Bob English wrote:
>Further, the fact that Guns and Butter couldn’t
>have "rebroadcast (it) on KPFA" because "it"
>doesn't exist, adds another layer of personal
>and intellectual dishonesty and laziness on
>Lilley's part.
I know Sasha and her work, and this is bullshit - there's nothing dishonest or lazy about her. If you're flinging about charges like that, you're not welcome here.
>So there's another aspect that needs to be
>included in this discussion: the discrediting of
>the 9/11 truth movement, 9/11 skeptics and
>researchers (who question the official state
>cover story) by progressives and journalists,
>like Lilley and Norman Solomon, who enjoy
>wearing the mantle of free speech and free
>intellectual inquiry while trashing radicals and
>anyone who questions the Big Lie or exposes
>false flag and other undercover, gangster
>operations of the national security state (1) -
>see notes below.
Wow - an email post with footnotes! You don't see that often. You must be a real serious dude.
> Do I need to note that they join with the Bush
>Administration and right wing in dismissing the
>9/11 inquiries
This is typical of your style of argument. If anyone questions your view, they're part of the right wing. Well fuck that. The "9/11 truth movement" is a bag of crap. It brings discredit on actual radicals, progressives, journalists, and researchers. And how can you slide into a rant like this?
> – as well as challenges to the origins, nature
>and manipulations of the “war on terror” - as
>“conspiracy theory?” If people on the left know
>that the state operates, for instance, to not
>only execute, but also cover up the nature and
>extent of the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima
>and Nagasaki, as we’ve heard recently on
>"Democracy Now!", why can’t they grok
Grok? I haven't heard that word in like 15 years.
> that the state is very capable of perpetrating
>(or being complicit in) the 9/11 events as a
>false flag operation to pave the way and provide
>the political climate and justification for the
>Afghanistan and Iraq invasions/occupations (2)
>and the developing "Homeland" police state?
Thank god you can't hear 9/11 nonsense on Democracy Now! But the nature and extent of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't exactly a secret before. A lot of serious scholars have done work trying to suss out the actual motivations for the bombings - whether they were really directed at the USSR in particular. But that's real research, not Hufscmid-style nonsense.
>In this and other respects, we’re with Joe in
>advocating for unconditional, uncensored and
>inclusive free speech - that is, let everyone,
>including the haters and deceivers, have a say
>to express and expose their views and nature,
>and let the listeners and readers decide what’s
>true and mis-represented.
Editorial judgment and discretion isn't the same as censorship.
> And let’s evaluate their truth and accuracy on
>the issues currently addressed rather than prior
>statements and shortcomings on other issues.
>
>So since Hufschmid in particular is targeted
>here by Lilley, we’re going to take up his 9/11
>viewpoint and contribution. First and without
>going very far into his website statements and
>language and whether or not he qualifies as a
>racist or neo-fascist (3), let’s note for a
>moment that he at least claims to be a truth
>seeker with a different view of the Holocaust
>and the concentration camps (which he apparently
>doesn't deny but questions their function as
>extermination centers).
Ok, so you've revealed yourself as either a crank or worse. Thanks. Bye.
Doug