Monday, February 19, 2007

First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh At You, Then They Fight You...

And then you lose because you didn't clean house back when you were being ignored. The Deniers are discovering sudden mainstream popularity comes with a cost; every stupid little thing you've said and done suddenly comes under the microscope.

Take Kevin Barrett, for example. We've already discussed his comment about the Holocaust as it is taught in the United States being a hideously destructive myth. Turns out Mr Barrett has an email newsletter that he sends around to his fanbase. (Update: Online version posted here at Barrett's Mujca site).

In the latest instalment, Barrett hypes the supposed identification of the Bin Laden confession videotape as "bogus" according to a Bin Laden scholar appearing on Kevin's show.

Is the famous "confession video" genuine? Despite Bush's insistence that the tape is authentic, America's top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts. "It's bogus," says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's Religious Studies program.

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration's lie in an interview with Kevin Barrett ("Dynamic Duo," gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour). The interview marked Lawrence's first major public statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.


Nothing particularly vile there; obviously we disagree with him on the authenticity of the Bin Laden tape (for an excellent video on this check here). But Barrett goes on to cite some other sources:

Bin Laden: AUTHENTIC INTERVIEW
by Carol A. Valentine

http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html

October 16, 2001-- An interview with Osama bin Laden was published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001. In this interview, bin Laden says of the September 11 attacks in the US...


Carol A. Valentine? Public-action.com? Gee, who are they? I'm pretty versed by now on the big names in 9-11 Denial but these were new ones on me. So I surfed over there:



Ah, nice to see that somebody's standing up against the "American Coup D'Etat and the War for Jewish Supremacy". And hey, how convenient to have a set of links to historical revisionists (sic) websites that examine the stories of World War II atrocities. And yep, quite a few of our old buddies are listed there, including the Institute for Historical Review, Zundelsite, the Barnes Review, and the source that Dylan cited more than any other in Loose Change, the American Free Press:



Now the interesting thing is that aside from Carol Valentine's sterling commentary, Barrett could have gotten the story about Bin Laden denying his involvement in 9-11 from an number of non-Holocaust Revisionist sites, like:

911Review.com
Robert-Fisk.com
Prison Planet

None of those sites are particularly credible to me, but of course they have mountains of credibility compared to Carol A. Valentine.

Labels: , ,

21 Comments:

At 19 February, 2007 16:02, Blogger shawn said...

"Waco Holocaust"

I wonder if they know that the Davidians set the fires?

Cue bg coming in to say the government slaughtered them all in 5...4...3...2...1...

 
At 19 February, 2007 16:49, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

What are your sources for what you believe about Waco?

 
At 19 February, 2007 17:58, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

The fires at the compound could only have been ignited by a giant, orbiting magnifying glass.

 
At 19 February, 2007 18:08, Blogger Al said...

Wait . One of the foremost authorities on Bin Laden in America says the "hard evidence" against Osama is "bogus" ? Wow I'm so surprised you'd sandwich this info in between some more blather trying to link questioning 9/11 to "denying" (you know this is BS as well) the holocaust? This is becoming a very tired tactic but it's very nice of you to give your loyal comment-lemmings here an petty "out" when you creeps are faced with ANY information or evidence that would make a sane person question the official story. You people have the nerve to name call and smear decent thoughtful people as being in some kind of "cult mindset" ? Look in the mirror. This blog as run it's course. It's obvious you guys don't give a damn about the WHOLE truth or conceding even one point no matter how small . So whats the point here?

 
At 19 February, 2007 18:22, Blogger shawn said...

What are your sources for what you believe about Waco?

The fires started inside the buildings - unless the government has incendiery grenades that can phase through walls...

But I'm sure you think the flamethrowing tank is real, too.

The ATF screwed up royally at Waco, but the Branch Davidians set the fires that ended up killing dozens of them.

 
At 19 February, 2007 18:32, Blogger shawn said...

Al, thanks for coming, we were running low on punching bags.

For fun, here's a quote from one of the foremost authorities on bin Laden:

"[Osama bin Laden] sounds like somebody who would be a very high-minded and welcome voice in global politics."

Anyhow, the confession tape is inarguably bin Laden - or his identical twin. You're talking about an academic who translated the words of bin Laden - does that now make him a video expert or someone able to recognize unique facial characteristics? Argumentum ad verecundium, my friend.

I love you people coming in here as if we act like you deniers. You aren't skeptical of anything, you don't question anything as long as it conforms to your narrative. I'm going to love seeing your apology to James and Pay now that you've been shown to be an intellectually lazy fool, but I shouldn't hold my breath for that, should I?

 
At 19 February, 2007 18:49, Blogger Al said...

You're going to call me intellectually lazy after pasting from the first seemingly negative Google hit you could find when searching "Bruce Lawrence"?

Come on now. I would say you're better then that but i've been reading this blogs comment section long enough to know what a tool you are.

 
At 19 February, 2007 18:58, Blogger shawn said...

You're going to call me intellectually lazy after pasting from the first seemingly negative Google hit you could find when searching "Bruce Lawrence"?

You haven't been reading the comments that long (or that well, take your pick) if that's what you think I did (I actually have a .doc list of moronic quotes I come across, maybe you'll make it someday).

Not only that but why would I need to go on Google (I use Yahoo) anyhow? The quote was only to show what a "tool" Lawrence is, it had no bearing on showing that he's no video or forensic expert. But you can just ignore that and live in your little fantasy world.

If he had said the video was really bin Laden and we used that as support, you would say the same things I am saying (and rightly so). Why you fools can't understand logic is beyond me. But keep missing the point and insulting your betters.

 
At 19 February, 2007 19:05, Blogger BG said...

Monbiot has a new article (I think it's new):
Guardian Unlimited | | 9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns

Since his mentions the Ben / Michael Chertoff alleged relation, a connection which is meaningless even if it exists, I thought I'd try to track down what truthers gave us this hot potato:

Tracing a 9/11 Truth Rumor

 
At 19 February, 2007 19:31, Blogger shawn said...

Lord Moonbat again proves that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is one of the dumber quotes.

He shouldn't blame the conspiracy loons for ruining his movements - his movements created the mindset that allows conspiracy thinking to be considered healthy. He really only has himself to blame.

 
At 20 February, 2007 05:53, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Dispite all the bickering, Pat fails to even address OBL's statements and the inconsistencies...

I did it...I didn't do it....

Don't make the confusion about Terrorism. Terrorists claim responsibility for their acts of crime to enact social and political change. You don't suddenly change your mind about the greatest terror attack in history.

Point is, experts in Europe and the United States agree that the Bin Laden confession tape is completely bogus. Not only that other Al-CIADA tapes have suddenly appeared out of no where at politically convientient times to bolster the Bush Administration. Case in point, both Kerry and Bush officials have openly stated that one of the bin-laden tapes help to sway the American sheeple vote to the Bush camp this last Presidential election. Everything about that confession tape is bogus. I even love one of the lines from the tape where OBL supposedly comments about fire melting the steel and expecting a partial collapse not the whole kit and kabuddle!!! ROFL Classic propaganda.

 
At 20 February, 2007 07:19, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Swing wrote: "I did it...I didn't do it...."

You know... Clinton tried the same thing. I'm sure your first thought was, "He's lying," and you would've been right.

Do you really see Osama as some honorable individual?

 
At 20 February, 2007 10:28, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Hmmm...Im an evil mastermind who hates america and teh USG...how might I toy with them after I have hurt them on 9/11...

"I didnt do it...ok I did it...no wait, I didnt do it...I guess you'll never know for sure..."

TAM

 
At 20 February, 2007 11:35, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Do you really see Osama as some honorable individual?

Personally, now, no of course not. When the CIA was funding his activities and the Mujahdeen during the 80's in Afghanistan, sure. He was our guy fighting the evil commies then. He is probably dead now anyway.

What other evidence in there that he was responsible for 9/11?

Althought that is funny, TAM, I'm somehow doubt OBL's motive would be to toy with America. Besides, he has stated over and over again that he despises our government and it's foreign policy and treatment of Israel, not the American people.

 
At 20 February, 2007 11:36, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

And besides TAM, your example doesn't fit the terrorist model.

 
At 20 February, 2007 12:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I wonder if they know that the Davidians set the fires?

Well lets see. The FBI tosses incidenary devices into the compound which they have admitted. Fire breaks out and lots of people die.
But the FBI says they didn't start the fire...okie dokie, we believe you.

We are expected to belive that the BD's would defend their lives to the death, but turn around and kill themselves with fire. Riiight.

The fires at the compound could only have been ignited by a giant, orbiting magnifying glass.
Or by pyrotechnic teargas canisters..as the AP report states.

I'm not defending Koresh by any stretch of the imagination. The question should be was the fire started on purpose or by accident by the Feds.

Mistake Said Made In Waco Tear Gas
AP U.S.Wednesday July 26, 2000
By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - An FBI lawyer ``goofed'' in not telling superiors in 1996 that federal agents fired pyrotechnic tear gas canisters into the Branch Davidians' compound in Waco, Texas, a former senator who investigated the deadly raid said Wednesday.

That simple mistake by a ``very junior'' lawyer helped lead to the controversy over whether the government was trying to hide the fact the three canisters were fired, Special Counsel John Danforth told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

Danforth said the lawyer had marked on her ``to-do'' list in 1996 to tell the Justice Department about the canisters but never did. Refusing to name the lawyer, he said she even lied about it when his investigators questioned her but that there was no maliciousness in her actions.

``What happened in this case was that this fairly young lawyer simply goofed, simply failed to do an adequate job ... and in the face of the fear of personal ruin ... she then began to concoct various stories,'' Danforth said.

Danforth, a longtime Republican senator from Missouri, was appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate the siege after the government acknowledged, following years of denials, that it used pyrotechnic tear gas canisters during the final assault.

The siege began Feb. 28, 1993, when agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tried to arrest Branch Davidian leader David Koresh. A gunfight broke out, leaving four ATF agents and six Davidians dead, and the standoff started.

It ended 51 days later on April 19, 1993, when tanks driven by FBI agents pumped tear gas into the compound. A fire broke out and 80 Davidians, including Koresh, died, some from the fire, some from gunshots.

Danforth concluded last week with ''100 percent certainty'' that federal agents did not start the fire or shoot at cult members. The government also did not improperly use the military and did not engage in a major cover-up, Danforth said.

He continues to investigate why no one told the Justice Department that the tear gas canisters were fired.

Those canister had nothing to do with the fire, he told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on administrative oversight and the courts.

He said the FBI lawyer found out about the tear gas while working on the Waco civil trial. On July 14, a five-member jury decided that the government was not responsible for the fire.

She marked it down on a list to tell her superiors but never did, Danforth said. After that mistake, she was afraid to come forward with the information, he said.

``I don't think for a minute that this FBI lawyer was part of any cover-up or conspiracy,'' Danforth said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., asked Danforth whether he would recommend prosecuting the lawyer for lying. Danforth said that would be like hitting ``a gnat with a sledgehammer.''

Instead, the government needs to find a way to reduce its internal ``culture of fear'' and force its lawyers to be more open and candid, he said.

 
At 20 February, 2007 13:35, Blogger Richard said...

Well maybe if you actually handled CS then you would know that it doesn't start fires. From my experiences in the Military and all of my friends experiences in the Military none of us have ever heard of a CS grenade causing something like that. Hell, we use to use them in the barracks and at our HQ. No fire at all. See this, this is the part where an expert in a relative field is telling you to piss off.

 
At 20 February, 2007 14:59, Blogger shawn said...

Well lets see. The FBI tosses incidenary devices into the compound which they have admitted. Fire breaks out and lots of people die.

The first fires broke out before that.

Dur dur durrrr.

Don't make the confusion about Terrorism. Terrorists claim responsibility for their acts of crime to enact social and political change. You don't suddenly change your mind about the greatest terror attack in history.

Those pesky martyrdom tapes put to rest the whole "Osama didn't do it".

 
At 20 February, 2007 21:55, Blogger Alex said...

But you see Richard, they were special CS grenades that the CIA had wired up with thermate beforehand. How do I know? Because Larry Silverstein admitted that they pulled the barn. It's all there on YouTube!

 
At 23 February, 2007 11:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

No offense, Richard, but perhaps you should take your comments to the Government who stated exactly what they tossed into the compound through the AP, which means Associated Press.

Also, experts are a dime a dozen without proof.

Hey Richard, I'm an expert in CS too!
I've got buddies who are experts as well. And gosh darn it the entire federal system uses the same CS at all levels!

Thanks, but try again.

 
At 23 February, 2007 14:13, Blogger Alex said...

.....

I'm sure that Richard will join me in pointing out that your third paragraph exposes you to be the uneducated, lying rube that we've always known you to be.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home