THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Thursday, February 23, 2006


While delving deep into the New York Times archives doing a little research for my PhD project I stumbled across this rather interesting article. (Unfortunately, you’ll need to be a subscriber to access it fully but I’ve cut and pasted the relevant bit.)

As I read it I thought to myself ‘this all looks so familiar’. At first I thought there had been a glitch because I had been looking through a specific date range. Then I looked at the date of this particular article and, sure enough, the date was within the period I was looking at and it contained some of the keywords I was searching for. The relevant lines that caught my attention were these:

“…the airport, which because of its size operates largely beyond the scrutiny of the customs authorities, is believed to be one of dozens of transit points used by the Iranian Government to smuggle, from Europe to Iran, weapons parts and advanced technology used to develop nuclear weapons, Western intelligence officials say.
Some intelligence officials say they believe that despite an embargo imposed by the West, Iran may have a nuclear capacity in as little as five years.”

The lines, as well as the headline which ran; ‘Nuclear Trail – A special report; A Vast Smuggling Network Feeds Iran's Arms Program’, could have come right out of yesterday’s New York Times. They did not, however. They were from an article dated 15 March 1995.

Of course, what is really sad is the fact that the dumb and gullible continue to fall for this line of garbage even today. It wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for the fact that, as a result of this garbage, many, many people are likely to die with even the possibility of a catastrophic war resulting as the US and Israel continue to press for an attack against the Iranians.

A United World must resist the warmongering Lying Tyrants.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006


It seems fairly clear that it has been the intention all along of both the AFP and the Howard government to deliberately allow the Bali Nine to be arrested, tried and sentenced harshly (including being sentenced to death), for the express purpose of deterring Australian drug smugglers from going to Indonesia in order to bring drugs into Australia.

Now Howard is preparing Australia for what is in all likelihood the inevitable – and that is that at least one of the two that have been sentenced to death will actually be executed. (The other will possibly have his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment). Howard is now saying that even his personal friendship with Indonesia’s President may not be enough to save those that have been condemned to death.

This entire affair now stinks of collusion. Howard’s double standards with regards to the death penalty are already transparent what with his remarks regarding the death sentence of the Bali Bombers and the possibility of Saddam Hussein being sentenced to death on the one hand and his stance against the death penalty of Australians in foreign lands on the other. Howard’s hypocrisy is very well known but now, it seems, he may well be directly responsible for the death of an Australian by firing squad if he is found to have been aware that the AFP deliberately set the Bali Nine up for arrest and possible execution in Indonesia.

Monday, February 13, 2006


Webdiary’s ludicrous decision to invoke their ‘editorial rules’ with regard to comment content has forced me to decline from using this forum in any further debate.

The rules are these:
1. Denial of the existence of the holocaust.
2. Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind at the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001
3. "False flag" theories.

To a certain extent I go along with rule number one and I’ll explain why. But first I should point out here and now that I am not a Holocaust denier. I have personally known over the years far too many Holocaust survivors to even begin to doubt it. I have also over the years personally met far too many anti-Semitic Germans (and not just Germans) who supported the extermination of European Jewry and even some that were actually involved in it.

Since Webdiary is an open forum that invites anyone to comment there can be little control over the quality of argument. Argument on such a sensitive issue as Holocaust denial therefore can be very emotive and detracting from the proper search for truth in history as emotions can run high. Rigorous debate within an academic environment is the best place for this particular matter to be argued. There are too many people in open forums who can be easily be misled, misguided or negatively influenced by the polemics of commentators from both sides to make the subject ‘safe’ for open debate.

Not only do I personally believe that debate on this subject should be confined to academia I also believe that, rather than the subject being brushed under the carpet, it should be bought fully out into the open under academic control and, furthermore, done so immediately while it is still within living memory. This way the argument can be resolved for good. If it is not, then in years to come, after it has passed from living memory, there will always be those that will continue to deny. The quicker it is ‘resolved’ once and for all by demonstrating irrefutably to the deniers that they are wrong, the better for all concerned, and it should be Israel itself that leads the debate with academics taking care to remain apolitical and to ensure that the debate and collection of the evidence also remains apolitical. Right-wing Zionists should simply butt out and let the academics get on with it.

Now to the other two ‘no go’ areas. One simply needs to ask ‘Why?’ What are the folk at Webdiary frightened of? Are they frightened of loosing their right-wing commentators who can’t cope with a reality that is alien to their tidy little make-believe world where the government never lies?

Or is there something more sinister than that? Could it be perhaps, that the powerful right-wing Israeli and Zionist lobby in Australia put pressure on Margo Kingston and Hamish Alcorn? Could these be the dark and ‘very powerful people’ that Hamish Alcorn told me were putting pressure on Margo? Or did Margo simply cave in to right-wing Webdiarists like the lunatic Craig Warton and the rabid warmongering foaming at the mouth ignoramus Jay White?

Webdiary may find eventually its own level to work at and be successful at that level. But I’m afraid, at the rate things are going at the moment, the right-wing loons are winning out. I don’t have a problem shoving it up to these truth-denying idiots on the right and arguing my stuff but I do have a problem with those that cave in to them and not allow me to argue that stuff. To me they are far more of danger to democracy and free speech than the likes Warton and White.

As Craig R infers, I’ll do my stuff elsewhere – here! Stay tuned!

Comments invited. Email

Thursday, February 09, 2006


In a discussion at Webdiary about Janet Albrechtsen and ‘free speech’ Jay White, a well known fascist who likes to peddle his disgusting racism at Webdiary, wrote in response to an earlier posting of mine the following:

Damian Lataan: "SS-Rantenfuehrer Janet Albrechtsen seems to think that the vilification of a religious prophet whose adherents are literally willing to die for is simply a joke that Muslims can’t take!
I would have thought somebody linking to revisionist sites such as the one Sid Walker did with David Irving front and center may be more in keeping with a SS-Rantenfuehrer? Perhaps even somebody who sees a Zionist plot around every corner?
Defending free speech now leads to somebody being called a Nazi? I thought they burnt books? I find it most curious that a person willing to defend Sid Walker would accuse others of Nazi sentiments. I bet others do too.
A very curious connection indeed!

In response to that I wrote:

Jay White, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to be able to see right through SS-Rantenfuehrer Janet Albrechtsen’s ‘defending free speech’ garbage as simply being a front and opportunity to spew her Islamaphobic racism.

As for what Sid Walker says or does, I’m sure Sid can speak for himself. Oops! …apparently he can’t any more, at least not here. Oh well, so much for free speech! (I wonder when the Lying Tyrant and Fascist Howard is going to implement the sedition laws.)

Webdiary, playing right into the Right-wingers hands, actually censored the second paragraph! This monumental stupidity comes from people who believe in the essence of free speech to the point that they feel they should give the right-wing carte blanche to more or less say what they wish but deny the Left freedom to respond.

At first Margo was fearful that the Left would drive the Right away from Webdiary leaving it high and dry as a Left-wing mutual talk fest club. Then when the Left started talking about conspiracy theories and history revisionism Margo got spooked by ‘powerful’ forces and banned un-supported discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories and all discussion on Holocaust denial. Presumably these ‘powerful’ forces were from the extreme right-wing Zionist lobby groups in Australia and/or the government that had put the hard word on her. From the conspiracy theory angle the pressure came from the right-wing commentators at Webdiary who threatened to leave Webdiary just when Webdiary (just gone independent) was getting off the ground. Margo and Hamish then caved in to the right realising that without the right-wing for the left to argue with there would be no Webdiary. The Holocaust denial ban clearly is as a result of pressure from the ‘powerful’ right-wing Zionist lobby groups which Margo and Hamish have also caved in to.

As a result it now seems it is going the other way. The Left are leaving Webdiary, or at least being discouraged by censorship or outright banning, leaving Webdiary to become a very boring talk fest for the slightly Left and the warmongering and liar-supporting Right.

The Right-wing websites, the ones that Hamish chooses to ignore, are going to be rubbing their hands together saying ‘we told you so – Webdiary won’t last’. And the way it’s going at the moment it looks like they may be right, both literally and metaphorically!

And that would be a great pity because Webdiary has the potential to make a difference in Australia. But it must open up and allow complete freedom of speech regardless of how outrageous. People can make up their own minds about what they like or don’t like and those on both the Left and Right who come up with stuff that goes way over the top will soon get told by their peers!

Comments invited. Email them to

Monday, February 06, 2006


Only a little over a week ago Hamish Alcorn of Webdiary asked me for my blog address in order to link to it from Webdiary. Now, after only a few days of being linked, it has been removed from the Webdiary link list.

Control it seems is everything, and I imagine criticism of Webdiary for criticism of the way I criticise the right-wing at Webdiary will now lead to me being banned from posting at Webdiary! (They would argue I suspect that since I have my own blog I can write what I wish here.) Not content with censoring some of my postings at Webdiary, they wish to censor my blog by virtue of removing it from their link list. Talk about control freaks!! And so transparent!

It’s a pity Webdiary feels the need to bow, yet again, to the right-wing that are regulars at Webdiary. Sid Walker has been banned because the right-wing Zionist lobby, the ‘powerful forces’ that I suspect got up Margo’s nose and are the real ‘control freaks’ behind Webdiary, continue to get up Hamish’s nose as well. How long will it be, I wonder, before Webdiary degenerates to a middle-of-the-road discussion fest between the slightly Left and slightly Right?

In the spirit of creating a world wide web of alternative news and views, no matter how mundane some sites are likely to become, I shall continue to link to Webdiary as always.

Friday, February 03, 2006


In view of the fact that a post of mine to Webdiary has been unnecessarily censored by the editor ‘David’ (I don’t know the surname) I republish it here in its entirety. I do this in order to reframe it back into its original context that the Webdiary editor decided to change in order to suit his own argument about why he thought the original comments I made about Will Howard and C. Parsons were abusive. Webdiarists and other readers would no doubt be aware already of some of the deceiving practices of the right-wing at Webdiary and the protection they receive from some elements of the editorial team.

Ed. David, I’m sorry that I have to persist in this matter.

My statements of deceitfulness by other Webdiarists are hardly unsupported and are, indeed, self evident if one cares to review the appropriate posts. The fact of the matter is Will Howard offered documents that were written by ex-Israeli generals, ex-Israeli intelligence experts and Israeli nuclear experts of an Israeli think-tank and then offered them as ‘non-partisan’. Had they been offered as ‘non-biased’ then that would not have been a problem as that could easily have been refuted (or not) on purely technical grounds. But to offer them as ‘non-partisan’ – even if they were unbiased – is deceitful.

With regard to C. Parsons, one need look no further than his post entitled ‘Jaw, Jaw, Jaw. War, War, War.’ to see quite clearly that he has attributed to me in a deceitful and deliberate way a quote that was not mine. He says: Damian Lataan: "Gaza pullout justifies terror campaign, Hamas claims." It stares you right in the face, David. Hardly ‘unsupported’ as you contend.

I am aware that Webdiary editors often do a thankless task and do need to maintain standards that have been set by Margo and developed over this last year or so, but I can assure you that while I often push stuff right up to the edge, I also make a conscious effort to refrain from making personally abusive comments on Webdiary. I believe that my comments about Will Howard’s and C. Parsons were made on the basis of facts that are to the best of my knowledge true. Making such comments that I have made about Messrs. Howard and Parsons were not something I did lightly or without consideration.

I have no problem whatsoever about Webdiarists making personally abusive comments about me – as I have stated several times before, I am not in the slightest bit interested in what people say or think about me personally – but I always will react to comments and statements deliberately aimed at misleading, hoodwinking or flat-out lying to Webdiarists.

For the version that appeared at Webdiary click here.