Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Barrett: Reporting on 9/11 [disinfo] conference was distorted and libelous (11 posts)

  1. Arabesque
    Member

    Kevin Barrett: Reporting on 9/11 conference was distorted and libelous http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/205192

    Dear Editor: Your story on the recent Scholars for 9/11 Truth conference, "9/11 Doubters Doubt Each Other Too," was so distorted and pejorative that if I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I would suspect Popper of working for Project Mockingbird. (Google the term to see what I mean.)

    Out of almost 20 hours of presentations, the reporter focused on the 10 seconds during which one presenter, Dave Von Kleist, expressed his fear of government infiltration of the 9/11 truth movement. And out of the many dozens of hours of informal conversation, Popper chose to highlight one in which similar fears were expressed.

    I participated in many conversations throughout the weekend and can testify that all were convivial and concerned the science and politics of 9/11, not fears of government infiltration. For more on the conference, people can go to www.mujca.com/madisonconference.htm.

    The reporter's aim in offering such a wildly distorted view of the conference can only have been to libel 9/11 truth seekers as paranoid -- a task that Isthmus already accomplished last summer, to its eternal shame and perhaps its eventual prosecution.

    This libel, like the 9/11 blood libel against Muslims, dehumanizes its victims and makes its author, editor and publisher complicit in the holocaust of the 9/11 wars -- a holocaust that has already killed more than 650,000 people in Iraq alone and destroyed the lives of more than 6 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan by making them refugees.

    As the example of Nuremberg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. Arabesque
    Member

    I think Barrett's comments are "out of line"

    Kevin Barrett: Reporting on 9/11 conference was distorted and libelous http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/205192

    "As the example of Nuremberg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future."

    I believe that the 9/11 truth movement should stand for Justice--non-violent justice and not open-ended threats. I think he should apologize to this journalist. His piece was not deserving of these accusations, and they serve no purpose other than to make the 9/11 truth movement look irrational and spiteful.

    http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/204531

    In fact I would instead THANK this journalist for refraining from commenting on the "tv fakery" and "DEW" "theories" (what do you call "theories" that even the "theorists" don't really believe), masquerading as 9/11 "skepticism".

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. DBLS
    Inactive

    How can he even attend, let alone defend "DisinfoFest07"? I'm very concerned about Barrett, I have liked a lot of what he's done but this is getting to be a little too much.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. truthmod
    Administrator

    The "blood libel," "holocaust," and "scaffold" talk does not help us out at all. This letter only further marginalizes us.

    Sadly, Barrett's continued descent into disinformation is actually making me uneasy about David Ray Griffin, who he has been closely aligned with.

    By the way, if we are really starting to think that Barrett is intentional disinfo, maybe we should look at his background more closely. From what I understand, Fetzer's JFK work was also suspect and damaging, so there was a clear pattern.

    http://www.mujca.com/who_we_are.htm

    Kevin Barrett has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. He grew up in a family of lapsed Unitarians (which is about as lapsed as it gets) and reverted to Islam in 1993, a move that gradually impressed upon him the gravity of the moral choices we make in this life. Barrett’s dissertation is on Islam and Moroccan legend. He is also the author and illustrator of the cult classic A Guide to Mysterious San Francisco, published under the pseudonym of “Dr. Weirde.” (He begs Allah’s forgiveness for that slightly twisted book.) Barrett became a 9/11 truth activist in 2004 after reading David Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor and conducting follow-up research that convinced him Griffin had accurately summarized evidence indicating 9/11 was an inside job. In the summer of 2004 he founded 9/11 Truth Squad, a local group based in Madison, Wisconsin. In July, he rashly rejected a plum post-doc at the University of California because it was funded by the 9/11-disinformation-sponsoring CIA-linked Ford Foundation. Barrett has led several 9/11 Truth Teach-Ins at the University of Wisconsin, including a 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Truth Marathon on the third anniversary of the attacks. As of January 2005, he has made six guest appearances on local radio and television to discuss 9/11 truth. He is currently working on university research projects, writing and editing for the Muslim magazine al-Jumuah, and spearheading MUJCA-NET.

    http://www.sfgate.com/offbeat/whome.html

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. Arabesque
    Member

    How can he even attend, let alone defend "DisinfoFest07"?

    Good question, and one that deserves an answer.

    I personally am not suspicious of David Ray Griffin. I understand why anyone would have doubts about what happened at the Pentagon (if they haven't researched it carefully), but I have more doubts about people who focus on this (and other misinformation) to the detriment of other 9/11 questions, evidence and the big picture.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. Victronix
    Member

    The defense of the conference on MUJCA -

    http://www.mujca.com/madisonconference.htm

    "Ace Baker followed Reynolds' talk by presenting his research on the alleged live South Tower strike videos—research that seems to show that at least one "live news video" of the South Tower strike is a special-effects "cartoon" not an actual video of a plane strike. (See Baker's argument, Eric Salter's rebuttal, and Baker's response to Salter.)"

    So he tells readers the outcome - cartoon video - then provides the links which they then won't bother to click on, and overtly gives Ace the last word anyway.

    And then there's this characterization of anyone who critiques any of the conference attendees -

    "Many conference participants discovered that those espousing controversial positions on various research issues—including some who have suffered personal attacks from within the 9/11 truth movement as well as from its enemies—are not the bogeymen they sometimes have been made out to be. Many participants lamented the phenomenon of "internet lynch mobs" comprised of angry emailers and bloggers demanding that this or that researcher be banished for heresy. Often these internet lynch mobs are made up of people who have not carefully studied the research issues that they so confidently pronounce on. Barrett urged those who find controversial research issues a distraction from 9/11 activism to either study those issues with an open mind, or ignore them and focus on activism. The worst thing to do is waste time and energy on fruitless infighting."

    So critique is literally not allowed - either you study with an open mind or ignore it. It's hard to read at all with such manipulations. I noticed the link was broken from the madison.com site in his letter, thankfully. But it would be great if someone could refute this piece . . .

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. Arabesque
    Member

    It's stuff like this that sets me on fire and gets me motivated to do another commentary on the disinfo movement.

    "Ignore the controversial research and focus on activism?"

    If you consider the official story of 9/11 to be a lie. Why would you not equally consider false explanations for 9/11 to be equally offensive?

    The patronizing position of "let the experts study it" is exactly what the supporters of the official story would say:

    Let NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 commission figure out the truth.

    There is no authority on 9/11. Those who tell us what to think about 9/11 and what not to criticize are not "truth" activists. They are agenda activists who have their own views and who refuse to allow critique. They are no different than NIST, FEMA and the supporters of the official story.

    Anyone who refuses critique is not interested in the truth about anything.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. Victronix
    Member

    You can bet that 99% of the people who go to see him speak in NYC won't know he protects and advocates TV Fakery, or if they do, are already lulled into the "lets all get along" song for everyone to agree on the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, yet nothing else matters, even if you are saying that alien technology from Mars was used, you're a-okay. Evidence unnecessary - all "evidence" is good "evidence".

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. Victronix
    Member

    Here's my post that hasn't yet appeared at blogger in response to Kevin Barrett's latest post on the front page. The main post is here, and copied -

    Kevin Barrett to Debate John Brown on 9/11! Tonight, Sat. 8/18/07, 6 pm CT

    http://911blogger.com/node/10728

    I finally found someone who doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, and who has the guts to defend his opinions in a public debate! John Brown, a patriotic member of the Special Forces community who disagrees with my argument that 9/11 was an inside job, has become my first opponent with the guts to debate the issue on the air. This comes as a relief, since I have long been frustrated by the "silence of the cowards." I have offered to debate a long list of gutless wonders who have publicly insulted me but chickened out of debate proposals, including Wisconsin Rep. Steve Nass, Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle, Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green, chatter-blogger Ann Althouse, Progressive publisher Matt Rothschild, NIST report quasi-supporter Dr. Frank Greening, vacillating free speech advocate Professor Donald Downs http://mujca.com/academicfreedom.htm and boorish, clueless University of Wisconsin physicist Dr. Orwellian: http://www.mujca.com/fruitcake.htm -- not to mention O'Reilly and Hannity, who snuck away from my FOX appearances licking their wounds and now refuse to return my phone calls ; )

    John Brown is a smart, articulate, patriotic individual with connections in the special forces and intelligence communities--and a student of 9/11-- so this debate should make great radio! If you miss it live, the show will be archived at

    http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/get_archive.ph...

    PS Don't miss my complete radio schedule at htp://mujca.com/airwaves.htm and lecture schedule at http://www.mujca.com/lecture_schedule.htm

    My comment -

    Language - learn how it's used

    • I have long been frustrated by the "silence of the cowards."

    • a long list of gutless wonders

    • boorish, clueless University of Wisconsin physicist Dr. Orwellian

    • O'Reilly and Hannity, who snuck away from my FOX appearances licking their wounds

    "Many conference participants discovered that those espousing controversial positions on various research issues—including some who have suffered personal attacks from within the 9/11 truth movement as well as from its enemies—are not the bogeymen they sometimes have been made out to be. Many participants lamented the phenomenon of “internet lynch mobs” comprised of angry emailers and bloggers demanding that this or that researcher be banished for heresy. Often these internet lynch mobs are made up of people who have not carefully studied the research issues that they so confidently pronounce on. Barrett urged those who find controversial research issues a distraction from 9/11 activism to either study those issues with an open mind, or ignore them and focus on activism. The worst thing to do is waste time and energy on fruitless infighting." Scholars for 9/11 Truth: The Madison Conference: 3 - 5 August 2007 http://www.mujca.com/madisonconference.htm

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. Arabesque
    Member

    "Waste time on fruitless infighting?"

    This is incredibly hypocritical considering the fact that Jim Fetzer and Co are some of the worst infighters in the movement.

    Barrett has never seriously criticized Fetzer and Co for their behavior.

    Jim Fetzer has attacked Dr. Jones as much as anyone, with smears, hit pieces, and ad-hominems.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. DBLS
    Inactive

    I'm VERY disappointed in Barrett.

    Posted 10 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.