Sid Walker

An interesting discussion, David. The more I learn of Churchill, the more I see him as a quintessential opportunist to whom mainstream history has been excessively kind. He changed his views often, to suit the flow of events and the opportunities presented to him at any given time, although he often got his timing wrong. He also had a knack of changing his views and stance quite unapologetically (so it was less noticeable, perhaps?) - and turning setbacks to his advantage. Often his recklessness caused extensive 'collateral damage' (Australasians have special memories of this from World War One). Typically, others paid the price for his flawed judgment. A Master of Spin, long before the term was coined. This is from Irving's Churchill's War Vol. 1, once again. Apologies to those who find his work objectionable. Perhaps they could point out to me where (if at all) he is in error in what follows:

Len I don't share anyone's views - in entirety. On the other hand, with almost everyone, I share some views. I've even, on very rare occasions, agreed with you. When it comes to the highly complex topic of "views towards Jews", I'm more influenced by authors of a philosophical bent. Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon are my strongest contemporary influences. Who are yours?

David, FWIW, I advise some caution in citing the judicial-inc.biz website. It's not (for me) that is overtly and rather virulently anti-Jewish. Although others may find that offensive, I'm through getting too excited any more about people being nasty about each other. After all, I read Alan Dershowitz and Daniel Pipes. My problem is that I think it's inaccurate - not in toto, but in part, sufficiently often to be rather dangerous. Unless I'm mistaken (if so, please correct me), there is no clear evidence that Baruch actually bankrolled Churchill. Just suspicions. According to David Irving, their financial relationship was complex indeed: - Churchill's War, pages 14 & 15 - Churchill's War, page 107

I intended to go into this issue later. However, now you have raised it I will add a bit of information on Winston Churchill’s financial problems. Bernie Baruch was not the only one who helped out Winston Churchill. Lord Beaverbrook, who was an arch appeaser, recruited Churchill to write a regular column for the Evening Standard. The idea being that this money would stop Churchill from urging the British government to stand-up to Hitler. However, Churchill was in a difficult position, the only way he could become prime minister was by attacking the foreign policy of Neville Chamberlain. When Churchill refused to play along with Beaverbrook’s attempt to control him, the contract was cancelled. (Martin Gilbert, Finest Hour: Winston Churchill 1939-41, page 919) Churchill, deeply in debt, was forced to put Chartwell on the market. This was withdrawn from sale when Sir Henry Strakosch, paid the then substantial sum of £18,162 to clear his debts. Why did Strakosch do this? Well he was a very important figure in the Jewish lobby. Originally from Austria, he chairman of the South African goldminers, Union Corporation. He was a member of the Royal Commission on Indian Currency and Finance during 1925 and 1926. He later served on the Council of India between 1930 and 1937. He was also chairman of The Economist. It has been argued that it was money from the Jewish lobby that ensured Winston Churchill opposed appeasement. Maybe, but as Peter Padfield has pointed out (Hess, page 118): “…throughout the war he did as little to ameliorate the horrors suffered by Jews in German hands as Chamberlain had done for the Poles”. Churchill was of course just as anti-Semitic as the rest of the British ruling class. However, he was always willing to take a bribe. What is significant is that as soon as Churchill become prime minister, he brought in Lord Beaverbrook to the war cabinet. Beaverbrook of course then goes on to organize the secret negotiations with Nazi Germany and to cover-up the Hess affair. Rather an overstatement to suggest the entire British ruling class was 'anti-Semitic', don't you think? Here's a brief extract from Diana Mosley's fond account of husband Oswald and their life together: One gets the feeling of a significant Jewish presence within the aristocracy and rather easy mixing between Jew and Gentile. Of course, this was not universal. Some in the British aristocracy were anti-Jewish. But I think the case would need to be made - and documented - that the British ruling class as a whole was significantly more anti-Jewish than any other part of the general population. It isn't obvious. Regarding Beaverbrook, Halifax, Churchill and the dramatic events of 1940, I think this article by Irving merits consideration: Winston Churchill and Hitler's peace offer Those who are fond of the dear old queen mum (R.I.P.) may like to read to the end, for an insight into the political machinations of this quintessential British icon in her prime.

Now I know the Beeb's hot button word, I'll use it mercilessly in future postings to Mr Richard Missing-Tapes Porter. I see his 'debunking' of the BBC's miracle reporting has attracted no less than 469 comments at the time of writing. I hope, deep down, he feels as sowerbutt about the bullxxxx he writes as the rest of us.

Apparently Sarkozy appreciated the congratulations. Just when you thought you'd heard the last of Tony Blair (at least for a respectable interlude)... That's why old-fashioned vampire-hunters recommended a stake through the heart. It's more conclusive than resignation. Meanwhile, on the French left, life is quite exciting really. The parliamentary elections went better than expected - and there is scandale moderne. Time was when a French politician had a mistress, everyone knew (including madame) and enjoyed the gossip. These days everyone still enjoys the gossip, but madame kicks him out, concerned lest it upset HER political career. Read all about it.

That’s putting it mildly he has spent his entire career working for Willis A. Carto father of the Holocaust denial movement and with numerous ties to neo Nazi and white supremacist groups. He once wrote that “If Satan himself, with all of his superhuman genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews." and on another occasion complained about the "niggerfication of America." For more of the wit, wisdom and views of Piper’s long time boss click here see posts 35 - 9 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=48229 The Barnes Review the Holocaust denying pro-Nazi sister publication to “The American Free Press” where Piper work proposed Hitler for a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize. Yet Piper hypocritically went on about how racism shouldn’t be tolerated despite hanging out with Carto and Chris Bollyn who agreed with David Duke that interracial marriage/dating/sexual relationships was a Jewish plot to “mongrelize as much [as possible] the populations they’re in contact with” (Bollyn’s words not Duke’s) http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukeradiobollyn30april05.mp3 So he confessed to being intellectually dishonest and is bigoted hypocrite. Does that mean he’s wrong? Perhaps not but it’s not a good sign. I wasn’t impressed by the chapters he made available for download. Perhaps there is good reason for that Citation Can we take it that this is an accurate description of your views as well? I agree with Sid that the thread he indicated is a good place to look to decide for yourself on the issue of the “Dancing Israelis” as for the flight manifests that was a bit of stupidity dreamt up by incompetent researchers. http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_..._manifests.html Though this has been shown to be false a well known member of this forum continues to push the idea on his site http://s911t.org/ see “Top 10 Reasons the Hijackers are Fake” the other 9 reasons are BS as well That book is a bit off topic for that list if however she (or someone else) starts a “Holocaust denial ebooks, Free Downloads" list it will fit right in. I think I'd give more regard to Mark Lane's view on Piper than yours, Len. Has Lane written an introduction to any of your books or essays? However, you repeat many of the same slurs and accusations against Piper (especially of the 'guilt by association' kind) that have helped persuade many people his books aren't worth reading. This tactic worked - after a fashion - for several years. But all the people can't be fooled forever... Piper's views are his own. I imagine, like most of us, they have evolved over time. One nuance I found interesting was that he was rather slow to come to the view that (1) 9-11 was a false flag operation and (2) Zionists were ultimately behind it. That does not suggest to me that he is reflexively anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish. It suggests someone who considers the evidence with some care, before he rushes to judgment. Doubtless you can find counter-examples, Len in his many written and spoken works - but I found the 9-11 case telling. You are correct that Best Witness is not about the JFK assassination. You asked about Deborah Conway. I heard the story from Piper on his radio show. When it began a year or so ago, Piper invited Conway to debate him on air. No answer was the harsh reply. A pity really, because if the tale about Conway threatening to join a JDL picket against Piper is not true, she'd have had a perfect chance to repudiate it, directly, on live radio. A general observation about 9-11 disinfo. It has become clear, I think, to those who have kept a critical eye on the saga, that false negative stories have been planted at various stages. These are like mines for the unwary truth seeker. They have a tendency to explode and cause grief. Some of those responsible for seeding disinfo - such as Chris Bollyn - have now, effectively, been outed. Others are doubtless still working less conspicuously inside the '9-11 Truth Movement'. One of their tactics has been to mix wheat with chaff. About a year ago, Bollyn came out with a spectacular series of 'exposes' that tended to confirm the suspicions of people like myself - suspicions that Israeli agents played a central role in 9-11. His stories were noticed because they contained details no-one else had uncovered. Some of this is doubtless spurious, but other bits and pieces may be genuine. It's like hiding jewels by mixing them with imitations. Debunking false conspiracy trails that were laid deliberately - or in some cases unintentionally - also provides scope for new books. I gather Mr Bugliosi has done some work in this area in his recent JFK assassination tome. For that, if for nothing else, he probably deserves some thanks.

As the masses don't appear to read books anymore (unless they are written by some sort of celebrity) it would seem that the way forward is to turn David's book into a film or TV series. Movies are high-brow - and a mini-series puts unrealistic demands on attention span. Computer games are the way to reach the youthful masses. Help RFK track down his brother's killers while he scores political popularity points and dodges bullets.

It is interesting to see the debate over David Talbot's book in the USA - and the comparisons with Bugliosi's ecological disaster. I imagine David's journey to England generated some media there as well. I'm not aware this latest round in the JFK debate has sparked much interest in the Australian media (although I don't read the print media any longer as I already know what Mr Murdoch wants me to think). While the condescension to David Talbot's book is not unexpected, I rather think he has a hot film script on his hands - one that Hollywood may gobble up with glee. The ugly truth, IMO - and this comment is not intended to reflect personally on David Talbot - is that the debate currently underway, comparing and contrasting Talbot and Bugliosi - would not be in the mainstream media at all unless it was regarded as a safe and acceptable debate. If a book about this topic - or others of comparable import - is not part of a permissible debate, the Washington Post, New York Times and the all the rest of our fearless, independent mass media simply don't cover it at all. Example? The obvious one, of course, is Michael Collins Piper's book Final Judgment. Not a single review in six editions. Silence. Not a single major book distributor will take it. For me, that speaks volumes about what's at the cutting and uncomfortable edge and what's not. I should confess that I have not, yet, read Brothers (although I have read reviews). Nor have I seen the movie. In the fullness of time, I intend to remedy both of these omissions.

Sorry to appear pedantic on this one, Sid, but just how does one go about animating a corpse? And then there's the tricky problem of Bin Laden... I missed the joke when I read your comments before, Paul. It's such a good joke it deserves a bump. More seriously, has anyone noticed the terrible outbreak of Al Qaida in Iraq these days? What was once little more than an MI6/CIA/Mossad black op is now so fearsome that it ties down a fighting force of 10,000 - and in a country where prior to 2003, it was unknown. Some call it the Law of Unintended Consequences, but I think they lie or are deceived. This 'consequence' of destroying Iraq was very much intended. It's hard to keep up the war hype without a real enemy. Bomb blasts in western capitals become tiresome. Better by far to damage, then invade, then utterly wreck a civilized country, then, when the locals can stand it no longer and take up arms, call them 'Eurasia', 'Oceania' or 'Al Qaida' - whoever is the designated arch-enemy of the moment.

So, Levy steps down as Middle East 'envoy' - a fellow Ziocon Ronald Cohen is poised to take his place? If that really happens, we'd have the spectacle of one rich Zionist bigot replacing another. Britain's foreign policy in this most contentious part of the world will remain firmly under the thumb of partisan Jewish millionaires. Is there any national pride left in Britain? Time was when the term 'ZOG' (Zionist Occupied Government) was used only by a fringe of malcontents. Perhaps it's time ZOG goes mainstream? The concerns that underlay such an phrase appear to be grounded in fact. I wonder why the British, French and American ZOG Governments don't cede middle eastern foreign policy in entirety to Tel Aviv? Why bother to maintain any facade of independence at all? A periodical broadsheet of instructions, direct from the Israeli regime, would serve the same purpose as Britain's pretense of an independent middle east policy establishment for a fraction of the cost, freeing up funds that could be better spent. More for the bogus 'War on (Arab and Muslim) Terror', of course... and perhaps the Britain Exchequer could stop being so damn stingy and join the (post-JFK) USA in paying Israel direct economic tribute (aid) on an annual basis?

Right on cue, Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz intone the ritual curse in the hallowed pages of The Times: This boycott is not just wrong, it’s anti-Semitic Dershowitz is very pleased with himself at the moment, having got his own back in his long-standing vendetta against Norman Finkelstein, who so ably exposed the fraudulence of Dershowitz's so-called 'scholarship' in earlier encounters. As for as the substantive issues raised by the hectoring Dershowitz and his side-kick, I recommend philosopher Gilad Atzmon as an antidote. The 3rd Category and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement is a good place to start.

What's the real reason why those behind Posner, Bugliosi and the rest of them maintain an outpouring of anti-conspiracy proganda? Aftera all, the slaying of JFK is just history - isn't it? Why do they bother? Surely the reason is that the murder is NOT just history. Some of the people who played a key role in the crime and its cover-up are in very powerful positions. The same kind of clandestine murders and acts of mass deception continue to be perpetrated. That's why they bother. To keep Arlen out of the dock, probably Shimon too... and the rest. If they ever to give up the flow of SBT disinformation, the call for justice would be unimpeded. It would lock-on to some obvious prominet targets. Then the canaries would start to sing... So, like Siphysus, the murderers, apologists and those who have inherited their ill-gotten power are forced to keep pushing the same gigantic boulder of bullxxxx to the top of the hill. It will always roll back. They - or the next round of paid liars - will then be forced to do it again. Pathetic really. Sordid and evil. What a way to waste a brief spell on a wonderful planet.

Thanks for the clarification Daniel. I doubt it was necessary. I think anyone who has read your posts previously would already know that you believe you have a quasi-divine right to scrutinize the motivations of those who find themselves repelled by the apartheid State of Israel - deciding what opposition to the 'Jewish State' is acceptable and what is not. I'm reminded of the Fox News slogan: "We report, you decide" Au contraire, mi amigo. I claim no divine rights, quasi- or otherwise, and I have no problem with those who find themselves repelled by the policies of the "State" of Israel (why would I, since I share that revulsion?). I do criticize the repeated, abundant evidence produced in this very forum by those who are obsessively intent on promoting an antisemitic perspective on things. It's an odd thing called being consistent as much as possible, like criticizing bigotry per se. And not understanding that, you would not understand my very negative attitude towards Mr. Murdoch's Fox News (and media empire), much less understand that antisemitic ideologues are at bottom no different from someone like Dershowitz -- both are fundamentally dishonest Daniel When I was considerably younger, I was peripherally involved with the anti-apatheid movement. That's to say, I wasn't a big wheel in anti-apartheid circles - but I did support the movement. I attended rallies and public meetings. Many of my friends, irrespective of skin pigment, origins and religious views, were also involved in a similar way. I never once recall a conversation in which the motives of a supporter were challenged in such a way as to question the legitimacy of their involvement in the campaign. It may well have happened in my presence but I don't recall it. No-one's involvement in the struggle was considered 'illegitimate' (except, of course, for pro-apartheid infiltrators). That's not to say there weren't fierce debates about goals and strategy. There were. I probably met more PAC supporters than ANC. The black nationalism of the PAC was problematic for non-African supporters such as myself. For those guys, Steve Biko was a figure of greater appeal than the more inclusive Madela of the ANC. Yet despites the inevitable uncertaintaies about post-apartheid South Africa, all parts of the anti-apartheid movement, in my experience, respected each others right to participate in the struggle. There was, as I recall it, a generally held view that the broadest possible coalition was necessary to defeat a very evil heresy: the notion that one group of people are inherently superior to others and should be subject to different laws. Indians fought their own battles with this 'heresy' - witness the long struggle to impose secular and egalitarian values on a previously caste-ridden society. The notion of a minority having elite status was scarcely unque to South Africa. All societies have messy pasts. The difference, we felt, in the case of South Africa, was that it was an attempt to build a modern, powerful, nation-State on caste principles. That was simply beyond the pale. It's one thing to have inherited problems. It's another to entrench systemic injustice through one's own will. Now, contrast the Israel/Palestine conflict and debacle. Of course there are differences. Indeed there are. Yet over its 60 years existence, the Israeli State has moved closer and closer to something which combines supremacist laws with brutal military oppression that goes way beyond the worst excesses of South Africa. Naturally, there's an international movement against apartheid Israel. But it does not get the bounce of the anti-apartheid movement, for a number of major reasons. One of these is the mass media. By the 1980s, most of the western media had swung against South Africa. By contrast, the western media, as a whole, is egregiously biased towards Israel, in blatant and in subtle ways. Another key reason, IMO, is the way that the concept of 'Anti-Semitism' has been deployed in the debate over opposition to Israel. This card is played by objective enemies of Palestine who know precisely what they are doing. But it is also played by innocents, who anxiously wish to 'protect' the perceived purity of the pro-Palestine movement. Imagine what might have happened to the anti-apartheid movement had the regime survived until the present day and successfully managed to cripple opposition by incessant, debilitating mis-focus on self-policing against 'black racism' or 'African fundamentalism' - instead of building a united broad front of opposition to apartheid. Horror and chaos! By now, with Mandela dead in prison, a new generation of anti-apartheid activists would be locked in internal conflict, both inside and beyond the borders of South Africa. Within the country, expect gang warfare between rival factions of blacks, subtly orchestrated by the South African secret police. Daniel, you may well act out of good motives in relation to the Palestinian, but IMO you do the cause no favour by repeatedly turning the debate to avoidance of 'anti-Semitism'. In Australia, there's a term called 'wedge politics', of which our current Prime Minister is widely regarded as a prime exponent. It's hyping-up issues to split the opposition. The movement against the Israeli supremacist State has been wedged from the outset by a very clever campaign to ferment disunity, using the accusation of 'anti-Semitism' to divide and weaken opposition to Israel. For the record, I also dislike a lot of anti-Jewish rhetoric and terminology that I encounter (not here, of course - but in less polite domains). I recall feeling similarly about some of the anti-White and separatist sentiments I heard expressed by PAC activists in the 70s and 80s. But in the case of South Africa, we kept the main enemy - the South African regime) - in our sights. IMO, those who genuinely oppose Israeli apartheid should take the same approach. The Israelis have already physically separated the Palestinian people into isolated cantons and concentration camps. The least we, as external supporters, can do is to maintain unity and focus - especially at a time when we may be about to witness one of the worst horrors of six bloody decades of repression, occupation and step-by-step dispossession.

And I assume you have reams of evidence to back these claims. Yes sarcasm intended, your only reason for posting here seems to be showing how clever you are rather than actually setting the record straight about any of the subjects discussed on this forum. Calling Alan Johnston "a hack" is extremly unfair he strikes me as a couragous guy with the guts to work in dangerous place due to his commitment to getting out the truth. Dom't you write for B2B publications, who's the hack? 1) Surely you must realise by now why I am an attention seeking egomaniac Len, me ol' fruit??? 2) There are many worse names by which employees of the spook infested Coproration should be known. I empathise with Johnstone's predicament but please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that either he or his employer have any interest in the truth. 3) The term 'hack' does not adequately describe a person in my position - because there is no adequate pejorative term for someone who effectively subs advertorial for a living. I agree with Len. The comments about Johnston are tasteless. Under your scenario, he is colluding in his capture. In the absence of evidence, those comments are tantamount to kicking a dog when it's down. I also think the claim that you are less than a perfect person is a thin excuse for poor behaviour. Anyone who's aware of being an "attention-seeker" can do something about it. It would be a good move, IMO FWIW, because minus the occasional self-indulgent outbursts, I think you contribute some fine material to the forum. The forum's hit rate would plummet (remember I have a fan club to think about). And the best is yet to come... PS Up until recently 'hack' was the media colloquialism for 'journalist.' When the industry (in the UK at least) became stuffed with its own self importance (around the same time as BBC Radio Five came into being) the amiable diminutive 'journo' was coined - a term I refuse to use. PPS You're a good egg Sid. Brits may blame the dirty digger for the metamorphosis of hacks into 'journos'. Australians are fond of diminutives. Common examples: pollies (= politicians) and rellos (= relatives). I have even coined one myself: "moggos" (=media moguls). Unfortunately, I can't get any traction on this term, because practically all the journos in the land (and most of the pollies) are beholden to the same damn moggo.

While browsing for a suitable thread to use for the latest round of Israeli-orchestrated destabilization and war-mongering in the middle east (Sudan, Palestine, the Lebanon, Syria, Iran etc) I encountered an article by former BBC-journalist Alan Hart that I'd reproduced in full on the forum in a previous post. I came across this paragraph: I suspect that's broadly correct. There are implications for the USS Liberty incident. Eshkol may well have been unaware of the plot to sink the Liberty. It was, I suspect, a false-flag operation dreamed up by elements in the Israeli military elite, probably led by Dayan - in cahoots with elements within the Zionist international network (especially, but not exclusively, inside the USA - and with strong connections at the highest levels of the US Administration). There is a precedent for this type of thing. In the 1950s, the Lavon Affair - ironically named after the hapless Mr Lavon who was most definitely outside the decision-making loop - was a plot in which the formal chain of command was clearly subverted. The nominal leadership was left to shoulder the embarrassment of a very evil and unsuccessful false-flag operation. The conspirators survived unscathed. A very bad precedent, to say the least.

And I assume you have reams of evidence to back these claims. Yes sarcasm intended, your only reason for posting here seems to be showing how clever you are rather than actually setting the record straight about any of the subjects discussed on this forum. Calling Alan Johnston "a hack" is extremly unfair he strikes me as a couragous guy with the guts to work in dangerous place due to his commitment to getting out the truth. Dom't you write for B2B publications, who's the hack? 1) Surely you must realise by now why I am an attention seeking egomaniac Len, me ol' fruit??? 2) There are many worse names by which employees of the spook infested Coproration should be known. I empathise with Johnstone's predicament but please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that either he or his employer have any interest in the truth. 3) The term 'hack' does not adequately describe a person in my position - because there is no adequate pejorative term for someone who effectively subs advertorial for a living. I agree with Len. The comments about Johnston are tasteless. Under your scenario, he is colluding in his capture. In the absence of evidence, those comments are tantamount to kicking a dog when it's down. I also think the claim that you are less than a perfect person is a thin excuse for poor behaviour. Anyone who's aware of being an "attention-seeker" can do something about it. It would be a good move, IMO FWIW, because minus the occasional self-indulgent outbursts, I think you contribute some fine material to the forum.

You are describing the consequences of successful PR. The masses are informed on a need to know basis. They don't need to know what year 9/11 happened. They do need to 'know' that the dastardly deed was carried out by ARAB ISLAMISTS. It's like the death toll in the Second World War. How many Britons died? How many Americans? How many Poles, Germans, Japanese, Russians or Indians? These are 'non-target' details. No one is expected to know the answer. "NOT six million" will do, but an acceptable alternative is "who cares?"

I think there's a temptation to read recent history backwards and claim (1) it was inevtiable and (2) it was planned down to the last detail. While not discounting your analysis, which has plenty of basis in fact, I do however wonder to what extent the Israeli regime planned the current schism in the Palestinian camp - and to what extent it is opportunistically exploiting the turn of events? A surfer picks his/her wave - but can't control the way it breaks. Hamas wes briefly discussed on another thread, quite recently. Paul pointed to its Israeli-assisted origins; I countered that while there's truth in that, these days the PLO seems far more heavily infiltrated and perverted by outside influence. Both claims, I believe, are accurate.

Thanks for the clarification Daniel. I doubt it was necessary. I think anyone who has read your posts previously would already know that you believe you have a quasi-divine right to scrutinize the motivations of those who find themselves repelled by the apartheid State of Israel - deciding what opposition to the 'Jewish State' is acceptable and what is not. I'm reminded of the Fox News slogan: "We report, you decide" Now I get back to watching my TV and the live images of the latest stage in the 6-decade long slow torture of those who happened to be so unlucky as to find themselves nearby neighbours of the 'light unto nations'.

FWIW, correspondence between Morrissey and Salandria posted on the web was a crucial part of my early JFK assassination education (as late as 2002, I'm rather ashamed to say). It played a crucial role in pushing me "off the fence" and concluding that conspiracy was evident - and that it was rather large. Crucially, it helped me come to the conclusion that the best-known progressive skeptics - notably Chomsky - had not been playing the role of disinterested intellectuals. They both write well. One has a sense of intelligent and honest men groping for the truth. At $2.50 the download is well-priced.

Oh and of course nothing could be further from the truth right Sid? So you think Einstein conned FDR into getting the US involved in WW2? Can you show that anything in the letter was intentionally misleading? Not suggesting that at all Len. But the possibility of this new weapon cast a shadow over other decisions, actions and events. It clearly needs incorporating in anything resembling a full analysis. And it was clearly a major factor for Roosevelt. Roosevelt may have had enough reasons to seek war with Nazi Germany without the WMD scare... but it was in his mix of motivations. David - thanks for the extra material you posted by Hydrick. A fascinating read.

Part of my thesis in this thread is that the murderers of JFK (those ultimately responsible) gained from his death. Some of them, in old age, still hold positions of great power. In this context, a mention of Simon Peres is not out of place. This octogenarian villain has just been elected President of Israel. 'Twas he who told a bald faced lie to JFK's face about Israel's nuclear intentions, way back in March 1963.

Can you expand on this David?

The Voltaire.net article translated... The German police force thwarts an attempted US attack against the G8 The German police force thwarts an attempted US attack against the G8 Deutsche Press-Agentur and Agenzia Giornalistica Italia reported Thursday June 7, 2007 that German police had surprised "US security service men (Secret Service?) trying to smuggle C4 military explosives through a control point in Heiligendamm" where the G8 summit was taking place. After the bag containing the explosives was detected by the testing devices, specify the agencies, the American agents, dressed in civilian clothes, were immediately identified. German police refused to comment on this event (see dispatches below). With the exception of an Iraqi episode in which British special forces were uncovered sowing terror disguised as Arabs [i did a radio commentary on this -- see below -- Jody], it is the first time that Western news services have reported the failure of a "False flag operation" in Europe. On July 7, 2005, at the beginning of the G8 summit, an attack killed 56 and wounded more than 700. The summit's agenda was modified, the principal topics being abandoned to address the fight against global terrorism. As we explained then, the terrorists introduced their explosives under the cover of an anti-terrorist exercise in an identical fashion (to read our articles "Attacks of London: the same scenario was going on simultaneously in the form of an exercise!" and "London joins again with the strategy of the tension", by Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, July 13, 2005.). _____________________________________ here are two links that confirm the incident: http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=9424 "Sources told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa that US security men tested German security by trying to smuggle C4 plastic explosive past a checkpoint at Heiligendamm. German surveillance machinery detected the tiny stash in a suitcase in a car and the Americans in plainclothes then identified themselves. German police declined comment." http://www.finanzen.net/news/news_detail.asp?NewsNr=535798 "US-Sicherheitskräfte haben die Gipfel-Kontrollen nach dpa-Informationen mit dem Transport einer geringen Menge Sprengstoff getestet. Der in einem Koffer versteckte Plastiksprengstoff vom Typ C4 sei von deutschen Beamten an einer Kontrollstelle in einem Auto entdeckt worden. Die G8-Polizeieinheit Kavala wollte den Vorfall vom Dienstag nicht bestätigen." The german one states the US 'security forces' TESTED the Summit secuity by transporting a small amount of explosives. The plastic explosives of the type C4 which were hidden in a suitcase,were detected by German Officers at a checkpoint in a car. Interestingly enough, the special G8 police unite 'Kavala' denied to confirm the report.