Sid Walker

According to this source, these are some basic facts about Zapruder: Born: 15-May-1905 Birthplace: Kovel, Russia Died: 30-Aug-1970 Gender: Male Religion: Jewish Ethnicity: White Sexual orientation: Straight Occupation: Cinematographer Nationality: United States The same source claims he was also a Freemason and Shriner. All in all, quite a dude. But as Jack mentioned, his other 'cinematography' work does not seem to entered in the annals of popular history. Perhaps he was too busy networking

A couple of fascinating non-mainstream commentaries on the current state of play in the Israeli Wars of Agression (2006). First, an article in the Daily Kos entitled John Bolton: Dead Lebanese worth less than dead Israelis which discusses current negotiations over terms for a ceasefirs. It examines what the mainstream media isn't saying about behind the scenses manouvering inside the Security Council. Second, a hot-off-the-press classic by Israel Shamir: The Yoke of Zion Shamir sees Hezbollah's largely unpredicted success in the current conflict as the sign and trigger for a major turnaround in Arab fortunes. He claims that even reactionary pro-American Arab regimes are turning to support Hezbollah, after initiially joining American condemnation of Hezbollah 'terrorism'. This is the second quite upbeat article by Shamir that applauds the recent successes of Hezbollah (he lives in Haifa so this is not a position he can take lightly). I tended to discount early reports of Israeli troops stalled in their advance through southern Lebanon, but weeks have passed and it seems a real and unexpected phenomenon is unfolding; Israel's military juggernaut is experiencing fierce and spirited resistance and this time is finding the invasion of Lebanon hard going. No wonder the US-Israeli axis pushes for French troops to take over their self-appointed task of disarming Hezbollah. No wonder the French politely decline. Viva Hezbollah! (and to hell with the stupid, discriminatory, unjustifiable and palpably pro-Zionist laws in countires such as Australia that brand resistance forces "terrorist" while we cozy up to the undisputed Lords of Aerial Mass Terror).

It isn't Owen. I don't intend to provide any sources on Jewish fundamentalism. The subject matter is too weird for me at this time in my life. But then I have the same reaction to Christian Dispensationalism. If that is so, I won't be engaging in ANY discussion with him further. That is beyond the pale. The European part of my family was wiped out in the Holocaust. My uncle Raphael was the man who coined the word genocide, wrote the Genocide Convention at the UN and was a legal expert at Nuremburg... He spent his second part of his life studying the Holocaust and I am currently working on a book on the subject. I do NOT discuss with Holocaust revisionists. Period. The Holocaust happened. It included Gypsies, Gays and others than Jews...but AT LEAST 7.000.000 Jews, and I think perhaps more. End of my discussion of that or with anyone who thinks that - on any topic. Any attempt to say it happened otherwise has a most sinister and evil logic behind it. It is like saying we [European invaders] didn't kill off untold millions of Native peoples in the Americas over the centuries - or that millions didn't die in WWI....it has an agenda and nothing to do with history nor fact. I have met hundreds of survivors, knew Weisenthal until his death, and am a student of the Holocaust my whole life. I have documents here in my office confirming the facts. There is some xxxx I will not eat and Holocaust Denial is not on my diet of things to discuss. Peter. It saddens me that you - someone who I had understood to be a rationalist with the shared intellectual heritage of The Enlightenment, could post such a response. On the strength of someone else's report about another thread you apparently haven't read, you decide to send me to Coventry. Your preogative, I guess, although not very rational behaviour. You then proceed to make assertions about the events of World War Two - including the remarkable claim that AT LEAST 7,000,000 Jews were victims of genocide during World War Two. Even Raul Hilberg wouldn't go along with that figure - not even close. I didn't mention the subject of The Holocaust in this thread. Recurrently raising this red herring is a trick played by Owen and Len in an attempt to marginalise me and shirk discussion of the contemporary issues that I do intend to discuss and learn about while I participate in this forum. Owen's desire to see me banned is never far from the surface - odd for one who in a not so recent post claimed to be an ex-Zionist, if I recall correctly. I am sorry your relatives were victims of genocvidal acts during World War Two. As you are aware, tens of millions of other people also perished in the horrors of that terrible war. People close to my family and friends were also victims of the Second World War. Some suffered dreadfully before dying - and the scars of family loss last a lifetime for the survivors. Nevertheless, I don't feel the need to refuse further communication with other people on the basis of a second hand report about someone else's apparently differing beliefs about that event. If I did give up in exasperation and decide to shun them publicly, I would at least have the decency to cite specific offending statements. One thing I do believe is that if matters are to be discussed, they should be discussed without limits based on a priori assumptions and dogmatic assertions. I also don't believe in locking up historians - or anyone else - for their historical beliefs. I'm sorry if that offends you. You should understand, however, that I find abandonment and betrayal of the principles of The Enlightenment offensive too. It's bad enough when I find gross irrationality and a refusal to think outside a specific frame of reference in religious types. You, Peter, claim to be an atheist.

Peter, I agree with much of what you say here and have respect for the fundamental values evinced by your posts. However, if the proposition of "Jewish disproportunate power in the USA" is pure myth, surely critical analysis of the facts about this topic in open debate would be of benefit and help quash the myth? More likely, I suggest, it's myth in its extreme formulation, but does not rest entirely on imagination. In any case, it's better to know the truth than not, isn't it? Let's examine just one aspect of this alleged myth: the claim of disproportionate Jewish control and influence within the US mass media. In another post, Owen Parsons cited an article from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. I was interested to read it: "The Jewish Media: The Lie That Won't Die". I hoped to read a well-documenting rebuttal of the proposition that Jewish-Zionist interests dominate the US mass media. Unfortunately (you may think I'm being unfair) I found the article to be mostly froth. The only paragraphs that really came to grips with the article's subject were the following: I don't find that a powerful rebuttal. I could go into some detail explaining why, but for now I'd like to ask if there's a better source on this topic that you, Owen or anyone else can suggest? Anyone care to comment on escatological beliefs within the various strands of Jewish funamentalism? I have the impression that one needs to understand Hebrew to make a fair stab at this subject - or else rely on sources that would send the likes of Owen into a lather.

I think that's just about spot on, Peter, with one query. Was 1960s 'War on Poverty' really as inherently bad and misguided as you suggest? Or was the greater problem that it was abandoned and has since disappeared without trace, superceded by other, blatantly evil 'wars' of greater longevity?

According to Google News at the time of writing, rumors of Castro's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Perhaps this is partly attributable to Cuba's rather superior public health system? Viva Fidel!

More odd sexual innuendo. A week ago, I was accused of 'masturbation' on this forum. Whatever next? Paeodophilia? Relax, Sid. I just like using the word "pimping." I imagine that he (Sid) was aware of that just he should have been aware that when Andy said he engaged in "intellectual masturbations" he wasn’t insinuating anything sexual. His silly commentary is a ruse to avoid addressing your point, he repeatedly pushed (no Sid I’m NOT insinuating that you are a drug dealer) the Fox spy stories, the main component of which relating to 9-11 was the art students article. PS Sid I’m still waiting for you to reply to my rebuttal of you post about the Israeli movers in Jersey City. Those articles may contain true information. I would prefer it, however, if they were not written by Bollyn, who has a very serious record of dubious associations and bad "investigative reporting." Yes, Bollyn has a dodgy past and fails to provide links to any verifiable sources. This also is a case of bait and switch the linked articles have little to do with the Fox stories, the 1st has nothing to do with 9-11 and the 2nd is inconclusive, it’s main point related to 9-11 was that an Israeli owned Dutch company was the parent company of Huntleigh, the company that supposedly ran security at Logan and Newark. I was only able to substantiate that Huntleigh was responsible for screening for United at Logan. What the article fails to mention is that not all the Logan hijackers went through security there but were screened in Portland (Maine), where security presumably was weaker, from where they caught a connection to Boston. Not that they needed to because security was weak at Logan weeks before the attacks even for airlines whose security was not handled by Huntleigh [ http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01812080.htm – see the parts about Delta and Northwestern]. As I pointed out earlier on this thread security holes remained at American airports even after 9-11 when a college student was able to bring box cutters on board domestic flights [ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/17/suspicious.baggage/ ] Another point remains unaddressed is how much direct control did the parent company exercise on its subsidiary from across the Atlantic, were any of the American bosses Israelis? The president was named Joe Tuero [ http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg17188.html , http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/10/12/BA187221.DTL ] did the Israeli bosses have enough control over the subsidiary to make sure that "friendly" screeners would screen the hijackers? Don’t most inside jobbers claim there were no hijackers anyway? Len A few points in response. First, yes, you correctly observed I was play-acting about taking offense over sexual innuendo. I could't care less what any of you think about my sexual preferences or habits. How's this for a deal? I'll stop pretending to take offence if other posters stop using smutty language when attacking me. Second, quoting the Bollyn articles was not 'bait and switch'. The references are both highly relevant to this thread. One indicated massive Israeli intelligence penetration of US telecommunications; the other pointed to links between the current Israeli Prime Minister and the company controlling security at key airports on 9-11. I agree that a lot more documentation would be beneficial. I'm sure Bollyn would agree. With more research and open discussion, no doubt it can be established whether concerns raised in his articles have substance, or not. Third, you wrote: " Don’t most inside jobbers claim there were no hijackers anyway?" I think the point here, which your comments obscures, is that whatever exactly happened on 9-11, if the official scenario is not accurate, the role of the airport security companies is of potential central relevance to finding out what really did happen. For me, the most explosive line in Bollyn's article about the airport secuity companies was the following: "Huntleigh, along with the other security companies, was granted complete congressional protection in 2002." Can anyone here throw light on this - one way or the other?

You raise a most interesting question Robert. I do not feel well informed about the history of the American ‘radical’ right-wing and would like to learn more. My impression, however, is that it was largely anti-Zionist until the 1960s – or neutral on the issue of Zionism. Elements of the American radical right were also, I have little doubt, anti-Jewish in ways we might all find distasteful. Pro-Israel policies – and strong affinity for Jewish causes and culture – were more common on the left of US politics. The Zionist movement has since plugged its former weakness on the far right – and the right in general. It still faces anti-Zionist – and some blatantly anti-Jewish – opposition from within elements of the right wing. However, unlike the situation in the 1950s and 1960s, it now has almost total control of the Republican Party – and enjoys substantial dominance within the sizeable proportion of the population that can be characterized as ‘right-wing Christian America’. This enables the Zionist movement to dominate the drift of American policy to an extent it could only have dreamed about 50 years ago. It helps explain the tilt from a relatively even-handed approach to middle eastern politics pursued by Eisenhower and Kennedy to the massive pro-Israel bias we see today.

I hope everyone [sane] will keep in mind the distinction between the people in America from the government [or what passes for one now] in America; and the people of Israel from the government [or what passes for one now] in Israel. Both governments are far-Right; militaristic; neo-fascist; run by fundamentalists to a large degree and conspiring in intelligence and military fields - and have been for a long time. The people in those two nations are a mix...some support the nonsense, but I think in both a minority....and in both there are those fighting against the monsters at the helm(s). Not accusing anyone special...and not you Mark, just sometimes feel all forget. I hold an American passport and was born there.....but don't want to be associated with the xxxx going on now....in fact am fighting it with all my might - many others in America and in Israel feel the same, respectively. Sane persons all around the world must now work together against most governments they find themselves in....a new uno-mundo movement for peace and sanity....or else this planet will soon be cosmic history as far as homo sapiens is concerned. I agree with this paragraph almost entirely, Peter. Change "American" for "Australian" and you could be speaking for me. The difference between us on this, if there is one, seems quite small to me, although it may be significant. I observe that you, Peter, tend to view 'Christian fundamentalism' as a highly dangerous force in its own right that you believe is pushing the world in a highly negative direction. I believe that the truth is a little more complex. I see Christian fundamentalism as a force that is largely co-opted and controlled by the power elite when they find it useful. When they don't, it is ignored and marginalised. My main condemnation is reserved for an elite that misbehaves. I do believe that those who hold most power - and whom one may call 'the power elite' or 'the elite' for short - must be open to scrutiny, even more so (not less) than the rest of the community. We must be able to examine and discuss the composition, nature, goals and activities of the elite. If we can't do that, all claims to a democratic open society are sham and the aspiration of equal rights for all is effectively dead. As I believe passionately in the virtues of an open, democratci society and hold dear the aspiration of equal rights for all, I shall resist any attempt to stifle discussion about those who, by hook or by crook, have gained positions of great power in the world. As an Australian, I am disgusted by the collaboration of the current Australian Government with a crooked trigger-happy American Government. But I believe the nature of Australia's collaboration with the USA is of a different nature than the collaboration between Israel and the USA. Sorry if it causes offence, but I believe the difference is of significance and merits discussion. In Australia's case, the financial cost of collaboration is borne by Australia; when Australia joins America's wars, it pays for the privilege. There are US bases in Australia. What's more, because of near-universal mainstream media support for that, any Australian Government threatening to close US bases would be subjected to massive destabilisation. US spooks operate inside Australia and occasionally carry out clandestine operations (I doubt, somehow, the reverse applies; if so, as far as I'm aware, it has never come to light). No regular financial assistance is provided to Australia by the USA. Doubtless Australia's status as an ally helps mould policy in Washington to some extent, but whenever interests clash (the competing interests of oiur respective farming industries are the classic example) Australian interests rarely win out. There is no powerful 'Australia lobby' inside the USA, with quite obvious means and intent to affect the outcome of elections. In each of these regards, the case of Israel is quite, quite different. To fight the current militaristic drift of policies with all our might, we need to be able to examine critically the forces driving these policies.

I beg to differ Peter. I don't believe the Christian Right (or more accurately, the Christian-Zionist-Right) and its undue power in the USA is the main danger we face. In fact, I believe its power is greatly overstated by writers such as Ms Posner and Chris Hedges. There are two reasons why analysts are inclined to do this. The first is that the Christian Right is a safe target. Lacking real power, it is open to attack (and occasional vilification) by the more liberally minded. This is quite acceptable and commonplace in contemporary America, just as robust criticism of 'liberals' is a common part of the general political discourse. The second reason is more devious. I do not want to imply that all analysts who make the Christian right their key target are devious in this way - but I believe that some are. This 'devious' reason for attacking the Christian Right is that it's a convenient way of deflecting attention and blame from Jewish Zionists, who collectively wield a lot more power and influence. Name one US TV network, major US newspaper or Hollywood studio controlled or dominated by Christian fundamentalists. I doubt you can. By contrast, the power of Zionist Jews in these key opinion-guiding industries is legendary. Name one banking giant run or dominated by Christian rightists... Name one “intelligence service” operating on behalf of the Christian Right… It's like the distinction between pawns and the Queen in chess. Yes, pawns are numerous - but the Queen is far more powerful and typically causes a lot more havoc. The 'Christian Right' may have tens of millions of adherents in the USA and every now and again, it may score a win for one of its stated objectives - tightening abortion regulations and so forth - but it is not in effective control of the main game. There is some evidence that some of its ridiculous leaders - such as Jerry Falwell – are effectively bought and paid for by Zionists. Strip away the ‘Christian’ paintwork and its clear that Falwell & co serve as just one more channel for Zionist disinformation. Doubt what I say? If so, I suggest reflecting on the furore generated anytime someone prominent makes the kind of claim I'm making now. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, the politician / journalist / academic / talking head in question is viciously attacked and often suffers severe, if not terminal, career damage. On talkboards, it usually provokes moral panic and calls for bans and excommunication. As the old saying has it, if you are in a strange land and want to discover where power really lies, find out whom you may not easily criticize. One final point. Although the Christian Zionists are undoubtedly numerous, there are many Christians – and mainstream Christian organizations – that have a much more balanced approach to the middle east conflict. The Roman Catholic Church is an example. So is the Church of England. These two Churches have called – on numerous occasions – for a better deal for Palestinians, just as they have argued against militarism and in favour of a peaceful approach to conflict resolution. Their calls have gone unheeded and generally receive less than headline coverage by the mass media. Christian Zionists make a lot of noise not only because of their numbers, but because their message is amplified by the mass media, whereas other voices within Christianity are downplayed. People who are no friends of Christianity amplify the message of pro-Israel Christian fundamentalists. The agenda of these folk, if influenced at all by eschatological beliefs, owes nothing to Christian eschatology.

Mark, Try as I may, I can't fault you on a single word Up here in north Queensland, front line 'warriors' of the Drugs Industrial Complex get to play with helicopters. No doubt the operators enjoy the thrill as they make lots of noise and burn copious quantities of fossil fuels. The WoD is also great for the local prison industry, keeps lawyers employed and helps the cops justify demands for ever larger budgets. Is there anyone out there game to put in a good word for this absurd 'war' that has created a worldwide trillion dollar plus illegal industry and damaged countless lives?

I stay in contact with a few people who live in cities. Apparently there are numerous coffee shops in cities, where yuppies meet daily to discuss the content of the mainstream newspapers and pretend to be intelligent. Some predators use these establishments to pick up girls. Some even pick up boys. Even small towns have cafes these days. It's all getting out of control. Cafes should obviously be banned for public safety.

Does anyone in Britain care any more that her "ally" Israel, in whose cause British troops continue to die in Iraq, and for whose benefit the British Prime Minister continues to sell out British interests left, right and centre, treats a British MP on a mercy mission with utter contempt? Does anyone care that such an incident was reported (according to Google News, 4th August) in only ONE major British news medium? Is this apparent case of 'anti-Britishism' of any concern at all? Or do Brits these days stoically accept their role, alongside Palestinians, as mere second-class human beings when within the 'Jewish State', open to mistreatment that's so normal it is essentially not newsworthy? The article in the Guardian, July 31st 2006, follows: ______________________ Deported MP attacks 'outrageous' treatment by Israeli officials A Labour MP deported from Israel while attempting to deliver books to a children's library in Ramallah today attacked the "outrageous" interrogation she was subjected to. Lynne Jones was with eight charity workers on a scheduled trip to the West Bank, but were turned back after 11 hours questioning at Tel Aviv airport without being allowed into the country. Speaking at a press conference in Birmingham, the MP for the city's Selly Oak constituency told reporters: "It was quite a nightmare. "We were kept for 11 hours without being offered any food or drink other than water. "It was quite outrageous to suggest we were in any way a security risk - our mission was of peace and reconciliation." Dr Lynne Jones, whose party had intended to make a peace and reconciliation visit to Ramallah, said officials at Tel Aviv airport had even scanned children's books for explosives. The women arrived back at Birmingham international airport at midnight last night following their deportation. They had left Britain at 5pm on Saturday for the trip, which aimed to build links between Ramallah and the west Midlands following a number of fundraising efforts by Birmingham's Ramallah twinning committee. Dr Jones stressed that the Israeli embassy had been fully notified of the group's plans, even being provided with their passport numbers in advance. The MP added: "This visit has been planned since last year when a similar visit had to be cancelled because the same thing happened to the women involved. I got involved because of what happened last year." Sitting near some of the children's books, which included titles such as Teddy's House and A Martian Comes To Stay, the politician said a variety of reasons had been given for the decision to deport the women. "They said we needed a special permit to enter the Occupied Territories and then changed their tune. "It was as if they were looking for any excuse." Party member Samantha Owen, who works at Birmingham's central library, said the children's books had been collected to help build a library for youngsters in a refugee camp who had "absolutely nothing". Kathryn Day, a children's centre worker from Birmingham, was the first to be quizzed by Israeli security staff. As another of the women sobbed nearby, the 44-year-old said: "I was interviewed by a man who said his nickname was the Devil. "He told me that he knew why I was here and that I had to tell him. "I said 'We are just here for the twinning committee', but he just kept on and on at me. "He threatened me with MI5 and said he was going to send me straight to MI5. "I started crying because I really was terrified." The twinning committee's chairman, Kamel Hawwash, said: "The delegation's visit was discussed at length with the Israeli embassy in London and details of the participants and their itinerary were provided to the embassy as requested. "The women had gone to develop links between the citizens of Birmingham and the citizens of Ramallah and were due to meet Palestinian women and children's organisations. "We had raised money for a children's library and nursery at a refugee camp in Ramallah and the women were due to check on the progress of these badly-needed projects." A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said: "The group was informed verbally and also by way of written communication that we would not be able to guarantee their entrance. Nevertheless, the group decided to go."

The author of the article you cited recommends "legalization" Mark, and I agree with him. These so-called "drugs" are commodities and we should treat them as such. There are no distinct 'moral' issues involved - just health issues and matters common to the sale and use of other commodities such as quality control. The War on Drugs is as bogus as the War on Terror. In neither case is there serious intent to 'win'. In neither case is the objective to secure the maximum common good. On the contrary, In both cases, the 'war' reaps a horrific toll in human misery, serves as a shield for other nefarious objectives - and some of the nastiest and most avaricious folk on the planet are the principal beneficiaries. The finest irony - and the case where the two bogus wars most clearly overlap - is Afghanistan. Remarkably, under the Taliban (a regime condemned as authoritarian and worse by freedom lovers from Fleet Street to Wall Street), the level of opium production really did take a dive. The alleged war strategy of cutting off supply was actually working - in 2000/1. But no sooner did Afghani opium production drop significantly than 'the West' invaded and kicked out the offending Government. Now its back to business as usual in trumps. The hypocrisy embedded within the cruel and unnecessary 'War on Drugs' is one of the (sickening) wonders of the modern world.

Well John, I am not resident in the USA and may not have your detailed knowledge of the case. But Alexander Cockburn in 2002 certainly thought the Zionist lobby brought her down - see THIS ARTICLE in Counterpunch. A short extract:

John, I find it odd that in your brief account of the career of Cynthia McKinney, you didn't mention the reason this gutsy black politician first came to national and international prominence. McKinney is among a tiny minority of members of Congress who has questioned the official version of 9-11. She also takes a somewhat 'independent' position on the middle east, and occasionally refuses to go along with the craven, mind-numbing pro-Israel policies demanded of US politicians in return for an easy ride from the pro-Zionist mass media (that's almost all of it). It's not unreasonable to surmise that her clash with a policeman would have been no news at all, if the mass media hadn't been out to 'get' McKinney beforehand. They are out to make trouble for McKinney, not because she's black, but because she dared threaten a 100% "Israel right or wrong" and "don't question 9-11" policy consensus in the bought-and paid-for US Congress. Postscript: I just noticed that John and others have been discussing McKinney in other contemporaneous threads. Had I read that m,aterial first, I might not have made this post - although I still find the stand-alone introduction to this topic surprising and somehwat off the mark.

Not that I can see. Nice job Owen. Today Israeli 'commandos' landed in Baalbeck, far north of the Israeli border but close to Syria. I wonder if how the magnificent Roman ruins will fare if fighting becomes intense? *** uruknet.info speculates that this could be a precursor to a more complete invasion of the Lebanon than Israel's official pronouncements have so far suggested - and also strengthens the prospect of a ground invasion of Syria. Condoleeza Rice says a 'sustainable ceasefire' is days - not weeks - away. Simon Peres says a ceasefire is weeks - not months - away. Within a week or so, we'll see who wears the trousers in that relationship. _____________ *** On the other side of Syria, just inside Iraq, occupying American thugs recently turned a historic site into a soccer field.

Yes. And this rogue State, with an annual military budget in the hundreds of billions and a history of invading other countriers on almost an annual basis since 1945, is the No.1 ally of the 'left-wing' Government in Britain. Britain did not pick enemies and allies in World War Two on the basis of health care policy - nor has it figured in foreign policy calculations since. I wonder if Hillary Benn would like to change that? Nevertheless, Americans can take heart. In 2006, infant mortaliity in Iraq, Afghanistan and The Lebanon is higher than in the USA. For the impoverished, it's probably still somewhat better to reside in a country that's a serial war ciminal with a bloated military budget than somewhere that's merely the dumping ground for high-tech bruality.

In THIS NEW TOPIC John Simkin says: "Apparently, Blair is after becoming a member of the News Corp board after he retires." I suspect this is closer to the truth than "Rupert Murdoch is effectively a member of Blair's cabinet". The Observer reported yesterday that "Cabinet in open revolt over Blair's Israel policy". It doesn't seem being a mere member of Mr Blair's cabinet would carry sufficient weight for Mr Murdoch. I imagine he prefers serious converations with Tony in private, on his turf.

Mark's comments are on the money as far as I'm concerned. There is an ironic twist to the saga, which will be a familiar story to those British lefties who reviled the name of Edward Heath in the 1970s. Over time, Malcolm Fraser, the conservative politician who became Prime Minister following the constitutional coup of 1975, and who was perhaps the ultimate bete noir for Australian leftists at the time, has mellowed and become more liberal in the true sense. Fraser, these days, is a thorn in the side of the Howard Government - playing a similar role to that of Heath during the Thatcher years. He often takes a more progressive position (on treatment of asylum seekers, for example) than contemporary Labor leaders. Fraser was Defence Minister during the Vietnam War, and toed the pro-American line. Now he says he was misled into supporting Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. Whitlam is still an iconic figure in Australia, much revered by the left. He lost a little gloss in my eyes, however, when he angrily denied any responsibility for the ugly takeover of East Timor by the Indonesians during his term as Prime Minister - and chafed against Labor's evolving policy on East Timor in the late 90s when the ALP finally came round to supporting independence for its long-suffering people.

Does anyone in the Forum know the status of the Yesha Rabbinical Council within the Jewish religion? Is this the main rabbinical council for 'Judea, Samaria and Gaza' - or just a marginal group of religious extremists? If the former, is "Judeo-Christianity" finally starting to fall apart at the seams?

In the Fog of War, who knows what really happens on the ground? I'd be more receptive to Israeli claims that the building in Qana did not collapse as a consequence of Israeli aerial bombings if it was one atypical incident of massive loss of civilian life caused by Israeli bombs - not one case among many, both in this lopsided 'war' and in wars past, and the Israeli spin doctors are not so actively promoting the story that the reason for attacking the Qana building was the presence of Hezbollah forces in the basement - a claim promoted with accompanying surveillance videos. Can Israeli propagandists please get their story straight about the Qana 2 massacre? Regarding casualties, about ten days ago, at the end of the first week of Israel's 2006 bombing assault on the Lebanon, a Jewish Australian called Deborah Miller was interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Her tale of woe from northern Israel helped counter-balance the emerging stories of massive Lebanese civilian casualties. Here's an extract from the transcript:: Now, I freely admit that I do not have access to perfect information. I may have missed relevant reports. But with the aide of the internet and Google, I've been unable to verify that THREE peopel were killed by that date in Safed as a consequence of Hezbollah attacks by July 21st. ONE death in Safed is reported in other media sources. THREE deaths appear to be absent from accounts other than the ABC. We know the village in question is Safed because of reports such as THIS and THIS. Did Ms Miller exagerate the number of deaths in Safed by 200%? Did the reporter, Tom Iggulden, report inaccurately, by design or accident? Or have I missed reports of THREE rocket attack deaths in Safed? It's hard to say. References are welcomed. Further information may shed more light on this minor subplot in the overall war, including the propaganda war. When I called Lateline about its 21st July report, I was initially given polite assistance, but once it emerged that I entertained any doubts about its accuracy, the staffer became remarkably hostile and aggressive. Rather peevishly, he refused to provide reporter Tom Iggulden's email address so I could follow up the matter without additional effort. One would have thought accuracy would be of foremost importance to 'our' public broadcaster, along with 'balance'. I was sustained by the unspoken assumption that, in this case at least, it is still lawful in Australia to query civilian casualty figures asserted by Zionists and their sympathisers. Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps I missed a clause or two buried deep inside Australia's new armada of 'anti-terrorism' laws?

Oh I see. Guess that's fine then. Go ahead and impute that I purvey sex for cash. Whatever turns you on. Those articles may contain true information. I would prefer it, however, if they were not written by Bollyn, who has a very serious record of dubious associations and bad "investigative reporting." I note your concerns about a journalist's alleged "very serious record of dubious associations" appear to upset you more than the possibility that the world's only superpower is an open book to another State led by a man with such "dubious associations" he may be connected to the perpetrators of 9-11. Incidentally, the State in question just murdered another score or two of children in the last 24 hours, while the world's only superpower continues to block international consensus for immediate ceasefire. Even CNN reports that as "true information". But when will CNN/BBC/ABC investigate and report on the Israeli company with super-user access to the NSA's security software, so I can spare your sensibilities by quoting from a 'respectable' media source? You remind me of someone who, having silently witnessed a mass murder and the escape of the perpetrators, reserves howls of disgust for what he perceives to be a turd on the pavement.

More odd sexual innuendo. A week ago, I was accused of 'masturbation' on this forum. Whatever next? Paeodophilia? The truth is that Len started this thread - not me. He may very well prefer to confine debate to 'faux arts students in Florida' or some other distraction, but his intent was clear: to suggest that massive Israeli 'intelligence' penetration of American society is purely mythic. If he can also insinuate that the suggestion arises from malice alone, so much the better... A confession. I have no real idea what the 200 Israeli spies were doing in the USA between 2000 and 2001. How could I? The authorities in the USA simply want to forget about the whole incident. Israeli ain't saying. The mass media is not following up. In any case, this particular Israeli spook 'operation', while significant because there were so many arrests (it was by far the largest 'intelligence' bust on home soil in US history), is in the past. More important, perhaps, to consider more current events. In this context, I recommend a couple of recent articles by Christopher Bollyn, an investigative journalist who writes for American Free Press: Israelis Hold Keys to NSA and U.S. Government Computers Ehud Olmert's Ties to 9/11 _____________________________________- A short quote from the former article: Here's an extract from the latter: Bollyn recently began a weekly two-hour radio program - the archives are freely available HERE. Bollyn's interview with international lawyer Francis Boyle (second half of second hour on July 28th) is especially recommended.

A powerful article by an American conservative from the era before US Republican Administrations became 100% 'neoconned' The Shame of Being an American By Paul Craig Roberts - July 21, 2006 Gentle reader, do you know that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon? Israel has ordered all the villagers to clear out. Israel then destroys their homes and murders the fleeing villagers. That way there is no one to come back and nothing to which to return, making it easier for Israel to grab the territory, just as Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians. Do you know that one-third of the Lebanese civilians murdered by Israel’s attacks on civilian residential districts are children? That is the report from Jan Egeland, the emergency relief coordinator for the UN. He says it is impossible for help to reach the wounded and those buried in rubble, because Israeli air strikes have blown up all the bridges and roads. Considering how often (almost always) Israel misses Hizbollah targets and hits civilian ones, one might think that Israeli fire is being guided by US satellites and US military GPS. Don’t be surprised at US complicity. Why would the puppet be any less evil than the puppet master? Of course, you don’t know these things, because the US print and TV media do not report them. Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Community "NO." Bush has told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice. Bush is very proud of his firmness. He is enjoying Israel’s rampage and wishes he could do the same thing in Iraq. Does it make you a Proud American that "your" president gave Israel the green light to drop bombs on convoys of villagers fleeing from Israeli shelling, on residential neighborhoods in the capital of Beirut and throughout Lebanon, on hospitals, on power plants, on food production and storage, on ports, on civilian airports, on bridges, on roads, on every piece of infrastructure on which civilized life depends? Are you a Proud American? Or are you an Israeli puppet? On July 20, "your" House of Representatives voted 410-8 in favor of Israel’s massive war crimes in Lebanon. Not content with making every American complicit in war crimes, "your" House of Representatives, according to the Associated Press, also "condemns enemies of the Jewish state." Who are the "enemies of the Jewish state"? They are the Palestinians whose land has been stolen by the Jewish state, whose homes and olive groves have been destroyed by the Jewish state, whose children have been shot down in the streets by the Jewish state, whose women have been abused by the Jewish state. They are Palestinians who have been walled off into ghettos, who cannot reach their farm lands or medical care or schools, who cannot drive on roads through Palestine that have been constructed for Israelis only. They are Palestinians whose ancient towns have been invaded by militant Zionist "settlers" under the protection of the Israeli army who beat and persecute the Palestinians and drive them out of their towns. They are Palestinians who cannot allow their children outside their homes because they will be murdered by Israeli "settlers." The Palestinians who confront Israeli evil are called "terrorists." When Bush forced free elections on Palestine, the people voted for Hamas. Hamas is the organization that has stood up to the Jewish state. This means, of course, that Hamas is evil, anti-Semitic, un-American and terrorist. The US and Israel responded by cutting off all funds to the new government. Democracy is permitted only if it produces the results Bush and Israel want. Israelis never practice terror. Only those who are in Israel’s way are terrorists. Another enemy of the Jewish state is Hizbollah. Hizbollah is a militia of Shia Muslims created in 1982 when Israel first invaded Lebanon. During this invasion the great moral Jewish state arranged for the murder of refugees in refugee camps. The result of Israel’s atrocities was Hizbollah, which fought the Israeli army, defeated it, and drove it, with its Satanic tail between its legs, out of Lebanon. Today Hizbollah not only defends southern Lebanon but also provides social services such as orphanages and medical care. To cut to the chase, the enemies of the Jewish state are any Muslim country not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the oil emirates have sided with Israel against their own kind, because they are dependent either on American money or on American protection from their own people. Sooner or later these totally corrupt governments that do not represent the people they rule will be overthrown. It is only a matter of time. Indeed Bush and Israel may be hastening the process in their frantic effort to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran. Both governments have more popular support than Bush has, but the White House Moron doesn’t know this. The Moron thinks Syria and Iran will be "cakewalks" like Iraq, where ten proud divisions of the US military are tied down by a few lightly armed insurgents. If you are still a Proud American, consider that your pride is doing nothing good for Israel or for America. On July 20 when "your" House of Representatives, following "your" US Senate, passed the resolution in support of Israel’s war crimes, the most powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), quickly got out a press release proclaiming "The American people overwhelming support Israel’s war on terrorism and understand that we must stand by our closest ally in this time of crisis." The truth is that Israel created the crisis by invading a country with a pro-American government. The truth is that the American people do not support Israel’s war crimes, as the CNN quick poll results make clear and as was made clear by callers into C-Span. Despite the Israeli spin on news provided by US "reporting," a majority of Americans do not approve of Israeli atrocities against Lebanese civilians. Hizbollah is located in southern Lebanon. If Israel is targeting Hizbollah, why are Israeli bombs falling on northern Lebanon? Why are they falling on Beirut? Why are they falling on civilian airports? On schools and hospitals? Now we arrive at the main point. When the US Senate and House of Representatives pass resolutions in support of Israeli war crimes and condemn those who resist Israeli aggression, the Senate and House confirm Osama bin Laden’s propaganda that America stands with Israel against the Arab and Muslim world. Indeed, Israel, which has one of the world’s largest per capita incomes, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Many believe that much of this "aid" comes back to AIPAC, which uses it to elect "our" representatives in Congress. This perception is no favor to Israel, whose population is declining, as the smart ones have seen the writing on the wall and have been leaving. Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who are being turned into enemies of Israel by Israel’s actions and inhumane policies. The hope in the Muslim world has always been that the United States would intervene in behalf of compromise and make Israel realize that Israel cannot steal Palestine and turn every Palestinian into a refugee. This has been the hope of the Arab world. This is the reason our puppets have not been overthrown. This hope is the reason America still had some prestige in the Arab world. The House of Representatives resolution, bought and paid for by AIPAC money, is the final nail in the coffin of American prestige in the Middle East. It shows that America is, indeed, Israel’s puppet, just as Osama bin Laden says, and as a majority of Muslims believe. With hope and diplomacy dead, henceforth America and Israel have only tooth and claw. The vaunted Israeli army could not defeat a rag tag militia in southern Lebanon. The vaunted US military cannot defeat a rag tag, lightly armed, insurgency drawn from a minority of the population in Iraq, insurgents, moreover, who are mainly engaged in civil war against the Shia majority. What will the US and its puppet master do? Both are too full of hubris and paranoia to admit their terrible mistakes. Israel and the US will either destroy from the air the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iran so that civilized life becomes impossible for Muslims, or the US and Israel will use nuclear weapons to intimidate Muslims into acquiescence to Israel’s desires. Muslim genocide in one form or another is the professed goal of the neoconservatives who have total control over the Bush administration. Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz has called for World War IV (in neocon thinking WW III was the cold war) to overthrow Islam in the Middle East, deracinate the Islamic religion and turn it into a formalized, secular ritual. Rumsfeld’s neocon Pentagon has drafted new US war doctrine that permits pre-emptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear states. Neocon David Horowitz says that by slaughtering Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, "Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world," thus equating war criminals with civilized men. Neocon Larry Kudlow says that "Israel is doing the Lord’s work" by murdering Lebanese, a claim that should give pause to Israel’s Christian evangelical supporters. Where does the Lord Jesus say, "go forth and murder your neighbors so that you may steal their lands"? The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will damn America for all time in history. COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. Original is HERE