You Read It Here First

From my Monday morning column, written on Sunday:

“At this dramatic turning point, bin Laden reappears with a half-hour long tape, the transcript of which can be found here, and there is something very odd about it, in that it reads like a political polemic that might have been written by an American.”

From the London Telegraph, posted pretty much simultaneously:

“A Californian heavy metal fan, who converted to Islam and became the first American to be charged with treason in half a century, has been fingered as the author of Osama bin Laden’s latest video lecture – which left the terror chief sounding like an anti-globalisation protester….

“American spy chiefs were quick to name Adam Gadahn, the head of al-Qaeda’s English language media operations, as the author of large sections of bin Laden’s broadcast.

“Last October, the 28-year-old ‘loner’ became the first American charged with treason since 1952, for appearing in a succession of al-Qaeda videos under the guise of ‘Azzam The American,’ in which he condemned globalisation and made American cultural references.”

For more on the curious case of Senor Gadahn, go here, here, and here.

27 thoughts on “You Read It Here First”

    1. Justin,

      Why are you against Alex Jones? It’s not like he makes claims without supplying the evidence. He’s brought in MIT and BYU engineers and host of other respected experts to support his Building 7 claims.

      In regard to Flight 93, do you even need experts to explain to you that there should be some debris when a plane crashes into the ground? There weren’t any pieces of the plane in Pennsylvania. NONE! Just one big hold in the ground.

      Take a look at this picture of the crash site of American Airlines Flight 965 that crashed into the side of a Columbian mountain at cruising speed in 1995 (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa965/photo.shtml). Wait. How can this be? Wreckage of the aircraft? Impossible!

      However, if you haven’t been swayed by the evidence presented by Jones, please write a full article on it. You have touched a little bit on the “Jonestowners” in the past, but have never challenged the actual evidence presented by them. Please explain to us WHY Alex Jones is a fraud.

      Anyway, I still love your articles, I just think you need to open your mind a little bit more.

      1. Alex Jones takes a smidgeon of truth and stretches it as much as he possibly can. If youy watch terrorstorm you’ll see how he implies that a German dealth cult wants to enshrine Schwarzenegger as emperor of the world and how our “elites” worshid an owl god. The same nonsense with “mind control” “chemtrails” and plans to enslave the world. He is a cariacature of alternative political views.

        There’s no way he beleives his nonsense, but he is entertaining and there is often a tiny smidgeon of truth to what he says.

  1. I read this web site every day and made a donation last Christmas. I also read things from Alex Jones quite frequently.

    I believe that both Justin and Alex are deeply concerned about the future of this country. They also probably agree on 75-80% of the political issues of the day. They are both fighting the same enemies.

    Only a fool fights in a burning house.

    Justin–what is your beef with Alex Jones?

  2. To put it simply: Justin Raimondo is in a different class from Alex Jones. Both have a keen skepticism of government, but the similarity ends about there. The main characteristic that distinguishes Justin from writers like Alex Jones is that Justin writes with the intellectual humility that is the mark of a reasoned mind. Remember how Socrates was the wise-est because he admitted that he knew nothing? For example, just look at how Justin’s latest piece ends with acknowledgments that he doesn’t have all the answers. Alex Jones, while very entertaining, is informative in a way markedly different from Justin. Alex seems to have all the answers and an almost messianic confidence in his own knowledge. Alex might be right about everything, but he doesn’t have enough evidence to be so confident.

    Their styles of argument are quite different. Read Alex Jones to be entertained and to consider new ideas about broad social and governmental issues. Read Justin Raimondo to be informed and to consider evidence-based and principled arguments about the details of war and peace in modern America.

  3. Nice criticism by skeptic and right on point. Jones really has the uncanny ability to leap to conclusions without much supporting evidence. What i dont like about people who refute his arguments and is completely unacceptable is labeling him (or anyone) a “conspiracy theorist” and dismissing everything said. That is not a valid argument.

    1. Right on Goran and skeptic. I used to read and listen to Alex Jones a bit, and I do believe in conspiracies. But Jones is just a sensationalist who’s out to make a buck off others’ research. That said, he does raise awareness for some people but I prefer to listen to more rational people. Jones is just too arrogant and aggressive.

  4. I’ve not read Alex Jones material and don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist. I do know that I have what might be considered a messianic certainty that the earth is round because of the evidence that it cannot be otherwise, which is to say someone’s style shouldn’t trump the evidence.
    While I always read Justin’s columns with great interest and generally admire his thinking even when I don’t necessarily agree, I seem to sense a real blind spot about WTC and 9/11, almost what I might call a messianic certainty that it couldn’t have been a conspiracy, and that the towers could not have been destroyed through controlled demolition. I wrote to Justin and asked for some pointers toward any information he had that was so compelling as to eliminate any questions; I’ve seen controlled demolitions and I have to doubt my own mind in order to believe that what I saw on 9/11 was anything but that. Unfortunately, he never responded to my email, so my questions remain.
    I too would appreciate it if either he would write an article explaining what looks to me like an article of faith for him, or perhaps someone in this thread could point me toward evidence that explains how what never happened before (so far as I know anyway) happened three times on that day. I would just like a rational argument that explains how what I saw with my own eyes was not as it appeared. The scientific stuff I’ve found seems oddly conjectural or inconsistent to me, seemingly dependent on unproven assertions about building materials, melting temperatures and so on, without really explaining how that would result in what would require defying the laws of physics (as I understand them) in order for it to be true.

  5. Is this the first chink in Justin’s ideological armour concerning 9/11? While he takes another gratuitous swipe at ‘Truthers’, he seems to be sharing some of the same doubts about who or what bin Laden is. And once you start chewing over those thoughts, you’re irrevocably down the rabbit hole. Welcome down Justin!

  6. Alex is heading in the right direction and does some interesting research at times, but he jumps to conclusions all too quickly, like every new event completes part of an interconnected web.

    So whether it is earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves or the death of a political figure, within minutes he seems to come up with a theory to explain it. Sometimes these theories have evidence and other times they are just speculative nonsense.

    On 911, there are many questions and few answers. It's fine to speculate, but that isn't professional journalism.

    Where there was real evidence, such as with the Israeli watchers and the Anthrax goings on, Justing was on top of it, and if real evidence comes out showing government involvement in 911, and not just coincidences, then I am sure he will report on it.

    I like to hear some of Alex's theories and the collection of coincidences, but I think he goes too far with his conclusions too far. At least too far to be able to accept the conclusion from the evidence.

    1. the most sinister part of jones’ shtick is his denial of the two main motives israel and the israeli americans would have had to stage 9/11 —peak oil and global warming.

      it’s just too damn bad that the israeli americans of the AEI have teamed up with exxon to deny global warming.

      there’s so much smoke, so little fire… which i spose is to be expected since the people who yearned for a “new pearl harbor” in sept 2000 were shortly thereafter installed in positions powerful enough to put the fire out… with a little help from their friends in the media.

  7. both guys ignore/deny (justin/jones) peak oil and global warming and their role in getting us into these pickles… which means both of these guys are seriously underinforming us (justin) or lying (jones).

    1. israel faces sea level rise of 80 meters, and high ground must be grabbed before peak oil cripples its american protector.

      how do you recruit american armies into israel’s quest for high ground before those american armies run out of gas?

  8. My 9-11 problem is Jamie McIntyre standing in front of the Pentagon and saying, “there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon, the only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in and as I’ve said the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections a fusilage nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed that didn’t happen immediately it wasn’t until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed”.
    I’ve emailed CNN twice to ask them when McIntyre had his epiphany. They haven’t responded. If he was right on his call, then we’ve got a problem. And don’t ask me what happened to the plane. I don’t know. I’d settle to know what hit the Pentagon.

  9. I’m not enough of a physicist or a materials scientist or an aeronautics engineer to say what happened to the twin towers or the aircraft that allegedly hit the Pentagon. Neither do I think it’s necessary to look at “remote-controlled aircraft” or “non-existent passengers” to establish what happened on 9/11. There is a certain point at which theories of a conspiracy become a joke.

    I DO believe that certain officials – specifically Dick Cheney – KNEW that something was going to go down in September, 2001. Whether they knew PRECISELY or just GENERALLY, they KNEW. And they made sure to take steps to let it happen.

    Given what Cheney and others were engaged in ON 9/11, I think the circumstantial evidence is considerable that they knew precisely what was going to happen on that date – and they let it happen.

    All I need to know to make this belief rational is the existence of the Northwoods documents – in which the Pentagon EXPLICITLY considered a plan to fake the shooting down of a US airliner by Cuban military aircraft as a justification for invading Cuba.

    If the US government could conceive of that plan, they could conceive and execute SOME sort of plan resulting in what happened on 9/11.

    That and the fact that Justin Raimondo considers it rational to believe that Israeli agents were somehow connected to 9/11 by their presence in New Jersey to film the operation, and by reports of their having followed the hijackers around for months, indicates to me that the entire plan was either known to the Mossad or even created by the Mossad and fed to Al Qaeda through possible double agents.

    This would explain pretty much everything: the Mossad created the plan, and certain neocons connected to the Mossad in Washington were aware of the plan. That would be all you would need to make such an operation feasible. You would NOT need “thousands of conspirators” – just a handful of people directed the right way without a “need to know” the ultimate consequences of a report labeled “unverified” or the reassignment of some FBI agents away from the hijackers.

    The pilot for the “Lone Gunmen” TV series that was aired six months before 9/11 that featured a US government faction that planned to crash a remote-controlled airliner into the World Trade Center in order to stimulate the arms market had it right – they only showed TWO PEOPLE doing that operation. I’d say you need more than that – but how many? Who knows?

    If you don’t know HOW it was done, you don’t know how it COULD have been done.

  10. Re: “Conspiracy Theories”

    David Ray Griffin, as usual, offers some actual depth of thought regarding this label – which gets pasted on just about anyone who offers an alternative scenario for 9/11.

    Here’s a bit of it:

    David Griffin Replies to NY Times “Conspiracy Theories 101”

    In “Conspiracy Theories 101” (Op-Ed, July 22), Stanley Fish gives an idiosyncratic interpretation of academic freedom, limiting it to the freedom to decide what to study. It does not include, in his view, the freedom to “embrace and urge” a viewpoint in the classroom, because to do this is to “proselytize,” to “indoctrinate,” to engage in “partisan advocacy.”

    If universities were to enforce this restrictive interpretation, it would mean that biology professors could not explain their reasons for accepting evolutionary theory rather than “creation science”; physics professors could not profess their belief in (or against) the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory; and so on.

    The full reply can be found at:

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

    As always, we need to listen to the motivation of the person using the term. If it’s used like an epithet, in order to frame the context for further discussion, that will give a fair idea of what to expect from the conversation to follow.

    donilo

  11. This has actually been a very civil and well-reasoned discussion. I think many of the criticisms of Jones here are fair. This is a very pleasant and shocking surprise.

  12. I was surfing through YouTube a couple of days ago and came upon an old 1999 ABCNEWS report about the ties between Bin Laden and Saddam. It was blatant propaganda, suggesting such things as the uranium procurement by OBL and the fact that Saddam was going to give assylum to Bin Laden…basically every Bush talking point for the 2003 invasion that have all been debunked!The source of the info were “three intelligence agencies” according to the “reporter”.Now I don’t subscribe to these conspiracy theories, but this disinformation was disbursed a full year before Bush came to office and several before the tragedies that followed. The PNAC were operative in 1997, but could they have been behind this story?Could this be evidence of a propaganda campaign and show that the decision to invade Iraq was made well before 911?I don’t know and hope somebody can shed some light, but please go to YouTube and check the story out!

    1. These corporategovernment conspirators seem to be omnipresent. Damn they are good. I’m still waiting to read the 1940 book, I forget the title, recommended by Kurt Vonnegut in A Man Without a Country, arguing/attempting to prove, that some people are born without consciences. At the end of his life he had given up on humanity, and claims so had Einstein and Mark Twain. The only other book he recommended in his last publication was, House of Saud, House of Bush.

  13. Pingback: efd6eff50eec

Comments are closed.