standard "9/11 truth" hit-piece on boing boing

[streeb]

the 911 Rather Serious Questions Movement

Hey! That's brilliant! Being that the term 9/11 Truth is so loaded down that you can't even launch a rational discussion of WHY it's so completely and utterly burdened with bad juju without causing a gag reflex, even as you're passionately distancing yourself from it. It's amazing how unapproachable 9/11 has become.

[MacCruiskeen]

Whenever the cant term "9/11 Truthers" gets wielded as a weapon, I just respond by calling the people who use it "9/11 Falsers". That has the virtue of being both fair and true (there's no getting away from that word), plus it nearly always makes them drop the weapon smartish.

Even when thus disarmed, those tireless Falsers are still well-armoured in smug stupidity, of course. But still, progress is progress, and they don't like it one little bit.


King Arthur (the Fair and the True) meets a 9/11 Falser (bloody but unbowed).

[Luposapien]

So what do all these smarmy lefty gate keeping windbags or their Fox News compatriots not get through their thick heads?

I don't think it's so much a matter of them not getting it, as it is a matter of it not being important to them. What's important to them is the continued inflation of their egos and public images.

[justdrew]

the 911 Rather Serious Questions Movement

Hey! That's brilliant! Being that the term 9/11 Truth is so loaded down that you can't even launch a rational discussion of WHY it's so completely and utterly burdened with bad juju without causing a gag reflex, even as you're passionately distancing yourself from it. It's amazing how unapproachable 9/11 has become.

feel free to spread far and wide, by all means

===

I kinda suspected that guy, whatshisname the 3rd = goldwag's own sock puppet. hard to believe the dude is going all 2003 in 2009 over it. but if not - it's remarkable how new people come into the issue fresh this late.

[8bitagent]

So what do all these smarmy lefty gate keeping windbags or their Fox News compatriots not get through their thick heads?

I don't think it's so much a matter of them not getting it, as it is a matter of it not being important to them. What's important to them is the continued inflation of their egos and public images.

Well didn't they notice that both their representatives in Washington both voted to pass the bankster bailouts?

While it's unfortunate to see Jeremey Scahill getting into tit for tat debates with truthers, very few left media wonks seem poised to aggressively expose the war machine under Obama.

[JackRiddler]

If as journalists or editors they're worth more than a bucket of warm spit in reporting truthfully and courageously on important present-day realities other than 9/11, or if as activist-organizers they're genuinely storming the Bastille on matters of stopping the war or exposing the deep state, then lay the fuck off, okay?

If we make that a rule, then an order of protection is hereby issued for, in order: Scahill, Klein, Goodman and Taibbi (for his bankster work, although in personality terms he is perhaps the most insufferable of the lot except Cockburn). This applies especially against incompetent attacks from midget "truthers," meaning the kind who willingly use that term to describe themselves, or who proudly defend themselves as "conspiracy theorists."

.

[MacCruiskeen]

If as journalists or editors they're worth more than a bucket of warm spit in reporting truthfully and courageously on important present-day realities other than 9/11, or if as activist-organizers they're genuinely storming the Bastille on matters of stopping the war or exposing the deep state, then lay the fuck off, okay?

If we make that a rule, then an order of protection is hereby issued for, in order: Scahill, Klein, Goodman and Taibbi (for his bankster work,

Jack, what does "lay the fuck off" mean, exactly? And "an order of protection"? Why rush in to protect bullies? So that they can carry on bullying with impunity?

I mean, the insufferable Taibbi himself chose to come out with that insufferable attack. It was not just as dumb as a pair of socks; it was smug, vicious, crowing, and very prominently published. Same applies to Cockburn's shameful screed, in spades.These are attacks. They are pieces of bullying supercilious fuckwittery deliberately intended to shut people up even when those people are making rational and important points.

Your latest in a long line of attempts to engage yet another of these supercilious fuckwits (A. Goldwag) politely, patiently and honestly as a "potential ally" (sic) was received... precisely how? And led precisely where? (These are rhetorical questions. We both know the very obvious answer.)

As for Naomi Klein, who is neither supercilious nor a fuckwit: Are you suggesting that the question she was asked by that old man was anything less than polite, rational and justified? And are you suggesting that everyone should just ignore the shocking feebleness and evasiveness of her reply (which was applauded enthusiastically by her adoring audience)? Or what?

We respond to arguments, not to people. It is always about the particular point at issue. But the fact that Naomi Klein is much nicer (and smarter) than Alexander Cockburn doesn't make her reply any better than it was. It doesn't mean that that feeble and evasive reply should be taken lying down.

How far does the "order of protection" go?


- Some points:

1. A real and important disagreement is a real and important disagreement. It cannot and should not be ignored.

2. Left unity cannot and must not entail craven submission to wilfully-ignorant careerist cowards or bullying supercilious fuckwits.

3. 9/11 is not going to go away. On the contrary. The relevance of that enabling act to the current dire state of the world is increasing rather than decreasing. Andreas Hauss has recently taken to appending this single line to many of his blog entries, whether 9/11-related or not: "Im übrigen wird sich die Linke mit 9/11 beschäftigen müssen." He's right. The left is going to have to face up to 9/11 sooner or later, whether it wants to or not. The scale of the damage it has already suffered by its refusal to do so is surely more than obvious.

That the cant term "conspiracy theory" (and the smirk that inevitably accompanies it) is still in common use on the left is a moral and intellectual disgrace. It's not just a permanent block on thought; it's an unshiftable obstacle to unity and therefore a severe hindrance to any kind of effective action.

Jamey Hecht, unanswerable (and therefore only ignorable):

THE TERM ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY’

This phrase is among the tireless workhorses of establishment discourse. Without it, disinformation would be much harder than it is. “Conspiracy theory” is a trigger phrase, saturated with intellectual contempt and deeply anti-intellectual resentment. It makes little sense on its own, and while it’s a priceless tool of propaganda, it is worse than useless as an explanatory category.

http://www.911inquiry.org/Presentations/JameyHecht.htm

4. If Taibbi or anyone else does good work on the banksters or anything else, then that good work should of course be recognised, praised, publicised and used. It doesn't alter the fact that the bad work he has done elsewhere re 9/11 damages the left and has to be opposed. No "order of protection" for trashtalkers and antithinkers on any topic! -- especially when they're issuing the kind of trashtalk and antithought that damages all of us because it's about something that matters.

5. A supercilious fuckwit is a supercilious fuckwit and fully deserves to be called it, especially when he repeatedly rejects attempts to engage him politely and rationally and instead carries on with the bullying. He's no ally of mine, whoever he is, neither potential nor actual.


PS No comment on Scahill or Goodman, because I don't know their work well enough to comment on it. If you're going to tell me they've been abused by people screaming "NWO shill!!!" (and worse) at them, then I hope it goes without saying that I oppose that as vehemently as I oppose the trashtalk and trashthought of Taibbi, Goldwag and Cockburn.

[JackRiddler]

.

MacC,

I think you're taking my post a touch too seriously. Or literally, anyway, as though I could issue an "order of protection" in anything other than an ironic, wishful way.

And you're still not acknowledging the damage a fuckwit like Barrett does when he demonizes and harrasses an Amy Goodman. It's not about "left unity," it's about focus.

I am sorry to see so much energy going into attacks on someone like Scahill, whose work on the deep state is indispensable and obviously hard-won. Presumably at some risk, he provides essential pieces to understanding the system and the kind of people that would produce a false-flag 9/11, even if he doesn't want to say it or understand it.

If he's a fuckwit about 9/11, ignoring that is the better course. We're back to this: where's the focus on the actual and known perpetrators of the cover-up, and the likely perpetrators of the act itself?

[MacCruiskeen]

.
I think you're taking my post a touch too seriously. Or literally, anyway, as though I could issue an "order of protection" in anything other than an ironic, wishful way.

Jack, of course I know it was half-joking! But of course I also knew it was only half-joking.

And you're still not acknowledging the damage a fuckwit like Barrett does when he demonizes and harrasses an Amy Goodman.

That's whataboutery. And in any case, I did acknowledge it. Of course I did. I said it was deeply stupid and counterproductive, as well as nasty. I don't know what else you want me to do about it. I'm a Brit in Central Europe. Should I send Barrett a stern letter and tell him to cut it out?

It's not about "left unity," it's about focus.

Well, that's a false dichotomy. The plain fact is that the focus is blurred because the nature and meaning of 9/11 (the enabling act for the resource wars & domestic repressions of the 21st century) is still being studiously ignored by the loudest and most respected voices in the already-enfeebled and marginalised opposition. Pointing that out is one way of retaining and promoting focus. Ignoring it has the opposite effect. QED, over and over again.

I am sorry to see so much energy going into attacks on someone like Scahill, whose work on the deep state is indispensable and obviously hard-won. Presumably at some risk, he provides essential pieces to understanding the system and the kind of people that would produce a false-flag 9/11, even if he doesn't want to say it or understand it.

See, now, I didn't even know Jeremy Scahill had been attacked, and I didn't know a lot of energy had gone into attacking him. I can only comment on what I know something about. (He has a very good piece on Blackwater in today's Guardian, but I don't know his work well. It's an omission I'll try to correct.) But if he talks crap about 9/11, then he has to be told he's talking crap about it, even if he's Nobel Prizeworthy on every other topic under the sun.

If he's a fuckwit about 9/11, ignoring that is the better course.

No, I don't think it's an option, Jack. Not a serious option. Ignoring fuckwittery about 9/11 or about anything else allows that fuckwittery to gain the upper hand. Inevitably. The end result would be articles saying things like "The left, though now reduced to 17 prominent salaried or freelance journalists, is at least encouragingly united in its opposition to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Though we can't stop any wars, we did at least succeed in stamping that nonsense out."

- Note that I'm not saying "Persecute Scahill! Harry him! DOG him! And then go for Taibbi!!" I'm saying that bad arguments by otherwise good writers are particularly worth opposing, and for a really obvious reason: because those good writers tend to be influential among allies, both potential and actual.

We're back to this: where's the focus on the actual and known perpetrators of the cover-up, and the likely perpetrators of the act itself?

The answer to that is obvious. The case was made long ago. You don't need a book-list from me, Jack. You don't need a thousand weblinks to a thousand articles by people (including you) who focused incessantly and exclusively and very productively on those perps, and often very bravely too -- only to be pissed on (or studiously ignored) by the likes of Taibbi and Cockburn and Goldwag. Those moral and intellectual giants. Those "potential allies". Fuck them.

It's as bad as it is. And I'll quote you again:

We're back to this: where's the focus on the actual and known perpetrators of the cover-up, and the likely perpetrators of the act itself?

You can find hundreds of examples of that ongoing focus recorded at, say, the website "9/11Blogger". Hundreds of videos of obscure and nameless people -- very often young kids, students in their teens or early 20s -- walking up to the likes of Zelikow and Kean at book-signings and lectures and other public appearances, and focusing on the fuckers, nearly always with remarkable politeness and self-control, even if their questions are sometimes less-than-perfectly chosen. But doggedly. You can find others carefully recording and analyzing how the Democratic-Republican Party continues to exploit 9/11 in the corporate media. You can find still others patiently writing endless FOIA requests, only to have them turned down, in whole or in part, months later. Last not least, you can find many more who just stand there day-in day-out in the rain and the sun, handing out leaflets.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Conscience of the planet -- the Taibbis and Cockburns and Goldwags of this world -- are pocketing the fees for their eloquently stupid hit-pieces and sniggering at those nameless, flustered, benighted and hopelessly vulgar proles, who are so foolishly entranced by "conspiracy theories".

I know who I regard as my allies.

[MacCruiskeen]

Sorry, I'm being longwinded. What it boils down to is that 9/11 is simply not ignorable. I know -- o Lord I know -- because I've tried. "OK, let's agree to ignore it." It never works for long. You can't talk about anything else of any political importance for very long before you come right up against the defining event of the 21st century. It affects everything, every single analysis of every single major geopolitical development, including (most certainly) the Obama regime and the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. There always comes that moment where you have to decide: Am I going to shut up about this or not? Am I going to smile and nod in agreement when somebody nice says: "Well, that would be getting into the realm of conspiracy theory, so I think we should move on..."

It infects everything. There's just no getting away from it.

[8bitagent]

The left is going to have to face up to 9/11 sooner or later, whether it wants to or not.

You know, I thought the same thing in 2004...2005...2006.

Then I realized the liberals in the US *NEED* the official 9/11 narrative to be true JUST as much as the right wing. In fact, often the left and right clowns fight like there's no tomorrow...but the minute anyone questions *any* aspect of 9/11, the left and right join hands in unison to attack the "evil conspiracy nuts"

And now that their savior Lord Obama is president, well it's doubtful if there's hardly any liberals who still question the "bin Laden did 9/11" propaganda.

When HuffingtonPost featured an article saying there is "absolutely no evidence" pointing to any alternative hypothesis of the official 9/11 story,
that ANY questioning of 9/11 is wrong...

I knew Huffpo, like CrooksandLiars/DailyKos/and every other "liberal"
blog news site was fully in the dark.

Can someone answer this?

Why do all the lefty blogs go apeshit over the torture stuff in regards to the alleged 9/11 masterminds at Guanatanamo Bay....YET they dont see how confessions and evidence based on months of brutal torture might be a bit of a problem?

Its like they want to discuss Bush era torture on al Qaeda suspects, yet dont see the irony of how they are supporting a government story almost entirely built over the very torture they claim to be against.

[8bitagent]

.
I am sorry to see so much energy going into attacks on someone like Scahill, whose work on the deep state is indispensable and obviously hard-won. Presumably at some risk, he provides essential pieces to understanding the system and the kind of people that would produce a false-flag 9/11, even if he doesn't want to say it or understand it.

Yeah I mean, who else has been on all the networks almost daily now
giving rapid fire facts on the horrors of the US war, PMCs, etc?
Scahill has balls the size of Rhode Island from where I'm sitting

.
If he's a fuckwit about 9/11, ignoring that is the better course. We're back to this: where's the focus on the actual and known perpetrators of the cover-up, and the likely perpetrators of the act itself?

Well the fact is most our left leaning heroes do not question 9/11, and that's something we have to live with...if they can't base the ultimate litmus test.

Even John Pilger, who I'd say is one of the biggest warriors against the elite agenda, believes pissed off Muslims did 9/11.

The "Blowback" theory is what everyone from anti war right wingers like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul to people like Scahill, Chomsky, Zinn, Pilger, etc believe.

Now ONCE in awhile a celebrity or liberal scholar when cornered by "truth activists" will say they are for a new investigation or that they question 9/11...

BUT when speaking or on the record, they ALWAYS ALWAYS stand by the "Muslims did it out of blowback" routine.
Even Naomi Klein, who wrote the book on Reichstagging(Shock Doctrine) is openly against 9/11 truthers and "conspiracy nuts".

Unfortunately, when we do have people openly speaking out on 9/11 like Alex Jones or Lou Dobbs....it comes with a HEAVY helping of "Mexicans are evil".

[MacCruiskeen]

Y'know, 8bit, your repetitious scattergun style very often gets on my nerves, sometimes very intensely indeed. But this hits the nail on the head:

Why do all the lefty blogs go apeshit over the torture stuff in regards to the alleged 9/11 masterminds at Guanatanamo Bay....YET they dont see how confessions and evidence based on months of brutal torture might be a bit of a problem?

Its like they want to discuss Bush era torture on al Qaeda suspects, yet dont see the irony of how they are supporting a government story almost entirely built over the very torture they claim to be against.

You're right about that. Simply right. Absolutely right. Their failure or refusal to look steadily and honestly at 9/11 cripples their analysis of everything that has followed. Literally everything. That's why it matters so much, even now, in 2009. That's why it's unignorable.

As to why:

1) Prominent left-or-liberal intellectuals who live by the pen worry about their reputations and their incomes, and not for no reason. For are they not human? Do they not need to eat? See the chapter entitled 'The Bounds of the Expressible" in Chomsky's Towards a New Cold War. (He should re-read it himself.)

2) Un-prominent left intellectuals (or non-intellectuals, or pseudo-intellectuals) who don't actually live by the pen still worry about being laughed at by fools in the pub or on the interwebs. Many of them aspire to live by the pen, or just to live, one way or another, eventually. And jobs are not getting any easier to come by, these days. Therefore, it's safer to take the safer option, even when chatting with your best pals on Facebook. (Especially then. You can never be too careful. Maybe a potential employer is watching.)

It's as simple as that. Chomsky has analysed it in detail, Marx has described it in even more detail, and Upton Sinclair summed it up in one short sentence about 70 years ago:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends upon his not understanding it.

Taibbi's and Cockburn's and Goldwag's jobs depend upon their not understanding it. That's why I don't see them as potential allies.

[thatsmystory]

The left is going to have to face up to 9/11 sooner or later, whether it wants to or not.

You know, I thought the same thing in 2004...2005...2006.

Then I realized the liberals in the US *NEED* the official 9/11 narrative to be true JUST as much as the right wing. In fact, often the left and right clowns fight like there's no tomorrow...but the minute anyone questions *any* aspect of 9/11, the left and right join hands in unison to attack the "evil conspiracy nuts"

And now that their savior Lord Obama is president, well it's doubtful if there's hardly any liberals who still question the "bin Laden did 9/11" propaganda.

When HuffingtonPost featured an article saying there is "absolutely no evidence" pointing to any alternative hypothesis of the official 9/11 story,
that ANY questioning of 9/11 is wrong...

I knew Huffpo, like CrooksandLiars/DailyKos/and every other "liberal"
blog news site was fully in the dark.

Can someone answer this?

Why do all the lefty blogs go apeshit over the torture stuff in regards to the alleged 9/11 masterminds at Guanatanamo Bay....YET they dont see how confessions and evidence based on months of brutal torture might be a bit of a problem?

Its like they want to discuss Bush era torture on al Qaeda suspects, yet dont see the irony of how they are supporting a government story almost entirely built over the very torture they claim to be against.

I do note that these people don't really talk about 9/11 itself. So one is left to read between the lines and guess. Or make "HEY GATEKEEPER, WHAT ABOUT BUILDING 7!" posters. Or accept the uncertainty.

Some credible journalists on the left appear to put stock in the overreaction theory. Thus, the powergrab was all in good faith. Unmentioned (or glossed over) are the contradictory details such as nobody being held accountable. One often sees the inclusive "we" used as a device. "We really went too far after 9/11." Sorry but we (the public) still don't know what happened. Perhaps the journalist wants to believe that his or her inside sources are so forthcoming with information that the reader now knows the full story. Sources like George Tenet.

How can one not link the use of torture to the very same CIA officials who withheld the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information for 20 months? I know people get so pissed at some 9/11 truthers that they want to give leftist journalists a break but at some point one must note that this is not good journalism. These are very intelligent people. They didn't miss these obvious links.

[JackRiddler]

.

bumping this thing because it's inevitable that more boilerplate hit-pieces are coming in the next few days, and that people will want to discuss them on this board. So let's consolidate in this thread, if you agree.

Cockburn, on cue, very boring, very stupid, nothing new:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/ ... ese-years/

Remember: Same Cockburn who publishes Paul Craig Roberts, the Christisons, and other full-blown Pentagon hole worshippers and/or demolitions believers.

Same Cockburn who ignores the large body of evidence of US agency foreplanning, foreknowledge and facilitation of the attacks, who has never mentioned Almidhar or Shaeffer or Blee or Edmonds or Paul Thompson or anything of the like, but who went on DN to enthusiastically promote Christopher Ketcham's re-warming of the much thinner evidence that the Israeli spy ring was somehow involved.

.