Arabesque maintains his title as the Most Intellectually Dishonest Shill in the Fake Truth Movement
Arabesque, the self-appointed export on disinfo and false logic in the "9/11 Truth Movement" who spends more time than anyone else accusing people of using said techniques, is legendary for being the very person who hypocritically utilizes these same deceitful tactics, such as ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, twisted logic, etc., more than anyone else in "The Movement."
Check out his latest doozy, fresh from the Arabesque Straw Man Factory:
http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1887&postdays=0&postord...
Sara's comment that discussing the backstory of the alleged hijackers [Why not quote what was actually said, instead of making up your own paraphrase...oh, then you wouldn't be able to make the straw man argument you are repeating over and over again here, huh?] "functions to bolster Islamophobia, and Islamophobia's end result is genocide" is so hilarious that I have to assume the intent is simply a deliberate smear to slander 9/11 activists as "racists" for discussing the alleged hijackers. Now there's a "thought crime". That's right, merely "unduly" talking about the alleged hijackers (the people blamed for 9/11) [really? Is it really just about merely talking about the alleged hijackers that Sara objected to? Got any quotes for that part of the (straw man) argument? No? Why not?] is "contributing" to "Islamophobia". Is it just me, or are comments like these deliberately calculated to be divisive? [Um, it's definitely divisive to criticize someone about a comment that doesn't exist] I have a hard time believing any rational person could frame discussing the alleged 9/11 hijackers as contributing to "Islamophobia" in the context of a 9/11 investigation or discussion: If they are innocent, all the more reason to discuss their ACTUAL role and prove their innocence. Right? [But Arabesque, you know full well that we would not complain if you guys allowed discussion of the alleged hijackers in the context that you described above. But since that is not the context within which the alleged hijackers are allowed to be discussed by the gang of thought police on the fake 9/11 truth sites, you are making a knowingly false argument here]
Does this mean we shouldn't discuss the backstory of Timothy McVeigh because it might possibly contribute to bigotry against "anti-government loners"? And believe it or not, this patsy actually thought he carried out the total attack on the OK building. See, patsies are sometimes deliberately manipulated to make it look like they could have carried out the act and that they wanted to do it. [This is a false metaphor, Arabesque, because you are implying that the alleged hijackers actually existed and were on those planes, despite the evidence to the contrary. Is this yet another example of your attempt to subtly imply the hijackers' guilt to re-enforce your ridiculous 'da Mooslims did it', or 'da Mooslims thought they we're doing it, even if they weren't really doing it, so da Mooslims did it anyway' drivel?]
I agree that "Church of Demolition" is a divisive phrase, but it pales in comparison to the continuous, 24/7 slander, insinuations, ad hominem attacks, twisted "logic", and even drivel that spews from an "excellent" website like WTCdemolition.com.
Another interesting contradiction here. WTCdemolition users bemoan the fact that they just want to "discuss" the holocaust, and that it shouldn't be a "thought crime" to discuss it, and often in the same paragraph or post they are complaining that it's "racist" to discuss the alleged hijackers of 9/11--you know, the people blamed for 9/11? [Um, blamed by who, Arabesque? No one in the mainstream 9/11 truth movement buys that fairy tail anymore that da Mooslims are to blame, only the handful of fake truthers who have taken over most of the 9/11 truth blog sites, such as yourself, along with the real perpetrators and their apologists] Going so far as to smear 911blogger as a "racist" site. Does this smell as intellectually dishonest to you as it does to me? Or is this all just a calculated charade? Deliberate provocations for the sole purpose of wasting time and attracting attention because no one will play in the sand box with them anymore? Group psychological projection?
[...]
SNIP
(Here Arabesque cites another definition again in order to make himself seem more of an expert and to divert attention away from the fact that it is Arabesque, himself, who is making use of this concept
[...]
Random WTCdemolition.com user wrote:
"Hey, we just want to talk about the Holocaust... we reject "thought crimes". You Racist! Don't discuss those alleged hijackers!"
[Is that really a quote from WTCdemolition.com, Arababesque? Can you cite the link? No? I didn't think so. You can make up any quote you want, but you are just exposing yourself as a liar, Arabesque.]
And in case you missed it, here's the definition of thought crime:
[...]
SNIP
(Here Arabesque cites another definition again in order to make himself seem more of an expert and to divert attention away from the fact that it is Arabesque, himself, who is making use of this concept
[...]
And then these people spend most of their energy and free time online calling (sorry, slandering and libeling) other 9/11 activists as "fake truthers"? [No, we only accuse the small handful - about a dozen or so - of obvious (da Mooslims did it!) fake truthers, as "fake truthers", who are completely out of step with the mainstream 9/11 truth movement but who, coincidently, just happen to now censor/dominate the blog discussions on most of the important 9/11 "truth" web sites. How is it, Arabesque, that a group of people who represent less than 0.1% of the views of the mainstream truth movement can have such influence on those discussion forums?]
Who makes this stuff up?
Go ahead and join their site Barrett, you'll fit right in.
Arabesque, you are so pathetic. You know full well that we are not accusing 911Blogger of being racist "merely for discussing the alleged hijackers." And you know this because you couldn't find a single quote in which Sara or Gretavo or anyone else said such a thing, otherwise you would have used a real quote instead of paraphrasing non-existent quotes five times (perhaps thinking that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true in people's minds).
What makes 911Blogger and TruthAction.org and other forums that you gang of fake truthers control/dominate, Islamophobic, is the double standard being utilized in holding the alleged muslim hijackers as guilty until proven innocent, while holding Zionist property owners with their more than obvious arson and insurance fraud, innocent until proven guilty. This has been explained over and over again, but you purposely ignore it. So, here it is again:
It is racist Islamaphobic bigotry to presume that those Big Bad Muslim-fanatic Terrorist Hijackers are guilty until proven innocent, and to carry on and on with these baseless charges against Saudis, Pakistanis, etc., in order to defame an entire group of people who have already been maliciously targeted and continue to be murdered in great numbers, and to misdirect away from the real perpetrators. Especially considering the fact that the mainstream 9/11 truth movement, epitomized by the research of David Ray Griffen, has long ago concluded that there is not a credible shred of evidence to prove that they were Big, nor were they Bad, nor were they Muslim-fanatics, nor were they Terrorists, nor were they Hijackers. It has become more than obvious that you all are a bunch of phonies who are not interested in the truth of 9/11, but instead utilize every possible dishonest and deceitful tactic and false argument to continue to smear the officially framed muslim/arab patsies, while protecting the true perpetrators from scrutiny, hypocritically accusing your detractors (the mainstream 9/11 truth movement) of being "anti-semite racists" and other nonsense that you, yourselves, are guilty of. Go ahead, keep making fools of yourselves, you are just exposing your true agendas for everyone to see.
- Keenan's blog
- Login to post comments
Thanks, Keenan
I thought about doing this kind of deconstruction of Arabesque's crapola, but you beat me to it (and saved me the aggravation)! All excellent points.
Wow, reading it again made me even more appreciative...
The item that Arabesque paraphrases is the kind of distinction that is entirely over the head of all the clowns over there. (I'd like to start referring to them as the "Insane Clown Posse", but first, is anyone going to be offended because it's an insult to the band?) What I said was that ascribing undue significance to the patsy backstory bolsters Islamophobia. Frankly, we can discuss the patsy backstory all day and not be racist about it -- it's the fact that some people can't stop pretending that the patsies are the perps -- and can't frame a discussion so that it's about patsies qua patsies -- that is what suggests racist bias.
More whining at Truthmove
where I am not yet banned. Chrisc backpedals to clarify that his remark about Barrett is not based on race or ethnic identity but merely his belief that Barrett is a "phony Muslim." Arabesque refers to this blog to complain but cannot address the substance of it. The same insane clowns converge with the same polluted illogic... maybe "inane clowns" is better...
Well, looks like the discussion is heating up at Truthmove...
and I'm soon to be banned there, too, apparently, oh nooo! I responded to chrisc's typical ad hominem attack against me, in which he typically avoids any substance of what I'm discussing, and attempts to dismiss me by using ad hominem/guilt by association, as usual. I haven't posted any comments to truthmove for over a year before today. The truthmove admin responded to me as follows,
Listen, anyone who supports that drivel above can just shove off now. You aren't welcome here.
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1165?replies=19
Gosh, I feel so ashamed...not! I'll wear it as a badge of honor to be banned from yet another fake truth site (which are all, coincidently, run/dominated by the exact same cast of characters, with the very same bloggers given special treatment, wouldn't ya know). If you Islamophobic fake "truthers" can't allow any substantive critique of a member of your gang of thought police, then you are simply proving that you are not capable of having open, honest discussions, and therefore are not part of the real truth movement (and, incidently, have no business running/censoring "truth movement forums"). Do you realize how bad you gang of fake truthers are looking at this point? (Hint: really, really bad)
are you serious?
did they tell you to shove off? OMFG, like this is so like them. LOL!!! can i get a witness [yawn! - excerpted from something someone like JohnA(lbanese) would say]. not only do they suck at what they do, they are miscreants. the most miserable of them all.
Ha! Truthmove shows their true colors...
and bans me right on que!
My offense? Simply requesting that Arabesque address the substance of my arguments, and to back up his accusations.
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1165/page/2
As casseia said, some bloggers are a lot more equal than others. The unwritten rules in these controlled echo chambers misnamed as "discussion forums" is:
1. Do not disagree with the opinions/tactics/logic of anyone who is a member of the clique of controlling LIHOP bloggers/moderators, or you will be accused of being a "disrupter" and will be, by definition, presumed to "not be here for a fair, civil, rational discussion."
2. If you continue to not show enough obedience/deference to the clique, you will be banned and put on the "disinfo" list
Add one more "Banned From Another Fake Truth Forum" badge of honer to my collection! I think I'm up to 3 or 4 now. I might even amass more badges than RT some day!
Do these people realize how insanely hilarious and fake they are
Warning: proceed at your own risk. You may suffer from severe convulsions from laughing at the following load of Grade A BS! Are these people for real?
Arabesque: one of the things I admire about the truthmove forum is that it isn't overrun by disruption very often. [Translation: We usually weed out those who might dissent from the opinions of our gang of thought police, but sometimes we don't purge them fast enough]
Thanks. Following our own rules sometimes means that we have to give people an opportunity to take a few steps over the line before we moderate or ban them. [You mean, like violating the unwritten rule against dissenting from one of the members of your gang of thought police?]
Truthmover: Listen, anyone who supports that drivel above can just shove off now. You aren't welcome here.
I tried to give the guy a hint.
Arabesque: The relevant point here is that his site has slandered 9/11 activists as racists.
Thanks for getting us back on topic.
Keenan: Accusing people who have disagreements with your tactics/logic of being "disruptive", Aragesque, while never getting around to addressing their arguments, is par for the course with you. Your game is to never have to address the issues long enought to get your detractorrs banned or silenced, and to always turn things back on your detractors.
I would laugh if I wasn't so frustrated. These folks actually think that in every venue someone will be responsive to their BS reasoning. They come here, and all of us see right through it. The comment above is so typical. I don't even see words any more in all these cliches, just a motivation behind them. [Uh huh, I'd agree with that. Complete unwillingness to consider the substance of my arguments/points, just automatic dismissal. Nothing surprising about this.] Its utter nonsense. And in this case, as in many, the intent is to distract us from the topic in defending ourselves.
I sense fear. [Oh paleeze! is that the best you can come up with?]The kind of fear that someone who depends upon an outside authority has when that authority is challenged.[What a crock of shit] When your identity is wrapped up in a figure head, any attack on that figure is felt as an attack on you. There is no greater control a leader might hope to have than this kind of personal identification. [You've got to be kidding...my identity is wrapped in a figure head? Um...so...you mean Gretavo is my cult leader? Are you fucking serious?! Gretavo is not my cult leader, casseia is! Oh, Hail Supreme Leader, Priestess Casseia of the Holy Church of Controlled Demolition! :*S]
Also I think many of us can often tell when someone is thinking for themselves. [Translation: We can tell when someone is mindlessly agreeing with our gang of thought police, which will hence forth be said to be "thinking for themselves". Anyone who has the audacity of disagreeing with us will hence forth be said to be "not thinking for themselves".] Certainty belies that outside authority once again. [Translation: There shall be no other Gods (or nonconforming opinions) but ours, got it!] A lack of humility is my biggest red flag [Translation: Lack of obedience and deference to our gang of thought police is the biggest red flag], as the issues we face are so much more important than any one of us or our identity politics. When people lose touch with the big picture [meaning that We Are In Control] for too long they can get lost.
Anyway, we certainly want this space to remain comfortable for all you guys [that are obedient and loyal to our gang of thought police]. We will continue to do our best to keep it that way. [I'm sure you will]
Sigh... prolly the least significant problem in that
is someone's (Truthmodmover's) implication that any discussion of racism can be dismissed as "identity politics."
white white white white white.....
Arabesque hates muslims. and
Arabesque hates muslims. and since i know hes probably watching, its not libel if its true asshole. that professional toolbag is the reason i finally got banned from shilltown(911b) awhile back. hes one of the "key" members there, question one of "them" and you're gone. and by the way casseia, i used to listen to ICP when i was like 15 or 16, and though i see the error of my ways now(haha), it is an insult to the Insane Clown Posse to compare them to Arabesque(i wont be offended though, the name fits). at least they admitted before that what they do is an act. unlike certain 911 bloggers........
Holy crap...
They have a whole thread about us going over there now and Arabesque is going to unprecedented extremes of faulty logic. It's called "WTCDemolition: Libel, Drama, and SLC Talking Points." Maybe if Keenan has a few minutes he'll take this one apart, too.
Here's a tidbit from Arabesque:
"Sara, a co-operator of the WTDdemolition added in a letter to Barrett before appearing on his radio show:
Quote:
...Continuing to ascribe undue significance to the "patsy backstory".... functions to bolster Islamophobia, and Islamophobia's end result is genocide."
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/lamadrid.htm
These statements are obviously false. They can be clearly interpreted as an attempt to libel 911 activists and 911blogger. "
Now, come on, Arabesque. You can do better than that. I appreciate that you actually quoted me here rather than paraphrasing, but in order to show that something is false, you must do something beyond saying it is false. Then you go on to cite a definition of defamation that is centered (correctly) on the falsehood of the claim. Obviously, I think anyone who continues to ascribe undue significance to the patsy backstory is acting as a racist (and racist behavior is what makes a racist -- it's not like there's a blood test). So make an argument that continuing to ascribe undue significance to the patsy backstory does NOT stem from a racist double standard for proving guilt, or STFU.
And the capper is this circus-worthy contortion of logic: I guess the guys at Screw Loose Change ALSO recognize that Jon Gold "hides behind the family members." I'll take Arabesque's word for it -- that's one piece of shit blog that I HAVE managed to avoid reading for the most part. Therefore, we're in cahoots with the SLC guys or working from the same agenda. (Actually, perhaps I should say that that kind of logic is Col. Jenny Sparks-worthy.) That's one of the very few assessments of the Truth movement they have made that is accurate. So what? If they say the sky is blue... yadda yadda yadda. It's the same ploy used in the related thread in which Jon Gold likens RT and me to Victor Thorn and Lisa Whatshername because they used to criticize Kyle Hence for his harping on the Patsystani Pork Chop transfer. I know very little about them and don't feel any particular affinity with them, but they were right about that.
I have that feeling that if we're getting this much flak we must be over some kind of target.
And WTF is this?
Arabesque refers to RT as a self-admitted provocateur:
Quoting Arabesque:
The owner of the site is an admitted provocateur. He has admitted on the record that he says things just to get a reaction:
Quoting imgstacke:I read his (RT/Grevato) explanation on one of those threads, basically saying , I make up stuff to see how people react. That is his shield and defense for slinging accusations at members of the community. Well sorry, If I put forward and accusation, I put forward some evidence, especially in public websites./quote
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4201
So what do you call someone who admittedly makes things up, just to see their reaction? Is this someone we should take seriously? What's "Real Truther's" real motive here for provoking reactions with deliberately false accusations?
End Arabesque quote.
If I were this guy, I would find a source for RT saying this himself as he is alleging RT does, or pull it fast -- because this IS defamatory. Another user (imgstacke) says he's seen RT admit this, and Arabesque uses this hearsay as evidence because he is unable to provide actual evidence.
"Well sorry, If I put forward and accusation, I put forward some evidence, especially in public websites." Ironic much?
I guess ironic too much...
The thread is gone. Poof!
they are totally desperate because they've been exposed
So what do they have left? Well, let's see "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counteraccusations." Sounds about right. They had believed that the truth movement would be their personal sandbox where they would control and contain any and all comers, making the world safe for the real perps. Now they realize that they are in over their heads, that "nobody told them there'd be days like these" when their cheap tactics are seen through and where they will actually have to justify their actions. So what to do? Go after those who are calling you out, of course. Oh, and post death threats on our site. Oh, and impersonate Kevin Barrett to try to set up an account here. And make sure to do these things behind anonymized IP addresses like good cowards! So they can keep flapping their racist gums over there, they can keep pretending to be real truthers and not part of a controlled opposition. They should enjoy their last hurrah, because like all rats they will at some point need to scatter.
Gold Jumping The Sinking LIHOP Ship?
http://911blogger.com/node/16927
"There is less evidence to support the claim that Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed ordered him to do it." - Jon Gold
"I realize that you did not verify that Ahmed ordered Sheikh to wire transfer the money." - Jon Gold to Dennis Lormel
To no surprise to me, because I pointed out the obvious to Gold years ago, Dennis Lormel says his quote on the 100K wire transfer had been taken out of context.
Dennis Lormel was the head of the FBI's Financial Crimes Unit during 9/11/2001. He is quoted in a few articles and used as 'proof' by Jon Gold and others that the Pakistani General ordered 100K to be wired to Atta.
Funny, I pointed out the likelihood that the quote was taken out of context....years ago! But, in 911Blogger.com fashion, I was chastised, my full name and location was shared, and it was suggested I was 'against the family members' in some way.
"There is less evidence to support the claim that Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed ordered him to do it." - Jon Gold
Jon, you're a few years late to the party. And I would correct you on this:
There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion you've been making for years. There is no evidence supporting the disinformation you've been pimping. There is no evidence that Pakistan General ordered 100K to be wired to a group of alleged hijackers.
How is it that you are now just confirming the information you've been pimping for years now?
The funny thing here is that Gold admits to the lack of evidence that the Pakistani General ordered 100K to be wired...and yet continues to pimp the same disinformation along with 911Blogger regulars like GeorgeWashington who states it as fact that General Mahmood was the 9/11/2001 paymaster.
Incredible.
Not Tooting My Horn Here
I'm not trying to toot my own horn. But, I do want to post a quote from my discussion with Jon Gold and others on the topic of the Pakistani General Wire 100K Transfer To Alleged Hijackers.
-JPass 02/04/2007 (referring to Dennis Lormel being used as a source for the Pakistani wire transfer goose chase by Jon Gold and others)
"Meacher is not saying that he confirmed the source of the $100K transfer but that the transfer too place. The quote is misleading I think. Is there any other source for this information? I am fairly certain that it came from testimony to the 9/11 commission and that si where meacher is getting it but I really think it is just confirmation of the transaction, the amount, but not the source.
That would severely affect your case."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5945#comment-113457
horn toot for JPass!!
No need to do it yourself J. If Jon Gold is stepping back from his BS I think we can all give ourselves a pat on the back for being the catalyst. Just like the 9/11 perps, the fake truthers will do anything and everything so long as no one calls them out on it forcefully and constantly. this is precisely why I disagree with the "no ad hominem" idea--sometimes that's what it takes to properly shame people into doing the right thing. If we pretend that all points of view are worthy of equal respect then we leave ourselves wide open to coordinated deception by tag-team mutual promoters like JohnA and JonG...
Jpass up by 28 in the third quarter, Gold and Company
call for a time-out to talk to their dazed quarterback. Thanks J for being a bulldog on the ankle of this issue (and others). How come no one at 911B (or any of those other “Truth†sites) ever talks about the long-time Mossad-Indian Intelligence alliance on issues like MUSLIM PAKISTAN!? This is pretty basic stuff. The Times of India is an Indian Intel “news placement service.†And isn’t the story that Mossadmed and the Krewe got all that cash only a couple of weeks before finally getting their chances to fly one a them real super big planes? $100,000 and two weeks to party! Those devout al-Quesadilla “Muslim†boys musta been laying down some serious ‘round the clock drinking, cocaine, and pork-chop dinner tabs. I just love the “Arab highjacker’s†forgetfully leaving a copy of the Qur’an on the formica counter of the bar at their favourite drinking hole in Hollywood, Florida, and the placement of Mossadmed’s Final Will and Testament in his suitcase to be put on a plane destined for a suicide collision with one of “super-victim†Larry Silverborg’s buildings. There was the unforgettable evil magic of Shaykh Bin Ladin (and the office paper fire god) – causing two planes to hit and THREE buildings to fall, all at near gravitational pull.
You see, these are the things that happen when you turn the script over to someone who has either not done much research in these particular and disparate areas to make it look real (as in authentic), or has absolutely no respect for the audience’s intelligence. I’m leaning a little towards both of these possibilities. If it weren’t for the millions of unnecessary deaths and massive amounts of destruction, decimating entire countries, this whole 9/11-Anthrax Attack caper could be turned into a fairly funny, Clouseauesque-Pythonesque spy spoof comedy kind of thing. The audience would, half-way through the film, be urging the “bumbling†FBI agents, led by that guy with the twitching eye: “Hey, how about checking out that Dr. Zack guy who was caught on the frickn Fort Detrick camera system coming, as in illegally breaking into, the anthrax lab a year after he was FIRED for putting a racially very special poem, as well as a camel and a dildo on an Egyptian scientist’s desk!†Whether Zack is a “Jew†or a “Catholic†is completely irrelevant. We just want to know the name of (and where he fits in on the general perp org chart) the Mahfalk who sent that military-grade, bio-weapons shit through the mail and killed that old lady in New England, and we keep wondering why people like Barb Rosenberg seem to be shielding people like Zack. Her man Hatfill just collected a pile of taxpayer dough because she was dead wrong.
As far as, “Oh yeah, the Iraqis did it (but not ALL Iraqis, of course),†if you look very closely at the handwriting on the letters sent by “the Anthrax Terrorists,†the hand of someone accustomed to writing characters from left to right (as is customary in English) is evident, even when they are trying to disguise their handwriting style by using very simple block letters. These letters were obviously written by someone who writes predominantly in a left-to-right language such as English, not Arabic (written right-to-left). And did they really believe we were going to think that super finely milled, weapons-grade anthrax was going to be coming through the mail from the same Cessna Cocaine Krewe that “flew†those planes?
Kyle Hence does suck!
I remember 'wolfowitz in sheep's clothing' calling him out a couple of years ago.
strike one -
http://www.septembereleventh.org/alerts/hellyer.php
LIHOP special...
"But, there's some evidence to suggest he (Bush) may have {known about the moozlum HIGH (on coke?)-jackers}."
strike two -
on 'evidence' Bush LIHOP...
"So you can understand why perhaps people are asking the same question about President Bush and the Bush Administration."
strike three -
i'm pretty sure he used to work for the nbc/cnn/pbs lot as well, but i can't find his biography anymore. 'wolfowitz' had it linked up a while back, but blogger's search function is absolute shit.