Sid Walker

This will be a blockbuster the day Palestinians dominate Hollywood! It is 30 years since the heroic, almost miraculous Israeli rescue operation in Entebbe. How time flies! This week, The Guardian reported: Documents claim Israel aided Entebbe hijack: The Telegraph ran a similar report: Israeli agents 'helped Entebbe hijackers'These reports don't seem to be based on more than 30-year old hearsay. "David Colvin, the first secretary at the British embassy in Paris...heard it from a contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association... that Israeli intelligence may have had a hand in an airline hijacking before sending in commandos to rescue the hostages at Entebbe". As far as I know the un-named source may be right - but the evidential basis for these claims does not appear very strong. Is Colvin still alive? Has anyone interviewed him about this? It would be nice to know, but as usual the mainstream press fails to undertake real follow up. The PFLP action was interpreted by the FO as an attempt to undermine closer PLO ties with western countries, especially the USA and France. The Israeli media have now picked up the story. The Haaretz report has sparked a lively debate on its web forum. Not surprisingly, most Israeli reaction has been to cry foul. The hand of MI6 is suspected. Those devious, dissembling Brits... All of which is quite understandable. Which is the more devious bunch of unaccountable lying shysters: British or Israeli 'intelligence'? It's like an ancient riddle. The correct answer is probably "neither" (i.e. they are equally untrustworthy). But what motive would the British have for falsifying these archives? Also, the story does tally with the official reaction of the British Government at the time - and other information that has come to light over the years about Israeli infiltration of various Palestinian factions. If the story is accurate and Israel did deliberately set up the Entebbe hijack, it had a notable consequence within the Israeli elite. The elder brother of Benjamin Netanyahu was the sole Israeli commando killed in the raid. Could this help to explain the diversity of views within the Netanyahu family on military aggression?

Another essential contribution from the Wackford Squeers of the Education Forum. My God you do have a sharp tongue Paul. At the risk of copping a dose myself, I really must stick up for Michael here. (1) His successful campaign to help Len improve the presentation of his posts has been a blessing for all concerned. (2) Even if you don't share my fondness for Michael posts, is Wackford Squeers really the appropriate literary analogy? The British Library reports that headmaster William Shaw was the model for Dickens' hateful character. In 1823, Shaw had been prosecuted for beatings and neglect that led to the blinding of two of his pupils. Wikipedia is similarly unflattering: It's a side of Michael Hogan I have yet to see on the forum. He seems a such a nice guy. Hard to imagine him sadistically whipping other members. Still, it clearly worked wonders with Len

Yes what horrendous and baseless slander of a man you seem to admire. Obviously he was neither of the above! My point, Len, may not have come across clearly. I'll try again. For all I know, Hitler may have wet his bed in childhood. I remember sniggering about bed-wetting when I was a boy. What a loser! On the other hand, John Dolva - and many, many others - focus on the phenomenon of 'Hitler as mega-murderer'. Like most who adhere to that belief, John doesn't worry too much about the evidence. He says it it is "certainly" the case. Actually, I accept that Hitler gave orders to murder. Let's take something that's not contentious. There's plenty of evidence that indicates his policy towards insurgents in territory under Nazi control was not dissimilar to Israeli anti-insurgency policy throughout the last six decades. Hitler ordered reprisals - often deliberately authorizing greater loss of life than the original attacks. Brutal? Yes. Murderous? I believe so. Nevertheless, even if Mailer is right (let's accept for the sake of argument that the young Hitler did wet the bed) AND the murderer view of Hitler is also correct (at least in part), analysis that clusters entirely around that polarity is one-dimensional and doesn't even provide a cardboard cut-out view of the man or his times. It manufactures a Hitler minus any real understanding... indeed, it makes him pure myth. He's a villain... and/or a freak. Nothing else. Nothing more. Hitler's pre-war attempt to secure an international ban on aerial warfare, his decision not to use sarin gas during the conflict and his unwillingness to kill off more than a quarter of a million enemy troops at Dunkirk when he had every opportunity to do so, must be ignored in any such analysis. They don't fit inside straitjacket of the pathetic loser / arch-devil dichotomy - so they are typically not mentioned at all. Refusal to even look at Hitler's positive qualities - and policies - also leads to complete inability to understand or explain his considerable popularity with the German people. Required to view Hitler ONLY as villain OR wierdo, we are also forced to view the great majority of the German people of that era as EITHER hapless idiots OR savage villains reveling in a leader who finally allowed them to be as vile as they really wanted to be. Simplification of analysis and demonization of enemy nations and their leaders is characteristic of war time propaganda. It has its uses - in war. However, the Second World War ender more than six decades ago. It's time to stop living and reliving that war and start the process of dispassionate, rational analysis of what happened. In fact, it's long overdue! Infamy may be appropriate in wartime, but its techniques are wholly inappropriate to peaceful co-existence.

Len, Thanks. You could be correct. It may be no more than a widespread assumption that Zoellick is 'Jewish'. May I ask you a question. Is Zoellick NOT Jewish? If Bob Zoellick is not Jewish, he certainly has a lot of people confused. Not the first time that's happened in history, I'll grant you. Sometimes confusion can even affect the individual concerned. I understand that happened in the case of Madeleine Albright, who 'discovered' her Jewish ancestry only after her appointment as US Secretary of State and once her efforts to co-ordinate an international push against Iraq got underway. One may reasonably ask what the word means, in any case. Does Zoellick attend synagogue? I have no idea. Is he part of a genetically distinct group? I doubt it. Does he promote the interests of the State of Israel? it would appear so. Did his mother and/or father consider themselves Jewish? That's probably the unresolved issue here. Do you, Len, know for sure, either way? Regarding his PNAC allegiance, one could take the point of view that lobbying to invade Iraq was not 'pro-Israel' at all, but 'pro-democracy' - and that signatories to the Project for the New American Century were not pro-Israel stooges but honest pro-democracy intellectuals on a compassionate mission to improve the world. In that case, they were - on anyone's definition - miserably and disastrously wrong. So there we have it. Either the next head of the World Bank is a pro-Israel stooge, or his judgment on major contemporary events is woeful and he's an unrepentant fool. Take your pick. On either analysis, having been a significant influence behind the utter destruction of one previously quite prosperous nation, Zoellick has been promoted to experiment on the entire world. An odd way to reqard failure. John's point, of course, is in some ways of greater concern. For the WB Presidency to be the gift of a US President is quite blatant injustice. Is this an world organization - or what? A serious critique of the World Bank would take many threads. It's another international institution dating from the end of World War Two, set up in haste and never subsequently reformed by a functional, co-operating world polity. It has backed numerous lousy projects and doubtless some benign projects - but overall is a pale shadow of what the world might expect from its premier banking institution. As I understand the story, when the IMF and World Bank were established, there was a hard fought contest between some of the world's greatest progressive economic minds, led by Keynes, and the world's most entrenched financial forces. The latter won.

No more news on Mr Bernard Shapiro, as far as I can see. Perhaps the NZ police still haven't found time to process his case? Perhaps the NZ media hasn't bothered to report it? Who knows? Who cares? That's why it's called the Memory Hole...

Duane - and or Jack. Could you please do me a favour? Direct me to the thread on this forum where you believe the 'Lunar Landing Hoax' theory is presented in its strongest form. There have been many threads on the topic/ I don't pretend to have read them all carefully. That's why I'd like your help. Show me your case in what you consider to be its strongest form. No need to repeat the arguments - just direct me to what already exists. In an earlier post on this thread, I suggested that at least some of the people promoting the lunar hoax theory may have a dark agenda. I'd like to make it clear that I do not consider that to be the case for all who promote the theory. I also retain an open mind... but I don't come to new beliefs lightly. Coming to the view that the official version of 9-11 was a gigantic hoax was not easy for me. It hurt. I needed very strong evidence to come round to that view - and believe I encountered it. I do not - to date - have anything close to the same feeling regarding the 'evidence' I've seen that the lunar landings were hoaxed.

To explain Churchill’s motive we have to understand British foreign policy in the 1920s and 1930s. As I said earlier, the main fear during this period was the spread of communism. After the First World War the political attitudes of people in Europe moved to the left. This was partly due to the perceived success of the government in the Soviet Union. .................. .......................... As I said earlier, Hitler had failed to grasp that Chamberlain and his right-wing government, was not a dictatorship and he was forced to declare war as a result of the actions of opposition MPs and a growing number of Tories who had begun to support Churchill. Even so, declaration of war on Germany was followed by the “phoney war”. Both sides continued to take part in secret negotiations. However, when these broke down Hitler took the bold decision to invade Norway. Chamberlain was now put under pressure to resign. Chamberlain approached Clement Attlee, the leader of the Labour Party, to help form a National Government. Attlee refused to serve under Chamberlain. That night, the German Army invaded Holland and Belgium. Chamberlain then went to Buckingham Palace and offered his resignation. The king suggested that Lord Halifax, the arch-appeaser, should takeover as prime-minister. Chamberlain said that was his choice as well, but that Attlee had made it clear that the Labour Party would be unwilling to serve under Halifax. Chamberlain admitted that the only possible candidate for the job was Churchill. When the House of Commons met on 13th May, 1940, Tory MPs rose to cheer Chamberlain. When Churchill stood up to speak, the only cheers came from Labour MPs. Tories were only too aware that Churchill had gained power by betraying a policy that he had agreed with. They believed it was only a matter of time before he began secret negotiations with Hitler. They were right. (more later) Without debating (for now) the detail of your presentation, John, I'll state the obvious. What you have outlined does not constitute a motive for Churchill to murder the Duke of Kent in 1942. Perhaps more is coming...?

Len, I propose a swop in the best traditions of Cold War trading - you produce Bin Laden, and we'll produce hard evidence the video is faked. Now what could be fairer or more decisive? PS He has to be in something other than an advanced state of decomposition. Cryogenic suspension is also a no-no. I realise how unfair these conditions are, but that's, er, life. A brief truce would be a great idea for both sides of the WoT. I propose that Bush relaxes the $25-million-reward-we-want-Bin-Laden-dead-or-alive policy, just for a couple of days, to allow The Evil One an appearance on the prime-time TV chat show of his choice (Larry King Live?) He could re-affirm his existence and re-commit to attacking Crusaders everywhere. Perhaps a head to head debate with with Alan Dershovitz could be arranged? A psychological boost for the worlds' 'jihadis' is a small price for the Ziocon cause to pay, considering the potential benefits: an end to sniggering from pesky skeptics like me and fewer outbreaks of heresy in the ranks.

A good job well done Len. You can add 'USS Liberty Rebuttal Competency' to your cv. I for one have little enthusiasm for debating these obscure points with you. No offence intended. I think it's fairly cear what happened and others visiting this thread will also make up their own minds, hopefully pointed to a to few of the most important references on this topic. As the 40th anniversay of the USS Liberty attack is coming up in a few days time, a small crop of articles can be expected. Here's Justin Raimondo wrap in antiwar.com: Remember the Liberty! Tim Fischer, former leader of the Australian Nationals, writes a fascinating poiece published in the Melbourne Age: Six days of war, 40 years of secrecy I reproduce it in full, partly because the old fox appears to have come to a similar conclusion (emphases added):

Perhaps the Bush Administration's latest insult to the world community deserves a thread on his own? After all, we may have to witness his antics for years to come. I should acknowledge a kinder, gentler Zoellick. USinfo.state.gov shows us that he cuddles pandas. Last year, Zoellick skipped off to Goldman Sachs after a "successful" stint at the State Department. What did he set out to do? The mind boggles. Perverse that Goldman Sachs was so keen to snap up this great talent. Zoellick has also dabbled in helping to demolish multinational corporations. According to Robert Parry, "Robert Zoellick...worked for Enron... as a paid member of Enron's advisory board." Many on the Republican right have long harboured a desire to wind up 'internationalist' institutions such as the UN and the World Bank. Perhaps that's why they don't care when The Decider chooses The Terminator II to head the world's premier banking institution?

A replacement for Paul Wolfowitz "has been found" to head the World Bank. He is Bob Zoellick. Another Ziocon with an inglorious track record of war-mongering on behalf of the State of Israel. Perhaps a little affirmative action is required at the World Bank, to level the playing field in favour of the 99+% of the world's population who happen to be gentiles? Lest we forget...

Sid, Bin Lid isn't dead, merely, like all good thespians, "resting" between cameos, albeit in a non-conscious state. I thought I saw him yesterday in Haldon Street, Lakemba. I saw him yesterday too...he was drinking a pina colada at Trader Vics. His hair was perfect. You guys are very laid back about missing out on $25 million. What's more, failure to dob in the Evil One is a crime punishable by rendition. I trust you realize the CIA browses this forum from time to time.

I suspect that Stephen is involved in a leg-pull. His brother did not go to Egypt in the same way that Armstrong did not go to the moon. That's quite possible John. Incidentally, one of the great fakes of the 9-11 truth movement also claims the lunar landings were hoaxed. Eric Hufschmidt did what seemed to be crucial and courageous work debunking the official story in the years following 9-11, but has since shown himself to be a disinfo agent, His uncritical promotion of the lunar hoax theory - based on what seemed to me to be utterly vacuous 'evidence' - set off my crap detector before his broader agenda became plain to anyone paying attention. On Eric's own account, he is linked by marriage to the Murdoch family. Some hoaxes - hoaxes that help tarnish the investigation of genuine conspiracies - need a little push along. Nothing too much trouble for a well-organized plutocracy.

No need to bother with motive Stephen. It's a well-known fact that people often fake summer holidays - a loathsome habit - out of pride, laziness and occasionally pure spite. Is he a younger brother? If so, I suggest a good thrashing.

Oh dear. They are at it again: al-Qaida Video Threatens Attacks on U.S. Who will rid us of these B-grade spooks?

As I've made clear on other threads, I am one of those who believes that the JFK assassination has - in broad outline - already been solved. Final Judgment, in my opinion, identified the conspiratorial network ultimately responsible for JFK's murder and the subsequent cover-up. While others were involved in the conspiracy (and author Mike Piper acknowledges this), the key decision-makers were Zionists. According to this hypothesis, a crucial reason behind JFK's murder was his policies on Israel and the Middle East. In that context, it is interesting to speculate on how events might have evolved in Israel/Palestine had JFK remained in power for two terms. Would the 1967 war - and it's outcome - have been at all conceivable with Kennedy in the White House? Would the Israelis have been able to complete their production of nuclear weapons? (Johnson allowed Israel to do this) Would the USS Liberty have been sunk in an 'accident' on Kennedy's watch? Would Kennedy have permitted a cover-up of such an incident? Without Israel's 1967 land grab - which exceeded in scope Israel's failed expansionist push in 1956 - the current shape of the Hold Land and surrounding area would be very different. World attention would have remained focussed - after 1967 as before - on the original sources of Palestinian grievance, not the additional injustices of 1967 whose reversal has now become the center-piece of 'respectable' peace proposals. I submit that, from what we know of Kennedy and his trusted advisers - and from what we have learnt since his death of his independent and fair-minded approach to Israel, Arab nations and the US Zionist lobby - it is inconceivable that events would have swung so far towards Israel's advantage during the 1960s had he survived. If JFK had lived, the following outcomes were likely: - no Israeli nuclear weapons - no 'successful' expansionist Israeli war, such as the 1967 6-day war - no US toleration of Israel's persistent refusal to honour the right of return for 1948+ Palestinian refugees. - no willingness to let Zionist networks progressively dominate the American polity. In other words, no militarily ascendant Israel, automatically supported by an infiltrated and essentially brainless US Government, such as we experience today. It is true that other parts of the world might also have fared very differently had Kennedy and his Administration survived. Vietnam and Cuba spring to mind. Yet in neither case did the frosty and aggressive policies of Kennedy's replacements succeed in the long term. In 2007, Vietnam is united under Communist rule - and so is Cuba. If control of these countries was a key goal for the conspirators who killed JFK, they failed miserably. In the case of Israel, by contrast, 'success' in perpetuating long-term injustice is rather blatant.

I'm not enthused that this thread has been resurrected, as I consider my opening post one of my more unappealing contributions to this forum. As I recall, I had just been criticized on another thread for 'obsessing' with something or other to do with conspiracies. The result was a rather cynical outburst which did me little credit, especially when read out of context. However, John's latest post does enable me to highlight what I think is an important point. Of course it is true that, every day, horrific numbers of people die horrible, unnecessary, untimely deaths because of gross social injustice and other soluble, human-created problems. It has been a constant throughout my life. However, the best way to deal with this is not so obvious. I would argue that - if effective - work that exposes and helps to overcome the criminal plutocracy that has increasingly gained a strangle-hold over international policy-making... such worl makes a first class, albeit indirect contribution to the well-being of humanity and our ability to arrest environmental decline. This is arguably the most important task before us. In the person of JFK, for instance, the world had a US President with a clear and very ambitious agenda for global peace. But when he was murdered in office, in a rather obvious conspiracy, the progressive intelligentsia largely pretended to know better than to "waste time" on "conspiracy theories". The peace movement needs to do a much better job protecting our most successful advocates - and seeking justice if they are callously 'culled' by people who, however they may rationalize their behaviour, are essentially murderers. What's the connection with the global environmental crisis? Simply this. World society must co-operate to a quite unprecedented extent to solve the environmental challenges we face. Such co-operation is improbable - if not impossible - as long as the world is ridden with military conflict. We now know enough about wars - and the many elements that make up a modern warfare culture - to know these things do not come about by chance, or as an inevitable consequence of 'human nature'. They are manufactured. We need to bring the manufacturers to justice and take away their ability to cause mayhem.

Bush Snr to Bush Jnr: "Son, you're making the same mistake in Iraq that I made with your mother. I didn't pull out in time ..."

Don't rise to the bait John! I'm a semi professional agent provocateur! I'm also an inveterate attention seeker, showman and lay-about. Your a good bunch on this board (even ol' 'Simmers' for all his nonsense which I'm about to set fire to on the Churchill thread), but Christ, you are weighed down with so much PC baggage! When it comes to unpicking conspiracies, folks, it helps if you first remove the ideological blinkers (he said mixing his metaphors). It's only when the truth really hurts you that you know you've got it right! Have you considered a career as a talking head on TV, Michael? You seem to meet the selection criteria.

It is not a question of 'being bothered' Michael, but a distinct lack of time that hinders most on this forum. You are a journalist and so I presume you would have the time to follow up on this. Would you care to educate us on the conclusions that you have reached? Two books have recently been released on the Litvinenko case. Perhpas you would care to share your conclusions with Scotland yard? John I have to agree with John that there are only so many hours in the day. However, Michael, I share his interest in the conclusions you have drawn. Scotland Yard can speak for itself.

I know what you mean, but I would not go as far as this. No, John, you don't have a clue what I mean. Your mission statement (to fit Churchill up), your failure even to mention the obvious leading suspect(s) in the Duke of Kent case and your evasive, inadequate reply to my question all make Operation Paget appear credible by comparison. I hear the steady drone of Lancasters coming to 'Coventrize' your argument... I think it would be fair to say you have a number of us intrigued, Michael. Certainly you can count me in. I'd like to see your cards. What've you got? In a similar spirit, I'd like to hear more from John about the motive he believes Churchill would have had for killing the Duke of Kent in 1942. By then the war party was firmly ensconced in power in Britain, with Churchill at the helm of the British State at War. I'm unaware of any significant, organized 'peace camp' in Britain by that stage in the war. Why, in your view, would Churchill have wanted the Duke's death so much? Sikorski was a very different case. His refusal to accept Allied propaganda about Katyn and his concurrence with Hitler's demand for a Red Cross Inquiry into the mass slaughter of Polish officers in eastern Poland was deeply embarrassing to the allied leaders. But what, in your view, was the threat posed by the Duke of Kent to Churchill and his interests? If I missed this in your presentation, please excuse me. I'm rather short of time at present and don't have time right now to re-read the thread.

When the London Evening Standard comes up with a headline like this, you know Tony's really lost the plot: Shambles of Blair plan for 'stop and question' powers Tony's last lunge at the civil liberties of the British? His last political kick-back to the anti-democratic forces who installed him in power and cheered on his malfeasance for more than a a decade? Let's hope so.

Actually I found this a disappointment, Ron. Having read your intro, I naturally clicked the video link, expecting to see a clean strike to the face, some shock and awe and perhaps a Presidential expletive. As it is, the video shows a small white spot on Bush's sleeve, easily fabricated by a junior retouch artist. Personally, I don't think this story merits network news.

Definitely the most improbable hypothesis advanced on this forum since Owen Parsons proposed that US foreign policy was biased towards the Palestinian cause.

This morning I listen again to the ABC radio, to discover that the US President has devoted his considerable analytical skills to this topic (perhaps he visits the forum to stay in touch) - see Bush: Bin Laden free because US 'hasn't got him' Still, the news from Dubya isn't all bad... Ah, so that's why we've wrecked two countries and counting... To stop our boogie men from "feeding the hungry". How US policy has progressed since the Ziocon takeover...