proposition? (evidence, not inference). The text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact suggests to me that it was in part defensive pact, in part collusion between two great powers carving up their respective spheres of interest in Eastern Europe. The former is unobjectionable. The latter is noxious behaviour, in my opinion, but not essentially different in nature from the conniving, militant imperialism of nations such as Britain, France and the USA (or enfant terrible Israel), imperialistic behaviour that sadly lingers to this day. Depends how good you are at war predictions. You are probably very good at it, as I suspect you move in well-informed circles when it comes to war-monguering. I might ask you "Was Britain and the USA's invasion of Iraq in March 2003 a predictable outcome of Saddam Hussein's 'refusal' to relinquish his (non-existent) WMDs?" Or, on a matter of more contemporary releavnce, I might ask "Is an Israeli/US bombardment of Iran a predictable outcome of its refusal to relinquish its rights under international law - such as the treaty on nuclear non-proliferation that nuclear-armed Israel refuses to sign at all?" No. Len, are you claiming that Hitler 'aided' Japan's attack on Pearl Habor? Where's your evidence for that? There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence that Roosevelt knew the Pearl Habor attack was coming having actively created the conditions making a Japanese attack likely while able to monitor Japanese communications - and that he wanted an attack of this nature to be launched against America to help him persuade a deeply reluctant public and congress to support US involvement in the growing World War. The US President of the day, therefore, deliberately let Japan's attack succeed, failing to alert the commanding officers at Pearl Harbor to the imminemnt danger. It could therefore be said that Roosevelt 'aided' Japan's attack on Parl Habor. Perhaps Hitler did too. Say what... you show me a credible reference for your take on Hitler's involvement in Parl Habor and I'll show you mine re: Roosevelt's. Finally, Len, I wonder if you agree with me that one of the very sad consequences of World War Two – speeded by Winston Churchill’s rise to power in 1940 – was abandonment of the posaition taken by HMG in its pre-war White Paper on the future of Palestine. In that May 1939 White Paper, the British Government decided to proceed no further down the track of supporting the emergence of a Zionist State in Palestine, but instead to support the eventual independence of a bi-national, pluralistic and multiracial new state in the British mandated territory of Palestine. The House of Commons approved the White Paper by a sizeable majority, although it was opposed by some senior Government politicians such Leslie Hore-Belisha and Winston Churchill. After World War Two, of course, it was essentially forgotten, as responsibility for Palestine's future moved out of the primary control of Great Britain and her Parliament How many of today’s problems could have been avoided if the authors of the 1939 British policy on Palestine had been able to implement it! A short extract follows (emphasis added):

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6655&view=findpost&p=72145 I asked the author of this curious statement to elaborate but thus far he hasn’t, since he thinks it “merits discussion” perhaps he could present his evidence. Len Len I have already made it clear that I'm too busy to do more than drop in occasionally to this forum for a week or so. Perhaps you took note and to cause me extra irritation you've started another thread attacking statements I made elsewhere on this forum. I guess I should be flattered by your interest. However, I do challenge your proposed rules of discussion and debate. You are not my pupil Len. I am under no contractual obligation to educate or inform you. I'm not your paid research assistant. If, therefore, you have a problem with something I write, why not say so, say why and why not give credible references to back up your claims? I don't waste my time 'elaborating' for folk who, if they are not lazy trolls, sure as hell behave like it.

George Bush may not make it to 2008, according to the wicked Orlin Grabbe. This is Orlin's take on what's going down... Thought it might give forum readers a chuckle in these grim times.

Bob Your use of the word 'incursion' when referring to the recent Israeli assault on the Lebanon speaks volumes about your pro-Israeli bias. Does 'incursion' cover the use of cluster bombs and the still continuing strangulation of the Lebanese economy via an illegal sea blockade?

Len, your latest post demonstrates the wisdom of my decision not to discuss such topics with you in future. Way too weird! God preserve me from the rantings of psychiatrist wannabes! Now, I intend to reply to your other post - the last one that made a pretence of being on-topic - but as I wrote earlier, it may take some time. That's because I do like to consider with some care what I write in this forum on significant topics such as Israeli spying on the USA. And right now, I'm a little busy with other matters closer to the politics of my community. However, I can't help but notice that another alleged spy has been arrested in the USA - a sailor called Ariel J. Weinmann. Both this media report - and this one too - are remarkably coy about the country on whose behalf Mr Weinmann was allegedly spying. Was it Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, China or Cuba? Usually the media just loves to tell us - and often feature subsequent 'debates' between selected talking heads who display varying degrees of enthusiasm for bombing the offending nation into the Stone Age. Ziopedia has another theory about the allegiances of Petty Officer Ariel J. Weinmann, explained HERE. I think the article merits posting in full:

Sid debating you often strikes me as a waste of time; in any of Ms. Blyton’s books does one character tell another to “blow” them or anybody else? Perhaps you could quote one of those passages. I don’t know maybe the expression has different connotations in Australia than it does in the rest of the English speaking world but elsewhere if one person “blows” another it has a distinct sexual denotation (but of course you know that). The American Heritage Dictionary has 15 definitions for ‘blow’ as a transitive verb, only one (13) would fit the construction “blow me” used as an imperative http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...e.UFT7DB.CsgMMF . LOL aren’t you the one who pretended to object to the use of “pimping”. Len, I'm finding it really way too weird to discuss anything related to sexuality with you. This is the very last occasion for me, whatever you post in response. I did a quick Google search on what I had imaged to be a rather innocent, admittedly quaint but still-in-use expression: 'blow me!' From the content of the first couple of search pages, it no longer means what I thought. Showing my age, I guess. This is one battle I shaln't be joining. I shaln't use the expression again on the internet. A very small loss to my vocabulary which I can take in my stride. If I encounter a poem such as THIS, I am now better informed what a New Yorker is likely to be thinking about. I wonder what other liguistic pitfalls I may encounter as I grow older, that may also excite the attention of people with minds like yours, Len?

If you are disingenuous how will we ever know when to take you seriously? You're still play acting since on another thread you replied to me with "smutty language" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6655&view=findpost&p=72145 So this whole act of yours of having Victorian morals is rather unconvincing no one on this forum AFAIK has ever suggested you perform a sex act on them (or anyone else). I won't pretend to be offended by such language, I grew up in New York after all, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Len My apologies for not replying sooner. I have a few higher priorities at present on the State politics front. I aim to provide a fuller reply when time allows. Just one thing for now. You claim to believe that the expression "Blow me!" is "smutty language". I'll confine my comment to the charitable interpretation that if you really believe this expression is "smutty language", you are surprisingly unfamiliar with English idiom. You might like to read some Enid Blyton books to broaden your knowledge of the language. They are written for children, smut-free and pitched at your comprehension level.

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible? in The Register takes a look at the feasibility of what's been claimed by the authorities - and gives the plot the thumbs down. If the author's scientific analysis is correct, the huddled masses waiting in endless queues while their water bottles are confiscated are simply wasting their time. Fox, CNN and the rest of the mass media scrum suggest, with increasing repetition, the case for passenger 'profiling'. Irate passengers are interviewed. On cue, they exclaim "something must be done!" Thus the bogus 'War on Terror' comes another step closer to the full-blown 'War on Moslems and Arabs' intended all along by those who dreamed up this cavalcade of scares, hype and false flag murders. Footnote: an earlier article in The Register, in similar vein, debunked another fake terror plot: It's all in the mind, really

Dubya now claims that "Recognition of Hezbollah loss 'will take time'" The report is from the Irish Examiner. I can just imagine the Irish chuckling about that over a Guiness or three. Has El Presidente finally learnt the old adage: "it's too early to tell". Presumably, this ridiculous man can remember dropping onto a US aircraft carrier in pilot gear like a Lindbergh wannabe to declare, circa April 2003, the Iraq war 'won'. Meanwhile, having stopped the Zionist military machine in its tacks, Hizbollah is now making an international name for itself in the welfare industry, delivering sizeable cash payouts to distraught Lebanese householders inconvenienced by Israeli bombs. If reports are to be believed, it’s an operation that leaves western emergency response for dead. I'd like Hizbollah to administer disaster relief here in Australia the next time a cyclone hits. Americans might like to follow suit? Hizbollah's promptitude makes FEMA look like a crippled slug (except, of course, on 9-11, when it was ready to go he day before). What a shame the poodle Howard Government bowed to the Zionist lobby in 2003 and declared the military wing of Hizbollah a terrorist group, making contact with that efficient and worthy organization the subject of Vanunu-length prison sentences! Oh how the Lebanese must "hate they must hate us for our freedom"! (the freedom to be administered by war criminals, parasites and idiots).

I should make it clear that I have no idea whether the Crown will be able to prove its case in a fair trial - if and when the case of this latest batch of "terrorist suspect" arrestees comes to court. I imagine that sooner or later western spook agencies will intercept a 'genuine', 'Islamist' terror plot that has not been largely contrived by their own agent provacateurs. For all I know, that could have occured in this case. I doubt it, but one must retain an open mind while the only information available is highly controlled factoid tidbits, washed down with copious amounts of spin and froth from self-styled terrorist experts whose regular appearances in the mass media have become a staple of modern life. My real concern is about accountability - and the lack thereof. When the ricin plot trial fell apart - and the ricin plot scare was found to have been essentially fraudulent - who was held to account? Which of the politicians who used the ricin scare to make a case for something else (Colin Powell and the Iraq invasion springs to mind) admitted their error? Which of the 'intelligence operatives' and/or police who had essentially pursued a phoney case were held to account? Which of the commentators who had helped promote and explicate the scare later admitted publicly that they'd misled the public? Which of the media oragnisations that uncritically promoted the story issued a mea culpa? Did any of those involved get fired? This is the real terror of the modern era: the palpable lack of accountability for heinous crimes, made possible by a mass media subject to a high level of clandestine collusion and control. It's a phenomenon that doubtless pre-dates the JFK assassination - but it sure as hell gained momentum after a gang of vicious criminals murdered the President of the USA in broad daylight and get away with it for over 40 years through deceit, manipulation and yet more murder. .

Who cares about facts when they get in the way of spin? Not 'Brendan' Seriously, Brendan, if I was your handler I'd reincarnate you under another identity. The residual credibility of 'Brendan Slattery' tends towards zero.

I didn't need to read further than the first of the dot points posted by 'Brendan Slattery' to observe that this guy should be prioritising for retraining by his handlers. I presume, 'Brendan', you refer here to the patsy Sirhan Sirhan, who given religion is, in fact, Christianity. Incidentally, the hapless Sirhan remains incarcerated to this day - a life-long victim of the most cruel injustice.

Ron. This would be funny (if only it wasn't for real). It reminds me of my childhood, when I would occasionally share a bath with my brother. Mum would yell out "do your backs now" from the kitchen. In such a case these days, a passing neighbour with faulty hearing would naturally feel obliged call the anti-terror hotline. The offending family could expect to be profiled, bugged, infiltrated and arrested in a dawn raid, to enormous media fanfare. No wonder "they hate us for our freedom".

Thanks to the internet, occasional murmurs of doubt can quickly turn into a small chorus. Was the latest "foiled terrorist plot" - the one that pushed the Lebanon debacle off the front pages for a couple of days prior to the cease fire - yet another faked terrorist scare? Azzam Tamimi writes I bet you it will turn out to be a hoax in the Guardian Craig Murray writes: The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? The World Socialist website has an editorial entitled: Britain’s airline terror plot: Questions that need to be answered From the blog world, The Gaelic Starover advises readers to “Be Very, Very Sceptical” At some point, presumably, arrestees will come to trial - although the authorities can delay that day and at present there are restrictions on media reporting about the 'suspects'. If the eventual court cases simply fall apart will anyone remember? Will the mass media follow-up this time round? Or will it be like the fake ricin plot, a conveniently forgotten charade that helped disrupt the lives of a few innocents, kept agent provacteurs in employment and cranked the wheel of terror when it was needed (on that occasion, to help whip us into a frenzy and invade Iraq illegally, as I recall). At least, in this case, no-one appears to have been killed - unlike the anthrax atrocities in 2001, timed perfectly to assist the smooth passage of the PATRIOT Act through Congress, in which several unsolved murders remain dispite clear Government indifference to pursuing a key suspect.

There's a rather unpleasant recent footnote to this story. Chris Bollyn was arrested and beaten by police in Chigago, after he himself had called the police to report on suspicious and intimidating activities in his own suburb. His post-release account is HERE. Bollyn was working on a follow-up article to his American Free Press article on Comverse and its Israeli founder who has fled US justice. This article was mentioned in my previous post on this thread.

I have a suggestion. At present, authentication of the purported identity of members and new applicants is matter for the moderators (I presume that’s John Simkin and Andy Walker, but there may be more folk involved?) With such a large membership, I suspect it is a near impossible for the moderators to authenticate each member and applicant to a standard that meets their own satisfaction – let alone the satisfaction of other members. There must be an element of guesswork involved – and giving applicants the benefit of the doubt. In short, while I believe that most members of the forum are who they say they are, I doubt that some are genuine. I do NOT seek to criticize the moderators or the forum itself. Under present arrangements, this forum is already a space for enlightened discussion about important issues (along with considerable dross). Kudos to those who have made it happen! However, I believe improvements may also be possible. I propose two categories of membership: authenticated and not authenticated. While both categories would enjoy equal posting rights, readers would be able to see whether members have been authenticated and not authenticated – and on what basis. Under this proposal, authentication remains the responsibility of the moderators and/or their delegated helpers). The only difference would be that the means of authentication in each case would also be explicit where real authentification has occured - or not, as the case may be. For instance if John or Andy have personally met a member of the forum, matched their face in the flesh with their avatar and conversed over basic claims made in that member’s bio, they may feel able to authenticate that member without further ado. If they had approached a known personality to join the forum (or been approached by such a person), authentication would also be a simple matter. Unauthenticated members would not be disadvantaged in posting rights – and this proposal would not exclude membership to anyone who, for whatever reason, prefers anonymity - or has yet to satisfy the moderators’ standards for authentication. On this forum, I value the contribution of a few members whose actual identity I doubt, or whose bios I suspect are misleading. I don’t seek to silence “whispers” from insiders who cannot, for whatever reason, reveal their true identity. The difference my proposal would make is that it would be more difficult for some members to masquerade behind fake personas. Readers would be aware how and by whom authentication of each member occurred. Truly unauthenticated participants would be identified as such. This is really a proposal for better quality information about all members – akin to nutritional information on food packaging. People remain free to buy food wherever they like and in whatever form. But those that buy branded food products are entitled to some measure of factual information about what’s inside. I acknowledge it would make some additional work for our already overworked moderators. Nevertheless, I make the suggestion in the belief that it would improve what is already a very interesting forum. A final note, just to be clear. I'm not proposing authentication to imply that moderators vouch for the views and bona fides of each authenticated member. Authentication, as I propose it, would be something much more specific - and mean simply that the moderator has reasonable grounds to believe that the identity of a member is that of a real-life person. The CIA - and any other "intelligence" agency or "interest group" that keeps an eye on proceedings here - would be able to have members in both categories. Honest independent spirits would also be found in both. Authentication should not imply moral superiority of any kind. It simply means that clearer standards of evidence are applied to the issue of members' identity

Blaming the USA - or its substandard, illegitimately-elected President - for the latest Lebanon debacle, is a predictable but unconvincing ploy. Of course the USA shares culpability for what has happened. The USA funds and uncritically supports the terrorist State of Israel. It therefore shares culpability for its actions. But to suggest that Israel's Government was pushed unwillingly by Washington into assaulting The Lebanon, as various Zionist apologists now claim, is once again to falsify history in an attempt to deceive and gain current advantage. Veteran British journalist Alan Hart gave a superb speech to the at International Institute of Strategic Studies, New Civilisation debate, on Thursday, August 10, 2006. I rarely post the full text of a reference when a link will do, but in this case, I believe it is merited. The speech is of interest for its insightful historical analysis as well as its contemporary significance. Hart explains to his audicence "I’m not a politician or, any more, a working journalist and broadcaster who must write and speak in way that doesn’t offend very powerful vested interests. I am a reasonably well informed human being who cares and who is free to say what he really thinks. (Which probably makes me a member of a very small club!)" How true! If Hart is correct, the very future of humanity may depend on how quickly that small club can swell its ranks - and how effectively it can perform its essential role of honest explication to the confused, frightened, misled and manipulated populace. The Hart transcipt follows:

Earlier today, a curious thing occurred. Ian Phillips took a free kick in my direction, indulging in a little gratuitous name-calling at my expense. Happily (and not at my behest) he promptly edited his post to remove the offending paragraph . Thanks Ian, for your apparent retraction Thanks also for drawing my attention to this thread once again. I had left Len Colby's fact-free assault on my earlier post unanswered. My apologies to Len for the delay. Your dot points first, Len: 1/ -alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,' I didn't mention "gas chambers". My only reference to delousing was: "Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing." Perhaps you need lessons in English comprehension, Len? Incidentally, do you 'deny' the existence of "delousing chambers" in these camps? If so, I think you may be at odds with almnost every authority on the subject - mainstream or not. 2/ -claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder, What I actually said was: "(Irène Némirovsky) died of typhus according to this reference". Again, may I suggest comprehension lessons? Again, do you deny what I actually wrote? I have no special axe to grind on the topic and would hate to purvey false information. If you do, please provide a reference. 3/ -calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war', Once again, I didn't actually say that Len. Apart from anything else, I wouldn't say anything so naff. What I did say was "... in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds." Which of these propositions do you find offensive Len. Which do you deny? 4/ -comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps Blow me. Once again, I'm unable to match my text to your point. Please show me where I made such a comparison Len. Let's discuss it anyway. I have no doubt that that prisoners in German and Japanese camps suffered terribly, especially towards the end of the war when supply lines were breaking down and disease was rife. I do hope the Allied concentration camps were humane during the Second World War. In its aftermath, many of them did not meet basic standards of decency, as the courageous Jewish journalist John Sack revealed in his extraordinary expose An Eye for an Eye. A source I doubt you would repudiate explains: How's about approaching the topic of concentration camps with a little more humility and even-handedness? It's doubtless convenient for victors to allege near-perfect behaviour on their own part against an enemy that behaved with unmitigated evil, but it ain't history. What's more, the notion of irrefutable Allied virtue helps justify civil rights abuses on a monstrous scale in our own times (the Axis powers were defeated in 1945, but the 'Allies' keep rolling on...) 5/ -suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"] Thank you Len. For once, you actually quote me correctly (after misrepresenting my words once again, it must be said) Here are a couple of facts you should know. In 1939, France initiated a state of war with Germany. Not the other way round. In 2003, the USA invaded Iraq. Not the other way round. If a country is invaded, some people in the population are likely to become collaborators – for ideological, economic and other reasons. We know this from history in almost every case I can think of - unless the entire population of the invaded society was decimated or enslaved My point was that collaborators with the Nazis in France at least had the moral argument that they were collaborating with occupiers who had invaded their land in a war their own nation had declared first - then lost. Collaborators with the current occupiers in Iraq have no such claim to fall back on. Regarding the broader question of whether Hitler was 'forced' into the Second World War... sorry Len, I just wouldn't make such a silly claim. People are forced to do things in places like this and this – prison camps that are disgraceful stains on contemporary life, yet in all your self-righteous verbal froth, you never seem to find time to complain bitterly about them. No-one 'forced' Adolf Hitler into war. He could, after all, have resigned, capitulated - or chosen a different career in the first place. Whether he was manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined would ensue from his own actions up to September 3rd 1939, is an interesting question - and one that, in my view, merits discussion. There is certainly a lively debate about whether Roosevelt sacrificed a couple of thousand American sailors at Pearl Harbor to kick start America's involvement in World War Two - a war until then deeply unpopular with most Americans. You conclude your dot points, Len, by saying that all the above are “common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'.” Really? I think, in response to that bit of nonsense, I’ll make up a category and put you in it, whether you like it or not. I’ll call you a ‘Factual Revisionist’. In my experience, Len, incessantly misquoting opponents, attempting to vilify and exclude them from mainstream discourse, the repeated use of ad hominem attacks and many other forms of spurious reasoning are all common tactics of ‘Factual Revisionists’. The good news for you, Len, is that I support your freedom of speech and I’d never seek to have you imprisoned for expressing your ‘Factual Revisionist’ views. Turning now to the rest of your post… Some of your sentences ain't English, but I think I get your drift. You appear to believe it's murder to send someone to a place where they are likely to experience inhuman conditions - in the event that they actually do die and irrespective of the manner of death. Very harsh that, Len. You'll doubtless advocate locking up a lot of Israelis for a very long time on that basis if you applied such a strict policy... anyone connected with Facility 1391, in fact - and that's just for starters... What's more, I doubt many senior politicians or members of the worldwide prison industrial complex would escape the stigma of 'murderer' under your harsh regime. You then seem to claim it’s first degree murder in "this" case, because death was foreseeable. I assume you mean the death of Irène Némirovsky was foreseeable by her captors when she was incarcerated. Could you share your evidence for that? Finally, Len, you wrote: I never heard it alleged before even by "revisionist" "historians" that the Germans didn't intend to invade Britain once the USSR had been defeated. My remarks referred to plans, not intentions (the former being rather more concrete and likely to be clearly documented). Nevertheless, Len, where is your evidence that the German leadership even 'intended' to invade Britain, before or after the USSR was defeated? I'd be grateful if you could supply it. I may have missed something you know about - after all, this part of history does seem to be your obsession. Len concluded: I didn’t make such a comparison Len. I was comparing the legitimacy of collaboration in both cases. However, I will make a couple of points. First, if countries do not want to risk invasion, they are unwise to declare war. Not declaring war may not save them either – but a declaration of war invites attack and invasion. It is bizarre to imply the Nazi occupation of France was ipso facto a ‘crime’. Crimes may well have been committed during that occupation – but that’s a different matter. By contrast, the illegal invasion of Iraq by the USA and Britain was and is a war crime per se. Second, I suspect the occupied people of France during World War Two – as a whole – were not nearly as miserable as Iraqis as a whole in 2006. Iraqi civilians appear to be dying at a higher rate than French civilian deaths during World War Two (do correct me if I'm wrong about this, citing an appropriate reference). Overseeing the immiseration of the Iraqi people, despoiling their land and polluting it permanently with depleted uranium – these are current war crimes. They are happening right now in our world. We can't change what happened 60+ years ago, but we can at least try to change what's happening now. You obsess about whether people such as me have a view about World War Two that accords with your own – and I imagine you are quite pleased that numerous historians and other dissidents are locked up for holding unorthodox views about ‘The Holocaust’. I say there’s a holocaust happening right now – in several places in the middle east. You don’t seem to care much about that – except to minimize its significance. A recent article entitled Israel Beyond Comparison by the eloquent Israeli philosopher and jazz musician Atzmon Gilad explores some of these issues, with specific reference to the Zionist State. I think you should read it, Len, if you wish to continue this debate. Read how the Zionist State treats its dissidents in these very days we are living through - see Israeli Army Cause Serious Head Injury to Israeli Lawyer at Demonstration. Read also about collaboration between Zionists and Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s to better appreciate the inter-relationship between these two movements and ideologies. The past is important, I agree, but most importantly we need to fix the world we live in – for ALL our sakes and for those who come after us. Insofar a historical narrative preferred by Zionists and the Anglo-American establishment helps underpin the crimes of the present, it isn’t just chutzpah to demand acquiesence and/or silence. It’s an outrage!

Anyone familiar with the story of the large Israeli spy-ring busted in the USA during 2000/1 story will probably also have come across the now-legendary Fox News expose of December 2001 – a four part series referred to HERE in Crytome (scroll down for the transcript). Among other scoops contained in that report, the role of Comverse was mentioned.This is an Israeli-controlled hi-tech company that, according to Fox, plays a pivotal role in US telecommunicatioons surveillance. There’s a recent update on goings on at Comverse in this recent article by Christopher Bollyn: Israeli 9/11 Crook Flees with $57 Million to Israel. Bollyn’s report refers to a recent International Herald Tribune article: 3 from Comverse facing fraud charges on options. Apparently the former CEO has done a bunk: Recall what Carl Cameron of Fox told viewers about Comverse nearly five years ago: If there’s a even a smidgeon of truth in this report, Americans would do well to take a keen interest in the folk at Comverse and their ethical 'standards', which seem akin to those of the Red Mafiya.

Hi Peter, Yes, it's true that the welcome afforded to Michael Piper by some on the Forum was less than couteous. It is, of course, a very sensitive subject. While this topic would be more suited to the assassination section of the Forum, I will briefly say that I agree with your comments about Ruby and Angleton. Angleton's connection to Israel is rarely discussed, even though he ran the CIA's 'Israel desk' for many years. He spent most of his career accusing almost everyone of being a Russian spy, never missing an opportunity to fan the flames of US/Soviet mistrust. Piper claims that his CIA Mossad liason desk were central to the CIA's deep cover alliances with the Lansky crime syndicate, a claim I find quite plausible. In the photo section of the 6th edition of 'Final Judgement' there is a photograph of a monument, erected in Israel in honor of Angleton, inscribed 'in memory of a dear friend James J Angleton 1917-1987'. Piper claims it is the only known photograph of this monument ever to be published. Angleton also had connections to the 'Soviet' spy-ring in British 'Intelligence' (Philby, Brugess, Maclean and Blunt). Recently, there has been some speculation that Victor Rothschild was the legendary 'fifth man'. Lord Victor Rothschild a Soviet mole? It seems improbable to me - although he may have cut occasional deals with Moscow while operating deep inside the heart of the British capitalist beast. More likely that Rothschild's primary national allegiance was to the fledgling State of Israel - although it may well have been useful to him to conceal this from both the Brits/Americans and the Russians.

Hi Peter You may be interested in some of the earlier debates on this Forum that discuss the hypothesis that Israeli intelligence and its international support network were at the center of the conspiracy to murder JFK. It's a hypothesis most developed in the writings of Michael Collins Piper who writes for American Free Press in the USA. Piper's book 'Final Judgment' has been discussed on this forum and he made a brief appearance here earlier this year. Final Judgment, now in its sixth edition, has never been available in highstreet bookshops and has never been reviewed in mainstream media. First published in the mid-1990s, Final Judgment draws on archival releases from the early 90s which make it clear that JFK was having a major row with Israel's leadership - especially Ben Gurion - in the years preceding his assassination. This stand-off was kept private. The lack of publicty meant there was no reason for most people to suspect at the time that Israeli intelligence would have had any motive for killing JFK. Kennedy was pursuaded not to demand UN inspections of Dimona, but instead to continue US inspections that were outside the public spotlight. After Kennedy's death, the US attempt (begun by Eisenhower and continued by Kennedy) to stop Israel from gaining nuclear weapons was quietly abandoned. By 1967 Israel had developed its first nuclear weapons. On this forum, for instance, these references are relevant: Journalists and the Assassination of JFK Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgment (in JFK Assassination Debate) Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgment (in History Books) Biography: Michael Collins Piper Israel,LBJ and the JFK assassination Warning: Some language used in these threads is not 'family-friendly' and plenty of the dialogue is most unfriendly to Piper.