Sunday, November 12, 2006

More Barrett Nuttiness

Sheesh, this guy put the K in Kook:

"Your tax dollars are paying for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq. The CIA is paying for resistance in Iraq."



At 12 November, 2006 09:33, Blogger Dog Town said...

Big Bad Barre, needs to get a grip.
Been gone a while expected this nonsense to settle a bit. I see all here, are still kicking stooopid down, great work! Will be back around more, after the first of the year. Till then, Keep'm flying!

At 12 November, 2006 09:38, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

No Fair!

Hey man, like, I mean I have the lock on screwball, who is he to try to out do me?

Like I have a video, have you seen Loose Change, (Hey Jason what version do we have now???)

I mean, that's definitive.

Boxcutters, ha ha ha ha !

At 12 November, 2006 10:45, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I always get a kick out of this kind of horseshit.

"The part-time teacher vowed to teach the official version of the attacks alongside the Sept. 11 theory to which he subscribes."

Let's see. What if an instructor promised to teach the official version that slavery was a bad institution along side his view that "it really was a good institution for the slaves"? Would such an instructor remain on campus?

The pathetic political correctness of today's Higher Education is enough to gag a maggott.

Barrett has clearly not been "silent" about his offensive theories, he was in Virginia yesterday at another scumbag gathering. When will U of Wisc fire his sorry ass?

At 12 November, 2006 11:02, Blogger MarkyX said...

I'll say it once and I'll say it again..

I predicted that he would be abusing his academic authority to push his political agenda. And I only had to do one prediction for it.

Alex Jones, fuck you :)

At 12 November, 2006 15:13, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

Tut tut more jealousy of alex jones.

I dont see what barrett has said wrong here. The british sas were caught at a checkpoint dressed as iraqi insurgents provocateuring the soldiers.

Barrett is right as usual

At 12 November, 2006 15:31, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

You are a moron PD, as usual. And yes, this is simply insulting you, and not intellectual, and I am sure you will have something to say about, like you do everything, but you are a MORON.


At 12 November, 2006 16:10, Blogger Triterope said...

The pathetic political correctness of today's Higher Education is enough to gag a maggot.

In a way, we've become too tolerant as a society. We've had tolerance beaten into our skulls to the point where we're tolerating junk science and poor scholarship.

Being open to new ideas should not mean abandoning every last standard of honesty and academic rigor.

I welcome alternative viewpoints, but they must have some degree of merit. 9/11 conspiracy theory does not.

At 12 November, 2006 21:51, Blogger Buddy Jesus said...

I'd like to see the sources to refute this claim. It would be an interesting read.


At 13 November, 2006 04:55, Blogger Alex said...

Personally, I'd love to see the sources to refute that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are real.


I'm looking at you BJ....

At 13 November, 2006 10:04, Blogger Buddy Jesus said...

There are numerous tries to refute the Loch Ness monster, but no conclusive ones, like this one.

I know you guys really like latin terms to seem smart. Try these:

Argumentum ad verecundiam
Argumentum ad numerum
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad ignorantiam

At 13 November, 2006 10:52, Blogger Alex said...

Ah, the irony.

Yes, numbnuts, there are no conclusive ones. There are no conclusive ones because it's pretty much impossible to disprove something which doesn't exist. The only way you can come close to disproving it is by pointing out the lack of evidence for it's existence.

Enter the "CIA if funding the insurgency" argument. Now, if you had half a brain in your head, you'd realize that it's equally impossible to disprove such a statement. How exactly am I supposed to go about showing that the CIA is NOT funding the Iraqi insurgency?

As for your use of Latin, it'd be much more effective if I had any reason to believe that you actually understand those terms.

At 13 November, 2006 12:59, Blogger James B. said...

How do know the Europeans aren't funding the terrorists in Iraq? They are the ones benefiting the most from the loss of American prestige, power, and money.

Cui bono?

At 13 November, 2006 13:34, Blogger acmefoilco said...

Buddy Jesus

apiece of advice:
Semper ubi sub ubi ;)

At 13 November, 2006 13:57, Blogger Buddy Jesus said...

I'd say there are no winners in this game.

I know there are no ways of disproving that CIA is not funding the insurgency. That's the whole point, since you are arguing as though there were.

It is highly unlikely that the CIA would do such a thing, but it is equally unlikely for them, if you use your brains, to create, fund and support the Mujahideen leading up to 9/11, genocidal idiots as Suharto, fuelling conflict in Vietnam, overthrowing Allende and installing a f**k-up as Pinochet in his stead and still be held as credible and trusted by its own population.

Yet this is still happening.

"Ah, you just overthrow governments, set up friendly dictators." - Dan Aykroyd, Sneakers

At 13 November, 2006 14:08, Blogger Buddy Jesus said...

Oh, and I dug my own grave there. I screwed up my language yet again. But I hope that you see what I mean. As if you care.

And "Semper ubi sub ubi"? That didn't make too much sense until I looked it up. In Swedish the pun isn't that obvious. ;)

FYI I do.

At 13 November, 2006 14:29, Blogger Buddy Jesus said...

How do know the Europeans aren't funding the terrorists in Iraq? They are the ones benefiting the most from the loss of American prestige, power, and money.

Cui bono?

It is very possible that the European government could be fuelling hatred or whatever against the US to put themselves in a better light. It has happened before, and sure the French nor the German government is nothing but wolves in sheeps clothing. Even the Allied forces during WW2 did atrocities that one seldom hears of, like the bombing of Dresden.

Who benefits from the terrorism in Iraq I do not know, but it could also be the $400 bn. top war machine of the US. What else than timely wars could justify that kind of budget, larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen biggest spenders combined?

At 13 November, 2006 14:34, Blogger James B. said...

fund and support the Mujahideen leading up to 9/11

I hate to bring actual history and fact into the dicussion, but the CIA didn't fund the "mujahideen" leading up to 9/11. The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, so they hadn't been funded in over a decade.

Also the foreign fighters who later were involved in Al Qaeda were separate from the Afghans who were funded by the CIA.

At 13 November, 2006 15:37, Blogger shawn said...

Even the Allied forces during WW2 did atrocities that one seldom hears of, like the bombing of Dresden.

If you think nobody hears of the bombing of Dresden you must be living under a fucking rock.

And why'd you ignore the thrashing I gave you in the Rumsfield thread?

At 13 November, 2006 23:10, Blogger Buddy Jesus said...

@ James b:

No, I know that the CIA didn't fund the mujahedin (that's how we spell it in Sweden, I do not know how you spell it in english, but since you quoted it, I suppose you mock me for it. I could write it in arabic if you would like.) until 2001, poor wording from me as usual. And perhaps the al Qaeda would exist even if the CIA didn't help setting up their training camps and building their caves and supplying them with guns.

Do you mean that no al-Qaeda people were involved in the Mujahedin? I have several sources that state otherwise, so in that case I would really like to see the sources for your claim.

@ shawn:

What I mean is that most of the history books I've seen for kids leave out these events, but none leave out the Nazis holocaust. The percentage of population that knows about the holocaust and those that are familiar with the Dresden bombings and other allied atrocities differ quite a lot.

A large part of the japanese school-children does not even know that the US dropped the bomb on them. Twice.

And I'll retort in the Rumsfeld-thread, I haven't had the will. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

At 14 November, 2006 06:04, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

I've seen the bombing of Dresden mentioned almost every year on the national news AND local newspaper when I lived in Phoenix. So don't even try to pull that one.

At 14 November, 2006 10:43, Blogger Alex said...

Not to mention that pretty much everyone knows about Hiroshima, and almost as many know about Nagasaki. Both of which were much worse than Dresden. I wouldn't call any of them an "atrocity" though. It's easy to judge history from a modern perspective, but that doesn't make it right. We did what we felt was necessary. At the time, it was acceptable. Declaring it an atrocity 60 years later is just foolish.

At 15 November, 2006 11:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the argument is that the U.S. is using an "El Salvador" solution of Shia death squads, and it has backfired, with U.S. troops being killed by Shia militias.

El Salvador solution

I have no idea if this is true.

James B makes an interesting point about Europe. I have long thought we are in a very cold war with Europe, and part of it is being fought in Iraq. I don't know that the Europeans are funding, but it wouldn't surprise me if they thought they could get away with it. A Turkish friend once told me the Germans were funding the PPK, for what that is worth. I thought Yugoslavia was also really about U.S.-Europe competition, which seems counter-intuitive given the NATO cooperation on Kosovo.

At 15 November, 2006 11:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe that wasn't the argument:

"Ahmed ends his essay by arguing that the U.S. is attempting "to exacerbate the deterioration of security by penetrating, manipulating, and arming the terrorist insurgency, thus legitimizing permanent Anglo-American military involvement in Iraq purportedly to promote security."

"It was while discussing this argument that Barrett made his comment about American tax dollars being used to fund the killing of American soldiers."

This seems to be an argument that the U.S. is funding Sunni insurgents, which seems very far-fetched. I would have to see how Ahmed backs such an assertion.

I think it is appropriate to discuss Ahmed's work, but Barrett's comment as described was out of bounds -- he's assuming it is true.

If he did it in a way that made it clear that he was not assuming it was true,but was making it a point of discussion, I see nothing wrong with consideration of this argument. It's a university, not a high school, and even there I think teenagers can handle this kind of discussion.

Barrett and Fetzer are individuals -- they are no reflection on me.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home