Sid Walker

One of the holds that Israel has over Bush junior is that it helped Bush senior overthrow Jimmy Carter (October Surprise). This is the story the Bush family is very keen not to emerge. This includes making death threats to journalists trying to uncover the story. See the thread on Robert W. Owen for background to this story. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7542 As I recall US Government files from 1980 that might have thrown a little more light on the 'October Surprise' scam were overdue for release by September 11th 2001. Dubya's delay in releasing documents in a timely way was becoming an issue. After 9-11, with everyone looking for Moslem's under the bed, Bush quietly changed the release rules. Interesting the way you say, rightly in my opinion John, that the Israelis could hold the events of 1980 against the Bush clan. This neatly illustrates the relative power relations. In theory, after all, the reverse could also be true. But blackmail seems to be a one-way street when it comes to Israel. I imagine anyone trying to turn the tables has greatly diminished life-expectancy - and media coverage of their untimely demise would not be favourable.

How profound. How sarcastic. What exactly does this prove? By the time they were arrested the whole world had known for hours that Arabs were being blamed for the attack. Israelis who work for a moving and storage company probably do so just about every (work) day. Even if they had foreknowledge of or involvement in the attack what would be the point of them having box cutters do you think they were they planning on hijacking a fifth plane that evening? Two Muslims from Jersey City (the same city where the Israelis worked) were arrested boarding a train in Texas 5 days after the attack "Texas authorities said the men lied about their nationality and had no legitimate identification. the two men had $5,000-10,000 in cash and box cutters of the type used by the 19 terrorists" they flew out of Newark Airport on along haul flight September 11, hmmmm. http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cm...rt_id=668126669 The article said "foreign passports" nothing about them being fake, foreign as in not American as lets say maybe Israeli. Lots of people shot video and took pictures of the "Twin Towers" that day. This video for example was shot from a similar location. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w...level_smoke.wmv Their behavior was odd though but being an @$$hole isn't a criminal offence nor does it indicate foreknowledge. According to your article one of their co-workers said "These guys were joking and that bothered me. These guys were like, 'Now America knows what we go through.'" This thread is about the faux art students in Florida. Should I take your lack of a reply to that as a tact admission on your part that you were wrong about that or at the least that you have no way to rebut the article I liked? A part you left out of the newspaper article: But even for the latter the evidence is lacking, perhaps a couple or all of them were Mossad. If so they were probably there to spy on Arab / Islamic extremists. It would make sense they were based in Jersey City which has a large Arab population, according to the NY Times "about 20 percent of city's population of 240,000 are Arabs or of Arab descent" http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...amp;match=exact The cell that carried out the 1993 WTC bombing was based in Jersey City and after the 2001 attacks according to AP the FBI questioned several Jersey City residents and "raided a run-down apartment and led away several people whose identities have not been released. Authorities say the same building was home to two men who were seized at a train station in Texas last week, carrying box cutters, thousands of dollars in cash and hair dye…Marvin Katz, a retired New York police lieutenant in the anti-terrorism unit, said it was no surprise that the latest suspects lived in Journal Square." http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/...uspects_ap.html There is no evidence however that the Israeli movers shadowed the hijackers. I have never seen any evidence that they ever left the NYC area where the hijackers never spent time. Nor is there any evidence they had foreknowledge. Why would the Mossad need video footage of the attacks filmed with a camcorder from miles away when there were numerous TV crews filming from much closer? If they were Mossad and wanted to film why didn't they rent a property with a view or film from inside their van? Why would they act in such a conspicuous manner next to their readily identifiable van? I know you have it in for Jews/Israelis/Zionists but try again, as with your 'Jewish Conspiracy' theory and Holocaust denial your 'evidence' is quite lacking. Len You quote this sentence approvingly: No one I know - certainly not me - believes the "Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers" although Israelis may well have killed some of these 'tried-by-media' individuals (the ones that really existed, that is). It's reported that Mohammed Atta's father believes his son was murdered by the Mossad. And yes, that some Israelis "knew the attacks were going to happen" is a given if they were involved in perpetuating the crimes of 9-11, a proposition for which there is considerable evidence. Rigging three WTC towers with sophisticated explosive devices prior to September 11th 2001 would not have been an easy task for "Islamic extremists" - but presumably could be done without too much difficultly by Israeli teams with the collusion of the Zionist leaseholders? Covering up the controlled demolition of the three WTC towers would have been impossible for Islamic terrorists - but possible for the Israeli State with its links to powerful media interests in the west. Now Len, you wrote: Wrong about what? Please remind me where I said anything about "faux art students in Florida"? You can start a topic, but they are a little like Royal Commissions; you can't always control where investigations will end. Finally, Len, you mention the first WTC bomb attacks of 1993. please don't get me started about that rather obvious false flag operation - or the appalling subsequent assault to civil liberties when Lynne Stewart, attorney for the framed blind sheikh, was jailed for carrying out a lawyer's duty to her client.

I think it more plausible that Oswald appeared defiant and not crushed because - with the optimism of youth - had didn't fully appreciate the sheer ruthlessness of those behind the killing of JFK, their intent to render him a dead patsy and their ability to knock him off within 48 hours.

Today Australian news services carried stories about an Israeli soldier who held dual Australian-Israeli nationality, killed in the fighting in southern Lebanon. His mother is on the way to his funeral. The tone of coverage was somber and respectful. Australia had lost one of her own. Mourning is in order. Fortunately, there are no reports to date of Australian Lebanese killed fighting for Hezbollah. I say ‘fortunately’ for more than one reason. First, it would have been yet another human tragedy – like the death of the young Israeli. In my book, Hezbollah activists are humans too (‘though you wouldn’t guess it from plenty of media coverage in Oz). Second, had this occurred, the hypothetical warrior’s friends and family in Australia would have been put in a highly dangerous position. Even organizing a memorial service in his honour might be construed as supporting terrorism under Australia’s numerous 21st century ‘anti-Terror Laws’. Sending money to Hezbollah to organize a funeral would likely be a serious punishable offense as well. Funding a proscribed terrorist organization can attract long prison terms. In short, those mourning an Australian who fought and died with an invading army are given full, respectful media rights. Those mourning a (hypothetical) Australian fighting with the resisting force would probably be harassed, jailed - even denied access to lawyers for long periods under so-called ‘anti-Terror’ laws. I think this helps bring into stark relief the outrageous (yet usually unspoken) Zionist bias embedded in anti-terrorism laws enacted pursuant to the bogus ‘War on Terror’.

You have submitted your Exhibit A for this topic Len. I'll submit this article from the Sunday Herald, Novemebr 2003 as mine. It provides a reasonable introductory overview of the case. Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ... Here's a paragraph asa a taster: How profound. Do young Israelis often carry boxcutters, false passports and jovially 'document' mass murders on their travels around the world? Incidentally, Len, the 'Simkin' is amusing. I wonder if John has an alibi?

Fascinating, Paul. Can you expand a little on what you mean by this?

I think that's the only plausible explanation. Key elements of the CIA must have been involved in the JFK assassination and subsequent cover-up - but the notion that ALL the CIA was involved in clearly false. It's also clear the the Carter Administration was assassinated by the clandestine team within the USA that has roots going back at least as far as joint complicity in the slaying of JFK. Fortunately for Carter, in his case it was unnecessary to kill him. Killing off his Administration and regime-cleansing initiatives was achieved by the largely 'peaceful' means of treason, deception and mass media bias on a grand scale.

This seems to me the most plausible analysis of the rationale for the Kelly death. I call it 'narrowcasting'. The broad masses follow the media circus of the time with little awareness that it is a contrivance. The minority who take a real interest in the case see that justice is obviously not being done and take note that could be their fate too. I believe that some, seemingy anomalous so-called media 'exposes' fall into a similar category - and I argued elsewhere in this forum, for example, that the December 2001 Fox News series about Israeli spying on the USA and the Israeli backdoor into US relecommunications surveillance can be explained in similar fashion. In that case, the broad masses simply overlooked the story, because there was no systematic media follow-up. Those 'in the know' took note that Israel probably has tabs on their private communications and could blackmail them at will. In both cases, the key take home message, narrowcasted to those paying attention, is to follow the 'official' code of silence. I remember seeing Tony Blair's face on TV at the time the Kelly death first hit the headlines. It was the face of a man way out of his death. He looked frightened and cowed - someone who saw little alternative than to enter deeper into the quagmire of lies, cover-up and complicity in murder set out for him by his masters. David Shayler claims that Blair was an MI5 stooge since the 1980s, if not before. It probably began with a quite innocent commitment by Blair to "do something good for the country". In return for a political leg up the young Labour MP may have had to provide a few details to the spooks about some of his CND buddies. Nothing too excacting. But over the years, the price extracted for smoothing Blair's path to the top has become higher. Blair has probably rationalised to himself all the good he can do from a position of power, such as modernising Britain's social services, speaking out about global warming and 'saving starving Africa'.. But every now and again he is reminded who is really in control - and of the price he must pay for their continung support so he can stay in power (and out of jail). The Kelly death - and Blair's task to order a cover up - was one such case. Blair was offered full mass media support if he played his appointed role in the cover-up. The alternative was to face the abyss of exposure. He chose the path of deeper and deeper complicity in the crimes of his murdering Zionist controllers. This seems to me the most plausible analysis of the rationale for the Kelly death. I call it 'narrowcasting'. The broad masses follow the media circus of the time with little awareness that it is a contrivance. The minority who take a real interest in the case see that justice is obviously not being done and take note that could be their fate too. I believe that some, seemingy anomalous so-called media 'exposes' fall into a similar category - and I argued elsewhere in this forum, for example, that the December 2001 Fox News series about Israeli spying on the USA and the Israeli backdoor into US relecommunications surveillance can be explained in similar fashion. In that case, the broad masses simply overlooked the story, because there was no systematic media follow-up. Those 'in the know' took note that Israel probably has tabs on their private communications and could blackmail them at will. In both cases, the key take home message, narrowcasted to those paying attention, is to follow the 'official' code of silence. I remember seeing Tony Blair's face on TV at the time the Kelly death first hit the headlines. It was the face of a man way out of his death. He looked frightened and cowed - someone who saw little alternative than to enter deeper into the quagmire of lies, cover-up and complicity in murder set out for him by his masters. David Shayler claims that Blair was an MI5 stooge since the 1980s, if not before. It probably began with a quite innocent commitment by Blair to "do something good for the country". In return for a political leg up the young Labour MP may have had to provide a few details to the spooks about some of his CND buddies. Nothing too excacting. But over the years, the price extracted for smoothing Blair's path to the top has become higher. Blair has probably rationalised thiw to himself by considering all the good he can do from a position of power, such as modernising Britain's social services, speaking out about global warming and 'saving starving Africa'.. But every now and again he is reminded who is really in control - and of the price he must pay for their continung support so he can stay in power (and out of jail). The Kelly death - and Blair's task to order a cover up - was one such case. Blair was offered full mass media support if he played his appointed role in the cover-up. The alternative was to face the abyss of exposure. He chose the path of deeper and deeper complicity in the crimes of his murdering Zionist controllers.

A very good article Mark. Thanks for the link.

Sorry to disappoint, Owen, but I think I'll give this topic a miss. More accurately, I'll lob a quick reply, then bow out. I've decided to try not to debate "Israel Lobby Deniers" any more. It's too emotionally upsetting and lends credibility to their self-evidently fallacious position. I see the 'conflict' in Gaza is hotting up again - another 24 Palestinains murdered, including two toddlers. Israel makes the former South African racist regime look like boy scouts when it comes to cruelty and contempt for their neighbours. In the 1956, Eisenhower forced a cessation of hostilities by placing Israel under fierce pressure and refusing to back its western imperialist allies. LBJ was the leader of support for Israel in Congress at the time. These days, the USA daren't even call for a ceasefire after hundreds of civilian deaths and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. So what changed? Why, from the Johnson era onwards, did US policy tilt so strongly towards Israel? Perhaps the US Establishment finally found the true Christian God? (the theology theory) Perhaps they came to believe that most middle eastern oil did not in fact lie under anti-Zionist soil or sand? (the oil-illusion theory) Perhaps the military industrial complex has been able to persuade successive US Governments since JFK just to stir up trouble in the middle east - and to hell with the consequences for oil supplies and other US interests in the region (the MID theory). Today I thought of another possibility. Perhaps foreign policy is made in Washinton by tossing a coin? (the pure chance theory). It seems as plausible to me as Israel Lobby Denial.

As more news filters in about today's Israeli strikes on the UNIFIL observation team, the story sounds eerily reminiscent of the USS Liberty attack. Apparently there were numerous attacks over a sustained period and the Israelis were warned many times. When the kill came, it was a precision weapon. To dispatch such a missile, exact co-ordinates must be entered by the operator. Little room for acciudents in this procedure, one would have thought. One commentator speculates that the strike might well have been a deliberate assault to remove indpendent witnesses close to the Syrian border. On cue, the White House announces that there's no evidence the attacks were deliberate. Gee, they sure have good 'intelligence' in Washington. Just like 1967? The quality of spin has been declining ever since the smooth-lying Ari Fleischer left the team; amazingly, Washington has yet to blame Iran or Syria for these UN slayings. From Rome, Condi Rice calls for "sustainable peace" but not a cease fire. I guess that gives the Lebanese something else to look forward to. Santa Clause is due too in another six months. Ariel Sharon stirs. Perhaps the 'Hero of Qatana' misses the action? Terror 101. The suave Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev appears on the screen once again. He assures the gullible that Israel's Lebanon 'operation' is on behalf of the whole world. The suffering Jewish State is making great sacrifices for humanity by waging the War on Terror on the front lines. He hisses when Syria is mentioned. It's a terrorist country, addicted to war and lying. He says this without a trace of irony. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Israeli surgical strikes have destroyed another aid lorry, killing its driver (it's the second in a week). The Israelis continue to use cluster bombs and phosphorus (a chemical weapon). Even the timid Human Rights Watch is finding this hard to be 'even-handed' about. Those with strong stomaches might care to check THIS link. Only the most profound racism on the Israeli side can explain their nonchalence about massive civilian casualties in The Lebanon and their determination to persist with military policies that will inevtiably lead to a lot more of the same. Lest we forget, Gaza continues to scream in agony, its torments largely overlooked in the current excitement. I received this article via Israel Shamir's email list. It makes grim reading. The courage of the Palestinian people is almost beyond belief. They show us all that the human spirit is still alive, even within their walled, segmented, bombed and largely destroyed ghetto. _______________________

Greg Palast, IMO, is a more devious shill for not-very-nice political forces than Melanie Phillips on her high-performing days. Blaming big oil for wars in the middle east. Now when did I last hear that decreasingly plausible line? March 2003? Around the time R Murdoch told us to expect lower oil prices after the invasion of Iraq, LOL. I may have imagined it - but it seemed to me the BBC (international TV service) momentarily lost a little composure, the moment the announcement came through that the four murdered UN observers had been killed by a precision guided missile. This news arrived just after the Beeb had replayed (several times!) an interview with an Israeli Government spokesperson assuring all and sundry that the observers' deaths were just a terribly tragic accident. The BBC commentators displayed the kind of gentle annoyance one might expect from a doting parent whose delinquent child had been caught out, yet again, electrocuting a family pet and lying about it afterwards. Sheepish grins and shrugs all round. Oh dear, Jonny is naughty sometimes, but he's our boy and we do love him! Regarding the hotly-debated topic of the "proportionality" of Israel's "response", the figure of 10 to 1 deaths has been quoted often. Ex-Israeli anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon writes that a more accurate ratio would be 500,000 : 2 That was the proportion of involuntarily relocated Lebanese refugees to the two involuntarily relocated Israeli soldiers, whose interdiction allegedly triggered Israel's latest assault on its northern neighbour. Of course, this ratio may need to be revised upwards; the number of Lebanese refugees rises on an hourly basis.

How do you rate our media services? As you've probably gathered from my posts else where Steve, my short answer is "not very highly". Indeed, I believe the western mass media and the misguided general popular belief in its essential veracity is the largest obstacle we have to making the world a better place. At the risk of diverting thimportant thread from this main theme, I'd like to comment that I think you are technically in error when you say "the total western media blackout on Depleted Uranium" Your own post immediately went on to cite a lonely reference to that story in the Sunday Herald. What's happening, it seems to me, is almost what you describe - but with a subtle twist. Some important stories that counter the mainstream flow are reported by the mass media, once or twice. It's the lack of follow-up that's the killer. Unless stories are pursued, followed, expanded and developed, they are simply overlooked by the great majority of folk who derive their news info primarily from the mass media and simply won't notice a one in a thousand 'counter-story'. That applies to DU. It applied to 9-11, 7/7, the Kelly murder and many other recent events. It also applied to the JFK assassination, for that matter, all those years ago. In the days of JFK and the Warren Commission, however, most people had very limited ways of sharing info about stories that received poor if any coverage in the media. Now, with the web, it's quite easy. You do it. I do it. Lots of other folks do it too. All of us, however, in order to share information and develop our theories via the internet, at some point (if not from the outset) lose our anonymity. We are traceable. In this era, with post 9-11 anti-terror laws that have essentially given the State unlimited power to arrest and detain, we are all potentially arrestable. I believe a two-tier society is emerging. I'll keep things relatively simple by confining these comments to 'western' countries only. The situation is not identical in other parts of the world. In the 'west', on the one hand the great majority of folk are simply duped on issues such as 9-11, 7/7, US electronic election fraud on a grand scale, the legitimacy of the 'War on Terror', the righteousness of Israel's position, the necessity for stringent 'anti-terror' laws and all the rest of it. These people are not all 'dummies', by any means. There are many, many intelligent people in this category. But they have been duped. I was among their ranks a few years ago. In my case, intellectual arrogance and bigotry were the key impediments to becoming better informed and more aware. The reasons are different for different people. On the other hand, there is a minority that increasingly obtains alternative info about news and current affairs via the internet. This minority is growing more and more suspicious about mainstream verities that are essentially unquestioned by the majority. A growing number of us are outright disbelievers. This second category is identifiable to the authorities. Thanks to well-documented Israeli 'back doors' into the telecommunications surveillance systems of the USA and its key allies, all info on potential dissidents flows back to those with the requisite access within the Zionist movement (I don’t suggest the info is sloshed around carelessly, but what Mossad wants, Mossad can get). This was telegraphed to those in the relatively more aware minority by Fox News in its late 2001 4-part special. The release of that extraordinary story, without subsequent follow-up, was indeed a quintessential example of the phenomenon I'm describing: partial exposure of information counter to the dominant political paradigm via single instance coverage in the mass media, coverage that is overlooked and unnoticed by most folk, but which becomes widely known and discussed within the more informed minority. If the new police state moved now to lock up ”internet dissidents", it would probably be counter-productive. Each of us has friends and relatives who would make a fuss and become radicalized and much better informed through the experience. Our numbers might swell, not decrease. Censorship would become THE issue - and the media would have a job sinking that story as thousands of irate middle class western families with grievances took the offensive. Better, for now, to let ineffective dogs sleep. They know where to find us. In an "emergency", our various State authorities could quickly interdict any better-informed potential leaders of resistance who have sufficient information to know what we are up against and how it might best be countered. At that time, if God forbid it occurs, I'd anticipate closure of major alternative info websites and pursuit of those who speak out via the internet. I say this not to ferment even more paranoia, but because I think realistic, informed analysis of what is really happening is important. It is not a particularly pleasant to believe this is the world we live in. I'd much prefer to be wrong about all this (perhaps others can help cheer me about by showing how my analysis is off the mark?

Last night, on national TV, Australian Prime Minister John Howard repeated hisd Government's pro-Israeli line on the current conflict in The Lebanon. Inter alia, Howard said: This is consistent with the general impression one gleans from the mainstream media about this incident. There appears to be an alternative narrative, however, doucmented HERE. In this account, the soldiers were captured while walkabout in Southern Lebanon. As an entire country is currently being destroyed, allegedly in response to the soldiers' capture - and given the possibility an even wider and more terrible war ensuing - it seems of some importance to establish the truth on this matter. Do any forum members have more definitive information? Where were these Israeli soldiers when captured? Were they inside Israel - or operating (illegally) within another country?

It's true, as John pointed out, that motive for the Kelly murder is not clear; likewise the identity of his murderers. What CAN be shown, however, is that the Hutton Inquiry iniquitously failed to consider alternatives to suicide. The mass media went along with this charade. The Blair Government failed to step in and ensure that an honest and thorough inquiry was conducted. In each of these three cases I don't believe "incompetence theory" is plausible. Those at the top must have decided to confine the investigation to its narrow, largely pre-determined track - just like the Warren Commission was set up assuming what happened (a lone nut assassin dunnit) and left only with the task of explaining how it happened. Anyone followng the case closely in 2003, with access to the internet, could see huge problems with the official story. The improbability of suicide was widely knwn at that time. Yet it was deliberately overlooked by the British establishment. As the Hutton Inquiry rolled on, aided and abetted by the media, it focused more and more on the role of the BBC in creating conditions conducive to Kelly's "suicide". The public take home message was something like this: "we need a free mass media - and clearly have a free media in Britain - but sometimes it can go to far and cause terrible personal tragedies in its fearless pursuit of the truth". Not a bad outcome for the cryptocracy with its stranglehold over western mass media. Anyhow, as I said before I do think what we know already about this sordid case should be sufficient basis for charges to be brought against Hutton and Blair for perverting the course of justice. The other case that needs cracking is the 7/7 bombings. I am appalled that the British public meekly accepted Blair's refusal to hold an Inquiry of any sort into this atrocity. There must now be a growing chorus of demands for a full, fair and open inquiry. Of course, we shaln't get that with the criminals currently in power. Nevertheless, it provides more documentation about the official lies and further opportunities for exposure. Imagine if, after the slaying of JFK, there had been no public inquiry of any kind. The task of independent researchers would now be so much more difficult. I think 40 years ago standards in western democracies were rather higher. At that time, an attempt to hold no inquiry would have been viewed as outrageous. Two decades before that, Roosevelt had held an inquiry into the circumstances of Pearl Harbor, even during wartime. It was fraudulent, but at least it took place. As far as I can tell, the trend towards not holding inquiries at all really got underway in the 1990s. In Australia, we had an unprecedented slaying of civilians at Port Arthur, Tasmania in the first year of the Howard Government. There was no Inquest or Inquiry. Howard personally intervened to argue the no Inquest case (to spare the grieving relatives unnecessary pain). The 'lone nut' (alleged) assassin, kept away from his mother and any other honest third party for months, finally changed his plea to guilty, so the veracity of the official story was never tested in court. At the time, I was busy with other matters and paid little attention to events that were portrayed as humane decent and reasonable by the Aussie mass media. I assumed the alleged lone nut assassin was guilty. As in the Kelly case in Britain, any suggestion to the contrary was rare (an immediately dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory' in mainstream discourse). I disliked Howard and his politics, but remember gaining respect for his determination, after Port Arthur, to secure more stringent gun control . Australia’s gun lobby was furious. I had no time for them at all. I've always disliked guns and weapons of all kind. Some members of the gun lobby doubted the official version of events and cried foul. I considered them right-wing whackoes, with few redeeming features, overly prone to 'conspiracy theories'. Now I can see how Australian public opinion was grossly manipulated over Port Arthur - and how investigative and judicial due process simply went out the window. I'm also aware that I was unable, in the 1990s, to pay attention to people who were speaking truth about the mass murder at Port Arthur, the subsequent cover-up and miscarriage of justice, because I was blinded by prejudice against them. Had even a few “opinion leaders” in Australian society outside the sector branded as “ultra rightist” blown the whistle, my opinion at the time might have been very different. But, as I recall, no-one did. Whoever slayed the hapless victims at Port Arthur got away, literally, with murder. Mainstream Australian society was complicit in that it allowed this to happen by being fooled into abandoning long-established good practice. Howard and Groom in Australia, whatever they knew or didn’t know about the actual killings, were very active in securing the cover-up. Last but not least, an innocent man rots in jail without prospect of release, Australia’s Sirhan Sirhan. Britain needs a broad coalition of the fair-minded, to demand justice over the Kelly death and the 7/7 bombings. Calling for completed inquests would be a good start.

"(IsraelNN.com) Defense Minister Amir Peretz (Labor) stated Sunday morning that Israel would allow a NATO force to patrol in Lebanon." So, Israel will "allow" NATO forces into The Lebanon - a sovereign nation whose population is not represented in the Knesset. How jolly nice. Does that mean putative NATO forces in The Lebanon won't be attacked and murdered by the Israeli military - a fate experienced by both UN forces and the Red Cross? It's great to hear from 'left-wing' Zionists such as Peretz on matters such as this, so we can better understand the Zionist 'center of gravity' on this debate.

You may very well went more unfettered debate immediately, Owen, but I'm a cautious type. Before I discuss - without bars - a sensitive topic, I like to get my hosts' permission. Call it old fashioned values, if you like. I find that courtesy works for me.

I'm certain that Len doesn't believe the Warren Commission. Get a clue. Feel like answering my post, Sid? Are you ready to get clobbered in that "full and fair debate" you've been asking for? Or will you be intellectually honest and admit that your biases took you down the primrose path? I have to say I'm enjoying mopping the floor with you. It'd be shame to stop now. I shall not shy away from the "full and fair debate" you demand, Owen. But before agreeing this it occurs here, I'd first like to check with the moderators. Is such a debate welcome at all in The Education Forum? If so, should it take place here - oe elsewhere in the Forum? Is it OK to cite references such as this? Or may one only cite references such as this: http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-...endix-5-02.html ? (For some reason, there seems to be a problem linking to the Nizkor site - I think, Owen, you had the same problem?

Until now, I'd imagined that flower power was an anti-establishment sixties thing. You've helped me understand that LBJ invented it.

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt" Bertrand Russell Len - I hope you don't imagine that I've got it in for you, but it sticks in my gullet that you deploy a quote from Bertand Russell in your signature on this forum. Russell was a prominent and very early crtitic of the Warrren Commission. Need a reference to prove it?

That's interesting Steve. Channel 4 relies on advertising, as I recall. This gives the lie to the claim that media is primarily influenced by commerical interests. Not, as I trust you understand, that I'm opposed in principle to public broadcasting. I love the idea of genuine public domain media. But when it's a fake, it's particularly dangerous. That's my beef with the current Beeb and the ABC in Oz. In my book, fake 'balance' that has broad credibility = very big problem.

Turning to the The Education Forum > Educational Research > Environmental Issues section of this forum, on this day in July 2006, I was pleased to read: Does this indicate there are no significant environmental issues of remaining conern to members of this Forum? I do hope so! There was me, getting worried unnecessarily about the future of the biosphere! Somewhat relieved to discover my nightmare of global environmental devastation was no more than a bad dream, I feel more free to "obsess" about matters such as the truth about 9-11, the multi-front assault on the Arab and Moslem world and the suspicious number of suicides and heart attacks among some sectors of the community.

It's my understanding that Hizbollah has repeatedly said it will disarm when the Lenanese Military are capable of defending the country. It therefore seems to me that Condoleeza has an obvious game plan for solving the 'conflict'. She has only to persuade her good friend George W and the nice folk at the Pentagon to arm its democratic ally in the middle east to a sufficient level that next time Israel attacks, The Lebanon can repel and punish the aggressor with superior force. On that basis, Hizbollah would aurely disarm and the Israelis would be presumably be delighted to have a secure neighbour to the north. How's about that for an instant peace policy? Who could possibly object? Even the Military Industrial Complex would have a field day. As we ALL know, it's ONLY interest is to sell more arms. Hence arming The Lebanon to at least the Israeli level would be in the MIDs interests also, wouldn't it? Win, win, win all round! Wonder why this will never happen?

I believe both Hutton and Blair should be in court over the Kelly case for perverting the course of justice. Of course, Hutton and Blair are not the only ones - but Hutton's inquiry was an obvious whitewash that blatantly and willfully overlooked evidence that the death was not suicide. Someone must have given the nod to this - and repsonsibility presumably goes to the top. I posted a comment along these lines to the Daly Mail article yesterday, but the Mail was apparently not game to publish it. Perhaps I shouldn't be churlish. Rather like Dr Johnson's dogs walking on hind legs, the surprising thing is that the Mail covers this explosive story at all. I feel more more angry abou the role of 'public' broadcasters such as the BBC and in Australia, the ABC. I was in Britain during part of the Hutton Inquiry in 2003. I listened to various BBC radio channels over several weeks. Not once did I hear questions raised on air about the underlying premise of suicide. I mentioned this to an old friend. He told me that he had a job finding anyone who believed the official story. When our public broadcasters prove to be little more than another arm of the cryptocracy, we should question whether there are worth having any more. They give the impression of 'balance', but it's no more than that on hot issues such as this. They consequently help legitimize the mass media in the eyes of left wingers who are apt to distrust the coverage of privately-owned media. We might be better off if they were abolished - leaving people with no illusions about what interests control the news flow. A question for British participants. Was any protest allowed in BBC coverage when Blair refused to even hold a public inquiry over the 7/7 bombings in London? Or has this once-proud broadcasting institution become a total waste of space, or worse?

Hi again Owen, I would have little interest in debating the current (or past) official narrative of Jewish suffering during World War Two if the matter were not raised, repeatedly and with tactical ruthlessness, by people such as Len and yourself. I'm confused about your identity, Owen. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if not, you claim to be a teenage non-Jewish ex-Zionist. Yet you seem to devote most of your effort (on this forum at least) to enforcing orthodoxies dear to the heart of Zionists, drawing on copious references drawn from sources beloved of Zionists. Odd. Here’s a little personal history that I believe has some relevance to this discussion. Until the beginning of this century, I had approximately zero intellectual interest in the topic of The Holocaust, assuming that the official view was indubitably correct. I had never heard or read anything to the contrary. If ever I encountered such material, I dismissed it, assuming it to be the work of 'neo-Nazis'. This happened very rarely if at all (I don’t remember reading anything critical of the official version). I'd never actually met anyone of who was a doubter or critic, but imagined they must be very bad people. I'd marched against their type in 'Rock Against Racism' rallies long, long ago. In late 2001/early 2002, I joined a few bulletin boards such as The Guardian Talkboard, mainly to discuss what seemed to me to be an utterly mysterious phenomenon. I refer to 9-11, and the strange, stark mismatch between mass media reporting about 9-11 as a whole, on the one hand, and on the other hand the content of some media stories suggesting that the official account was woefully inaccurate. Typically, these anomalous stories appeared once or twice only in the mass media without follow-up. I began to correspond with a few well-known journalists I had long admired. I found they dissembled and wouldn't touch this important topic with a bargepole. I became more curious. I visited bulletin boards to see what other folk were saying, and the share info and ideas about this important topic with others around the world. I liked the Guardian Talkboard best of all. I had long read The Guardian newspaper (in Australia there's a weekly digest). I felt myself part of The Guardian's culture and felt affinity with other readers. Some of the anomalies relating to 9-11 seemed to point to at least a measure of Israeli involvement. An example is the story of 200 Israeli spies arrested in the USA during 2000/2001. This increasingly seemed related to 9-11. Did the mass media ask the obvious follow-up questions and report about this in a sustained manner? No way! On several occasions, the western mass media reported anomalies relating to the 9-11 and anthrax stories - then dropped these subplots without follow-up. Most people simply didn't notice. For instance, the remarkable Israeli spy ring story was actually broken on Fox TV in the USA in a remarkable 4-part special in late 2001. The Fox story contained not just one scoop, but several. It also pointed to massive Israeli surveillance of US telecommunications. Videos and transcripts of this are still available via the internet – google Fox News Israeli Spyring. I occasionally got on talkback radio to discuss 9-11 anomalies – on shows such as the Australian Broadcatsing Corporation's 'Australia Talks Back'. I generally found myself hustled off the air. I discovered that unless I misled the program assistant about the content of my call, I wasn’t allowed on air. I wrote to Philip Adams (a broadcaster and journalist in Australia). We exchanged a series of emails. His were briefer than mine. It was clear my letters were read - but the responses were dissembling and most unsatisfactory. I was amazed. I wanted to help the media break a major story but it seemed to have no appetite whatsoever for doing so. "The story" here was that there is a lot more to 9-11 than meets the eye, the official version of events cannot be true - and that the ‘War on Terror’ may consequently rest on a bogus and fabricated foundation. This was a very important task, it seemed to me. By that time, the USA with considerable assistance form other western nations, had already attacked one Muslim country and seemed to have a thirst for a lot more violence. Meanwhile, civil liberties were taking a dive, archives due for release were being locked up more or less indefinitely - and Israel was pummeling the Palestinians, seemingly determined to uproot the fragile 'peace process' in the middle east that delivered some limited benefits to both Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s. I was encountering the western mass media's determination to ignore and cover up the biggest story of the new century. Many others around the world - thousands, if not tens of thousands – probably went through a similar experience. Through bulletin boards, I met some of these folk and swapped notes. Collectively, we could keep track of the mass media worldwide. It became obvious that a major cover-up was in progress. Not a total cover-up - but collective lack of willingness to systematically follow-up anything that did not marry with the official version of events – that is, the legend that 19 Arab hijackers co-ordinated by Bon Laden carried out these heinous attacks. Thanks to the internet, I could track this evolving story day by day. It became a gripping - but also very disturbing - task. Around this time, on bulletin boards such as The Guardian, for the first time in my life, I found myself branded an 'anti-Semite'. The accusation was deeply upsetting. I was quick to try to correct the record, but began to discover that the accusation is hard, if not impossible, to refute. I began to see that, at least on occasion, the accusation is used without any rational foundation, as a tactic to close down discussions and intimidate the accused and other participants. I'd known quite a few Jews from school days onwards, numbered Jews among my friends at various times in my life and worked with Jews in various capacities, including political campaigns. The accusation of anti-Semitism was not pleasant at all. It gave rise, within me, to considerable self-doubt and angst. It made me much more defensive in my comments on bulletin boards than I would otherwise have been. But I was not willing to give up my main line of inquiry: 9-11 seemed to be an false flag operation conducted to frame Arabs and Moslems – Israeli spooks and their supporters seemed to be in the frame as potential perpetrators - and the mass media seemed to be complicit in this heinous, world-distorting crime. Around the same time, again for the first time, I found myself branded a "Holocaust Denier" The accusation was levied in bulletin boards on more than one occasion. I thought this odd, as at the time I'd never mentioned World War Two or The Holocaust in my postings. My posts were usually about 9-11 or events in Israel/Palestine. But that was, apparently, no defense against comments such as “you must be a Holocaust Denier too!” I was annoyed about these accusations and very concerned to deny them. No I'm not one of those terrible people, I would protest! I loathe neo-Nazis too! Actually, I’ve been a leftie all my adult life! Occasionally, someone would appear in a forum who clearly did not believe the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, in full or in part. Under pressure to show my credentials as a decent human being, I occasionally watched the ritual virtual execution of such people on forums such as The Guardian Talkboard and said nothing, or even expressed support in the form of comments such as “yes, he/she went too far there!”. I became aware that “Denying The Holocaust” was a banning offense at GT. I presume it still is? Over time, as I became more used to the emotional recoil from what I regarded as an unfair but potentially damaging allegations, I developed a little curiosity about the underlying subject matter. I noted a considerable (but by no means total) overlap between ‘9-11 orthodoxy enforcers’ and ‘Holocaust orthodoxy enforcers’. Somewhat later on, I listened to one of Philip Adams’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interviews. He devoted an entire hour-long show to an interview with the Cambridge-based academic Richard Evans, one of the David Irving’s strongest critics. Adams and Evans worked as a duo during this long interview. All questions were favorable to Evans and seemed pre-arranged to solicit the strongest assault on Irving that could be packed into an hour-long show. By that time, I had somewhat sheepishly visited David Irving’s website, in an attempt to better understand that of which I was being accused. Expecting web pages festooned with Swastikas and poorly written rants glorifying Hitler, I was surprised to encounter material rather more rational than I had imagined – and of clear contemporary relevance. I emailed Mr Adams – we’d already been in touch about 9-11 – and suggested he might like to give Irving some right of reply. The Evans interview had been a lop-sided demolition job of Irving. I suggested a little ‘balance’ - if not another solo interview, this time with Irving, at least an on-air debate between Evans and Irving. This would help restore the balance of Adam’s coverage. I understand the ABC is required, by its Charter, to provide ‘balanced’ coverage. Adams hinted there could be legal problems but replied that he doubted Irving would have the guts to face such an encounter in any case. Overall, he left the impression that the main reason he didn’t try to interview Irving was that he was quite certain Irving would pass up the opportunity, through lack of courage on Irving’s part. I therefore emailed Mr Irving, introduced myself, explained the background in this case and asked if Irving would accept the challenge of an interview with Adams or a debate with Evans, on Adam’s Australia-wide radio show. Mr Irving wrote back and said he’d be pleased to have such an opportunity, but doubted it would materialize. With Irving’s permission, I forwarded the correspondence to Adams. Adams never replied. I chased the matter up with Adams, but got nowhere. This was my first personal experience of corresponding with a prominent so-called ‘Holocaust Denier’. I found, in this case, that he told the truth, while his also prominent tormentor did not. Do I claim this proves that ‘Holocaust Deniers’ always tell the truth and their opponents never do? (I can almost hear the straw man being raised as I type). No. But it did indicate that truth and falsehood on this topic might be more complex than I’d imagined. I’D had an experience in which an individual I had previously been told, by the mass media, was a pathological, venal, hate-soaked xxxx turned out, in fact, in the one encounter I’d had with him, to be courteous and truthful. By contrast Mr Adams, whose broadcasts I had listened to for over a decade and whom I considered a key arbiter of informed, left-leaning thought in this country, was capable of misrepresentation and humbug. I won’t continue the saga of my 21st century re-education here. I want to return to the issue that so offended Len when he started this thread – the allegation that Zionist networks are gaining the upper hand worldwide. These small personal experiences – with the media and on major bulletin boards and – suggested to me that there might, indeed, be quite systematic co-ordination of the Zionist movement – and that it seemed to bring its power to bear within several powerful western countries, in ways not necessarily to the best advantage of the community as a whole. It was also clear that this is not a simple topic. There is obviously no single conspiracy in which all Jews participate at the expense of all non-Jews. I mentioned earlier that some of the activists and authors who subsequently helped enlighten me on the existence of, and dangers associated with, powerful Jewish/Zionist networks, were of Jewish origin. In addition, gentiles such as Adams serve as enforcers or gatekeepers on behalf of the pro-Zionist cause (I imagine Mr Adams would deny this claim. He poses as an honest broker in the middle east debate. But I believe that’s a myth. Adams enforces Zionist ‘bans’ on topics and individuals proclaimed beyond the pale by the Len’s and Owen’s of this world. Adams may have had Edward Said on his show years ago, and be pals with ‘respectable’ critics of Israel, but he does NOT seek to “cover all points of view” as he so often claims to do). Of course, lots of ‘interest groups’ lobby and network. Some conservatives do it. Some left-wingers do it. Some peace activists do it. Some industry sectors do it. Some Brits – as Brits - do it. Some Americans - as Americans - do it. So, I imagine, do the Maltese and speakers of Swahili. Roman Catholics and Muslims do it too. However, I know of no network operating on such a broad international canvas – other than the Zionist movement – that comes anywhere close to the same level of power and influence, not do I know of another effective lobby that uses its power with such ruthlessness. John is correct. Contemporary events in The Lebanon are of greater immediate importance. Right now, Israel is terrorizing and destroying this tormented and beleaguered nation – smashing its infrastructure to smithereens for the second time in a generation. Iraq… well, the best analysis of Iraq that I have read for some time was written by Saddam Hussein. Read it HERE. Saddam recognizes a Zionist agenda when he sees one, although he may have been a little slow on the uptake in 1990. I find his letter more truthful than anything I’ve heard from Blair, Bush or Howard on the subject. As for Palestine - don’t get me started on Palestine itself and its systematic, brutal strangulation! This vast political, economic and military assault on the Arab and Moslem world – on several fronts - is not inherently a popular agenda in the west. It is not even a mainstream oil industry agenda. The head of Britain’s only oil mega corporation, BP, spoke against the Iraq invasion in the run-up to March 2003 – but his words seemed to carry little weight with Tony Blair. Let’s be clear. This agenda to assault, disparage and disempower the Arab and Moslem world and to support the regional super-dominance of Israel - is a Zionist agenda. Gentiles are involved in large numbers, to be sure. But the agenda is driven by Zionists. Likewise, with help from many gentiles, Zionists drive the assault on free speech about the occurences of World War Two. Every now again a kid comes along who can see what the Emperor’s really wearing, or not as the case may be. I feel like one such kid – and believe there are a growing number of us, on the right, left and sideways of politics. In future times, I believe and hope, people will look back with wonder at how so many people in so many parts apparently sophisticated societies were so grossly deceived about the motive force underlying wars and terror in the first few years of this millenium. Perhaps we need to update the Clinton Era adage? It’s the Zionism, stupid! Until the western anti-war movement has a greater appreciation of this, I believe it is doomed to be ineffectual. Once it identifies its key foe, it will achieve wonders. This is not about fermenting anti-Jewish sentiment or inciting pogroms. Indeed, what chutzpah to insinuate that or to make that accusation, when Arabs and Moslems have been unjustly accused of the crime of the century and are being bombed, harassed and hassled from pillar to post in a phony 'War on Terror' based on Zionist lies. I wrote in an earlier post that the real issue here is free speech. I might equally claim the issue is POWER. Free speech is a restraint on the unbridled exercise of power by the wealthy and powerful. Free speech can help keep us all honest – including the wealthy and powerful. I look forward to a world where accusations of mass criminality against any individual or group of individuals will not occur, because they simply never happen. In this world, sadly, they do happen. In that case, better hear ALL the accusations and counter accusations – accusations against Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists AND Jews, accusations against Irish, English, Americans, Russians, Germans, Chinese AND Israel, accusations against the concentration and misuse of power within ANY sector of the global community. Additionally, as long as historical claims are used to justify present actions, in my opinion, we’re also well advised to examine ALL aspects of history – and listen to, consider and debate ALL points of view about them. Free speech is more than nice. It’s necessary.