Jump to content
The Education Forum

Right-wing blogger condemns Amy Goodman to death


Recommended Posts

Amy Goodman has participated treasonous attacks upon the Bush administration accepting over $150,000 from Islamofascist groups.

Amy, you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Benedict Arnold-style traitors in the leftist dominated media.

Your lies about Operation Iraqi Freedom are responsible for giving aid and comfort to the enemy and the deaths of thousand of American troops and Iraqi civilians

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Rather ominous that someone on our Forum posts this without comment; without mentioning if they find it reprehensible [which it is] or is posting it in silent glee and gloating. Given who posted however, no surprise - anything to cause havoc and discomfiture to those felt to be targets. There is also some nut posing as, or a very misguided, progressive who has condemned her in rather unfriendly terms [though not to death] for not reporting on the 911 Truth movement, which she and her show avoids - along with a few other progressive issues.

No glee Peter I find calling for journalists like Goodman to be executed morally reprehensible. I'm surprised no one else has add their 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather ominous that someone on our Forum posts this without comment; without mentioning if they find it reprehensible [which it is] or is posting it in silent glee and gloating. Given who posted however, no surprise - anything to cause havoc and discomfiture to those felt to be targets. There is also some nut posing as, or a very misguided, progressive who has condemned her in rather unfriendly terms [though not to death] for not reporting on the 911 Truth movement, which she and her show avoids - along with a few other progressive issues.

No glee Peter I find calling for journalists like Goodman to be executed morally reprehensible. I'm surprised no one else has add their 2 cents.

I would like to go on record as formally opposing the condemnation to death of Amy Goodman by a right wing blogger. I find it morally reprehensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth be told they never was such a blog entry. I adapted it from rant written by Kevin Barrett the “nut posing as, or a very misguided, progressive who has condemned her in rather unfriendly terms” Peter referred to. Though he was wrong, Barrett did condem her to death. He wrote:

Amy Goodman WAS THERE during the Pre-announced Demolition, Complete with Countdown, of WTC-7

Since then she has participated in the treasonous media cover-up of the 9/11 inside job, accepting over $100,000 from the CIA-disinfo-disseminating Ford Foundation to "report on the aftermath of 9/11."

Amy, you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize.

They, at least, make no pretense of being anything but shills for the powers that be--which makes your crime infinitely worse than theirs.

Your silence and lies about 9/11 have murdered over half a million Iraqis and destroyed Constitutional governance in the USA.

Amy Goodman, je t'accuse -- et je te condemne!

http://www.mujca.com/amy.htm

He has since offer a half-hearted retraction. (ibid).

The part about her being there during the countdown is pure BS, she was several blocks away close to the radio studio where she work with dozens of other people. No count-down can be heard in the video.

Nut is an apt description of Barrett. He is also condemned every mainstream journalist to death

“…anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.”

http://www.oilempire.us/mujca.html

And is a Holocaust denier

(ibid)

And of all the truther books out there tried to foist “Painful Question” by Holocaust denier and rabid anti-Semite Eric Hufshmidt on Goodman, who is Jewish

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11700

He even thinks it seems that bloggers who oppose his views should be condemned to death http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2...-jew-hater.html

He is not however unfortunately on the fringes of the movement; he gets positive coverage by 911Blogger the most active truther site

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11700

He is the other half of the “Dynamic Duo” with our very own Jim Fetzer who has once again called for a military coup in the US.

So now knowing those words came from a truther, I wonder if the will receive the same opprobrium of Nathaniel and Peter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The post about Goodman was clearly an absurd overreaction, and potentially dangerous. It is quite possible it was disinformation, and quite possibly it was just someone venting about the foundation-funded limited-left press. In either case it is regrettable and counterproductive.

It is wrong, however to see it only in individual terms. Our completely undemocratic media make this sort of irrational and counterproductive outburst inevitable.

There is no doubt there has been an uptic in efforts that try to depict those who want a new investigation as entirely on the right. How predictable, and also how impossible in earlier years. It took years of left-gatekeeping for this latest effort to take hold.

This makes it all the more important that we put forward examples of those on "the left" (whatever that means these days) who also demand a new investigation. Not because their questions are any better-- I don't know-- but because disinformation must be dealt with if you see truth as socially constructed and want it to matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the important issue of Amy Goodman & Democracy Now's stance on 9/11, I think there is another possibility which effectively boils down to pragmatism.

Any journalist suggesting 9/11 was an "inside job" has effectively left the reservation. If such a journalist were to be invited onto MSM, then the only issue, rightly or wrongly, they would ever be questioned about would their "treacherous 9/11 conspiracy theory" belief. So, if Amy Goodman was even to admit the tiniest possibility that 9/11 was planned and carried out by rogue American elements, she would be finished as a "respectable" journalist and would no longer be allowed to expose all the other injustices that Democracy Now raises.

It's analogous to the position Naomi Klein finds herself in. Her book, "Shock Therapy", may occasionally gets a detail or an emphasis wrong, but imo it is a very powerful and compelling work. Her use of Cameron's electroshock/psychic driving programme to create a human tabula rasa as a metaphor for the Chicago School/neoliberalism's exploitation of natural or manmade disasters to impose devastating economic shock therapy on nations and communities is insightful and resonant.

However, the logic of "Shock Therapy", that certain powerful elites use the "philosophy" of neoliberalism to exploit disaster and restructure economies and nations in their own interests (eg the likes of Citibank, Enron, Jeb Bush etc in the systematic rape and looting of Argentina and its people), leads one to the question: if these people have a readymade blueprint to exploit and profit from natural and manmade catastrophes, would they not consider helping to create those catastrophes themselves?

That is a question that Klein shies away perhaps for the same reason that Goodman won't publicly debate "9/11 was an inside job" theories. They're pragmatic, and both do good and important work whilst staying on the reservation.

Point well made, imo.

Better for all concerned they stay inside the tent, and avoid participating in MSM's smearing of CT's. MSM's treatment of official dissenters has all the paranoia of the Inquisition.

p.s. I'm seeing '9-11 was an inside job' bumper stickers everywhere lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any journalist suggesting 9/11 was an "inside job" has effectively left the reservation.

Robert Fisk?

The "pragmatism" defence is tired and historically without defence: I can imagine Geoffrey Dawson, or some BBC functionary, employing it circa 1938. Goodman's a gate-keeper and a licensed jester. It's in the US establishment's interests to portray her as an imperilled, prospective martyr.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have great admiration for Robert Fisk, but he's essentially the "tolerated maverick" working for a British broadsheet, The Independent, which is regarded as freethinking and not taken seriously by the rest of MSM.

Jan,

Up to a point, Lord Copper, I agree: Fisk is given greater latitude than the rest of the drones; but the Independent as "freethinking"? Yipes, that's overdoing it a bit, surely? Didn't the Grauniad - talk about the pot libelling the kettle - once run a piece in which it was flatly stated that MI5 had a hefty section working within it?

How often do you see Fisk interviewed on middle eastern issues on MSM telly in Britain?

Quite true, which just shows you what a pathetically narrow spectrum of carefully sifted opinion is allowed us by the establishment and its spook vetters. The BBC's position is particularly despicable because we have to pay for this "privilege" - or else.

Any American journalist who comes out and says "9/11 was an inside job" will forever be tarred as a "conspiracy theorist" by MSM, just as no MSM British journalist would dare say that the Royal Family and British intelligence murdered Diana because their only hope of future employment would be as a spokesperson for Al-Fayed.

So quit and retain self-respect. What you are defending is a compromiser's self-interested charter. It would appear you didn't follow that path, so why defend it when others do?

Btw are you accusing me of being a BBC functionary?

No, but I was surprised that someone I was under the impression had fled the suffocating confines of the BBC intellectual gulag should defend so vigorously what seems to me a profoundly flawed position. If one can't speak truth to power when it really matters, what on earth is the point of a career in journalism?

And if the Dawson reference is meant to suggest that I'm some sort of appeaser, then I greatly resent it. I also don't know what you mean by "historically without defence".

Again, no, I was referring to the BBC's appalling role during the creation of Hitler at the same time as Dawson and other Round Table creatures were doing their bit for the strategy.

As to my point about historical indefensibility, I can't think of a single case where the kind of strategy you outlined has yielded anything other than career preservation. Such an argument assumes, for one thing, that the individual who replaced the resignee would have proved even less satisfactory. That's a big assumption.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess it didn’t occur to any of you that Goodman hasn’t given 9/11 conspiracy theories more coverage is because like 64% of Americans she concluded they are “not very likely”. She’s in good company, only some infinitesimally small number of engineers, pilots, firemen and people who were there publicly question the overall 9/11 theory. Generally some minute fraction of a percent.

She has already done two programs on the subject, perhaps she should do programs with creationists, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and perpetual motion device ‘inventors’ as well.

Only a truther could classify her as “a licensed jester”. She already risked her like and was badly beaten for her coverage of a massacre of East Timorese by the Indonesian Army in 1991*. How many of those so quick to criticize her can say they’d risked their life for what they believe in? She doesn’t seem to shy away from any other story that would offend the powers that be. Are (were) Noah Chomsky, Ed Said, Ward Churchill, Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon etc etc licensed jesters as well?

David Rovics wrote an excellent take down of “left-gate keeper” nonsense.**

What I also found interesting was that Nathaniel thought the condemnation to death of Goodman “morally reprehensible” when he thought it came from a right-winger but only a “regrettable” albeit “inevitable” “outburst” when informed it actually came from a fellow truther. Why would it be less “morally reprehensible” , just because one agrees the person making the condemnation about the issue he disagreed with Goodman about?

This reminds me of when a truther on the Loose Change forum threatened to kill (or blind) Mark Roberts, a debunker. The response of Dylan Avery was to tell the guy were to find Roberts, the reaction of most posters was support. Those who voiced disagreement (all newbies) only did so because it was ‘bad for the cause’ not because it was “morally reprehensible”.

* http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_re...ence/nairn.html

http://www.etan.org/timor/SntaCRUZ.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/1997/11/12/mas...y_of_east_timor

** http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=69564

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess it didn’t occur to any of you that Goodman hasn’t given 9/11 conspiracy theories more coverage is because like 64% of Americans she concluded they are “not very likely”. She’s in good company, only some infinitesimally small number of engineers, pilots, firemen and people who were there publicly question the overall 9/11 theory. Generally some minute fraction of a percent.

She has already done two programs on the subject, perhaps she should do programs with creationists, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and perpetual motion device ‘inventors’ as well.

Only a truther could classify her as “a licensed jester”. She already risked her like and was badly beaten for her coverage of a massacre of East Timorese by the Indonesian Army in 1991*. How many of those so quick to criticize her can say they’d risked their life for what they believe in? She doesn’t seem to shy away from any other story that would offend the powers that be. Are (were) Noah Chomsky, Ed Said, Ward Churchill, Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon etc etc licensed jesters as well?

David Rovics wrote an excellent take down of “left-gate keeper” nonsense.**

What I also found interesting was that Nathaniel thought the condemnation to death of Goodman “morally reprehensible” when he thought it came from a right-winger but only a “regrettable” albeit “inevitable” “outburst” when informed it actually came from a fellow truther. Why would it be less “morally reprehensible” , just because one agrees the person making the condemnation about the issue he disagreed with Goodman about

This reminds me of when a truther on the Loose Change forum threatened to kill (or blind) Mark Roberts, a debunker. The response of Dylan Avery was to tell the guy were to find Roberts, the reaction of most posters was support. Those who voiced disagreement (all newbies) only did so because it was ‘bad for the cause’ not because it was “morally reprehensible”.

* http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_re...ence/nairn.html

http://www.etan.org/timor/SntaCRUZ.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/1997/11/12/mas...y_of_east_timor

** http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=69564

-------------------

LEN SHOW ME IN MY QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT IT WAS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A RIGHT WINGER SHOW ME NOW NOW NOW.

THEN YOU GO ON TO A CONCLUSION WHERE YOU IMPLY SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING I NEVER CAME CLOSE TO SAYING .. SHOW ME RIGHT NOW . RIGHT NOW . You have slipped to a new low here and I demand moderator action. This is the first time I have ever asked for it. How can someone just outright LIE about what someone said. I AM WAITING LEN FOR YOU TO SHOW ME THE QUOTES on WHICH metaparaphrasing is based. This is Goerbels level verbal contortionism. Len show me now.

I used to think that what Peter said about you was extreme. You've just proved him right. Im waiting for your your explication of how you deciphered my comments into the sewage that you have just attributed to me without using a single quote longer than two words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I also found interesting was that Nathaniel thought the condemnation to death of Goodman “morally reprehensible” when he thought it came from a right-winger but only a “regrettable” albeit “inevitable” “outburst” when informed it actually came from a fellow truther. Why would it be less “morally reprehensible” , just because one agrees the person making the condemnation about the issue he disagreed with Goodman about

This reminds me of when a truther on the Loose Change forum threatened to kill (or blind) Mark Roberts, a debunker. The response of Dylan Avery was to tell the guy were to find Roberts, the reaction of most posters was support. Those who voiced disagreement (all newbies) only did so because it was ‘bad for the cause’ not because it was “morally reprehensible”.

-------------------

LEN SHOW ME IN MY QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT IT WAS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A RIGHT WINGER SHOW ME NOW NOW NOW.

THEN YOU GO ON TO A CONCLUSION WHERE YOU IMPLY SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING I NEVER CAME CLOSE TO SAYING .. SHOW ME RIGHT NOW . RIGHT NOW . You have slipped to a new low here and I demand moderator action. This is the first time I have ever asked for it. How can someone just outright LIE about what someone said. I AM WAITING LEN FOR YOU TO SHOW ME THE QUOTES on WHICH metaparaphrasing is based. This is Goerbels level verbal contortionism. Len show me now.

I used to think that what Peter said about you was extreme. You've just proved him right. Im waiting for your your explication of how you deciphered my comments into the sewage that you have just attributed to me without using a single quote longer than two words.

I’m not really sure what you’re getting all upset about Nathaniel. I never said that you “SAID THAT IT WAS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A RIGHT WINGER”. However your exact words in post # 4 were:

I would like to go on record as formally opposing the condemnation to death of Amy Goodman by a right wing blogger. I find it morally reprehensible.

Thus the 1st part of my sentence (the one which you seemed to objected to) was accurate. After I revealed that she was condemned to death by a truther rather than a right-winger your evaluation (in post #7 ) mildened, you wrote:

The post about Goodman was clearly an absurd overreaction, and potentially dangerous. It is quite possible it was disinformation, and quite possibly it was just someone venting about the foundation-funded limited-left press. In either case it is regrettable and counterproductive.

It is wrong, however to see it only in individual terms. Our completely undemocratic media make this sort of irrational and counterproductive outburst inevitable.

There is no doubt there has been an uptic in efforts that try to depict those who want a new investigation as entirely on the right. How predictable, and also how impossible in earlier years. It took years of left-gatekeeping for this latest effort to take hold.

This makes it all the more important that we put forward examples of those on "the left" (whatever that means these days) who also demand a new investigation. Not because their questions are any better-- I don't know-- but because disinformation must be dealt with if you see truth as socially constructed and want it to matter.

The jist was that it was an “inevitable” (i.e. understandable) albeit “absurd overreaction” but you obviously no longer felt it was “morally reprehensible” thus the 2nd part of my sentence (which you didn’t challenge) was accurate as well.

"THEN YOU GO ON TO A CONCLUSION WHERE YOU IMPLY SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING I NEVER CAME CLOSE TO SAYING .. SHOW ME RIGHT NOW . RIGHT NOW"

I have no idea what you are going on about, which “conclusion” were you referring to?

"How can someone just outright LIE about what someone said. I AM WAITING LEN FOR YOU TO SHOW ME THE QUOTES on WHICH metaparaphrasing is based. This is Goerbels level verbal contortionism. Len show me now."

Take a pill and go back and look at your previous posts, your last one was an “absurd overreaction” since I quoted you on the same thread where you’d made your original comments and presumably + 90% of the people reading my post had already read yours.

Let’s try the following, choose one of the English teachers among your collegues and show him (or her) this thread, ask them if they think I misquoted you. Tell us what he (or she) says.

If anybody should be requesting moderator action it would be me because you falsely claimed I’d lied and compared me to “Goerbels” by whom you obviously meant Goebbels but you seem to have made your post mid apoplectic fit so I’ll let it slide.

EDIT - Formatted for clarity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are (were) Noah Chomsky, Ed Said, Ward Churchill, Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon etc etc licensed jesters as well?

Yes.

Paul

So who do you consider to be genuine opposing voices? Alex Jones and Chris Bollyn?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are (were) Noah Chomsky, Ed Said, Ward Churchill, Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon etc etc licensed jesters as well?

Yes.

Paul

So who do you consider to be genuine opposing voices? Alex Jones and Chris Bollyn?

Guido Giacomo Preparata and David Ray Griffin for two.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone is free to do as you want, but I suggest you not answer this Borg and thereby play his game - but that all email or PM to the John S. and complain over this deceptive provacateur on this Forum. Answering him is only feeding the xxxxx. I'll no longer respond to any LC-911 posts or threads. He more clearly than ever IMO works for the dark forces behind events like 911 and only seeks to drag people in to this tarpit of moral and provocational excrement. He has actually contacted real entities outside of this Forum to try to poison the waters for my research and also tried to post my location - which was removed by the moderators - and is a security necessity. This entity is pure poison - don't drink from it and don't feed it. He invented this tar-pit and false thread - but this is nothing new for this deceptive entity. All his posts are disingenuos twistings of our words and the those of others on internet sites and in books, etc. for his evil 'masters'. Makes you a servo-Borg LC-911. IMO

NB, I see Antti watching all this and suggest you send the whole thread directly to John S. for his evaluation.

Peter,

I am in complete agreement with you as to Len's motivations etc but I make four arguments against banning and/or ignoring.

First and foremost, he does, intermittently, ask important and sensible questions that demand answers.

Two, he's so visibly a servant of the what you so felicitously style "the Borg" that he is much less dangerous than more subtle presences serving the same end.

Three, group-think is as injurious to the side of virtue as to its opponents.

Four, banning is everywhere and always a weapon of the fearful and the dishonest. Have more confidence in your own arguments and those broadly on your side - on 9/11 et al, they're very obviously right.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...