If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Amy Goodman has never done anything wrong?!

Below is today's email to my friend and colleague Jonathan Elinoff, in answer to his defense of Amy Goodman, who had been attacked in a We Are Change Colorado video. (My own confrontation with Amy Goodman)

Hi Jonathan,

Always great to hear from you!

I can't judge the Amy G video without a url -- checked the first couple pages of wearechangecolorado.org and didn't see it.

>I wouldn't care so much but, Amy Goodman has never done anything wrong to us.

She witnessed the controlled demolition of WTC-7 and, despite being an alleged "alternative journalist," never reported on it, or on the rest of the story of the century. She then accepted a large grant from the CIA appendage Ford Foundation to "report on the aftermath of 9/11" which may explain her continuing failure to do her job.  I believe she has only broached the subject of 9/11 truth twice on her show, in both cases setting up the truth advocates for ambushes by skilled professional liars. She repeatedly references the grotesquely absurd official fairy tale of 9/11 as if it were unquestioned truth, thereby reinforcing the big lie and promoting its murderous effects. Her rare, utterly ineffectual bleats of "I support a new investigation" hardly excuse her failure to do her job, which (along with a few other journalists doing their job) would have prevented millions of deaths.

Since 9/11 was among other things an incitement to genocide, and more than a million Muslims have already been exterminated as part of the continuing slow-motion long-term genocide, I believe journalists who should reasonably have been expected to report honestly on 9/11 and failed to do so ought to be tried for crimes against humanity following the Nuremburg precedent. These journalists and their bosses should be held personally responsible for the deaths of more than one million people, and the likely future deaths of tens if not hundreds of millions more. (It will be a miracle if we emerge from the 9/11-triggered "war of civilizations" without hundreds of millions of casualties.) So if there is a reason why Amy "I ran from the WTC-7 demolition" Goodman should not join thousands of other journalists and media moguls in the docket, I would like to hear it.

Kevin

4 comments:

  1. Have you considered the possibility that Amy received one of the 200,000 National Security Letters issued by the FBI?

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters

    ReplyDelete
  2. These letters sometimes come with a requirement to not disclose having received them -- but as far as I know no journalist has received one warning him or her to stay away from a particular issue. (Any real journalist who got an FBI letter saying "don't investigate such or such issue" would immediately go public and create the media scandal of the century.) So no, I don't think this explains Amy's apparent participation in crimes against humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 25 comments so far on this at http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?v=wall&story_fbid=119183261425838&id=1632985004 . To those who think Amy G. "has a right to her opinion" I replied:
    I agree about not hitting people over the head with our opinions. But the statement "Questions about the 'collapse' of WTC-7 should have been front page news beginning on 9/12/01" is not an opinion. It's a fact. It's also a fact that Amy egregiously failed, and has continued to fail, to do her job. She's like a firefighter who sits around lighting matches and putting them out while a million people die in a huge, visible fire that continues for more than eight years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And to those who are confused about the "fact not opinion" assertion:
    The fact is that QUESTIONS ABOUT WTC-7 SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRONT PAGE NEWS ON AND AFTER 9/12/01. There is no conceivable criterion of journalistic news judgment that could argue otherwise. Hence this is a fact -- a social fact, of course, not a physical fact.

    ReplyDelete