Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Weizman at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919

Weizman was a leader of the Jewish delegation that presented the case for a Jewish homeland to the Allied leaders as they deliberated how to divide up former German and Ottoman possessions, although Britain and France had already staked their own claims in their private Agreement. At Paris, Weizman co-presented a Statement, together with a map of the proposed homeland. This clashed with the expectation of Faisal's Arab delegation that his state would include Palestine. The Jewish statement supported the creation of a mandate entrusted to Britain, pointing out that:

The preference on the part of the Jews for a British Trusteeship is unquestionably the result of the peculiar relationship of England to he Jewish Palestinian problem. The return of the Jews to Zion has not only been a remarkable feature in English literature, but in the domain of statecraft it has played its part, beginning with the readmission of the Jews under Cromwell II manifested itself particularly in the 19th century in the instructions given to British Consular representatives in the Orient after the Damascus Incident; in the various Jewish Palestinian projects suggested by English non-Jews prior to 1881; in the letters of endorsement and support given by members of the Royal Family and Officers of the Government to Lawrence Oliphant; and finally, in the three consecutive acts which definitely associated Great Britain with Zionism in the minds of the Jews, viz - The El Arish offer in 1901; the East African offer in 1903, and lastly the British Declaration in favor of a Jewish National Home in Palestine in 1917. Moreover, the Jews who have gained political experience in many lands under a great variety of governmental systems, whole-heartedly appreciate the advanced and liberal policies adopted by Great Britain in her modern colonial administration.[1]

The newly formed League of Nations ratified the British Mandate for Palestine on July 24, 1922. The mandate required Britain to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" while at the same time "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."[2] Palestinian Arabs, Christian as well as Muslim, had started to protest against the Mandate since the Peace Conference had ended. The Hashemite family of Emir Hussein had expected Syria and Palestine, as well as continuing to rule the Hejaz, and briefly controlled the former and the latter. However, France had laid its stake on Syria and Hussein was forced into exile by Prince Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud who founded Saudi Arabia. In 1921, the British made Emir Faisal King of Iraq, and his brother, as-Sayyid Abdullah king of Trans-Jordan. Both territories were carved from out of their mandated portion of the former Ottoman Empire.

Sykes-Picot Agreement

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Sykes-Picot_Agreement

It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments---

1. That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States in the areas (A) and (B) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States.

2. That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States. 3. That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca.

4. That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigris and Euphrates in area (A) for area (B). His Majesty's Government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third Power without the previous consent of the French Government.

5. That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British Empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the red area, or (B) area, or area (A); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (A), or area (B), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

6. That in area (A) the Baghdad Railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (B) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad with Aleppo via the Euphrates Valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two Governments.

7. That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (B), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times.

It is to be understood by both Governments that this railway is to facilitate the connexion of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French Government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the polygon Banias-Keis Marib-Salkhab Tell Otsda-Mesmie before reaching area (B).

8. For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (A) and (B), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversion from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two Powers.

There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above-mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.

9. It shall be agreed that the French Government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third Power, except the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States without the previous agreement of His Majesty's Government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French Government regarding the red area.

10. The British and French Governments, as the protectors of the Arab State, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third Power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third Power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the Red Sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.

11. The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two Powers.

12. It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two Governments.

I have further the honour to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, His Majesty's Government are proposing to the Russian Government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your Excellency's Government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your Excellency as soon as exchanged.

I would also venture to remind your Excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of the claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of Turkey in Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the Allies.

His Majesty's Government further consider that the Japanese Government should be informed of the arrangement now concluded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Why am I supposed to defend videos that I did not make? A good question.

Lifton has made several statements about all of this that are obviously

false. He said I had read the whole book, which has 24 chapters, when I

only read 6-8, as I explained during the first few minutes of the radio

program that was the basis for the videos. So he hasn't even listened

to the program. And he has turned this into a massive ad hominem attack,

where I have yet to hear a single point about the book or my program to

this vicious and bizarre attack. And his dissembling goes downhill from

there. The guy appears to be pathological. I have notified the newspaper

that they were confounding me with Tom Fetzer, the GOP chairman in North

Carolina. I did not make these videos. I have pointed that out. This

is the same kind of knee-jerk reaction that caused him to discount Judyth

Vary Baken when he did not understand the difference between "Kankun" and

"Cancun", where he has been unwilling to make his illegal recording of a

conversation between them public to keep his "evidence" from inspection.

I have benefitted this guy professionally and personally. I have copies

of cancelled checks I wrote to him as personal loans for $300 and $1,000

that he is refusing to repay. The timing is odd enough for me to wonder

what is going on with him that he resorts to this bizarre behavior. He

knows nothing about 9/11 and appears to be ignorant about the history

of Zionism. One of us needs professional help--and that would not be me.

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/06/04/Fetz..._party_on_boil/

FROM PREVIOUS POST:

John,

Why am I not surprised?

After having been exposed to Fetzer's normal attempts of character assassination, I decided to have a look at who this fella is. Not surprisingly, he has a record that is quite amazing. In any "conspiracy", it seems that Jim's position always is that what's imaginable - is more than likely to have occurred.

Look at this discussion, where he's suggesting that FDNY high ranking members could have been involved in 9/11:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156766

The evidence for this accusation? None, as usual.

And notice the demeaing and derogatory language vs those who disagree. If you're not a scholar of high ranks, in Fetzer's mind you know nothing and have nothing to add. A familiar pattern, in other words.

This page is also very interesting. Fetzer, along with a few other researchers are regarded as crackpots, not to be taken seriously about 9/11, and a long list of reasons for this view:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriot...tion/index.html

Now, having read information like this, it's amazing how similar Fetzer's behavior is to that which he has shown related to JVB issues. It's a good thing there are rules on this forum that stipulates no questions asked about members research abilities or their motives. But what I can say is that as far as I'm concerned, JVB is probably a more credible source than Jim Fetzer. Her credibility, as demonstrated here over the past couple of months, is not high in my opinion.

DSL RESPONSE TO FETZER'S POINT THAT HE, PERSONALLY, DID NOT "PRODUCE" THE YOUTUBE VIDEO WHICH CONTAINS THE INFLAMMATORY ANTI-SEMITIC IMAGERY:

6/6/10

TO ALL THOSE ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW FETZER'S LINE OF ARGUMENT:

Let me see if I understand Fetzer’s position on the YouTube presentation of Fetzer reading from Pastore’s book (“Stranger than Fiction”), with virulent and inflammatory anti-Semitic cartoons as the visual backdrop, and emblazoned with the banner “Jim Fetzer Knows Israel Did 9/11” in the foreground. . . :

JIM FETZER AND HIS DUCK POND (Fetzer now speaking. . . )

This is NOT my duck.

True, it walks like my duck.

Yes, it quacks like my duck

Yes, It looks like my duck.

But, I tell you, its not my duck!

This is a false duck, a duplicate duck.

I did not father this duck.

I was not intimate with the parent of this duck!

I never got down in the muck with this duck.

I am careful in dealing with the other ducks in this pond—I always use protection.

I can prove it!

I demand a DNA test!

This is nothing but a false flag operation!

Anyone can claim otherwise, but they don’t know what they are talking about! They are outside their area of expertise!!

They know nothing, compared to me. They don’t understand these ducks, but I do. I understand them.

I know ducks. And I am an expert on these duck ponds.

This whole thing is designed to hurt my opening talk at the London 9/11 conference next month, where, yes, I will be meeting with all these other ducks.

But, to repeat, THIS duck is not mine, and I don’t even OWN the duck pond!

I just go there and swim in it—occasionally; well, OK, more than occasionally. But I just rent space there, I don’t own. (To use the language of economics and investment: I have no equity position. I just meet the other ducks when I’m on cafeteria line where we all go to eat. Or sit in the community lounge. Perhaps I occasionally play a game of billiards with one of them. But that’s all! )

And to repeat: I was never intimate with the parent of this duck. Ever!

So, enough of this nonsense! Let's move on!

I’ve got more important matters to attend to!

I’ve got to prepare my speech!

I must convey my distinct and learned message to all those assembled, so my voice, my distinct “Quack Quack!” will not be lost in the cacophony coming from all of THEIR quackery.

DSL

Old saying: When you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Fetzer’s complaint: “This was not my flea!”

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand your explanation, the Palestinians had their chance at a homeland as well and resented the establishment of Israel where they hoped to establish theirs.

Walt, that is partly correct and partly incorrect. The "Palestinians" did have their chance at sovereignty and failed to sieze it for LACK OF EFFORT. It was their's for the "declaring" --which they declined to do. However, it is the Arab States (not necessarily the "Palestinians") who resent the existence of a Jewish State. This is one of the most important distinctions to be understood about this conflict. It really isn't "Israelis vs Palestinians" at all--and never has been! That is the "front operation" to conceal the real agenda, which is: Anti-Jews vs Jews. I know it sounds too simplistic, but--it is what it is. Anti-Jews are not the same as anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is a mis-nomer for anti-Jew.

If you are correct, only they are to blame for not following suit and declaring their own state back in the 40's.
Well, that's not what I meant. I don't claim that the "Palestinians" are to blame. I think that, as "a people" they have no power because they have no cohesiveness. There are no "Palestinians" because there is no "Palestine" no matter that such a label has been assigned to non-Jewish settlers in that region. So, I don't think that they're to blame for their plight. However, their plight is not improved by any of the Arab States in the region. It is exacerbated without any mercy extended to them because they are being exploited for only one reason: the DESTRUCTION of the State of Israel.
Who fired the first shot has some relevance but some 62 years later there is enough blame to be shared by all sides.

It has more than passing relevance. The first shot has been followed by the second, third, fourth, and fifth (plus) shots, so far.

Israel has nothing in its CHARTER calling for the destruction of Arab States. However, several Arab States have such an order/goal contained in their CHARTER. That's right, calling for "the Jews to be driven into the sea..."

Such things change the playing field considerably--as they should.

I find it sad that many Israeli actions smack of the very tactics used by the fascists who hunted them down in the 30 and 40's.

I have seen no evidence of that, Walt. None. While I don't agree with every action they have taken, still none rise to that level--not by a long shot! Gas chambers? Ovens? Mass graves? -- not close...

I don't condone the Arab attacks on Israel by any means either. The United States government sees what it wants to see and often at the expense of fairness.

I have yet to see Israel attack a neighbor unprovoked! Never. The closest example--was when they blew up a Nuclear facility that would be capable of producing weapons in Syria. Yet, keep in mind, Syria has a sworn CHARTER to DESTROY Israel--so I can hardly call it "unprovoked" at all!

I can see the Neocons and Zionists working together to pull off a 9/11 attack like I can see the CIA, the Pentagon and the Mafia working together to bump off JFK. I am open to any scenario that makes sense.

Me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are someone who would greatly benefit from reading STRANGER THAN FICTION.

I recommend it. Lifton has no idea what he is talking about either with regard to 9/11

or the history of Zionism and the creation of Israel. You need to do more study, too,

my friend. I hate to say it, but you are endorsing potted history removed from reality.

The Palestinians are Semites, too, by the way. The distinction is rooted in language.

Do you also claim that this assault on the Freedom Flotilla was Israel defending itself?

Are you kidding me right now?

I said: "Anti-Jews are not the same as anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is a mis-nomer for anti-Jew."

So how does that differ from your position?

Don't start with ME, my friend!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criticism of Israel and Jews should not be prohibited when and if they commit illegal or immoral acts.

Israel/Jews are not above civil and moral laws.

Giving them a free pass on ALL THINGS is absurd. They are neither superior nor inferior to other groups.

A major problem is that Jews control a disproportionate amount of wealth. Wealth means control.

The above statements are not anti-semitic, but realistic observations.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criticism of Israel and Jews should not be prohibited when and if they commit illegal or immoral acts.

Strawman -- I never suggested any prohibition on criticism of anyone.

Israel/Jews are not above civil and moral laws.

Did anyone suggest otherwise? Not I.

Giving them a free pass on ALL THINGS is absurd.

Has anyone suggested they get a "free pass" on anyhting? Not I.

They are neither superior nor inferior to other groups.

Agreed, but why even mention the obvious, if it is, in fact, obvious?

A major problem is that Jews control a disproportionate amount of wealth.

I beg your pardon? What the hell are you talking about? Oh my Lord!!!

Wealth means control.

So, I guess "logically" since Jews have a disproportionately high percentage of control--then a disproportionately high amount of problems should be attributed to them? But then, everything good should also be disproportionately credited to them, as well. See the absurdity?

The above statements are not anti-semitic, but realistic observations.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professor,

Stop the personal attacks. Attack people's evidence or claims by all means, but do not accuse people of being incompetent or corrupt, of needing professional help, etc.

The same goes for everyone else, not just the good Professor - if you can't debate without remaining civil then expect the moderators to step in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Thanks, Evan. Mine are the ones that are chock full of evidence and argument. His are the vacuous ones that quack!

Professor,

Stop the personal attacks. Attack people's evidence or claims by all means, but do not accuse people of being incompetent or corrupt, of needing professional help, etc.

The same goes for everyone else, not just the good Professor - if you can't debate without remaining civil then expect the moderators to step in.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are those who should

know better but, in their efforts to mislead and deceive, would cite the FBI as a source in determining when

the FBI had arrived on the scene of a crash, when it would implicate them in the crime. How many students

of JFK would ask the FBI to confirm whether a palm print had been found on the Mannlicher-Carcano? Does

any serious student of JFK consider the FBI to be a reliable source in a crime that it may be covering up?

UNQUOTE, Fetzer.

But Fetzer is wrong, and these generalizations are of little use in distinguishing the false from the real.

For example, many glibly assert that the FBI was involved in a cover-up of the JFK case, yet two FBI agents--Sibert and O'Neill--provided some of the most important evidence in the entire case,when they attended the Bethesda autopsy and then wrote, in their report, that when the body was unwrapped, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." If those two agents had not accurately recorded--and reported--what Dr. Humes said, I could not have written Best Evidence (at least not in the form in which it currently appears) and I think Doug Horne would agree with me. That statement was critical in evaluating the autopsy evidence.(See my Chapter 12 on this particular point). Besides their statement reporting pre-autopsy surgery, there was also their observation(s) that when the doctors probed the so-called "back wound" (an "opening" in the back, as they called it), there was no evidence of transit.

Again and again, I can cite significant examples of critical evidence coming from this or that federal agent--sometimes FBI, sometimes Secret Service-- which supports this or that particular hypothesis. Similarly, with CIA documents. And the same is even true of reports made by the Dallas Sheriff's department in the aftermath of the President's murder. Some of the most valuable "first day evidence" comes from the files of the Dallas Police Department and Dallas Country Sheriff.

So, overall, I have found these generalizations about entire agencies to be useless. Individual reports (and their writers) have to be judged on their merits. Painting with a broad brush appeals to those who would like to smear an entire institution with a charge of "conspiracy," usually in the service of some grand "political theory" but "reasoning" in that fashion leads to unwieldy and usually indefensible conspiracy theories, and provides little accurate guidance when searching for the truth, in a complex data base.

DSL

6/7/10, 3:45 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

......For example, many glibly assert that the FBI was involved in a cover-up of the JFK case, yet two FBI agents--Sibert and O'Neill--provided some of the most important evidence in the entire case,when they attended the Bethesda autopsy and then wrote, in their report, that when the body was unwrapped, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." If those two agents had not accurately recorded--and reported--what Dr. Humes said, I could not have written Best Evidence (at least not in the form in which it currently appears) and I think Doug Horne would agree with me. That statement was critical in evaluating the autopsy evidence.(See my Chapter 12 on this particular point). Besides their statement reporting pre-autopsy surgery, there was also their observation(s) that when the doctors probed the so-called "back wound" (an "opening" in the back, as they called it), there was no evidence of transit.

Again and again, I can cite significant examples of critical evidence coming from this or that federal agent--sometimes FBI, sometimes Secret Service-- which supports this or that particular hypothesis. Similarly, with CIA documents. And the same is even true of reports made by the Dallas Sheriff's department in the aftermath of the President's murder. Some of the most valuable "first day evidence" comes from the files of the Dallas Police Department and Dallas Country Sheriff.

So, overall, I have found these generalizations about entire agencies to be useless. Individual reports (and their writers) have to be judged on their merits. Painting with a broad brush appeals to those who would like to smear an entire institution with a charge of "conspiracy," usually in the service of some grand "political theory" but "reasoning" in that fashion leads to unwieldy and usually indefensible conspiracy theories, and provides little accurate guidance when searching for the truth, in a complex data base.

I think most students and researchers of John Kennedy's murder realize that references to the FBI, CIA,

United States government, United States military, etc. generally do not refer to the agencies or institutions

as a whole. And not all the assertions are glib.

In Accessories After the Fact, Meagher devoted chapter 18 to "The Feebies." She concluded the chapter by writing:

As we shall see, the Commission had compelling reasons, in addition to inaccuracies and intimidation, to regard the FBI as a "questioned authority."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Professor, YOU are the one who wrote “ “One of us needs professional help--and that would not be me.”

Thanks, Evan. Mine are the ones that are chock full of evidence and argument. His are the vacuous ones that quack!
Professor,

Stop the personal attacks. Attack people's evidence or claims by all means, but do not accuse people of being incompetent or corrupt, of needing professional help, etc.

The same goes for everyone else, not just the good Professor - if you can't debate without remaining civil then expect the moderators to step in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, citing the Amazing Randi...the professional debunker...is not a good choice.

Jack

The Amazing Randi is awesome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, citing the Amazing Randi...the professional debunker...is not a good choice.

Jack

The Amazing Randi is awesome

Unfortunately, several of Randi's "followers" have decided to try and "debunk" all conspiracy theories of the Kennedy assassination. They repeat Posner and Bugliosi nonsense as gospel, and worship McAdams, Lattimer, and Myers. They fail to see that the "magic bullet" theory they rely on has as much backing in real science as a Uri Geller spoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...