Fuck off Craig Murray. That just cheapens your site and makes you look like an idiot. Not serious.

hehe, why so serious eddie?

“IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE” – Craig Murray predicted a ‘WHITEWASH’ and now we have it!

An slimy,inexorable push towards a conclusion that the Iraq war was legal.

In March 2002, Blair received legal advice from the Foreign Office that an attack on Iraq was illegal under international law.

I await the testimony of Lord Goldsmith!!!!!!

YOU FUCKING BASTARDS HAVE LOST ALL HONOUR.

The War and Occupation in Iraq are Illegal…

Much has been said and written about America’s war, and occupation of Iraq. Amongst the community of nations of the world, and within the minds of the citizens of the world, two statements might succinctly clarify the issues of war and occupation in Iraq. The war was illegal under international law. The occupation remains illegal under international law.

The point is: ” Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter read:

” (3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

” (4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two and only two exceptions to the Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force

” … if an armed attack occurs… ” (or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the Security Council is the other.”

The Charter of the United Nations has quite clear provisions aimed at the preservation of international peace. President Bush and Prime Minster Blair have set their own standards, rules, and pattern of conduct in response to Iraq. Their standards, rules, and conduct auger well for future wars and remain manifestly ?” illegal.

Courtenay, how’d that work out in Darfur?

i’m with you all the way Mark, but these liars in charge of us are already rigging their new period in power with more lies, whether its about the economy, their dismal environmental record or their own decrepid self serving existence.

Nothing has happened and we are facing an election with no choices but to vote for two pasrties who can’t see eye to eye, who are having some identical policies in many areas, but who have not yet realised that they cannot scream for PR and coalitions without actually being prepared to actively get into one.

I’m talking of the Greens and Lib Dems here.

This is the most dire failings of the FPTP system and I think that many people will vote for net curtain fascists instead.

Independents have failed to materialise, there are the odd ones but no concerted active campaign that highlights the need to take power away from our party structures and the dogmatic insistence on doing more of the same. We are well and truly doomed.

Screw Chilcot and his privvy councillors, screw the lot of them and may they all die a horrible death.

There is nothing honourable about these criminals and anybody who votes for them is guilty of covering up their warcrimes.

“We will march again – this time to demand justice and a real inquiry.”

Don’t you think you might turn a lot of people off with your crazy 911 conspiracies?

Forvive me for saying so Larry, but you’re starting to become just a little tedious.

There is nowt wrong with a beard sir!

Yes, ingo. Off the top of my head we surely need a network of independents and campaigners, supporting each other. We need planning for general elections. We need emergency plans for by elections. We need an assessment of key figures to stand against and most likely places to stand. Is it being done? Is it now too late? Is anybody thinking beyond this election to the next one?

I lost my best mate in the Falklands war – burnt to death by the exhaust of an Exocet missile – but that was a ‘just’ war, a war in which our people, our land was at risk and invaded. The British people were 99% with that war – I even collected the magazines, bound and handed to my son for posterity.

The Iraq war was murder – no excuses – no obfustication – no regime change ballshit – no playing with the numbers – no legality – no justification just, just complete and utter genocide, murder of the innocent, period.

Blair is a war criminal – guilty.

Some time ago now I wrote to the secretary of Dr Barnardo – the children’s charity, stating, ‘why should the wife of a man who murdered so many children be elected President of a children’s charity?’

She was soon succeeded by Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall – an honourable choice.

After my letter PM Blair visited my son’s school, Walton High, and ensured a £3M+ grant for floodlit football pitches in ground behind the school complex.

Guilt?

Tedious? I’m just getting started.

I’ll keep visiting this blog until Craig Murray calls you 911 conspiracy freaks out as the silly nutters that you are.

Mark Golding you are an ignorant nincompoop and your figures are bilge. 2 million marched? 58 million didn’t. 1.3 million dead? Not according to IBC. And the vast majority of the dead are muslims killed by other muslims. Galloway’s glorious resistance who drive suicide bombs into markets.

Illegal? Sez who? The Dutch? Don’t make me laugh. Talk to the Kurds about your silly views and see what response they give you. What’s this, the fifth inquiry.? It’s all getting rather dull.

Ho hum. OK then Larry, I’ve a left a moronic comment for you under the Saddam picture. Hope you enjoy it.

Larry,

Don’t even go there my friend – you will lose. I have asked for a proper inquiry into 9/11 and 7/7 for that matter.

200 senior American military officers have called for an inquiry – here are their names:

It always makes you sleep better in your bed when military personnel backup your condemnation of government actions – like the 9/11 cover-up…

All these fine men and women call for a proper investigation:-

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman PhD USAF (ret)

“official theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash”

Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom USAF (ret)

“Everything that seemed real[9/11]turned out to be fake”

“Treason; a false flag operation”

Capt. Daniel Davis US Army (ret)

“something is rotten in the state”

Major Jon I Fox US Marines (ret)

“I knew from personal experience they [government] were lying”

Commander Ralph Kolstad US Navy (ret)

“something stinks to high heaven [9/11]”

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski PhD USAF (ret) – Pentagon

“Secretary of Defense [Donald Rumsfeld] referred to a “missile attack”

Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford DFC US Marines (ret)

“We demand an independent, honest and thorough investigation[9/11]”

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas USAF DFC (ret)

“Americans need to demand further investigation[9/11]

Capt. Eric H May US Army (ret)

“a plot by rogue elements of government”

Commander Ted Muga US Navy (ret)

“not one of the 4 hijacked planes ever transponded a hijack code-

which is most, most unusual…”

Col. George Nelson MBA USAF (ret)

“the most heinous conspiracy in our countries history[9/11]”

Maj. John Newman PhD Assistant Director National Security

“the immediate investigation was never addressed”

Capt. Omar Pradhan USAF

“I warmly endorse the pursuit of comprehensive truth[9/11]”

Col. Ronald D Ray US Marines (ret)

“the dog that doesn’t hunt”[9/11]

Lt. Col. Guy S Razer MS USAF (ret)

“It is time to take our country back”

“2 million marched? 58 million didn’t”.

eddie, it was the biggest demonstration in British history. To suggest that everyone who didn’t go must therefore have supported the invasion is absurd.

“Illegal? Sez who?”

There were Blair’s own legal advisers. There are many lawyers expert in International Law. There’s Kofi Anan of course. And why are we supposed to laugh at the Dutch?

eddie,

Personal attacks describe admirably who you are – yes?

“It’s all getting rather dull”

dull or irritating? I suspect the latter. Heh what you done boy for the impoverished, the maimed and disabled in Iraq; the kids in Gaza hit by shells in a UN GPS aware compound? Have you served your country? So don’t bovver me wiv yr crap retaliations!

Go to bed and ponder your navel!

“the kids in Gaza hit by shells”

Don’t go there Mark. Eddie thinks the surgeon David Halpin is a “menace to society” because he set up a charity to help Palestinian children.

eddie spat:

“Illegal? Sez who? The Dutch? Don’t make me laugh. Talk to the Kurds about your silly views and see what response they give you. What’s this, the fifth inquiry.? It’s all getting rather dull.”

hey you like this thread, you’ve come out of your smeary hole like a rabbit on fire.

Off course it was illegal and the UN, even Britains top law bender said so a year before the invasion. According to Geoff Hoons guist today, the autorney general gave him a ticking off for muttering that we had enough powers to invade Iraq.

Who says it was legal then eddie? McDonald Douglas, Blackwater,Netanyahu?

Did all these top European politicians who warned against attacking Iraq say that it was legal? apart from that mafiosi/CIA stooge Berlusconi and some other dependents?

Why when after eight weeks of bombing mud huts in Afghanistan did the US not stop their indiscriminate revenge killing? and why did they not down those two Saudi planes fleeing from investigation, the only civilian aircraft allowed flying in the whole fucking USof A. Why did general myers go back into a meeting with a low ranking official when told of the first plane attack? why did he not scramble fighter planes as it was normal in such case?

You piss pot general really make me cringe, how dare you think that the international victims of 911 don’t deserve an INDEPENDENT inquiry, instead of that cangaroo court congessional debacle.

How come you felt the need to surpress free travel and nail down your fellow americans with the patriot act and the Home defence act, etc.?

Cause you were utterly useless in stopping these scoundrels, you trained these terrorists to fly, watched them do it, and when they did, you sat there on your hands and now you have the fucking gall to spit at us for wanting real justice?

be away with you eddie, you have no leg to stand on. I’m not for conspiracies, but some sort of justice will come forward one day and you will reap as you have sown.

And Eddie, your country is home to a plethora of ex terrorists, school of the America’s ring any bell.

Stop trying to feed us your schmalz, it doe not work on this blog eddie, relent and light an extra candle for gaza this weekend.

Mark, I thought Captain Eric May sounded familiar …

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/james-von-brunn-vs-capt-eric-h-may-on-race-and-jews-by-maj-william-b-fox/

Mark, really, are they all “fine men and women”?

“All these fine men and women call for a proper investigation:-”

Mark, I absolutely DARE YOU to make sense of the following, written by your hero Captain Eric May:

http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire/display/329926/index.php

Ingo – apart from your general incoherence (cangaroo?) and your ad-hominem bile you and the others don’t address the facts. IBC say around 98,000 have died in Iraq – check it out. Their research has more authority than any other. Iraq has a population of 31 million, you can do the maths for yourself. The figure quoted above of 1.3 million is rubbish. 58 million did not march; they may or may not have supported the invasion but there were plenty of opinion polls around at the time and since when did we have democracy linked to the numbers on the streets? Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental of UK and international law. So tell me sonny who exactly has been found guilty of any illegality? You throw these words like war criminal around and you don’t even know what you mean. It’s patehtic. You seem to think I am American, I am not.

MJ I don’t think David Halpin is a menace for that reason and you know it quite well, so don’t make things up.

Heh Mark, why’d you stop at Razer by the way? Was it because the next one was Scott Ritter?

BWWWWWAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn, I hope angrysoba comes back to witness Captain Eric May cited with authority by a top commenter at this blog.

Listen Eddie,

Never throw Iraq numbers at me, I worked with the Iraq doctors since 2004 doctorsforiraq.org and I know the figure is over 1 million.

But numbers are meaningless, fuck numbers! the misery, the distraught Iraqi mothers, the teens without legs or arms, the babies dying of induced cancer – that is what matters to me – yes – pain and suffering – long term to boot – so as I said – leave this house unless you have something constructive and meaningful to add to the thread.

“I absolutely DARE YOU to make sense of the following, written by your hero Captain Eric May”

Don’t worry about it Larry. It’s an analysis of deviously slanted interview techniques. A bit subtle for some.

Mark, if you hadn’t stopped prior to Ritter, you would have come across General Albert Stubblebine.

Did you happen to see The Men Who Stare At Goats?

Since he’s also on the list, is he a “fine man”?

Will you be walking into a wall any time soon?

(btw Craig Murray thinks you’re a nut for believing in 911 conspiracy nonsense)

MJ – so “Captain Eric May” didn’t think that the Holocaust shooting was a false flag?

Do some research.

MJ, was your “Captain Eric May” an actual captain, or was he a captain in a “ghost troop army”?

http://www.vfvs.com/GhostTroopCaptainEricMay.html

** Also, if his buddy von Brunn, the Holocaust Museum shooter, had served in the U.S. armed forces, would you now be citing him as authority?

Mark “and I know the figure is over 1 million”. You know nothing of the sort, of course. Are you saying IBC are a bunch of liars?

You come across as rather pompous. “I have asked for a proper inquiry into 9/11 and 7/7 for that matter.” That’s actually quite amusing.

Eddie – if Mark really cared about the Iraq issue, he’d drop the narcissistic crazy-ass conspiracy bullshit. But I suspect he just doesn’t care.

Again, split personality eddie. Hey, here’s some basic research (in a piece defending IBC, in fact):

“From the outset IBC stated (in its Quick FAQ) that “it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media”. IBC’s database currently contains details of over 100,000 documented civilian deaths. IBC has always stated that its figures are bound to be an undercount of civilians killed by violence, due to gaps in reporting and recording. And, clearly, Iraq mortality figures will be higher (possibly much higher) to the extent that they include other categories of deaths, eg “excess” deaths from disease or other non-violent causes, plus violent non-civilian deaths, including combatants and also Iraqi military personnel killed during the “shock and awe” phase of the invasion.”

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22309

Pompous or assertive? Naval breeding perhaps; certainly I observe most intelligent and sensitive posters here and in many other ‘blogs’ are becoming assertive because I believe that our leaders have ‘lost their way’ and this is perceived by Joe Bloggs as incompetence at best and deception and downright lies at worst.

I have a lot of respect for commentators such as Courtenay, Ingo, Writerman and others here for their refusal to accept the ‘establishment’ or the official line.

Brits are not ‘sheeple’ and most intelligent Brits are not ‘phased’ by this relentless ‘war on terror’ phyops bullshit; especially those Brits whose parents endured the Nazi bombings, the IRA bombs. My father was bomb disposal and my mother was an ARP warden who cheated death by a ‘doodle-bug’ explosion – so if I am a bit pompous – so be it!

“My father was bomb disposal and my mother was an ARP warden”

They would be quite disgusted if they knew you were citing the likes of “Captain Eric May” as authority.

Mark, are you gonna be a member of the “Ghost Troops”?

also this from IBC:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/lancet100000/

It may already be noted, however, that Iraq Body Count, like the Lancet study, doesn’t simply report all deaths in Iraq (people obviously die from various causes all the time) but excess deaths that can be associated directly with the military intervention and occupation of the country. In doing this, and via different paths, both studies have arrived at one conclusion which is not up for serious debate: the number of deaths from violence has skyrocketed since the war was launched

The ‘Captain May’ link is to a piece on Barcelona indymedia which made my eyes hurt. Not only is it white on grey, it makes no sense. In what world is a piece on Barcelona indymedia the best primary source to link to for an American?

Although it did seem to point out that Ron Paul’s enemies were trying to use his supporters’ 9/11 theories against him. Woooh. I think I’ll start believing in Satan and join the Tory party.

technicolour, don’t be that much of a moron. It’s not my fault that it looks sketchy – it’s the fault of Captain Eric May. He doesn’t write at any sort of reputable media outlet because he’s a nutjob. Thus, he makes charming statements like this:

“My regular readers are by now familiar with my command of the Internet’s Ghost Troop, a cyber intelligence unit comprised of current and former service members and activist civilian researchers. A week before the 7/7/05 London bombings, Ghost Troop and its many Internet associates issued a warning that we expected the “Next 9/11″ — which we identify by the operational code 911-2B — to occur in the Houston area on 7/27/05.”

technicolour,

Try to make sense of the following, apparently written by Mark Golding’s hero, Captain Eric May:

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/%E2%80%942009-top-911-2b-targets-by-captain-eric-h-may/

“The indicator is something that I discovered as a result of my Holocaust Museum research: The dates on which several of the museums were dedicated where advanced notice of so-called “terror” attacks.”

Larry: just a reminder that there are 14 other names on Mark’s list.

Did you actually count them? Bwaaahhhaaa!

Actually, it was 25 originally, but he cut it off to not mention Scott Ritter!

Probably good that he did, because then he’d be citing Stubblebine as an authority.

You people are just funny.

Larry,

Don’t scoff at ‘Duct tape’ it can also be used round the mouths of fear mongers trying to push their agenda to strengthen the Patriot Act and further reduce civil liberties. C’mon lets face it these irritating sit-downs are a menace especially when our leaders are itching to strike the heart of Islam and covert indigenous fossil fuels by 2012 – no! sorry – that is a conspiracy theory!!

Did you find the information for me on networked killing drones – I heard President Obama has signed off 2000 of the myopic, heuristic hyper-threading ‘boys toys’ even though I read somewhere they are easily jammed!

Mark, what are you talking about? I thought we were talking about you citing crazy people as authority.

There’s a few thousand here

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

What puzzles me is why Larry et al, repeatedly insist on bringing this issue up here, when it has hardly been discussed at all since before they arrived.

Tony

Larry,

As I anticipated – you failed the test – go do some learning.

OK! you done some Googling and cherry picking – well whoopee! You are obviously a candidate for scholarly plagiarism.

Look Larry, your links are meaningless to me – I have too much inbred respect for military officers and of course you know why.

Tony, this is a good starting point to answer every single claim by 911 conspiracy nuts:

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Right, Mark. Linking = plagiarism.

Are you still telling me that you have respect for Captain Eric May?

Once again, Mark, your idiocy is defeated. Really nice citation of the Army officers above. Tell me, why did you stop at Razer? Because the next one was Scott Ritter?

“What puzzles me is why Larry et al, repeatedly insist on bringing this issue up here, when it has hardly been discussed at all since before they arrived.”

My thinking too, Tony.

Perhaps they know so little about the UK that they are sticking to the one *controversial* topic of which they have some experience.

Go to 0:45 for Mark’s hero in the U.S. military (Stubblebine):

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

dreoilin, why do you keep bringing up Haiti? The U.S. military is doing incredible work there, and you’re doing everything you can to find fault.

You’re using the deaths of thousands to score political points. Fuck you.

“Look Larry, your links are meaningless to me – I have too much inbred respect for military officers and of course you know why.”

But you don’t have a problem accusing them of mass murder. Not just in Iraq, but for the mass murder that took place on 911.

Mark, can you even keep track of your competing idiotic thoughts?

Larry,

you linked here:

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/james-von-brunn-vs-capt-eric-h-may-on-race-and-jews-by-maj-william-b-fox/

Please tell me why; what did you want us to discover here?

Above, Mark Golding cited “Captain Eric May” as an authority for the 911 conspiracy nuttery. That link was just to give a little flavour in respect of “Captain Eric May”.

dreoilin & Tony,

I agree and annoyingly I have been sidetracked by this ‘tedious’ (as MJ pointed out earlier in the thread) interception and steering by Larry.

Let this be a warning – His mind-set is fixed and he is dedicated to American sovereignty – so be it. 911 killed WebCameron blog dead, I believe, so with respect to Craig this is now off limits with me – dirt in the trash can – left for our (and American) children’s children to demand the truth, the real truth and to answer the many questions, bereaved American families of loved ones lost on that dreadful and catastrophic day, are still asking.

I think the posting of war criminals’ pictures is an interesting experiment. Most people in the UK, I would think, would instinctively react against the suggestion that Powell is a war criminal, since the idea that the *British* government would specifically Do Evil is often too much for ordinary people to bear. What on earth could they do about it, save calling the police? Indeed, with the modern demands placed by modern capitalism on most peoples lives, do most of us even have time to care, even if we should?

For the mainstream media, the preference is much the same, but for different reasons. The media are often part of the professional classes, and know that they can be powerful when they want to be, but key pundits and writers get to where they are by not rocking the boat. Why would they start? “Radical” positions, such as calling ones own leaders war criminals, can be expensive claims to defend, and extra costs are not welcome in the corporate media for obvious reasons.

Eddie reacts abusively to the suggestion that Powell, Blair et al knew exactly what they were doing when they lied so repeatedly. In his case I think it might be his membership of the Labour Party which intellectually blinds him to the idea that evil people may really have taken over the party. Given the dilemmas thrown up by our first-past-the-post voting system, he ends up preferring a Labour party run by war criminals than a Conservative party, primarily because the ethic of don’t-let-the-Tories-in finds plenty of support amongst Labour Party activists. As eddie pointed out on another thread, New Labour have achieved some good things, but at what cost? Can the moral significance of a million dead Iraqis be reduced because we got some alleviation of child poverty and the institution of civil partnerships?

Indeed, in the general case, how can people who are primarily motivated by a concern for others, such as those on the political left, change the culture of the mainly apolitical public, to break through the intellectual inertia described above? Marxists sometimes say that in order to understand the inherent problems of capitalism, one has to study *and understand* all three books in Capital, but would we say the same here? Would it really take an intellectualisation of the masses, and a popularisation of, say, Chomsky and Herman’s “Manufacturing Consent”, to achieve this?

And how do you do all the above without risking widespread political alienation – the idea that if the party in power are evil in the way we are asked to think of our Offically Prescribed Enemies, who can you trust? Why would you vote for a lesser evil, if the lesser evil still had significant blood on their hands?

Questions, questions…

Mark, now you’re going to cry and take your ball home? BBWWWWAAAAHHHHHAAAAAHHHHAAAAA.

Good luck with that Captain Eric May! Maybe someday you’ll end up together in some American right-wing extremist camp in Idaho!

“His mind-set is fixed and he is dedicated to American sovereignty”

So now sovereignty is a bad thing? Doesn’t someone like you prefer the concept of sovereignty?

Or are you talking about hegemony?

Is this another case where you got your crazy mixed up?

Yes, Larry,

I read the link, and found no reason to disrespect Capt May there.

Larry,

I’m beginning to suspect that you’re a nutjob.

Batshit crazy.

No, I take that back. Since I’m English I’ll stick with ‘peculiar’.

Larry,

you feeling OK?

Good questions Jon

I’d say, from my brief experience, that canvassing (face to face discussion) is a privileged way of finding out that the public are not really ‘apolitical’. They perfectly understand what’s going on; they just don’t have anyone listening to them. Which is what politics can be about, isn’t it? Not imposing top-down solutions or theories, but acting on behalf of the people?

You don’t have to have the vocabulary to read Chomsky to agree, on a fundamental level with Chomsky the person, I think (also trying to get this blog into Pseud’s Corner, of course)

So, Larry,

what do you think Angrysoba knows about Capt May? You were vary active on this thread until a few minutes ago; are you feeling all right?

Jon,

yes, the idea of lying to start a war that is (supposedly) justifiable in some other way seems totally undemocratic…

Jon,

I agree it is an interesting experiment; it is a ‘jolt’ of reality and I believe intended to promote deeper thought which as you infer, is all too often avoided by the constraints of busy lives. I was tempted to use an image myself, but a preview test revealed a bar for us mere commentators – Images and video clips are extremely powerful (note Eddy’s reaction) and were allowed in WebCameron for a brief period until the system was abused by inappropriate use.

Good thinking Craig – I liked it!

Jon “he ends up preferring a Labour party run by war criminals”

Please don’t be a twat. Comparing Powell to Saddam Hussein is moral equivalence on a scale that give hyperbole a bad name. As for IBQ, the usual elisions and evasions. Is anyone seriously suggesting undercounting by a scale of ten? I think not.

Eddie,

IBC was deliberately set up to provide a MINIMUM BASELINE. Haven’t you read their home page?

As for Chomsky, with his implicit support of hideous regimes, he has probably been as responsible for as many deaths as any politician in the West, by blinding the left to the crimes of Mao, Pol Pot and others. And manufacturing consent is a pile of elitist garbage.

Oops, looks like Eddie’s in trouble, too!

For obvious reasons, I don’t like Chomsky, but at least he regards 911 truthers as silly people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4&feature=related

Please quote from the link to show Capt May to be racist. The link shows him DISAGREEING with a racist. Did you read it?

Someone should mention the Lancet, just to keep things lively. As I remember it, it tried to make a best guess at how many people were actually not there, that should have been, where the IBQ tried to answer the question of how many individual deaths could be reliably documented ?

The BBC should certainly make occasional reference to the Lancet study, but all we get on that is resounding silence.

“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. “

Technicolour,

I suspected as much. Where did you get this quote.

Clark,

I have said in a previous post I believe (and so did Robin Cook) the BBC has changed since the Governors were booted out after Gilligan and Hutton. Silence on foreign policy controversy seems to be ‘de rigeur’ lately.

“I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of parliament to decide on war.”

Robin Cook 1946 – 2005 RIP PBWH

Obviously, if you were in Iraq the picture would be different. CS Lewis is very euro-centric. CS Lewis, from the Screwtape Letters.

I mean, I’m not a good person, I like being Loki occasionally (which is probably my affinity, such as it is, with Larry). But hell, yeah, CS Lewis.

Technicolour,

you’re not a sadistic bully like Larry.

Thanks, Mark. I think it is a good idea to check your sources, if you don’t mind me saying so. Rule of thumb in journalism is 6 checks per fact (preferably seven).

But thank you for your bravery and engagement and commitment, and for your website.

Mark Golding, have you checked the help email address at the Children of Iraq website lately? I wanted to contact you.

I don’t have anything resting on this, I think. There is nothing to take personally. Larry seems to. Maybe he has lost relatives, I wish he would say. But then why would he say it down a keyboard to a group of strangers?

Well I gave Larry a chance for personal communication, but he didn’t take it. I suppose he may even have lost someone on 911. It could explain his obsession.

Larry is welcome to request further communication with me, but not if he keeps misrepresenting people’s arguments and then insulting them for things they never claimed.

No – I will check now – thanks technicolour – appreciated.

Craig, why do you think the Holocaust Museum shooter was attracted to “Captain Eric May” in the first place?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/08/when-irish-eyes-are-smiling.html

Here’s Mark’s hero “Captain Eric May” discussing John Nash:

“Hmm…, I wonder why the Jewish film industry would make a mistake like that, rewriting the plot of reality to convince us — with a powerful movie — not to obsess about the prospect of embedded code in the mainstream Jewish news media? You don’t think there’s a conspiracy do you? If you do, then you’ve got a problem: a beautiful mind!”

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/burning.htm

Not CRAIG asking, Larry, it’s me, CLARK. You want a private chat?

Oops – I meant Clark.

Just drifted to be to check if Craig Murray’s comments section had reverted into its usual slanging match about 9/11 conspiracies. Oh look. It has. Forgive me for jumping in but a quick scan of the thread begs to questions:

@Larry: To as a question at a bit of tangent, what have you got against Scott Ritter? I don’t think he’s said anything much about the events of 9/11 has he? I mean he wouldn’t be on that list. Am I mistaken or are you thinking of someone else?

@Eddie: I seem to remember having a civilised to-and-fro with you last year, or maybe the year before, in which you mentioned you were a member of the Labour party. I think I weighed in somewhere with something like “Labour is dead, it deserves to be dead, it needs to die so it can be reborn as a decent party”. Which I think you disagreed with, and thus it emerged in our banter. Is this right? And are you still in the party? It’s a useful context for many of your remarks.

Clark, you’re right, plenty of people have lost relatives under such circumstances & not responded with the vitriol. I mean, unless Larry’s a 23 year old dj, which would kind of explain the swearing & stuff (in a way, I know plenty of other 23 years olds who wouldn’t) Otherwise, I was happy to read his questions sometimes. I hate thinking I know what I know, unless those facts have been painfully aquired.

or happily acquired. sorry, late, and skype chats coming in from everywhere. ignore me, am not sure adding anything useful.

These Powell brothers are just like the Cecil family. Servants of power.

They don’t much care what power wants to do. Their only interest is to be there serving it.

What a lot of people don’t know is that Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, was just a job application.

How else is a poor but well educated middle class boy to get on in the world?

Technicolour,

your posts are interesting, varied and polite, so I have no reason to ignore you. I’m pretty sure that Larry found this blog when Angrysoba added a Craig Murray page at Screwloosechange.

Clark,

Well that is quite interesting. He seems to think that I am obsessed with the subject, but I reached the point of terminal boredom with it years ago. Although he has, I have never attended a meeting that deals with the subject and so far as I recall I have only ever met one person promoting the issue which was at a music festival where absolutely no one seemed to show the slightest interest. I have seen the effects of anti-trolls being incredibly destructive. Its like they repeatedly turn up at the same police station to proclaim that their dead father is not a serial killer. The police eventually get so annoyed that they call in a psychiatrist and get them sectioned for wasting police time.

Tony

“What a lot of people don’t know is that Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, was just a job application.”

Fascinating thought.

“What a lot of people don’t know is that Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, was just a job application.” Fascinating thought.

I was suprised when I read it. I was expecting it to be, you know, Machiavellian, but so much of it just seemed to read like obvious commonsense, compared with what we hear from his modern counterparts.

Well, yes, but it’s ironic that this historical book about seeking and using power only exists because some Italian politico sought employment from the ruling class (he can’t seriously have written it for any other reason, can he, other than to impress?. The mechanism and servility of power explicitly exposing itself without the slightest self-consciousness. Doesn’t happen often in history.

Tony (@9:47 PM) : Interesting point. I’m barely interested in “9/11″ any more until someone brings it up. Was very in interested in it at one point, but what do you do? Once you feel you know the Official Story is a bunch of lies, what do you do with that fact, unless you want to devote your life to it? I’ve discussed it at some length with mates, some who see it as an inside job, others who do not. But we’re still mates, and it hasn’t come up for years, frankly.

Perhaps what Amerikans can’t get it that it’s not heresy to think your government capable of Really Bad Things. The British know the sort of stuff that heads of state and “security services” types might like to do, and nothing would really surprise that – same with pretty much anyone else in the world apart from Americans. But in the US they have this terrible fear that if anyone – even more a minute – loses the faith, the entire system will fall apart. That’s why it’s so important to be a fanatical flag-waver, and to make sure everyone else is too.

Glenn, I realize now that it’s a religion for you. Talking you out of your creepy theory would be more difficult than convincing a Sunni Muslim to become a Shiite.

Larry,

You asked:-

“Courtenay, how’d that work out in Darfur?”

Thanks for the question.

My understanding ( subject to correction) is that Sudan is the largest country in Africa and is located next to the Red Sea, with a size equivalent to the entire Western Europe and with a population of merely 35 million. Darfur, to which you refer Larry, is at the Western end of Sudan and is rich in oil reserves. This background might best assist in placing Darfur in the context, about which you inquired.

The similarity between Iraq and Sudan, so far as oil is concerned, is that the Sudanese government, as with Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq, at a certain juncture, sought to steer clear of Washington’s domination of its policies over its oil. Saddam, as you are aware, is/ was a useful tool of

Washington vis-a-vis conflagrations with Iran; however, the Bush/Saddam alliance did see a falling out and once UN sanctions were going to be lifted, Saddam clearly signaled that he was going in a direction, not to Washington’s approval. Sudan’s difficulty is its independence and close association with China in developing its oil reserves ( i.e. not in accordance with Washington’s agenda).

With the foregoing in mind, your question, no doubt goes to the questions and issues surrounding the allegations of genocide. Not an apologist for any “genocide”. As with the Iran/Iraq war, the US has played a role in Sudan for over two decades and supported a separatist movement in the south of Sudan. Once a peace agreement was negotiated, the US shifted its attention to Darfur in western Sudan. The US assisted in the training of the JEM Darfuri rebels. The US media has projected its assessment as the Jan Jawid militias committing genocide. This is a somewhat simplistic projection given the fact of an ethnically diverse population in Sudan, with all speaking Arabic. The online news journal the Black Commentator made this observation:-

“All parties involved in the Darfur conflict?”whether they are referred to as ‘Arab’ or as ‘African,’ are equally indigenous and equally Black. All are Muslim and all are local.”

Black Commentator ?” 27th October, 2004.

Much of the fighting seems to be intertribal.

The parallel with Iraq is that the US is seeking in Sudan, by any means necessary, to overthrow an Islamist government and change the trajectory from the Chinese developing the oil reserves to a neo-Iraq superimposition. The negative press and the projection of “genocide” can’t be assessed in isolation from the global politics at play. The political right in the US plays a very useful role in the process and this would require a separate post fully to explain the role played by the American right and evangelists.

What I said about the UN Charter and the violations thereunder by the war of aggression waged by the US – indubitably stands. If I am incorrect about what continues to “fuel” ( pun intended)conflict in Darfur, then I am willing and pleased to have your analysis. I have shared mine. Trust I have adumbrated how it works out in Darfur ?” hegemony, a contest for oil, proxy wars, secret funding, and all the usual processes in play.

Kind regards.

Courtenay Barnett ( http://www.globaljusticeonline.com)

Courtenay: Interesting, thank you. I must say, this forum is turning into “Intelligent answers to stupid, belligerent questions” – and we must thank our correspondent old Larry for providing a vital role in this

So, Courtenay, then your source there would be http://www.globalresearch.ca, right?

Courtenay,

So interesting how you pathetically attempt to distort history. For instance, you forgot to mention that Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait.

As to Darfur, maybe you need to tell Mukesh Kapila that what he saw was just a product of U.S. media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Kapila

Come to think of of it, I suppose the world media should know that they belong to the U.S. media.

Courtenay, you state that “The US assisted in the training of the JEM Darfuri rebels.”

Can you substantiate this? Was Agent Tim Osman involved?

Glenn, you write:

“Perhaps what Amerikans can’t get it that it’s not heresy to think your government capable of Really Bad Things. The British know the sort of stuff that heads of state and “security services” types might like to do, and nothing would really surprise that – same with pretty much anyone else in the world apart from Americans. But in the US they have this terrible fear that if anyone – even more a minute – loses the faith, the entire system will fall apart. That’s why it’s so important to be a fanatical flag-waver, and to make sure everyone else is too.”

So – do you mean that a greater percentage of Brits believe 911 was an inside job, compared to Americans? I don’t think that’s the case. I can name all sorts of reasonable Brits from all political persuasions who think that only nutcases believe that the Towers were pre-planted with explosives.

I think you’re living in an even stranger fantasy world if you think that you’re not looked upon as a fringe thinker (a la David Icke).

“I think you’re living in an even stranger fantasy world if you think that you’re not looked upon as a fringe thinker (a la David Icke).”

A “Patrick from Cincinnati”, now ? Same tone of voice ?

Hey, Larry From St. Louis, is someone trying to make you look like an automatic operation ?

Richard,

“Same tone of voice” you ask – Kinder but not quite, unlike the hyperbole and and intransigence of Larry, Patrick has given us an insight into American patriotism when he said, “in the US they have this terrible fear that if anyone – even more a minute – loses the faith, the entire system will fall apart.

That’s why it’s so important to be a fanatical flag-waver, and to make sure everyone else is too.”

President Obama warned us, “not to challenge the official 9/11 story” – Cairo June 4th 2009 – which echoed the UN speech from President Bush. Obama went on to say this, “But let us be clear (his fav starter): Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with,”

Bush went on to say this:

“We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.”

Patrick’s statement nudged me into presenting myself with a hypothetical question, ‘would knowing that 7/7 was a false-flag operation affect my own loyalty to Britain and the Crown – and would democracy (the system) collapse if the British public knew also from clear irrefutable evidence?’

I think not – simple because I believe we British are too resilient – kinder bullet-proof. Lets face it the expenses scandal has enraged us to the point our politicians are not trusted – certainly not to the degree before the rot was exposed. Has our system collapsed? No. We have given them a second chance.

Bridget and Ant have a respectable site (www.julyseventh.co.uk) presenting their research. Their site, I believe, has not spawned a myriad of debunking and debunking the debunked plethora to the extent of 9/11 (Casual Googling reveals the snakes nest).

Having worked (and played) in America revealed to me this patriotism and flag waving, this together with the circular post and counter-posts in WebCameron, before it’s demise, influence my decision not to pursue the facts of 9/11 in public. I will however in private continue to observe and record the work of scientists and others in their forensic analysis of what remains as clear evidence in the collapse of steel and concrete buildings within the demolished World Trade Centre.

Ehem, “Patrick from Cincinnati” – No, that’s not what I meant. I meant what I actually wrote.

“”Same tone of voice” you ask – Kinder but not quite, unlike the hyperbole and and intransigence of Larry, Patrick has given us an insight into American patriotism when he said, “in the US they have this terrible fear that if anyone – even more a minute – loses the faith, the entire system will fall apart.”

He was quoting Glenn, you silly. You don’t have good reading skills, do you? Now feel free to paste a long boring article that is not your own.

Mark -

I must admit that I didn’t actually read the entire post, but nonetheless I appreciate you posting some Siegfried Sassoon. This simplicity of his words breaks my heart every time.

If 7/7 was a false flag operation, the U.K. must be a terrible place to live.

Larry,

Whether Patrick was quoting or not is irrelevant, I understand your frantic attempts to undermine posts that crash into your mind-set that sits behind compound barriers. Using ‘if’ to quantify a statement is a waste of key-strokes.

Bernard Chazelle is a friend and many Americans express delight at his use of English which is never boring, delightful reading, always informative and never cherry picks to produce belligerent remarks – that’s too easy.

So in your own language – take your ball and go play somewhere else where your skills will be more effective.

“Patrick has given us an insight into American patriotism when he said, “in the US they have this terrible fear that if anyone – even more a minute – loses the faith, the entire system will fall apart.”

do you understand that he was quoting someone else

he was quoting someone else to knock it down

are you smart enough to figure that one out

Larry,

The UK has its problems, but actually is quite a pleasant place to live. Its probably one of the most tolerant and least racist countries in the World.

With regards to the London Bombings, there is very little hard information to analyse, although there are several known issues that make the official explanation extremely difficult to believe. I have come to no firm conclusions with regards to who was responsible for it or what exactly happenned. This is totally different to 9/11, as there is a mountain of evidence to analyse.

However, what is clear, is that the vast majority of the British Public sufferred no great trauma or fear as a result of 7/7 and in the main just carried on as usual. We have a long history of being attacked, and people dropping bombs on us, and of terrorist attacks. The IRA regularly blew up bits of London and other parts of the UK for most of the 20 years or so before the US started their Global War on Terror.

The majority of Americans on the other hand, were and still are completely terrorised, to the extent that over 50% of them are actually in favour of torturing those blamed for terrorising them.

My son visited America when he was 12, before 9/11 with his local scout group. He was completely amazed at the cultural difference. Boy scouts in England play silly games, and generally have lots of fun.

His impression of Boy Scouts in America in the Year 2000, was that they were completely obsessed with shooting ( he was taught to fire virtually every weapon from a bow and arrow – up to machine gun ), and that in historical terms with regards to attitude, it was the equivalent of an English schoolboy visiting the Hitler Youth in 1938. He also thought the weather was absolutely crap, and that the vast majority of Americans were incredibly fat. Its obviously got a lot worse since then.

Tony

Has anyone read Mark Curtis: Web of Deceit?

It’s amazing that you folks seem to think that 7/7 might have been an inside job, but nonetheless you’re living in such a wonderful country!

There is no limit to British exceptionalism!

“His impression of Boy Scouts in America in the Year 2000, was that they were completely obsessed with shooting ( he was taught to fire virtually every weapon from a bow and arrow – up to machine gun ), and that in historical terms with regards to attitude, it was the equivalent of an English schoolboy visiting the Hitler Youth in 1938.”

I have a nephew in Minnesota and a nephew in Illinois. They’re both in the Boy Scouts. I was in the Boy Scouts. They have not experienced, nor did I experience, the militarism that you’re talking about. They also have the silly games. But merit badges seem to be the focus.

If your son believes that he was taught how to fire a machine gun in the Boy Scouts, he’s retarded. Maybe he was on drugs. Maybe you’re on drugs. In any event, it’s not the case that he learned how to fire a machine gun in the Boy Scouts.

Because, as I was saying before the interruption, it draws the very clear line between the actions of successive UK governments and the behaviour and aspirations of the UK people.

“He also thought the weather was absolutely crap, and that the vast majority of Americans were incredibly fat.”

So there’s not an increasing problem of obesity in the U.K.?

I do have to say that’s the first time a British exceptionalist has made fun of America for the weather.

Sorry, that should have been “the actions of UK governments abroad”. It’s interesting, and very well researched.

The very brief Wikipedia synopsis of Web of Deceit:

“Curtis draws most of his research from recently declassified documents by the English secret service. He notably claims to demonstrate the role and complicity of the British in the massacre of millions of Indonesians in 1965, the toppling of the governments of Iran and British Guyana, and what he describes as repressive colonial policies in the former colonies of Kenya, Oman, and Malaysia.”

Damn, technicolour – sounds like a country with problems!

…it draws the very clear line between the actions of successive UK governments abroad and the behaviour and aspirations of the UK people.

Everyone I know (from old to young) who’s had the vaccine is fine, dreoilin!

But still:

EU to probe pharma over “false pandemic”

04 January 2010

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is to hold an emergency debate and inquiry this month into the “influence” exerted by drugmakers on the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) global H1N1 flu campaign.

The text of the resolution approved by the Assembly calling for the debate and inquiry states that: “in order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies”

http://www.pharmatimes.com/worldnews/article.aspx?id=17147

“the behaviour and aspirations of the UK people”

Interesting way to reconcile your British exceptionalism with your inherent self-hatred.

In fairness, technicolour, much the same can be said about the US. Most people there are thoroughly decent and would be horrified if they knew even a small fraction of the crimes committed in their name. (Incidentally, the apologists for US imperialism on these boards and elsewhere further the bad name the US has.)

What I was saying earlier (and Mark unfortunately mistook “Patrick” quoting me as making comment of his own, and went on to make the same point I’d made) is that we British to not withdraw as if stung when ugly truths about us and our past are revealed. We know good and well there’s a great deal of evil the British have done in our past, and it continues to this day in many respects. Unlike our American counterparts, we don’t have a child-like belief in a big daddy figure of the Great and Glorious administration, Founding Fathers and a wonderful, flawless, benevolent military.

True Believers, of course, consider that America was born into perfection and has been getting better ever since.

We also don’t believe that we are the best, the greatest and _by definition_ correct in all that we do. The fool that spoke about “British exceptionalism” must have been projecting something rotten – I’ve never heard anyone speak about such a thing. US exceptionalism, on the other hand, is taken as a matter of course over there.

The “Why do they hate us?” ponderings after “9/11″ was marvelous to behold. Like, they really don’t know?

Sorry, posted link on wrong thread.

Glenn, agree same could be said for US if not all countries. Not surprised the US were surprised by 9/11; I was.

“We also don’t believe that we are the best, the greatest and _by definition_ correct in all that we do. The fool that spoke about “British exceptionalism” must have been projecting something rotten – I’ve never heard anyone speak about such a thing.”

Never hear anyone speak about such a thing? Once again, you’re remarkably ignorant, Glenn.

techncolour; I wasn’t actually saying that “9/11″ wasn’t a surprise, indeed it was – who could have expected a rag-tag bunch of non-practicing Muslims to make the entire air defence stand down that day? What wasn’t surprising was why anyone else in the world might just hate America enough to do it. It shouldn’t have been much of a surprise, after all – the CIA have devoted the last 60 years to whipping up hatred, and one doesn’t have over 1/2 the world’s military if you genuinely believe everyone loves you.

Glenn, so what you’re saying is that 19 Arab Muslims did NOT do 911, but if they did, they were justified? Am I hearing that right?

And Glenn, do you realize that Craig Murray thinks of you as a conspiraloon?

@technicolour – yep, read it, have it on my shelf. It is bloody great when responding to people in writing – alongside William Blum’s work, it provides an excellent compendium of some of the West’s darkest days (though I fear, sadly, it needs updating to include recent atrocities). Who’da thought we were so involved in operations in Vietnam, and so privately supportive, whilst publically condemning in Parliament the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong?

@technicolour: “the public are not really apolitical”. Not sure about that, I am inclined to regard them at the very least as unthinking. I avoid the use of the word ‘stupid’ here (though it is tempting) because, in the defence of the public, the propaganda of capitalism and consumerism has a powerful sway, and it is perhaps unreasonable to think that everyone should be immune. Perhaps, indeed, I am just blaming a human public for exhibiting very human behaviour!

@eddie: comparing Powell to Hussein misses out a lot of detail, to be sure, specifically on the level of authoritarianism. But my guess about the *point* of the post is for Craig to claim they have both carried out crimes against humanity. This is not as unreasonable as you appear to want it to be. Indeed, Matrix Chambers, a leading law firm in London, released an opinion a number of years ago that said that there were grounds to impeach Blair while he was in office, and that impeachment itself was still constitutionally possible.

On that basis, anyone involved in the modification of intelligence data to increase the saleability of the war must stand trial. And if it is a fair trial, and they are found not guilty, then fine. Guilty criminals are not always convicted, but bringing them to trial is an important first step nonetheless.

But you have cleanly avoided the questions raised about your alliance to the Labour Party. With your activist hat on, I presume, you would rather focus us on the perils of a future Tory party; and while I agree with you there, for their war crimes (see above) New Labour deserve to lose the next election, simple as that. Given that much negative voting will be happening, it will be easy for you and other Labour supporters to blame voters for being “stupid enough” to let the Tories in (either by voting directly for Cameron, or for “wasting a vote” on a smaller party). But if voting patterns occur as a *response* to political events, then it makes sense to look at those events, and if any of them can be said to give rise to the electoral abandonment of Labour, then we collectively should hold the event (or the decision-makers behind it) responsible instead.

Your attempts to discredit Chomsky avoided the main issue – I could easily have mentioned another author. The issue I was getting at was that the public are arguably suffering from a lack of political consciousness on a number of levels, and for a number of reasons. British society is inherently selfish and tends to prefer the status quo, so long as its subjects are comfortable and secure; their concern for foreign suffering and injustice is limited at best, and entirely permitted by the lack of concern in the media; they witness the most appalling corruption in their political classes, and yet have no idea how to feel angry about it; they see lies perpetuated by their leaders, but are ground down by inaction; they buy into patriotism, nationalism, consumerism and other ideologies that promote selfishness and exceptionalism, and all without questioning why.

With that in mind, my question was how to encourage a culture of *selflessness* amongst the wider public, so that a better age of holding government to account, and caring for the downtrodden, can come about. Perhaps I am, however, asking for the moon on a stick!

Side note: I am in a Labour area, and intend to vote for a smaller party come the election. Green maybe, or Respect if they stand. Not sure what good it will do, but it’s just about the only direction my conscience will reasonably stand, save inking a new box that says “None of the above”.

Jon, of the *people* standing in your area, are none from the main parties halfway decent?

guess not.

Jon

I don’t buy the stupid moral equivalence crap that you and those like you come up with. To compare Powell to Hussein or Karadjic is just puerile schoolboy stuff and it discredits you and Craig and others. Stuff Matrix. I could get a counsel’s opinion that the moon is made of cheese – it means nothing. All that counts is what happens in a court of law and Blair will never be put on trial and it is naive of you to believe that it will ever happen. Believe it or not the vast majority of the British public have very little interest in Iraq a a political issue. The interest is confined to tiny corners of the internet like this one. The public is more concerned about homes and jobs or the latest iphone, and that is not being patronising it is just a fact of life. Yes I am a Labour Party member and I happen to think Blair was an outstanding PM. Leaders have to make difficult decisions and sometimes they make policy mistakes; Churchill bombed Dresden – that does not mean he was not also an outstanding leader. This silly talk of war criminals is exactly that, silly. Yes Labour are likely to lose the election, although we will very likely have a hung parliament. But they won’t lose it becasue of Iraq and it would be naive to think so. And the people on these boards have no credible alternative to Labour. Do they seriously think their lives will be better under the tories? Their rage arises from their powerlessness. They should get off their backsides, and get engaged and stop whining.

Larry,

Your reply really does not advance discourse.

“Tim Osman” is supposed to be the name assigned by the CIA for Osama Bin Laden, as a then ( maybe still ) functional asset.

The debate really does not need to go down the path of innuendos of “conspiracy theories” in the sense of a person being off the mark in evaluating the known facts.

Let’s keep it real Larry.

Kind regards.

PS. As you well know – there is a lot of information as well as disinformation out there. Cheers mate.

“I wasn’t actually saying that “9/11″ wasn’t a surprise, indeed it was – who could have expected a rag-tag bunch of non-practicing Muslims to make the entire air defence stand down that day?”

Hmmm…Too much nonsense to untangle completely here.

Glenn, why do so many Truthers have this problem with the idea that Arabs/Muslims can fly planes? And fly them into buildings.

As for the standdown, it never took place.

You have read the 9/11 Commission Report have you not?

You don’t appear to have done so which is one of the reasons so many people get muddled up.

Soba: Sure, the US regularly allows planes to switch off their transponders, fail to respond to comms, and fly around randomly above cities for 45 minutes!

“Soba: Sure, the US regularly allows planes to switch off their transponders, fail to respond to comms, and fly around randomly above cities for 45 minutes!”

Leaden sarcasm also doesn’t qualify as irony, Glenn.

And misrepresenting the facts to shoehorn your argument doesn’t make you smart.

AA11′s transponder was switched off @8:21.

AA11 crashed into the WTC (North) @8:46 (25 mins later)

Jets were scrambled from Otis @8:53 to search for AA11.

UA175′s transponder code was changed @8:47

UA175 crashed into the WTC (South) @9:03

(16 minutes later)

AA77′s transponder was switched off @8:56 but it seems to have gone unnoticed at first. Glenn, you may be surprised to know that ATC were busy at the time looking for a plane (AA11) which had disappeared.

Jets were scrambled from Langley @9:24 but they were sent up to look for AA11 (which no longer existed).

Military were informed that AA77 was missing @9:34 due to some cock-ups.

AA77 crashed into the Pentagon @9:37

(about 41 minutes after it switched off its transponder but as you know, this wasn’t an average day).

UA93′s transponder was switched off @9:41 (although hijacking was probably @9:28) but it crashed at 10:03.

(22 minutes later).

Truthers like to say that the whole operation went on for over an hour and a half and no planes intercepted the airliners but this is to completely distort what was going on at the time and what kind of difficulties they had.

I would have thought you’d known all this having read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Have you read it Glenn?

You mean to tell me it takes 32 minutes – over HALF AN HOUR, according to your figures, between a transponder going off (and there was a bit more to it than that too if you were to be honest), and jets being scrambled, Soba? And this is above Manhattan, one of the best defended airspaces in the world? Hmm. And was the most local airbase summoned for action? Don’t be shy – tell the truth!

And this in the face of at least 53 different warnings to the US, from multiple agencies worldwide, such that the President had a specific warning from a FBI agent sent to Crawford in August 2001, bearing the message “Bin Laden determined to strike” etc., and Dubbya took that seriously. Yessir. He patted the FBI agent, said “Go back to Washington, son, you’ve covered your ass.” He extended his record-breaking vacation to stay in Florida, where the entire state (run by his brother) was placed on the highest alert.

Rice lied when she said “nobody considered aircraft could be flown into buildings”, that was precisely why Dubbya slept on an aircraft during the G8 meeting months earlier.

Why don’t you acknowledge that Farmer has rejected your precious 9/11 CR as rubbish, Soba, instead of convincing yourself you’ve got a winning point in asking me whether or not I’ve read it? Why do you believe testimony that was never sworn in? Why do you dismiss testimony that was not even allowed into your hallowed 9/11 CR?

http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940

Nah, nothing wrong here – move along, goddammit, citizen – you trying to question an Official Truth here, you SOAB?

Oh… that’s right. One must be insane to wonder about such things, because people that we trust so much – like you, soba – have got it absolutely 100% straight, just like the government says.

Have you read either the Commission report or John Farmer’s critique of it?

I can only assume you have not read the Commission report which is why you keep dodging the question and why you keep making irrelevant remarks.

I would like to know specifically what John Farmer’s criticisms are. If you can’t tell me I can only assume you don’t know. In which case you continue to trot him out as a mascot and pretend he’s a Truther when he absolutely is not.

“You mean to tell me it takes 32 minutes – over HALF AN HOUR, according to your figures, between a transponder going off (and there was a bit more to it than that too if you were to be honest), and jets being scrambled, Soba?”

I have no reason to doubt it. Do you?

“And this is above Manhattan, one of the best defended airspaces in the world?”

According to whom? How is Manhattan one of the “best defended airspaces in the world”? I think you just pulled that one out of thin air because you liked its hyperbolic edge.

“Hmm. And was the most local airbase summoned for action? Don’t be shy – tell the truth!”

According to the Commission report there were only two “alert” sites in the region. Otis and Langley with a pair of fighters each. You haven’t read it so I don’t expect you to know that.

Could you tell me an alert site that was closer where there were fighters already on standby?

“And this in the face of at least 53 different warnings to the US, from multiple agencies worldwide, such that the President had a specific warning from a FBI agent sent to Crawford in August 2001, bearing the message “Bin Laden determined to strike” etc., and Dubbya took that seriously. ”

Did this warning say that on September 11th 2001 al Qaeda would hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings? No. I don’t believe it did. If warnings are sufficiently vague they can’t be sufficiently acted on. Oh, and if they were then your average Truther will just deny that there ever was a threat.

Now, here’s a question: Doesn’t the fact that 13 or more intelligence agencies from around the world telling the US that al-Qaeda was about to strike conflict somewhat with MIHOP?

“Rice lied when she said “nobody considered aircraft could be flown into buildings”, that was precisely why Dubbya slept on an aircraft during the G8 meeting months earlier.”

You’ll get no argument from me that Rice was lying. I am sure there’s been a fair amount of CYA going on.

“Oh… that’s right. One must be insane to wonder about such things, because people that we trust so much – like you, soba – have got it absolutely 100% straight, just like the government says.”

No need to be petulant. David Ray Griffin is furious about John Farmer’s book because in his mind Farmer is protecting the “official story” as Truthers call it.

There isn’t an “official story” there’s plenty of room for debate, but if you start arguing that pixie dust brought down the WTC, for example – not saying YOU are, then you have removed yourself from serious debate.

You’re the one dodging, Soba. Why are you swearing by the 9/11 CR, when you didn’t even know, until I’d told you, the principle drafter of the report was denouncing it? Perhaps his information would make the 9/11 CR irrelevant. Heck, we couldn’t have that.

Why did you dodge every single point I’d put to you in my last post?

I have read some of the 9/11 CR, I don’t know it all off by heart, nor do you. But here’s one for you – no cheating! – have you read “9/11 CR – omissions and distortions” ? No? Well, how can you defend your official government version, without reading some serious questions about the official government version? Or do you always believe everything the government tells you?

We’ve grown way beyond that in Britain by now. Sorry you are still so stuck in the total trust phase, but, like believing Heavy Metal was going to rule forever, the rest of us have grown up a bit, and it’s time you did too.

@eddie

I think you dismiss the debate far too easily. To regard Blair and Hussein as having committed war crimes, or crimes against humanity, is not to say that they are cut from the same cloth – I acknowledged that previously. It is also insufficient to say “stuff Matrix”, as ignoring inconvenient facts won’t make them go away; their legal view was a lengthy and considered one, and no, you couldn’t get a counsel’s opinion that the moon is made from cheese.

I think Iraq is a bigger issue in the public mind than you give it credit for, but on the other hand I think it is still not as big as it deserves to be. I sense that Blair has been *somewhat* discredited in public consciousness because of Iraq and the number of references to this I’ve encountered recently in the mainstream is heartening. I was quite surprised to hear an acknowledgement on the Today Programme that Blair is keeping a low involvement in the election campaign, because of the public association with Iraq.

I doubt you would argue that you are quite rude to people on this board, which, just above, includes telling people to ‘fuck off’, and that they are ‘ignorant nincompoops’, and that they are talking ‘bilge’ or ‘bile’ – pretty strong stuff. Would it be unreasonable for me to attribute this to your general frustration that, just maybe, you privately agree with the notion that rules and laws need to be applied to powerful people? I am not intending to patronise you – it just seems to me that you have a conscious understanding that your preferred powerful nations can kill people in weaker nations without so much as a possibility of a subsequent war crimes tribunal. Accordingly, the whole mental construction is built on morally dubious positions, and is highly vulnerable to criticism – hence your general sensitivity.

Incidentally, as Craig has said elsewhere, you generally argue well, and you have a good range of knowledge to quote from, so I would have thought you of all people would be less likely to use insults. Just a thought.

I agree that Blair is unlikely to face the music for his (alleged) crimes, but I believe there is plenty of evidence for him to do so. If he does not, I think this will be more evidence that powerful people are above the law, not that there is no case to answer. As MJ says, there are plenty of people who offered the advice that the invasion was illegal, but this conflicts sharply with your sense that Blair is a good man. You prefer the IBC figures even though you know they are compiled from media reports that don’t report all deaths, they missed deaths where they could only find one mention, and in any case are ideologically compromised by having generally supported the war in the first place. You dismiss the Lancet figures even though they are from respected, published epidemiologists whose other work is extremely well regarded. You dismiss the largest public demonstration the UK has ever seen, and then bind to the logical fallacy that 58 million Brits supported the war.

Everyone in my view should admit to cognitive dissonance, and – I mean this kindly – I think this is where yours kicks in. Investigating the crime we committed in Iraq is not in the same vein as the 9/11 debate; the facts are available, and we either believe in international law and human rights frameworks, or we don’t. If you think it was a mistake, then fine – I disagree with that – but mistakes should still be investigated. If I accidentally kill my neighbour, then I might be charged with manslaughter rather than murder, but I would still expect to be charged. Blair likewise should also be charged, and if his defence would rest on the fact that it was a mistake, and that he did not lie, or knowingly commit an illegal act, so be it. A war crimes panel could still decide whether he is telling them the truth, and if he is, whether a punishment would be in the public interest.

“You’re the one dodging, Soba. Why are you swearing by the 9/11 CR, when you didn’t even know, until I’d told you, the principle drafter of the report was denouncing it? Perhaps his information would make the 9/11 CR irrelevant. Heck, we couldn’t have that.

Why did you dodge every single point I’d put to you in my last post?”

Looks like we crossposted. I think I answered every one of your “points”.

In fact, I even anticipated a new one as you brought David Ray Griffin into the mix as well.

You can’t have it every which way. David Ray Griffin has denounced John Farmer’s book as DRG thinks it UPHOLDS the official story. Just look for DRG’s review of Farmer on the Amazon page.

And, no. You weren’t the one to tell me about Farmer’s book. Your “point” about Farmer, such as it is, hasn’t been substantiated at all. You have to tell me what Farmer’s criticisms are before you can use them to further your “theory”.

Anyway, go back and read my post at 4:19 because it is quite clear you haven’t read and digested it.

@technicolour – of the people standing in my area, are any of them decent? My MP is Clare Short, and is in my view a decent person. But I am still not going to vote Labour, for the reasons I have expanded above. I don’t know who represents the Conservative party locally, but a vote for them would be an endorsement of Thatcherite-lite i.e. not good if you’re poor.

So voting on “how good people are” may not be the best strategy…

Jon, I think we are reaching a stage where our parliament – our parliament – will be filled with increasingly unpleasant people. It is fair to argue that our PM and Cabinet, and others, have often been extremely unpleasant, but in the past there were laws and parliamentary accountability to keep them in line. This is no longer, in practice, the case.

Perhaps we do need to reach rock bottom; before people get so fed up that the Greens etc have a chance of getting in. But a) Green party candidates have a reasonable chance of being been crazily authoritarian and unpleasant too (I have met at least one). and b) I don’t really see how one can sit back and prepare to see the country suffer in the meantime.

So if you have a decent person like Clare Short, who I would bet has a voting record you would agree with, and who stands a chance of providing some kind of counter-balance, then get her in, is my thinking. If not, hurrah: you have a real chance for an independent.

Jon

I think that sometimes people on these boards say things so outrageous that anglo saxon language seems to be the only appropriate response. Such as Craig, who I respect to some extent, likening Powell to Saddam. I think that is outrageous and unjustified and I think “fuck off” is the only logical response. Goering was right to some extent about victors’ justice. We did some terible things in winning WW2, Dresden, the atom bombs etc but no one stood trial for these things, and who is to say that they did not save more lives in the long run? That is certainly the view of most historians about the atom bombs. So who is to say that we have not saved thousands of lives in invading Iraq, although many thousands have also been lost. This may sound like a specious moral argument, but it is one that Chomsky has made from the other side in defending red terror. History teaches us that sometimes, when we do nothing, it leads to more death and destruction in the long run. So I accept that Blair and his cabinet may have made a policy mistake (time will tell), but to describe it as a crime etc etc I think is wrong. I agree that the powerful can kill the weak, but it is not just about one country vs another. There is rarely any mention on these boards of the millions killed by Mao or Stalin in their own countries (Mao 60 million), or even the thousands suffering in the gulags of Korea or China, let alone Cuba. That is because the principal motivation of most of the people here is a rabid anti-Americanism that disgusts me, frankly. I think it is morally repugnant. And I did not say that the 58 million people who did not march supported the war, I just said that they did not march.

I have accepted that the IBC figures may be an underestimate but I completely refuse to accept that they are TEN times higher viz the Lancet report. I think that is just propaganda.

And I do assure you that I could get a counsel’s opinion that the moon is made of cheese!

Courtenay writes:

“”Tim Osman” is supposed to be the name assigned by the CIA for Osama Bin Laden, as a then ( maybe still ) functional asset.”

Courtenay, the name “Tim Osman” was made up by a guy who is serving time in California for cooking meth. He’s met aliens. He discovered limitless energy. He was at the release of the Iran hostages.

In short, he’s a crazy person.

A right-wing American crazy person.

So now we know what satisfies as evidence for you.

But no matter – you’ll be making the “Tim Osman” claim for years and years to come.

“But no matter – you’ll be making the “Tim Osman” claim for years and years to come.”

And I’m expecting that Glenn is going to return shortly and tell me, “John Farmer says 9/11 CR is rubbish!”

And Courtenay – did you really use material from a nutjob conspiracy site and claim it as on your own. It seems that you plagiarized a shitload of crazy up top.

I encourage you to stay away from http://www.globalresearch.ca. Apparently you don’t have critical thinking skills, so you’ll believe whatever is written there.

But if you do quote from that website, be sure to attribute.

angrysoba,

“Tim Osman” has to be my favorite. More than anything else, it shows how these people need to believe in the conspiracy, as it seems to be a quasi-religious belief.

In case you missed it:

http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html

Ha ha!

I have seen the “Tim Osman” one before. It seems to be one that gets whipped out after every other harebrained theory has been debunked. In other words, it doesn’t matter if everything else is nonsense because Osama bin Laden was in the CIA so it was STILL an Inside Job GODDDAMMIT!!!1!

Oh, by the way, Larry. On the Iraq Inquiry thread the subject of Bilderberg, 7/7 and Tony Gosling has come up. There’s a debate on Press TV between David Aaronovitch and Gosling. It’s very entertaining especially when Gosling starts saying that Benjamin Netanyahu got a phone call in his hotel telling him not to take the subway (or something)

Aaronovitch: “Ohhhhhhh God!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBO6dWCtu8w

Yeah, well, if you’re using Aaronovitch as a guide…

Do you see? You’re debasing debate. It’s fair to point out that a lot of left-wing paranoia fits in with a lot of right wing paranoia. It’s not only fair, but useful. It’s also valuable (I think) to give warnings about specific sites.

But why these howls and jeers and ad hominem attacks? If the facts are wrong, why not point that out? Why the mockery and laughter and pleasure? It’s like telling someone their coat’s on fire while punching them in the face. I’ve had enough of it.

“But why these howls and jeers and ad hominem attacks? If the facts are wrong, why not point that out? Why the mockery and laughter and pleasure? It’s like telling someone their coat’s on fire while punching them in the face. I’ve had enough of it.”

Whine, whine, whine, whine. You’ve said worse, technicolour. And you seem to have no problem with Holocaust deniers.

Yet another thing in common you have with the American right wing – you throw out the worst venom, but you whine and whine the moment someone gives you a stern look or calls you out for your bullshit.

Angrysoba, thanks! I’m a big fan of Aaronovitch!

Nice friend you’ve got there, asoba.

Aaronovitch is a moronic nutjob conspiracy theorist. You ought to see what he wrote about Iraqi WMD!

Larry, technicolour was actually one of the few who stood up to the Holocaust denying anti-semitic loons before. So he/she’s okay with me.

I think a bit less Bilderberg in the diet would be a good idea though.

By the way: I was ‘one of the few’ because I was actually around, with an internet connection and the time. From my years on this site I can name dozens of contributors who would have done the same, and no serious contributor who would not, in fact. Good Lord, Murray himself has stood against the BNP twice (and in fact is almost their polar opposite). If you remember, it took some time (and also your approach) to establish that jaded/apostate/steelback were not innocents abroad but an attempt to insert a poisonous neo-nazi agenda onto a board otherwise mainly filled with rather peaceful and curious people.

So well done. But I thoroughly object to people being bullied and insulted, for much the same reason that I object to people being bamboozled and misled.

which does not mean to say that the occasional ‘what the fuck?’ is not sometimes the most obvious response.

but thanks, anyway.

@Larry: “Angrysoba, thanks! I’m a big fan of Aaronovitch!”

Aaronovitch, arch supporter of all things w.o.t, writes a book in which he juxtaposes disparate conspiracy theories from over the years in a spurious attempt to discredit those at the forefront today.

In his RSA lecture to promote his book he says:

“I mean, think about how brilliant you must think the Bush administration is if it really did bring down the Twin Towers itself, It’s a feat of organisation that puts D-Day absolutely in the far shade; you know, of coordination, and the timing, et cetera.”

http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2009/voodoo-histories-the-role-of-conspiracy-theory-in-shaping-modern-history

Osama (or should it now be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?) tops D-Day for organisation! Now who’s batshit crazy?

Larry,

I think we are at cross-purposes, and you do sound really cross.

The facts which I posted did not veer to saying what you represented. In a more nuanced way, I was not endorsing the “Tim Osama” point, which you injected into the thread – but, you seem to want to go along your own path of reasoning – not related to that which I expressed.

There does not seem to be any disproving of anything of fact that I had stated.

You go on:-

“Courtenay,

So interesting how you pathetically attempt to distort history. For instance, you forgot to mention that Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait.”

There is no doubt in my mind that for much the same reasons I stated about the US invading Iraq (i.e. violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter) the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was also a violation of international law. The political dimension that pre-dated Saddam’s invasion realtes to events surrounding one April Glasby, when she signaled to Saddam that Bush the elder would not be involving itself in a regional dispute over Kuwait.History, shows that quite the opposite happened, and Bush the elder did not then pursue the war all the way once the Iraqi troops were pushed out of Iraq.

But,in saying that both Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the US invasion of Iraq were violations of the UN Charter under internaitional law, I suppose, makes me “distort” history …huh? I also suppose that if I state that Colin Powell relied on fabricated evidence in his presentation to the Security Council, when he sought to rely on the excuse of WMDs in Iraq as the causus belli, is another distortion of history? Anyway Larry – seems pointless me corresponding further if there really is no disproving any of the factual statements made.

Politely I might close and say – I have answered you without resorting to any vulgarities or “distortions” of history.

Kind regards.

CB

hawley, can’t you find a better quote to criticise Aaronovitch with than that one? Surely you can.

@technicolour : “hawley, can’t you find a better quote to criticise Aaronovitch with than that one? Surely you can.”

That one’s stupid enough to serve the purpose. I’ll leave the better ones to you.

@eddie – we should have held war crimes for the atom bombs too, by todays human rights standards. However the framework of international law did not support it, even if it was obviously murderous to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians who had committed the crime of being Japanese. I am not in sympathy with the macabre algebra of ‘lives saved’ on that one, and I’d suggest victors’ justice has transmuted into victors’ history too. Perhaps when our time is hundreds of years past, historians will see it differently – I don’t know. But that’s off-topic somewhat.

You say that you “did not say that the 58 million people who did not march supported the war”, but you stated it directly after the number of people who did, thereby hinting at this possibility. In the same way as your casual use of abusive language, I do think you need to be more careful about how you say things. But I will let that drop.

Two points, first briefly on the accusation of anti-American racism. I am sure racism against all nations exists, and there are a number who “hate” American people – I have seen one or two posts on this board that might fall into that category. But it is fine to hate murderous foreign policy, and if such policy is coming out of Washington and not Beijing, then it is fine to make statements opposing *American* policy and not, say, Chinese policy. The reason why people talk about US policy here is because it is part of the raison d’etre of Craig’s blog, because he got fired for opposing it, and because it is happening now. I dare say that is why we don’t talk about Stalin and Mao too much – the current murder can be opposed now, but past murder cannot. So I would tend to regard this claim as a canard – it would probably be better for your case if you took each statement on, and calmly explained why you disagree with it.

I must say I hesistated to mention any substantive topics above my main point, lest you get sidetracked in them, or mentioning Chomsky again, or whatever else. I originally put it to you that your support for the Labour party, a strong admiration for Blair, and a worry about the severe societal damage that a Tory win would have, may have created in *you personally* a substantial cognitive dissonance in which you ignore key issues that do not fit in with your world-view. In this case, how much Blair was set on war, how WMD were misused to fix policy, how intelligence was sexed-up to order, your prefererence for IBC over the Lancet report, not to mention the arms-to-Africa debacle which had previously demonstrated lawyer Blair’s scant regard for international law.

Given that you aggressively like to point out what you see as other people’s blind spots, will you admit that you might have one too?

Well, hawley, I agree with it, so can you find another one, please.

Courtenay,

You wrote that “The US assisted in the training of the JEM Darfuri rebels.”

Are you still defending that as a fact?

Jon, once again I did not say that the anti Americanism on here was racist. Please take more care. To suggest such a thing is clearly ludicrous as the USA comprises many diverse races. Yes, we all have a world view. I may shift at the margins, but I am not going to change my position fundamentally.

The people killed in Japan were not killed because they were Japanese but because they were implicitly supporting a fascistic, nihilist government and emperor.

@technicolour: “”Well, hawley, I agree with it, so can you find another one, please.”

Then you obviously think that Al-Qaeda were capable of carrying out, in Aaronovitch’s words, “a feat of organisation that puts D-Day absolutely in the far shade; you know, of coordination, and the timing, et cetera.”

I don’t.

hawley; depends what you mean by al quaeda. far as i know they got their name from a CIA database. otherwise what i think is pretty irrelevant, isn’t it, without proof of any kind?

Larry,

My enemies enemy is my friend.

This is from Wikepedia:-

“In October 2007, the JEM attacked the Defra oilfield in the Kordofan region of Sudan. The Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, a Chinese-led consortium, controls the field. The next month, a group of 135 Chinese engineers arrived in Darfur to work on the Defra field. Ibrahim told reporters, “We oppose them coming because the Chinese are not interested in human rights. It is just interested in Sudan’s resources.” The JEM claims that the revenue from oil sold to China funds the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militia.[4]”

I am very sure that the Chinese government would not be paying any faction to attack its petroleum companies.

You would no doubt reason that all these “orange revolutions” did not have any US support, nor does the Iranian movements for change of the revolutionary government in Iran.

The way these matters work is denial, secret funding, pushing of an agenda where the strategic interests of the US are better served by support of one faction versus the other(s). As with the US position in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, one can clearly see:-

A. Failure to insist on compliance with international law, and insistence on a return to the 1967 borders.

B. A mature and balanced role played primarily by the US, and other powers to arrive at a fair resolution for the legitimate concerns of Israel and of the Palestinians.

C. Projection of US power, not to deny the free vote of the Palestinian people, if they democratically embrace any faction not of the US choosing, but to accept that military might alone does not always make right.

Go after leaders in Sudan, and strengthen the rebels position in Darfur. A covert war in Sudan, is empowered by claims of “genocide” and use of the legal institutions of the West to target one faction not on the US side of the global trajectory. Absolutely consistent with how US foreign policies operate, and have operated during the entire post World War 11 era ( by reference to the historical record ?” from the 1953 CIA overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran onwards).

You would have us believe that the US is simply sitting hands folded, no active push or support of any faction, while totally ignoring the spoils and rich resources of Sudan.

Of course, in saying all of this, I remain fully convinced ( indeed I do..ha..ha) that the US has absolutely no active interest in Sudanese oil resources. Sure, Larry, yeah! Has Chevron played any role in the region? If you lose control over the country’s government, you lose control over the country’s resources, so you arm factions to try and win back influence and control over the resources that are desired. No US special forces in Sudan either ?” oh no Larry ?” never!

Of course, Larry would have everyone on this thread believe that I “distort” history. However, to the contrary, I would like to believe that I do speak truthfully.

I obviously see things differently than you do Larry, but never mind ?” I thank you for good healthy discussion. That we have had, and I wish you all the best in your personal life and for now and the future.

Kind regards.

CB

Actually, I belive that my first sentence should have read:-

“My enemy’s enemy is my friend”.

But Larry, you can correct me gramatically, even if I got my history right.

Kind regards.

CB

What an incredibly irrelevant passage from Wikipedia.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

@technicolour: “depends what you mean by al quaeda. far as i know they got their name from a CIA database. otherwise what i think is pretty irrelevant, isn’t it, without proof of any kind?”

I’m not sure what point you’re making.

As you must be well aware, our discussion is not about proof, it’s about who we think is likely to be able to co-ordinate a large number of synchronous events, including multiple exercises by the military, in what is likely the best defended country on the planet, “in a feat of organisation that puts D-Day absolutely in the far shade…”

When you wrote: “Well, hawley, I agree with it…”, I assume you meant that you thought Aaronovitch correct in saying the Bush admin could not have carried out such a feat, and it must therefore have been others.

Did I get you wrong, and, in fact, you do think the Bush administration were sufficiently brilliant “to bring down the Twin Towers itself”?

“Did I get you wrong, and, in fact, you do think the Bush administration were sufficiently brilliant “to bring down the Twin Towers itself”?

In actual fact, I don’t know, hawley. I don’t suppose the Bush admin would be too fussed about my opinion of its brilliance either way, though. What do you think?

Interesting that you reckon that our discussion isn’t ‘about proof’. Obviously, I love logging on to hear opinions; they can be very illuminating. But I do like some proof of facts too, if you don’t mind me saying so.

Larry,

And finally, if, as you are trying to say, that I distort history, I challenge you to disprove the US foreign policy approach I just posted – in response to your “mission” ( not that I don’t enjoy it in responding) of questioning me.

If I am in error, then within the US, I guess, I am in good company with the Los Angles Times – about the processes I just described:-

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-iraq-politics17-2010jan17,0,591109.story

Courtenay, your non-analysis above was a way to back into your silly conclusion above that “The US assisted in the training of the JEM Darfuri rebels.”

Yes, that’s a distortion of history.

If that’s what counts as evidence to you, you can be convinced of anything.

“By the way: I was ‘one of the few’ because I was actually around, with an internet connection and the time. From my years on this site I can name dozens of contributors who would have done the same, and no serious contributor who would not, in fact. Good Lord, Murray himself has stood against the BNP twice (and in fact is almost their polar opposite). If you remember, it took some time (and also your approach) to establish that jaded/apostate/steelback were not innocents abroad but an attempt to insert a poisonous neo-nazi agenda onto a board otherwise mainly filled with rather peaceful and curious people.”

Tony Opmoc and Mark Golding seem to have no problem with them and seem to have some deeply fishy views.

“hawley; depends what you mean by al quaeda. far as i know they got their name from a CIA database.”

No. There are a few different ideas about where the name came from. Abdullah Azzam – one of bin Laden’s mentors, for example, had written a book called In Defense of Muslim Lands in which he had spoken of an Islamist equivalent of a Marxist vanguard party which he called the base (or “al Qaeda”).

Jamal al-Fadl, a defector, had talked of al-Qaeda. Although his testimony probably should be taken with a grain of salt as he was a notoriously slippery character (he essentially needed protection from having ripped of bin Laden).

Some others have said it was simply a reference to the physical base built in Afghanistan.

It seems largely irrelevant. There clearly was an organization of militants who swore fealty directly to bin Laden.

You might like to look at Jason Burke’s “Al-Qaeda” which goes into this. Or “Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright. Or the one I think is the best, “Ghost Wars” by Steve Coll.

angrysoba, those books are excellent.

I simply wish that people would familiarize themselves with Sayyid Qutb and understand that the origins of al-Qaeda were certainly in the U.S. – but it’s not what they think, is it?

@eddie – I have a different definition of “anti-American”, which is that it is a charge of racism against American people or their culture. That view is honestly held, not held specifically to annoy you, and not an indication that I have been careless with my arguments. I should be happy to hear what you meant, if your definition is different from mine.

Indeed I have been at pains to ask *you* to take more care given your propensity for abuse, as well as the clear hint at the logical fallacy I pointed out in my last post. (I am willing to agree that neither failing causes you to be wrong automatically, but they are good ways to lose debating points!)

*But the central point I put to you remains unanswered, again*. I think in New Labour I have identified your blind spot, and it is frustrating for me to expand on this argument at length only to have it ducked. I think Blair could be a high-functioning sociopath, given his apparent lack of compassion for the deaths he has contributed to (via the sanctions, as well as in conflict, somewhere between 1 million and 2 million people); but I suspect this suggestion too is met in you with strong automatic disagreement, and in common with the other things I have raised, all supporting evidence is dismissed or ignored.

Can you admit to such a fallibility? It would, at the very least, make it easier to debate with you.

No one wins or loses on these boards Jon, it’s all pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. IS there a scoreboard somewhere? I don’t agree with your interpretation of racism. You cannot be racist against a country, only against a race, unless you are suggesting that the USA as an entity (whatever that is) is racist? Have you ever been there? I would like to understand how much you know about the USA. I know it well and have been there many times and have friends on both coasts so I see it as a much more diverse and impressive country than is often displayed in the blinkered and ignorant view on these boards.

As for Blair, do you know what a sociopath is? If you read the list of attributes I would like to know how many of these you feel Blair complies with? And how do you know he feels no compassion? (you say “apparent” lack of compassion, which is telling). Are you privy to his confessional or his inner thoughts? He made a difficult policy decision that, in the light of history, may prove to be right, or may prove to be wrong. As I said before, every leader struggles with similar decisions. Do you think Thatcher or Churchill were sociopaths for their decisions over the Falklands and Dresden? People died as a result of both. Every PM has to make tough decisions, it goes with the job, but doing nothing may cause more harm in the long run.

Thanks for the reply, though I can’t help but feel you’ve again not engaged with what I was asking.

If I may say, your rhetorical technique is interesting too – you raise a number of questions apparently intended to exclude me from the right to having an opinion at all. If I had not been to the US I would of course still have a right to take a view on its foreign policy, and whilst I agree it is a much more diverse country of views than it is often given credit for, if we think that Bush should have been impeached, or that he is a war criminal, we have a right to say so. Anyway, it was you who raised the charge of anti-Americanism against posters on this board generally, so I won’t strongly pursue this line of enquiry.

I do indeed know what a sociopath is, but again that is besides the point – the thrust of my argument was that positions not substantially reflected in mainstream punditry often cause you react with anger, and I was interested to see whether you agreed that your membership of the Labour Party might affect how you process these things on a subconscious level. But I accept that I might not get an answer to that one, so I guess I will have to leave it. I am more interested in trying to get you to understand the benign motivations of most people here, rather than “winning” the debate per se.

I think Thatcher is an unpleasant character who was primarily motivated by selfishness, but not sociopathy specifically. The Falklands was a stupid war whose best purpose (if I can call it that) was to boost her popularity ratings enormously, and in that endeavour it was successful. I think the mass murder of civilians was wrong in Dresden, but it was in the context of fighting fascism and signficantly prior to the development of international human rights frameworks. So I think the question is more complex there. That said, reading Churchill’s secret memo on the use of poison gas (see link) does make one wonder, but perhaps it is harder to judge against our evolved moral standards.

You are entitled to your opinion and I don’t think anything I have said suggests that you are not. However, if you have not been to the USA or are ignorant of its history or constitution then I would think less of it. In many ways, the USA has a more vibrant democracy than the UK. But what are you, some kind of amateur pyschologist? Of course, if you are a member of a political party you have to compromise on your beliefs and take the bad with the good. That’s life. If there was a party for every opinion we would have millions of parties and a state of chaos. The reality is that stable governent can only be achieved through the party machine. Can you imagine a house of commons full of independents? Complete chaos. Compromise is a fact of life. In any walk of life you have to co-operate with people to get things done. You also have not answered the question about Blair and it’s not beside the point. You say he could be a sociopath, so let’s have your proof. How many of the common characteristics of a sociopath (20 or so) apply to him, in your view?

A lot of that, eddie, I regard as diversion. This statement is not intended to be rude to you, but is intended instead to emphasise that – regardless of which excess deaths reports are accepted in relation to the Iraq invasion – I do not need to have read American History at Yale to criticise US foreign policy. You may require it, but that may have something more to do with your support for the status quo than a fair application of rules for discussion on this board. I would wager that many of the reasonable regulars here (i.e. not the disruptive ones) would not require it.

I think I have a fair view of the American people, and we are agreed that their views are much more divergent than the MSM gives them credit for. Chomsky says the whole of the political system is skewed massively to the right of the US public, and I think he is right. However in my view there is a consistent authoritarian and aggressive tone to the US leadership and its civil machinery, which has worsened since World War II. This has occured in parallel, and perhaps because of, the development of neoliberal capitalism that has increased economic divisions in American society, especially since Reagan.

There are indeed some vibrant areas of democracy that we should emulate – I envy their progressive radio stations for a start! But that does not detract from what their elite do on the world stage, I am afraid.

Am I an amateur psychologist? Yes p

I agree with you on the difficulty of choosing a party to represent you entirely. But my position about the Labour Party in relation to Iraq is that the scale of the atrocity is so huge that I would have ripped up my membership card in disgust if I had one. I accept that you don’t feel that way, but would invite you to accept that I feel differently, as do large numbers of the British people (2 million of them, at least, though I’d wager it is more given the opinion polls).

The reason I said that whether Blair was a sociopath was not entirely relevant to the discussion was that I was wishing to discuss how you react when faced with opinions that strongly disagree with your own allegiances and loyalties, rather than Blair in particular.

Indeed, your setting me a homework target of twenty features of sociopathic behaviour made me smile for its arbitrariness. The point I was making was Blair’s apparent inability to empathise with others, but only where it conflicts with other areas of his world-view. So the dead in Iraq get little sympathy, since he bears substantial responsibility for their deaths. One would think that even a hint of responsibility for two million dead would cause the most enormous psychological burden, but apparently not in Blair et al. Sociopaths can often be excellent mimics of expected behaviour, which is why he can empathise with mass murder elsewhere, if that sympathy accords generally with the mainstream view (e.g. the Holocaust).

On a wider point, I do wonder whether there is a sort of collective madness at work between the mass media and the Chilcot enquiry. As Craig quite rightly points out, there are many obvious failings in the testimony, but there is a quite wilful blindness from all involved to ask difficult questions, or to be frustrated that if the enquiry were to find fault, prosecutions are now guaranteed not to follow. Hey, there is even little outrage at the make-up of the panel, which is either pro-war or at least pro-establishment in its entirety. That this is presented as fair by the mainstream pundits at least indicates an enormous amount of collective denial.

Now there’s an interesting specimen of villain, Doctor Watson. He’s very well-disguised. You have to look deep into his eyes. The trouble is, by the time you do that, you’re dead.

Would you like some opium?

Jon

I’m afraid you know nothing about Blair’s inner life so the hypothesising in your seventh paragraph is worthless.

You also seem to have very little understanding of how our media works and the economics of present day media outfits. This is the fifth inquiry and none has come to the conclusion that you want, so how many more do you want? Time to move on I think. If you think you can do better why not get involved instead of sniping from the sidelines? I don’t know who you are or what you do, but being an armchair commentator is probably not good for your mental health, when you feel so strongly about such matters.

Larry,

You said: ” If that’s what counts as evidence to you, you can be convinced of anything.”

Yes – you are correct – I am convinced by your postings, that you are angry, bitter, upset with a lot of the persons who post on Craig’s blog, and prefer to resort to personal attacks rather than sift through that which is actually posted.

Of course, you are the only one who is entitled to a point of view – or are able to anaylse or think.

Nothing personal – Larry – you have indeed convinced me of this from our exchanges.

Kind regards, and hope you, otherwise have a pleasant day.

CB

“The US assisted in the training of the JEM Darfuri rebels.”

Where is the evidence of this? Why blame America first?

Do I know about Blair’s inner life? Well, one can deduce certain things from his external behaviour, from interviews and the like. For example the psychologist Oliver James suggested that he does ‘sincerity’ very well; he knows what to say, and conversational delivery comes easy to him. He knows how to make a case based on emotion, on how he “feels”, and on abstract concepts such as how history will judge him. But conversely he does do ‘authenticity’ at all well, perhaps helped by his lawyerly knowledge of what not to say, and by his surprising inability to grasp that how he feels is sometimes not as relevant as how his actions make other people feel. His self-belief is enormous, to the extent that we went white with shock at being told by a bereaved father at a memorial service that “you [Blair] have my son’s blood on your hands”.

So, this hypothesizing about Blair’s state of mind may be worth something, or it may be worthless as you say, but it is not categorically worthless because you say so. It is fairly amateurish, granted, and I am not qualified for psychoanalysis, but there are enough items worthy of consideration, in my view. Perhaps some of the thoughtful posters on this board would agree?

There are some serious gaps in your logic, regarding the enquiry. If one posits the statement “We have had five enquiries and none have found evidence of wrongdoing” then it is a leap of logic to say “There was no wrongdoing regarding Iraq”. This implies that there are not other options, such as: the remit of the enquiries were not wide enough, or they were instructed not to look at the crimes of the people involved, or they were loaded with pro-war supporters, or…

Hang on, that last one’s true, isn’t it?

Well, time for you to move on, maybe, but not for the rest of us. For the two million souls in Iraq who want some justice, we won’t be ‘moving on’ at all. We are repeatedly denied answers, but we’ll keep on asking. Who knows, maybe we’ll get there in the end!

I’ll close my involvement in this thread now, and you’re welcome to the final post if you want it. I’ve enjoyed the discussion, even if at the end of it we just have to agree to disagree.

There will be no justice forthcoming from this enquiry, nor will there be any for the Iraqi people under occupation.

Jon said:-

“there are (not) other options, such as: the remit of the enquiries were not wide enough, or they were instructed not to look at the crimes of the people involved, or they were loaded with pro-war supporters,…”

Jon – that is precisely what these enquiries are set up to do – whitewash – and – try to legitimate or sanitise the illegitimate.

Courtenay: I agree that the enquiry is intended to be a whitewash.

As to whether there will be justice for the Iraqis – well, there may be in the long term. Maybe a long-term insurgency will use violence and terror against the international firms that stay there. Depends whether Iraqis feel that the oil wealth is fleeing out of the country against their wishes, or whether the money is used to rebuilt their battered country. Depends also on how Iraqis will judge this period in the longer term; five years hence, will they still be angry that so many hundreds of thousands died needlessly, or does time heal all wounds and all unjustices?