Saturday, February 24, 2007

Kevin Barrett Gets to Heart of U.S. Anti-Muslim Bias

I was listening to Kevin Barrett on Alex Jones' radio program, from last Thursday, when I came across this amusing part. Maybe someone should explain to him that this is just a "myth".



Barrett: It is not just the Nazis Alex, you know Walt Disney put out this cartoon, I believe in the early 30s or late 20s of the three little pigs, and the Big Bad Wolf in that cartoon is a tall hook-nosed Jewish stereotype. A lot of people don’t know about this, but Disney was apparently a little anti-Semitic himself.

Well, fast-forward a little bit, and when was it, in the 80s? Actually early 90s late 80s when Aladdin came out they put out this exact same exact caricature, it is almost a reworking of the big bad wolf. But now it is Jafar, this evil Vizier in this Middle Eastern country. It is like they have taken this anti-Jewish stereotype, and they have flipped it upside down and now it is this anti-Arab Anti-Muslim stereotype.

Jones: Absolutely.























Jafar from Disney's Aladdin
















No word yet if Barrett is going to denounce the anti-English-exotic-fur-coat-loving-women bias of Disney's 101 Dalmatians

Labels: ,

29 Comments:

At 24 February, 2007 12:46, Blogger shawn said...

So why is Aladdin shown as a hero if he, too, is a Muslim?

 
At 24 February, 2007 12:48, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 February, 2007 14:20, Blogger Paul Revere said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 February, 2007 16:02, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


Yep, James, I'd stick to cartoons too--anything to ignore the Holocaust denier among the 911debunkers.


Pot meet kettle.

While I am not referring to you in particular, Jenny, the movement you associate yourself is so full of holocaust deniers, there is barely room for those who arent within.

As for the issue itself, I wouldnt touch it with a thousand foot pole.

TAM:)

 
At 24 February, 2007 16:06, Blogger shawn said...

This myth of the Holocaust is much like your truther myth of a 911inside job.

The problem being the Holocaust isn't a myth. At least when you attack the Truthers, use facts like we do - don't lie as you've done.

 
At 24 February, 2007 16:33, Blogger James B. said...

Holocaust deniers and 9/11 deniers have much in common. They both selectively use evidence and fringe sources, not to further the academic study of history, but to push their political motives.

It is no coincidence that the same people who push 9/11 denial tend to push every crackpot historical theory out there. Man didn't land on the moon, FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination plots, the Holocaust was faked, paranoid Federal Reserve rants, the Bohemian Grove/Vatican/Jews/Illuminati/ Bilderbergs run the country and perform satanic rites. It is all various takes on the same mindset.

 
At 24 February, 2007 16:38, Blogger Paul Revere said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 February, 2007 16:45, Blogger James B. said...

Huh? It was our great and virtous nation which helped liberate the concentration camps. You tell the members of the 101st Airborne that what they saw was a "myth". Your comments are absurd.

 
At 24 February, 2007 16:58, Blogger shawn said...

The Myth of 911 is the same as the Myth of the Holocaust: it tries to scare people away from trusting our great and virtuous nation.

Eisenhower had his soldiers look through the camps because he knew people like you would try to deny what happened.

 
At 24 February, 2007 18:06, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

"Paul Revere" is a Jenny sock puppet.

A little too obvious, Jen. Try harder next time.

 
At 24 February, 2007 19:46, Blogger Alex said...

"Paul Revere" is a Jenny sock puppet.

No shit eh? Let's think about this:

At 24 February, 2007 10:54, James B. said...

Why is it only you guys need to worry about nutjobs in your ranks? You never see any of us having trouble like this.


Less than 2 hours later, at 12:29, "Paul Revere" makes her first post.

Coincidence? Maybe. But the fact that this blog went for 2 years without a single idiot like "Paul" commenting on it, and then 2 hours after James' post he shows up ... well, it doesn't seem very likely, now does it?

Especially since Paul's Blogger account seems to be brand new.

 
At 24 February, 2007 20:37, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

So someone who calls themself a colonel acts as mature as a six year old, and posts under a fake alias...for what? To childishly goad us into something...oh my.

TAM

 
At 24 February, 2007 21:54, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

"Paul Revere" is a Jenny sock puppet.

A little too obvious, Jen. Try harder next time.


Okay, whatever...sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...;-P

And more than just a little pathetic--we sound NOTHING alike. But nice try for the team.

Perhaps you've had TOO MUCH beer...

 
At 24 February, 2007 22:01, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Sorry, had to go away and laugh my arse off!

Ahem, and you all believe this without question why again? What kind of bleeding sceptics ARE you?

Excuse--must go laugh my arse off some more!!!!

snigger--Alex or TAM once said something about me comming here to make you look like "retards". Sorry, you need no help!

 
At 24 February, 2007 22:21, Blogger Alex said...

Believed what without question?

Have you been popping the happy pills again?

 
At 24 February, 2007 22:25, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

JamesBwill you be posting those questions you still have about NORADD and the FAA anytime soon, or should I stop asking for them?

 
At 24 February, 2007 22:27, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 February, 2007 22:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Why is it only you guys need to worry about nutjobs in your ranks? You never see any of us having trouble like this.
James, how can you be an official public debunker yet still have questions regarding the FAA and NORAD?


Tam have you or any of your family members driven Ford Motorvehicles or Volkswagon vehicles?

One other question, which official flight path story do you believe in regards to the Pentagon? The 9/11 Commission's flight path or the Flight Data Recorder's flight path?
Or better yet, which flight path will you guys be debunking?

Pretty soon your going to have to start debunking the offical story in order to keep the official story afloat!

 
At 25 February, 2007 00:31, Blogger Richard said...

Not really. Can you even tell me what's wrong with the flight path? All truthers ever say is "The data doesn't match" or the whopping 4 people who think it came from somewhere else. The question is how exactly does the data not match and why should we trust 4 people who's statements contradict hundreds of others?

 
At 25 February, 2007 01:28, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

And more than just a little pathetic--

"Pathetic" is someone who claims to stand for the truth, yet believes that said truth is so weak and unable to stand on its own that she must create fake people to slander those who oppose it.

we sound NOTHING alike.

This much is true. Writing as Revere, you came off as a cartoon caricature of a jingoistic, gung-ho, George Patton wanna-be. Your William Shatner school of over-acting style while writing as Revere is part of what tipped me off.

Next time, tone it down a little. Don't overplay yourself and you hold out for more than 10 posts before getting sniffed out.

On the other hand, you might try abandoning these saturday morning cartoon supervillian plots and acting like a grown up.

 
At 25 February, 2007 03:44, Blogger Alex said...

Snigger--read your own "analysis" Alex love--LOL!

Honestly, I go away to find a gym, have a nice workout--and look what you lot get up to! Can't leave you alone for a moment!


Lady, you've really got a screw loose.

 
At 25 February, 2007 08:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Richard the NTSB released the hard data in Excel format as well as the NTSB animation from the black box flight data recorder from the flight in question. When you compare the hard data and the animation video, the flight path does not match the 9/11 Commission flight path as see on CSPAN. The following video,produced by professional pilots, not theologians, professors etc.(pilotsfor911truth.org)who received the data through the Freedom of Information Act highlights the discrepency. The information is awesome and powerful.
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=xs5ax_r0Zn8

The 4 witnesses only confirm the flight path data.

 
At 25 February, 2007 08:09, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Richard, I will state however they do interject video from other's in the truth movement. Think what you will of that, but it is the actual FDR information that is the best part.

 
At 25 February, 2007 09:02, Blogger Richard said...

Well you didn't really answer my question. You just keep saying the data doesn't match up. How? In what way does it not match up?

Also your requirements for experts is weird. In your post you said

The following video,produced by professional pilots, not theologians, professors etc...

I'm guessing the point your trying to make is that these guys know what they are talking about. So why is it that when we quote information from structural engineers, firefighters, and demolitions experts you ignore it? Experts are only trusted when they agree with truthers?

Finally, don't you find it odd that your using information from a recovered FDR to argue that there was no crash? Doesn't that hit you as being incredibly stupid?

 
At 25 February, 2007 10:31, Blogger Stevew said...

Richard good questions.
With all the witnessess that corobrate the official story, one would think that some one would have seen the plane fly away after the explosion at the pent.

What was the explosion, FEA or RDX?

When and where was it planted?.

Why was the explosive force inward and not outward?

If it was outward why were there not blocks of concrete on the lawn?

How come all the victims were identified?

 
At 25 February, 2007 10:51, Blogger Mark said...

Swing, why have you left out the fact that when the animated flight path is corrected for magnetic deviation, it matches perfectly with the data, the physical damage, and the eyewitness accounts?

Do you agree or disagree? If the latter, present your argument, backed with verifiable facts.

Pilots for "Truth" made the horribly transparent and fraudulent move of printing a map with the compass turned the wrong way. What do you think of that?

Next, approximately how far from the Pentagon was flight 77 when its recovered FDR data ends?

I'm interested to hear your answer.

 
At 26 February, 2007 08:54, Blogger BG said...

Mark said,
I'm interested to hear your answer.

I don't know the answers. Do you have a thorough debunking of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

I'm open to the possibility that their points may not stand up. I appreciate your questions, and hope you'll follow up by posting a complete debunking.

Here's one question for you:

The flight path released as simulation by the 9/11 Commission shows an angle of attack (heading) which is different than the angle of attack shown in the data provided by the NTSB. The idea that magnetic deviation can explain that is a nonstarter, right?

 
At 26 February, 2007 09:43, Blogger BG said...

Based on a quick pen on paper review (of what I looked up as an 11 degree adjustment (around Washington) that you say should be applied, the adjustment would make the discreptancy between the 9/11 Commission Flight Path and the NTSB released data flight path more at odds, not less.

On the other hand, if you are saying that the 9/11 Commission released simulation was not adjusted for true north, this could make sense, in terms of reconciling the flight paths. However, that resolution supports the continuing mystery of what hit the light poles that were downed, as the latest release NTSB flight path doesn't account for the downed light poles.

I'm willing to be told I'm wrong. Just explain your logic.

 
At 28 February, 2007 07:29, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Richard, I was stating for a fact the flight path from the NTSB and the 9/11 commission do not match at all. When you watch the actual video and the animation from the flight path, they don't match. If they don't match, then the light poles were planted, faked, etc to match the 9/11 commission flight path.

Swing, why have you left out the fact that when the animated flight path is corrected for magnetic deviation, it matches perfectly with the data, the physical damage, and the eyewitness accounts?

Which animation, the FDR or the 9/11 commission's? Or are you suggesting they created their own animation? Or are you referring to a map? I'm confused to what source your referring to.

Assuming the FDR is authentic, the plane should have crashed several 100 feet from impact, because the FDR data never shows the plane leveling off in the NTSB animation. and would have nose dived into the ground according to the animation.

If the Pilots did make an error, have you contacted them to have it corrected or for an explanation to their reasoning?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home