TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Kevin Ryan's post pulled from blogger (8 posts)

1. Victronix
   Member

   Maybe I'm mistaken, but did anyone notice that Kevin Ryan's post on blogger about the KB debacle is gone?

   He posted a post called "We don't need anymore warnings" and it spoke out against the Kennebunkport debacle, bravely and with generous civility, but now is gone. Kevin Barrett got on there to reiterate that Sheehan and others "probably lied" and to say they were "acting dishonorably" and Kevin Ryan openly disagreed.

   It had a lot of comments but in general they were very positive.

   That is wrong to pull that. Even GW had a long response on there.

   Posted 16 years ago #
2. Victronix
   Member

   The original post is still over here -

   http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=...

   We Don't Need Anymore Warnings

   by Kevin Ryan

   While busy with an event on September 10th of this year, I heard about some goings-on that resulted in bad publicity for the 9/11 Truth movement. Of course it is no longer surprising to many of us, who have been involved in fighting for the truth for years, that there would be some kind of hullabaloo just before the anniversary. This year the uproar included something called the “Kennebunkport Warning”, and a problem with this document as pointed out by some of the alleged signatories.

   This warning document itself did not present any newsworthy information as far as I can see, other than the idea that some leaders of the Peace movement may have signed it. In fact, if it weren’t for these few signatures from prominent leaders of the Peace movement the warning would have been unremarkable, actually, as the message is fairly standard fair within the 9/11 Truth crowd, and is what many of us would be expected to say.

   But when those prominent Peace movement leaders put out a statement suggesting that their signatures were either obtained under false pretenses, and/or they were less than fully aware of the entire message they had signed on to, the document gained attention. And as could have been predicted, that attention quickly turned into a divisive mess.

   People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant.

   Maybe this is just another ego problem, and maybe not. If it is, then it's another opportunity to better understand that common problem we share. After all, that is the game upon which we are, as a society, being played.

   As usual, we’ll see how these things develop, but we don't really need any more warnings. We'll do what we can to communicate the vital need for 9/11 truth and reach out to others in our country who work for peace. Until then, my thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident. Hang in there and don’t give up hope.

   http://www.911blogger.com/node/11427#comment

   (interesting that google cached this but not the blogger version . . .)

   Posted 16 years ago #
3. Arabesque
   Member

   GW's response was sent to me privately. He posted it on his blog, and then removed it.

   In my opinion, this sends the wrong message:

   When I first brought attention to this issue, I realized that it might cause a lot of divisive feelings; but just ignoring bad things won't make them go away.

   There has to be some kind of deterrent against divisive actions, and the KW warning fiasco could have been right up there with the ST911 break-up if it wasn't managed as well as it was.

   Posted 16 years ago #
4. truthmover
   Administrator

   General Moderator Comment

   The moderators of the TruthMove forum will never delete a thread due to the comments present. We will delete new threads that violate the forum guidelines, hopefully before anyone has had a chance to comment. We will also delete individual posts within threads that violate the guidelines.

   Bottom line: Some of our responses are as important as their stimulus. Sacrificing either due to the presence of those who do not support them is to give those detractors a great deal of authority. And TruthMove has no intention of empowering those who seek to undermine our efforts.

   Posted 16 years ago #
5. Victronix
   Member

   Good news, the post returned.

   Kevin confirmed that he had edited it slightly and so assumed that it would need to get reviewed following that or something. I've never seen a post be gone that long, but it's good that it's back up.

   I think having my own post blocked and several of my comments has made me more apt to assume the worst there.

   Posted 16 years ago #
6. Victronix
   Member

   Located here -

   http://911blogger.com/node/11427

   Barrett's voted down to hidden comment -

   we do need this warning [below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

   As a long-time Kevin Ryan friend and fan, allow me to express qualified disagreement.

   While I agree that Webster's accusations were a huge mistake, here are some points to consider, which may explain if not excuse his bad behavior:

   1) A US attack on Iran would change the world for the worse far more than even 9/11 did--a quick escalation to nuclear exchange would be likely, and even if that didn't happen, we would be on an irreversible course toward a war of civilizations -- endless fanatical, ever-escalating slaughter that nothing could stop. This may sound like hyperbole, but I'm afraid it's just reality. A US attack on Iran would be the point of no return. After that, activism would be moot. There would be no more talking, just killing. Websites like this would be useless even if they were permitted to exist, which they almost certainly wouldn't be.

   2) Such an attack, spelling the end of the world as we know it, has moved from being a possibility (past three years) to a probability. There IS overwhelming evidence supporting this judgment, along with the judgment that an orchestrated trigger event would precede the attack.

   3) Given the above, strongly-worded warnings ARE necessary. As Putin said, this is worse than the Cuban missile crisis. That was not true last year or the year before, which is why I did not spend much time with warnings then. It's different now. We're on the brink of the Last World War.

   4) It is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying, and that they signed, then had second thoughts and backed out...or, just possibly, did not fully digest what they had signed when they signed it.

   5) Given the above, the organizers of the statement have generally acted honorably, while their opponents have acted dishonorably, or, at best, out of ignorance. That does not excuse Webster's ridiculous and unfortunate accusations, but it certainly explains his more-than-justified anger and frustration. Submitted by Kevin Barrett on Mon, 09/17/2007 - 12:35pm.

   Posted 16 years ago #
7. Victronix
   Member

   Kevin R's response -

   Your points are well taken, and you are more than welcome to express them.

   But we do not need any more such warnings. I'm sure you know that there have been a number of these, some with exact dates given, that have come and gone.

   We cannot solve a problem of fear and ego with more fear and ego. These things have been tried and have failed miserably.

   Posted 16 years ago #
8. Arabesque
   Member

   In fact, as I point out here http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6526#... many of those involved with the Kport Warning (KW) have issued previous warnings of a false flag.

   Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett (ST911 press release), Webster Tarpley, Captain May, and even Cindy Sheehan (showing that it would make even less sense that she would lie about the KW warning) have all issued warnings of a potential false flag attack BEFORE the KW warning.

   Here is the ST911 press release before the Kport warning.

   Scholars for 9/11 Truth, GOP Welcomes New 9/11: Reports Lay Groundwork for Attack, Scholars Say, August 3, 2007. http://pr-gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&...

   ST911 released a press release supporting the KW (with Fetzer on the radio with Tarpley) shortly after its release in late august.

   So Kevin Ryan is indeed correct--we have had enough warnings.

   Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.