If you like this blog

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

Thursday, September 1, 2011

My letter to journalists covering 9/11

See the original of this amazing image full-scale - and zoom in to look at the pixels!


I have sent the letter below to many dozens of journalists who have requested interviews with 9/11 family members, and copied it to those organizing 9/11 remembrance events. I have also taken to posting a short version as a comment on offending articles (example here).

Dear (name of journalist),

One of the approximately 50% of 9/11 family members who rejects the official story of 9/11 informs me that you are a journalist who is covering the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

You and other journalists preparing stories on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 will be guilty of crimes against humanity, specifically the crime of incitement to genocide, if you do not, in your stories, prominently mention two very important facts:

(1) The vast majority of scholarly literature devoted to critically examining the question of what actually happened on 9/11 has concluded, or tentatively concluded, that the official story that al-Qaeda and 19 hijackers did it is a lie; therefore the event was probably a false-flag attack designed and executed by the enemies of Muslims, for the purpose of launching an anti-Muslim genocide (and consolidating power for the perpetrators). If you contact me, I will be happy to provide you with a bibliography of the scholarship on this question, proving that in fact there is a scholarly consensus that 9/11 was almost certainly a false-flag attack.

(2) More than three-quarters of the world's Muslims, and around two-thirds of American Muslims, agree that the official story is a lie, and that the event was probably a false-flag attack designed and executed by the enemies of Muslims, for the purpose of launching an anti-Muslim genocide or "war on Islam."  In Pakistan - the nation best-informed about "al-Qaeda" - only 3% of the population believes al-Qaeda did 9/11. Poll data:
http://m911t.blogspot.com/2009/09/only-3-of-pakistanis-say-al-qaeda-did.html .

Only about 10% of Germans believe the official story of 9/11: http://911truthnews.com/german-poll-89-question-911/

36% of all Americans  - over 100 million people - think 9/11 a likely inside job designed to launch wars of aggression. http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Given the poll data, it is clear that a majority of the world's population rejects the official story of 9/11.

Please take this opportunity to educate yourself about this issue, and to avoid complicity in one of the worst crimes against humanity in history.

I am at your disposal in this matter; please feel free to call me at (phone number) between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. US Central Time.

Also, please consider interviewing 9/11's biggest first-responder hero, William Rodriguez, a Muslim convert who is fluent in Spanish, who works incessantly with family members, and who is an eyewitness to the controlled demolition of the North Tower. William may be reached at  (phone number deleted) www.william911.com .

Sincerely

Dr. Kevin Barrett


Biography:

Kevin Barrett, an American Muslim and PhD Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror.

He is a co-editor of the book 9/11 and American Empire (Volume II) and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror.

Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.

He is a member of the Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11.

He is listed on the website Patriots Question 9/11  among the 400+ professors who "question 9/11" and is a co-founder of the website Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth .

He currently hosts two radio shows, one on American Freedom Radio and one on No Lies Radio.  As he writes : "...I'm the only radio host in the nation with a talk show on both a 'right' and a 'left' network."

His website is www.truthjihad.com.    

14 comments:

  1. Kevin,

    I think we can assume that any journalists (working for the mass media) assigned to cover the 9/11 story are well chosen...meaning they are either conscious or unconscious operatives of the criminals who committed, or covering up the act. If there is anything objectionable in their stories, it will be edited out. They won't care, because they're being paid very well.

    Nevertheless, keep up the good work. We will prevail sooner or later.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent plenty of lies still running, especially on msm tv and newspaper... internet needs to counter balance efficiently we have hard work during the next 2 weeks...

    AS

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ KB

    Naturally I'm on your side regarding 911 and the war against the Muslim world, but ...

    Rafael Lemkin coined the term 'genocide; and was the individual most responsible for getting the crime on the books. He wrote:

    "Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group."

    Be careful then, when you accuse journalists and media types with propagandising for 'genocide', for you have repeatedly preached submission (by White peoples only) to demographic displacement, loss of group biological and cultural integrity, and unconcern for racial, ethnic and national identity and feeling. Most recently you urged me to give these things no more attention than the colour of my socks.

    We should take seriously the idea of Nuremberg style prosecutions for the people who've boosted and taken part in the war on the Islamic world, but we should do so because the value of humanity's genetic and cultural diversity is incalculable and because all peoples everywhere are entitled to live unmolested in their homelands and to seek to secure their own existence. Even White peoples.

    Like you I do hope and expect we'll get the bad guys in the dock one day, so perhaps you should broaden your field of empathy and respect just a little. Seriously.

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_white_genocide_evidence_project/

    Also, http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-to-commit-genocide.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...all peoples everywhere are entitled to live unmolested in their homelands and to seek to secure their own existence." OK, so where is the "homeland" of the "white people"? Until ten generations ago, it was the northwest fringe of the Eurasian continent. Then they overran most of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, and tried to overrun Kenya, Southern Africa, and Palestine, and ended up exterminating perhaps a hundred million people and occupying land whose area was tens of times greater than their original homeland. And the parts of the world they didn't exterminate and occupy, they cruelly subjugated. This story is told most concisely in Alfred Crosby's book Ecological Imperialism (which should be read alongside Sven Linqvist's "Exterminate the Brutes") - for a longer version check out the books of Anthony Hall. So according to your theory, the white people, despite their crimes of the past few centuries, should be entitled to live unmolested in the northwest fringes of Eurasia, which is their homeland.

    But wait - I am white, and I live in Wisconsin, USA. Should I go home to northwest Eurasia? Should my black neighbor go back to West Africa? Should my wife go back to Morocco? Should my kids get bisected and sent to two places? If everybody got sent home, who would the Native Americans fleece in their casinos?

    While I'm all for cultural diversity, I don't think it fits neatly into racial or geographic-origin categories. As an Irish-American Muslim with a deep attachment to Wisconsin and a perverse love of French culture, I don't really understand what white nationalism is about. A lot of the stuff I like about American culture - jazz and blues based music for example - comes more from Africa than from Europe. I also like European classical music and the so called Great Tradition in literature and the arts. Who says you have to choose one culture to love, and then hate everybody else?

    Gilad Atzmon is the Moses of our time, calling all of us out of the Egypt of our boneheaded nationalisms and racialisms and exceptionalisms and chosen-people-isms toward some form of humanistic universalism. My own is Islamic: One God, one humanity.

    Gilad will be on my show for two full hours discussing his fantastic new book The Wandering Who on Wed. Sept. 28th. Feel free to send me any questions you'd like to ask him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Atzmon is critical of organizations like Jewish Voices for Peace because, while they advocate for the Palestinians, they are still operating from an orientation of "chosenness." In this light, How does Mr Atzmon evaluate the work of Mondoweiss?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Atzmon says that Weiss "certainly embodies the Jewish-progressive school of thought: a unique mixture of righteousness, charming self-love, mixed together with some deep intolerance towards other people’s belief systems." Lots more good stuff where that came from:

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-jews-their-self-interest-an-interview-with-phil.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dr Barrett:
    This 9-11 stuff is getting old. Why not go into 7-11 truth? There are numerous discrepancies in the official account of how and why 7-11 grew to be the biggest chain of convenience stores in the country.
    7-11 has become a sacred myth and people who question that myth are reviled as unpatriotic. Yet the chorus of voices claiming that it was an inside job gets louder every day. The laws of physics show clearly that Slurpees and Nachos cannot be produced on the outside. They require machines that must be plugged in where there is an outlet. It doesn't take x ray vision to see that the outlets are on the inside.
    And yet despite this damning evidence, right-wing coneheads like Bill Oreilly insist that the official account of 7-11 cannot be questioned. Just one of their silly arguments goes like this: the machines making Slurpees and nachos were not plugged into outlets on the inside, but were plugged into inlets on the outside! What a ridicuous distortion! Modern 120 volt appliances won't work plugged into inlets, even if that were possible,
    because the machines would sink to the bottom of the sea at free-fall speed, and then how can Slurpees be made? Is this not obvious enough?
    Get on the bandwagon for 7-11 Truth. I challenge you to debate me on this topic. In fact, you'll get a free corn dog just for showing up, and if you prevail you get a dozen fresh eggs! You pick the time, as the venue is open 24 hours.

    Yours in convenience,

    "Cheeze" Burgher

    ReplyDelete
  8. 9/11 Is the LitmusTest

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVY-iQDO8pg&feature=share


    There is one thing that defines everyone over the course of these early years of this new century. That thing is the 9/11 attack. Everyone in government and every field of endeavor the world over is defined by their position on this event. It is not necessary to know the truth. It is only necessary to know the extent of the lies in order to define any leader in any position anywhere in the world. By what they have said and by what they have not said, one can accurately judge who is an enemy of the people's of the world. One can accurately determine who is a tool of the psychopaths or one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ KB

    To be clear and transparent I’ve commented at your blogs before as fellist. I just revised by blogger profile is all and thought I’d use my real name.

    KB said … “they (‘the white people’) overran …”

    You are always careful to distinguish between e.g. Jews, Israelis and Zionists (and even between Zionists and ‘extreme Zionists’), but when it comes to White people you make no distinctions at all between the ‘innocent’ and the ‘guilty’ or the ‘guilty’ and their descendants and instead suggest a policy of racialised multi-generational revenge:

    “the white people [because of] their crimes of the past few centuries, should [not] be entitled to live unmolested in” their homelands today.

    People should check out your interview with Hall about his book, EARTH INTO PROPERTY, to see why I don’t share your enthusiasm for his approach. I’ll go into it here because it’s relevant, my concerns with that interview are the same as my objections to your arguments here. Hall said his purpose with the book was to put the War on Terror and globalisation generally into their ‘proper context’ -- as late features of the age of European expansion.

    But this is way off, comically so, especially when it all boils down, if the interview is representative, to retailing the sufferings various non-White peoples endured during the period at the hands of various White peoples: loss of numbers, living space, autonomy, traditional lifestyle -- it’s fair to say the discussion of the book was like an extended version of your first paragraph in comment 4, above.

    There are many problems with this approach, for example: All of history is full of wars, most wars are sold by lies and for the profit of the few; All of history is full of conquest, colonisation and genocide; All cultures and periods of history are marked by a tension between the universal-seeking and the independency-seeking tendencies; Asians and Africans were colonising parts of Europe and enslaving Europeans before, during and after the period in question; Asian, African and Native American groups were invading, colonising, enslaving and slaughtering each other before, during and after the period in question, quite apart from whatever Europeans were up to; The group that can most plausibly be fingered as the chief ‘ethnic’ architect and intended beneficiary of the W.O.T. and contemporary globalising trends is not White, it originates in south west Asia. It also played a prominent role in funding and profiting from the ‘European’ age of expansion, so EAE was clearly not a project of and for White people; And, obviously, when White peoples today suffer losses in numbers, territory, sovereignty, cultural integrity, you tell us to suck it up, that we deserve it, or that it doesn’t matter anyway.

    … The point is, it cannot be true to say that Hall ‘puts things in proper context’ if his picture first has to be surgically excised from the true historical background to conform to a pre-ordained racial agenda that we know to be a falsification, non-explanatory, and likely to promote racial conflict today (e.g., in this thread you use precisely this dishonest reading of history to justify contemporary aggression against White peoples).

    Of course, Anthony Hall is a Marxist academic, so dealing in this poison is his day job, but what’s your excuse?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ KB (and anon)

    KB said … “I don't really understand what white nationalism is about”

    (White) Nationalism is just the idea that a people (that happens to be White) wants to have its own place under the sun to live as it would like. [This a better litmus test for a person being or not 'an enemy of the peoples of the world', anon]

    KB said … “Who says you have to choose one culture to love, and then hate everybody else?”

    You’re the only one saying that in this debate: “My own is Islamic: One God, one humanity.” But it’s essentially the globalist War Party’s view too.

    Where loyalty to a people is replaced with loyalty to an idea that’s said to have universal truth, it becomes necessary to oppose alternatives to that idea, or that model of political order, wherever that alternative arises.

    By insisting that our former ethno states be transformed, against our known wishes, into ‘proposition nations’ defined by expressly universal standards, the globalist one-worlders - intolerant of distinctive cultures, alternative political systems, or other experiments in living that might show their own to be less than optimal for human happiness and bounty - create the ideological justification to intervene in other countries when these standards are challenged.

    Again, I’d urge you to reconsider your position on these questions, you don’t stand with the good guys on these matters, and do more harm than good. Your work in benefit of W.O.T. victims is simply not permitted to be effective, while your work in benefit of the project to destroy Western man, racially, ethnically and culturally, helps corrupt and compromise the anti-globalisation movement at source.* Morally and practically, you can’t have ‘invite the world’ without also getting ‘invade the world’.

    *Plus, it's disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But wait - I am white, and I live in Wisconsin, USA. Should I go home to northwest Eurasia?

    It’s a simple matter of fact that humans have been aggressing against each other in groups forever and probably always will do so. But if we’re serious about trying to justly settle disputes arising from past aggressions we have to think about an appropriate moral and legal framework for dealing with the problem.

    Since we’re dealing with behaviours that have been a constant since time immemorial but only recently become universally publicly disapproved of, we cannot and should not try to impose our recently arrived at worldview on ancient conflicts, but it’s possible to try and fix a point in time when the new morality came into existence and around which modern disputes can be assessed in light of that new moral code.

    I have in the past suggested the 1919 Paris Peace Conference as the moment when today’s popular and quasi-official ideal of Universal Nationalism became the global vision of how the people of the world wanted to live. From studying Erez Manela, THE WILSONIAN MOMENT, it’s very clear that even though the subject nations of Europe and the Ottoman Empire were the focus of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, people from all over the world who desired self-rule and a dedicated nation state of their own were inspired by the promise of Wilson’s ideal. Asian and African nationalists attended the conference and recognised the advantage they had gained when Wilson made a principle of nationality and self-determination.

    Before 1919 it’s very difficult to argue that a colonised people would not have turned tables on their conquerors if they had been able, it’s basically what everybody did if they could. But after 1919 the idea became untenable that we had a right to settle in a country if the people already living in it did not want us there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points
    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1537700.The_Wilsonian_Moment

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry if this is a duplicate, a previous attempt seems lost in Komment Kontrol:

    It’s a simple matter of fact that humans have been aggressing against each other in groups forever and probably always will do so. But if we’re serious about trying to justly settle disputes arising from past aggressions we have to think about an appropriate moral and legal framework for dealing with the problem.

    Since we’re dealing with behaviours that have been a constant since time immemorial but only recently become universally publicly disapproved of, we cannot and should not try to impose our recently arrived at worldview on ancient conflicts, but it’s possible to try and fix a point in time when the new morality came into existence and around which modern disputes can be assessed in light of that new moral code.

    I have in the past suggested the 1919 Paris Peace Conference as the moment when today’s popular and quasi-official ideal of Universal Nationalism became the global vision of how the people of the world wanted to live. From studying Erez Manela, THE WILSONIAN MOMENT: SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL ORIGINS OF ANTICOLONIAL NATIONALISM, it’s very clear that even though the subject nations of Europe and the Ottoman Empire were the focus of Wilson’s Fourteen Points plan, people from all over the world who desired self-rule and a dedicated nation state of their own were inspired by the promise of Wilson’s ideal. Asian and African nationalists attended the conference and recognised the advantage they had gained when Wilson made a principle of nationality and self-determination.

    Before 1919 it’s very difficult to argue that a colonised people would not have turned tables on their aggressors if they had been able, it’s basically what everybody did if they could. But after 1919 the idea became untenable that we had a right to settle in a country if the people already living in it did not want us there.

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1537700.The_Wilsonian_Moment
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points

    ReplyDelete
  13. KB, there are discussions of 911 going on at various nationalist sites … if you want to figure the nationalists out, and they want to figure 911 out, why not chip in? I’ve posted to a couple of the threads at the counter-currents 911 symposium but I can’t speak to 911 as well as you could.

    http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/911-symposium/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nick, I appreciate the offer, but I'm not big on on-line discussions. I barely have time to run my own blog, radio show, speaking schedule, etc. I would however be happy to have a radio conversation on white nationalism - ideally with some well-known nationalist like David Duke. If you know him and could put in a good word, send him my way and I'll have him on the show.

    ReplyDelete