Agree wholeheartedly about Galloway. Funny about perceptions though. In Ireland Cromwell is known as a butcher, responsible for the famous phrase "To hell or to Connaught", and the slaughter of as many as 3500 people in Drogheda, including women and children.

I had to look up 'infandous'- what a useful word in the age of New Labour!

I'm sure Galloway will survive, but I'm not so sure about Canada. They are probably about to elect Michael Ignatieff (remember him?) as their next PM, and I can't see any good coming of that.

Dreoilin

True.

"They are probably about to elect Michael Ignatieff (remember him?) as their next PM"

I was taught by Michael Ignatieff in the days when he had long hair and wore an Afghan coat. Shortly after that he had a brief career as a TV intellectual. I was wondering what became of him. In my day he was a liberal Marxist. I must assume that is no longer the case.

Someone else to fall foul of the Israel lobby in recent days is Charles Freeman, who was to have been a senior intelligence advisor to Obama. A former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and an independently-minded expert on Middle-Eastern affairs, Freeman's appointment seemed one of the few genuinely encouraging developments of the new administration.

The Israel lobby was incensed. It pulled all the strings in the mainstream media and, within days, Freeman was gone. Freeman's account of what happened is one of the most incisive and devastating exposes of the Israel lobby I have ever read: http://tinyurl.com/bxxwgn

Cromwell may have had "a driving concern for the common good" but that only if you were English. My Irish cousins don't hold him in the same high regard.

I was saddened by this Canadian decision. But it just shows the power and indeed sheer gall of the Zionist lobby. To get a British MP banned from one of the historically most tolerant and open countries in the world is quite something.

Hey the CIA couldn't even achieve this with John and Yoko in 1970.

Still something of a backhanded compliment to George. It shows how effectve he is at demolishing their overall case, and their wars in Iruq, Gaza - and lets have another one in Iran strategy.

And the ban has backfired spectacularly - given george and his cause losds more publicity than he could ever have gotten speaking in Toronto to a couple of hundred converts.

We should though fight this ban vigourously. Because , whose next if they suceed?

PS I can't figure out your RSS feed - where is it?

Aye,

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/index.rdf

I'm not George's biggest fan either. Too much of the Prima donna ("... egotistical, unreasonable and irritable, with a rather high opinion of themselves not shared by others" as Wikepedia defines its popular usage) about him for my taste. BUT - and it's a BIG but - the man has stuck to his guns through thick and thin including a host of scurrilous personal Establishment inspired attacks, and has been proved right all along (shades of Craig eh? - the scurrilous Establishment attacks bit that is). I admire the man. He IS a VERY compelling speaker and has a knack of demolishing his MSM interviewer/critics on the rare occasions they dare to take him on - which is precisely why it is rare. That is what TPTB in Canada are scared of too, pathetic bunch of Zionist/US toadying morons that they are.

You should read Richard Seymour's 'Lenin's Tomb' blog on Michael Ignatieff - plus his book 'The Liberal Defence of Murder'. Ignatieff's journey from influential Marxist intellectual to unabashed Neocon apologist is indeed breathtaking, but he's not the only one to travel it. A substantial part of the intellectual Left (Tony Bliar is their archetype) have in effect transformed into neocon enablers with their ridiculous moralistic doctrines of 'Humanitarian Interventionism'. Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research (a Canadian) is good on the same subject (Good video here: http://tinyurl.com/cnkeyw ). And I expect him to have something to say about the GW ban soon as well.

It's not over yet either. There's an appeals process to go through and I can't wait to hear precisely how allowing GW in would constitute a 'threat to national security' which is the reason cited by Jason Kenney, the Canadian immigration minister.

Not sure where "GW" came from. Obviously meant "GG" - sorry

A 'Must watch'. George Galloway and the Canadian 'Jewish Defence League' spokesman on Channel 4 News. Galloway is VERY impressive at this sort of thing - probably because he's absolutely right and his enemies are such predictable pygmies (with due apologies to real pygmies)

http://tinyurl.com/dz84sv

"Not sure where "GW" came from. Obviously meant "GG" - sorry"

sabretache

You may have had this on your mind...

March 18, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/cf3sko

You couldn`t make it up.

I knew Michael Chussodovsky's 'Global Research would be onto this pretty sharpish. See http://tinyurl.com/cg5u34 .

There's a comment from Ignatieff too. It goes: "We let into Canada all kinds of people who say ridiculous and absurd things and Galloway has said his share of ridiculous and absurd things. The issue … is whether the security services know something about George Galloway that I don’t."

On his reading GG has indeed been categorised as '"a threat to national security" then. You couldn't make this up could you?

For fans of GG there is also a very informative selection of YouTube videos their too. And I have to say, the more I hear him (GG that is) the more I admire him.

These fools never learn.

Whatever you think of GG he has a Right to express his opinion.GG has been proven Right about Iraq and by the day it looks like he's Right about the chaos of Afghanistan.

The fools cant tolerate him being basically Right:that's their problem in a nut.

History shows that banning people from airing views that are by and large correct is a retrogade and counter-productive approach.

If i put my fingers in my ears i cant hear you...is what children do.

As a Scot living in the "Great White North" I am not surprised at this action, B'nai Brith - http://www.bnaibrith.ca/ - I'm sure advocated for his exclusion.

Ignatieff is just another chancer - like his fellow Liberal Bob Ray who used to be the NDP premier of Ontario.

Freeman's credentials may be all very well, but if he's such a toughie why didn't he accept the post and fight his corner inside the Obama adminiatration inatead of throwing in the towel and making a grumbling retreat?

You were Right then and you're still Right Craig>far too many who should really know better are selling their souls for dro$$...

Ignatieff?? Sheeesh!...this guy never held a line on anything..an opportunist who changes his positions on a daily basis it seems...a very confused soul indeed.The Neocons love him mind...

"...if he's such a toughie why didn't he accept the post and fight his corner inside the Obama adminiatration inatead of throwing in the towel and making a grumbling retreat?"

That was my first reaction. It appears however that he's a man of honour rather than a toughie. In his own words:

"I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country".

My take on this is similar to MJ.

But there's more. His statement accompanying the decision to withdraw is a truly devastating attack on the power and influence of the Zionist lobby. It has been fully and widely reported in the US and will not be lost on those manning the Services he would have had a coordinating responsibility for. Neither will it be lost on a large, growing constituency that has begun to seriously question Zionist control of US foreign policy.

Here is a link to the Wall St Journal publication of his statement. It was likewise published in EVERY MSM paper and everywhere else besides: http://tinyurl.com/bwp2dv . With any luck it may be just the opening salvo in a major foreign policy re-think - though I guess, in similar vein, pigs may start flying.

Anyway, my guess is we have not heard the last of Chas Freeman.

"Anyway, my guess is we have not heard the last of Chas Freeman".

Let's hope not. Pigs may indeed start flying, but this is the first really hard-hitting expose of the Israel lobby from a man with impeccable credentials. It has firmly outed the shadowy, psychotic Zionists running the US and no-one can call him a wacky conspiracy theorist. It may just turn out to have been one dirty trick too many.

Actually on further reflection, Freeman's resignation may indeed be a sign of toughness. He has sacrificed himself, unnecessarily so, but has come out fighting, attacking his detractors in a way he could not have done if he were in office. He has given them a Pyrrhic victory, but has removed his gloves to try and win the real war.

Out and out racism from this Jason Kenney person.

Jason Kenney is Promoting Racism
by Hanna Kawas - March 21, 2009

On March 18, 2009 the Canadian Minister of Multiculturalism and Immigration, Mr. Jason Kenney made good on his threats to cut funding for Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) programs that help settle newcomers t0 Canada. The Toronto Star reported that neither of the two LINC contracts with CAF “will be renewed, Alykhan Velshi, director of communications and parliamentary affairs, said in an email.” In the same article, Mr. Kenney also referenced this decision by stating that “he is an ‘unapologetic supporter’ of Israel”. http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/604720

FULL ARTICLE AT: http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/jkpr.htm

"FLASHBACK...Feb 4, 2007 22:59 | Updated Feb 5, 2007 0:16"

"Canadian government forming pro-Israel lobby"

"The launching of the Canadian parliamentary lobby, which is based on the formation of the Knesset's "Christian Allies Caucus" three years ago, comes less than six months after a similar lobby was established in the US Congress"...

http://tinyurl.com/cduyjr

Freeman...

http://tinyurl.com/copauy

"I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country".

I still think he could have tested out his belief from the hot seat.

So do I. I'm regretful that he caved in so easily. At the moment however I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's a shrewd operator and knows what he's doing.

I'd love to see Galloway and Ignatieff in a head to head debate. That really would be a rumble in the tundra.

Who was it who said of Canada that it's " the kind of country that you feel ought to get itself a girlfriend"?

This right after Canada welcomed the war criminal George W. Bush with open arms.

"Bush, giving a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, said “I’m not going to spend my time criticizing [Obama]. ... He deserves my silence.” Don’t we all, don’t we all (except the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, evidently)..."

http://whateveritisimagainstit.blogspot.com/2009/03/he-deserves-my-silence.html

After the bankers killed Lincoln and JFK for printing government money instead of borrowing (1963 from their private FED), why would they tolerate a Freeman crossing their path ?
http://michaeljournal.org/lincolnkennedy.htm

Five pieces of disinformation, Craig:

"the trick by the Israeli lobby of tarring everybody sympathetic to the Palestinians as a terrorist."
There is no trick, there is total control of the mass media worldwide, and of most governments.

"the frailties of an economic system built upon unrestrained greed and speculation become clear"
The current collapse is due to systematic fraud at all levels.

"as it becomes more and more obvious that recent Western invasions of Muslim lands are a drive to corner key areas for access to increasingly scarce hydrocarbons"
Access ? There was access and a military might based dollar monopoly on middle eastern oil until they started the "War on Terror" racket.

"as the spectre of climate change looms over everything that was viewed as "Progress""
Climate change is not man-made.
http://climatechangefraud.com/

"governments are desperate to control the narrative thier population hears."
Do governments control the media, or is the decision of if and how long someone is in government executed by the media on behalf of their international owners ?

Please forgive me for suggesting, provocatively I know, that Cromwell, Galloway, Benn and Craig are all triumphant examples of conscience against cynical political wrongdoing,
but that conscience is incomplete without connecting to God. He designed the human being, set out laws for her/him, and is Who actually delivers results.

It seems to me that people who believe in God are often bogged down by their anger at oppression, which makes it appear that they don't care. They have been bludgeoned into immobility by colonial oppression or the war on terror like Binyam Muhammad.
Sometimes they are just trusting in God in order to survive.

Some people don't believe in God and don't care about oppression either.
Liberalism = laissez-faire. Socialism = headless chicken syndrome. Capitalism = greed.
But the great men who brought about the abolition of slavery in this country were deeply religious as well as standing up for justice. Why can't we do that now as well?

Researcher:

To Lincoln and JFK you can add Garfield as well. Only one US President has taken on the banksters, won and lived to tell the tale. That was Andrew Jackson. The lesson the banksters learned from that was clearly "never again".

I'm getting increasingly dubioua about climate change as well. The other planets are getting warmer as well. Something to do with the sun by any chance?

Anas:

I have to say that from Constantine, through priest Stalin, right up to Bush and Blair, the record of religious politicians has been, to put it politely, patchy.

Thanks Craig,

I'm a Galloway fan. His dismantling of that female Sky presenter along with him fronting that US senate enquiry, the members of which had no idea what hit them, were just priceless.

Otherwise hats off to the comments. And yes, it is the sun. Besides the other planets magically doing what the earth does, the earth was hotter in the thirties than today.

I read just lately an article detailing how Russia, Canada and the US were squaring off over the newly defrosted and navigable Northern passage. Along with the possibilities for shipping were discussions about resources and oil, and who would get what. Astoundingly it was not written last year but rather 70 years earlier.

Meanwhile last year's identical stories are now moot what with the ocean all having frozen again. This re-freeze being not so surprising given that the earth has been effectively cooling for the last five years.

But that's what the earth does. It warms up, it cools down, it does whatever the sun dictates. Big thing, the sun. Bloody huge. Earth changing huge. Global warming is a con to have us under some variety of centrally controlled carbon credit regime. Include me out.

And whilst it's true that Andrew Jackson wasn't assassinated, it certainly wasn't for want of the Bankers trying. Without being certain I think he survived two attempts. Otherwise, Jackson is a man worth reading. His farewell address is eye-popping. He made George Galloway look shy, ha ha.

Right on Researcher @ 12.28 am

Apart from his Big Brother cringe making appearance, I admire George Galloway enormously for his tenacity, his grasp on facts and for his debating abilities. I also envy him for his energy. After completing the Viva Palestina 5,000 mile trek which must have been physically exhausting and scary when they got to the mêlée in Egypt, he's off to Canada and taking on the Jewish lobby there.

@Anas: "conscience is incomplete without connecting to God". Utter rubbish. We humans are quite capable of deducing, without God, which actions are harmful, which are harmless, and which are both and require balanced judgment. This thread incidentally is not about religion - please keep the discussion on topic, or post elsewhere.

@others - the thread is not about global warming, either, so this would be veering off-topic too. But as an aside, it is worth my pointing out that not everything is a conspiracy. There is a danger that some of the regular commentators here may look, to the external observer, somewhat jumpy or paranoid, which I dare say is not the best sort of support you can offer Craig. Meanwhile, most scientists are agreed that climate change is happening, and that we need urgent social change in order to combat it. Be scientifically sceptical by all means, but be sceptical about scepticism too - otherwise you may be helping delay the change that, in some years, it turns out we needed after all.

Jon, you wrote:
"Perhaps this is why I unconsciously avoid 9/11 theories - the idea that a modern "liberal" "democratic" government would be complicit in blowing up 3000 of its civilians for 'realpolitik' or media manipulation is just too horrible to contemplate."
Unfortunately, you are not alone there, Jon.
For a reply please see my last comment on:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/islamophobia_an.html

Further to my "...Anyway, my guess is we have not heard the last of Chas Freeman" remark and comments by MJ and others. There is an interesting article in this weeks London Review of Books by John Mearsheimer - "The Lobby Falters". It is as good a summation of events to date on the matter and lends weight to it's having done serious damage to the US Zionist Lobby. We can but hope. http://tinyurl.com/cvf9ad

As for Jon's strictures about 'Conspiracy theories': it's easy to see where he's coming from but, the fact is our own governments are awash with them in service to the approved narrative. In similar vein to 'anti-Semitism', the term is invariably used as a pejorative to close down reasonable debate on very difficult subjects that governments do not want debated. 9/11 is a classic case in point. The official version of events is a 'Conspiracy Theory'. It is so full of holes and raises so many perfectly reasonable questions that the government steadfastly refuses to acknowledge (let alone attempt to answer) as to render it absurd.

Thanks for the link Sabretache, a thoughtful piece echoing some of the sentiments expressed here. The Freeman case is a potential turning point and my feeling is that it isn't getting the coverage over here that it should. Despite Jon's appetite for policing these threads, I think we should plug away at the matter.

Come to think of it Craig, if you read this, have you considered composing a beautifully insightful and excoriating piece about the Freeman affair? Just a thought.

@sabretache - on your view that 'conspiracy theory' becomes a label to discredit a theory regardless of its merit in order to shut down the debate, I agree entirely. But that is a different point to the ones that I was making, which is that (a) not everything must be a conspiracy, and (b) I don't feel I am easily brainwashed, and I still regard climate change as real and not manufactured by a conspiracy.

@MJ - there is no need for incivility. But let me expand on my reasons for "policing" - it was the introduction of religion that most annoyed, and I think most of us would probably agree that that was wildly off-topic. Of course, you could throw your vote in here for allowing any discussion on any thread, but the 'netiquette' guideline of keeping things (reasonably) on-topic exists for a good reason.

"Perhaps this is why I unconsciously avoid 9/11 theories - the idea that a modern "liberal" "democratic" government would be complicit in blowing up 3000 of its civilians for 'realpolitik' or media manipulation is just too horrible to contemplate."

Yes, the problem there Jon is that you're being guided by your emotions and preconpetions rather than the evidence. Suggest instead that you take a long, hard dispassionate look at the evidence then tailor your emotional response accordingly.

Otherwise your argument is rather like saying: "I cannot believe that a democratically elected leader like Hitler could do all those things to German citizens, therefore the holocaust did not happen".

Incidentally, I have never heard anyone say that they are easily brainwashed. Also, being guided by emotions and preconceptions rather than evidence and reason is a prerequisite to being easily brainwashed.

"there is no need for incivility"

Apologies if it was construed as uncivil. It was intended merely as a sly dig. Craig's piece was rather complex I thought, raising several issues and, as is the nature of things, comments can rather take on a life of their own.

But apologies again anyway, I abhor ad hominem attacks and I can see that the use of the word policing was dangerously close to the margin.

I've got to echo MJ again.

I too do not intend offence and I will always try not to become involved in anything that can be construed as a personal attack. I too confess irritation at the religious exhortation post but I find that the best way to deal with such things is by ignoring them. If they are clearly consonant with the post subject, then a reasoned reply may be called for. Otherwise silence is golden.

Of course Jon is right in saying that not everything is a conspiracy, but that doesn't mean some things aren't. I tend to be sceptical of conspiracy theories myself, preferring the cock-up and lack-of-imagination explanations in most instances. But several years' reading around the blogs has pretty well convinced me that there was more behind 9/11 than the official story revealed - there are far too many inconsistencies and unanswered questions.

And of course climate change is happening and calls for protective measures. The question is, how far is it man-made? There is a long history of climate change that wasn't, and the sun is not a static entity.

MJ, thanks for your measured reply, it is much appreciated, and in response I will try to go easier on wildly off-topic items [someone else is doing it for me, anyway, on today's Sky thread :o)]. sabretache is right that sometimes silence is the best response.

> Suggest instead that you take a long,
> hard dispassionate look at the
> evidence then tailor your emotional
> response accordingly.

OK, I will; @researcher elsewhere has suggested a video to get me started. Though there is plenty of open corruption and lying, as I've said in the past, and we need to deal with that, I tend to cite time limitations as the primary reason why I've not tackled 9/11 theories in any detail. But as per my previous honesty, I would be initially inclined to give up activism altogether if sections of the US establishment are willing to sacrifice thousands of their own civilians for some 'grand chessboard' rubbish. Though you would be right to point out that, if true, activism would be more necessary than ever.

In terms of climate change, I have done my research - "Heat" is one of the best "fact collections" around, from George Monbiot. I know he's not universally popular amongst some activists but I nevertheless hold him in high regard (with minor exceptions).

If I may say of the 9/11 theorists here generally, I think your "reasoned" approach is refreshing. I have met a few 9/11 theorists in the past, and they have tended to be bullying in their approach to their belief system. This ignores the substantial cognitive dissonance met by all sceptics, and accordingly turns rational people off immediately.

> Incidentally, I have never heard
> anyone say that they are easily
> brainwashed.

Ha, true! But my position is somewhere between the radical analyses of Chomsky, Pilger, and Media Lens. I am therefore quite used to taking up unfashionable views, so I humbly suggest that I am less vulnerable than the lager-swilling Sun reader :-)

Jon [and others]:

Re 9/11, read this for a start:

http://diehardthehunter.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/this-intense-grid-part-1/

I've been following this person's blogs for about two years now, and my initial scepticism has slowly turned into a high regard for his or her accuracy and carefully documented research, and their courage in ruffling so many powerful feathers.

They are that rare thing - a patriotic - in the genuine sense - US Republican who is as appalled at what is going on as many European critics of US policies are.

Also, wise up on the Project for a New American Century - PNAC [Google them]. Read their manifesto, and recognise several familiar names among the signatories. Think about what has happened since it was written, and ask yourself whether there could be the seeds of a successful "open conspiracy" here....

Many thanks to MJ and sabretache for their links .

A short video here of Baroness Tongue on the subject in the House of Lords --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFUIZ4FcI

"They are that rare thing - a patriotic - in the genuine sense - US Republican who is as appalled at what is going on"

These days they are pretty much the only ones who can see what's going on. I still consider myself left of centre, but of all the original US presidential candidates arch-Republican Ron Paul is the only one who would have got my vote.

Cromwell was Britain's only dictator - so hated by the public that his body was exhumed and he was hung as a corpse!

I doubt that Gallaway will ever get that sort of power, even though he would like to.

Canada, as a free country - one of the few left on this planet, is perfectly entitled to decide who should come into its country - that is one of the nice things about freedom - its a shame we don't follow the same ideals here.

We do. People are quite frequently denied entry to the UK - recently, an elected Dutch MP and an American homophobic preacher.

I'm a longtime campaigner for gay rights and free speech, and I think both should be allowed in. If they had committed any offence while here, they could have been deported.

Why should Galloway be denied the right to speak his mind in Canada?

Degangli: I'm not aware that the decision to ban Galloway was as a result of some huge groundswell of public opinion. It was due entirely to one particular special interest group exerting its undue influence on the Canadian Immigration dept.

Jon, unraveling the deception is not an easy task.
You need to understand that the banksters rule by
leading the apparent opposition to themselves, too.
Their shills also lead the 911 conspiracy truth movement.
Please keep that in mind.

The German/French television channel Arte made a
documentary about how the CIA financed the famous
left intellectuals in Europe since WW2 with some 50 million dollars.
For the USA see "Left Gatekeepers":
http://911review.com/denial/imgs/left_gatekeepers.gif

Medialens too consistently suppresses knowledge about conspiracies.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/02/020726_Mainstream_Conformity.htm
The income of George Monbiot and many of your former heroes is on the line:
http://www.rense.com/general75/time.htm

What you need, to find out who's lying, is a leverage point.
Find something hotly debated, then try to find
uncontested evidence showing one side is hiding an important point.

For information on San Francisco bankruptcy attorney, San Francisco bankruptcy lawyer, bankruptcy attorneys in San Francisco, bankruptcy lawyer in San Francisco, bankruptcy attorney in San Francisco Call us at 415.963.4004

Anyone need a bankruptcy lawyer in San Francisco? Craig, do you allow advertising on your site?

@researcher. I don't think that article from ML proves that they "suppress knowledge about conspiracies" - there's a flaw in your logic there. The Chomsky/Herman model (used by ML) tends to reject conspiracy *in the media system*, preferring a set of rules based on commercial pressure, the costs of dissenting and class-based societal shaping, and I personally think they are very sound. The academic work ("Manufacturing Consent") is extremely thorough and is well worth your time, in my view.

However, as far as I know, Media Lens have not discussed 9/11 theories, so I don't think they can be told off for suppressing theories of that nature. True, Chomsky and Monbiot have both spoken out on it, though surely they are welcome to be skeptics if they wish? I can understand why some people might regard Monbiot as a "left gatekeeper" - since he forms part of a media system he clearly disapproves of - but Chomsky? He is regarded by the establishment as too radical to be allowed space in any newspaper, and I am just glad he is able to find willing book publishers for his excellent work.

Interestingly, the Rense article you put forward uses the Reichstag fire example as evidence that a "well accepted conspiracy" can exist. However, I read recently (could well have been here) that the Reichstag may in fact not have been a false flag operation at all, even though it was still used by the Nazis for evil ends anyway.

I do agree with your general point though that one needs to keep a rational and scientific mind about everything, and I shall try to do that :-)

"Media Lens have not discussed 9/11 theories, so I don't think they can be told off for suppressing theories of that nature"

What's the difference between not discussing and suppressing?

Medialens were not suppressing anything. It was the case that the 9/11 debate was taking over the message board. The discussion was transferred to the forum on the same site and continues there as far as I know.

@MJ - an excellent question. I use the word "suppression" to mean the deliberate and intentional omission of discussion. Not discussing something, on the other hand, can mean exactly that, and is not necessarily the same as deliberately trying to squash a discussion.

That said, I appreciate that the difference in practise can become fuzzy. For example, is the absence of active debate in the mainstream media on, say, the true number of deaths in Iraq caused by the war, an error of omission, or active suppression? Some may well say that reporters have been paid not to discuss it (and that's a valid opinion, though I don't agree with it).

My view, for what its worth, is that it's somewhere between the two. Partly it's a subconscious thing; a British journalist doesn't often like to consider that British "boys" who are "the real heroes" may have caused or triggered 0.8-1.3m excess deaths (Lancet report). Also, since this is more controversial than suggesting that "tens of thousands" of "regrettable" deaths have been caused, it costs time (and hence money) to defend these views, which annoys the proprietor and the shareholders. As a result, eventually the editor internalises the outer limits, and rarely crosses them in the future.

Reader pressures are important too: Haaretz recently carried a story on IDF soldiers who were printing battalion T-shirts advocating the shooting of pregnant Palestinian woman (latter tagline: "1 shot, 2 kills"). The defence was that it was all in jest, despite the horrific depictions. A number of readers were, however, horrified at the implicit criticism of the IDF, even though (one would have thought) it was quite justified. Here, a pressure is set up for the paper not to cover stories of this kind with the same honesty, or perhaps a smaller story of the same kind might be deliberately omitted to avoid accusations of bias.

Jon, you haven't seized the opportunity to learn. You have admitted not having looked much into the by now quite obvious conspiracy behind 9-11. Obviously you still prefer clinging to your old beliefs. Enough for me.

We should all salute Canada's strength, courage and indefatigability!

@researcher - I have already said I would look into 9/11 theories, and I still intend to do so, but you have misread my comments as a refusal to engage. There is nothing in my posts in this thread that is incompatible with government involvement theories - it is just my views on explaining the system-wide corruption of reportage in the media, and a note to the effect that I don't think *all* journalists are paid stooges.

I have previously commended you and others here for a non-hectoring style, but the arrogance in your last comment is appalling, and confirms my frustrations with the preachiness of 9/11 theorists in general. So, from you, enough for me too.

I would strongly recommend any others wanting to evangelise their views on 9/11 et al to do so carefully. Consider it much the same way as you would converting someone to another religion, or to a political party. Haranguing will get you nowhere, and deservedly so.

Meanwhile thanks to others for putting up with my emotional block and cognitive dissonance - it's not the best approach to be sure, but the idea that our governments would be complicit in atrocities of these kinds is for most people too much to deal with. Have patience :o)

Your honesty here is great. If you cling to political views like to a religion, maybe there was some brainwashing involved after all. Admitting your ignorance is great. Of course, you could delay steadily defending your views about something you have not investigated.

"including the domestic and global practices of Canadian extractive industries"...

http://tinyurl.com/av3tcd

No wonder they want to keep a lid on George Galloway. A lot of money being made by some Canadian politicians.

George Galloway will be on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos, Canada's award-winning late-night TV talk show, on Monday, March 30. If you're in Canada, tune in on CBC at 11 pm. If not, catch the interview after it airs at...

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour

"TORONTO — Supporters of British MP and outspoken antiwar crusader George Galloway say federal lawyers are now attempting to have their submissions in his case excluded from a federal court hearing in Toronto Sunday."...

http://tinyurl.com/clc97h

"The banned speech (1 of 5). George Galloway addresses Canada by way of video. March 30, 2009"...

http://tinyurl.com/dcoxfy