Sid Walker

Courage, endurance, tolerance and resilience - the wisdom of the oppressed. The Palestinians show us all the way forward...

Your tips are excellent Maarten. Thanks so much!

Thanks Evan A useful tip.

Evan Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Nice to see you cover for Amy too, Len. You are busy. Strange, because I always thought that Amy Goodman could speak for herself. She seems so good at it normally. I'll wait to see if her inability to talk about 9-11 is a temporary phenomenon, or something more permanent. Speaking of silence, I am rather concerned about Jane Standley, the clairvoyant BBC presenter, who is "Too Busy" To Discuss WTC 7 Don't they have unions any longer at the BBC? Give Jane a rest! I fear she may be imprisoned inside BBC HQ, compelled to contribute her psychic skills to the Beeb on a 24x7 basis, like a genie trapped in a bottle... while the Board gets mega-rich playing the stock exchange and betting on horses.

Nice one, Jack and Bernice. It looks solid enough... Remarkable how quick it went up, really. It's as if new plans were already in the drawer, ready to go - like the PATRIOT Bill?

As usual, all that sounds very reasonable. But it's been some time since I seriously considered taking you at your word on anything. I can see no reason why I should be allied with any bigot......least of all for what I'm told is "unity of purpose." More is asked for by way of moral consistency than saying, "I'm opposed to the policies of Israel and so I think it's great being buddies with all the Nazis who've found something that works in spreading hatred toward Jews. We're all in it together and all working towards the same goal, so everything's fine." Nein, das ist falsch. We're most definitely NOT working towards the same goal and sharing common values, web-meister; I don't care to drink from the same trough as you, partisan that you are of people like Carto and Irving and Piper. It may well be that the future of this Forum is to become merely an auxiliary outpost of Stormfront, where all the bigot-"intellectuals" can come and hang out and talk about the Big Conspiracy that lies behind all the other conspiracies. If so, then so be it. But I do finally recognize I've said about all I could by way of standing against it and that there's really no purpose in "debating" and trying to reason with people who have no conscience. They will say whatever they need to in order to "get by," and everyone else will just have to judge things for themselves. If it sounds reasonable… have you ever considered the possibility that it may be reasonable? As for bigots and guilt by association, I think you are, as usual, utterly one-eyed. During Israel's brief existence as an independent nation, its own Government has, from time to time, entered into close understandings – often clandestine – with a range of external states and sectional interests. These include some very insalubrious alliances, with regimes such as Iran under the Shah and apartheid South Africa. Fraternization with bigots and thugs does not seem to raise your hackles in those cases. I have never seen Daniel Pipes or Alan Dershowitz complain about it either. Yet apparently it’s fair game to police the pro-Palestinian movement, noisily checking to see who they work with… then blowing fog horns of outrage if connections discovered with people you brand as 'neo-Nazis’. Why the perpetual double standard? I agree that alliances with dubious external allies amounts to supping with the devil. Use of a long spoon is advised. The PLO is currently (re-?)discovering that, to the cost of the long-suffering Palestinian people. As for the future of the forum, I think, to the contrary, that’s it is a quite rare virtual place where serious, potentially constructive discussion is possible on these important topics. Your comment about consciences is out of line, IMO. Pure arrogance. It suggests you discount utterly concerns I raise on a variety of topics, because I fall foul of your pet certitudes. That’s the kind of dhe kind of complete denial of the perspective of the other that we see in a more extreme form on the ground today in the Holy Land, in all its cruelty, shamelessness and horror.

Or Alex Jones for that matter. Why would bombs be set off hours before they planned to demo the building while there still were people inside? I agree Len. Sounds like a load of horse manure. But then again, did you ever hear the tale about the 47-floor building in NYC that one sunny day just happened to fall down at near free fall velocity in its own footprint because of a few fires? Or the major news organization that reported this unprecedented collapse 20 minutes before it actually happened? I think with WTC-7, one just has to admit that anything's possible. Why not wait and see what's in the new movie before sneering? (silly question) Why did you post a story that you now say you think is BS? (Or rather HS). By the same logic shouldn’t you have waited till the film came out of at least until the person was identified to make your post? Funny that you say the story “sounds like a load of horse manure” but criticize me for saying essentially the same thing. Shouldn’t you “wait and see what's in the new movie before sneering?” As for Amy Goodman I’ve seen the video and it’s not entirely clear it’s her. What Jones omitted is that her office was (and is) about a mile north of the WTC and the video was shot about a mile north of the WTC. There were lots of people in the crowd. Funny that Moore now fancies himself an expert on aviation. I didn't say I thought this story is HS, Len. I said it "sounded" like that. It was an attempt on my part to be agreeable. After all, the whole 9-11 story is outlandish. If anyone had told me the plot in 1999, I'd probably have said something like 'incredible!' As we've already been asked to believe in miracles by the authorities, it behooves us to keep an open mind about 9-11. Let's wait to see the new story in entirety before dismissing it. Perhaps it is accurate? After all, WTC-7 has been a building of many surprises. Who'd have ever thought, for instance, that first the mass media would report its collapse in advance - then practically ignore the fact that it did collapse for the next few years? Inicidentally, I gather WTC-7 had largely been rebuilt, ready to generate rental again for its lucky larrikin leaseholder. I do hope the builders have done a better job this time. Has it once again been pre-rigged with explosives, so it can be 'pulled' in moments at the whim of the mayor? Inquiring minds would like to know. It's fine to speculate from this distance... but if I was a tenant in the new building, I'd be nervous. Lightning may rarely strike twice - but what about miracles? Here in Australia, I occasionally visit Westfield shopping centers. It's hard to avoid them completely; they are as ubiquitous in this land as Rupert Murdoch's newspapers. As Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy (Australia's richest man) were business partners in Westfield America, I hope Frank hasn't caught flimsy-building-syndrome from his illustrious American friend. A gallant veteran of the Israeli War of Independence (aka the Nakba), Mr Lowy is apparently tireless, - and a great philanthropist. As well as serving on the Board of Australia's Reserve Bank Board, he finds time to promote Australian soccer, high-profile work which is widely applauded in this sport-crazy part of the world. Frank has also had the decency to fund a right-wing think tank called the Lowy Institute for International Policy, regularly cited by the Australian media as a font of wisdom in matters related to the economy, terrorism etc. Perhaps some of the brilliant academic minds proudly associated with the Lowy Institute could look into the WTC-7 saga and give us the inside scoop?

Odd too that the first half of the quoted text had nothing to do with his feelings towards America. David said nothing about Churchill always being pro-American, even per Irving’s account his “hostility to America” only seemed to last a years basically corresponding to the period Coolidge who was not exactly fond of England was president. Irving backs position more than it debunks it. Your statement above seems to be a post hoc rationalization. “I'll bear in mind your insightful remarks about the potential for fraudulent or inaccurate footnotes. A useful tip, Len. It had never occured to me before that footnotes might not be the equivalent of revealed truth. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) “ Your snide sarcasm is (once again) unwarranted you wrote “Incidentally, I omitted footnotes in the extracts I cited of Churchill's War. There were several. If you wish to do some serious work debunking that specific material,…” as if that settled the matter. Presumably Irving’s sources can’t be verified online. “some evidence might be necessary” Orwell mentioned some research by Mass Observation. I did a quick Google search and there seems to be some relevant material at the University of Sussex if any of our English members are disposed to go there. Though it seems to focus on the lower classhttp://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/speccoll/collection_catalogues/tclists/tc62.html ”You concluded by mentioning the extract I quoted from Diana Mosley. You muster the comment that it doesn't prove “a significant Jewish presence within the aristocracy and rather easy mixing between Jew and Gentile.” I think you need to do some elementary logic, Len. I cited that extract because the claim had previously been made that the British ruling class, as a whole, were anti-Jewish at the time. I merely asked for some evidence for that claim - and said that it did not seem to me self-evident the ruling class were any more anti-Jewish than the rest of the population. To bolster the case that some evidence might be necessary, I cited an extract showing that even the so-called 'far right' of British politics - at elite levels - mixed rather intimately with the Anglo-Jewish elite, at least in the early 1930s.” The quote did little to show that. She claimed that she was friends with the woman who married Rothschild and she and her future husband might have gone to a party at Sassoon’s house (probably before he started the BUF). Did they regularly socialize with Jews did they like them? Was her “friend” also ‘far right’? Did they socialize regularly after the maridge? There is no way to derive that from the text. Even if they did maintain social contacts it does mean they weren’t anti-Semitic. Both John and you presented anecdotal evidence but his was weightier than yours. "Shortly after the war, George Orwell wrote an essay about anti-Semitism in Britain. It is an interesting read. Not his most profound writing, I think - but an indication of common attitudes of that time, seen through the eyes of a reasonably fair-indeed and perceptive observer." I agree that was an interesting read. You shouldn’t ignore his point that anti-Semitic upper class Britons usually masked their bigotry is noted. Yes I know he was referring especially to the period after Hitler rose to power but presumably the “upper crust” put on similar pretenses even before that. "I don't feel it bears out the proposition that the British ruling classes were notoriously anti-Jewish or notrably more anti-Jewish than the rest of the population." I don’t think the latter was John’s contention. "Finally, Len, please do us both a favour and stop trying to get me to agree with your ridiculous labels for my views and beliefs. It's bad enough to be badged by someone else. Apparently, that's not enough for you. You want me to accept your badges and wear them willingly." Evasion noted If it is evasion to refuse to be categorized in glib terms by a hostile party, then I plead guilty. As for the rest of it, I could respond, but I tire of debating about angels on pinheads. I don't actually think we're greatly at odds over much of this material. Arguing can become habitual. Your case is a warning to the rest of us, Len. I think we should hush for a while let John roll out the next installment of his epic. Enough squabbling in the aisles.

I agree with this, FWIW. That's one of the reasons why I believe the Liberty attack was a false flag operation - not an attempt to cover for embarrassment elsewhere. The intention was to blame Egypt. It would have worked so well (for the Israelis), if only...

I agree with you that this sentence needs correction. Interesting you mention it. I thought it odd when I first read it, but assumed the author must have been referring to policy, not elections. At best it's poorly worded; at worst it's an error.

Sid, lets see if i'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that 911, or no 911, Iraq would have been invaded and illegally occupied? Well Stephen, Beating up Iraq was open policy for the PNAC in the late 90s. See for example, this charming article by Kristol & Kagan, written in early 98: Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough So that's rather clear. On the other hand, one looks in vain for an overt PNAC demand for a false-flag operation. My guess is that kept it to themselves Probably very wise. While American public opinion is largely amenable to open discussions about attacking other nations (it's called foreign policy debate), mass murder of Americans is a more sensitive issue. Until 9-11, these guys were having trouble whipping up the requisite level of hysteria to go 'beyond' bombing (and blockading and harassing) Iraq. After 9-11, it was a cinch. What does that suggest to you about 9-11? Al Qaida did it, of course! It stands to reason! If in doubt, check out the official 9-11 reports. They are fact-filled and a testament to the state of contemproary 'western intelligence' in all its glory.

Interesting counter-spin by Eric Walberg in Al Ahram. Is Belarus "a living reminder of what a successful perestroika could have produced"? Belarus: bucking the tide Europes lone populist muddies the Eurowaters, says Eric Walberg The post-Soviet New World Order that the West is trying to impose not only in Iraq, but around the world, is its version of democracy, meaning elections, preferably with short terms making for weak presidents, the whole process tightly controlled and monitored by a "free" media (read: privately controlled) and Western NGOs. It's a very expensive racket -- the winner is generally the best-funded and most widely advertised in the "free" media. Occasionally a populist -- maybe a movie star such as Joseph Estrada in Philippines gets over all the hurdles, but such attempts to buck the tide are usually easily quashed -- Estrada was "replaced" by his vice-president and darling of business Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. This is really rule by big business, and presumes that what's good for General Motors is good for Joe Public. With the spectre of communism no longer haunting Europe, governments and their patrons sleep soundly, knowing that no matter what party wins, little will change. The fine tuning of one set of businessmen might be slightly modified by another set, but with no radical changes in sight. Where are the charismatic leaders today? For the most part, gone are the days of the real democrats -- leaders like Gamal Abdel-Nasser or Kwame Nkrumah, for whom democracy meant giving real hope to the Joe Publics, real input in the form of nation-building and devotion to social good, to uniting against imperialism as opposed to accommodating or even wallowing in it as their present day counterparts do. The nostalgia that Egyptians feel for bygone days is not misplaced. Businessmen are by definition focussed on their profit sheet which has a timeframe of five years, not the logic necessary in a national leader, who must be concerned about future generations. Is it any wonder that the world's descent has accelerated in the past 15 years, without such truly national leaders? My rule of thumb in this international political wasteland is: look at who gets dumped on the most and start from the premise that that person/ country is probably trying to buck this tidal wave of democracy-for-the-business-elite. It's not failsafe -- there are the North Koreas and Myanmars, but there are the Chavezes, Castros and yes, the Lukashenkos. But this is key -- all these renegades are lumped together as if they all come from the same mould. The leader is indeed a "strongman" -- he refers to his style as "authoritative", he's not particularly photogenic or eloquent and he lets fly untoward comments which come back to haunt him. Aleksandr Lukashenko's ascent to power began in 1993 when he became head of the anti- corruption committee in the republic's parliament. A year later he was riding a wave of popular support that put him at the helm of power and he hasn't looked back since, having been re- elected twice. By refusing to follow Western advice for "shock therapy", i.e. destroying people's savings through inflation and selling off local industry to foreign interests, he managed to maintain much of the social welfare of the Soviet system and keep the economy stable and growing. A 2005 World Bank report judged that, "economic growth in Belarus has been genuine and robust" and the benefits widely shared among the population. Official unemployment stands at less than two per cent, poverty has fallen, and the average monthly income is around $200 -- better than in many former USSR republics, including Ukraine. There is little corruption, certainly none within the presidential fold -- Lukashenko's two sons are modest engineers with no political ambitions. Despite the West's loud protests, Lukashenko's re-elections have been a genuine demonstration of the popular will, there is no systematic torture, and there is a vocal if lacklustre opposition. Parliament is a mosaic of various parties. The main problem with Lukashenko's opponent last time, Aleksandr Milinkevich, was that he is seen as Europe's spokesman and had no real social base. However, the West took an instant dislike to Lukashenko and he's variously lampooned and denounced in the Western media and shunned in the US and Europe. So what's the problem? Well, like Hugo Chavez, Lukashenko is really a socialist populist -- and a successful one at that, the only real heir to the SU. A collective farm chairman, he plodded to the top with the devoted following of babushkas and middle aged people who saw with horror what the once peaceful, secure SU was turning into in Russia. Russia's savage society has kept Belarussians returning to the polls ever since to re-elect the only politician in sight who seems to recognise just how much was lost in creating the capitalist alternative to "mature socialism". Yes, much of the economy is state-controlled. Yes, there are subsidies on basic goods. Yes, there are state controls on the press and media, but with lots of room for differences of opinion. People can watch Russian and Ukrainian TV and use the Internet freely. No, Belarus does not jump every time the US shakes its fist. No, it does not denounce Iran or Venezuela, or support Israel, like a well-behaved Western puppet. So it is angrily consigned to the international waste bin by the US and Europe. As a living reminder of what a successful perestroika could have produced, Belarus is a danger to both sides of the former Iron Curtain. Reminiscent of those days, Europe has even enacted a travel ban against top Belarussian officials, though compared to the other ex-Soviet country with such a ban (and a much milder one) -- Uzbekistan -- Belarus is a model of pluralism and real democracy. Lukashenko is regularly called "Europe's last dictator" despite being elected in fair elections. But then the same goes for the US and Chavez in Venezuela. For anyone who is not braindead, it doesn't take much effort to see through these propaganda campaigns. One of his less successful efforts has been the proposed union with Russia. He argues that the ex-Soviet countries should try to reunite and preserve the best of the old system. Yelstin was too cynical to bother much about this, Putin was interested, but more from a Russian imperial point of view, expecting Belarus to just join the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, this major concession -- how many presidents of independent countries voluntarily give up any power to a larger power? -- appears to have ended up dead on arrival due to the new Russian oil chauvinism. Russia has entered a new quasi-imperial phase in its "nearby" foreign affairs, as relations with ex-Soviet countries are quaintly called, trying to gather back into its fold these republics. This is not the Soviet-style brotherhood of nations, however problematic that family was, but the more orthodox imperial agenda of centre-periphery political economic hegemony, and involves forcing these ex-brothers to pay world prices for energy and other once non-market-priced exports. Lukashenko's palsy attitude and support of a Slavic union was most likely taken as a sign of weakness, and the state-owned Gazprom pulling the energy plug on Belarus last December, trying to more than triple the price of Russian natural gas to world levels, from $47 to $150 per 1,000 cu m. However, this seems to have backfired -- Lukashenko is no fading violet, and recently strutted and snipped at Russia, saying he just might make up with the West or that he would jack up transit and border fees to make up the $5 billion deficit. Certainly, rather than forcing Belarus to dissolve itself and meekly join the Russian Federation, this action just made such a union even more unlikely. Lukashenko's protests yielded some results: the proposed increase was whittled down to $105 and then again to $100, though the contract includes further price increases over the next five years, and includes selling Gazprom half of the value of the Beltransgaz pipeline. By the way, I wonder why Russia wants controlling interest in the pipeline to Europe? The negotiations have been ongoing since last year and were only just completed. Lukashenko does not give in easily. It's unlikely that Belarus will suddenly become another NATO/EU clone, or that the EU will play Putin's cynical game and accept Lukashenko's peacepipe. But there is another trump up his sleeve. He has increased Belarus's economic and political ties with the Muslim world. He visited Egypt in 1998 and has visited Iran twice, first in 2001 and then last December, followed by a state visit to UAE in March this year, and just hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his first state visit to Belarus in May. The UAE is the main trade partner of Belarus among the Arab Gulf countries with a trade turnover of $26 million last year. When Lukashenko came to power in 1994, trade with Iran was a measly $89,000. After his second state visit to Iran last year, the total value of contracts signed was $350 million and Ahmadinejad told his "close friend" this was just a step towards achieving a trade turnover of $1 billion. This chummy language is more than just rhetoric, as the Iranian leader is very much a man of the people too, and both countries see eye-to-eye on major international issues, primarily their relations with the US/EU. Oh yes, Belarussian nuclear physicists are advising Iran on its nuclear energy programme. Belarus has been exporting arms to Arab countries, including Egypt, and Iran since the mid- 90s. In 2002-03 the Belarus firm Minotor- Service provided the Egyptian army with 100 armoured troop carriers. Belarussian arms are a vital part of Iran's arsenal. Do these relations mean Luke is "supporting terrorism"? No. It does mean he is helping to undermine the West's anti-Arab/ Iran policies. There is no end of Lukashenko in sight -- he looks like he'll run again for a fourth term -- with the Belarussian economy doing just fine, thank you very much, though the Russian squeeze on energy prices and the attempts to diversify away from Russia, especially in energy, have yet to play themselves out. Even if it can import gas from Iran, as planned, the gas will still have to transit Russia. Who knows? Maybe like Fidel Castro, he'll find his inner green self and promote bicycles, solar power and conservation. So take the media's vendetta against him as a boorish commie bastard with a grain of salt, and remember my rule of thumb. We can be thankful that there is some colour in European politics thanks to the rare phenomenon that Lukashenko represents -- an honest socialist with the power and will to make business serve the interests of the people. Perhaps Putin will see his error and treat his stubborn little brother with a bit more sympathy. He too is noted for his unpremeditated comments, recently deriding West-East relations as depicted in the West as "immaculate, white fluffy partners on one side, and on the other a monster who has just come out of a forest with claws and corns growing instead of legs." Luke couldn't have said it better.

Just when I thought popular retrospectives on Hitler couldn't get any sillier... here comes the Daily Mail, recycling an old story with the enthusiasm of an amnesiac. It seems a handful of under-employed psychologists decided to get their heads around Hitler. The result: "Did Hitler unleash the Holocaust because a Jewish prostitute gave him syphilis?" A delightfully lightweight collection of comments such as "Dr Habeeb said: "This disease can send you mad and it could be a horrible explanation for the obsession that led to the Holocaust" are rounded out by a sprinkling of ill-informed nonsense submitted by readers (along with occasional gems. such as 'Mark from Newcastle'). It's perfect modern media really, a classic of its kind. The recipe? Take a false premise (or one for which, at any rate, there is no evidence). Assemble a group of conformist windbags. Allow to simmer gently... then add a dash of affirmation from the public. Certainly, it does amount to a strong argument for using condoms. Why were their parents so careless? ____________ A footnote for Len. I neglected to spoon feed you, Len, with the link to David Irving's download that you requested. Here it is: Click This You can even pick up a copy of 'The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor' . No need to believe a word of it, of course! (be especially wary of the footnotes and reproductions of medical records) Never let tiresome documentation spoil a good story!

An interesting article in Infowars.com, focusing mainly, but not exclusively, about Michael Moore's apparent shift in views I notice Amy Goodman is feeling the heat from an inquiring public. Poor Amy! Passed her use-by date as a pinko mocking bird - and she has so much more to give. She needs a real job in the mass media where she won't have to encounter the great unwashed.

Or Alex Jones for that matter. Why would bombs be set off hours before they planned to demo the building while there still were people inside? I agree Len. Sounds like a load of horse manure. But then again, did you ever hear the tale about the 47-floor building in NYC that one sunny day just happened to fall down at near free fall velocity in its own footprint because of a few fires? Or the major news organization that reported this unprecedented collapse 20 minutes before it actually happened? I think with WTC-7, one just has to admit that anything's possible. Why not wait and see what's in the new movie before sneering? (silly question)

The main beneficiaries of 9-11 have been Islamic jihadis, of course, Stephen. Don't you read the papers? Other matters (excuse my brevity)... Iraq = occupied and immiserated Afganistan = occupied and immiserated 2004 Presidential election outcome = stolen (again!) Bliar = War Criminal Nu Labour = pass (the sick bucket) Bliar's legacy = War Crimes Israel-Palestine = invasion, occupation and apartheid on steroids Relations with the European Union = if Bliar becomes President, I may boycott European languages. I already boycott Hebrew. Civil liberty issues = what? Did I miss anything?

Yes I imagine you greatly prefer his German counter part. As for Irving several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims. Try a little fuzzy logic, Len. The answer isn't always yes OR no, black OR white, freedom OR tyranny, good OR evil, Churchill or Hitler. I believe that you hold many views that most members of this forum would find quite disagreeable and thus you don’t fully own up to them to not appear fanatical. You express them partially but leave enough room for plausible denial. Your Holocaust denial being a prime example, you made a few scattered comments here and there but then became vague when I asked you about it. Only when after I compiled enough evidence that denial was no longer plausible did you more or less “fess up”. Even then you were so vague that Mark said something like ‘I’m not sure Sid is a Holocaust denier’. In a similar fashion based on scattered comments I get the impression your view of Hitler is distinctly more positive than negative. Am I right or am I wrong? Can you give us a straightforward answer rather than one worthy of a politician/spin doctor/defense lawyer/PR man? I’m glad that you acknowledge that. It goes to his credibility. One could argue that citing Irving would be like citing The Sun or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette concerning one of the publiher’s (Richard Mellon Scaife) pet conspiracy theories (Vince Foster’s ‘suicide’). This brings up a burden of proof issue since you are quoting a source of questionable credibility. Footnotes don’t always prove much unless one has access to the cited source. Fetzer for example cited various sources for his book and articles about the Wellstone crash but the sources often said something quite different. Another example is the very selective quotation of the captain of the Liberty on Ennes site. David Ray Griffin cited an online flight simulator manual as an authoritative source regarding FAA policy even though there is an explicit disclaimer saying otherwise. Perhaps for those who might be so disposed you could provide a link to where the book can be downloaded. That being said I didn’t see anything particularly damming in any of the cited passages. If we are to believe Irving: -An ex-girlfriend of his son claims he told he was unscrupulous at a party Where there any witnesses to this comment? Might he have been joking? - He was at one point hostile to the US and later warmed up to the country. Am I missing something? What’s the big deal note that even according to Irving at the time he spoke negatively of the US a president critical of England was in office. - He favored a reduction in income tax and cutting funding for the navy. Again so what? He said in 1925 – 6 that the UK was unlikely to go to war with Japan in the next 10 years and he was right. He said the Royal Navy should have been able to make short work of the Japanese, if the UK was bogged down in a war against Germany and her allies in Europe that might well have been the case. This of course was unforeseeable in the mid-20’s. I also doubt the decision was solely his, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer not PM. Normally advocating cutting military spending would be considered a positive thing on this forum. - He got financial advice from Benard Baruch. And? Has history been too kind to Churchill? I don’t know enough to say, but so far nothing I’ve seen on this thread except for the possibility he was secretly negotiating with Hitler would make me think so. He was definitely to my right politically but I don’t think we need to demonize politicians just because we don’t agree with all their policies. John (Simkin) wrote: “Sir Henry Strakosch, paid the then substantial sum of £18,162 to clear his debts.” David wrote: “Then there were the Randlords, some of whose offspring were - incredibly some may consider - members of the Right Club.” Citations? Sid quoted Diana Mosley “The first time I met him was in 1932 at the twenty-first birthday party of a friend, Barbara Hutchinson, who afterwards married Victor Rothschild. We did not get on particularly well at that first meeting, but as he was out of Parliament and had plenty of free time, he and his wife Cynthia went about a good deal, as did my husband Bryan Guinness and I, and we saw one another frequently. He used to say he had seen me at a ball at Philip Sassoon's house a few months before.” Is this really enough to establish “a significant Jewish presence within the aristocracy and rather easy mixing between Jew and Gentile.” Len As a long-time observer, Len, with due respect, that post wasn't even up to your usual standard. Maybe you need a break? After going into a lather at the mention of Mr Irving's name, you eventually admit that the extracts I cited from one of his books were not "particularly damming" in any case. Well spotted. As you don't intend to dispute them (why should you?), one is left wondering why you belly-ache about them in the first place? We already know you don't like Mr Irving. As for their relevance, I think you should re-read that part of the thread. A suggestion had been made that Churchill was inherently pro-American and had inherited a strong pro-American bias from his family. That may be so... but it seemed to me the citation from Churchill's War cast some doubt about that. That's all. If someone wishes to come forward with counter-evidence, they are welcome. I don't have an emotional investment in the topic. I'd rather like to learn more, from people who know more than i do. That's a major reason I spend time here. I'll bear in mind your insightful remarks about the potential for fraudulent or inaccurate footnotes. A useful tip, Len. It had never occured to me before that footnotes might not be the equivalent of revealed truth. You concluded by mentioning the extract I quoted from Diana Mosley. You muster the comment that it doesn't prove “a significant Jewish presence within the aristocracy and rather easy mixing between Jew and Gentile.” I think you need to do some elementary logic, Len. I cited that extract because the claim had previously been made that the British ruling class, as a whole, were anti-Jewish at the time. I merely asked for some evidence for that claim - and said that it did not seem to me self-evident the ruling class were any more anti-Jewish than the rest of the population. To bolster the case that some evidence might be necessary, I cited an extract showing that even the so-called 'far right' of British politics - at elite levels - mixed rather intimately with the Anglo-Jewish elite, at least in the early 1930s. Shortly after the war, George Orwell wrote an essay about anti-Semitism in Britain. It is an interesting read. Not his most profound writing, I think - but an indication of common attitudes of that time, seen through the eyes of a reasonably fair-indeed and perceptive observer. I don't feel it bears out the proposition that the British ruling classes were notoriously anti-Jewish or notrably more anti-Jewish than the rest of the population. So there. That's another reference - but I don't cite that as 'proof' either. Others, of course, may well present references that suggest otherwise. If so, I'd be interested to read them. I'd like to learn more. You, it seems, on this occasion, can't even understand the question - let alone provide a different answer. Finally, Len, please do us both a favour and stop trying to get me to agree with your ridiculous labels for my views and beliefs. It's bad enough to be badged by someone else. Apparently, that's not enough for you. You want me to accept your badges and wear them willingly. Well, no dice, Len. I will not agree with you that I am a "your_choice_of_term_goes_here". I won't do it. If I ever do, you'll know I'm being blackmailed or tortured.

No news still on the official WTC-7 Report. Anyone might suspect there's a problem concocting a story. Anyhow, more tidbits emerge - see 9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building A staggering new revelation? Or more disinformation seeded by the guilty to distract attention from their inability to provide a rational explanation for the collapse of WTC-7 without admitting controlled demolition? I'm not in a position to judge, but after nearly six years it's clear one has a better chance of gleaning the truth from prisonplanet.com and the folk at Loose Change than from an Administration and establishment mass media that lies, lies and lies again.

The CIA and Fatah; spies, quislings and the Palestinian Authority Mike Whitney Hamas members seizing Fatah documents June 20, 2007 When Hamas gunmen stormed the Fatah security compounds in Gaza last week they found huge supplies of American-made weaponry including 7,400 M-16 assault rifles, dozens of mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, 7 amorored military jeeps, 800,000 rounds of bullets and 18 US-made armored personnel carriers. They also discovered something far more valuable--- CIA files which purportedly contain "information about the collaboration between Fatah and the Israeli and American security organizations; CIA methods on how to prevent attacks, chase and follow after cells of Hamas and the Committees; plans about Fatah assassinations of members of Hamas and other organizations; and American studies on the security situation in Gaza." (Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily.com) If the documents prove to be authentic, they will confirm what many critics of Fatah believed from the beginning; that US-Israeli intelligence agencies have been collaborating with high-ranking members of the PA to help crush the Palestinian national liberation movement. The information could be disastrous for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his newly-appointed "emergency government". It could destroy their credibility before they even take office. The extent of Fatah’s cooperation with the CIA is still unknown, but an article in The New York Sun, ("Hamas Takes over Gaza Security Services" 6-15-07) suggests that the two groups may have been working together closely. Former Middle East CIA operations officer Robert Baer, who was interviewed in the article, said that the discovery of the documents was "a major blow to Fatah" and will show "a record of training, spying on Hamas". Baer added ironically, "Fatah equals CIA is not a good selling point." Baer is right. The uncovering of the documents is "big trouble" for Abbas who is already facing a loss of public confidence from his closeness to Israel and for his appointment of Salam Fayyad, the ex-World bank official who the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz calls "everyone’s favorite Palestinian." Perhaps more significant is the fact that members of Hamas who spoke with WorldNetDaily claimed that "the files contain, among other information, details of CIA networks in the Middle East" and that Hamas plans to "use these documents and make portions public to prove the collaboration between America and traitor Arab countries." Imagine what a headache it will be for the Bush administration if Hamas exposes the broader network of US spies and Arab quislings operating throughout region. Bush Support for "Regime Change" in the PA It’s no secret that the Bush administration has been funneling money to Palestinian militias that are preparing to overthrow Hamas. On Monday, Condoleezza Rice announced that the US would resume "full assistance to the Palestinian government" and end the year long boycott to the people in the West Bank. The new aid—which could amount to as much as $86 million---will be used to shore up the PA security apparatus and pay the salaries of officials in the "emergency government." The uncovering of the CIA documents in Gaza will cast a cloud over the administration’s largesse and make Abbas look like a Palestinian Karzai who gets financial treats from Washington to follow their diktats. Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was given the task of outlining the administration’s new policy vis-à-vis the Abbas’ "emergency government". The Bush team had already decided the night before that they would throw their full support behind Abbas and his "unelected" clatter of pro-western stooges. Rice could hardly contain her glee the next day when she ascended the podium and began wagging her finger reproachfully at Hamas: "Hamas has made its choice," Condi growled. "It has sought to attempt to extinguish democratic debate with violence and to impose its extremist’s agenda on the Palestinian people in Gaza, now responsible Palestinians are making their choice and it is the duty of the international community to support those Palestinians who wish to build a better life and a future of peace." This typically Orwellian statement was intended to justify the deposing of the legally-elected government of Palestine. No matter; Rice’s pronouncements are always reiterated verbatim in the media without challenge regardless of how incongruous they may be. The Bush administration had plenty of time to observe developments on the ground and make an informed decision about what to do next. There was no need to hurry. Instead, they decided to blunder ahead and launch their "West Bank First" policy which commits US support to Abbas without any consideration of the public mood. The frantic pace of the decision-making, makes it look like Bush and Olmert are elevating Abbas to promote their own political agendas. Naturally, the Palestinians can be expected to resent this conspicuous outside meddling. Former President Jimmy Carter was the first to blast Bush’s new plan. He said that "the United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements…. Carter said that Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government and that the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was 'criminal.’" Carter’s comments appeared in just one newspaper--the Jerusalem Post. The ex-president has been increasingly marginalized since he dared to imply that Israel is an apartheid state. But Carter's analysis is dead-on---Bush is just aggravating an already tense situation. He’d be better off trying to bring the two sides together and reconciling their differences rather than igniting a potentially explosive confrontation. Besides, Abbas’ close ties to Washington and Tel Aviv doesn’t bode well for his government’s long-term prospects. The US and Israel are widely reviled in the occupied territories and, as author Khalid Amayreh says, "Palestinians won’t accept a Vichy Government". Three days ago Abbas disbanded the Hamas-dominated parliament and sacked Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Abbas had no legal justification for this action. In fact, the "Basic Law" which applies to this case stipulates that "The President cannot suspend the legislative Council during a state of emergency" and there is "no provision whatsoever for an emergency government". The president does not even have the authority to "call for new elections"---let alone, replace the elected representatives of the people. Abbas only support comes from political leaders in Tel Aviv and Washington and their reluctant accomplices in the EU. The key issue here is whether democratic elections have any real meaning or if they can simply be rescinded by executive decree? This question should be as relevant to Americans as it is to Palestinians. After all, both people now face a similar predicament; the flagrant abuse of executive authority to enhance the powers of the president. In both cases, the president must be forced to conform to the law. Democracy cannot be decided by fiat. Free elections are not a crime---that is, unless one lives in the Occupied Territories. Then voting for the candidate of one’s choice provides the justification for cutting off food, water, medicine, and financial resources—as well a stepping up a campaign of illegal detentions, destruction of personal property and targeted assassinations. This is what the "Bush Doctrine" looks like in the Gaza Strip today. The occupants of the "most densely populated place on earth" participated in the balloting at insistence of the Bush administration and they’ve been rewarded for their cooperation with a savage boycott and daily brutality. If Bush didn’t want democracy, then why did he force it on the Palestinians? Political powerbrokers in the US and Israel immediately rejected the election results and initiated a plan to scuttle Hamas through economic strangulation, persistent harassment and covert warfare. For the last year, the newly "elected" government has shown remarkable restraint under constant assault. Hamas has kept its word and refrained from suicide bombings in Israel even though hundreds of Palestinian civilians have been killed or injured during that same time. In fact, there has NOT BEEN ONE HAMAS-BACKED SUICIDE BOMBING SINCE THE PARTY TOOK OFFICE. (This fact is invariably ignored by the media which is far-more sympathetic to the Israeli position) We should remember that suicide bombing has been used for years as the excuse for putting off "final settlement" negotiations. Now that the bombing has stopped, Israel has invented an entirely new excuse to avoid dialogue, that is, that Hamas "refuses to recognize the state of Israel". Actually, it is Israel that refuses to accept Palestinian statehood---a fact that is further underlined by its relentless efforts to topple the Hamas government. Hamas has done nothing illegal since they were elected. The Qassam rockets which are fired into Israel are the unavoidable corollary of the 40-year long occupation. How is Hamas supposed to stop these sporadic attacks? If Israel seriously believed that Hamas was responsible for the rockets, they wouldn’t hesitate to arrest or kill every leader in the current parliament. The fact is, Israel knows that Hamas is not instigating these attacks. It’s just another red herring. Regardless of what one may think about Hamas, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has shown that he is a man who can be trusted to keep his word. In an interview in the Washington Post with Lally Weymouth, Haniyeh and asked him if Hamas sought the "obliteration of the Jewish people"? (another myth propagated in the western press) Haniyeh answered, "We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody." This, of course, is not the response that neocon extremists in the US-Israeli political establishment want to hear. It undermines the rationale for the ongoing military occupation and expansion of illegal settlements. They would rather promote the image of Palestinians as vicious radicals bent on the Israel’s complete annihilation. But how accurate is that image? In a particularly affecting editorial in the Washington Post, Prime Minister Haniyeh stated his case in simple terms. He said: "As I inspect the ruins of our infrastructure---all turned to rubble once more by F-16s and American-made missiles -- my thoughts again turn to the minds of Americans. What do they think of this? They think of the pluck and "toughness" of Israel, "standing up" to "terrorists." Yet a nuclear Israel possesses the 13th-largest military force on the planet, one that is used to rule an area about the size of New Jersey and whose adversaries there have no conventional armed forces. Who is the underdog, supposedly America's traditional favorite, in this case? I hope that Americans will give careful thought to root causes and historical realities, (of) why a supposedly "legitimate" state such as Israel has had to conduct decades of war against a subject refugee population without ever achieving its goals. Israel's nearly complete control over the lives of Palestinians is never in doubt, as confirmed by the humanitarian and economic suffering of the Palestinians since the January elections. Israel's ongoing policies of expansion, military control and assassination mock any notion of sovereignty or bilateralism. Its "separation barrier," running across our land, is hardly a good-faith gesture toward future coexistence. But there is a remedy, and while it is not easy it is consistent with our long-held beliefs. Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion. Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. Meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel can proceed only after this tremendous labor has begun". Haniyeh’s appeal to the American people helps us understand that what Hamas really wants is for Israel to conform to "unanimously approved" UN resolutions "predicated on historical truth, equity and justice." Does that sound unreasonable? Wasn't the same demanded of Saddam? Haniyeh is not a madman nor is he an "Islamofascist." In fact, it may be that Haniyeh’s dreams are not that different from the average Israeli citizen. Consider the polls that were conducted just days after the election of Mahmoud Abbas. One survey showed that nearly 80% of Israelis supported immediate peace talks with the new Palestinian president. The Israeli leadership, of course, stubbornly refused even though Yasir Arafat had died a month earlier. The Israeli political establishment is resolutely against peace talks or negotiations. Unlike the vast majority of Israeli citizens--Israel's ruling elite reject the principle of "land for peace!" Perhaps, Arafat wasn’t the "obstacle to peace" after all. Perhaps it was just a PR swindle to avoid real dialogue? Israeli leaders have no intention of negotiating with the Palestinians, regardless of what the Israeli public wants or who’s sitting in Ramallah. The Zionist "grand plan" will not be compromised by conferences or bartering. The military occupation and settlement activity will continue until US support dries up and Israel is forced to the bargaining table. Until then the onslaught will continue. Another Siege of Gaza? Ha’aretz reports that Israel is planning to launch a military operation in Gaza aimed at crushing Hamas.( "Barak planning military operation in Gaza within weeks" 6-17-07) The invasion will involve 20,000 troops, armored vehicles, tanks, and air support. But what is the justification? Is it because the US-Israeli plan to overthrow Hamas with Palestinian militias failed? Or is it because the duly-elected government has reclaimed the power it was given at the ballot box? According to an Israeli official, the invasion will be in response to the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel or another suicide bombing. In other words, Israel is devising a pretext for "regime change" EVEN BEFORE THEY ARE ATTACKED. Until then, the border crossings will remain closed, the blockade will be tightened, and the economic asphyxiation will continue. In the face of US-Israeli plotting, consider the comments of Prime Minister Haniyeh, who articulates as well as anyone, the aspirations of the Palestinians people: "We do not want to live on international welfare and American handouts. We want what Americans enjoy -- democratic rights, economic sovereignty and justice. We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world's largest prison camps. We present this clear message: If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region. If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality". Hamas history of violence is problematic, but it should not be an insurmountable obstacle to peace. The IRA had a similar history and, yet, those issues were ultimately resolved through the Good Friday peace accords. Now, the warring factions have joined together in a power-sharing agreement and there’s reason to believe that the armed struggle phase of the conflict is over. A similar remedy is possible between Israel and Palestine. Hamas entry into the political system should be seen for what it is--- a step in the right direction. It is an indication that they are tired of the armed struggle and want to pursue a political solution. Israel and the US should be receptive to this. They should reward Hamas’ efforts to stop the suicide bombing and agree to backchannel negotiations. That will determine whether common ground can be reached on any of the main issues. If the violence resumes, Israel can always return to its present strategy but, it’s certainly worth a try. At the very least, Bush and Olmert should respect the will of the Palestinian people and allow Hamas to perform its duties without further hectoring, sanctions, violence or sabotage. The US and Israel have no right to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign government. If Hamas perpetrates violence against Israel, then Israel has every right to respond. But until then, they should show restraint and try to play a constructive role in strengthening the emergent Palestinian democracy.

Yes I imagine you greatly prefer his German counter part. As for Irving several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims. Try a little fuzzy logic, Len. The answer isn't always yes OR no, black OR white, freedom OR tyranny, good OR evil, Churchill or Hitler. Real life - and history - is more subtle. History isn't a Hollywood movie, despite the best efforts of Hollywood movie makers. As for Irving's reputation as a historian, one would have to be very out of touch not to concur with your comment that "several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims". So what? If your comment had substance, you'd show where you believe he is in error in the specific extracts I cited... if you can. Incidentally, I omitted footnotes in the extracts I cited of Churchill's War. There were several. If you wish to do some serious work debunking that specific material, Len, you can access the book in entirety as a free download from Irving's website. I'm confident that should you find demonstrable errors, Mr Irving - as well as this forum - would like to hear about it. You might even be credited for your research in the next edition of his book (I understand a revision, with additional material, is in progress).

bump

Sacre BLUE! Yeah. French politics makes the rest of us look dull. I have a conspiracy theory that the break-up is a clever ploy to increase Royale's popularity among French males (as she is once again eligible) while shoring up the female sympathy vote.

An extract from Alfred Lilienthal's The Zionist Connection II, page 568, 569. Lilienthal is a remarkable and now very old anti-Zionist American Jew, who knew JFK personally and whose entire adult life has been primarily devoted to seeking justice in the middle east. I presume these extracts (sourced here) are accurate? This is the only reference I can find to what, if it is accurate, is a most extraordinary UPI report. Can anyone verify this or otherwise?

Perhaps you can spell out to us your military especially war room experience to us all. And perhaps you could spell out yours, Len. People with such experience who bought that explanation include: · William L. McGonagle –captain of the USS Liberty at the time it was attacked · Clark M. Clifford – presidential advisor at the time the attack, wrote a memo for LBJ about the incident. Later Secretary of Defense previously (1944 – 46) and officer in the US Navy reaching the rank of Captain. · Admiral Issac M. Kidd – head of the COI · Adm. John McCain Jr. 4 star admiral USN, himself the son of an admiral. Entered the navy in 1941. Commander of the USN in Europe at the time of the attack. · Robert McNamara – Secretary of Defense 1961 – 68, served in the US Army-Airforce 1940 – 6 rising to the rank of Lt. Coronel · SEN. JOHN McCAIN III – Son (obviously) of John McCain Jr. 23 year veteran of the USN · SEN. BOB GRAHAM - Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence · ADM. DAVID E. JEREMIAH, USN (Ret.) - former vice chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff · NORMAN POLMAR - naval analyst and author of The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet · ADM. JERRY JOHNSON, USN (Ret.) - former vice chief of naval operations · Rear ADM. T. A. BROOKS, USN (Ret.) - Former Director of Naval Intelligence · REAR ADM. PAUL TOBIN, · CDR. PETER B. MERSKY, USNR (Ret.) · CDR. DOUG SIEGFRIED, USN (Ret.) · CAPT. ERNEST E. CASTLE, USN (Ret.) - United States Naval Academy Alumni Association For most of the above see - http://libertyincident.com/book.html#comments · J.B. Colwell – Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (in 3/1968) http://libertyincident.com/docs/usncoi/CNO-7.pdf · Admiral Stansfield Turner – 30 USN veteran, commander of U.S forces in Japan and Korea, commander in chief Allied Forces Southern Europe ( NATO), president of Naval War College, Commander, United States Second Fleet. Director of Central Intelligence 1977 - 81 · Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1967) · House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1971) · House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1991-2) http://libertyincident.com/documents.html Presumably most of the members of the Armed Services committee were military veterans. Call me crazy but I put a little bit more weight in the opinion of anyone of the above than yours. I don't rememberany of the people with similar backgrounds who said they though the attack was no accident saying that this part of the Israeli's story was implausible. Even our own Evan Burton seems to think it was 'unbelievable' but plausible. Well I couldn't find anything from Polmar, Parker, Tobin, Brooks, Witty, Kinsolving, or Sherwood where they explicitly stated that the attack was not deliberate. Some of them gushingly praise Cristol's 'work' but hey, maybe they knew the ADL would be reading the reviews. Anyway, once again, here's the list of those who claim otherwise: "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous " -- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk "...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty." -- CIA Director Richard Helms "I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship." -- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby "That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable" -- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson "The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error." -- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31) "A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]." -- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack. "Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers. -- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor "The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American." -- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency -- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings (So he didn't join the NSA till 1977--big deal--MS.) Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident -- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings (as above, he didn't join till 1977--big deal-- MS) Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate -- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings "It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity." -- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997 "To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument." -- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14 Pretty impressive list I think. As for the COI in 1967, it was no inquiry at all. It was held in secret (like the WC), sailors who were on board were forbidden from talking to the press and the whole thing was designed to cover Israel's ass. How effective was the Warren Commission 'inquiry'? How effective was LBJ's sham nuclear inspection regime in forestalling Israel's nuclear ambitions? LBJ was a crook--all his 'inqiries' were designed to place himself and his friends in the clear. Fact. All the subsequent 'inquiries' prove is that the Israel lobby's hold on the US has remained as strong as it was in 1967. For your theory to make sense you’d have to have some one who was aware of the Liberty’s identity and the killings before the attack began. This is unlikely because the officers involved in the killing were probably low ranking army officers in the Sinai and presumably one outside of the Navy’s operations center in Haifa and a few IDF pilots knew about the Liberty. So you're saying that in order for the theory (a deliberate attack) to make sense, I must 'have someone' who was aware of the Liberty's identity and the killings before the attack? I assume from this clumsy paragraph of yours that a confession from an Israeli officer is required before the theory 'makes sense'? LOL. Any IDF officer who said that would probably be court-martialed--or worse. Sometimes I think (I'm sure), you don't realise what you're saying. So, by your reasoning, the theory that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy would require a confession from one of the assassins or plotters before it would 'make sense'! LOL (again). Although we don't expect to beat Brazil at soccer, I'd score that exchange that 1-nil to Australia. Nice one Mark! (I am a rather biased observer, admittedly).