Paul Rigby

Or fabricating: These messages were not played nor even were they claimed to exist during the recent 7/7 Inquests. We need to know: Did the Times hack the phone messages of the 4 accused of 7/7? Who was the ‘police source’ who gave this information to the Times? Why did the 7/7 Inquests not have an opportunity to hear these messages? Why did the 7/7 Inquests not refer to these messages? Regards J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign Posted by Bridget at 7/12/2011 10:35:00 AM http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/07/murdoch-phone-hacking-and-77.html

Well said, John. In fact, if one recalls the campaign against Harold Wilson, and compares it to that waged against Gordon Brown, we appear to be looking at a more or less identical operation - only we must substitute News International for BOSS and Gordon Winter. In both instances, MI5 (and GCHQ) melted into the background, permitting the bugging, burgling and blagging to run unchecked, presumably as intended. How MI5 and GCHQ have evaded scrutiny in the face of hacking on this (industrial) scale beggars belief. But the former is doubtless too busy celebrating the wholesale discrediting of the Met's counter-terrorism directorate to spare much time for a public accounting. A piece that wouldn't look out of place in Ramsay & Dorril's Smear: Wilson and the Secret State (London: Fourth Estate, 1991): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Smear-Wilson-Secret-Stephen-Dorril/dp/0586217134

Brehm's initial description, as it appeared in the first post-assassination edition of the Dallas Times Herald: “President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

And you don't cherry-pick, Pat? Remarkable: You must be the only one of us without sin. Quite the reverse is true: The Warren Commission ignored those witnesses who should be in the Z-fake, but aren't. The one fake, the inquiry, reinforced the other, the film, as witnesses who were called were badgered into resiling from their initial claim that the presidential limo came to a complete halt.

I don't count the Lockerbie bombing for the good and proper reason that the trial of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was a rigged and corrupt farce: Instead of blowing Libyan women and children to smithereens, the US government could be ensuring its own kids have a roof over their heads, and enough food in their bellies to sleep at night. A Commie-type proposal, no doubt: Hard times generation: homeless kids

The far-right extremists of NATO at work:

That's so sensible you'll never get anywhere in US politics, Don.

Explains quite a bit, all things considered, Bill, not least your standards of "proof" and "evidence": Goodness, that's compelling. I wonder what the excuse was when the CIA helped the Guatemalan military and its death squads eradicate several hundred Mayan villages - and many of their occupants - in Guatemala? http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/peten.htm The human rights of the land owners had been violated, perhaps?

And what about the Belgian nuns, Bill? Really, this is just a compendium of State Department nonsense attempting to justify an oil grab and regime change.

I see the parallel at once - both uprisings were a disaster for black people: Racial exterminism - as American as apple pie:

That's a smokescreen - they're nothing of the sort: They're intellectual secret policeman, working to channel dissent among the thoughtful and the politically active in directions either helpful or unthreatening to the deep state in general, and the CIA in particular. The point is easy to prove. A genuine structuralist would examine the CIA as a power system and institution, precisely as he (or she) would any other: Chomsky runs a mile from doing any such thing, most notably in Rethinking Camelot, which, stripped of its rhetorical veneer of New Leftism - and a very thin layer it is, too, in this instance - is one of the crudest pieces of CIA hack-work yet committed to paper. Much of it is laughably contradictory, as Donald Gibson showed in The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up (NY: Kroshka Books, 2000), most notably in his chapter "Establishment Radicals and Kennedy: Lamont, Chomsky, and Russell" (pp.203-223). What they were really up to is this: What sustains them is a Foundation- and CIA-funded pseudo-Left, an echo chamber (based largely in British and US universities), and a control of the "alternative" media every bit as rigid and suffocating as that which pertains in its nominal opposite, the mainstream. Amy Goodman would no more permit a thorough-going critique of Chomsky's services to Langley - which funded him in his research endeavours - than NBC would give 9/11 dissidence a platform. Calling them "structuralist" is not merely to reproduce their own preening propaganda, but to miss the point entirely.

No wonder Counterpunch never runs out of money... Self-satire: the last refuge of the pseudo-Left

I see the parallel at once - both uprisings were a disaster for black people:

A modest proposal for an Obomber re-election speech: With apologies to Peggy Noonan, a truly great satirist.

Al Jazeera small ad: Some antidotes to Bill's nonsense: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/fake-revolutions.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/11/libya http://www.voltairenet.org/The-plan-to-destabilize-Syria http://tarpley.net/2011/06/20/cia-fake-arab-spring-becoming-summer-of-war/ The Revolution Business: http://youtu.be/lpXbA6yZY-8

Just how naive so many students were - and, in the current moment in North Africa and elsewhere, remain - is clear: This Big Business dialectic with the New Left is confirmed independently by Gerald Kirk, who as a student at the University of Chicago, and became active in the SDS, the DuBois Club,[31] the Black Panthers, and the Communist Party, as an informant for the FBI. Kirk broke from the Left in 1969. The following year, he testified before the House and Senate Internal Security panels: Twitterers of the World Revolution: The Digital New-New Left by Dr. K R Bolton, February 28, 2011 [28] Left-liberal Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy. [29] Conservative Southern Democratic presidential candidate George Wallace. [30] James Kunen The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, (New York: Avon, 1970), “At the convention, Men from Business International Roundtables,” pp. 130–131. [31] A Communist Party front named after Afro-American scholar W E B DuBois. [32] “Investigation of SDS 1969,” Committee on Internal Security, 91st Congress, 1st Session, Pt. 5, pp. 1654-1705 of hearings. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/28/twitterers-of-the-world-revolution-the-digital-new-new-left/2/

I cheerfully confess to antecedent bias: I harbour a deeply-rooted objection to having my reading matter determined by an egomaniacal American. If I wanted the latter, I'd buy a Murdoch organ each morning. You are mistaken. Scully's boastful confession of responsibility is cunningly hidden from you in an obscure section of the JFK site, under the thoroughly misleading title of Moderator actions and guide for mods: How to move posts to a new thread. Post 82 in that drear list of interventions runs as follows: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14562&view=findpost&p=229181 I particularly enjoyed a) the attempt to cloak a petty and unjustified act of censorship in the uniform of heroic and disinterested self-sacrifice; and the language of the Western, as Scully describes his activity in language better suited to the movement of steers, not intelligent contributions to an interesting topic. That's 39 words more than you've managed, and 4% more than a good many posters, all of whose posts have gone unmolested. If the Scully criterion - "No historical context or parallels, please, we're researchers" - were to be applied consistently, we'd presumably be obliged to ignore the passages in, for example, Thomas Buchanan's book wherein he looks back at previous presidential assassinations and demonstrates the prevalence & continuity of political motivation. I'm also curious to establish whether or not you are the same Len Colby who objected to the same moderator's act of censorship in shutting down Todd Vaughn's thread concerning DiEugenio's somewhat startling knowledge of the former's acquisition of unpublished Weisberg manuscripts? Or is it just the case that censorship is fine when it suits? Do tell.

An excellent post, with a number of nails hit firmly on the head. I would only dissent to this degree: Scully is a lethal combination of hyperactivity and inconsistency. That's fine as a poster, but not as a moderator. More, this was such a blatantly unfair action as to pose profound questions as to his agenda. If I could only read his extraordinary genealogical posts more easily, I would have some idea what, if any, that is.

No , it isn't, Evan. As Greg Burnham rightly pointed out, Scully's decision to move Fetzer's posting was a) without justification (as it was germane to the subject of JFK); 2) brazenly hypocritical (given his non-action over Lifton's thread attacking Fetzer on the subject of 9/11; and 3) motivated, given 1), by (a) motive(s) not intrinsic to the piece itself, and thus ulterior. Loyalty to a fellow-moderator possesses merit only when criticism is without foundation. In this case, Scully's action was inexcusable. I note that your own antipathy to Fetzer and his take on 9/11 is itself well-attested. Is this colouring your view? Now, how about a response of substance: why was Fetzer's thread moved? Or is arbitrary and unaccountable moderation the new order of the day?

Scully is manifestly unsuited to be a moderator. He should resign at once.

There must have been quite a bit of that sort of thing going on that day, Chris - and I thought Texas was a conservative sort of place:

Good Lord, with one honourable exception*, what a far-out mish-mash. It's like Mae Brussel on acid. I know. Embarrassing, isn't it? Thank goodness for the sober common sense of the in-car shootists. *CIA used a smoke-bomb as a distractor in the Audubon Ballroom on 21 Feb 1965.

Sen. Yarborough's recollections? Let's be really daring, shall we, Pat - and try published stuff from November 1963? http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/2011/05/senator-yardborough-saw-driver-shoot.html#links I loved this bit: Almost as much as I liked this earlier line: Source: Carleton Kent, “Sen. Yarborough Terms It ‘A Deed of Horror,’” Chicago Sun-Times, 23 November 1963, p.14 No wonder you omitted this cutting from your list. Still, no excuses now, eh? Paul

I wouldn't take the usual suspects too seriously, Martin. It's not exactly a secret what they're about: Scratch an anti-alterationist, and you tend to find a Warren Commission lawyer at work: Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY: Vintage Books, June 1992 reprint), pp.4-5. Know them by their lineage.

For the most part, it's all pretty predictable fair. In fact, a typical Farley post, commingling, as it does, aggressive self-pity, tawdry logic, and self-satire - all suffused with that characteristic ill-suppressed hysteria. But then things take a turn for the better. Among the detritus of the the following paragraph, a sentence, highlighted, commands attention: The highlighted sentence is so clunkingly sub-tabloid that it just had to be the work of, not Farley, but DisIngenuous*. All of which begs the inevitable question: how much of the rest of this, and other posts, ostensibly by Farley, are actually the work of DisIngenuous? And is this an isolated instance of DisIngenuous sock-puppetry? Keep your eyes peeled, folks, and perhaps also the ears: some of those Black Op emails to Jimbo are frightfully sycophantic. *“That quote he uses does not mean what he takes it to mean,” DisIngenuous, 6 Nov 2008 https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?226-Where-to-buy-the-very-good-1992-British-documentary-on-the-assassination-of-RFK&p=958#post958 "You really might want to not stop taking your medication." Thanks for the "clunky" feedback. My clunkometer was damaged when my spine fell out of my back whilst laughing at how somebody like you wields their own incredible intelligence with hands made out of stupid. I think you may have had a hard day at the "Office of Writing Contractual Terms and Conditions." Have a night off, Paul. Even when you do dispense with the thesaurus puking, I still have absolutely no idea what you're prattling on about. P.S. Is everyone cool with members accusing other members of being other people and using pseudonyms? Cool. Because you Paul, you're a ringer for that Gollum bloke from The Lord of the Rings. You're not what one would call naturally witty, are you? Nighty-night, er, Jimbo. Prophetic, indeed.