truthaction.org

[Arcterus]

[Jon Gold]

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-ksms-innocence-matters.html

Take note of everything he left out. You can read it all here...

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6022

He didn't post the movie I posted along with my first response...

He left out my final response to Hicks, and the private email correspondence he initiated with me, and portrayed that correspondence as started by me (probably because he made more accusations against me using my religion). He sprouted so many more lies about me it's not even funny (the same exact lies spread by our friends over you know where). I wish I had proof he was a plant. He's either a legitimate plant, or he is the insane bigot he comes across as seeking attention like I spoke about in my recent interview.

[Rancho Truth]

"If someone is tortured into a demonstrably bogus confession, that person may safely be assumed to be innocent. And if the torturers then destroy the recordings of the torture sessions, the assumption should be upgraded to accepted fact. That is essentially what Bob Baer says, only slightly between the lines: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1692518,00.html "

"That's "evidence" against KSM?! The guy they made a human vegetable through nonstop torture, then destroyed the interrogation tapes?! Please."

"In any case, the proposed leaflet should focus on the abundant evidence that KSM is innocent. The question of who is really guilty should be secondary. In other words, the nanothermite evidence should be cited primarily to clear KSM."

Logical fallacies- Just cuz someone is tortured doesn't mean they're innocent- it means people need to be prosecuted for torture. Baer doesn't say anything like that, though Barrett may claim to see it between the lines. The torture tapes may have been destroyed to cover up the identities of those responsible for the torture, or to prevent the release of other information- they were destroyed, and other documentation is still being suppressed. Barrett claimed evidence proving KSM's innocence, but presented none other than variations on the false claims that a bogus confession proves and the obvious involvement of additional parties (nanothermite) prove KSM's innocence, plus he hand waves the evidence at the links Jon provided, instead of rebutting it.

Barrett has discredited himself again.
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org

[truebeleaguer]

I doubt we'll find evidence soon that Barrett is a plant. Maybe 20 years from now we'll know.

The fact that he persists in destructive behavior and very sloppy research after being asked repeatedly to clean up his act is circumstantial evidence that the harm he does us is not accidental.

But following the principle "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" that is ascribed to Napolean leads us to another hypothesis also consistent with the evidence: Maybe Barrett is just not very bright. Maybe we tend to take his PhD and a couple of Masters Degrees and a good vocabulary and a facile ability to be gabby in academic language as evidence of intelligence that he does not in fact possess.

Col. Sparks suggested this possibility in her 2007 article "Kevin Barrett--front and center, please."

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2007/11/kevin-barrett-front-and-center-please.html

"If you are sincerely one of us and just aren't a good
communicator, then, for all of our sakes, stop reaching
beyond your grasp. Because right now, you're hurting,
not helping."

Col. Sparks then hedges her bet by stating

"If you're not sincerely one of us--well, guess we'll be due
for another, less pleasant chat, soon."


Either way, I can assure you that Barrett well knows that if he ever shows up within a hundred miles of my town he will regret it.

[Jon Gold]

On Barrett's blog...

On Facebook...

Jon Gold: Nafeez... I have a question for you... what are your feelings about individuals who try to say there is no evidence of "hijackers" or "Muslim involvement" with regards to the 9/11 attacks, and say that if you promote information regarding that, you are promoting the "Islamofascist Myth", and are being a racist? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say since that is a focus of your research, and you are a Muslim. Thanks.

Nafeez Ahmed: Jon, mostly these people largely lack a broader political or historical consiousness. obviously i think this is a ridiculous position to take. it comes from a total lack of familiarity with the politics of the muslim world, as well as with the development of us-uk unconventional warfare doctrines after ww2. in particular, the anonalies surrounding the alleged hijackers do not have easy answers - the problem is people like simple answers, they divide things up into simplitic binary choices, either 'this' or 'that', 'us' against 'them', etc. ironically, it's a very neocon like mentality that does us no favours...

Jon Gold: Thank you Nafeez for your input. Here is something I wrote on the subject.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=94555@postcount=1

Nafeez Ahmed: i've seen that post. i like it.

Jon Gold: Nice. Thanks.

Barrett's response...

Summarizing the 9/11 and 7/7 situations accurately and unflinchingly might not do Nafeez any favors in terms of being employable in (Zionist-colonized) Western academia. At the DC 2005 conference he was asked why he wouldn't just come out and say it was an inside job, and his answer was something very close to "If I said what I really thought, people would say I was crazy."

Muslims in the West have even more reasons to exhibit this kind of denial than non-Muslims. A non-Muslim American, faced with the enormity of the situation, has to either take all-out action or admit he or she (as an American) is a gutless coward. For a Muslim, the same thing is true -- but there's the Zionist anti-Muslim genocide on top of that. So Muslims, epecially those who want nice middle-class jobs, will use any excuse to avoid doing the right thing, which at this point means all out jihad by any means necessary and by whatever means is most effective. Mine is telling the unvarnished truth and accepting the consequences. Nafeez has to live with himself and will have to face his creator. The Qur'an has very clear things to say about Muslims who flinch from the duty of jihad.

Wow.

[Jon Gold]

Nafeez Ahmed's work was some of the pioneering work of this movement.

[Jon Gold]

Funny thing is, when I posted this, he made sure to tell me, "If you're going to publish this exchange, please publish it complete and unabridged. I'll do the same."

Guess I'm not afforded the same courtesy.

[Arcterus]

Barrett doesn't let silly things like obligations and honesty get in the way of his truth-spreading.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

[Jon Gold]

I have come to a decision. There are better things I can be doing with my time than concerning myself with the lies Kevin Barrett says about me, the bad information about 9/11 he puts forward, and the wrong direction he tries to steer this movement into. All it does it cause me stress I don't need.

[truebeleaguer]

No need to stress. I once read that we are no bigger than the people that can bug the shit out of us.

His inability to distinguish between "totally innocent" and "not guilty" suggests he's just not very bright. I think we need to remain adamant that he does not represent the Truth movement, but we needn't make a career out of it. Barrett seems to be trying to reinvent himself as a spokesman for the Muslims of the world, and apparently they don't consider him significant enough to even ask him to come off it and STFU.

[truebeleaguer]

It's TIME!

Kommandante Barrett calls for insurgency: "doing what the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine are doing and actually fighting back."

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/11/hey-obama-surge-this.html





I expect all good patriots to do their duty, act decisively, and blow up their middle fingers without delay. Got it?

(Damn, what a clumsy photoshopper he is! Couldn't he even trim the corners off his black-on-black? Also, is it my imagination or is Dr. B sporting a hairpiece?)

[victronix01]

Pretty over the top. Thanks for noticing this. It's an excellent graphic . . .

[Jon Gold]

Ok... I have to point this out because it shows that I am right, and that doesn't happen very often...

screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/12/separated-at-birth.html

How many times have I said how easy it would be to paint us as terrorists by blaming the Zionists for everything, etc...?

Way to go Barrett.

[Arcterus]

Yeah, nice going. Might as well take a few quotes from the Little Red Book for good measure.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

[truebeleaguer]

Barrett has shown a pattern of trying to associate us with terrorists.

Nov. 20 he called for the movement to loudly proclaim KSM innocent.
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-11-21T06%3A59%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7

Oct 20 he called for American patriots to support the Taliban.
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-10-20T14%3A16%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7



And then there was the little gem below from two years ago when Barrett
tried to lure unsuspecting "Peace Week" activists into a very dark "War
on War"/"Where They Live" campaign that was a thinly disguised threat
of vigilantism....



Put all his elements together and we'd have mobs of truth activists dressed in V-for-Vendetta disguises flinging firecrackers and wearing capes as they marched on evil-doers' homes. Since the capes could conceal weapons, the cops would have to assume the worst. Since a $300 costume would clearly outclass a $30 costume, infiltrating provocateurs with commanding voices could easily seize control of a mob. The potential for some of our most valued activists to be seriously injured or framed was very high.

And just a couple of guys in V-masks throwing molotov cocktails from drive-by motorcycles could discredit the truth movement nationwide.
Conspiracy laws make everybody responsible for everything--wouldn't Fox News have loved the "Conspiracy theorists charged with conspiracy" story just in time to echo their "Truthers = Terrorists" meme and resonate with Jane Harman's "Thought Crimes" bill.

(If memory serves, Harman's bill would have made it possible to charge activists with violence-related conspiracy even when the violence that resulted was attacks on the activists themselves.)