You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / AUDIO: David Swanson with Jim Fetzer
AUDIO: David Swanson with Jim Fetzer
Four Clips:
1. Obama
2. 9-11
3. War Lies
4. Wars vs. Crimes
- davidswanson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Tags
The post is edited Dec. 11th, after having been originally posted Dec. 10th.
I'm not saying that David Swanson is a "9/11 truther", so I don't want to be misinterpreted in that regard. I believe he's open-minded about it, but will let him speak for himself on 9/11. However, James Fetzer is an individual to be wary of. Many 9/11 "truthers", f.e., may still be unaware of "9/11 Truth" fraud that he's committed and evidently continues.
James Fetzer's bogus nuke "theory" about 9/11:
He supports or certainly supported the nonsensical "theory" about nuclear bombs being the explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers. This following article provides some very simple arguments debunking the "nuke theory" that anyone can understand, but a portion of the argument for debunking the "nuke theory" is from the explanation of physics professor Steven E. Jones, who is a nuclear or nuclear-related physicist.
"ERROR: 'Nuclear Devices Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers'"
911review.com/errors/wtc/nukes.html
The end of the above page provides a link for an argument of an unnamed Finish author, an argument against the nuke "theory", but the link is no longer valid.
James Fetzer, the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory, etc.:
The next page on dissembling Web sites about 9/11 is about 911Review.org, WING TV, James Fetzer's
ScholarsFor911Truth.org, and "Physics911.net,.ca,.*", and it provides some good pointers for what to be very wary of at these Web sites and others. But I'll excerpt only a portion of the part about James Fetzer's Web site. If he's corrected the Web site, then great, but if it's still as described in this following page, then take note of the flaws pointed out.
"Dissembling Websites"
911review.com/disinfo/sites.html
The 911research.wtc7.net link for Jim Hoffman's article, "ScholarsFor911Truth.org: Muddling the Evidence", is still valid. And whenever wanting to refer to a scholars Web site on 9/11, then always use "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice", STJ911.org; not James Fetzer's Web site, unless you want to see what the current junk science is promoted there. That's for American Web sites on 9/11, anyway. There might be other similar sites in other countries.
The excerpt from Bronco's article refers to James Fetzer's home page promoting "the 9/11 music video called 'loose change' ...". That's surely in reference to Loose Change 1, or else 2, and 1 was [very] bogus, 2 was an improvement, though not enough, LC 3 was a great improvement and 4 is, from what I've read, the best. Professor David Ray Griffin, is a very widely known and excellent public speaker for presenting 9/11 research findings, and he's written a number of related books that are compilations of findings from the work of scientists, architects and engineers, f.e. He was a consultant for the LC team for either LC 3 or 4 and this evidently was of great help to the team. Bronco's text is certainly not about LC 3 or 4. And the rest of what was excerpted from Bronco's article in the above 911review.com page is fine.
OKC Bombing was an "inside job"?:
People who haven't heard or read of this incident in 1995, which everyone in the US has, or who have only learned what the "official story" says happened, may think whoever says that this really was an inside job is nuts or a clown. It'd be a typical reaction from people who are either uninformed and/or who believe the "official story"; but people who take time to seriously learn about what really happened will be able to have their eyes and minds opened. There's sufficient evidence for this to [not] be a conspiracy theory and plenty of the needed information is on the Web.
There was an Okla. state government official or Congressman who worked for a year to try to obtain a real investigation, but his efforts were obstructed. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts from locals and some people who worked in the Alfred P. Murrah building. All of this was censored and/or extremely underreported, according to a fair number of people who have provided qualitative documentation and analysis on the Web. If they're mistaken, then they're still credible enough for the population to demand a real, independent and honest investigation or inquiry.
James Fetzter, a 3rd plane at WTC, and unproven threats:
"Flying Elephant or Routine Takeoff?
Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks
Evaporates Under Scrutiny"
by Jim Hoffman, March 22, 2007
911review.com/reviews/journal/elephant.html
The part of that article that specifically relates to James Fetzer is the part for the subheading of, "Alleged Threats".
People James Fetzer recommends:
There are things that James Fetzer might be right about along with others with the same conclusions about some aspects of the 9/11 attacks; but knowing the above about him and his 9/11 Web site is enough to know to be wary. I would not use him as a 9/11 resource.
And in the audio clip on 9/11 that David Swanson provided a link for, James Fetzer mentions Kevin Barrett, who's name immediately "rang a bell" with me, due to seeming to recall having read that he's not someone to to turn as a resource. The following resource page and the article linked and excerpted from further below provide valuable information about Kevin Barrett and a few or more other people James Fetzer recommends and who should [not] be recommended; certainly not on the topic of 9/11, anyway.
"Activist Resources"
911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/activism.html
I'll excerpt only the part of the page about him.
"Discrediting By Association:
Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11"
by Victoria Ashley, Version 1.2, August 13, 2007
911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html
The rest of the article apparently returns to the subject of PatriotsQuestion911.com's carelessness, by including what I guess basically is promotion of people like these above ones, along with [reputable] people; as stated in the first two paragraphs of the above article.
Closing:
Prof. James Fetzer is right in some respects, perhaps many, regarding 9/11; but, and as per above, he's someone to be wary of with some of his claims and about some people he recommends on 9/11. Whenever he repeats those elements, then they should be ignored and anyone wishing to do so could bring it up with him with some serious drilling. Most of what he said in the second audio for the interview with David Swanson is fine, but he was too pushy, heavy-weighted, say, and I thought he seemed a little offensive, but not for the whole clip.
He posed some relevant questions in tying the relevance of 9/11 and the attacks not having happened as the "official story" was designed to have us gullibly believe. It's been very proven that the "official" story is [mostly] bogus and that there's definitely official cover-up. Many justified questions continue to remain unanswered for [no] valid reason. So 9/11 is a topic that is definitely relevant to the topic of war being a lie, being based on lies.
I began with no. 2, 9/11, then listened to 3, "War Lies", so will comment on that one first.
ACTUALLY: ERROR in audio links!
I listened to the audio on 9/11, first, and then listened to the third audio, after which I started listening to the fourth, which begins exactly as the third does. That couldn't be right, so I hovered the mouse pointer over the links that David provided and 3 and 4 are the same as 1. Only the second link, for 9/11, differs.
http://warisacrime.org/downloads/fetzer3.mp3
http://warisacrime.org/downloads/fetzer4.mp3
"1. Obama":
David spoke in very competent and open-minded, honest, and informative terms. Prof. James Fetzer evidently is a little naive about Obama, and when he spoke of John McCain and Sarah Palin, there isn't concrete proof that McCain would've been worse than Obama, and regardless who of the two won the election, the presidency works for the rich and influentially powerful imperialist elites of the country. They control and this of course is because most people in the "body politic" are easily, readily corrupted; and that's when they're not unvettable and corrupt to begin with, which I think is probably true of most of them. But I also got the impression that the McCain-Palin campaign was [designed] for Obama to be elected. McCain and Palin campaigned so badly compared to Obama with all of his deceitful promises or pledges that it was obvious that Obama would win and not McCain. Putting Palin as running mate with McCain and letting her speak as stupidly as she did during the campaign was a sure way to cause their campaign to not have more than a remote chance of winning.
I might be mistaken about the latter part of the above paragraph, but it's definitely the impression that the McCain-Palin campaign seriously gave me. And I don't know for a fact that it's true, but did read that Obama and McCain had private discussions defining what each could or would say and wouldn't say. That's something that is certainly possible, but I don't know that it's true that they did this. If they did, then I'd [guess] that it would add to my aforementioned impression about the McCain-Palin campaign. And another thing I seem to recall having read was that some people who traditionally voted Republican chose to switch to support Obama, which clearly would be because they couldn't support the idea of voting for McCain-Palin.
That's all I have to say about this audio clip. It's a very solid discussion on David's part.
"3. War Lies":
David says there was "almost no talk about spreading democracy ...", saying this about the war on Iraq, and it's true that there was a lot more propaganda of lies about Saddam Hussein supposedly having ties to 9/11, Iraq's non-existant WMD, as well as Saddam Hussein supposedly having been a threat to Iraq's neighbors, when Iraq was already so destroyed by the US and US-imposed sanctions that were extremely criminal and genocidal, and lasted over a decade. But Bush did say more than once that the US, under his command, was going to bring democracy and liberation for Iraqis with this war.
Bush clearly and publicly said that Iraqis would get democracy and liberation, and I immediately pounced, going to some discussion forums to denounce him for these blatant and hellishly grotesque lies; saying that his administration was not going to bring democracy and liberation to Iraq, while adding that what they were going to bring is HELL, which is what Iraq received. And I also added that the war was going to bring a form of liberation for Iraqis, a hellish kind of liberation; liberation from life.
David is right that it's definitely not what was most talked about and that when it was stated, then it was after weapons weren't being found. It was in 2003, but prior to the launch of the war, that I recall having heard or else read about Bush promising democracy and so on for Iraq. It was not a topic when the Congress gave its conditional authorization for recourse to war in October 2002, anyway; probably not having been mentioned before 2003 and the weapons inspections weren't working out favorably for Bush et al.
It was an example of Bush et al trying to "beautify" the launching of this totally criminal and unjustifiable war that was totally based on lies and grotesque distortions.
Bush talked about war on Iraq before being elected:
This is one welcome piece of information that David provided in part 3. I did not know that Bush had done this; spoken of taking war to Iraq before he was elected. However, I have read that the elites of the US had been wanting war on Iraq for some years, before Bush was elected. They apparently and credibly wanted to get rid of troublesome Saddam Hussein years before 2000. So it's not surprising that Bush spoke of this prior to being elected; just that I hadn't known that he actually did.
Defense is legal, but not necessarily moral?
At one point in part 3 David correctly says that defense against invasion, aggression, is legal, but that the question of whether resistance is moral is different, and it is different. However, what the difference consists of should be explained, for what David might say that it is could differ from what another person would say. F.e., I definitely will say that Iraqis, Afghans, and any other people who legally have the right to defense against invasive forces of aggression also have the moral right to defend against this crime. What they morally should not do, however, it start a civil war, target civilians, et cetera; they must only target the forces of aggression. If they target members of their countries who work for the forces of aggression, then it is to target traitors, albeit not necessarily the case in all wars of aggression. For the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, however, Iraqis working with and therefore aiding and abetting, as well as profiting from the US-led wars in these countries are traitors and these traitors can be justly perceived as allied with the foreign enemies of aggression. So Iraqis and Afghans fighting only for trying to defend their countries would morally not be criminalizable for also targeting Iraqis allied with the forces of aggression.
The only thing I believe that they don't have any legal or ethical right to do is targeting of innocent co-citizens.
So I'm curious about what David would say about the moral perspective to defense.
Oh, and part 3 is a [good] discussion.
"4. Wars vs. Crimes":
Very good discussion.
And it's great that Prof. James Fetzer didn't repeat his aggressive pushiness, and what sometimes appeared to be almost offensiveness, exhibited in part 2 on 9/11.