My Response to Kevin Barrett
I was rather amused as to how Kevin Barrett quoted me (without identification of course) in his rant about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that Pat cited below.
The traitor doth protest too much! Anybody with the faintest understanding of psychology can see that these lines are intended to PREVENT truth-seekers from supporting KSM's obvious and demonstrable innocence, by ridiculing the idea in a manner designed to play on truther insecurities and foster inaction. Anybody who thinks that this anti-truth propagandist really wants us to join Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in a free KSM movement, and thus impede the sanctifying of the 9/11 big lie in the history books, is of questionable intentions and/or intelligence.
I posted the following response to his statement, although I do not know whether he will post it, since in typical truther fashion, he does not have open comments.
A salam alikom Kev. Sorry to disappoint you, but that quote you cited of mine, was not part of some reverse psychology secret gambit, it was my actual opinion. Sorry, it is not that complicated and nefarious. I am simply not that clever. As I have argued for years, I find the disingenuous nature of the self-styled ”9/11 truth movement” to be rather bizarre. I obviously don’t believe the US government carried out the 9/11 attacks, but if I did, I would be raising bloody hell over the issue. I and my comrades would be out in the streets. To the contrary, the vast majority of this movement seems to treat this matter with all the seriousness of a minor policy disagreement like the health insurance debate, content with an occasional post on a forum or the ubiquitous YouTube videos. This actually somewhat understates the matter, in that the recent healthcare debate has resulted in hundreds of angry protests involving tens of thousands of people, as opposed to the events of the truth movement, who have trouble breaking into the double digits in attendance with bored advocates rambling incoherently about put options.
Now Mr. Barrett, I would have to except from this comment. He actually seems to behave the way most people should behave if they actually seriously believed this stuff. Now I still think he is a complete
nutcase, but at least he is an honest nutcase who stands by what he believes. Jon Gold seems somewhat saner, although this is a rather low bar to clear, but he rather cowardly refuses to take a stand on virtually anything, taking this whole “just asking questions” game to an extreme in a movement hardly noted for its courage in the first place. I find the accusation that Gold is somehow working for us to be hilarious, especially given the outright scorn I have treated him with for years. But hey, I guess in a world where you believe even hobbyist blogger software engineers from Seattle are covert CIA operatives, anything is possible.
So to summarize, yes, I really do feel that if the “truth movement” really believes in what it says it believes, it should publically defend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Anything else would be hypocritical.
You guys have been demanding an investigation and a public forum for years, insisting that the truth should come out in the courts. Now that there will be a public court hearing, filled with scores of top-notch Ivy League educated lawyers on both sides, retreating from backing up your public statements because somebody might call you names would be pathetic. Not that such a response would be much of a surprise from this movement.