Monday, April 18, 2011

Kevin Barrett interviewed by Veterans Today

Kevin Barrett, whose radio show and website are listed both on the left and right side of this blog respectively, has been a courageous voice for truth, sanity and academic freedom for years now.  I thoroughly enjoy his radio shows, which you can download on iTunes, as he has many interesting and enlightening guests.  I do find myself at odds with some of his guests but, more often than not, most tend to have a pretty good analysis and presentation of facts during their interviews with Dr. Barrett.  I do know this- I almost always learn something new whenever I tune into his podcasts.


In Veterans Today, a transcribed interview with Dr. Barrett, conducted by Kourosh Ziabari, was published today, and Dr. Barrett makes a couple points I'd like to highlight.  The entire interview is worth reading, but I'd like to highlight a brief excerpt that really stood out to me.
Kourosh Ziabari: You have selected the title "Truth Jihad" for your personal website. Although being functionally and semantically a sublime and precious concept in Islamic thought, Jihad has been constantly vilified and denigrated by the extremist neo-cons and Zionists who want to portray a distorted and black image of Islam. They claim that Jihad is tantamount to terrorism and Muslims who follow the principle of Jihad are terrorists as well; however, the reality is that Jihad is a mobilized, logically sustained and concerted confrontation with those who want to plunder your values and treasures and violate your rights. Although you're a Muslim convert, you are a Western citizen; however, you have selected an Islamic name for your website. Would you please explain about this selection for me and my readers?

Kevin Barrett: Being a Western citizen and a convert does not make me any less of a Muslim. Islam, after all is a deen, a religion and a way of life, not a race or ethnicity.

In any case, jihad is a noble religious concept. As you know, the word means "effort" or "striving." In one sense, jihad is the complement of "Islam" whose root meaning is "surrender" to God. So jihad means to exert effort in the cause of God.

One very intense form of effort, exertion or striving in the cause of God is armed struggle in defense of the community. Those who wage this form of jihad risk everything in an all-out struggle in service to the community and to God.

Today, Islam as a deen, and the world Muslim community, is under attack. 9/11 was a mass human sacrifice designed to ritually inaugurate a New World Order of global government by satanists and atheists. With Christianity and the other big religions co-opted or neutered, only Islam stands between the perpetrators of 9/11 and their goal of a New World Order. Under these circumstances, is incumbent upon Muslims to wage effective jihad in self-defense and in defense of our religion, and in defense of all of our fellow human beings and our planet, fi sabili llah [in the way of God].

After thinking things through, I have concluded that the most effective way that I can wage jihad is by wielding the weapon of truth - especially the truth about 9/11. The 9/11 perpetrators seem to have made several big mistakes and left unmistakable evidence incriminating themselves. Their single biggest mistake, apparently, was failing to demolish World Trade Center Building 7 on the morning of 9/11; presumably due to some logistical problem, they had to wait to demolish it until late that afternoon. Anyone who spends a few minutes informing themselves about WTC-7 must either choose intellectual dishonesty, or admit that 9/11 was an inside job. See:
When Americans and Westerners face the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, their attitude toward Islam, and the New World Order's war on Islam, changes radically. They realize that they, and Muslims, share a common enemy. They become deserters from the war on Islam, and join the oppressed peoples of the world, and the bearers of the scriptures, in a common struggle for justice.

While I am very serious about waging this "truth jihad," I realize that Western culture fears and loathes the word "jihad." So I use a technique common in certain forms of comic literature - for example, the novel Don Quixote - of being simultaneously serious and humorous. I make fun of myself by using hyperbole (exaggeration) in order to play the role of the "crazy radical jihadi for truth." What is most hilarious, and most deeply serious, is that this "crazy radical jihadi" character I'm playing, like King Lear's fool, is the only sane character in the play, the only one who understands and tells the whole, painful truth. The humor makes my uncompromisingly honest message palatable for Western audiences. As the saying goes, "If you tell the truth, make it funny or they'll kill you."

By accepting this role, which Allah's qadr seems to have prepared for me, I am straddling the boundary between Islamic and Western culture, between seriousness and humor, between reality and imagination, in a unique way. As an American Muslim literary scholar with an odd Irish sense of humor, and a whole lot of outrage about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, this is my way of waging jihad fi sabili llah. [...]

KZ: Physicist Dr. Crockett Grabbe has pointed out in a 2007 article that the NIST account of the 9/11 attacks has been thoroughly erroneous, unrealistic and fallacious. He has pointed out that "the rapidly expanding huge concrete dust clouds from the towers, the very-quick appearance of multiple squibs on all 3 collapsing buildings, and the destruction of hundreds of autos for several blocks around the World Trade Center from these squibs" indicate that the Twin Towers did not simply collapse as a result of the planes crashing into the towers, but due to explosive materials. Jim Hoffman's article also attests to the same fact and admits the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. What does this fact signify? Who should be held accountable if we admit that the explosive materials brought down the Twin Towers?

KB: Everyone who is lying about it and who should know better - meaning the entire GW Bush Administration, the top levels of the military and intelligence command, all of the NIST people responsible for the scientific fraud represented by NIST's reports on the WTC, and a great many others (see www.whodidit.org/) should be immediately arrested and aggressively interrogated, with relatively leniency offered in exchange for the whole truth delivered in a timely manner. If our judicial system cannot do this, citizens, including honest police and military, should arm themselves in preparation to make citizens arrests in what will amount to a second American revolution. Likewise, foreign nations ought to demand the truth about 9/11, and to cut off all relations with the USA until war crimes prosecutions reveal the full truth about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars.

3 comments:

  1. A good collection of videos here, especially the Barrett one.

    - Aangirfan

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree about Kevin's programs. I listen to all and learn a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The RT interview is quintessential Barrett--you can learn a lot all right. A lot that isn't true! He lies four times in the first four minutes. He lies about how much profit Larry Silverstein made, he lies about Silverstein's "confession", he lies about the polls showing American's belief in "inside job" and he lies about a demolition countdown on a police radio.

    The last lie is particularly pernicious because it perverts a truth (there is a tale of a countdown on a Red Cross radio) into an incredible and discrediting conspiracy theory implicating NYPD in the demolition of WTC7.

    Barrett's sloppy scholarship, blatant bigotry, and buffoonery have been enormously discrediting to the truth movement.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.