Sid Walker “Jewish… conspiratorial networks are increasingly winning out over - or swallowing up - their competitors”

[Owen Parsons]

First, congratulations. For someone who, according to your bio, is still at High School, you have a remarkable grasp of a range of issues from a Zionist perspective - and show remarkable skill in presenting the Zionist perspective. You have an extensive knowledge of pro-Zionist sources. You are also extremely active and prompt in your replies whenever your nemesis pops up, as I do from time to time. I suspect you have a well-paid career ahead of you.

Please, if you hadn't noticed (and I'm sure you have), I am currently in the process of radically de-Zionising my views. This backhanded compliment looks very much to me like an attempt to associate debunking of Holocaust denying BS with "the Zionist perspective." Spare me.

Len and yourself are the ones obsessing about this particular topic - not me. I haven't made a post specifically on this subject. I suspect you and Len lead the debate in this direction, hoping I will walk into a trap, get banned and disappear entirely from the forum.

I am only interested in refuting your stupid arguments which in essence amount to apologism for Fascism (like Hitler was really no worse than FDR and Churchill; what an eminently reasonable and sensible position). Although your posts make me feel ill, I am not attempting to get you banned.

Third, Owen, after reading your response quickly, I think it generally helps add weight to my key point that there is, indeed, something to discuss here, and that at the very least it should be open to discussion. You have made criticisms and cited references. I could try to rebut them. Wouldn't it be nice to have a full and fair debate, with neither side subjected to intimidation? Who knows what the outcome might be? Perhaps you would convince me of the correctness of your position, not through intimidation or censorship - but through fair and open debate. Long term, if you (or anyone else), seeks genuine concurrence with the views you claim to hold, that's the way to get it – not via bullying or stand-over tactics.

I do not object to a "full and fair debate" and I am not trying to censor you. Put up or shut up. If you hadn't noticed, I've been making posts on this forum with the intention of proving that the Bosnian and Kosovo "genocides" are imperialist hoaxes. Andy Walker called this "very close to full scale denial." I do not object to pursuing controversial areas of history if there is something to back them up.

I suspect, however, you may argue that any attempt at rebuttal on my part "proves" my guilt, as I must draw on references from sources that have already been declared heretical by your side of the debate. This was the approach of my Zionist opponents on the Web Diary forum - and I've seen the same practice applied elsewhere.

Go ahead. Try to rebut my arguments. I am confident that you can't, but I would not attempt to get you banned if you are able.

I wanted to find something resembling an open debate on this topic, and finally encountered something of the kind - but it's well over a decade old. It took place on radio in the USA in the early 90s. You won't find a link to it on websites that you find acceptable. Yet I presume it's authentic? (Please correct me if you doubt its authenticity - I do not wish to purvey fraudulent information).

What a cute attempt at humor for some one who purveys fraudulent information with the purpose of questioning the "authenticity" of the "official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War II."

It's a rather long audio file, but in my opinion, well worth the time invested. The radio host, himself Jewish and disinclined to give credence to doubts about the official orthodoxy, nevertheless did a good job and was generally fair to both sides of the 'debate'. You can find the file - in two formats - under the title Mark Weber and Ted O'Keefe :: 1990 :: KFI AM640 Los Angeles in both Real Audio and MP3 formats at this location on the web (scroll down the page).

Looking at the description, it appears that there was only one side to this particular debate, as their opponent didn't show up. I have better things to do than listen to a two hour Weber-O'Keefe lovefest.

David Cole was a young Jewish American who visited the notorious concentration camp in the early 1990s, interviewed some of the staff, and made a video of his experience. A campus tour of the USA was planned – some ten years ago – in which Mr Cole was to present his video and discuss the content with students. The tour was abandoned when David Cole issued a public retraction, in the form of an open letter to Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defence League (the JDL, not be be confused with the ADL, was/is a Jewish terrorist organization, quite active in the USA at the time).

Whoever said that physical intimidation doesn't work?

David Cole's views are mostly influenced by the phony "Leuchter report" and the bogus 4 million canard. He also pulls out the usual distortion and confusion with the soap, among other things. These people have nothing.

The JDL is a Jewish terrorist organization, and terrorist organizations often resort to violence or threats of violence to defend their viewpoints. There are also many Arab terrorist organizations. But of course, Arab terrorism apparently doesn't exist in your delusional mind, as you persist in putting it in quotation marks.

Stirring up trouble (and getting Sid Walker branded as a dangerous fanatic) was precisely Len's motivation for starting this thread. However, this has backfired badly, IMO.

Sid has been branded a bigot, a fanatic and an intellectual fraud, charges which I believe are without foundation. He has responded to critics with courtesy, civility and even encouragement, using reason and logic to support his arguments. Part of the fascination here is that this type of debate is so rarely conducted...anywhere. Owen, while sometimes resorting to name calling, is a fine debater and thinker.

A very interesting debate. Thanks, Len.

Mark, I agree with Dunn's barely coherent post. You are being "intellectually dishonest" and totally ridiculous. Just stop. Defending this quack is only going to "backfire" on your reputation.

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this. At the sametime, the Holocaust clearly happened. If we want to discuss conspiracies, maybe we should concentrate on the roles played by the UK, USA and the Soviet Union in allowing it to happen.

I would have thought that the current Israeli foreign policy that has the support of Bush and Brown is a more important issue to discuss.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7495

John, I agree that there are much better and productive things to discuss. However, Colby has suceeded in smoking Walker out and now I feel that it is important to expose his charlatanism.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Mark Stapleton]

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this. At the sametime, the Holocaust clearly happened. If we want to discuss conspiracies, maybe we should concentrate on the roles played by the UK, USA and the Soviet Union in allowing it to happen.

I would have thought that the current Israeli foreign policy that has the support of Bush and Brown is a more important issue to discuss.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7495

Stirring up trouble (and getting Sid Walker branded as a dangerous fanatic) was precisely Len's motivation for starting this thread. However, this has backfired badly, IMO.

Sid has been branded a bigot, a fanatic and an intellectual fraud, charges which I believe are without foundation. He has responded to critics with courtesy, civility and even encouragement, using reason and logic to support his arguments. Part of the fascination here is that this type of debate is so rarely conducted...anywhere. Owen, while sometimes resorting to name calling, is a fine debater and thinker.

A very interesting debate. Thanks, Len.

Mark,

It really [expletive deleted] me off that you are showing up so intellectually dishonest in all this. It doesn't [expletive deleted] me off nearly as [expletive deleted] much as having to spend my [expletive deleted] time dealing with this. I guess if you all got ahold of Len your problems would be solved and all the niceties of Sid's in-context [expletive deleted] wouldn't be a problem. And it's real helpful of John to breeze in here, express his blase' attitude towards something as important as has already been discussed in this [expletive deleted] thread, just as he expresses his blase' attitude towards the Watergate playground kids (who are now having to venture out beyond their chosen field, because nobody gives a [expletive deleted] about Watergate or what they're trying to sell in the sandbox). I don't trust a single [expletive deleted]one of ya anymore, but some things are worth fighting about. If John was paying attention to anything besides what precious [expletive deleted] Ashton has to say, he'd know where this thread originated and why it's directly related to Sid's views about what's going on right now and about 9/11, and what he's had to say in the past. So I'll see ya in about another [expletive deleted] week when I've had to spend still more of my [expletive deleted] time coming up to "answers" to Sid's "relevant" posts....

Not really sure why you're so pissed off but I won't be losing any sleep. I've never been a fan of joining lynching mobs, especially when I don't think Sid has said anything to deserve it. Len, Owen and yourself have an opinion about Sid's views and I have mine. It's funny that you seem so pissed off because I haven't fallen into line on this. The holocaust argument, which Owen seems determined to focus on, is an argument I'm not very keen about debating. I'm less inclined to challenge the historical record on this than Sid. On some of the wider issues, I think they are worth debating. Who's scared of debate?

Edited July 23, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Owen Parsons]

Not really sure why you're so pissed off but I won't be losing any sleep. I've never been a fan of joining lynching mobs, especially when I don't think Sid has said anything to deserve it. Len, Owen and yourself have an opinion about Sid's views and I have mine. It's funny that you seem so pissed off because I haven't fallen into line on this. The holocaust argument, which Owen seems determined to focus on, is an argument I'm not very keen about debating. I'm less inclined to challenge the historical record on this than Sid. On some of the wider issues, I think they are worth debating. Who's scared of debate?

I can understand why you wouldn't be "keen about debating" it, Mark. Indeed, why would Sid seem so determined to "challenge the historical record on this"? It does seem ridiculous, outrageous even, sort of like denying that the Earth is round. It certainly takes some extreme biases to forward the totally ludicrous and fraudulent "arguments" that Sid has. Indeed, one would have to be a "fanatic," a "bigot," and an "intellectual fraud." Wouldn't you agree?

You keep shifting the goal posts. First, Sid wasn't really denying the Holocaust (because that would make him a "fanatic," the implication goes). Next, its a "very interesting debate." Finally, his Holocaust denial is irrelevant to the "wider issues." What's it gonna take?

Edited July 23, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Sid Walker]

Hi again Owen,

I would have little interest in debating the current (or past) official narrative of Jewish suffering during World War Two if the matter were not raised, repeatedly and with tactical ruthlessness, by people such as Len and yourself.

I'm confused about your identity, Owen. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if not, you claim to be a teenage non-Jewish ex-Zionist. Yet you seem to devote most of your effort (on this forum at least) to enforcing orthodoxies dear to the heart of Zionists, drawing on copious references drawn from sources beloved of Zionists. Odd.

Here’s a little personal history that I believe has some relevance to this discussion.

Until the beginning of this century, I had approximately zero intellectual interest in the topic of The Holocaust, assuming that the official view was indubitably correct. I had never heard or read anything to the contrary. If ever I encountered such material, I dismissed it, assuming it to be the work of 'neo-Nazis'. This happened very rarely if at all (I don’t remember reading anything critical of the official version). I'd never actually met anyone of who was a doubter or critic, but imagined they must be very bad people. I'd marched against their type in 'Rock Against Racism' rallies long, long ago.

In late 2001/early 2002, I joined a few bulletin boards such as The Guardian Talkboard, mainly to discuss what seemed to me to be an utterly mysterious phenomenon. I refer to 9-11, and the strange, stark mismatch between mass media reporting about 9-11 as a whole, on the one hand, and on the other hand the content of some media stories suggesting that the official account was woefully inaccurate. Typically, these anomalous stories appeared once or twice only in the mass media without follow-up. I began to correspond with a few well-known journalists I had long admired. I found they dissembled and wouldn't touch this important topic with a bargepole. I became more curious.

I visited bulletin boards to see what other folk were saying, and the share info and ideas about this important topic with others around the world. I liked the Guardian Talkboard best of all. I had long read The Guardian newspaper (in Australia there's a weekly digest). I felt myself part of The Guardian's culture and felt affinity with other readers.

Some of the anomalies relating to 9-11 seemed to point to at least a measure of Israeli involvement. An example is the story of 200 Israeli spies arrested in the USA during 2000/2001. This increasingly seemed related to 9-11. Did the mass media ask the obvious follow-up questions and report about this in a sustained manner? No way!

On several occasions, the western mass media reported anomalies relating to the 9-11 and anthrax stories - then dropped these subplots without follow-up. Most people simply didn't notice. For instance, the remarkable Israeli spy ring story was actually broken on Fox TV in the USA in a remarkable 4-part special in late 2001. The Fox story contained not just one scoop, but several. It also pointed to massive Israeli surveillance of US telecommunications. Videos and transcripts of this are still available via the internet – google Fox News Israeli Spyring.

I occasionally got on talkback radio to discuss 9-11 anomalies – on shows such as the Australian Broadcatsing Corporation's 'Australia Talks Back'. I generally found myself hustled off the air. I discovered that unless I misled the program assistant about the content of my call, I wasn’t allowed on air. I wrote to Philip Adams (a broadcaster and journalist in Australia). We exchanged a series of emails. His were briefer than mine. It was clear my letters were read - but the responses were dissembling and most unsatisfactory. I was amazed. I wanted to help the media break a major story but it seemed to have no appetite whatsoever for doing so. "The story" here was that there is a lot more to 9-11 than meets the eye, the official version of events cannot be true - and that the ‘War on Terror’ may consequently rest on a bogus and fabricated foundation.

This was a very important task, it seemed to me. By that time, the USA with considerable assistance form other western nations, had already attacked one Muslim country and seemed to have a thirst for a lot more violence. Meanwhile, civil liberties were taking a dive, archives due for release were being locked up more or less indefinitely - and Israel was pummeling the Palestinians, seemingly determined to uproot the fragile 'peace process' in the middle east that delivered some limited benefits to both Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s.

I was encountering the western mass media's determination to ignore and cover up the biggest story of the new century. Many others around the world - thousands, if not tens of thousands – probably went through a similar experience. Through bulletin boards, I met some of these folk and swapped notes. Collectively, we could keep track of the mass media worldwide. It became obvious that a major cover-up was in progress. Not a total cover-up - but collective lack of willingness to systematically follow-up anything that did not marry with the official version of events – that is, the legend that 19 Arab hijackers co-ordinated by Bon Laden carried out these heinous attacks. Thanks to the internet, I could track this evolving story day by day. It became a gripping - but also very disturbing - task.

Around this time, on bulletin boards such as The Guardian, for the first time in my life, I found myself branded an 'anti-Semite'. The accusation was deeply upsetting. I was quick to try to correct the record, but began to discover that the accusation is hard, if not impossible, to refute. I began to see that, at least on occasion, the accusation is used without any rational foundation, as a tactic to close down discussions and intimidate the accused and other participants.

I'd known quite a few Jews from school days onwards, numbered Jews among my friends at various times in my life and worked with Jews in various capacities, including political campaigns. The accusation of anti-Semitism was not pleasant at all. It gave rise, within me, to considerable self-doubt and angst. It made me much more defensive in my comments on bulletin boards than I would otherwise have been. But I was not willing to give up my main line of inquiry: 9-11 seemed to be an false flag operation conducted to frame Arabs and Moslems – Israeli spooks and their supporters seemed to be in the frame as potential perpetrators - and the mass media seemed to be complicit in this heinous, world-distorting crime.

Around the same time, again for the first time, I found myself branded a "Holocaust Denier" The accusation was levied in bulletin boards on more than one occasion. I thought this odd, as at the time I'd never mentioned World War Two or The Holocaust in my postings. My posts were usually about 9-11 or events in Israel/Palestine. But that was, apparently, no defense against comments such as “you must be a Holocaust Denier too!”

I was annoyed about these accusations and very concerned to deny them. No I'm not one of those terrible people, I would protest! I loathe neo-Nazis too! Actually, I’ve been a leftie all my adult life! Occasionally, someone would appear in a forum who clearly did not believe the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, in full or in part. Under pressure to show my credentials as a decent human being, I occasionally watched the ritual virtual execution of such people on forums such as The Guardian Talkboard and said nothing, or even expressed support in the form of comments such as “yes, he/she went too far there!”. I became aware that “Denying The Holocaust” was a banning offense at GT. I presume it still is?

Over time, as I became more used to the emotional recoil from what I regarded as an unfair but potentially damaging allegations, I developed a little curiosity about the underlying subject matter. I noted a considerable (but by no means total) overlap between ‘9-11 orthodoxy enforcers’ and ‘Holocaust orthodoxy enforcers’.

Somewhat later on, I listened to one of Philip Adams’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interviews. He devoted an entire hour-long show to an interview with the Cambridge-based academic Richard Evans, one of the David Irving’s strongest critics. Adams and Evans worked as a duo during this long interview. All questions were favorable to Evans and seemed pre-arranged to solicit the strongest assault on Irving that could be packed into an hour-long show.

By that time, I had somewhat sheepishly visited David Irving’s website, in an attempt to better understand that of which I was being accused. Expecting web pages festooned with Swastikas and poorly written rants glorifying Hitler, I was surprised to encounter material rather more rational than I had imagined – and of clear contemporary relevance.

I emailed Mr Adams – we’d already been in touch about 9-11 – and suggested he might like to give Irving some right of reply. The Evans interview had been a lop-sided demolition job of Irving. I suggested a little ‘balance’ - if not another solo interview, this time with Irving, at least an on-air debate between Evans and Irving. This would help restore the balance of Adam’s coverage. I understand the ABC is required, by its Charter, to provide ‘balanced’ coverage.

Adams hinted there could be legal problems but replied that he doubted Irving would have the guts to face such an encounter in any case. Overall, he left the impression that the main reason he didn’t try to interview Irving was that he was quite certain Irving would pass up the opportunity, through lack of courage on Irving’s part.

I therefore emailed Mr Irving, introduced myself, explained the background in this case and asked if Irving would accept the challenge of an interview with Adams or a debate with Evans, on Adam’s Australia-wide radio show.

Mr Irving wrote back and said he’d be pleased to have such an opportunity, but doubted it would materialize. With Irving’s permission, I forwarded the correspondence to Adams. Adams never replied. I chased the matter up with Adams, but got nowhere.

This was my first personal experience of corresponding with a prominent so-called ‘Holocaust Denier’. I found, in this case, that he told the truth, while his also prominent tormentor did not.

Do I claim this proves that ‘Holocaust Deniers’ always tell the truth and their opponents never do? (I can almost hear the straw man being raised as I type). No. But it did indicate that truth and falsehood on this topic might be more complex than I’d imagined. I’D had an experience in which an individual I had previously been told, by the mass media, was a pathological, venal, hate-soaked xxxx turned out, in fact, in the one encounter I’d had with him, to be courteous and truthful. By contrast Mr Adams, whose broadcasts I had listened to for over a decade and whom I considered a key arbiter of informed, left-leaning thought in this country, was capable of misrepresentation and humbug.

I won’t continue the saga of my 21st century re-education here. I want to return to the issue that so offended Len when he started this thread – the allegation that Zionist networks are gaining the upper hand worldwide. These small personal experiences – with the media and on major bulletin boards and – suggested to me that there might, indeed, be quite systematic co-ordination of the Zionist movement – and that it seemed to bring its power to bear within several powerful western countries, in ways not necessarily to the best advantage of the community as a whole.

It was also clear that this is not a simple topic. There is obviously no single conspiracy in which all Jews participate at the expense of all non-Jews. I mentioned earlier that some of the activists and authors who subsequently helped enlighten me on the existence of, and dangers associated with, powerful Jewish/Zionist networks, were of Jewish origin. In addition, gentiles such as Adams serve as enforcers or gatekeepers on behalf of the pro-Zionist cause (I imagine Mr Adams would deny this claim. He poses as an honest broker in the middle east debate. But I believe that’s a myth. Adams enforces Zionist ‘bans’ on topics and individuals proclaimed beyond the pale by the Len’s and Owen’s of this world. Adams may have had Edward Said on his show years ago, and be pals with ‘respectable’ critics of Israel, but he does NOT seek to “cover all points of view” as he so often claims to do).

Of course, lots of ‘interest groups’ lobby and network. Some conservatives do it. Some left-wingers do it. Some peace activists do it. Some industry sectors do it. Some Brits – as Brits - do it. Some Americans - as Americans - do it. So, I imagine, do the Maltese and speakers of Swahili. Roman Catholics and Muslims do it too.

However, I know of no network operating on such a broad international canvas – other than the Zionist movement – that comes anywhere close to the same level of power and influence, not do I know of another effective lobby that uses its power with such ruthlessness.

John is correct. Contemporary events in The Lebanon are of greater immediate importance.

Right now, Israel is terrorizing and destroying this tormented and beleaguered nation – smashing its infrastructure to smithereens for the second time in a generation. Iraq… well, the best analysis of Iraq that I have read for some time was written by Saddam Hussein. Read it HERE. Saddam recognizes a Zionist agenda when he sees one, although he may have been a little slow on the uptake in 1990. I find his letter more truthful than anything I’ve heard from Blair, Bush or Howard on the subject. As for Palestine - don’t get me started on Palestine itself and its systematic, brutal strangulation!

This vast political, economic and military assault on the Arab and Moslem world – on several fronts - is not inherently a popular agenda in the west. It is not even a mainstream oil industry agenda. The head of Britain’s only oil mega corporation, BP, spoke against the Iraq invasion in the run-up to March 2003 – but his words seemed to carry little weight with Tony Blair.

Let’s be clear. This agenda to assault, disparage and disempower the Arab and Moslem world and to support the regional super-dominance of Israel - is a Zionist agenda. Gentiles are involved in large numbers, to be sure. But the agenda is driven by Zionists. Likewise, with help from many gentiles, Zionists drive the assault on free speech about the occurences of World War Two.

Every now again a kid comes along who can see what the Emperor’s really wearing, or not as the case may be. I feel like one such kid – and believe there are a growing number of us, on the right, left and sideways of politics.

In future times, I believe and hope, people will look back with wonder at how so many people in so many parts apparently sophisticated societies were so grossly deceived about the motive force underlying wars and terror in the first few years of this millenium. Perhaps we need to update the Clinton Era adage? It’s the Zionism, stupid!

Until the western anti-war movement has a greater appreciation of this, I believe it is doomed to be ineffectual. Once it identifies its key foe, it will achieve wonders.

This is not about fermenting anti-Jewish sentiment or inciting pogroms. Indeed, what chutzpah to insinuate that or to make that accusation, when Arabs and Moslems have been unjustly accused of the crime of the century and are being bombed, harassed and hassled from pillar to post in a phony 'War on Terror' based on Zionist lies.

I wrote in an earlier post that the real issue here is free speech. I might equally claim the issue is POWER. Free speech is a restraint on the unbridled exercise of power by the wealthy and powerful. Free speech can help keep us all honest – including the wealthy and powerful.

I look forward to a world where accusations of mass criminality against any individual or group of individuals will not occur, because they simply never happen. In this world, sadly, they do happen. In that case, better hear ALL the accusations and counter accusations – accusations against Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists AND Jews, accusations against Irish, English, Americans, Russians, Germans, Chinese AND Israel, accusations against the concentration and misuse of power within ANY sector of the global community.

Additionally, as long as historical claims are used to justify present actions, in my opinion, we’re also well advised to examine ALL aspects of history – and listen to, consider and debate ALL points of view about them.

Free speech is more than nice. It’s necessary.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Guest]

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this.

I disagree with this throwaway line from John.

If Len has a record of "causing trouble" then it is news to me. What he does seem to have a record of is making conspiracy theorists think about what they are saying online. If he causes some of them the 'trouble' to think about their comments then more power to him (though he has clearly yet to have induced this desirable consequence in Mr Sid Walker).

Tackling Holocaust Denial is very important. The primary motive of the deniers is to rehabilitate the ideas of National Socialism to the acceptable mainstream and to perpetuate the myth of the international Jewish conspiracy. The deniers often dress up this mission in verbiage about free speech; choice and plurality (see Sid's latest intellectual masturbations in this thread).

[John Simkin]

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this.

I disagree with this throwaway line from John.

If Len has a record of "causing trouble" then it is news to me. What he does seem to have a record of is making conspiracy theorists think about what they are saying online. If he causes some of them the 'trouble' to think about their comments then more power to him (though he has clearly yet to have induced this desirable consequence in Mr Sid Walker).

I have no problem with Len Colby questioning conspiracy theories. In fact, I would argue that he is the best one on the Forum at doing this. He is very careful about not taking on the people on the JFK forum and instead concentrates on the rather daft idea concerning hoax moon landings, etc. Unlike others who pick on people like Jack White, he does not appear to have an extreme right-wing agenda. Although that is not to say he doesn't.

My problem with Len started when he refused to post a photograph as an avatar. He could not give a good reason why he could not post his photograph and therefore he was threatened with having his membership deleted. He therefore eventually posted his photograph but it seems he holds grudges and whenever I have been in conflict with a member over breaking rules, he is quick to defend this person. In fact, I would go as far as to say he does what he can to stir up trouble.

The latest example of this concerns David R. Von Pein. I am aware of the havoc that Von Pein has caused on other forums. However, he claimed that if he was allowed to join he would faithfully obey the rules. I am afraid this did not happened. On his very first day he began abusing fellow members. I edited these comments out of his postings and warned him about his future behaviour. I also reminded him that he had not yet posted his photograph. He replied that he had changed his mind about obeying the rules and had no intention of posting his photograph. I then gave him seven days notice that unless he changed his mind, his membership would be cancelled. He replied with an extremely abusive email making it clear that he had no intention of submitting a photograph. as a result I deleted his membership and all his postings.

With this, Len Colby makes a posting accusing me of victimizing David R. Von Pein. Claiming that if I was running an even-handed forum I would have deleted the membership of other members who had not posted their photographs as avatars. The point is that no one else has refused point-blank to post their photographs. Nor have they sent me abusive emails.

If Len Colby was so opposed to Sid’s expressed views, he should have tackled him on the relevant threads. For example, the way I have argued with Sid about his view that Rupert Murdoch is following a Zionist agenda.

I suspect that Len’s intention of starting this thread was to encourage Andy Walker to delete Sid Walker’s membership. He knows that Andy hold strong views on this topic. Mark Stapleton could see what Len was up to and rightly defended this apparent attack of free speech.

I case anybody thinks otherwise, I think Holocaust deniers need their heads examined. I also do not believe in any Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. I did not believe it when they said it was a left wing Jewish conspiracy after the First World War, and I do not believe it now when they say it is now a right-wing Jewish conspiracy. Race or religion has nothing to do with it. As I told Sid on the Rupert Murdoch thread, it is just a bunch of capitalists trying to make the maximum amount of money out of any given situation. What makes it worse is that they are willing to see the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to make their money.

[Jack White]

Mr. Simkin says:

"I have no problem with Len Colby questioning conspiracy theories. In fact, I would argue that he is the best one on the Forum at doing this. He is very careful about not taking on the people on the JFK forum and instead concentrates on the rather daft idea concerning hoax moon landings, etc. "

Mr. White says:

DAFT IDEA?

I request that you back up that pejoritive opinion by explaining

the attached photo allegedly made on the moon. If you cannot

do so, it is your opinion that is daft.

If any one photo claimed to be made on the moon CANNOT STAND

CLOSE SCRUTINY, THEN ALL "MOON PHOTOS" ARE SUSPECT.

Jack

Oh...and here is another one to explain. What are these color

photos on the landing pad of the lunar lander? NASA refuses

to answer questions about the black patch or color photos.

[Guest]

I suspect that Len’s intention of starting this thread was to encourage Andy Walker to delete Sid Walker’s membership. He knows that Andy hold strong views on this topic. Mark Stapleton could see what Len was up to and rightly defended this apparent attack of free speech.

I do not believe this to be the case. Len has never approached me about Sid Walker's membership and even if he had he wouldn't have got anywhere. No one has ever been deleted from this forum for their political views - not even that fat illiterate American fascist whose name eludes me temporarily. Ironically enough the only former members John and I have ever felt fit to delete were a group of extreme Zionists who were using the forum to make violently racist comments about germans and arabs. This occured right at the beginning of the forum in early 2004.

Furthermore my reading of this thread is that Mark Stapleton seems to have genuine sympathy for Sid Walker's belief in the existence of an international Jewish conspiracy, not that he was heading off some conspiracy against free speech. I am willing however to stand corrected if I am in error.

[Owen Parsons]

Sorry, the quote function is screwed up.

I would have little interest in debating the current (or past) official narrative of Jewish suffering during World War Two if the matter were not raised, repeatedly and with tactical ruthlessness, by people such as Len and yourself.

Sid, I believe if you look at this thread in an objective manner, you will realize that it is you who pulled the Holocaust into this with your "preferred historical narrative" bit. And before this thread, you engaged in "historical revisionism" in the thread about the Nazi occupation of France. Don't play innocent.

I'm confused about your identity, Owen. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if not, you claim to be a teenage non-Jewish ex-Zionist. Yet you seem to devote most of your effort (on this forum at least) to enforcing orthodoxies dear to the heart of Zionists, drawing on copious references drawn from sources beloved of Zionists. Odd.

I "claim," huh? Yeah, I'm probably a deep cover Mossad agent, just like Chomsky and I.F. Stone. Earlier you called my debunking of your laughable Holocaust denial arguments a position that I "claim to hold." I'll be quite frank here and say that I find your postings very creepy. Its not going to make you any friends.

I thought my position should have been obvious from my recent postings. Anyway, lets be clear. I started off anti-Israel, then, after attempting to be objective and reading pro-Israeli material, I got carried away with that. I then endorsed a ludicrous position that the United States is an enemy of Israel and I now regret doing so. Around the time of Israel's invasion of Gaza, I came to the conclusion that I was correct the first time. Since this is a recent development, the majority of my posts are still rabidly pro-Israel, as I haven't had time to make up for it yet. As for drawing on references "beloved of Zionists," if you have been paying attention to your own thread in the Government and Politics forum, you'll notice a posted a link to an online version of Livia Rokach's book, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

Let's see, what "pro-Zionist" positions have I taken lately? I posted a link to a CAMERA article because I think they make quite a good case that that particular Ariel Sharon quote is phony. This isn't indicative of being "pro-Zionist." It is indicative of an interest in truth and a desire to weed out phony material, so that the case against Israel's actions can be made more strongly.

I've also said the influence of the much ballyhooed Israel Lobby is overrated. The "Israel Lobby" is the excuse that right wingers use because they feel uncomfortable blaming the United States' foreign policy on the United States power elite. Mearsheimer and Walt, if you haven't noticed, are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Sorry Sid, I really don't feel comfortable aligning with power.

This isn't to say I don't think the Lobby has power or influences U.S. policy, I just don't believe it controls it. I agree with Norman Finkelstein's take. See here.

Until the beginning of this century, I had approximately zero intellectual interest in the topic of The Holocaust, assuming that the official view was indubitably correct. I had never heard or read anything to the contrary. If ever I encountered such material, I dismissed it, assuming it to be the work of 'neo-Nazis'. This happened very rarely if at all (I don't remember reading anything critical of the official version). I'd never actually met anyone of who was a doubter or critic, but imagined they must be very bad people. I'd marched against their type in 'Rock Against Racism' rallies long, long ago.

The reason you probably never heard anything contrary is because there is nothing to debate and the arguments put forward by the "revisionists" are totally fraudulent, as I have shown and you haven't even tried to challenge.

On several occasions, the western mass media reported anomalies relating to the 9-11 and anthrax stories - then dropped these subplots without follow-up. Most people simply didn't notice. For instance, the remarkable Israeli spy ring story was actually broken on Fox TV in the USA in a remarkable 4-part special in late 2001. The Fox story contained not just one scoop, but several. It also pointed to massive Israeli surveillance of US telecommunications. Videos and transcripts of this are still available via the internet – google Fox News Israeli Spyring.

Yes, Sid, I have watched those videos. The information is interesting and telling, but it really doesn't indicate Israeli involvement in 9/11. That requires some rather perverse leaps that aren't supported by evidence. And as you yourself note, it was broadcast on Fox News of all places, as a 4-part special. This would tend to indicate that the "Jews" don't find this information particularly threatening, otherwise it wouldn't have been broadcast, or it would have been pulled mid-series.

Around this time, on bulletin boards such as The Guardian, for the first time in my life, I found myself branded an 'anti-Semite'. The accusation was deeply upsetting. I was quick to try to correct the record, but began to discover that the accusation is hard, if not impossible, to refute. I began to see that, at least on occasion, the accusation is used without any rational foundation, as a tactic to close down discussions and intimidate the accused and other participants.

I agree that labelling people anti-Semites is a way of shutting down discussion. On the other hand, so is labelling people whose position you disagree with "Zionists," whether they profess to be Zionists or not, or implying that they don't really believe what they say they believe. You do this all the time, and it is also an "accusation... without any rational foundation." It is also "hard, if not impossible, to refute." Look in the mirror, Sid. What you are doing is no better than the Zionist propagandists.

I was annoyed about these accusations and very concerned to deny them. No I'm not one of those terrible people, I would protest! I loathe neo-Nazis too! Actually, I've been a leftie all my adult life! Occasionally, someone would appear in a forum who clearly did not believe the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, in full or in part. Under pressure to show my credentials as a decent human being, I occasionally watched the ritual virtual execution of such people on forums such as The Guardian Talkboard and said nothing, or even expressed support in the form of comments such as "yes, he/she went too far there!". I became aware that "Denying The Holocaust" was a banning offense at GT. I presume it still is?

Who knows? "Revisionist scholarship" is totally fake, as I've demonstrated already and you have yet to challenge. I can understand why people would get offended by it and want it out of their sight. Its also driven by an extreme right-wing political agenda about 99.9% of the time. Just because something is shunned doesn't make it true.

It should be noted that Noam Chomsky, a man you apparently think is part of your global Jewish/Zionist conspiracy, went out of his way to defend the free speech of Robert Faurisson, one of the most vile of the Holocaust deniers. Right-wingers and Zionists still rake him over the coals because of this. See here, here, and here.

Over time, as I became more used to the emotional recoil from what I regarded as an unfair but potentially damaging allegations, I developed a little curiosity about the underlying subject matter. I noted a considerable (but by no means total) overlap between '9-11 orthodoxy enforcers' and 'Holocaust orthodoxy enforcers'.

You will also notice an overlap between "9-11 orthodoxy skeptics" and "Holocaust orthodoxy enforcers." This tells us nothing.

Somewhat later on, I listened to one of Philip Adams' Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interviews. He devoted an entire hour-long show to an interview with the Cambridge-based academic Richard Evans, one of the David Irving's strongest critics. Adams and Evans worked as a duo during this long interview. All questions were favorable to Evans and seemed pre-arranged to solicit the strongest assault on Irving that could be packed into an hour-long show.

Richard Evans does indeed make mincemeat of Irving's work. See here.

By that time, I had somewhat sheepishly visited David Irving's website, in an attempt to better understand that of which I was being accused. Expecting web pages festooned with Swastikas and poorly written rants glorifying Hitler, I was surprised to encounter material rather more rational than I had imagined – and of clear contemporary relevance.

I am impressed that you are so guillible. Yes, Holocaust deniers make an effort to appear rational and reasonable. In the real world, however, David Irving has documented ties to right-wing extremism. See here and here.

It was also clear that this is not a simple topic. There is obviously no single conspiracy in which all Jews participate at the expense of all non-Jews. I mentioned earlier that some of the activists and authors who subsequently helped enlighten me on the existence of, and dangers associated with, powerful Jewish/Zionist networks, were of Jewish origin. In addition, gentiles such as Adams serve as enforcers or gatekeepers on behalf of the pro-Zionist cause (I imagine Mr Adams would deny this claim. He poses as an honest broker in the middle east debate. But I believe that's a myth. Adams enforces Zionist 'bans' on topics and individuals proclaimed beyond the pale by the Len's and Owen's of this world. Adams may have had Edward Said on his show years ago, and be pals with 'respectable' critics of Israel, but he does NOT seek to "cover all points of view" as he so often claims to do).

Last time I checked, Edward Said denounced Holocaust deniers, putting him in the same sandbox with the "Len's and Owen's of this world," and also Mr. Adams.

Right now, Israel is terrorizing and destroying this tormented and beleaguered nation – smashing its infrastructure to smithereens for the second time in a generation. Iraq… well, the best analysis of Iraq that I have read for some time was written by Saddam Hussein. Read it HERE. Saddam recognizes a Zionist agenda when he sees one, although he may have been a little slow on the uptake in 1990. I find his letter more truthful than anything I've heard from Blair, Bush or Howard on the subject. As for Palestine - don't get me started on Palestine itself and its systematic, brutal strangulation!

Saddam is typically paranoid. Some of the things he says in his letter are true, truisms, even. However, his theory that the Zionists are behind the attack on Iraq is not one I support. See below.

This vast political, economic and military assault on the Arab and Moslem world – on several fronts - is not inherently a popular agenda in the west. It is not even a mainstream oil industry agenda. The head of Britain's only oil mega corporation, BP, spoke against the Iraq invasion in the run-up to March 2003 – but his words seemed to carry little weight with Tony Blair.

If we are going to go by public statements, Martin van Creveld, the man you have identified elsewhere as "Israel's contemporary Dr Stangelove," has also vehemently denounced the Iraq invasion, calling it a "foolish war." See here. You don't pay much attention to that.

Or read this article that shows that the "neo-cons" such as Richard Perle, were trying to sell the Iraq war to Israel, not the other way around.

An adviser to INC [iraqi National Congress] chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar-Illan.

Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein. In international terms, pro-Israel, pro-INC policy analysts envision a Middle East where Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the liberated portion of Iraq confront the dictatorial, anti-Western nations of Iran and Syria.

(...)

"I went to speak to [Ambassador Gold] just to say that I think it's in Israel's best interest to help the Iraqi people get this thing done," Mr. Brooke said. "The basic case I made was that we need help here in the U.S. to get this thing going."

For his part, Mr. Gold said Israel had no current plans to ally itself with the INC. "We're always interested in hearing impressions from people around the region, and Middle Easterners from many countries are always willing to share their perspective with us," Mr. Gold said.

A resident fellow at the AEI, Richard Perle, is calling upon both Israel and the American Jewish community to support the INC. "Israel has not devoted the political or rhetorical time or energy to Saddam that they have to the Iranians. The case for the Iraqi opposition in Congress would be a lot more favorable with Israeli support," said Mr. Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

With regard to the American Jewish community, Mr. Perle said: "There's no question that the Jewish community's been at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein."

Former Ambassador Dore Gold, who was the one approached, has written an article on the subject of the Iraq war. He makes it quite clear that Israel wanted to attack Iran, and did not regard Iraq as much of a threat, just like Mr. Perle says above. From his article, its quite clear the Gold regards the "neo-cons" as a bunch of charlatans. He points out, for instance, that Perle has endorsed the division of Jerusalem, a position that is anathema to the Israeli right wing.

I agree with what Norman Finkelstein has to say about these people:

The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel ­ in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the U.S.A.' s strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism. As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. "Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar," a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. "There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow." Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto? (source)

Norman Finkelstein, btw, is the one who exposed Alan Dershowitz's plagiarisms and wrote the book "The Holocaust Industry." He is a vehement opponent of Israel's policies, as you are undoubtedly aware.

Let's be clear. This agenda to assault, disparage and disempower the Arab and Moslem world and to support the regional super-dominance of Israel - is a Zionist agenda. Gentiles are involved in large numbers, to be sure. But the agenda is driven by Zionists. Likewise, with help from many gentiles, Zionists drive the assault on free speech about the occurences of World War Two.

Israel does have an area mapped out that it would like to dominate, but this doesn't mean that the United States government is going to support this when it conflicts with its interests. The United States is going to support Israel's interests only insofar as they support the interests of the United States.

This is not about fermenting anti-Jewish sentiment or inciting pogroms. Indeed, what chutzpah to insinuate that or to make that accusation, when Arabs and Moslems have been unjustly accused of the crime of the century and are being bombed, harassed and hassled from pillar to post in a phony 'War on Terror' based on Zionist lies.

Your proof that Israel is behind 9/11 is seriously wanting. I don't really know what to make of the 9/11 conspiracies at this point, but the Israeli angle is by far the slimmest. It seems to me that you've latched on to this particular theory because it confirms your biases. And lets not fool ourselves, there is a lot of Muslim terrorism.

Additionally, as long as historical claims are used to justify present actions, in my opinion, we're also well advised to examine ALL aspects of history – and listen to, consider and debate ALL points of view about them.

Free speech is more than nice. It's necessary.

I suggest you use your free speech to defend your outrageous views on the Holocaust. The only one who is having trouble impartially examining history here is you.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Len Colby]

Actually, I've got some time for George Galloway. I've heard some of his speeches concerning the Middle East. And if you want to damn people by association, have a look at Don Rumsfeld, as special envoy to President Reagen, shaking hands with good buddy Saddam Hussein (I think it's Uday looking on):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

I agree Rumsfeld is an asshole. Does this some how make it less wrong for Galloway to have hob knobbed with Uday? Galloway's case was worse than Rumsfild's. The latter met with Saddam in 1983 the former partied with Uday in 1998. The genocidal attacks on the Kurds and Shiites happened in that 15 year interval. In this particular case it would be like comparing someone who met with Hitler as a special envoy of his government in 1934 or so and somebody who partied with Goering or Himmler in 1944. This is not to say that Rumsfeld shouldn't be condemned for his role in the unjustified and disastrous invasion of Iraq and other misdeeds.

I believe your account of the history of the Christian-Jewish relationship over the long-term is extremely one-sided. One might as well argue – and I believe there is easily as much evidence for – the proposition that anti-Christianity has been codified and approved for nearly 2,000 years in the Jewish belief system (check out the Talmud).

So you are a theology expert, now? Have your ever read the Talmud? Can you read Hebrew? Are you sure that you aren't getting biased accounts of what is in the Talmud?

"There it is again… the pro-Jewish paradigm, and the somewhat arrogant, implicit assertion that this paradigm is utterly self-evident and necessarily correct. (In this case, Christians = Wicked and/or foolish haters; Jews = long-suffering innocent victims).

I don't share that simplistic paradigm, Daniel. Historical events were a lot more complex than that, and that particular coin has two sides, not one. I'm interested in a paradigm that takes both into account and that explains complexity instead of denying it."

I suppose you can cite numerous examples of Jewish persecution of Christians (outside Israel/Palestine/Lebanon 1920 – present)? Or maybe you believe like David Irving that we bring it on ourselves http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/index.html

According to Len, one may believe in, even criticise, the Israel Lobby (have you checked this with Daniel Pipes and Horowitz, Len... better be sure you don't get into trouble!).

Walker denies being a Holocaust denier (have you checked this with Willis Carto and Torben, Walker?.. Better be sure you don't get into trouble!) but paradoxically goes on to deny the Holocaust.

However, len claism that any suggestion of a broad conspiracy equates to bigotry, no ifs or buts! No room for doubt about motive - bigotry is the only possible motive for such an assertion. The very idea of a broad conspiracy centering around Zionist interests is too absurd to discuss (and no discussion should be entertained on the subject). Move along please!

Notice how you are changing your argument, first it was Jews in general now it's just Zionists. Such a charge of course plays on the longstanding claims of bigots who used it as an excuse for persecution and genocide.

Is my argument any more simplistic than you claim that the only explanation for Chomsky's rejection of conspiracy in the JFK assassination is that the Israelis were responsible for the assassination and he is covering for them? My 'claim' at least does require intellectual acrobatics and contortionism to reach its conclusion.

If you could actually back your (Jewish conspiracy) theory with evidence of anything other than the power of the Israel lobby to influence the US's policy towards Israel you could argue that it was based on something other than bigotry.

To make an analogy I think most of us would assume that a person who argued that blacks are inherently less intelligent that whites was a bigot. This would be especially true if they couldn't justify their belief with solid evidence. A few academics have tried to provide a scientific basis for such theories. They seem like bunk to me but I'm not expert and haven't looked into it. Such theories are rejected in large part by the scientific community. Are the scientists who propose such theories racists? I suspect many of them are, some of their funding comes from racists. But they produced extensive research so I can't assert outright that they are racists. You on the other hand made a assertion that seems racist on its face but have failed to back it.

""anti-Semitic 'theories' like Holocaust denial" - in this phrase, Len brings together the two most loaded terms which he seems to believe has the right to assert about me, despite the fact that I deny them both - and will continue to deny them until the cows come home, if for no other reason than that I believe they are deliberate false categories, terms used to confuse, not clarify, the underlying issues. It seems that nuanced discussion that takes complexity into account isn't possible for Len on these topics."

I'm not really into battles over semantics, you deny that the Holocaust was anything like the way that every trained historian, recognized expert and survivor said it was. Do prefer I use the term "Holocaust revisionism". Your objection to anti-Semitic seems to be based on the root for "Semitic" I can use the term anti-Jewish if you prefer. I believe you use hair splitting questions of terminology to avoid real debate.

"Oh and by the way Steve... you have been given a hot tip from one who 'knows'.

It would be "in your interest" to discuss your theories elsewhere.

Don't risk contamination from Holocaust Deniers, anti-Semites, lepers or vampires. That would not be "in your interest" You have been warned."

You're trying to give my comments to Steve a sinister connotation which they weren't meant to have. Though I disagree with the scope of his argument I believe it's a subject that merits serious discussion unlike, Holocaust denial, the existence of vampires, perpetual motion devices, Jewish conspiracy theories, geocentrism etc.

Banquet of food for thought there.

The Kayapos and other Amazon tribes eat mud on occasion, what constitutes food like constitutes food for thought is highly subjective.

"Normally I would expect certain others to slice it up like a sausage, regularly taking pieces of it out of context but after reading this and Steve's contributions, they might resist.

In fact, think I saw Len heading for the hills. "

I guess you though wrong! Owen, Dan and Andy have already dealt with this fairly well I don't want to be repetitive.

I will travel to NYC Friday and spend two weeks there, I've been busy preparing for the trip, tying up loose ends and trying to spend more time with my family (and less here). I probably won't spend as much time here as I normally do until late August.

First, congratulations. For someone who, according to your bio, is still at High School, you have a remarkable grasp of a range of issues from a Zionist perspective - and show remarkable skill in presenting the Zionist perspective. You have an extensive knowledge of pro-Zionist sources. You are also extremely active and prompt in your replies whenever your nemesis pops up, as I do from time to time. I suspect you have a well-paid career ahead of you.

A common tactic of yours is insinuating that your critics aren't who they purport to be or have ulterior motives

"I don't consider myself in the least an expert about the Second World War. "

But you have no qualms claiming that all serious researchers of one of its most researched aspects are wrong and a small group of normally ideologically driven alternative researchers with no academic qualifications are right because it fits your world view.

"If detailed debate about this issue is acceptable on this forum, perhaps we should move to another area such as 'Debates in History'? The moderators may prefer the topic is not debated here at all - and although that would be something of a disappointment to me (I really do believe these matters should be openly debated) I could understand and respect that. After all, there could be legal implications in several countries."

I agree it's up to the moderators if this discussion should continue and if so where. The only legal implications you would have to worry about are Australian law (I think). Since David Irving's only legal troubles are in the UK are self imposed and John and Andy aren't espousing such theories they have nothing to worry about

"None of this is to shy away from debate, Owen. However, I sense a deliberate attempt to get me banned over the issue."

That was not my intent nor do I imagine it's Owen's. When I started this thread I didn't realize you were a Holocaust revisionist, you of course are the one who first started making hints along those lines here. AFAIK there is no rule against promoting Holocaust revisionism or racism here. Since I've been here members have only been suspended for refusing to obey the rules or harassing other members.

"Web Diary, an Australian political forum from which I was banned earlier this year (as Len gleefully pointed out, no doubt in an attempt to generate the impression that I am a serial offender of the most loathsome of hate-motivated thought-crimes) apparently does not. Merely citing a link to a 'revisionist' website was deemed a banning offence in that medium."

Your version of your banning is a bit distorted, the blogger who runs it told you the subject was verboten and asked you not to "keep" posting on the subject so presumably you had brought up the subject a few times. He told you to stop you didn't he kicked you out, he said he and the other moderator had warned you several times, your martyr act isn't very convincing or accurate.

"Nor does Web Diary even have the gumption to admit when it comes under deliberate harassment and intimidation (see HERE)."

Oh great on what august authority was it that this is so? YOU! LOL. You claim he sent you an e-mail admitting that he lied, very convincing. Even if it's true how do we know which was true, his public statement or his supposed private communication to you?

"Len and yourself are the ones obsessing about this particular topic - not me. I haven't made a post specifically on this subject. I suspect you and Len lead the debate in this direction, hoping I will walk into a trap, get banned and disappear entirely from the forum."

Can't speak for Owen by that wasn't my motive. As to who is obsessing you are the one who first stated making hints along those lines, you are the one who got booted from another forum for refusing to lay off the topic. You are the one who keeps promoting the theory here. I never debated this subject on a forum before, I assumed that no members of any forum I belong to would take such nonsense seriously, I haven't even researched the subject very much since I was in college.

"Third, Owen, after reading your response quickly, I think it generally helps add weight to my key point that there is, indeed, something to discuss here, and that at the very least it should be open to discussion."

I agree that all subjects should be open for discussion that doesn't mean particular sides of certain subjects are reasonable to hold. I have a friend who debates creationists, I don't see the point. I doubt any one besides you takes such theories seriously on this forum but there are people who believe in chemtrails so you never know.

"Fourth, to respond to your points and references in detail, it would be necessary to post references to websites that you, Len and your ilk have already deemed "beyond the pale". This is partly because, for well over a decade, the Holocaust Lobby has declined any opportunity for open debate with its critics."

Patently untrue if you go to the Nizkor site http://www.nizkor.org/ not only will you see that not only have most (if not all) of you claims been debunked already but there are people willing to debate people of "you ilk". Some exchanges between your hero David Cole and anti-revisionists for example can be read here, http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cole.david/ .

"I suspect, however, you may argue that any attempt at rebuttal on my part "proves" my guilt, as I must draw on references from sources that have already been declared heretical by your side of the debate. This was the approach of my Zionist opponents on the Web Diary forum - and I've seen the same practice applied elsewhere."

Most if not all the sources you will site are openly racist, anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi none have recognized expertise in the subjects about which they write. Questioning the reliability of a source is quite legitimate, historians do it all the time, Steve questioned one of Owen's sources because it was "Zionist" you went a cople steps further and questioned his honesty/sincerity because he cites what you classify as Zionist sources.

"David Cole was a young Jewish American who visited the notorious concentration camp in the early 1990s, interviewed some of the staff, and made a video of his experience. A campus tour of the USA was planned – some ten years ago – in which Mr Cole was to present his video and discuss the content with students."

Mr. Cole is seems seems had (has) a tendency to jump from one issue or cause to another http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/s.../skeptic-4.html in 1989 he wrote to Racial Loyalty "I am very happy to become a member of the Church of the Creator.... Creativity gives my Race meaning and, therefore, gives my whole life meaning.... My work as a video producer puts me in touch with many other White Men who are looking to wrestle away the mass media from its Jew controllers and use the media to further the goals of the White Race." COTC is tied to white supremacist neo-Nazi groups. Does any of this debunk his video? No but you haven't told us what you found so convincing in the video, you used his ethnicity to legitimize him. Do you expect us to debunk every single point he makes? That would be rather time consuming don't you think?

"The tour was abandoned when David Cole issued a public retraction, in the form of an open letter to Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defence League (the JDL, not be be confused with the ADL, was/is a Jewish terrorist organization, quite active in the USA at the time).

Whoever said that physical intimidation doesn't work?"

Can you cite any evidence to support this claim? If true Rubin's actions and tactics were despicable, but such methods are hardly exclusive to Jews.

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue.

If you so object to this issue being debated here why no criticism of its proponent, some people say the same thing about the assassination

"What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this."

My intent was to get Sid Walker to provide justification for his "Jewish Conspiracy" theory, he didn't do so on the thread where he proposed it nor has he here

"At the sametime, the Holocaust clearly happened. If we want to discuss conspiracies, maybe we should concentrate on the roles played by the UK, USA and the Soviet Union in allowing it to happen."

That would be an interesting topic. Though I have some knowledge of this issue I don't know enough to discuss the matter. Perhaps you could start such a thread (I realize this might sound a bit sarcastic, that was not my intent)

"I would have thought that the current Israeli foreign policy that has the support of Bush and Brown is a more important issue to discuss."

I agree but fail to see what the relevance of that topic is to Holocaust denial

Edited July 24, 2006 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

Mr. Simkin says:

"I have no problem with Len Colby questioning conspiracy theories. In fact, I would argue that he is the best one on the Forum at doing this. He is very careful about not taking on the people on the JFK forum and instead concentrates on the rather daft idea concerning hoax moon landings, etc. "

Mr. White says:

DAFT IDEA?

I request that you back up that pejoritive opinion by explaining

the attached photo allegedly made on the moon. If you cannot

do so, it is your opinion that is daft.

If any one photo claimed to be made on the moon CANNOT STAND

CLOSE SCRUTINY, THEN ALL "MOON PHOTOS" ARE SUSPECT.

Jack

Oh...and here is another one to explain. What are these color

photos on the landing pad of the lunar lander? NASA refuses

to answer questions about the black patch or color photos.

John...I am eagerly awaiting your explanation of the posted photos.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Mr. Simkin says:

"I have no problem with Len Colby questioning conspiracy theories. In fact, I would argue that he is the best one on the Forum at doing this. He is very careful about not taking on the people on the JFK forum and instead concentrates on the rather daft idea concerning hoax moon landings, etc. "

Mr. White says:

DAFT IDEA?

I request that you back up that pejoritive opinion by explaining

the attached photo allegedly made on the moon. If you cannot

do so, it is your opinion that is daft.

If any one photo claimed to be made on the moon CANNOT STAND

CLOSE SCRUTINY, THEN ALL "MOON PHOTOS" ARE SUSPECT.

Jack

Oh...and here is another one to explain. What are these color

photos on the landing pad of the lunar lander? NASA refuses

to answer questions about the black patch or color photos.

John...I am eagerly awaiting your explanation of the posted photos.

Jack

Jack I know you feel strongly about this but is totally off topic. Try putting your question to John in a new thread. I doubt he will reply but Evan and Craig probably will.

[Jack White]

Mr. Simkin says:

"I have no problem with Len Colby questioning conspiracy theories. In fact, I would argue that he is the best one on the Forum at doing this. He is very careful about not taking on the people on the JFK forum and instead concentrates on the rather daft idea concerning hoax moon landings, etc. "

Mr. White says:

DAFT IDEA?

I request that you back up that pejoritive opinion by explaining

the attached photo allegedly made on the moon. If you cannot

do so, it is your opinion that is daft.

If any one photo claimed to be made on the moon CANNOT STAND

CLOSE SCRUTINY, THEN ALL "MOON PHOTOS" ARE SUSPECT.

Jack

Oh...and here is another one to explain. What are these color

photos on the landing pad of the lunar lander? NASA refuses

to answer questions about the black patch or color photos.

John...I am eagerly awaiting your explanation of the posted photos.

Jack

Jack I know you feel strongly about this but is totally off topic. Try putting your question to John in a new thread. I doubt he will reply but Evan and Craig probably will.

This is the thread that Simkin in which wrote his "daft" observation. It is up

to him where the message goes.

Jack

[Len Colby]

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this.

I disagree with this throwaway line from John.

If Len has a record of "causing trouble" then it is news to me. What he does seem to have a record of is making conspiracy theorists think about what they are saying online. If he causes some of them the 'trouble' to think about their comments then more power to him (though he has clearly yet to have induced this desirable consequence in Mr Sid Walker).

I have no problem with Len Colby questioning conspiracy theories. In fact, I would argue that he is the best one on the Forum at doing this. He is very careful about not taking on the people on the JFK forum and instead concentrates on the rather daft idea concerning hoax moon landings, etc.

I actually spend relatively little time on the Moon hoax theories that is more Evan Burton and Craig Lamson's game. The theories I spend the most time debunking here are 9/11, the Wellstone crash and the authenticity of the Z-film.

I don't "take people on" on the JFK forum because I don't disagree with them. I don't have any strong views on the assassination and haven't looked into enough to have strong views. My general impression is that there was a conspiracy which LHO probably was involved in but that isn't a firmly held conviction. I believe the Z-film is authentic for reasons That I won't go into on this thread.

Can you cite examples of me causing trouble? You seem thin skinned when I bring up enforcement of the rules, is the only forbidden topic on this forum the governance of the moderators? Hardly seems democratic.

"Unlike others who pick on people like Jack White, he does not appear to have an extreme right-wing agenda. Although that is not to say he doesn't."

For the record I don't and have indeed I've knocked and mocked Bush and Coulter etc on this and other forum. Did you forget my little tangle with Slattery? I have seen no signs Evan or Bill Miller are right-wingers.

Nor do I think it's fair to say I "pick on" Jack. I often find his reasoning half baked and am not shy about saying so. As mentioned by others elsewhere on this forum he has a habit of making wild accusations and refusing to respond when people question his conclusions.

"My problem with Len started when he refused to post a photograph as an avatar. He could not give a good reason why he could not post his photograph and therefore he was threatened with having his membership deleted. He therefore eventually posted his photograph but it seems he holds grudges and whenever I have been in conflict with a member over breaking rules, he is quick to defend this person. In fact, I would go as far as to say he does what he can to stir up trouble."

Simply not true John, I never refused to post a photo though it did take me a while to upload one, I don't remember being threatened with expulsion.

The only time this came up before Von Pein was when David Healy, who crowed about my lack of a photo, refused to post his bio. I objected that he seemingly be exempt from following rules that he makes such a big deal about others following.

"The latest example of this concerns David R. Von Pein. I am aware of the havoc that Von Pein has caused on other forums. However, he claimed that if he was allowed to join he would faithfully obey the rules. I am afraid this did not happened. On his very first day he began abusing fellow members. I edited these comments out of his postings and warned him about his future behaviour. I also reminded him that he had not yet posted his photograph. He replied that he had changed his mind about obeying the rules and had no intention of posting his photograph. I then gave him seven days notice that unless he changed his mind, his membership would be cancelled. He replied with an extremely abusive email making it clear that he had no intention of submitting a photograph. as a result I deleted his membership and all his postings."

With this, Len Colby makes a posting accusing me of victimizing David R. Von Pein. Claiming that if I was running an even-handed forum I would have deleted the membership of other members who had not posted their photographs as avatars. The point is that no one else has refused point-blank to post their photographs. Nor have they sent me abusive emails.

John, I was not aware of any of the above, you didn't explain any of that in your post on the matter. I saw him make a joke about not having a photo to post and 4 hours later you announced his suspension. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions, but based on the info I had at the time I felt the questions I raised were reasonable.

"If Len Colby was so opposed to Sid's expressed views, he should have tackled him on the relevant threads. For example, the way I have argued with Sid about his view that Rupert Murdoch is following a Zionist agenda."

I tried that and he didn't reply, how was this any different than to starting that "The Political Views of Tim Gratz" thread?

"I suspect that Len's intention of starting this thread was to encourage Andy Walker to delete Sid Walker's membership. He knows that Andy hold strong views on this topic. Mark Stapleton could see what Len was up to and rightly defended this apparent attack of free speech."

You suspected wrong. I know that Andy has strong views but it didn't occur to me he would suspend him for his views. I didn't realize he was a Holocaust denier till after I'd started this thread. If I'd know I would have included that in the opening post and probably the thread's title or subtitle. My first inkling that he was came from his reply. In case you forgot I supported Piper's right to join this forum

Mark, as Owen and Andy have pointed out, was in denial about Sid's views and then when he admitted to them changed Mark changed his tune.

"I case anybody thinks otherwise, I think Holocaust deniers need their heads examined."

I agree!

[Sid Walker]

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt"

Bertrand Russell

Len - I hope you don't imagine that I've got it in for you, but it sticks in my gullet that you deploy a quote from Bertand Russell in your signature on this forum.

Russell was a prominent and very early crtitic of the Warrren Commission.

Need a reference to prove it?