[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 TruthConference, Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library

David Johnson davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net
Mon Sep 23 19:14:44 UTC 2013


Gee,

I have no problems stating my opinions about any subject or topic.
This is a Peace Discuss list so I consider my questions to be very appropriate.

David Johnson

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Roger Helbig 
  To: David Johnson 
  Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 4:21 AM
  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 TruthConference, Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library


  What the hell do your questions have to do with a) the 9/11 Truther nonsense or b) Holocaust denial?  You are being a bully and you ought to have grown out of that stage of your Kindergarten experience.  Grow up and get some brains!

  Roger



  On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:41 PM, David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:

    Huh ?

    What the fuck are you talking about ?

    As usual, you are avoiding my questions by trying to change the subject !

    Answer my questions Mr. Gehrig !........

    "So I will ask you Mr. Gehrig, do you or do you not support the past Bush
    administration and the current Obama administration's foreign policy in
    regards to ; "
    1) The invasion of Afganistan
    2) The invasion of Iraq
    3) Targeted Drone assinations of U.S. citizens
    4) the Patriot Act, the Defense Authorization Act, and the Edward Snowden
    affair
    ???????????????
    Myself and others who have spoken privately off-list would really like to
    know.

    David Johnson


    ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gehrig" <david-cu at nukulele.org>
    To: "Fields, A Belden" <a-fields at illinois.edu>
    Cc: "David Johnson" <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>; <peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net>; <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
    Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:33 PM
    Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] [Peace-discuss] News Gazette article on 9/11 TruthConference, Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library


    Beldon gets it. Bigots like Fetzer have the right to speak. But would you invite Henry Kissinger to speak to your group about holiday photography? And if you did, and your inviting Kissinger got you blowback, would a response, "but but but we're only talking about photography, why do you keep bringing up Cambodia" really satisfy anyone?

    @%<


      On Sep 20, 2013, at 6:03 PM, "Fields, A Belden" <a-fields at illinois.edu> wrote:



      David,

      I hate to say it, but the questions you pose to David at the end of your email are are off point and insulting.  This is very much like Carl's tactic--i.e., when you are trying to make a point critical of something, then ask the person if they, e.g., support a war or beating their wife. If Socialist Forum or any other group to which I  belong were ever to bring a racist who happened to agree with me on a subject other than racism, I would quit that organization in a flash.  This is because I would have little faith in the both  the analytical capacity and the commitment to humanity of such a person.  While such a person certainly has the right to speak , I, or  a group to which  I belong, would never facilitate it.  If this is what David Gehrig is  questioning, then I am right by  his side on this.

      I am a democratic socialist, and it is my understanding that Socialist Forum is committed  to  democratic socialism.
      I am certain that it would never facilitate the  the propaganda of national socialists (i.e., Nazis or neo-Nazis), even if on certain points we might find ourselves in agreement.

      Disappointedly yours,

      Belden

      ________________________________________
      From: David Johnson [davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net]
      Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:14 PM
      To: Peace-discuss; occupycu at lists.chambana.net; C. G. Estabrook
      Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 TruthConference, Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library

      Good point Carl,

      BUT, the conference on Sunday is NOT about anti-semitism, despite the
      efforts of David Gehrig to equate the two, it is about questioning the "
      official " Bush administration story about the 9-11-2001 attacks.

      Mr. Fetzer's views on other subjects are irrelevant in regards to the 9-11
      conference.

      Even IF Mr. Gehrig is correct about Mr. Fetzer being " anti-semetic ", the
      subject of the Holocaust and anti-semitism will NOT be the subject of the
      conference.

      But just to set the record straight, did you notice how quick Mr. Gehrig was
      in trying to equate AWARE with anti-semitism, just because there was a
      debate on the Peace Discuss list ?
      And also, ever since I can remember Mr. Gehrig's postings to Peace Discuss,
      NOT ONCE has he EVER posted an article or an opinion against the neo-con /
      neo-liberal wars of corporate empire.
      Which makes me question Mr. Gehrigs TRUE purpose and agenda for being on
      this list.

      So I will ask you Mr. Gehrig, do you or do you not support the past Bush
      administration and the current Obama administration's foreign policy in
      regards to ;
      1) The invasion of Afganistan
      2) The invasion of Iraq
      3) Targeted Drone assinations of U.S. citizens
      4) the Patriot Act, the Defense Authorization Act, and the Edward Snowden
      affair

      Myself and others who have spoken privately off-list would really like to
      know.

      David Johnson



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
      To: "David Gehrig" <david-cu at nukulele.org>
      Cc: "sftalk" <sftalk at yahoogroups.com>; "Stephen Francis"
      <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>; <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "Jim Fetzer"
      <jfetzer at d.umn.edu>
      Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 3:23 PM
      Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11
      TruthConference, Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library



        David--  Did you read my note? AWARE is against racism. I set out some
        specifics.

        You seem to suggest anti-Semites should be prevented from "coming to
        town," or speaking.

        If you don't believe in free speech for people you despise, you don't
        believe in it at all.

        --CGE


          On Sep 20, 2013, at 11:48 AM, David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

          Carl handily demonstrates the problem. Fetzer is a flood of Holocaust
          denial, an inherently antisemitic enterprise. Francis, while not
          motivated by antisemitism, does not have any basic problem with passing
          along the antisemitic crap from Fetzer, including the claim that the
          Jewish dead of the Holocaust has been intentionally inflated by a factor
          of ten.

          Did Carl notice any of this? I mean, hey, only a notably and nationally
          known antisemitic speaker -- and Barrett is just as bad -- come to town,
          is all. Why on earth would a self-proclaimed anti-racist organization
          have a problem with antisemites coming to town?

          Why would AWARE care that a nationally known Holocaust denier is coming
          to town?

          Well, that depends. Which kinds of racism is AWARE actually against?

          "Nazi - schmatzi" AWARE sez, "we don't care, as long as he's not a
          neo-liberal!"

          @%<


            On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:43 AM, "C. G. Estabrook"
            <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:

            "...The more interesting question at this point, of course, is this ...
            where does AWARE stand?"

            Why does David consider that "the more interesting question"? AWARE has
            not been involved in the Gehrig/Francis contretemps, other than having
            its listserv <peace-discuss> the locus of the debate.

            There are members and friends of AWARE who think that the 9/11 Truth
            Movement is on to something - indeed, that it is perhaps the most
            important political question in the US today.

            There are others (I'm one) who think that Chomsky has it right: "its
            major impact has been to draw off energy from trying to do anything
            about the problems that have arisen" - i.e., Obama's ongoing wars.

            AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of C-U, was founded immediately
            after the attacks of September 11, 2001, by residents of
            Champaign-Urbana and members of the University of Illinois, who saw that
            the U.S. government would use those crimes (whether or not it had guilty
            knowledge of them) as an excuse to carry on and expand its decades-long
            wars for the control of Middle East energy resources.

            For a dozen years now, members and friends of AWARE have worked in
            Champaign-Urbana to end the killing by the Bush & Obama administrations,
            by informing their fellow citizens of the real nature of the "war on
            terrorism," in opposition to the largest and most sophisticated
            propaganda campaign in history, conducted by the US government, and
            directed at the American people.

            In fact, the US has been carrying on wars in the Middle East for more
            than two generations, practically since the end of the Second World War.
            (The reason is not far to seek: if the principal product of the Mideast
            were asparagus, we wouldn't have half the American military there.)
            AWARE is directed against the ongoing (and expanding) wars for economic
            control by the American 1%. (See the recently published "On Western
            Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare," by Noam Chomsky and Andre
            Vltchek.)

            AWARE has from its beginning been concerned about the racism bound up
            with those wars, viz.,
            (1) the US government's use of anti-Arab (and anti-Muslim) propaganda,
            even though a principal US client is the world's most reactionary Muslim
            state, Saudi Arabia;
            (2) the US government's support for an officially racist state, Israel,
            its other principal client in the region, as a "stationary aircraft
            carrier" in its Mideast crimes; and
            (3) the US government's employment as soldiers and mercenaries of poor
            African-Americans and Latina/os (although a recent study suggests that,
            controlled for class [so to speak], the exploitation of these
            communities is not disproportionate).

            It's also been argued within AWARE that anti-racism (and identity
            politics in general) has been a fall-back position of an American
            liberalism unable to counter the vicious class war carried on by
            neoliberalism for more than a generation - and to that extent it's a
            distraction from the sources of the ongoing "Western terrorism." (For
            the opposite view, see Dave Roediger's contribution to this list.)

            The efforts of AWARE and many similar groups across the country have
            recently produced a victory for the only enemy the president and the
            neoliberal parties fear - the US populace. Opposition from the Left and
            Right (and from all races) is growing outside the control of the
            Republicans and Democrats; it's stymied for the moment Obama's expansion
            of the war.

            --CGE


              On Sep 18, 2013, at 8:47 AM, David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org>
              wrote:

              Steve, your unwillingness to address Fetzer's now well-established
              antisemitism does not magically negate that antisemitism. Neither does
              it negate your personal moral culpability for inviting a nationally
              known Holocaust denier to come speak.

              The more interesting question at this point, of course, is this. Now
              that Fetzer's made it clear that he is motivated by antisemitism, that
              he does pillage white power sites looking for goodies to use against
              The Jew -- where does AWARE stand?

              Does AWARE oppose antisemitism this blatant?

              Do only some kinds of anti-racism result in AWARE action?

              Is AWARE anti-racist, or only anti-racist with an asterisk?

              Is AWARE's position "Nazi-schmatzi, who cares, as long as he's not a
              neo-liberal"?

              @%<


                On Sep 18, 2013, at 8:23 AM, Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
                wrote:

                Just to remind everyone, The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference is about
                focusing on the evidence of the crime committed on 9/11 and not about
                defending ourselves from attacks of anti-Semitism....and will be
                conducted as such...


        _______________________________________________
        Peace-discuss mailing list
        Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
        https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


      _______________________________________________
      OccupyCU mailing list
      OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
      https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu 


    _______________________________________________
    Peace-discuss mailing list
    Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
    https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130923/5347ee3e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list