IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Alexander Cockburn/counterpunch Article On Infoshop, "The 9/11 Conspiracists: Vindicated After All These Years?" N

evanlong
post Sep 4 2011, 12:53 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



Some of you may know me for my Columbine videos, but before those, I was deeply into 9/11 research and activism. (That is actually what brought me to question all large-scale spectacles of terror, including Columbine.) Yesterday, I was reading Infoshop.org's news feed, Infoshop being a site I generally enjoy, and saw a repost of a recent anti-9/11 skeptics article by Alexander Cockburn. (Boo, hiss.) I haven't written much about 9/11 for some time, but I wanted to share my thoughts on this as I gave it to Infoshop. I have long lamented the split in the left over 9/11 being or not being an inside job, and it still bothers me considerably as the issue has so much power, much of which has now been squandered.

The article, itself, is ridiculous, so I am focusing more on the comments by regular users. The URL is here: http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20110902174852545


Comment #1, from a user named "Community Control":

"Ever since I began hearing about the "truthers" post 9/11, I have always had this nagging felling that they are the victims of a covert operation themselves.

In the hours and immmediate few days following the 9/11 attacks, people naturally asked WHY? the attacks had occurred. Noam Chomsky's books shot to #1, US foreign policy was being more openly questioned and explored than ever before in the MSM, etc...

All that potentially positive discussion and movement was undermined the day these god dam conspiracy theories came out of nowhere and wer blasted around the internet with fervor.

All legitimate questions about US policy and WHY THEY HATE US was replaced with "These bad apples, Bush/Cheney/Mossad/etc..., they did it!" That idea about the cause of 9/11 is one that steers people away from a questioning of our overall system on an institutional level to accusing bad individuals of being responsible. So if there is any conspiracy surrounding 9/11, I would make a bet that it was one to popularize conspiracy theories to give easy answers to those tempted to look into US foreign policy and institutional responsibility for 9/11. And sadly, an American public constantly trained to blame bad people ("thieves!" etc..) instead of institutional structures that produce certain outcomes (POVERTY) was all too ready to eat it up.

A nation of morons."



My reply:

"There is a far-right strain of 9/11 skepticism which stays on the surface, looks for tough-guy answers, and does not evaluate social context, but that is simply the nature of the far right. Perhaps, we could even speculate that leadership in this area this may have been the COINTELPRO answer to the legitimate portions of 9/11 skepticism, supported by those who are skeptical, but are coming to the discussion with very little background in geopolitics, and don't know where to turn.

Personally, I became quite involved with 9/11 research, having decided that the evidence for the official version simply is not there, and quite to the contrary of your assertion that I (like all 9/11 skeptics, of course) was blaming it all on Bush and Cheney or some variation thereof (sheer nonsense, most 9/11 researchers would tell you), I soon found myself staring at an enormous web of CIA front companies, continuity of government operation blueprints and fascist political agendas stretching back decades. More than anything else, for me, it was this that opened my eyes to the need to organize."


I received no reply, but another commenter, Bill Not Bored, offered the following:

"'The police conception of history' was, in the nineteenth century, a reactionary and ridiculous explanation, at a time when so many powerful social movements agitated the masses. Today's pseudo-opponents are well aware of this, thanks to hearsay or some books, and believe that this conclusion remains true for eternity; they never want to see the real praxis of their time; because it is too sad for their cold hopes. The State isn't ignorant of this, and plays on it."

Guy Debord, Commentairies on the Society of the Spectacle (1988), my translation from the French."



I asked for clarification on what he meant, and received no reply, so I simply wrote the following, which contains a fairly detailed description of how I see the problem:

If, by invoking this bit about the "police conception of history," you are suggesting that those suspecting that all might not be what it seems with the official version of 9/11 are being overly skeptical and necessarily reactionary, I suggest to you that there's a great deal of difference between thinking that every misstruck nail is sabotage and thinking that the unproven and unsourced assertions of the U. S. government are not enough to go on, especially when the shoring up of the potentially crumbling U. S. empire and launching a new round of world domination are at stake. (If that's not what you meant, again, please elaborate.) Taking the Infoshop banner quotation to heart that "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth," I ask, why unthinkingly respect the official version by forwarding it on unquestioned? It's been delivered to us by the same corrupt agencies, the same corrupt structures which have lied over and over and over again about everything under the sun to preserve inequality in America, infiltrated peaceful social movements with the intent of setting them up for violence, framed activists, etc., yet on 9/11, they told the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth?

For three years after 9/11, I, myself, did not question the official version. I believed it was probably blowback for all of the U. S.'s oppressive actions in other countries rather than the truly idiotic reasons presented by the Bush administration ("they hate us for our freedoms"), I demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq, and I read antiwar media regularly. I didn't have any ideological objection to doing otherwise; I was just less versed in history at that point, and it simply didn't occur to me to think about it as a directly manufactured event.

In 2004, still two years before that view went mainstream, contrary to the assertion of "Community Control" (interesting name...) that these "god dam" (sic) 9/11 researchers were cropping up everywhere, I came across a notice of a 9/11 anniversary video event being hosted by the local Green Party and decided to attend. They showed a piece about how the damage at the Pentagon on 9/11 was highly suspect, how strange it was that not one but several planes were able to fly around off-course for up to an hour in U. S. airspace, when normally, they are intercepted in mere minutes, how the jet fuel (kerosene) fires at the WTC were quite small, yet resulted in highly explosive reactions which ejected particles hundreds of feet away from the buildings, and literally pulverized the entire structure and contents of the buildings into a fine, fine dust (minus the support beams, many of which had been neatly cut along straight lines), etc., to say nothing of the collapse of Building Seven, which I had never up seen up close before; in fact, I had never seen most of this up close before. I was absolutely floored, and spent the entire next year trying to get my head around these facts; they made me want to rethink everything I thought I knew about world affairs. Were things really that bad, the depravity that bottomless? Apparently so.

To my great surprise, I found that much of the left was vehemently opposed to hearing this out, and, to this day, I still don't understand it. I am firmly on the left when it comes to economic policy and strongly civil libertarian, so I have a lot of common ground with a site like this, yet there is a ban on "conspiracy theory," to include 9/11 skepticism, in the forums. Do you know how many people, how many potential allies that shuts out? The 9/11 skeptics' movement sure does, and they talk about it quite a bit. To take another example, of course JFK wasn't an anarchist-communist, etc., but do you still think it's appropriate to completely brush off the overwhelming evidence and narrative that the CIA et al were up to their necks in that, a narrative that has the potential to take the only vaguely left-leaning deep into the nightmare underbelly of the hidden State and radicalize them against it? And, to go a step further, what if the popular definition of "conspiracy theory" was expanded to discredit the basis for class struggle, since there certainly couldn't exist any sort of organized effort (a "conspiracy") to repress labor, could there?

With only a very few exceptions, the left truly failed to seize the 9/11 issue and surround it with the proper historical context, and Noam "Who-cares-who-shot-JFK-it-was-probably-Lee-Oswald" Chomsky certainly isn't one of them. When this was not done, the voices which cried that it was all the fault of the fill-in-the-blank scapegoat were overly represented -- still few, but more than the merely trace amounts they could have been -- and this contributed to the fodder for the creation of the early Tea Party. We're facing enormous class defeat, and Infoshop and similar sites couldn't find a single way to build and strengthen the left with this, but prefer to post articles like the above instead? It seems to me there is far too little criticial thinking around this topic here, as well as a frightening lack of political realism."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 4 2011, 01:43 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



you raise an issue that has always interested me. and over time, as i study journalism, i have come to the conclusion that purported spokespersons for the progressive left are "false flags"[i.e., state-operated agitpropsters].

without going into extensive detail, suffice it to say that alexander cockburn has always uttered vituperative words about all who question the conclusions of the warren commission. and he has waged a similar war upon all those who question the official conspiracy theory concerning the events of 11 september 2011. The Nation magazine, one of the official journals of the U S left, advances a similar catechism. as did/does The Progressive magazine.

i have found this to be profoundly chilling since these journals and their editors are considered gatekeepers of the U S left. one of the most bizarre aspects of these individuals, periodicals is how obvious it is that they have closed their minds to any information that may alter their perception.

oddly, these individuals and journals also seem to have taken a similar position concerning vote fraud implemented by electronic vote tabulation. as well as the matter of sibel edmonds.

i am sure any diligent examiner can enumerate similar squints.

eventually, i concluded that these gatekeepers of the "left" are crypto-fascists. who hope one day that they will be running the central government and would like to have the power that the central government has amassed. i think that there is no other explanation for how and why the democrat party ignored the copious evidence of vote fraud in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. simply, they did not want to put an end to those illegal acts since they hoped to be able to employ them.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 4 2011, 04:44 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 4 2011, 01:43 PM) *
eventually, i concluded that these gatekeepers of the "left" are crypto-fascists. who hope one day that they will be running the central government and would like to have the power that the central government has amassed. i think that there is no other explanation for how and why the democrat party ignored the copious evidence of vote fraud in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. simply, they did not want to put an end to those illegal acts since they hoped to be able to employ them.


My last post, the long one, was deleted. I really wanted some discussion around the points I raised, not just about the evidence of an inside job itself, or even that at all, but of the bigger picture, and how refusing to discuss this issue has created big divisions within the left. I'm really sickened by this. I had hoped we might have moved a little further along since 9/11 skepticism first made big waves in 2006.

I think you are right about the crypto-fascism. Infoshop is supposedly an anarchist site, but this is certainly a pretty narrow path they've laid out.

My closing comment there:

"I am truly shocked. I posted a well argued and very civil critique, and it was deleted. No need to counter the icky points I raised, then, I suppose? You can call it "nonsense" and "sloppy thinking" all day long, but you can't seem to be able to reply to the content of my message, to say nothing of the political implications of this action, which I discussed in the post which has now been deleted. What exactly is so threatening about what I posted that you can't even allow it to be read by your site's visitors? Like I wrote, this kind of deletion is really divisive and pushes out a lot of potential allies, or isn't movement building what you're going for?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 4 2011, 06:28 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



I wound up making another post in reply to yet another unsupportive commenter, but it was mostly a restatement of previously shared ideas (some deleted).

My surprise is not so much that Cockburn would be printing these views -- I am familiar with some of his past work on the subject -- but that people would still be buying into and promoting them, with all of the time gone by and all of the discussion around this.

Discussion, that is, where it's allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 5 2011, 10:35 AM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,886
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



A good thread Evan.

I have been reading CounterPunch regularly for quite a few years now. Ray McGovern and Paul Craig Roberts at that location give it credibility.

The various Cockburns usually make good contributions.

But Albert is right about Alexander Cockburn--there is something strange about his view on 911.

It is possible that he is in the employ of certain sinister individuals or groups, but I'm not sure about that.

It could be that his views on the matter really do reflect the Cognitive Dissonance that afflicts so many humans. It could be that the defense mechanisms within his psyche are so powerful that his intellect cannot overcome them. My brother is that way. I really think that some folks simply cannot help themselves from irrational behavior.

I noticed the other day that Cockburn's headline was something to the effect that "have 911 truthers been vindicated?" I read the entire article to see if he answered his rhetorical question, and he did NOT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 5 2011, 02:12 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



Personally, I feel that the evidence in support of false flag/deep state action, not only on 9/11, but on many similarly packaged events, is overwhelming and very difficult to discount. However, if someone doesn't want to look at it or isn't convinced, that's fine. It would be absurd to try to force this to happen, and in my personal experiences with sharing this information, very few fiercely object. Furthermore, I don't think it's necessary that everyone be active on this issue to consciously collaborate to constructive social ends in other areas.

My problem is that people like Cockburn and those who feel compelled to repost his material won't just let us do our thing in our area and work with us peacefully elsewhere; they cannot agree to disagree, and promoting an "inside job" line in their presence necessarily is grounds for suppression and blacklisting, which obviously creates real barriers to organizing, and the bottom line: working to increase equality and democracy (assuming we can agree that this is generally the definition of social progress, away from tyranny -- more in a moment). Then again, these apparent allies may not be as friendly as they make themselves out to be (Albert Champion's crypto-fascist hypothesis), or just may have their heads so far into this ideological or theoretical framework or that to be open to any additional possibiliies. In any case, it's this push for division over the 9/11 issue and of "conspiracy" generally that concerns me.

Historically, there is this general embrace of a kind of "conspiracy theory" by the right, as with the fascist movements in western Europe in the early 20th century; be it a Masonic conspiracy, a Jewish conspiracy, a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, etc., someone was out to undermine the glorious traditional States and replace them with Bolshevik tyranny. (There are strong echoes of this in the paleo-conservative politics of the Pauls, the John Birchers and their supporters.) However, is this lean to the right part of the nature of the fundamental nature of the "conspiratorial" view of history, as so many contend? That is, is every sort of conspiracy necessarily the work of Communists, and is every accuser of conspiracy a closet Nazi?

I say no; there is nothing fundamentally incompatible with leftist thought in the notion that a small class of oligarchs could arrange hidden resources of the deep state for public manipulation in any direction, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. So, why this absurd prejudice from the leaders of the left, like Chomsky and others?

A common argument is that placing emphasis on "individuals" rather than "systems" (see comment by "Community Control" above) is not only not useful, but counterproductive to the larger work at hand. Certainly, though, these systems of oppression such as we are discussing, which ought to be studied in detail, are not self-creating, but are created by the power elite, visible and hidden. They benefit from it, and they may create upgrades to it as times change. In other words, it is a feedback cycle containing at least these two essential elements, one incapable of existing without the other, a conspiracy of the inanimate mechanisms of repression and those who wish to animate and defend them.

What this seems to boil down to is a desperate desire to avoid having the masses investigate "conspiracy," manipulated events, etc. I believe that this sort of analysis may be *the* key to removing the veil between heaven and earth to reveal the Olympian oligarchs, with the eventual goal of reducing their power to the same as that of anyone else.

This post has been edited by evanlong: Sep 5 2011, 02:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 5 2011, 04:30 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,529
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Excellent thread Evan.

IMHO, the entire true history of the late 19th and entire 20th century needs to be exposed and the role of the "power elite" displayed in every vein of the wars and events that moulded our societies, while these people grew more powerful and "untouchable".

I think the major downfall of "9/11 Truth" is that people (including myself) wade in without first looking back at how it got to the point where tptb were so confident that they would get away with what turned out to be a blatant shoddy false flag operation. Many aren't aware of just how far down the pecking order the Joe Bloggs like you and me actually are. That we are merely pawns in their game.

They had to have the mainstream "dissenting voices" in their pockets, controlled opposition and/or a scenario where they felt that the public were so "dumbed down"/conditioned after 120 years of propaganda and lies that even the mention of the word "conspiracy" raises an automatic guard.

Barrie Zwicker best summed it up (for me) here:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomsky...rt04oct07.shtml

QUOTE (Evanlong)
I ask, why unthinkingly respect the official version by forwarding it on unquestioned? It's been delivered to us by the same corrupt agencies, the same corrupt structures which have lied over and over and over again about everything under the sun to preserve inequality in America, infiltrated peaceful social movements with the intent of setting them up for violence, framed activists, etc., yet on 9/11, they told the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth?


Exactly.

I found two videos linked to at this thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21570

They show the history of media manipulation and degrees of mind control throughout the 20th century. Funny thing is, Naom Chomsky makes contributions and is very articulate (there may be other "leftists" in the video that I'm not familiar with), yet on the JFK ad 9/11 question, he is entirely dismissive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 5 2011, 09:21 PM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



let me add that i may have been one of the earliest subscribers to counterpunch. and why did i select that journal? because it revealed the existence of conspiracies operating within the us government. and conspiracies intended to injure the u.s. populace . in a very real sense, that was the focus of the journal.

but, when it came to the events of 11/09/2011, cockburn determined that anyone who disagreed with the oct was a "conspiracy theorist" in a pejorative sense. what i found most interesting/disturbing was that he accepted virtually the entirety of the official conspiracy theory without questioning. it did not bother him that the sites were not secured as crime scenes. it did not bother him that probative evidence was removed and buried or destroyed. it did not seem to bother him that the only investigation was conducted way after the fact and only because of the efforts of the jersey girls - without them, even the lame nist exam would not have been conducted. it did not seem to bother him that christy whitman and the epa lied their asses off in their telling the public that the air in lower manhattan was safe to breath.

another disturbing aspect of cockburn was what i consider his deliberate ignoring of the work of daniel hopsicker into the history of atta and shehi in florida. as i have done for this site, i contributed funds to daniel. and there is no question in my mind that daniel hopsicker has uncovered parts of the realities of atta, shehi that no one else seems to want to deal with - not even the investigative journal known as counterpunch.

now, i have some bona fides as a kind of philanthropist when it comes to investigative journalism. i used to support bob parry's IF and his consortium news. covert information information bulletin which morphed before its demise into covert action quarterly. and it short-lived sister periodical, LOOT[LIES OF OUR TIMES], which concentrated on how the nyt molded the news. robin ramsey's LOBSTER, which focused on MI5, MI6 and the uk media. and another decedent, INDEX ON CENSORSHIP.

with the exception of daniel hopsicker, i have found that all these entities still extant, decided to swallow the oct hook, line and sinker. and with very little exception, have refused to contest the attendant erasure of u.s. constitutional safeguards. this informs me that at heart the individuals running these still extant journals are "statists". or as i said, crypto-fascists.

but there is another thought. that they are usg-controlled entities. or that they are virulently anti-muslim. or that they are of a zionist persuasion. i mean to say, examine the bulk of the stories published by cockburn in counterpunch over its lifetime. notice that there are at least two stories that he exempts from any close scrutiny that would invalidate the official conspiracy theories promoted by the state. the jfk hit and the events of 11/09/2011. i find that noteworthy.

don't you?

here is another journalist that would appear to have dived into the ooze. christopher hitchens. read his writings up until 11/09/2011. but after that date, those events, hitchens decides to become an apologist for the usg and the gwot. all of sudden his former focus on anti-statist investigative journalism is replaced by anti-muslim boostering.

what would a journalist[sic] do for a tax-free contribution, do you think? do you think that they would sell out for a little bit of exempted payola? based on a previous part of my life, i sure do. i knew very few journalists with any integrity.

and those that had it, what happened to them? sy hersh, syd schanberg, bob parry, ray bonner.

eventually, the state pressured their employers to discharge them. because they told the truth.

as george seldes said a long time ago, tell the truth and run. and look for something else to do.

look what happened to norm finkelstein for his examinations into the apartheid state of israel, for its promotion of the falsehoods of the holocaust.

look what happend to ilan pappe for his examinations into the origins of the state of israel.

in closing, think about noam chomsky and his employer. MIT. a branch of the pentagram. noam says that he has never been censored "officially" while at MIT. perhaps that was the truth. but i would suggest that something changed in noam after 11/09/2011. he doesn't want to question those oct histories any more than does alex cockburn.








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 5 2011, 10:23 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



I do enjoy the Zwicker material. Quoting Chomsky, "["Conspiracy theory" is] something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on."

Below is a video of Chomsky discussing 9/11 and the JFK assassination. The tone of the whole thing is quite infuriating to me. He literally says "Who cares" who shot JFK, as if there is no possible value in discerning this information. If the goal is to uproot existing systems of oppression, does it not follow that a system with enough power to get away with this level of crime must be scrutinized from top to bottom?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo

QUOTE
notice that there are at least two stories that he exempts from any close scrutiny that would invalidate the official conspiracy theories promoted by the state. the jfk hit and the events of 11/09/2011. i find that noteworthy. don't you?


Yes, they are two of the most significant political events of the last fifty years, and each will lead you straight into the heart of the Deep State.

QUOTE
here is another journalist that would appear to have dived into the ooze. christopher hitchens. read his writings up until 11/09/2011. but after that date, those events, hitchens decides to become an apologist for the usg and the gwot. all of sudden his former focus on anti-statist investigative journalism is replaced by anti-muslim boostering.


Could he be a Trojan Horse? I'm not familiar with his writings from any period, so I cannot comment further.

QUOTE
i knew very few journalists with any integrity.


That says a lot. Chomsky's spot-on in so many areas, but what's his motivation for any of it? His behavior here is very suspicious. The only thing I can say in his favor is that the following video was released late last year. It's too little, too late, at best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzNhAo1zBD4

Ultimately, I want to move to answers in this area. I want to know what the hold-up is, in detail. If they have simply fallen for the lie, as I see it, I think that's terrible. If it's something else, it's terrible in a different way.

Do we have a list of the problem personalities? I know there was some work done around foundation funding a while back. I'm not totally convinced that this is the sole factor, but I want to look at it more in depth. It seems to me generally that the "New Left" of the 60's may have been the beginning of things spinning way out of control, and there may be some connection here to what I perceive as the loss of focus caused by that.

This post has been edited by evanlong: Sep 5 2011, 10:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 5 2011, 11:19 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i think you may be new to this site. and have never seen my essays on the tfx, f111 procurement in the early days of the jfk regime, then the lbj regime.

i think that if you had read those little essays, you would know that my proposition is that the media is controlled by the state.

it might sound outrageous, but i have long thought that there were secret govt media controlling agencies in the western countries that functioned as we imagine stalin and/or mao controlled their populations' access to information.

the state control of information goes back to the early days of the usa, of course. john adams and his sedition acts. and the citizenry has never thought to overturn the hidden monarchy that is the usg.

over the last decade, for me, the most indelible proof of that governmental control was the story floated that saddam was acquiring uranium yellowcake from niger so as to manufacture nuclear weapons. that was a story so full of fraud that i could not stop my head from spinning at the idea that it was floated without denunciation by the us media.

if you had been tuning into certain blogs, eschaton for instance, you could have read my ripping of this imposter of a story and the us media that allowed its flotation.

oddly, i seem to have been one of the only persons in the usa with knowledge of nuclear realities. the us media and many blogspots allowed this fraud to have enough legs that the us citizenry believed the lie.

at some point, i was advised that there was a canadian journalist saying what i was saying. an eric margolis. writing for the toronto star.

no one in the us media picked up on the margolis stories as i recall. with the domination of canadian politics by the fascist canadian right, margolis was discharged.

as seldes said, tell the truth and run. and find another job. beyond journalism.

as i recall, i offered margolis a job. just as i offered norm finkelstein a job. but with their background, the jobs i offered may have been thought to be beneath them. they would have paid them well, but they would have had to abandon their pasts for some time[perhaps forever].

i quit reading counterpunch at some point after the events of 11/09/2011. but you may have continued to read it. tell me, how did cockburn deal with the fraud that was yellowcake from niger and saddam's nuclear weapons program?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 6 2011, 10:11 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 5 2011, 11:19 PM) *
it might sound outrageous, but i have long thought that there were secret govt media controlling agencies in the western countries that functioned as we imagine stalin and/or mao controlled their populations' access to information.


No, it's not that outrageous. The heads of most major media have some kind of ties to psywar departments or similar, and we have little idea who runs most of the blogs.

QUOTE
i quit reading counterpunch at some point after the events of 11/09/2011. but you may have continued to read it.


I never really read it in the first place. The only other thing that stands out in my mind was this piece about Ted "UNABOM" Kaczynski's run-ins with CIA spychiatrists under MKULTRA at Harvard, but that's a bit OT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 7 2011, 12:10 AM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



since you say you never read stories from cockburn's counterpunch, just so that you will get the flavor, here is a story that wayne madsen aired on his site today.

September 6-7, 2011 -- Operation Jaded Task story seen as "canard" by US embassy in Santo Domingo
publication date: Sep 5, 2011
Download Print Send a summary of this page to someone via email.
Previous | Next


September 6-7, 2011 -- Operation Jaded Task story seen as "canard" by US embassy in Santo Domingo

In 2004, this editor was informed that the February 2004 coup d'etat launched against democratically-elected Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was carried out after the United States military and intelligence agents provided weapons and training to the Haitian coup plotters from the neighboring Dominican Republic. The operation, ostensibly to train and equip Dominican military forces, was code-named Operation JADED TASK.

The information gathered from confidential sources on JADED TASK was passed to former Representative Cynthia Mckinney, who wrote in CounterPunch on March 19, 2004, the following: ". . . . according to this same source, some of the Dominican troops and Spanish and English-speaking paramilitaries trained by the U.S. during last year’s Operation Jaded Task in the Dominican Republic were fighting alongside Haitian rebels in the north and on the southern coast of Haiti. We are told further that Haitian government authorities intercepted vans carrying new M-16s across the border from the Dominican Republic. According to the report I have received, Haitian authorities began intercepting vans carrying the weapons from the Dominican Republic beginning last year, and shortly after the U.S. military delivered 20,000 M-16s to the Dominican Army."

This editor’s later book, “Jaded Tasks: Brass Plates, Black Ops & Big Oil.” is named for the covert Pentagon and CIA operation that removed Aristide in 2004. Later, Aristide was presented a signed copy of the book in South Africa with a note that states I hope he is rightfully restored to the presidency in Haiti. Earlier this year, Aristide's forced exile ended, much to the chagrin of the Obama administration, and he returned to Haiti.

Two recent U.S. State Department cables, the first sent from the U.S. embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic on March 2, 2004 and the second dated March 6, 2004, titled "Canard" and "Canard II," respectively, show how the U.S. embassy in Santo Domingo and the State Department overseer for the coup, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega, attempted to cover up the U.S. role in the coup against Aristide. The reference in "Canard" to a story in The Boston Globe was based on information on Jaded Task provided by this editor to the Globe's reporting staff.

UNCLAS SANTO DOMINGO 001361 SIPDIS

DEPT FOR TF1 - HAITI AND FOR WHA/CAR, WHA/PA, INL, PA; SOUTHCOM FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS

E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV HA DR

SUBJECT: CANARD; ALLEGED TRAINING OF HAITI INSURGENTS IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

¶1. Embassy advises that Boston Globe reporter Bryan Bender (e-mail bender@globe.com, tels 202-857-5060, cell 202-369-6856) drafted on February 29 a text based on allegations of unidentified sources (including one "Haitian official") that Haitian insurgents received training and weapons from U.S. Southcom/Special Forces training teams in Santo Domingo in 2003 during the Operation Jaded Task. Some were supposedly "under cover" of building hospitals and clinics. Allegation is that U.S. military shortly afterwards delivered 20,000 M-16s to the Dominican army and some were smuggled across to Haiti.

¶2. We understand that an intel agency referred this story to Southern Command public affairs for reply.

¶3. This story is close to 100 percent false. For the record and after checking within the Embassy, we note: - - Operation "Jaded Task" was scheduled for March 2003. This special forces training exercise is carried out every other year in a partner country in the hemisphere. The 2003 exercise was scheduled for Peru but when Peruvian authorities were unable to host, venue was changed to the Dominican Republic. Though some initial survey work was done, in fact the exercise did not repeat not take place. - - Two clinics and two schools were in fact repaired or built in May 2003 by Seabees on exercises in operation "New Horizons." - - Under the U.S. program for Foreign Military Financing (FMF), the U.S. has arranged to provide the Dominican military with 20,000 reconditioned M-16 A1 rifles, previously used by the U.S. National Guard. None of these -- repeat none -- has yet been delivered. - - The United States military has not at any time provided military training in the Dominican Republic for Haitians or for private contractor paramilitaries. - - It is true that in early 2003 Foreign Minister Tolentino Dipp asked the Embassy for details about planned military training, and the Embassy furnished this information. This occurred in the context of unfounded press reports alleging that U.S. forces would number in the thousands and that they would be engaged in tasks other than training.

KUBISKE

UNCLAS SANTO DOMINGO 001515 SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

DEPT FOR HAITI TASK FORCE, WHA/CAR E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: MARR PGOV HA DR

SUBJECT: CANARD II: DOMINICAN RIFLES FOR HAITI

¶1. Secretary of the Armed Forces Soto Jimenez told the press on March 5 that the Dominican Republic has received no rpt no arms from the USG and commented that the figure of 3,500 weapons used in questions to WHA Assistant Secretary Roger Noriega might correspond to annual licensed imports of arms (of all types) for sale by registered gun shops in the country. These are not military weapons; they are pistols, revolvers, hunting rifles and shotguns (never rifles) for use by private security services. Import permits are issued by the military, are monitored by the military and are stored in military facilities until released to the authorized dealer. He said that recent Dominican military purchases of weapons have been limited to Galil rifles (Israel) and P-90 rifles (Belgium) for use by Dominican special forces and none were unaccounted for.

¶2. Embassy records confirm that the USG has not furnished any weapons to the Dominican government since 1991 (that case was for 1500 pistols). A current Foreign Military Financing (FMF) case will provide 20,000 refurbished M-16 1A rifles but none repeat none has yet been delivered; the first shipment of 2,300 units is being assembled in the U.S.

¶3. As for the weaponry used in Haiti, merchants conversant with trade on both sides of the border told Embassy members that Guy Philippe and his crew moved through 5 provinces in 2 days with little or no opposition and in small numbers. It is reported that two or three team members would arrive in a town with bullhorns, announce the impending arrival to bring out the population, and then Philippe would appear in the company of about a dozen men. We understand that the arms used on this movement and in the capture of Gonaives were largely shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols.

¶4. Rumor indicates that many of Haiti's illicit weapons, especially the more sophisticated ones, enter through narcotics trafficking circuits from South or Central America.

HERTELL

----

It is noteworthy that Noriega states in "Canard II" that the U.S. provided "pistols, revolvers, hunting rifles and shotguns" to private security services, not the Dominican Army, and in the same cable, the embassy in Santo Domingo states that Haitian rebel leader Guy Philippe used "shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols" in his assault on Gonaives, Haiti.

"Canard II" also states that Haiti's illegal weapons "enter through narcotics trafficking circuits from South or Central America." Noriega had a lot of experience in such matters. During the illegal Nicaraguan Contra wars of the 1980s, Noriega worked for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which assisted in the CIA operations that saw the Contras' arms being paid for from proceeds from cocaine trafficked from Colombia and Panama. Another Noriega, former Panamanian president Manuel Noriega, no relation to Roger, was well aware of these operations. Manuel Noriega's knowledge is why he is being kept in a French prison, courtesy of a deal worked out between the Obama White House and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Noriega was sent to a French prison after his release from a U.S. prison after serving his sentence for drug trafficking.

Canard states that am "intelligence agency" referred the story about Jaded Task to the US Southern Command in Miami for a reply. It is obvious that the CIA was engaged in damage control with the story about Jaded Task and the provision of U.S. weapons in the Dominican Republic to the Haitian rebels.

Canard and Canard II are lame attempts by the U.S. State Department to cover up a major scandal involving the overthrow by the Bush administration of a democratic government. Aristide confirmed the role of Jaded Task in the Haitian coup shortly after his ouster, however, the French-to-English translation labeled the operation "Project Jade." This editor stands by his sources and the facts surrounding Operation Jaded Task.

NOW, stories such as this one have been the "raison d'etre" of counterpunch since its founding. and in fact, the entirety of each issue of counterpunch consists of stories such as this one. reading it, you tell me why you think it is that cockburn avoids any discussion of the anomalies of the events of 11 september 2001. and why we describes some learned investigators as "conspiracy theorists" in a pejorative manner.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 13 2011, 01:03 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



Global Research recently put up an article about Cockburn's piece, amongst others:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...articleId=26520

QUOTE
The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

[snip]

Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.

Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents--scores of them--methodically planted demolition charges.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the...ll-these-years/

Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”

Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon--they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both--stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.

I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.

Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.

Cockburn's willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.

Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.

Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?

They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.

There is no 9/11 debate.

On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.

The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 14 2011, 12:54 AM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



thank you for that.

i care to respond that pcr gets it accurately.

why it is that these other bozos are defenders of the state's oct is the question that must be asked. regrettably, pcr didn't ask that question.

i think you know my position, cockburn et alia are agents of the state. or zionists. or demented. i think that there can be no other explanation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Sep 14 2011, 12:17 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 892
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 12 2011, 03:54 AM) *
thank you for that.

i care to respond that pcr gets it accurately.

why it is that these other bozos are defenders of the state's oct is the question that must be asked. regrettably, pcr didn't ask that question.

i think you know my position, cockburn et alia are agents of the state. or zionists. or demented. i think that there can be no other explanation.



Thank you evanlong for the link, and thank you Paul Craig Roberts for the words.


Albert you could be right, but it could also be because of either deep ignorance or deep fear!


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 14 2011, 05:26 PM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,886
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes, I think some sort of fear is likely the reason that smart men are still in denial. Judging from body language and facial expression, which we don't get to interpret here through the cyber filter, most folks in deep denial communicate fear when the subject is brought up.

I've done it many times and seen it many times. Absolute discomfort and a sort of primal fear take over in some persons, and I don't think it can be overcome.

It's hard to believe in intelligent people, but it happens. I think it is not really a function of intelligence, but just irrational behavior that amounts to some sort of defense mechanism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 14 2011, 09:42 PM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



understanding our fellow citizens is difficult. i have been trying to do that for decades. i have to admit that for most of my formative years, i was a star. academically, socially, athletically. and it drove almost all in my very conservative [reactionary] community crazy that i saw everything going on in the world differently than they did.

i have often thought it had a lot to do with my linguistic deviations as a young child. as i recall, in the early elementary school years i was identified either as an alien or as a mentally defective. in fact, in 2nd grade, my parents were advised by my teacher that i needed to be sent to the ohio state home for the bewildered.

i remember overhearing this as my parents discussed it. and i wondered about it. because all my classmates seemed to understand my version of the language. it was just some adults who couldn't hear. who couldn't understand.

well, my parents didn't commit me, although in later years i think there were incidents that provoked them to rethink that decision. they did commit me to a summer school at the local country day school where i was one of three in a class with a mrs dickenson. who taught me how to speak english and how to read. a life changing summer.

as i moved on in life after that summer, reading, the interest in learning new things, became a passion. none of my fellows ever read as much or as omnivorously.

and i shall leave it there. i shall avoid my later submergence into metallurgy and the investigations into the causations of failure events.

but, a conclusion that i came to many years ago, is that most of my fellows have done/do such little reading, that they know virtually nothing about the events that have occurred during their lifetimes.

if fear is involved, it would be a fear of "knowing". about anything. on the other hand, i think the culprit is laziness. plain, simple intellectual laziness.









Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 14 2011, 11:26 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 14 2011, 09:42 PM) *
if fear is involved, it would be a fear of "knowing". about anything. on the other hand, i think the culprit is laziness. plain, simple intellectual laziness.


I agree with the fear part. The fallacies in that Cockburn article are glaring, as PCR points out. It's hard to imagine there's not some strong emotional bias going on for people to give that a pass, but "I don't want to think about it" or "it's too scary" just isn't good enough for adults in a democratic society.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 15 2011, 03:55 AM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



firstly, there is no democracy in north amerika. that is an illusion.

promoted by the puppeteers. who want so many to think that they have an access to influencing the route of the state.

which takes us back to intellectual laziness as the salient proposition. if you are so lazy that you don't understand that there is no democracy, then recognize how you ended up in this blind alley. the alley where the outcome is intended to be the repudiation of magna carta. the restoration of monarchical institutions and serfdom.

and in this era, there is no robin the hood saving the serfs.

in that pre-magna carta era, at least the inhabitants of england knew that they were serfs. in this era, know one seems to be able to recognize their true status.

they somehow think/thought that possessing[not owning] houses, cars, etc, acquired by debt, had elevated them to some higher stature[the middle class for instance].

it is this significant misunderstanding that should inform you of the futility of educating the citizenry of the frauds of that day in september ten years ago.

how can they understand that when they cannot recognize whom they are. and where they really stand in the rolls of the restoration of the previous world order.

as i have said for decades, the majority of the citizenry are intellectual zombies. and this forum cannot reawaken them.

sad to say.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 15 2011, 10:29 AM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 15 2011, 03:55 AM) *
firstly, there is no democracy in north amerika. that is an illusion.


Yes, that would follow from the sheer number of people who've been refusing to examine political issues of substance for decades. Most genuine attempts at democracy in the U. S. have been met with violent repression. To live up to the democratic ideals we all pay lip service to so often would require a lot more responsibility and organization. Hence, the current state of apathy and disorganization won't cut it for creating or maintaining democracy.

This post has been edited by evanlong: Sep 15 2011, 10:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 09:47 AM