Monday, August 23, 2010

WHO'S Obnoxious? Joshua Blakeney and Ian Henshall on the Kevin Barrett Show












Tuesday, August 24th, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon-1 pm Eastern) on http://NoLiesRadio.org, to be archived here a few hours after broadcast...


Ian Hensh
all, Coordinator of Reinvestigate 9/11 and author of 9/11 Revealed: The New Evidence, and Joshua Blakeney, Department of Globalization Studies, University of Lethbridge, will join me to discuss the role of provocation and controversy in the 9/11 truth movement...specifically, Josh's cruel, witty and merciless attack on the obnoxious war criminal propagandist and over-the-top Islamophobe Christopher Hitchens, which elicited a major article in Canada's leading neocon rag, the National Post. UK 9/11 truth leader Ian Henshall, who knew Hitchens when they were both at Oxford, will join us to expose sordid details about his former university mate.

Josh's essay, which signally fails to commiserate with the cancer-stricken Hitchens, is a calculated provocation...rather like my half-dead-serious, half-self-consciously-outrageous proposal for a mega-mosque on Ground Zero sporting gigantic Twin Minarets to replace the Towers demolished by genocidal Islamophobes. (My proposal drew a 50,000-watt interview with KDKA's Mike Pintek, was picked up by the great Muslim truther site AscertainTheTruth, and was recently honored as "the most obnoxious thing on the internet" by 9/11-truth-hater Matt Taibbi.)

Is it okay to be brash, entertaining, provocative, and even a little self-consciously obnoxious in pursuit of 9/11 truth? Or do we all have to be paranoid, humorless dweebs like Jim and Victronix?

Tune in Tuesday and find out...

15 comments:

  1. Ian Henshall writes to Joshua Blakeney:

    I'm reading your piece on Hitchens and can add some personal details. He was at Oxford at the same time as me and even then had a drink problem. He was regarded as a leader of the student revolution and I recall him being brought into the JCR to give a drunken but stirring speech. At the time I was pretty right wing, having been programmed by the media and was only just coming to terms with the fact that Vietnam was a war of aggression and empire, and was regarded as something of an enemy by the revolutionary crowd, almost all of whom eventually sold out while I moved in the opposite direction. I suppose the general reason for the mass sellout was, apart from self interest, the desire to be on the winning side and so Gorbachev's disastrous failure to reform the Soviet Union and the subsequent counter-revolution was the decisive factor in so many of this generation turning into neocons (but this only applies to the leaders, others I know are totally aware that the 9/11 wars are imperial wars of aggression).

    However there could be a conspiracy here too: Hitchen's brother Peter presented himself as a revolutionary but was decisively exposed by the Socialist Workers' Party (then known as IS) as a police agent. PH immediately relaunched himself as a hard line conservative (now as a genuine conservative he has morphed almost into an anti-imperialist). I always wondered why people were not more suspicious of his brother in the light of this.

    Hitchens also admitted on Newsnight (BBC live politics programme) shortly after 911 that he had been the press officer for the Northern Alliance in the months before 9/11. I doubt if they will have a transcript available though. He authored an article in the Guardian the day after 9/11 (or was it two days?) saying how fortunate it was that the Towers had collapsed vertically rather than horizontally and I now wonder if this was part of the plot: preparing for a limited hangout in case they were forced to admit to a controlled demolition...

    ReplyDelete
  2. re, Glen Greenwald's The "mosque" debate is not a "distraction"

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/08/23/park51

    Glenn Greenwald, through Mitchel Cohen, sends out a very important SOS. Can America's Islamophobic version of Kristallnacht be far away? In my view the whole phenomena emerges quite coherently from the spin given to the events of 9/11 within hours of the attacks. The agenda has been from day one to keep the permanent US war economy alive through resort to imperialist divide-and-conquer extending to the stimulation of religious wars, now even within North America itself. Fox and The New York Times, BBC and CBC and Pacifica, David Frum and Christopher Hitchens and now Sebastian Junger have all done their part. So too have Chomsky and Goodman and Corn and Albert etc. in their own diversionary fashions.

    It is tragic that so many so-called progressives condemn the hugely corrosive outcomes of the Global War on Terror while resisting a systemic reckoning with the important findings of the citizens' inquiry dealing in civil society with the lies and crimes of 9/11. We need to get to the roots of this crisis rather than confining ourselves to its outgrowths and manifestations. We need to renew the Enlightenment's appeal to reason, rationality and evidence rather than to permit further descent into an Inquisitorial orgy of governance through Cheneyesque superstition, torture and ruling class omnipotence.

    Tony Hall

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,

    You need to sign up for a class on Islam at your local college. Or buy and read this book by a conservative Christian: http://www.marksiljander.com/

    On Aug 24, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Steven Moyer wrote:

    Well, there are three points.

    "1. The Koran says that later passages supercede earlier passages. The peace stuff is early and the violent stuff is later."

    The Qur'an says no such thing. This is an interpretation of later scholars. And there is plenty of "peace stuff" in the later verses. Mercy and compassion always have the last word.


    "2. Muslims are permitted to lie for the sake of Islam."

    Absolutely wrong. God is The Truth, Al-Haqq. Muslims honor truth far more than Jews and Christians, who specialize in false flags. (When has a Muslim group ever done a false flag attack and blamed it on Mossad or the CIA?!)


    "3. Islam wants to take over the world ( it's a POLITICAL system and not just a religion.)
    The "all nations must use SHaria law" bit."

    Absolutely wrong. Islam, unlike Christianity, has always tolerated other religions, and holds open the possibility that other faiths are sufficient for salvation.

    Kevin

    ReplyDelete
  4. *snicker*

    "The New Evidence Revealled"

    What is it? More dark, blurry videos of Building 7 attempting to refute eye-witness accounts by firemen and EMTs who were actually on the scene?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why can't anti-9/11-truth trolls spell even simple words?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm talking about this comment the same person just posted on another blog:

    "Anyone who believes that the WTC were demolished with explosive devices by our government are a bunch of dumb, rediculous minded people who have nothing better to do with there lives except smoke pot all day in the college dorm,come up with outrageously rediculous conspiracy theories and bother politicians who have much more important issues to take care of. Get a life and get a real job..."

    To which I replied:

    "Speaking of dumb & REDiculuous...you managed two grammatical errors and four spelling errors in one sentence! No wonder you believe the official fairy tale.

    Take ten smart pills and call me in the morning.
    http://www.narcomundo.com/legal-drugs/legal-smart-drugs/ "

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kevin, please help me here...

    Will these quran burning protesters ever wise up and burn PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper instead?

    Is it me or does the video of black construction worker chased away from ground zero by crazed mob feels a bit like Kristallnacht?

    All this manufactured protest in New York and somewhere you know Larry Silverstein is laughing counting all that WTC money...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your false dichotomy is typical Barrett logic--you'd have us suppose that there are only two choices: dweeb and obnoxious. Hitler was very fond of that kind of logic too. He found it very persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bringing Adolf "non sequitur" Hitler into your argument suggests desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your false dichotomy is typical Barrett logic--you'd have us suppose that there are only two choices: dweeb and obnoxious. Hitler was very fond of that kind of logic too. He found it very persuasive.

    ----------

    Possibly, the most irrelevant and worthless comment ever made. But hey, at least you got to use the word ' dichotomy '. Good for you!

    ReplyDelete
  11. As for Hitchens, who cares about him? The hypocrasy and double standards are nothing new with these whiners. Hitchens is an asshole who makes a living out of being an obnoxious twat. The world would be a better place without warmongerers like him around.

    I read his article on Fallwell and am just wondering what it is exactly which makes people think Hitchens is entitled to protection while his targets are not? Is it because he is special?

    ReplyDelete
  12. When you come to a fork in the road, take it!

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I'm talking about this comment the same person just posted on another blog:

    "Anyone who believes that the WTC were demolished with explosive devices by our government are a bunch of dumb, rediculous minded people who have nothing better to do with there lives except smoke pot all day in the college dorm,come up with outrageously rediculous conspiracy theories and bother politicians who have much more important issues to take care of. Get a life and get a real job..."

    To which I replied:

    "Speaking of dumb & REDiculuous...you managed two grammatical errors and four spelling errors in one sentence! No wonder you believe the official fairy tale.

    Take ten smart pills and call me in the morning.
    http://www.narcomundo.com/legal-drugs/legal-smart-drugs/ "
    "

    Oooh, KEVIN! You correct spelling and grammar!

    That must really make the ladies swoon. They must be positively falling at your feet!

    I hate to interrupt this regularly-scheduled broadcast, but zeroing in on a spelling error doesn't change the fact that the commenter in question was right, and you are wrong.

    There is not one shred of credibility to a single 9/11 "truth" conspiracy theory. Not one.

    The best thing that you folks have to work with is the fact that the Bush administration ignored the warnings they received about 9/11, not out of conspiratorial malice, but out of ineptitude and irresponsibility.

    That's it. That's all you have.

    Yet you insist on continuing to live in a comical fairy tale. It would be comical if it weren't so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nanothermite in the dust of WTC is not the equivalent of a fuzzy video. It ia a clear exculpation of Muslims with boxcutters and a clear implication of Mossad/CIA/MI5 deception to do war.

    A Zionist bureaucrat in DOJ controlled the crime scene. FEMA was called to the crime scene a day early to be ready to control forensics. A Zionist judge controlled the legal aftermath. A Zionist was the NY mayor's security expert, WTC security prior to the attacks was controlled by Zionists, and a Zionist clean-up company controlled the clean up and dispoesed of the evidence. A Zionist who had been comptroller at the Pentagon prior to the discovery of missing trillions of dollars and aircraft was also among the Zionists at PNAC who wrote Rebuilding America's Military and expecting that only a Pearl Harbor-like event could move the plan into action. A Zionist was leading the Port Authority who permitted another Zionist to lease the WTC for $125 million so he could add terrorist attack to the insurance policy in July of 2001 so that he could win over $7 billion in insurance claims for damages. This Zionist was a close friend of Bibi Netanyahu who had commissioned the pioneer work, Clean Break, that foreshadowed the PNAC paper written by many of the same people...all Zionist NeoCons. The WTC floor hit by the first "plane" was owned by a bank that had just been taken over by a Zionist firm and the computer room "remodeled."

    And so it goes...deeper and deeper into "the rabbit hole" most people are afraid to investigate. Other people take advantage of those blinders.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The source about Hitchens as a press agent for the Northern Alliance was Ian Henshall's letter to Joshua Blakeney. Interesting that Junger and Hitchens (both Vanity Fair) were both journalistically situated around Massoud shortly before 9/11. Kevin published the letter on his site.

    Can we get more on the relationship of Hitchens to the Northern Alliance? Who else hired Hitchens, the champion and interpreter of international law in his book on Kissinger? The severity of the attack on Josh's article might suggest an attempt to protect something more than immediately meets the eye. I notice Hitchens mentioning in a Vanity Fair piece that India was a big supporter of Northern Alliance. Is Hitchens also hired by the Indian government?

    Henshall to Blakeney

    "Hitchens also admitted on Newsnight (BBC live politics programme) shortly after 911 that he had been the press officer for the Northern Alliance in the months before 9/11. I doubt if they will have a transcript available though. He authored an article in the Guardian the day after 9/11 (or was it two days?) saying how fortunate it was that the Towers had collapsed vertically rather than horizontally and I now wonder if this was part of the plot: preparing for a limited hangout in case they were forced to admit to a controlled demolition..."

    Cheerio,

    Tony Hall

    ReplyDelete