I saw it here.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/10/troof...
Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g6VUkpSXXg
I sent it to casseia, Col Jenny Sparks.
I told them they should call the authorities.
FYI.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Someone Made A Threatening Movie (9 posts)
-
Posted 17 years ago #
-
This has been going on for a while :-/
I told them they should call the authorities.
I don't think this is the answer, as I said here: http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7221&...
I think they would just treat anyone who contacted them as a suspect.
A few years ago a friend was getting some hassle from some white nationalists, they were ringing him, posting photos of of his house on one of their discussion boards, inciting violence towards him.
He was really freaked out about this and contacted the police.
The police came and interviewed him, and were not really interested in his fears or details about the harrassement he was facing. But they were very interested in all his political activity... and they asked him a lot of questions about this, they basically interrogated him, he was the suspect.
There was no followup as far as he is aware, it made him feel no safer, if anything he felt more exposed after giving so much information to the police.
The article by Petros, also linked from screw loose change, on this matter, is worth a read: http://english-cyprus.indymedia.org/newswire/displ...
Posted 17 years ago # -
Ha, this video says that truthmove and truthaction are front groups for the 9/11 attackers. Nice.
giveback, what do you think of this?
Posted 17 years ago # -
Cosmos: Slander, Libel and Harrassment… you try and summarize but it’s just so huge, so ridiculous and ongoing to this day: “COINTELPROâ€, “Funded by the Ford Foundationâ€, “Chechen Rebelâ€, “Jenny Sparks is a Manâ€, Political Cartoons, Hit Pieces, vile and vicious hate mail from Tarpley’s protégé warning me not to look into this. It’s degenerated into this new kind of psy-op, using YouTube to attack activists. This reeks of a professional operation because there’s about 50-100 of these videos with Webster Tarpley and Eric May… [with text messages] trashing us, saying that we’re Al Qaeda cell members. It’s time to speak up about this, and get some kind of response from our movement. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/10/truth-rev...
Posted 17 years ago # -
Jesus; Matthew; King James - My interpretation
- 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
- 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
- 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
- 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
- 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
- 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
In other words, we will know them by their words and actions. The trees may all look alike, but their fruits will define them. An evil tree may look good, but will produce only evil fruits. This is a statement about religion and politics. Jesus was commenting on the nature of convincing lies. They come from sources that many appear virtuous. And yet he was suggesting that people must not be fooled by appearances, and must look to the actions of people and the results seen in order to understand whether they are good or evil.
Jesus didn't literally mean that evil people should be killed. He meant that we should understand them for what they are. Consider them those who are walking the path of evil, as to exclude them from those walking the good path. Although his rhetoric seems to be purposefully inflammatory, as failing to heed this warning we face dire consequences.
Jesus was onto something there. Its very principle before association. Its just a bit about informed consent. Its definitely about disinformation. And its about identifing the bad people by simply examining the fruits of their labor. Sound familiar?
This really has a big impact on me. Not because Jesus is my lord. That's not what he wanted. But because it gives me the sense that Jesus may have supported our cause. He understood what we are up against as he dealt with it personally.
Just thought that might be inspiring for some.
Posted 17 years ago # -
George Washington on Threats of Violence to 9/11 activists:
The only people threatening the lives of 9/11 activists are also promoting the theories that (1) directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and/or (2) the videos of Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers were fake. Many of us have emails and phone messages of threats being made against us. We are not whiners. In fact, we have largely held our tongues on the threats of violence we have received, because we did not want to make a mountain out of a molehill or distract the 9/11 movement. But videos are now appearing on the web impliedly advocating violence against certain 9/11 activists. Who made the videos? Folks promoting the theories that (1) directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and/or (2) the videos of Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers were fake. Is there any importance in the fact that the people making the threats happen to also be promoting the above theories? Is there any importance in the apparent fact that the threats are made against people when they refuse to endorse the above theories? Why are these threats of violence being made? Why are they being made against people who are working as hard as they can to spread 9/11 truth and to obtain justice against the perpetrators of 9/11? Why do these threats appear to be made whenever sincere 9/11 activists refuse to promote theories which they believe contradict the factual record and the laws of science? Why do these threats seem to be made right when 9/11 activists actually start being effective in spreading 9/11 truth? What should we conclude about the purpose of these threats of violence? http://911blogger.com/node/12116
Posted 17 years ago # -
This video is meant to insinuate itself into our own design of fear. It's trying to shape our behavior. It's trying to destabilize us, through the violation of stable sound and image. It's trying to destabilize our right to privacy, especially our want for privacy. It's looking for revenge, or the appearance thereof, which in this situation is essentially the same.
It's trying to drive us out of our holes. It's trying to expose weakness, and transform us into the weakest link, the ones who need to feel foolish and pathetic and helpless. It's a psych-out, a "Boo!"
There is an almost cannibalistic drive in the 9/11 movement, a massive hunger for effect that does not transfer itself into a commensurate mode of peaceable action. The ridicule from the mainstream media is a wall that we have not really figured out how to deal with, how to get through. So we ridicule and torment each other, call each other ineffective, damaging, distrustful, inauthentic. If that is not sufficient, we try to control and censor. If that is not sufficient, we try to terrorize or eliminate the effect of each other. We manufacture a little guy, then attack and destroy. After that, we have effect, at least of some sort. A momentary illusion of strength. We believe we made the other suffer, as we may believe they should for what they have done or not done.
Those who support no planes and DEW are certainly belittled the most, from all sides. Doesn't matter if their beliefs are genuine or not, or if they are propping up their marginalization, the psychological construct is the same. If one wants to belittle 9/11 Truth, like Fox, then one just needs to seek out the most belittled, the no plane people. We could focus upon the mainstream need to belittle the movement, or we could spend all our time throwing members of the movement off the bus and trying to be respectable in the eyes of the mainstream, a mainstream which has repeatedly shown no effort of grace and curiosity. If we adopt the meanness of the mainstream's version of respectability, they will possibly adopt the meanness from the mainstream's psyop. Either way, we are distracting ourselves from the apparent incorrigibility of mainstream's vested interest of 9/11 disinterest.
We could address our frustrations, and the guidelines or recommendations we propose could be not how somebody should believe, but how we could deal with our 9/11 truth specific frustration. These attacks upon us originate from frustration, an inability to deal with things not going their way. Our attacks upon them originate from frustration, an inability to deal with things not going our way.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Jim Fetzer, Nico Haupt, Dave vonKleist, Webster Tarpley, etc. don't really seem to act pathetic and belittled. They actually seem quite confident and sure of themselves. They often get press coverage and don't seem to have a problem finding people who will give them a platform.
Do you acknowledge that some of these people probably are consciously trying to sabotage our movement or do you think they just have "personal issues?"
Do you acknowledge that TV Fakery is a baseless path of research?
These attacks upon us originate from frustration, an inability to deal with things not going their way. Our attacks upon them originate from frustration, an inability to deal with things not going our way.
I don't think we're attacking them. We're analyzing their behavior and attempting to foster unity and responsibility within our movement.
Check out this Eric Hufschmid video featuring audio clips from Daryl Bradford Smith. Jon Gold posted this a few weeks ago, you might have missed it. Features some over the top anti-semitism.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-727092048...
And this video with Webster Tarpley, Captain Eric May, and Morgan Stack.
Posted 17 years ago # -
I did not say that these four people that you mentioned act pathetically. I said their positions are ripe for belittlement. And that we could focus upon the mainstream media's need to pick participants that they can easily belittle, or really anybody's need to belittle in order to substantiate prejudiced and defensive beliefs, not focus upon the positions in the 9/11 truth movement that we essentially disagree with.
Well, I can safely say that I'll go ahead and do that, and if anybody finds any interest in that, that's that. At the same time, if anybody convincingly presents an argument that we need to focus a great deal of attention and energy upon what we may regard as distraction, then I'm game.
Posted 17 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.