Victronix, like Mark Roberts and screwloosechange, has apparently spent an amazing amount of time poring over my thousands of hours of talk radio and dvd lectures, and my hundreds of written publications, in search of the very few lines she can take out of context to attack me with.

Her postings on my blog are always ad-hominem attacks. They are never directed at the contents of the blog entry itself. 911blogger needs to have a policy against inappropriate comments and ad-hominem attacks, and repeat offenders like Victronix should be notified that further infractions will get them banned.

I have invited Victronix and her associate Jim Hoffman to discuss our differences of opinion civilly on the radio, and have always been refused. I renew my invitation for a civil, constructive radio discussion of the "big tent approach" (civility & fraternal feeling towards all pro-truth voices) that I advocate and Victronix opposes.

whom will desperately try to discredit someone for even the slightest slip up of any kind, they will ignore the 100s of hours of debate, the 1000s of pages of material that is all good and harp on one sentence or hell in the case of "Zionism" just one word.
Now personally I find it a bit odd that you associate with the likes of Fetzer but I don't know the situation so i don't raze you about it.
Other than that I fail to see why these cretins continuously attack you, you seem to be doing a lot of good for the 9/11 truth movement.

As for "banning" people, personally I find that as childish as I do those that constantly attack people for no reason.
I don't think anyone should be banned unless its just obvious spam from porn sites or other such manure, but opinions should not be banned from the site I think the system here works fine.
Where a post will be hidden once enough people vote it down which I am sure this post will be simply because I mostly agree with you.

I will be listening to your show.

"The "big tent approach" (civility & fraternal feeling towards all pro-truth voices) that I advocate and Victronix opposes."

LOL!!!! Sorry, couldn't help myself. That statement is totally silly. Let me explain.

The 'big tent approach' has resulted in promotion of the very worst this movement has to offer. TruthMove got its start with the specific intent, based on an understanding of the history of social movements and negative experiences in the 9/11 truth movement, of operating on principle before association. We feel that this is totally essential, supported by many of histories great thinkers and activists, and the exact opposite of the 'big tent approach.'

Now to the definition of the 'big tent approach.' Civility? Oh, that's important. But it is not supported by the 'big tent.' In fact the opposite is true. The 'big tent' we see in the 9/11 truth movement has served to maintain the inclusion of people like Webster Tarpley and James Fetzer, whose behavior in recent months has become totally antagonistic to the point of irrationality or intentional disruption. They have not acted in a civil manner, and so including them under a 'big tent' does not serve to promote civility.

Fraternal feelings? I don't even know what to say about that? So were supposed to feel brotherly love for everyone who happens to subscribe to the premise that 9/11 was an inside job? So does that include the people who think there were no planes? Or the people who think the towers were nuked? No! Principle before association. And the principle here is validity. If you promote fallacy you are not any part of what I am trying to accomplish. In fact, you are doing something all together different. In fact, I might not just disagree with you. I might actually be against what you are doing.

Victronix has demonstrated a strong commitment to that which can be verified, and also speaking her mind with more concern for the truth than who might be upset by it. This movement is supposed to be a 'truth' movement. That does not include any kind of a big tent under which we make room for fallacy. Victronix and Jim Hoffman have very solid reputations in this movement for supporting a logical approach. Kevin Barrett, with such illogical support for a strategy that has proven to be damaging to this movement and many before it, does not.

http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/
http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/

I have a very busy schedule, but I'll be happy to have a friendly radio debate on the relative merits of the big tent vs the my-way-or-the-highway approaches. Anti-big-tenters may apply by emailing me at kevin@mujca.com

It's interesting how just a few links and quotes -- statements which are readily available to anyone on the internet -- can cause such a ruckus.

Facts speak for themselves, just like quotes and links do.

are not necessarily facts. You seem to be a little too quick to discredit people in the movement for the smallest transgression. I dont' know. It often seems that certain "truthers" within the movement are doing the jobs of the professional enemy debunkers outside the movement. If you ask me, I think you, Arabesque, Jules, and Hoffman, have gone overboard in attacking and discrediting far too many 9/11 activists and researchers, including good people like David Ray Griffin, simply because you disagree on certain things like the Pentagon attack - "the missing 757" situation.

For anyone in the movement to appoint themselves truth police attempting to speak for the entire movement regarding shutting down "bad arguments" and "Hoax theories", etc., why don't you try doing surveys and actually finding out what evidence and approaches work to wake people up to 9/11 truth, instead of spending so much of your time attacking and tearing apart the movement? In the case of the Pentagon, you guys couldn't be more wrong. In fact, the "missing 757 at the Pentagon" is one of the most common aspects that woke people up to 9/11, and the majority of 9/11 truthers do not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon (36 million Americans/12% of the population according to a poll in July 2006), which completely contradicts your claim that the "hoax theory" that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon is harming the movement. Perhaps if you guys would actually do some constructive research and hold surveys to figure out the most effective ways to spread 9/11 truth, rather than continuing your often baseless and mean-spirited attacks, perhaps you guys could be more of a positive force for the movement.

No thanks. I'm sure you could spin that as an indication of a lack of willingness to debate you. I could take your lack of willingness to simply state your case right here to be rather evasive. But unlike your rhetoric above, I'll assume that you aren't trying to be evasive, and simply like speaking more than writing.

That's unfortunate as many people feel much more comfortable discussing issues when they have the chance to collect their thoughts. Not everyone has public debating skills but that does not indicate a lack of ability to argue their position. People also feel more comfortable discussing differences of opinion in places that don't make one person feel a lot more comfortable than the other.

You might have noticed that your post isn't that popular here, nor your comments. Now, posters to 911blogger aren't the ultimate barometer of opinion in the movement. But you might take this as an indication that you should consider for yourself, without having to debate anyone, the merits of your position. I'm willing and able to change my mind. I feel very strongly about this issue, so you would have to make a really strong case to convince me otherwise. But I can still change my mind. Can you?

Now, on to your comment above. "Anti-big-tenters"? I suppose that might be literally true. I do not support the 'big tent approach' and have argued against it in many places over the last few years. But that term you've just created serves to focus attention on the messenger and not the message. Its not about me or those who agree with me. Its about the point I was making. And that point was that people who promote fallacy are not able to well represent a movement concerned with 'truth'. I didn't call you and anti-truther.

"My-way-or-the-highway"? That's an unfriendly way to put it. I'm sure you don't like it when people suggest that you are not behaving logically and that as a result that you should not play such a prominent role in the movement. But no one is forcing you out. I certainly don't have the ability to control your actions. I might recommend to others that they be weary of your contribution, but I also have no control over them.

So, I say something you don't like, and you stereotype my position. Not a good look for you. Doesn't really make me want to debate you.

I don't see any ad hominem attacks.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

"it's not that big a deal in terms of how the ad hominems were created"

You singlehandedly keep Jim Fetzer attached to the movement. Why do you do this? Don't be surprised that people will have a problem with this and consider each and every blog of yours an implicit endorsement of that man. Of course you also explicitly endorse plenty of nonsense yourself as well. You seem to use "congeniality" and "fraternal feeling" as a smokescreen for keeping extremely low standards. This is not "ad hominem" attack - this is people having a serious problem with your effect on the movement.

Perhaps not the best word choice. I apologized to Amy Goodman last year, and changed the posting at mujca.com. (And have had a lot of folks take me to task for doing that!)

But "enamoured"? If you can find ten instances in which I've used the word "scaffold" during my four years of 9/11 activism, in over 500 hours of talk radio, many dozens of appearances on other folks' radio and TV shows, zillions of interviews, well over 100 of my own articles, countless emails and postings, dozens of talks, and two books, I will be amazed.

"Perhaps not the best word choice. I apologized to Amy Goodman last year, and changed the posting at mujca.com. (And have had a lot of folks take me to task for doing that!)"

Ok. Well I'm glad to hear it. One of the many lessons I would hope people have learned from 911 is that revenge is not the answer. "Revenge, at first though sweet, bitter ere long on itself recoils", wrote Milton. Violence begets more violence. Although the people who planned and orchestrated 911 certainly deserve whatever's coming to them, a massive round of executions would not bring us any closer to the "better world" we're all looking for. Nuremberg was a failure. Most of the real criminals went to work for the CIA. Hitler's financial backers were not punished. It was essentially a show trial. And the war machine marched on.

The state is an abstraction. Allowing state officials to murder people for their crimes may sound good in theory but the reality is quite different. The reality is Sacco and Vanzetti, the Haymarket martyrs and African Americans now comprising 42% of death row inmates in the US. If everyone in Nazi Germany who bore some responsibility for the Reich (which would include remaining silent) were executed we'd be looking at large swathes of the population being charted off to the "scaffold"; it would begin to resemble the Reich itself, not anything approaching "justice".

As for the Big Tent, it doesn't look like you're going to budge on this any time soon, so I'll leave you to it. You should expect a great deal of (justified) criticism. I wonder where you WOULD draw the line. Is your sole litmus test for promoting someone's work the fact that they claim 911 to be an inside job? If someone believed that Cheney brought down the towers telepathically, for instance, would you still promote them on your radio show as a "truth" advocate? Because that's where your "logic" leads. There are "truth" advocates and there are people in need of medication. You should be able to distinguish between the two.

I think truth and reconciliation along the lines of South Africa should be considered. The Shell Game shows the kinds of rationalizations that the perpetrators and the obstructors of justice likely made. Take control of the game, oil for the sheep, preserve the union, etc. I've been critical of the Shell Game for this very reason but from another perspective perhaps we should empathize with Strangelovian utillitarian rationalizations likely made by the perpetrators and the less but still henious obstructors. Empathize, not condone: the question is whether this empathy would occur in the death penalty phase of a criminal prosecution, or during reconcilation. Even if the former is preferred, the latter may more realistically occur and be more restorative of our republic. Covering it up, of course, as the Shell Game seemed to condone, is destructive of what little republican government we have left.

A Truth and Reconcilation Commission with amnesty might encourage people to come forward, and without the requirements of criminal due process.

Don't agree with parts of the last paragraph but I'm not allowed to explain why.

In terms of treason and whether our laws mean anything, I think I understand the imaginal power of the forced contemplation of legal consequences. And though, I never talk about the scaffold, I tend to remind folks, especially the snarkiest "debunkers" and jellyfish politicians, of the reality of treason that we are all living under, and the effective quality of their action or inaction, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to that.

That being said, I like to envision a combination of treason trials and "truth and reconciliation" type commissions as leading to this profound transformative moment where the American people decided that even though there was never, in our history, any more deserving criminals of capital punishment, we thought it was time to become a more mature and wiser human society and remove the power of taking away life in such a pre-meditated way from the hands of the inevitably human and flawed, inherently-corrupted state. On an aside, I do think that life sentence prison terms are clearly called for and probably some psycho-social studies of the criminally and massively psychopathic psyche. Someone suggested that the best punishment, at least in the case of the Bushes, would be to have a living museum of their home that is completely open for the public to see their daily life under house arrest (and not in Patagonia).

We should admit, only God or the ineffable mystery of life and death has the power to "judge" such things. As I like to say in relation to abortion: I am pro-life and pro-choice. I see abortion as a very serious moral decision that has deep spiritual implications, and not something to ever be done lightly, or, IMHO (from the much easier perspective of being a man) ever except in the case of a threat to the mother, but between letting a woman or the apparatus of the state choose the destiny of a being in a woman's womb, I choose a woman.

As per the "Big Tent" issue, I see both perspectives very clearly. I think there has been alot of good articulation and clarification of positions here that will do much to moving forward more effectively and with more mutuality.

The problem of research and logic in relation to 9-11 truth and justice is profound. There is an inherent challenge that comes up when a movement based on ongoing, independent research in relationship to the truth of an event moves towards becoming a force for justice. The Logos, as the never-ending pursuit of the truth, refuses to give up its domain of open debate and diversity of opinions to the Ethos and Pathos elements needed to reach some people and to effectively pursue Justice. And it shouldn't have to. That is why I have argued for a healthy differentiation and individuation of 9-11 truth and 9-11 justice movements. I think this is beginning to happen. There are reasonable voices if you look for them who are willing to both push at the edges of "acceptable" discourse (i.e. plane dynamics) and understand the need for a "best case" to be put forward by the Justice-oriented activism.
And maybe we should even begin to align a 9-11 peace movement, which is already beginning to happen with an example being the "Conception Dollar," that can articulate the world that is possible after 9-11 justice, and simultaneously already here poking its head up and out.

The more differentiated the better. Let's argue amongst each other for our "best case" and what avenues we want to go with it. There is already and going to be more serious debate about strengths and weaknesses of tactics (i.e. civil informationeering vs. interrupting/confronting), so not having to spend much time on truth-vetting and debating around activism is crucial. Much of this is already clear and has been clear for awhile. Of course, we're also dealing with dis and mis(aka some not vetting info as well as we should)info. And we should be highly wary of the "infowar" we're being engaged in, while not allowing ourselves to take each other out in a barrage of friendly fire that would make any perp-sponsored cointelproer sit back and giggle in glee. And I imagine part of this dialogue going on is an attempt to decide who can be trusted as "friendly." And from what I've seen, I think all at the table can be considered that. There are still deep disagreements of course.

So, "best case" put forward with serious commitment and a vision of disciplined activism using it to push on through. There are legal and political considerations to this that we must consider. And a commitment to all out furious debate, debunking, calling out and sifting through on the ever-evolving truth front. And the permaculturalists, "anarchists," Viridian greens, eco-justicers and other such grounded visionaries to articulate the possibility of a profound, active, loving, evolving peace.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

And thanks for addressing this issue:

"There are reasonable voices if you look for them who are willing to both push at the edges of "acceptable" discourse (i.e. plane dynamics) and understand the need for a "best case" to be put forward by the Justice-oriented activism."

I'm definitely open to this kind of respectful and constructive criticism which doesn't use the cheap tactics of our opponents.

What I'm finding is that the "are you saying there were no planes" argument arises independently of the "no planes" arguments, because the planes are so deeply rooted in our minds as the reason the buildings collapsed and as "proof" of the official story.

Two anecdotes:

Congressman Markey of Massachussetts, who responds to a question about the buildings by saying he went to the funeral of local citizens who boarded planes and died. I don't know but I doubt he said this because of "no planes" arguments, which are seldom discussed in the mainstream press.

My Christmas party discussion with a mathemetician who models various things, from telescope lens to garbage routes (that's the best I can explain it.). Anyway, smart guy who deals with scientific phenomenon and enjoyed explaining them in a way I could understand. But no 9/11. His simple answer about the building collapses was that we saw planes on TV, as if this explained everything. End of discussion. I didn't push it because it was a party (others had brought up the Democratic party line "Bush didn't get bin Laden" so I couldn't resist a poke at the truth). We moved on to talking about his work on the Hubble telescope. Logic out the door on 9/11, because of the planes. This is not a guy who saw Morgan Reynolds on Fox or has seen a Nico Haupt video, he is one of the millions for whom the images on television explain everything.

That's why I cringe everytime I hear someone in this movement say "and a plane didn't even hit Building 7." That just reinforces the false idea that the planes could possibly explain the "collapses" of the two huge buildings. It's a shortcut, perhaps, but a truth movement should not make shortcuts with truth. Especially when no one died in Building 7, and thousands died in Buldings 1 and 2.

So I would suggest that the best case does not include "and a plane didn't even hit Building 7." That's not going to happen, so I would at least like to see it immediately followed by clear statement that planes could not have brought down the Twin Towers.

Anyway, you've got a point, and are the only I've heard make it thoughtfully and respectfully. it is a compromise that I am extremely ambivalent about because of the power of the plane images as explaining everything, and as implicating Muslims and justifying the wars regardless of whether Bush or whoever let it happen or even made it happen. The evil Muslims still flew planes into the buildings, goddamit, and we hit 'em back. And Bush didn't get bin Laden, so vote for Obama who will.

I've made that compromise, here and elsewhere. I've tried not to respond to attacks that are implicitly against my integrity and judgment, and will keep trying not to respond. Yours merited a response.

This is a good, thoughtful discussion. I have always encouraged people like Bill Douglas who have promoted 9/11 T&R, though I generally add that it's awfully early for that, since we haven't even had regime change, much less any indictments.

Regarding T&R, I don't like muddled thinking and double-standards. When people talk about social struggles and violence versus nonviolence, citing South Africa as paradigm of nonviolence (and perhaps comparing it to the supposedly violent resistance in Palestine) I really scratch my head. Nelson Mandela was arrested and imprisoned because he led a violent resistance struggle--a guerrilla war--against the aphartheid regime. It was that guerrilla war, not nonviolent protests, that led the apartheid regime to fear an immanent "bloodbath" (the term was omnipresent in 1980s S. Africa) and surrender power. Only after the apartheid criminals were getting arrested did T&R become possible. (By the way, my friend the poet and anti-apartheid vet, Professor Daniel Kunene, a very sweet and peace-loving man, absolutely loathed the T&R project because it freed so many hideous criminals and impeded justice...) In Palestine, on the other hand, there are massive, ongoing nonviolent protests pretty much 24/7, yet the media blacks them out and casts the Palestinian genocide victims as "violent fanatics."

This is part of the massive double-standard Muslims face. Just as African-Americans were criminalized for Driving While Black, we Muslims are criminalized for Self-Defense While Muslim. My greatest political hero, Malcolm X, used what many considered inflammatory language, and recognized that force and violence play a huge and (for the foreseeable future) indispensable role in real-world political relationships. He organized armed Nation of Islam militias with the aim of helping oppressed people defend themselves, and his language was very, very strong. While he came to a more accurate and universalist Islam and a broader-based politics at the end of his life, Malcolm never renounced armed self-defense, nor did his hyperbolic verbal attacks on injustice slacken.

I'm still thinking all this through, but for the moment, I enjoy being just as inflammatory and controversial as Malcolm X was in his day. I am waging all out verbal Truth Jihad (using hyperbole and black humor among other weapons), aim to be utterly unconcerned with anyone's opinion of me but God's, and will happily accept martyrdom if that's God's will.

The hard part is sticking to righteous, prophetic anger/outrage, rather than petty ego stuff. If I ever go too far, or descend into pettiness, just email me a "Malcolm would NEVER have said THAT" message and if you're right I'll reel myself in.

"utterly unconcerned with anyone's opinion of me but God's, and will happily accept martyrdom if that's God's will"

Which I personally find to be virtually insane, I pretty much agree with you on everything else (assuming of course I understand your position correctly).

I don't think any of these bastards should be "let off the hook or scaffold" as far as I am concerned.
Obviously Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz and at least a dozen or more others need to be facing Treason & War crimes charges, put on trial, sentenced and HUNG!
I personally would gleefully add such Reich wing propagandist like basically every single person that works for Faux Noise to that list of Treasonous war criminals because there is zero doubt of their guilt in covering these crimes up and their complicity in perpertrating them. If not for the complicity of the mainstream media in covering up the blatant election fraud, the bald faced lies about Iraq/WMD/Downing street minutes/patriot act/MCA etc. and the cover up and complicity in the false flag attack of 9/11 then NONE of this would ever have happened in the first place.
IF the media simply did its job then Bushco could have never gotten away with such blatant acts of Treason & war crimes.

For this they ALL should share the exact same fate as Saddam Insane.

Sadly the ONLY way justice will ever be served on these people is for 10s of millions of damn angry Americans to finally stand up and take this country back FORCIBLY.
Sadder still is I don't think that will ever happen because the American people by & large are fat, think they are happy and generally too damn ignorant to even know what the hell is going on and wont do anything about it if they did.
In a word we are Screwed and going to stay that way.