Sincere apologies to Allan Eaglesham

[Myra Bronstein]

Allan,

I want to apologize to you for failing to intervene during the discussion in this thread:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...+Eaglesham

I should have intervened as moderator because remarks directed at you were entirely over the line. And I was the logical person to speak up because you've been kind enough to let me post your material on Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza. I've moved around the US a few times this year, and it was disruptive; that's my explanation though of course it's not an excuse.

What was said in this thread was completely unfair to you. Furthermore it's inconsistent with our principles at DPF. To paraphrase Charlies recent statement:

"If you wish to associate yourself with the Deep Politics Forum, act with dignity, strength, honor, and commitment to cause."

I also apologize to other co-founders for failing to speak up. And to all members; I hope my failure to speak up when appropriate is not interpreted as lack of resolve on our insistence that everyone at DPF be treated with respect. We do--in fact--expect everyone to abide by that rule.

Allan, I hope you're willing to give DPF another chance. I promise this type of thing will not happen again.

Respectfully,

Myra Bronstein

(I'm also going to email this to you to insure that you see it.)

[Allan Eaglesham]

Myra:

Thank you. This is heartening. I did wonder what you were thinking when the exchanges were in progress, and was puzzled that neither you nor your colleagues took Dr. Fetzer to task.

I will check in now and then, and if I feel I can offer anything useful, I'll be happy to post.

Many thanks again.

Allan

[Peter Lemkin]

Allan,

I want to apologize to you for failing to intervene during the discussion in this thread:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...+Eaglesham

I should have intervened as moderator because remarks directed at you were entirely over the line. And I was the logical person to speak up because you've been kind enough to let me post your material on Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza. I've moved around the US a few times this year, and it was disruptive; that's my explanation though of course it's not an excuse.

What was said in this thread was completely unfair to you. Furthermore it's inconsistent with our principles at DPF. To paraphrase Charlies recent statement:

"If you wish to associate yourself with the Deep Politics Forum, act with dignity, strength, honor, and commitment to cause."

I also apologize to other co-founders for failing to speak up. And to all members; I hope my failure to speak up when appropriate is not interpreted as lack of resolve on our insistence that everyone at DPF be treated with respect. We do--in fact--expect everyone to abide by that rule.

Allan, I hope you're willing to give DPF another chance. I promise this type of thing will not happen again.

Respectfully,

Myra Bronstein

(I'm also going to email this to you to insure that you see it.)

If we were on the 'other side' we'd suggest waterboarding and stess positions while listening to caustic music in freezing temperatures...but, hey, relax.....you're among friends....:canabis:

[Peter Presland]

Having been absent for a while, my curiosity was piqued by Myra's post and I ended up reading the entire "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" thread. Time well spent as it turns out too. I am very impressed.

Have to say that, as a relative JFK Assassination layman and dealing strictly with what I have come to regard as necessary 'protocols' (for want of a better word) of civilised productive debate, Alan has a point. The tone of some of Jim Fetzer's posts were verging on the gratuitously nasty.

Having said that, I have also had a major chunter around JF's blog and am double impressed. His interview with Rory Ridley-Duff is a must-read for anyone seeking to dig deep into the London Bombings for example and, on the strength of it - together with his 911 position naturally - it's yet another addition to my RSS feed reader.

I'm just frustrated how often these sorts of ill-natured spats seem to occur between people who, so far as I can judge, are genuine in their pursuit of the realities behind the perpetually shifting facades of power. And yes, I think I'm as attuned as the next guy to the possibilities of trojans, false-trail layers, gatekeepers and the rest.

From where I stand it seems to me that everyone - bar none - has their blind spots (for want of a better word again) - I know I have. To the point I often have to scrap everything I've written by way of a reply to this or that because, deep down I know it will be counter-productive to my only real goal - which is to UNDERSTAND what happened rather than to defend this or that position I have tentatively (or not so tentatively) arrived at. Or, as an Old Royal Navy poem has it "They prosper who burn in the morning the letters thay wrote overnight"

The two recently past Paul Rigby spats spring to mind here.

I've also had a chunter around Alan's site and similarly, he clearly knows a thing or two about his subject.

IOW - Alan Eaglesham and Jim Fetzer are BOTH potential major assets to this site and I sincerely hope they BOTH continue to provide us with their insights.

[Jack White]

Most "attacks" are really some form of "counter attack".

Most counter attacks are counter productive in the long run.

When provocateurs ply their trade, their lies cannot be allowed to stand,
lest silence may be interpreted as compliance.

If you want to post a nasty counter attack, count slowly to ten,
then issue a POLITE counter attack. Sometimes it is difficult to
be civil to the uncivilized.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra:

Thank you. This is heartening. I did wonder what you were thinking when the exchanges were in progress, and was puzzled that neither you nor your colleagues took Dr. Fetzer to task.

I will check in now and then, and if I feel I can offer anything useful, I'll be happy to post.

Many thanks again.

Allan

Thank you so much for your reply Allan, and for keeping an open mind. I hope we will continue to see you here. And I guarantee that your future experiences will be far different from your past ones.

Regards,

Myra

[Myra Bronstein]

Having been absent for a while, my curiosity was piqued by Myra's post and I ended up reading the entire "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" thread. Time well spent as it turns out too. I am very impressed.

Have to say that, as a relative JFK Assassination layman and dealing strictly with what I have come to regard as necessary 'protocols' (for want of a better word) of civilised productive debate, Alan has a point. The tone of some of Jim Fetzer's posts were verging on the gratuitously nasty.
...

Yes. I read the thread after the fact and thought Allan showed astounding poise and restraint.

...
IOW - Alan Eaglesham and Jim Fetzer are BOTH potential major assets to this site and I sincerely hope they BOTH continue to provide us with their insights.

Egg-xactly! Two major assets and we're on the same side. We have too few assets as it is so we can't afford to waste any.

[Peter Presland]

At the level of actual UK executive responsibility for major events, Craig Murray's latest post is worth reading. It has some lessons for what happened on the thread in question.

Briefly, as Ambassador to Uzbekistan in the run up to the Iraq war he had been trying in vain to get the UK government to recognise and take action on concrete evidence of The Karimov regime systematically using torture to provide the UK/US with the 'evidence' they wanted to hear. He was devastated when he did not receive the support he expected from his friend Sir Michael Wood who was the senior FCO legal advisor on the illegality of what was going on.

In light of Woods evidence to the Chilcott Inquiry, it is clear why: viz he was totally preoccupied and under sustained attack for trying to persuade Blair et al that their proposed attack on Iraq would be illegal in the absence of a further UN resolution.

Headed 'God I didn't know':

I hope that those who saw Sir Michael Wood's evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry today, and who have also read Murder in Samarkand, feel that I painted an accurate pen-portrait of my once friend.
I felt that Michael had stabbed me in the back by refusing to back me in saying unequivocally that intelligence from torture was illegal.
I did not know that, exactly at that time, he was engaged in a heroic struggle to try to stop the war in Iraq on legal grounds, and that he had drawn the full fury of Blair and Straw. He could not afford to open a second front on extraordinary rendition.
I have been struggling ever since to come to terms with what I saw as his going along with torture. I misjudged him.
But the way that the evil people like Blair and Straw manage to split decent people like Michael and me, is the lesson to avoid in future. Why is it that people like Michael, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Bill Patey and I never managed to get together? (Bill Patey was the head of the FCO geographical department which included Iraq, and he, like very many others in the system, never believed the "Evidence" on Iraqi WMD.)
I am feeling so sad because different ways of trying to resist took us down different paths, and perhaps I am sad because I was harsher on some than they deserved.
But I am most sad because hundreds of thousands died so Blair and Straw could earn their lucrative standing in the USA. I feel nothing but despair.

IOW their are few enough striving to hold these evil b*****s to account as it is without those who are constantly falling out with each other.

[Myra Bronstein]

Most "attacks" are really some form of "counter attack".

Most counter attacks are counter productive in the long run.

When provocateurs ply their trade, their lies cannot be allowed to stand,
lest silence may be interpreted as compliance.

If you want to post a nasty counter attack, count slowly to ten,
then issue a POLITE counter attack. Sometimes it is difficult to
be civil to the uncivilized.

Jack

Jack,

Can we please clarify?

When you speak of provocateurs are you referring to anyone specific?

Thanks,

Myra

[Jack White]

Most "attacks" are really some form of "counter attack".

Most counter attacks are counter productive in the long run.

When provocateurs ply their trade, their lies cannot be allowed to stand,
lest silence may be interpreted as compliance.

If you want to post a nasty counter attack, count slowly to ten,
then issue a POLITE counter attack. Sometimes it is difficult to
be civil to the uncivilized.

Jack

Jack,

Can we please clarify?

When you speak of provocateurs are you referring to anyone specific?

Thanks,

Myra

PROVOCATEURS are present on forums only to PROVOKE...not discuss
ideas or information.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Jack