9/11 Truther Kevin Barratt for congress/Wisconsin

Discussion of the most controversial 9/11 theories. Evidenced discussions over whether particular individuals are genuine 9/11 Truthers or moles and/or shills and other personal issues.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

9/11 Truther Kevin Barratt for congress/Wisconsin

Post by outsider »

Kevin Barrett is well on the way to get his required number of signatures in his bid to register to run for Congress, and he has found an unexpectedly high level of support for 9/11 Truth:

I had a busy week on the campaign trail. So far I have collected nearly a thousand signatures on my nomination papers and given away hundreds of DVDs. I've had the cops called on me twice by store managers for collecting signatures on "private" sidewalks in front of big stores - but so far I've managed to avoid arrest for the crime of trying to run for public office. (I always explain that when the First Amendment was passed, every entrance to every place of business in the land was protected by the First Amendment -and as far as I'm concerned, that's still the case.)


It's slightly amazing that I, the oft-vilified "conspiracy professor" and O'Reilly death threat target, can get out there in my "Investigate 9/11" cap and dish out 9/11 truth DVDs and "Washington You're Fired" DVDs like proverbial hotcakes ... and most of the people I meet at places like Wal-Mart and the local supermarket and the rodeo and the barber shop in Richland Center, Wisconsin are happy to sign my nomination papers! Of the several dozen people who've recognized me and admitted it, all but one signed the petition to put me on the ballot. And get this - I met almost as many 9/11 truthers during two days at the rodeo at the Richland County Fairgrounds as during my two days in front of progressive food co-ops. (And don't tell Homeland Security, but the best barber shop in Richland Center is a hotbed of support for the patriot movement!)


In short, I'm happy to report that regular folks here in rural Western Wisconsin are not as dumb as the neocons think. The vast majority opposes the war, and Rep. Ron Kind's support evaporates the minute I explain that Kind has repeatedly voted FOR the war. If I can raise enough money to get my message out, I'll surprise a lot of people in this election.


In radio news...thanks to a pair of great radio guests, two of last week's shows were selected for posting, with commercials edited out, at the free speech radio hall of fame, otherwise known as http://www.radiodujour.com :


Richard Hayes Phillips, author of Witness to a Crime: A Citizens' Audit of an American Election, talks to Kevin Barrett about his ground-breaking forensic investigation of the fraudulent 2004 presidential election in Ohio.

Kevin Barrett discusses "left gate keepers" and Israel's influence over American media including Amy Goodman's Democracy Now with Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

Thanks for listening, and keep up the struggle for truth!

Kevin Barrett
http://www.barrettforcongress.us
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:11 pm

Ventura endorsed 9/11 Truther is Wisconsin candidate

Post by scienceplease »

Another outing of 9/11 truth in the MSM "Ventura endorses 9-11 conspiracy theorist" in Minniapolis Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/27869284.html

There is a lively debate section, favorable of Ventura

Ventura endorses 9-11 conspiracy theorist
Associated Press
Last update: September 4, 2008 - 4:24 PM
MADISON, Wis. - Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has endorsed a Sept. 11 conspiracy theorist for a congressional seat.

Ventura came out Thursday in support of Kevin Barrett, a Libertarian running against incumbent Democrat Ron Kind for western Wisconsin's seat.

Barrett is a former University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer who believes the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has discussed his views in class.

Ventura is a former professional wrestler. He served one term after being elected Minnesota's governor in 1998 as a third-party candidate.
gareth
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by gareth »

Why this is disappointing news

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... rrett.html
Kevin Barrett is a prominent 9/11 activist. While he has significantly contributed awareness for the 9/11 truth movement, he has also damaged its credibility with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements.
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:02 pm
Contact:

Kevin Barrett

Post by Rowan Berkeley »

Doesn't he share a radio program with Jim Fetzer? That's a grotesque combination, idiotic. I mean, Fetzer is the man who created the Sarah Palin of the 911 Truth Movement, Judy Wood. The Space Beams Lady.
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

Latest on Kevin Barrett's assault on Congress:

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/

If he makes it, make no mistake, he will be banging away at the NWO with 9/11 Truth, more so even than Cynthia McKinney (who is just 'Awesome'!). And Cindy Sheehan, if she's successful, what a smack in the chops for AIPAC!
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18439
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

What exactly is the problem with Kevin Barratt Arabesque?
He addresses the crux of the AIPAC and Zionist problem which so many shy away from.
After listening to the second half of this please
[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1805848780[/GVideo]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1805848780
gareth
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by gareth »

TonyGosling wrote:What exactly is the problem with Kevin Barratt Arabesque?
Why don't you read the article?

Why has my 'validated poster' status been removed?
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18439
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

I have read the particularly divisive article. I was interested in your own personal opinion because it appears to be a comprehensive, anonymous hit piece on a particularly courageous and successful 9/11 Truther.
I wondered if you could persuade me otherwise?
gareth wrote:
TonyGosling wrote:What exactly is the problem with Kevin Barratt Arabesque?
Why don't you read the article?
gareth
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by gareth »

gareth wrote:Why this is disappointing news

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... rrett.html
Kevin Barrett is a prominent 9/11 activist. While he has significantly contributed awareness for the 9/11 truth movement, he has also damaged its credibility with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements.
The above quote from the article is quite explanative. Critique is divisive? Arabesque has only reported direct statements from Kevin Barrett himself and provided links to the original sources.

Why has my 'validated poster' status been removed?
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18439
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

I tell you what, how about you answer my question and then I'll answer yours.

Convince me that you're not having a cheap pop at a brave guy.
gareth
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by gareth »

TonyGosling wrote:I tell you what, how about you answer my question and then I'll answer yours.

Convince me that you're not having a cheap pop at a brave guy.
Kevin Barrett has...

-offered support for 'TV fakery'
-offered support for 'Space Beams'
-offered support for other debunked theories e.g. 'Plane Pods'
-called for the hanging of journalists e.g. Amy Goodman
-accused dedicated activists and researchers of being 'Cointelpro' without any evidence

You shouldn't confuse 'critique' with 'attack'. No one is beyond criticism simply because they're a 'brave guy'.

Why has my 'validated poster' status been removed?
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18439
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

It isn't a critique it's a crude attempt to assassinate Barratt's character. Arabesque's post has surely been written not to contribute to the 9/11 Truth movement but to poison his election campaign.

I don't know whether beam weapons were used or not either and there's a mile of difference between saying they were and recognising all sorts of exotic stuff as a possibliity.

Did you listen to the interview with him BTW.

Oh yes, hit 'refresh'.
gareth wrote: You shouldn't confuse 'critique' with 'attack'. No one is beyond criticism simply because they're a 'brave guy'.
Why has my 'validated poster' status been removed?
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

Nobody can be more scathing of the ridiculous 'Beam Theory' than me, that does not mean we have to dismiss ppeople who flirt with it; as a previous post of mine shows, he gets the message out, and gets the people's support:

Kevin Barrett is well on the way to get his required number of signatures in his bid to register to run for Congress, and he has found an unexpectedly high level of support for 9/11 Truth:

I had a busy week on the campaign trail. So far I have collected nearly a thousand signatures on my nomination papers and given away hundreds of DVDs. I've had the cops called on me twice by store managers for collecting signatures on "private" sidewalks in front of big stores - but so far I've managed to avoid arrest for the crime of trying to run for public office. (I always explain that when the First Amendment was passed, every entrance to every place of business in the land was protected by the First Amendment -and as far as I'm concerned, that's still the case.)


'It's slightly amazing that I, the oft-vilified "conspiracy professor" and O'Reilly death threat target, can get out there in my "Investigate 9/11" cap and dish out 9/11 truth DVDs and "Washington You're Fired" DVDs like proverbial hotcakes ... and most of the people I meet at places like Wal-Mart and the local supermarket and the rodeo and the barber shop in Richland Center, Wisconsin are happy to sign my nomination papers! Of the several dozen people who've recognized me and admitted it, all but one signed the petition to put me on the ballot. And get this - I met almost as many 9/11 truthers during two days at the rodeo at the Richland County Fairgrounds as during my two days in front of progressive food co-ops. (And don't tell Homeland Security, but the best barber shop in Richland Center is a hotbed of support for the patriot movement!)'

I don't have time to chase the info at present, but KB has distanced himself from 'Dr.' Judy Wood, and I believe Fetzer has also, to some extent. 'T.V. Fakery' I am totally happy with; planes don't 'melt' into buildings, but computer animations do (see 'Loose Change 2' with their computer-generated 'Boeing' flying into the Pentagon). Doesn't mean no planes were used.
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
gareth
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by gareth »

Tony you are so way off the mark it's genuinely worrying that you're running this forum.

So what is Sean Haugh, Political Director of the Libertatarian Party saying about Kevin Barrett?
In almost all cases, as Political Director I support the candidates as nominated by our state parties no matter how I feel about them. I cannot in good conscience do this in the case of Kevin Barrett. I do not have a problem with him or anyone as a so-called "9/11 Truther." I accept that people who express skepticism over the official story about what happened that day have a home in the LP. But Mr. Barrett goes well beyond that in two ways:

1) He frequently calls for the mass executions for treason for reporters who wrote articles with which he takes issue. I absolutely will not support any candidate who calls for mass murder of anyone, and am appalled that anyone who considers themselves Libertarian would advocate something so horrific.

2) He has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before coming to this conclusion. He seems to be playing both sides of that fence. I am and will always be totally intolerant of the Holocaust deniers….

I strongly urge the Wisconsin LP to not nominate Kevin Barrett for US Congress. Regardless of your decision however I will go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP.

Yours in liberty - Sean Haugh Political Director
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpwi/message/23483
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

gareth wrote:Tony you are so way off the mark it's genuinely worrying that you're running this forum.

So what is Sean Haugh, Political Director of the Libertatarian Party saying about Kevin Barrett?
In almost all cases, as Political Director I support the candidates as nominated by our state parties no matter how I feel about them. I cannot in good conscience do this in the case of Kevin Barrett. I do not have a problem with him or anyone as a so-called "9/11 Truther." I accept that people who express skepticism over the official story about what happened that day have a home in the LP. But Mr. Barrett goes well beyond that in two ways:

1) He frequently calls for the mass executions for treason for reporters who wrote articles with which he takes issue. I absolutely will not support any candidate who calls for mass murder of anyone, and am appalled that anyone who considers themselves Libertarian would advocate something so horrific.

2) He has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before coming to this conclusion. He seems to be playing both sides of that fence. I am and will always be totally intolerant of the Holocaust deniers….

I strongly urge the Wisconsin LP to not nominate Kevin Barrett for US Congress. Regardless of your decision however I will go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP.

Yours in liberty - Sean Haugh Political Director
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpwi/message/23483
Anybody who really believes KB wants these mass executions needs their head tested; and the old 'Holocaust Denier' sledgehammer is rubbish.
The 'Gatekeepers' know a danger when they see one, and Kevin Barrett is a danger to the murderous, War Criminal B******* that run the US and indeed most of the world.
Jim Ennes, 'Liberty' survivor, has been called 'anti-semitic' for calling for a proper investigation into Israel's murderous attack, and for saying it was a deliberate attack on a ship known to be American.

GO, KEVIN, GO!!! Give the S.O.B.s hell!!!
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18439
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Well yes Gareth, and one could remark that it is genuinely worrying that with your naive peddling of posts that, if they are not, may as well be US military or Blackwater disinfo, of you are supposedly developing the UK's official 9/11 Truth website. There will be many people in the U.S. reading your Arabesque post who are disappointed at that. And many at Blackwater who will be delighted.
By pushing this sort of material you are invalidating all the good work you've done. There we are, some potentially divisive criticism.

We have to be extremely careful before having a pop at our own side. That is what shills have been encouraging o this site for years. I realise feelings run high but there need to be some humility and gentleness in the language when pointing out flaws within the 9/11 Truth movement.

Imagine any of us cutting and pasting an anonymous tirade against William Rodriguez, Annie or Andrew Johnson for that matter. One could quite rightly wonder whose side they were actually on.
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:11 pm

Re: Ventura endorsed 9/11 Truther is Wisconsin candidate

Post by scienceplease »

scienceplease wrote:Another outing of 9/11 truth in the MSM "Ventura endorses 9-11 conspiracy theorist" in Minniapolis Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/27869284.html

There is a lively debate section, favorable of Ventura
The Comment section has been deleted. Hmm. I wonder if the comments get recorded on the way-back-machine, internet archive? (Doesn't seem to even record the main page!) So much for a web-archive...
gareth
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by gareth »

TonyGosling wrote:Well yes Gareth, and one could remark that it is genuinely worrying that with your naive peddling of posts that, if they are not, may as well be US military or Blackwater disinfo, of you are supposedly developing the UK's official 9/11 Truth website. There will be many people in the U.S. reading your Arabesque post who are disappointed at that. And many at Blackwater who will be delighted.
By pushing this sort of material you are invalidating all the good work you've done. There we are, some potentially divisive criticism.

We have to be extremely careful before having a pop at our own side. That is what shills have been encouraging o this site for years. I realise feelings run high but there need to be some humility and gentleness in the language when pointing out flaws within the 9/11 Truth movement.

Imagine any of us cutting and pasting an anonymous tirade against William Rodriguez, Annie or Andrew Johnson for that matter. One could quite rightly wonder whose side they were actually on.
I see, this is about the Kennebunkport Warning.

For those curious why Tony is suggesting that Arabesque, a writer who focuses on 9/11 disinformation, 'may as well be US military or Blackwater disinfo' i recommend the following fully referenced articles:

'The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy Reviewed' by Arabesque

'Who signed the Kennebunkport Warning?' By Arabesque

'Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo” ' By Arabesque

and

'Synthetic Error - The Meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley' by Michael Wolsey

Also 'Praise for Arabesque' is worth checking out to find out which 9/11 activists & researchers support his work
Alexander
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:51 am

Post by Alexander »

Ralph Schoenman goes into Tarpley's long history in the LaRouche organisation in this interview starting 29 minutes in -
http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.p ... _id=275728#
User avatar
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 630
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:02 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by QuitTheirClogs »

Didn't the Barksdale nukes incident demonstrate that the Kennebunkport warning was essentially right?
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18439
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Let's not drag a load of baggage in here but concentrate on this specific 'Arabesque' post which may as well have been written by the great Guy Smith himself.
IMO it's not making any worthwhile points, not got anything going for it at all and I still don't see - can somebody, anybody, show me why it contributes anything to the 9/11 Truth movement?
We all have our foibles and the main thing the other side want to see is for us to be wasting our time dredging over those foibles and slagging each other off. Any inter-movement criticism has got to be reasoned, polite and not flippant.
There doesn't seem to be any understanding from you Gareth that we are here to aid and encourage people like Kevin not throw his every sentence, out of context, back in his face.

It seems to me we get drawn into this sort of infighting as a way of venting frustration about not seeing the results we want in the outside world.
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

Talking about events in the outside world -

Thanks to all of you who contributed time, energy, money, and votes to this effort! Now we're heading for the big time...
-Kevin
PS Keep those contributions coming - money gets the message out, and my peace-and-truth message can WIN in a three-way race with the other two guys splitting the pro-war vote.




3rd District Winner Kevin Barrett Thanks Olson, Targets "Pro-War" Kind


Kevin Barrett, the apparent winner of the 3rd District Libertarian congressional primary with over 60% of the vote, thanked opponent Ben Olson for what he called "a terrific campaign." "Ben Olson is a wonderful guy, and I'm glad this campaign gave me a chance to get to know him," Barrett said. "Our debate on Captain Soma's riverboat was a memorable experience. I have nothing but good things to say about him. I hope to stay in touch with him, and I will continue to work with him and his supporters in an attempt to rein in this out-of-control government."


Barrett also thanked Governor Jesse Ventura for his last-minute endorsement. "Next time I take on Hannity and O'Reilly, I want Jesse Ventura on my tag-team," Barrett said. "Seriously, Jesse Ventura is the only true statesman I see anywhere on today's political landscape, and I'm honored by his endorsement. I hope he'll run for president and win in 2012."


Barrett cited the popular Libertarian mayor of Tomah, Ed Thompson, a regular guest on Barrett's radio shows. "Ed Thompson said this primary was a referendum on 9/11. I don't know if I'd go that far...but any landslide victory for the 'conspiracy professor' Hannity and O'Reilly and the rest of the controlled media love to beat up on is very good news for the 9/11 truth movement."


Barrett added that he planned to hold incumbent Ron Kind responsible for "consistently voting for a criminal war of aggression that has wrecked our economy," and added that he had just sent the following email to Kind:


Dear Congressman Kind,


Now that I have won the Libertarian primary, I am writing to request that you ask one of your staffers to schedule the debate to which you agreed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_dCg_QYEeA


I hope you will be prepared to truthfully defend your pro-war votes, in light of the recent announcement that thousands of Wisconsin guardsmen will soon be sent to Iraq in the biggest call-up since World War II.


Sincerely
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
gareth
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by gareth »

TonyGosling wrote:Let's not drag a load of baggage in here...
I call it context. You've suggested a particularly talented writer and asset to the 911 movement 'may as well be US military or Blackwater disinfo'. It's quite fair of me to give a bit of background for those new to this who've come across your smear.
TonyGosling wrote:...but concentrate on this specific 'Arabesque' post which may as well have been written by the great Guy Smith himself.
...and disregard the context?
TonyGosling wrote:IMO it's not making any worthwhile points, not got anything going for it at all and I still don't see - can somebody, anybody, show me why it contributes anything to the 9/11 Truth movement?
It makes plenty of worthwhile points. It highlights a number of statements made by a "leader" within the movement, not out of context, and shows that he has:

-offered support for 'TV fakery'
-offered support for 'Space Beams'
-offered support for other debunked theories e.g. 'Plane Pods'
-called for the hanging of journalists e.g. Amy Goodman
-accused dedicated activists and researchers of being 'Cointelpro' without any evidence

As for what critiquing the above contributes to the 911 Truth movement Arabesque sums it up quite well...

from 'An Open Letter about the Subject of Disinformation and Disruption within the 9/11 Truth Movement' by Arabesque
“The official story of 9/11 is disinformation, which means that the subject of disinformation is a vital and essential topic of 9/11 discussion. The opinion that disinformation is ‘extraordinarily low’ in this movement misses the mark by a long-shot since the very purpose of our movement is to expose the disinformation of the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject of disinformation.”
TonyGosling wrote:We all have our foibles and the main thing the other side want to see is for us to be wasting our time dredging over those foibles and slagging each other off. Any inter-movement criticism has got to be reasoned, polite and not flippant.
'Foibles'? I disagree. I think 'the other side' would welcome Mr Barretts documented behaviour and not appreciate it not being critiqued at all.

So what about Tony Gosling?

Here's a selection of you saying the opposite about Arabesque and his work to what you've proposed above...
TonyGosling wrote:It isn't a critique it's a crude attempt to assassinate Barratt's character.
and
TonyGosling wrote:Arabesque's post has surely been written not to contribute to the 9/11 Truth movement but to poison his election campaign.
and
TonyGosling wrote:may as well be US military or Blackwater disinfo
and
TonyGosling wrote:anonymous tirade
and
TonyGosling wrote:which may as well have been written by the great Guy Smith himself
Am i making unsubstantiated attacks on people? No.

Is Arabesque? No.

Are you? Yes.
TonyGosling wrote:There doesn't seem to be any understanding from you Gareth that we are here to aid and encourage people like Kevin not throw his every sentence, out of context, back in his face.
I personally will not be aiding or encouraging someone who claims to be in the "truth" movement and happens to promote debunked theories, offers support for holocaust deniers and calls for mass murder.
TonyGosling wrote:It seems to me we get drawn into this sort of infighting as a way of venting frustration about not seeing the results we want in the outside world.
Critique is not infighting.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18439
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

This thread is not about Tarpley or Kennebunkport much as you may like it to be.

Dragging in baggage which has already been poured over elsewhere at length, is a classic, if rather dull, way of avoiding the pertinent questions.

Questions such as these:
Imagine any of us cutting and pasting an anonymous tirade against William Rodriguez, Annie or Andrew Johnson for that matter. One could quite rightly wonder whose side they were actually on.
Anybody who really believes KB wants these mass executions needs their head tested; and the old 'Holocaust Denier' sledgehammer is rubbish.
Did you listen to the interview with him BTW.
You haven't addressed these direct points on your original post.

As is escalating things to personal attacks on integrity rather than discussing and debating the subject of the thread.

If you read back through Gareth you'll find at each point it's you that's escalated.

Still it's not the first time. I put your insensitivity down to youthful frustration and naivity. Especially your ability to stick the knife in to your supposed allies at the drop of a hat.

Anyway, here's the crux of your argument
It makes plenty of worthwhile points. It highlights a number of statements made by a "leader" within the movement, not out of context, and shows that he has:

-offered support for 'TV fakery'
-offered support for 'Space Beams'
-offered support for other debunked theories e.g. 'Plane Pods'
-called for the hanging of journalists e.g. Amy Goodman
-accused dedicated activists and researchers of being 'Cointelpro' without any evidence
He does none of the above. In this context 'offering support' means acknowleging any of the above to be possibilities. Which they are. You seem to be going along with a particularly nasty form of 9/11 Truth Political Correctness and attempt at censorship. You don't appear to see the difference between alowing things to be discussed and making them official 9/11 Truth policy.

He does not, as far as I can see, push any of these ideas as fact. And of course, as we all know, Blackwater and the like certainly do engage in Counter-Intelligence-Propaganda. So who are the dedicated activists who have been 'slurred' by Kevin? Again no information forthcoming other than "His radio show has featured interviews with Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Captain May, and other controversial figures".

Any use of anonymous internet 'ghouls' like Arabesque should be done very carefully and rather than acknowledge that you have launched into a blistering attack on, not my points, but me. Rather like you have done with Kevin Barratt.

Not very impressed. Hence Validation removed.
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

E-mail from Kevin Barrett:

Hi friends,


Polling can be a powerful political tool -- especially when the poll results send shockwaves through the media. Several 9/11 truth polls over the past several years have done just that. Those who would write us off as a fringe movement have been stunned to learn that:


* Only 16% of Americans think the Bush regime is telling the truth about 9/11
* Roughly 40% of Americans are at least MIHOP (made it happen on purpose)
* Over half of Americans want Bush and Cheney investigated for 9/11.


Now, in the wake of the seventh anniversary of 9/11, truth-seekers everywhere have taken heart from a new World Public Opinion poll showing that the conspiracy theorists who blame al-Qaeda for the attacks are in a minority worldwide. The poll of 17 nations found that only 46% of respondents blamed al-Qaeda for 9/11, while those who blamed the U.S. or Israel, or said they didn't know, totaled 47%. Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, expressed amazement at the results, saying "Given the extraordinary impact the 9/11 attacks have had on world affairs, it is remarkable that seven years later there is no international consensus about who was behind them."


As the peace and truth candidate for Congress, I'm about to launch a series of polls to find out what people in my district, Wisconsinites, and Americans in general think about 9/11 in this election year. After conducting the poll, I'll have the names and phone numbers of all respondents, sorted by their answers. This will allow me to contact those who gave pro-9/11-truth answers, so I can offer them free DVDs and information about how to get involved in the 9/11 truth movement, and in my campaign.


The polling is amazingly cheap, but it does cost money (details below). Those of you who have contributed to my campaign have spent your money wisely -- last Tuesday I stunned the Wisconsin political scene by winning a landslide victory in the Libertarian primary on a pro-9/11 truth platform, thanks to you. By helping me generate some hopefully surprising poll results, and acquire a data-base of pro-9/11 truth people in my district and elsewhere, your donations will be the best investment you could ever make in a safer, saner post-9/11-truth future.


Please give generously at http://www.barrettforcongress.us


Thank you, and keep up the struggle for truth.


Kevin Barrett
Libertarian Candidate for Congress, Wisconsin's 3rd District


PS: The Barrett campaign is pioneering this new, cheaper polling methodology, as outlined in Campaign Advisor Rolf Lindgren's letter below.
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Stefan
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Stefan »

TonyGosling wrote: Not very impressed. Hence Validation removed.
I notice G is a validated poster again. Lucky him. I still need to feel the need to comment:

I thought "validated poster" meant the persons actual identity was known within the movement, therefore they were not anonymous whatever their screen name?

You know who he is and you've met him, so why remove the status in the first place?

You seem to be using "validated poster" as some kind of a gold star to show you approve of a poster's views or agree with them.

You do the same when you label Telecastron a "critic" when you know full well he is not.

It comes across as both childish and tyranical.

Also - why am I listed as an 'organiser'? I have nothing to do with the organisation (or lack of) of this forum.
Image

Peace and Truth
Chris Walsh
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Contact:

Post by Chris Walsh »

I understand why some people have concerns with Barrett's quotes about energy weapons and TV fakery, but I really do think that as a researcher he's just trying to look at all possibilities. I'm sure he's refined his theories about 9/11 to the point where he's realised TV fakery is far fetched and ultimately impossible. If he's not, then we can take issue with that.

I do not support what he allegedly said about hanging the likes of Amy Goodman - who was herself recently roudned up and arrested with her team at the DNC - but I think his sentiment about justice for gatekeepers and those involved in the cover up is acceptable. We have all said things in anger that could be taken out of context. I'd like to think that Barrett, if asked seriously if he advocates killing such gatekeepers, would reply in the negative.

I think my overall take on all of this is that we have a 9/11 truther running for congress - the exact kind of activity we need to be seeing more of. What I will always maintain is the most crucial issue when getting the truth about 9/11 out is that WE DON'T know the truth; we can only offer our best interpretation of how it could have been an inside job. Anyone challenging the US government on this massive issue should be applauded for being brave. We all have one thing in common here - we can adeptly prove that the official story is a complete lie. But it's bravado to try and say we understand completely what happened that day and that we understand black ops to the point where we can point the finger at the terrorist controllers and main architects of 9/11. Sure, we can offer evidence against the likes of Dick Cheney, who lied to the Commission, and we can show it likely that Israeli Intelligence played its part in the attacks. But to this day I've never had the confidence to say outright who is to blame; I can only prove who isn't, and in the efforts of waking people up to the utterly corrupt world we live in, we need to make them open their minds through seeing the BIG LIE, the elephant in the living room. This, I think, is what Barrett's intentions are, and I support his courage. That said, if he still stands by no plane theories etc. he has to be questioned on those theories and has to be able to justify them.

I'm sure some of us take issue with Michael Meacher being a Peak Oil advocate, but his research has lead him to that conclusion. The fact is he's done a lot for 9/11 truth in the UK and is an example of someone whose influence could wake up a lot of British people

Nobody is perfect, especially in this movement, which has multivarious theories and has no doubt been infiltrated.



As a final note, like Tarpley said - although I don't agree with his overall argument against Arabesque etc. - we have good reason to be wary of people in the movement who hide behind pseudonyms and who don't use their real names. It makes far more sense to me to take part fully in the movement by using your real identity so you don't arouse suspicion about who you really are.

Just my two pence, but I can see both sides of this argument. Although I support anyone in politics who challenges false paradigms and represents change - not the kind we're promised via the MSM!
The promise of freedom will only come about when the last man to walk this earth lives out his days in dreadful solitude. Only then will we see the end of war.
chrisc
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:34 pm

Kevin Barrett

Post by chrisc »

TonyGosling wrote:we are here to aid and encourage people like Kevin
Well, that sums it up really doesn't it... :roll:

The accusation that Arabesque is "US military or Blackwater disinfo" says more about the accusor than about Arabesque...

Jenny Sparks also wrote a good article on Kevin Barrett a while ago:

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2007 ... lease.html

This thread reminds me why this site is worse than a waste of time, I guess I should update this thread about this place...

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2338
gareth
Suspended
Suspended
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:06 pm

FYI Tony Gosling

Post by gareth »

FYI Tony Gosling

Arabesque made the following comment after an article he'd written entitled 'How 9/11 Disinformation is Defended: Common Talking Points'
Arabesque wrote:
Arabesque wrote:Ironically, it is not uncommon to see ad hominem attacks from activists who absurdly claim that any debate, criticism, or even reporting itself is an “attack”. In this situation, accusations of “attack” are not supported by documentation or evidence, while the accuser makes attacks of their own.
Note I just wrote this the other day and what do I see this morning?

On a United Kingdom 9/11 forum, we see Tony Gosling, an editor of the website conflating attack with ad hominem while making several ad hominem attacks of his own:
Tony Gosling wrote:I have read the particularly divisive article. I was interested in your own personal opinion because it appears to be a comprehensive, anonymous hit piece on a particularly courageous and successful 9/11 Truther... Convince me that you're not having a cheap pop at a brave guy... It isn't a critique it's a crude attempt to assassinate Barratt's [sic] character. Arabesque's post has surely been written not to contribute to the 9/11 Truth movement but to poison his election campaign.... Well yes Gareth, and one could remark that it is genuinely worrying that with your naive peddling of posts that, if they are not, may as well be US military or Blackwater disinfo, of you are supposedly developing the UK's official 9/11 Truth website. There will be many people in the U.S. reading your Arabesque post who are disappointed at that. And many at Blackwater who will be delighted. By pushing this sort of material you are invalidating all the good work you've done... Imagine any of us cutting and pasting an anonymous tirade against William Rodriguez, Annie or Andrew Johnson for that matter. One could quite rightly wonder whose side they were actually on... Let's not drag a load of baggage in here but concentrate on this specific 'Arabesque' post which may as well have been written by the great Guy Smith himself... We all have our foibles and the main thing the other side want to see is for us to be wasting our time dredging over those foibles and slagging each other off. Any inter-movement criticism has got to be reasoned, polite and not flippant... It seems to me we get drawn into this sort of infighting as a way of venting frustration about not seeing the results we want in the outside world.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15646

Tony Gosling insinuates that an article in which I almost exclusively quote the words of Kevin Barrett is an "attack" piece. Completely ignoring the fact that I make no personal attacks at all in the article, Gosling says that we need "reasoned, polite, and not flippant" criticism and then contradicts himself when he insinuates that I am an agent without a shred of evidence. What is particularly interesting is that Gosling makes no real attempt to actually quote or debate the content of the article itself; preferring to attack the character of the author as "anonymous" and "not on the same side" while at the very same time ironically misrepresenting the content of my article as "character assassination". If quoting individuals within the 9/11 truth movement constitutes an "attack", then what does this say about the words that I am quoting?

All of this from an editor of a 9/11 forum.

This is why I will not be joining the UK 9/11 forum in the near future. Orwellian Doublethink and absurd defense of disinformation and hoaxes even at the same time as character assassination and attacks appear to be the normal mode of operation. Even from an editor of the forum?

According to the Gareth, who posted a link to my article:
Why has my 'validated poster' status been removed?
I will note that "validated poster" appears to have been given back.
Post Reply