A Type of Kook We've Seen Before
The media and many others assume that the 9-11 Denial movement consists of only members of the far Left. This is a natural assumption, given that the one thing that all "Truthers" have in common is an antipathy to President Bush. But it's a mistaken assumption.
What do last year’s Constitutional Party gubernatorial candidate Mary Starrett and the largely left-wing 9/11 Truth Alliance have in common? A surprising amount, actually.
Starrett, 52, is the first to admit that she is full of contradictions. She’s an anti-war, pro-life Christian, who refers to President Bush as “a joke.” The beer drinking, gun toting, vegetarian ex-smoker also has some controversial views on the U.S. government’s alleged complicity in the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001.
In fact, Starrett fits in well with the rest of the 9-11 kooks. She's another Devvy Kidd, another Alex Jones, another Jason Bermas, another John Conner. If you look at her writings, you can see the same paranoid thread that runs through the entire "Patriot" movement.
The government's going to bring back the draft.
RFID chips are spying on us.
SARS is a government plot.
Labels: 9-11 Cultists., Mary Starrette
posted by Pat @ 7:07 AM
27 comments
27 Comments:
Again I am very surprised by the idea that truthers are left-wing - ALL of the main voices of the movement are far-right.
Although the truth movement picks up advocates from all sides, I think it shouldn't be painted as a left-wing movement at all, because it just ISN'T!
Pat,
I'm confused. Starrett hasn't written a thing supporting 9/11 Truth, has she?
Supporting or not supporting 9/11 Truth isn't a matter of ideology. It 's a matter of being informed or not informed.
Bg's post demonstrates the validity of the old saw that even a blind pig will occasionally root up a truffle. It's a textbook example of irony.
Imagine how dull life would be without these crackpots though. They actually fill a comedic void in this post 9/11 era that keeps me laughing every day. Too bad I am laughing AT them, rather than with them.
TAM:)
Recent developments on the draft...errr umm Universal Service Act.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/
students/orgs/jol/vol41_1/schiffrin.php
Supporting or not supporting 9/11 Truth isn't a matter of ideology.
LOL! Hardly. 9/11 twoof is all ideology because they have no credible facts to back up their assertions. The twoofers believe the "inside job" theory because they want to believe it. That is ideology or, perhaps more accurately, cult religion.
If by recent you mean Winter of 2004, when the article was published, you are correct, Swing. In fact, Rangel's goal is to draft students into the antiwar movement, not into the military.
Was hard to tell whether any of those links actually went to an actual video of the event:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6613
So there you go.
"People killin', people dyin'
Children hurt and you hear them cryin'
Can you practice what you preach
And would you turn the other cheek.."
BTW-Swing Dangler--nice pic!
Supporting or not supporting 9/11 Truth isn't a matter of ideology.
Conceited little bastard, isn't he?
That is ideology or, perhaps more accurately, cult religion.
I'm amused by the fact that Jenny's just given us a link to an event featuring truthers from a group called "Believers Against The War". If they'd called themselves "Believers For 9/11 Truth", that would be the best tautology I've seen in a long time.
With regards to the post - Alex Jones and John Conner (or, to give him his real name, Heinrich Von Retard) are obviously very far-right militia-style believers. Indeed, Jones first came to prominence during the rise in militia activity of the 90s. They give themselves away by calling every single thing they dislike "Satanic".
Dylan and the rest of the LTW crew are a bit of a mystery. I think they may have been fairly liberal when they started work on Loose Change, but after falling under the tutelage of Jones they've swallowed a whole load of his bizarre ideas. Judging by the list posted here a few months back of topics that were going to be covered in the Final Cut, the third version of Loose Change will scan like Timothy McVeigh's to-do list.
As I have posted recently here, I want to make clear that I respect that what happened to WTC 7 is an issue which is rightly under the purview of scientists and engineers.
- Bill Giltner
Supporting or not supporting 9/11 Truth isn't a matter of ideology. It 's a matter of being informed or not informed.
- also Bill Giltner
Wich is it, Billy?
Sword of Truthiness--since you seem to have gotten over your hysteria, and you're in the mood to examine contradictions, try these:
"Of course Bush didn't want his administration's incompetence exposed."
"Right, it takes "heart" to accuse others of committing mass murder on the basis of no evidence whatsoever."
Italics are mine. In a murder investigation, trying to stop or tamper with the investigation IS considered basis for suspicion.
The person above apparently does not see this. Disagree with the conclusions, but the fact is the administration DID behave suspiciously by trying to prevent an investigation AND delaying it for 441days.
When was the last time you've heard of a murder INVESTIGATION (not trial) STARTING over a year after the murder was known? ;-/
So Sword, who do these quotes belong to and WHICH ONE IS IT--there is NO basis for suspicion OR Bush behaved suspiciously to hide his incompetence?
So Sword, who do these quotes belong to and WHICH ONE IS IT--there is NO basis for suspicion OR Bush behaved suspiciously to hide his incompetence?
Those were my quotes. Let me see if I follow your logic. According to you, anyone who is reluctant to be investigated is guilty of committing mass murder even if all the credible evidence points to someone else? Wow, you are really breaking new frontiers in evidentiary proof, Kernel.
Consdemo--perhaps you should focus on reading comprehension.
I did not say suspicion = guilt. But suspicious behavior during a murder investigation REQUIRES questioning of those behaviors by CIVIL authorities IMMEDIATELY after said behavior.
That did not happen. You're breaking new frontiers in guillibility by acting as if nothing is strange about the fact there has NEVER been a proper MURDER INVESTIGATION into the attacks of 911.
At the very least this administration is guilty of GROSS criminal negligence and should have been indicted or impeached years ago. Incompetent people are sacked, NOT excused.
Twit.
(I wasn't going to add anything rude, but since you seem to have no restraint, don't see why I should either. :-P )
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jenny - Are you opposed to having the "Truth" movements members investigated for possible (and quite likely) links to Al-Queada, Hamas, Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations?
Be advised, answering "NO" will be taken as an attempt by you to conceal terrorist involvement in the "truth" movement wich shall in turn be interpreted as an act of war against the US and its allies. Thus leaving you open to charges of treason and a possible death penalty.
You can invent any reason you want to justify your “suspicion” and you can also have all the “suspicions” you want, they don’t prove a damn thing. If that is the basis of your assertion that 9/11 was an “inside job”, you are really running out of gas.
there has NEVER been a proper MURDER INVESTIGATION into the attacks of 911.
Sorry, Ms. Fruitloops, 9/11 was an act of war not a shooting in front of the corner liquor store.
Incompetent people are sacked, NOT excused.
They are incompetent, but we also had something called an election a little over two years ago, and they won, so we are stuck with them for a little less than two more years or until there is an impeachable offense that can be proven. There may well be one, but you clowns certainly haven’t offered up anything.
I wasn't going to add anything rude...
I see you are easily rattled but whether you wag your tail or not, you are still an idiot.
I see you are easily rattled...
Whatever delusion makes you feel secure, love.
There, there, have some of Alex's warm milk...
Looks like you are running out of comebacks, Kernel.
Make an effort at originality, and I might too--sad person who doesn't understand you force incompetents in power to RESIGN--not put up with them for the rest of their term. ;-(
I'm starting to pity you--but you're still a prat.
Although the truth movement picks up advocates from all sides, I think it shouldn't be painted as a left-wing movement at all, because it just ISN'T!
Sorry to break the news to you, but the 911 truth is directly in the left wing camp. Sure there are a few on the right wing fringe who believe it, but in the left it is mainstream. It's biggest advocates are lefty Collage professors and students. It started on the left and mainly lives there.
I think the rank-and-file members are often leftists looking for another stick to beat Bush with - it's not uncommon during a time when a party's in opposition (look at the spread of anti-Clinton, anti-federal government conspiracies among the hard right in the 90s).
The crunch comes when they make the decision to either leave it behind or go deeper into the movement. If they choose the latter, they have to face people who think neo-Nazi newsletters are valid sources, extreme Christian fundamentalists like John Conner, classic militia-style paranoiacs like Alex Jones and Holocaust deniers galore. Either they drop out or they start onto that lonely band of the political spectrum where the far right and the far left seem to have the same hopes, fears and methods.
The relationship between people like Conner or Jones and people like an average far-left Twoofer is a Nazi-Soviet pact for the 21st century. And we know how well that one turned out.
9/11 was an act of war not a shooting in front of the corner liquor store.
What country attacked us?
Two, how do you win a war aganist a concept?
Three, thanks Jenny!
What country attacked us?
Every country that supports or shelters islamo-fascist terrorists.
Two, how do you win a war aganist a concept?
Kill the leaders of every organization based on that concept, forcibly disband said organization and ban it's members from positions of power.
Naziism was a powerful concept once. Not now, however.
Sucks to be you, don't it, Sieg Heiler?
What country attacked us?
Wars don't need to be amongst countries, otherwise the Iraq conflict couldn't be called a "war". Al Qaeda attacked us, the Taliban government of Afghanistan was giving them sanctuary.
Two, how do you win a war aganist a concept?
Radical Islam might not be defeatable, at least not in the traditional sense. We may ulitmately have to come to grips with some of its demands. However, I don't buy the delusional fantasy that it wasn't Radical Islam that perpetrated 9/11.
Two, how do you win a war aganist a concept?
How on earth does this support your viewpoint that Radical Islam isn't the enemy? Because something's difficult to fight against, it doesn't exist? The hell?
Post a Comment
<< Home