Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Kevin Barrett Slanders 911Blogger (38 posts)

  1. Arabesque
    Member

    Meanwhile those who promote the ridiculous LIHOP "blame Pakistan" and "blame the Saudis" Islamophobic hang-outs have been endlessly promoted at [Reprehenser]'s new version of 911blogger; evidence implicating Israel and Zionists is off-limits; and people like Elias Davidsson, the son of Nazi holocaust survivors who proves there were no Muslim hijackers, and Jay Kolar, whose work supports Davidsson, are downplayed or ignored...while Muslim account-holders and those who share their perspectives are expelled. It is as if [Reprehenser] and company are desperately trying to save the "blame the Muslims" core of the 9/11 psy-op, even after the official story has unraveled.

    American society is so permeated with double-standards, so drenched in an ideology of Jewish superiority and Muslim inferiority, that people like [Reprehenser] of 911blogger can effectively ban all Muslims and Muslim-friendly perspectives and not only get away with it, but perhaps not even fully understand what they're doing. Islamophobia has become like the air we breathe -- toxic, omnipresent, and unremarked-on.

    And a WTDdemolition user adds:

    ...Continuing to ascribe undue significance to the "patsy backstory".... functions to bolster Islamophobia, and Islamophobia's end result is genocide."

    http://www.barrettforcongress.us/lamadrid.htm

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. chrisc
    Member

    What a load of utter crap, Reprehensor has probably posted more content from Nafeez Ahmed (a genuine muslim) on the site than anyone, eg:

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/2966 http://www.911blogger.com/node/9801 http://www.911blogger.com/node/3225

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. casseia
    Member

    chrisc, I wonder if you are aware of how bigoted that remark sounds. You seem to be conflating Ahmed's identity as a person of color with his religion (and I presume you know that he actually identifies as a Muslim and are not just making an assumption). Conversely, what basis do you have for impugning the validity of Barrett's conversion to Islam?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. casseia
    Member

    And by the way, I stand by 100% my argument that continuing to ascribe undue significance to the patsy backstory serves to bolster Islamophobia.

    And btw, it's only slander if it is not true. Since this is clearly a matter of opinion, proving Barrett's (and my own) conclusion false should be quite an undertaking.

    (And for anyone who has not made the connection, I am Sara Lamadrid.)

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. chrisc
    Member

    Uh-hu... my comment was based on the fact that I don't actually believe that Kevin Barret is a Muslim -- I think he is a total phony, and I have said that about him here before I seem to recall...

    http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1060?replies=...

    And Nick agreed:

    Yes, Barrett is a total phony. A clown with zero horse sense at best, he acts more like an infiltrator in the Jamieson "big empty tent" mode.

    As for Nafeez Ahmed, he is quite open about his beliefs and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. JennySparks
    Member

    chrisc, I wonder if you are aware of how bigoted that remark sounds. You seem to be conflating Ahmed's identity as a person of color with his religion (and I presume you know that he actually identifies as a Muslim and are not just making an assumption). Conversely, what basis do you have for impugning the validity of Barrett's conversion to Islam?

    Suppose it's kind of her to ask. Mind, she contradicted herself: on one hand she assuming chrisc is making color coded assumptions--on the other she seems to know perfectly well the real issue is Barrett being phony.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. chrisc
    Member

    The person who appears to run the WTDdemolition site has said of Nafeez Ahmed:

    i read war on freedom and war on truth way back before I had figured out that Nafeez was a limited hangout LIHOP shill.

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1...

    And:

    you have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that Nafeez is legit. his books are basically the theoretical backbone for the LIHOP crowd of fake truthers. let me repeat--you all who continue to push the LIHOP agenda are in effect if not intent anti-arab and anti-muslim bigots. Racists. Assholes who are either liars or idiots. The more you push this ridiculous myth, the more you try to blame America for 9/11, the more obvious it becomes that you are working in the interests of the Zionists that dreamed up and perpetrated the 9/11 crimes, perhaps along with some moles for hire in the USG.

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. JennySparks
    Member

    And btw, it's only slander if it is not true. Since this is clearly a matter of opinion, proving Barrett's (and my own) conclusion false should be quite an undertaking.

    BTW: if you present anything in a way any reasonable person will assume it's meant as a fact, its still slander(or libel, if written). And if damages can be proven, no amount of circular reasoning bollox will save you.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. Arabesque
    Member

    And btw, it's only slander if it is not true. Since this is clearly a matter of opinion, proving Barrett's (and my own) conclusion false should be quite an undertaking.

    The comments by Barrett are indeed slander, and anyone who supports them is also supporting slander. But your point of view isn't particularly surprising to me considering the amount of slander that is posted daily on the website WTCdemolition.com that you co-run.

    Barrett has also recently slandered myself as COINTELPRO on his radio show:

    "I know Tarpley was being sort of tongue in cheek [calling 9/11 truth activists Wolsey, Cosmos, Arabesque, and Col Sparks COINTELPRO agents]... but no. 1 that's just not a not a smart thing to do [Barrett proceeds to ignore his own good advice]--no. 2 even though I agree that two of the four people he named---that is the ones who had aliases who are afraid to operate under their own names--[disgusted voice] these people are obviously frauds and plants, bogus.

    Hill: "They're children playing with computers".

    Barrett: Maybe that's it. I don't know, those people I have no use for, whatever Webster wants to say about them I happily endorse. The people with real names [note: Cosmos's real name is not Cosmos as far as I know] that he called out were actually good people. Maybe misguided on this particular issue... throwing them in with these two false names--COINTELPRO people who are intelligence fronts or idiots, whoever they are was completely mad. It was really unfair to those two real human beings. I told him so, I gave him a really hard time after that.

    http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett/0807/20080702_Wed_Bar...

    As I explained on the truthaction forum:

    You have to understand these accusations in context. Apparently, I am a "COINTELPRO" agent for assembling quotes by Kevin Barret that he actually said, or that I said personal attacks are wrong. That means, just quoting someone is now EVIDENCE that you are an agent.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. Arabesque
    Member

    Speak of the devil. Here's another example of slander, courtesy of WTCDemolition.com, and it's hot off the press:

    Arabesque maintains his title as the Most Intellectually Dishonest Shill in the Fake Truth Movement

    wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1347

    I actually take slander articles like these as a compliment, considering the source.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. chrisc
    Member

    Arabesque maintains his title as the Most Intellectually Dishonest Shill in the Fake Truth Movement

    Yeah the source is really dubious -- this was posted by the same person who started a thread on "Holocaust Revisionism" here: http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?id=6... and if you want to know more about the people behind the SOTT site (they, Laura and Joe, are actually very reasonable in this thread) you could start here: http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2434

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. Arabesque
    Member

    And oddly enough, Kevin Barrett also has a hard time understanding the concept of libel. According to the wtc7.net website:

    MUJCA.com is apparently mostly the work Kevin Barrett. Before August 2007, 9-11 Research expressed concerns about Barrett's apparent sympathy with Holocaust deniers, based on previously published conversations with the OilEmpire.us webmaster archived here. However, we removed quotations from that conversation after Barrett wrote to us to express his belief that our excerpt of it was libelous. http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/activism...

    Starting to see a pattern here? I am a "COINTELPRO operative" because I quoted Kevin Barrett. Wtc7.net has committed "libel" for quoting Kevin Barrett.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. truthmover
    Administrator

    ...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. Keenan
    Blocked

    Deleted by moderator.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. Keenan
    Blocked

    Arabesque maintains his title as the Most Intellectually Dishonest Shill in the Fake Truth Movement

    Yeah the source is really dubious -- this was posted by the same person who started a thread on "Holocaust Revisionism" here: http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?id=6... and if you want to know more about the people behind the SOTT site (they, Laura and Joe, are actually very reasonable in this thread) you could start here: http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2434

    chrisc, it appears that you are only attacking the source and not addressing the substance of what was written. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article linked here?:

    Arabesque maintains his title as the Most Intellectually Dishonest Shill in the Fake Truth Movement

    wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1347

    If not, then you are simply using ad hominem attack and avoiding the substantive argument, which is that Arabesque was using straw man arguments against Sara/WTCD and Kevin Barret. Have you read the article, and do you have any critique or counter-argument?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. truthmover
    Administrator

    Here's what I found at that link:

    Arabesque, you are so pathetic. You know full well that we are not accusing 911Blogger of being racist "merely for discussing the alleged hijackers." And you know this because you couldn't find a single quote in which Sara or Gretavo or anyone else said such a thing, otherwise you would have used a real quote instead of paraphrasing non-existent quotes five times (perhaps thinking that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true in people's minds).

    What makes 911Blogger and TruthAction.org and other forums that you gang of fake truthers control/dominate, Islamophobic, is the double standard being utilized in holding the alleged muslim hijackers as guilty until proven innocent, while holding Zionist property owners with their more than obvious arson and insurance fraud, innocent until proven guilty. This has been explained over and over again, but you purposely ignore it. So, here it is again:

    It is racist Islamaphobic bigotry to presume that those Big Bad Muslim-fanatic Terrorist Hijackers are guilty until proven innocent, and to carry on and on with these baseless charges against Saudis, Pakistanis, etc., in order to defame an entire group of people who have already been maliciously targeted and continue to be murdered in great numbers, and to misdirect away from the real perpetrators. Especially considering the fact that the mainstream 9/11 truth movement, epitomized by the research of David Ray Griffen, has long ago concluded that there is not a credible shred of evidence to prove that they were Big, nor were they Bad, nor were they Muslim-fanatics, nor were they Terrorists, nor were they Hijackers. It has become more than obvious that you all are a bunch of phonies who are not interested in the truth of 9/11, but instead utilize every possible dishonest and deceitful tactic and false argument to continue to smear the officially framed muslim/arab patsies, while protecting the true perpetrators from scrutiny, hypocritically accusing your detractors (the mainstream 9/11 truth movement) of being "anti-semite racists" and other nonsense that you, yourselves, are guilty of. Go ahead, keep making fools of yourselves, you are just exposing your true agendas for everyone to see.

    http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1347

    So, uhhh....yeah. I read the article.

    Utterly pathetic. I couldn't read this with a straight face.

    Listen, anyone who supports that drivel above can just shove off now. You aren't welcome here.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  17. Keenan
    Blocked

    Ok, that's a start. Can you address the point that Arabesque is utilizing a straw man argument by falsely claiming that Kevin Barret and Sara Lamadrid/WTCDemolition are accusing 911Blogger, et al, of racism, merely because they discuss the alleged hijackers, when, in fact they never made such an argument. What Sara said was that:

    ascribing undue significance to the patsy backstory bolsters Islamophobia.

    Do you really not understand the difference here? Why should Arabesque be given a free pass on using straw man arguments such as this?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  18. Keenan
    Blocked

    What Sara also pointed out was,

    Frankly, we can discuss the patsy backstory all day and not be racist about it -- it's the fact that some people can't stop pretending that the patsies are the perps -- and can't frame a discussion so that it's about patsies qua patsies -- that is what suggests racist bias.

    Again, do you understand the difference between the above point and Arabesque's straw man argument?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  19. Arabesque
    Member

    For background see here:

    Responding to Libel. http://www.911blogger.com/node/16695

    Posted 16 years ago #
  20. JennySparks
    Member

    What Sara also pointed out was, Frankly, we can discuss the patsy backstory all day and not be racist about it -- it's the fact that some people can't stop pretending that the patsies are the perps -- and can't frame a discussion so that it's about patsies qua patsies -- that is what suggests racist bias. Again, do you understand the difference between the above point and Arabesque's straw man argument?

    Dunno why you're speaking for her. Unless she's afraid she might be confronted with some searching questions about her online 911 activities.

    Like--how exactly did Jennifer Wynhausen--a 911 public figure who was interviewed on television, so yes we can legally use her name--

    http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2008/07/to-whom...

    --how exactly did she know casseia was mucking about at 911taboo? And why was Jennifer Wynhausen so keen to email me about it? And how did she know that casseia was trying to make me look like a stalker?

    http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2008/04/911-sta...

    block me, that's fine. I thought you would like to know that your friends are selling you out, making you look like the stalker. that would be your new found friend genghis and your bff casseia

    Look on the bright side--I was wrong this time about it being Nico Haupt...

    For anyone who doesn't know, Jennifer Wynhausen is Killtown's girlfriend. Yes, that Killtown.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  21. Keenan
    Blocked

    Huh?

    Um, col jenny,

    1. no, I do not speak for Sara, but I doubt she's "afraid"...of whatever you are talking about.

    2. it kinda sounds like you are lost in some national enquirer-style gossip commic book reality. Seriously, col jenny, do you know how silly you look with this childish rumor gossipmill wierdnes that I'm sure no one here has the faintest idea of what you are babbling about? Perhaps you should have a private chat with the people who are involved (or who you rumor to be involved) with this...whatever it is you are babbling about, and settling it there, rather than making a fool of yourself in public forums.

    3. Getting back to the topic at hand, do you have any revelant comment about the,uh, topic at hand?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  22. Keenan
    Blocked

    Just a suggestion: perhaps col. jenny should start her own thread about "local Portland drama and gossip" or whatever, so that we can stay on topic here.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  23. truthmod
    Administrator

    Whoa whoa whoa.

    They're really coming out of the woodwork right now. : )

    Casseia has a splendid attitude, as usual.

    (And for anyone who has not made the connection, I am Sara Lamadrid.)

    Sorry, I haven't been staying up on the latest disinfo scorekeeping...what is Sara Lamadrid supposed to mean to us?

    I found this on KB's site:

    Sara Lamadrid, a veteran 9/11 truth organizer, suggests that 911blogger's guilt-by-association smear of WTCdemolition.com (based on one obscure link!) is really motivated by Islamophobia. Sadly, I have to wonder whether she might be right. A few months ago, the only two Muslim regular posters at 911blogger, myself and John Leonard of Progressive Press, were banned from 911blogger, and the excuses for the banning in both cases were transparently ridiculous. (Allan Giles, who is now the sole Decider at 911blogger, claimed he was banning me because I had invited John Lear, a highly qualified pilot with some odd views, on my radio show. But Lear had already been on other 9/11-oriented shows run by non-Muslims, such as Rob Balsamo's, without any complaints from Allan.)

    http://www.barrettforcongress.us/lamadrid.htm

    One full-time (or part-time or "just-for-pleasure") internet/website/forum disinfo artist can waste a lot of other people's valuable time. An organized cadre of such saboteurs can really put a dent in the morale and effectiveness of their enemy (us).

    Posted 16 years ago #
  24. truthmod
    Administrator

    This is a real mess. For some perspective, I suggest everyone (all the legit people, that is) imagine what intelligent people outside of our small circles would think if they happened upon all this drama. I could imagine them having a very valid reaction of disgust and dismissal--like, "This is actually what you spend your time on!?"

    It's important to keep track of who is trustworthy and who's not, and why, but a lot of this seems very unproductive, very falling-into-their-trap.

    These people are so obvious, why do we even waste our time "debating," engaging, or refuting them?

    On the other hand, this is kind of pissing me off, and after some recent downtime, I'm going to start putting more energy into activism. Thanks for the motivation, agents.

    Maybe someone needs to do something like the recent Mother Jones expose on an agent--get solid evidence and publish it and watch these people disappear with their tails between their legs. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1164?replies=...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  25. Keenan
    Blocked

    Good points. It's good to remind ourselves that the real movement is in the real world, out in the streets, not on the internet, per se. This is especially good to keep in mind whenever we start getting wrapped up in online/forum/web drama and taking ourselves too seriously and start forgetting that we might be over-estimating its significance - i.e., that these virtual social internet circles sometimes seem way more significant than they really are, like the fact that probably only ~1% of the 9/11 truth movement actually is involved with these online forums (and its corresponding dramas).

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.