Contribute  :  Calendar  :  Advanced Search  :  Site Statistics  :  Directory  
911Courage    911Courage    911Courage
 Welcome to 911Courage
 Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 05:55 PM EDT  -   Please don't forget to check 'Events' at left.

CALL FOR MEDIATION

   
A Call To ActionBy Dave Slesinger - dslesinger@alum.mit.edu . Please post public responses here (911courage.org)

I have been removed from the 911truth.org grassroots contact list after having been an active truther since 2002, having given out over 55,000 deception dollars and having spoken on nonviolence at national 911 conferences in 2005, 06, and 07. The reason is that I'm seriously considering taking nonviolent sanctions against dc911truth.org, a group I co-founded, and against Webster Tarpley, a DC area resident. Before I take action, I will give the rest of the movement a chance to mediate.

I do this out of respect for the rest of the 9/11 truther movement, which could experience some problems as a result.



All I ask is a full discussion with Webster and the DC group (separately is acceptable) of the issues I have attempted to raise for over a year. I do not require that others agree with me. I only require FULL discussion.

To give perspective to this problem, wouldn't most truthers be ecstatic if those who refuse to examine the evidence of government involvement in 9/11 were to agree to a full civil discussion of the evidence? If truthers refuse to discuss nonviolence, an approach to social problems based in respect, why should defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) be respectful enough toward 9/11 skeptics to discuss 9/11?

Webster Tarpley
Webster has repeatedly spoken in my presence against the example of Gandhi and King. He has stated in my presence that there is no such thing as moral force. (Even Lee Hamilton acknowledges the Jersey Girls had a lot of moral force.) He has stated that the oligarchs wanted Ellsberg to release the Pentagon Papers. (He doesn't go so far as to say that Ellsburg, one of the greatest moral figures alive in the US, was a pawn of the oligarchs). He has stated more than once that people who do civil disobedience have low self esteem. Since no one is perfect and most people can have higher self esteem, is using such a psychological put down a reasonable way to dismiss a legitimate political tactic? Using personal attacks has been the stock and trade of debunkers. Am I out of line for expecting truthers to act better than these misguided people who substitute venom for evidence and logic? Sadly, Webster uses personal attacks regularly.

The sanctions I am considering against Webster are to contact the mainstream media wherever he has been scheduled to speak so that the local reporters are more likely to ask him questions he has been unwilling to answer in the past.. For him to prevent this, he will need to discuss his background with Lyndon Larouche in depth and explain why he should not be held at least partially responsible for many of Larouche's misguided activities. Webster was Larouche's intelligence chief until the mid-nineties. In addition, He needs to show why we should not be concerned about his use of Larouche's demagogic tactics. Keeping in mind Webster's psychological tactics mentioned above against those who might potentially practice civil disobedience, Larouche used to counter political disagreement by accusing youths in his group of projecting their unresolved conflicts with their parents onto him. Everyone has unresolved conflicts with important people in their life. Is that a reason to avoid discussion of political issues on their merits? In addition, Webster has shown himself to be contemptuous of the democratic process repeatedly in my presence.

Lastly, he needs to discuss the relative value of facts versus concepts, and why at this stage of our 9/11 truth organizing that he emphasizes concepts. While the evidence versus theory issue might be categorized as more of a content issue than a process issue, Webster's penchant for theory over evidence is part and parcel to the demagogic style he learned from Larouche. An emphasis on theory without evidence implies the speaker is deserving of a sort of unquestioning faith it his veracity and ability.

On July 4 in Philadelphia after waiting at least five hours to speak for 3 minutes, and after the facilitator announced that I was to speak next, Webster ordered the facilitator to let him speak next (for hours). He had already spoken before that day. I had called THAT facilitator, Paul Deslauriers, the night before (he had left a message for me earlier that night referring to me as "buddy") and checked in with Paul minutes after I arrived at 1:10PM. My presentation was clearly the most daring of any proposal made that day. It called for setting up a website listing both the suspicious and laudable FBI activity regarding 9/11 and standing outside the Hoover Building in DC as FBI workers leave for the day holding a banner with the website's URL in order to weaken the will of FBI employees to support the cabal. It has so far proved to be too bold for the dozens of truthers in the room. (See accounts of similar past activity at 911courage.org.) Because Webster's lecture was so long, there were no breakout groups (as promised by Paul), and no one has even contacted us anonymously by mail, it is unlikely such effort will proceed.

911blogger.com
I have also been banned from posting on 911blogger.com for giving criticism of Paul Deslauriers' post listing the agreements from July 4 in Philly. My offense was to note that my friend Cindy Sheehan had been abused in her support for the July 4 meeting since civil disobedience (CD) is not considered an option in the statement coming out of that meeting. She has stated in a post to me that she doesn't work with people who oppose CD. I'm open to the possibility that she and many of the organizers of the conference did not anticipate Webste's opposition to civil disobedience and ability to intimidate the facilitator. Reprehensor, of 911blogger.com seems to feel that since there was no previously agreed ban on CD in formulating the meeting, it is unfair to suggest Cindy was abused. I'm willing to agree that Reprehensor and others were not necessarily acting in bad faith while they were planning the conference. Nevertheless, a statement from the conference which doesn't include embrace of civil disobedience is a slap in Cindy Sheehan's face.

I support 911blogger.com's decision to avoid the vicious mudslinging that has been so prevalent in our truther movement. I suggest that banning civilly stated disagreement is going too far and does not serve the movement. I like to think that an approach to conflict resolution which gives the adversaries credit and does not set a vicious tone is a contribution to rather than detraction from our movement. There must be acceptable ways to resolve conflict other than the person being abused agreeing to surrender. Even if the person abused wants to turn the other cheek, how can we be sure the contribution that person raises should be dismissed? Doesn't such behavior invite more heat and less light?

dc911truth.org
Matt Sullivan, who facilitates most 911truth meetings, wrote after the July 4 incident that he supported the decision to preempt my speaking. He stated in a post saying that people didn't come to Philly to listen to me. I consider this contempt for fairplay as being a version of "the ends justify the means."

The sanctions I am considering against dc911truth.org include appearing at any and all their events with a sign or pack of leaflets asking why they won't discuss nonviolence. I am also prepared to escalate beyond these sanctions. Such sanctions could result in serious implications for the rest of the movement.

Nonviolence is much more than civil disobedience. It affects normal public education efforts. It also involves fairplay within a group's local process. As the modern women's movement taught as far back as the 70's, "the personal is political".

As an example, allow me to review the discussion surrounding the eventual lack of public action by dc911truth.org on 5/11/07. I proposed we repeat the very first action that dc911truth ever did. We (Matt Sullivan, Lou Wolf, Clay Harris and I) had gone during lunch hour to the Washington Post in the spring of 2006 with a 7 foot banner (ask me how to make a plastic banner for under $10) stating "Courageous Reporters Work Here, dc911truth.org". We gave out Steven Jones at UVSC on 2/1/06 DVDs, deception dollars, and Ken Jenkins' glossy 11 points cards. We were well received by many, especially nonjournalists.

I proposed at the May 2007 meeting that we do a similar action giving out our new 4 in 1 DVD (9/11Mysteries, Loose Change II recut, Terror Storm (edited) and Griffin in Copenhagen). Lynn Bacaj suggested we avoid the Post with their terrible attitude toward exposing the lies of 911 and focus on the City Paper. Someone noted that the City Paper is an office in a larger building where most of the pedestrian traffic would not be from the City Paper. Instead of returning to the original proposal, Matt Sullivan, the facilitator, unilaterally moved to a new topic and no action occurred on May 11. We claim to use consensus, but Matt, who as a Quaker is well aware of basic consensus process, never went through the process of asking in sequence for questions, concerns, objections and blocking objections. A few months before, Greg Jenkins was denied the right to attach the dc911truth.org name to a project of his ostensibly because we "use consensus." The group NEVER uses the consensus procedure of moving from questions to concerns to objections and to blocking objections. There is no evaluation at the end of the meetings, though I have requested such procedure. There are no minutes at any meeting, and I, even though I'm co-founder of dc911truth.org, am not allowed on the group listserve. This is because I have twice leafleted dc911truth.org events criticizing the group. Before I did this leafleting I pleaded with the group to discuss the issues internally so I wouldn't have to raise them externally. At the Barrie Zwicker talk Barrie even praised me for the issues I raise. Copies of such leaflets are available.

Nonviolence
The suppression of the Washington Post action is an excellent opportunity to show how an understanding of nonviolence could help our normal public education efforts.

My friend Gene Sharp, considered the Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare, delineates in his 3 volume set The Politics of Nonviolent Action, how a violent conception of power differs from a nonviolent conception of power.

A violent conception of power sees the adversary as a monolith, incapable of penetration. The phrase "Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall," is an excellent example of this conception.

A nonviolent conception of power sees the adversary as ultimately dependent of the cooperation of its subordinates. This is significant because it suggests nonviolence can be used against the most seemingly intransigent adversaries. Sharp goes on to describe three ways nonviolence can win. These are conversion, accommodation and coercion. The further away from conversion and the closer to coercion, the more the adversary's decisions depend on the lack of cooperation by his subordinates.

To quote Sharp, "In conversion the opponent has been inwardly changed so that he wants to make the changes desired by the nonviolent actionists. In accommodation the opponent does not agree with the changes (he has not been converted) and he could continue the struggle (he has not been nonviolently coerced), but nevertheless he has concluded that it is best to grant some or all of the demands. He may see the issues as not so important after all, the actionists as not as bad as he had thought, or he may expect to lose more by continuing the struggle than by conceding gracefully. In nonviolent coercion the opponent has not changed his mind on the issues, and wants to continue the struggle but is unable to do so; the sources of power and means of control have been taken away from him without the use of violence. This may have been done by the nonviolent group, or by opposition and noncooperation among his own group (as, mutiny of his troops) or some combination of these." (Italics by the author)

The lesson for the Washington Post DVD giveaway is that even if every journalist and editor actually spit on us, the other workers there are their associates and friends. Such an action would undercut the respect and possible cooperation the Post's management has from their workers. Such action, while eminently legal, is a textbook example of the use of nonviolence.

Ultimately, it is crucial that any movement for social justice examine the history and philosophy of nonviolence. The most important reason that nonviolence can be valuable for everyone is because it shows how courage with honor has such great potential.

Those who can tell no difference between business as usual and nonviolent resistance are essentially saying the 911 truth movement has all the power it needs. Compare this to the antiwar and impeachment movement's assumption that they have no need for evidence from the 911truth movement. This comparison is what got me banned from the dc911truth.org listserve originally.

It is with great sadness that I admit that I doubt the courage of American citizens to prevent the cabal from establishing full martial law. The fact that it is so rare to witness civil discussion of the evidence about the lies of 9/11 is testimony to this assertion. If we don't exercise good citizenship skills on this central issue, history is being encouraged to remove our freedoms.

I also doubt the courage of the 911truth movement to earn the full truth. Truthers need to EARN the willingness of other citizens to consider what we say. While many citizens are readily open to question the official story, courage with honor can make significant inroads with fellow citizens who are captured by fear.

Because the cabal has successfully generated such deep fear throughout the population, a focus on courage becomes that much more essential for the truther movement. Courage vs. cowardice is a more important dimension than plane vs. different plane vs. no plane, and it is more important than thermate vs. space beam weapons.

Too many truthers misunderstand nonviolence to mean either a lack of disagreement or to mean civil disobedience alone. Those who dislike civil disobedience need to delineate which historical CD protests they consider counterproductive. Maybe we can design activity which respects the kernel of truth they present. This lack of clarity exists in a movement where almost everyone calls those who disagree with them either liars or disinfo agents.

While we know there is a mass psychosis among Bush supporters who fall prey to his claims of being a Christian, we have our own version of mass psychosis infesting the truther movement. If you can't imagine someone can disagree with you in good faith, you are acting PARANOID. Do you still WANT to act PARANOID? Most citizens avoid politics with sane people, much less people committed to irrational words and deeds.

The culture of calling anyone who disagrees a disinfo agent is the greatest weakness in the truther movement.

This does not suggest I believe there is no government infiltration. I have no doubt there is more infiltration than in most movements. However, I agree with Sharp when he warns that the primary danger of police agents is not their lying or their spying, it is their ability to generate mistrust between genuine activists.

I'm tired of hearing lip service paid to Gandhi and King. Help generate a real discussion of our own hardest questions or risk nonviolent sanctions. We ask those in power to address hard questions. Though the hardest questions we neglect facing are different than those we present to our adversaries, we need to prove our own courage to ourselves and each other.

I'm sad that it looks like I could be losing so many of the truther friends that I've built up over the past 5 years. Nevertheless, you need to realize that I'm prepared to be hated by every 911truther. Gandhi insisted that satyagrahis be willing to hold fast to the truth even if it means death. That is the mindspace I am in.

Gandhi once suspended his activity for Indian independence and called for purification. I'm a pale shadow of the mahatma in part because I have yet to transcend my anger. However, I don't call people names, I don't threaten violence, and I seek broad counsel on significant issues. (Can you think of another conflict within our movement where one of the adversaries goes by these guidelines?) Nevertheless, I'm coming to the conclusion that 911truth requires significant purification. I'll wait a while longer before taking action.

Discussion with me will be welcomed, but Webster, the 911truth.org steering committee, Reprehensor of 911 blogger.com and the DC group probably need to be communicated with if there will be significant hope of avoidance of these sanctions. Many people advise me that Webster is unlikely to respond. I believe if enough truthers let Webster know they love him and appreciate him and want him to work things out, he will respond positively.

Before the 911 truth conference this past February in Arizona I had to threaten to hold a press conference criticizing the conference for not allowing me to hold a workshop on nonviolence. Kent Knudsen granted me that workshop and we eventually had good relations by the time the conference was ended. Many truthers might have concerns that I insist the philosophy and tactics I propose must be central for everyone, which I don't.

I do recognize that some conferences have a narrow enough focus that discussion of the problems I discuss in this statement are off topic. However, you can assume that if Webster speaks at a conference and the issues I raise here are not allowed to be discussed, that conference is inviting me to contribute nonviolent sanctions against the conference. It would be nice if more truthers had the depth of background in nonviolence that I have. It looks like I have just recently found one, Rebecca Campbell of Washington state. (Hope I got your name right, sister) Maybe more are yet to become involved. Maybe I have missed a sister or brother who others can help me find.

One refreshing aspect of the 911 truth movement is that so many people, even though they may not be young, are new to political activism. I say refreshing because historically, people have not usually gotten involved in idealistic causes after their youth. In particular, most anti-imperialist activists seem to become involved in their youth and have remained active their whole lives. Thus many activist groups are cannibalizations of similar groups from a decade before. Many participants in civil disobedience are people who came to this tactic after years trying other tactics. I'm suggesting activists new to their activism are less likely to embrace civil disobedience.

Roundup
Some friendly critics ask why I don't focus on creating a good nonviolent example rather than opposing others in the movement. Does than mean I should accept being shut out of forums like 911blogger.com, the 911truth.org grassroots contact list, Philly in July, Chandler in February, dc911truth.org meetings, events and listserve? If the rare person who sees value in courage doesn't hear my call, is that acceptable? Some say start another group in DC. I'll be lucky to find anyone else nationally to give more than lip service, much less in the city of which Harry Truman once said," If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." Doesn't the complete absence of assistance in our whistleblower efforts at the FBI and other venues mean the truther movement has clearly spoken? Its message would be, "Rather than do something bold, we would rather be in complete denial that anyone who does 911 truth public education efforts is risking their lives in the event the cabal makes its move."

Who thinks giving out deception dollars at the HQ of the Bureau of Engraving in DC would be fun?

How people could think the general strike being advocated by Webster would not be aided by training in nonviolence is beyond me. Each of us needs practice trying to speak to the hearts of police, homeland security or military officials in order to be better prepared for a general strike. It will be quite a challenge for the cabal to get their storm troopers ready to impose martial law on people who remind them of their neighbors. Our greatest protection will be undercutting the will of the cabal's minions to follow orders! Sharp notes that when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Czechs were so effective at touching the hearts of the European Russian occupiers that the Kremlin replaced them with soldiers from the Asian part of the USSR.

Practice at this does not take a PHD. It's easy enough to set up a "hassle line" An exercise can be practiced by separating yourself into 2 lines facing each other. Generate a description of a situation to be experienced (i.e. talking to a homeland security official coming to take you to the camps or talking to a local police officer about why they should look at the lies of 9/11). One side is the official, one side is the truther. Talk for 2 minutes. Then shift so you face the person who was catty corner to you before. Have a hassle line on a regular basis. Brainstorm situations for hassle lines. Send those brainstorms to us at 911courage.org so we can compile them. BE SURE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OF THE EXPERIENCE BEFORE YOU STOP EACH TIME.

As the 9/11 truth movement gets closer to such broad support that the criminal traitors who run this country realize their time in power is threatened, they will go even more on the offensive than they already have. Sharp calls it," Challenge brings repression." Since elements of our own government killed the 3000 people on 9/11, and because they got away with it, they can do it again in another form, declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up EVERY dissident (including the left gatekeepers, ironically) and put us in camps built by KBR.

In order to round us up, the cabal will designate 911truth activists as terrorists. The best way to prove we are NOT terrorists is by regular training and discussion in nonviolence. Many truthers believe we need no discussion of nonviolence if we are not actively using physical violence. I BELIEVE THESE PEOPLE ARE NAÏVE.

This naiveté particularly concerns me because of my past experience. The longest part of my experience as an activist was 15 years opposing nuclear power, primarily at Seabrook, NH. The greatest lesson for me from these years is that activists should not be surprised when the authorities use repression to counter a successful movement.

My dear friend No Guns, who I met organizing for Seabrook, has proposed other activity to discourage roundup. She proposes that local groups arrange a permit for area next to some central location (city hall, the TV station, the newspaper) to be camped at 24/7 in the event of martial law. It would be suspicious for the authorities to drag people away from such an encampment, while it would be too easy for people to disappear from their homes. I also suggest prepaying for a port-o-potty. We at 911courage.org are eager to list whenever someone gets such a permit.

Those who know they could never get arrested on purpose could still benefit from learning more about nonviolence. Whether it be to learn how to make sure civil disobedience actions do not fall prey to what you consider imprudent, to learn the value and role of support in civil disobedience actions, to learn how the philosophy of nonviolence can improve the activity of truth groups or other public education, or to just learn how courage is a crucial ingredient in any struggle (watch the Beit Shalom Denver to DC walkers get the police to modify their stance), education in nonviolence can benefit our movement.

Ultimately those who can not see themselves getting arrested need to realize that public education efforts on behalf of 911truth could be sufficient grounds in the cabal's mind to be rounded up for the camps. In jail, it's reasonable to expect to survive. In the camps, the outcome could be different.

Compassion
Kevin Barrett has requested that I show compassion for Webster and the DC group. The way I have always been able to show compassion is by giving people credit where credit is due.

As for Webster, he has provided a valuable service to the truther movement by introducing the concept of the false flag operation. As I told Webster when I greeted him warmly with a handshake in Philly, I quote him regularly. The idea of his I use regularly is when I make a concise plea to leftists and antiwar activists to consider the evidence of 9/11. I say "You'll never get out of Iraq without 9/11 truth because the president's supporters do not care about the use of torture or about the disappearance of the right to dissent because they are so frightened of foreign terrorists."I add, "There may be foreign terrorists (that part of what I say would not be supported by Webster), but they didn't do 9/11."

In my opinion, Webster is not nearly as misguided as Larouche. I've heard him state several times that because we are facing nuclear war, we have to work with people we don't completely agree with. Larouche, the demagogue, would never say that. Webster cannot be said to be put in the same anti-Semitic category with Larouche because he regularly denies the primacy of Mossad involvement in 9/11. He is also one of the rare truther luminaries who do not fan the flames of hostility between the no planer/plane hugger factions.

The DC group should be applauded for the excellent 4 in 1 DVD made by Greg Jenkins, for the bonding generated by their regular meetings over dinner, for Matt and Elaine's Rock Creek Free Press and for their willingness to discuss the 911truth.org "A Commitment to More Civil and Effective Collaboration within the 911 Truth Movement." from 2/5/07 which I initiated but was embellished by Fred Burks and the steering committee of 911truth.org.

Let me also state that Janice Matthews, executive director of 911truth.org, who removed me from the grassroots contact list, is still one of my favorite people in the world.

Contact info Dave Slesinger 240-221-3293 (h) 410-499-5403(c) dslesinger@alum.mit.edu

Webster Tarpley
Call Dave for Webster's phone or check the listing in whowhere.com. He lives in Gaithersburg, Md. I'm told he often does not respond to email. Maybe calling him before posting to him would work. contact@dc911truth.org

The FBI criticism and applause project - Dan Nalven
dmn@nalven.org, PO Box 1132, Ossining, NY 10562
 

What's Related

Story Options

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://911courage.org/trackback.php/20070807183314258

No trackback comments for this entry.
CALL FOR MEDIATION | 29 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
CALL FOR MEDIATION
Authored by: famw on Wednesday, August 08 2007 @ 01:24 AM EDT
It is a shame that our movement is in the shamble that I believe that it is in. There are 2 factions. Those that are led by the Alex Jones faction that believe in the In-Your-Face, harass the candidates, ask the same question over and over with a camera in their face or a bullhorn, yelling at buildings. That seems to be the favorite of most of the younger set and some of the older crowd. And then there is the other side the more mature side, talking to the people, outreaching with dignity, no In-Your-Face or bullhorning buildings or name calling and in David's case non-violent civil disobedience. And this side seems to be getting the short end of the stick because it is not the popular way of getting things done in the 9/11 movement. And now David is unceremoniously tossed from the Grassroots list and the 911blogger (Well, a lot of people have been tossed from there. First Amendment rights have been thrown out the window over there.) Since when has nonviolence become a dirty word? Since when has In-Your-Face Harassment become the byline of 9/11 truth? You would think that nonviolence would be what we would want to do. But when I speak about things like this, I am invisible. So I guess these words will not be considered by anyone anyway. But at least someone will read them. I think the majority of you should band behind David and get on the nonviolence bandwagon instead of the In-Your-Face, bullhorning buildings, and harassment style of 9/11 truth. That other style, I believe makes us all look like those tin foil hat wearing lunatics THEY say we are. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it’s worth.
  • Deon Ball - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:35 AM EDT
  • Dinah Sawyer - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 02 2008 @ 10:02 AM EDT
  • Brett Valdez - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 04 2008 @ 02:16 PM EDT
  • Rosanna Calhoun - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 06 2008 @ 11:04 PM EDT
  • Mark Mathis - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 10 2008 @ 04:38 PM EDT
  • Reynaldo Mckenzie - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 18 2008 @ 07:25 PM EDT
  • Preston Kidd - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 02:42 PM EDT
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 22 2011 @ 07:17 PM EDT
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2011 @ 09:47 AM EDT
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2011 @ 06:57 AM EDT
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 16 2011 @ 03:27 PM EDT
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 02:16 PM EDT
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2011 @ 12:37 AM EST
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2011 @ 12:45 AM EST
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 21 2011 @ 06:43 PM EST
  • Re: - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 02:52 AM EST
CALL FOR MEDIATION
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2007 @ 11:20 AM EDT
Hi David,

I've been asking for a while now, "What is our Montgomery bus boycott?" "Where are our sit ins?" The strategy of nonviolence seems so right to me on a gut level, and very bizarre that some of the biggest names in this movement look down upon it at every turn.

I noticed what you are talking about when I went to the DC protest and heard Webster. His truth squads idea is one of the best out there, undoubtedly - but unfortunately it seems as though it is his own personal pet that he would like to see "win" the movement. Other ideas are frowned upon and mocked through vague historical references.

But a movement never prevails until you "make" the enemy listen through bold and courageous non-violent action. I support what you are doing, but I also think that it may be better to lead by example - there are lots who agree with you out there, we just have to find a way to reach them.
CALL FOR MEDIATION
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2007 @ 02:11 PM EDT
I'm one activist who follows my own path of peace, and respect to others, property and to our law enforcement friends... But hey thats just me. I'm the 9/11 truther who would rather spread the word around in my community one on one using gentle means, and do it with careful dignity , not hurting the integrity of the 9/11 truth movement in the process.
I will support those who use the peaceful means of spreading the news of 9/11 truth as it has proven most effective by my own observations. Now the Alex Jones in your face folks have there place too with-in the movement and rather be critical of it , lets give thanks to those willing to bend the rules. (Ok, I admit spray painting federal buildings seems to hurt the integrity of our movement, but it does not take a single gram away from the fundamental truth of 9/11. Who are we to judge! Alex, and especially the actions of some of the members of this movement.

I respect everyone of you for the courage to do what most are too afraid of. Questioning the events of 9/11 and I don't care how you get the message across, either with spray paint, blow horns, church meetings, sewing clubs... We all have our path to follow and our passions to quench. Now back off the nit picking people.

Don't sweat it if 911truth has dropped you off the grassroots list, so what , does it really matter? If you've wasted days over this issue, then you've wasted the chance to spread the news about 9/11 truth to someone who has no idea about WTC7 and so on... come on get back n the game, we need you!

I think we need to all wake up to the fact it dose not matter who or how we get our message out to the public of 9/11.

I think we all need to focus on the positive of each persons contribution rather than focusing all that negative energy on each other. Hey I fart too...got a problem with that?


I take exception to the criticisms of 911truth.com and esp Janice Mathews. Her positive contribution out weighs your nit picks and I ask you all to focus on the good each and everyone with-in the truth movement has contributed.

If your need to nit pick and compose a novel for the world to read then start nit picking with the guy in the mirror. Dig it!

Richard D. Brinkman Edmonton911truth.com
CALL FOR MEDIATION
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2007 @ 10:52 PM EDT
Hi Dave, I've decided to do my 9/11 truth activism the CIVIL INFORMATION way...Civil Disobedience is okay so long as the 911truth movement as a whole is not represented by this type of action, but only by those who decide to cross the line. Respectfully
Richard in Edmonton
CALL FOR MEDIATION
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 17 2009 @ 01:08 AM EDT
Ok Dave,

Out of one side of your mouth comes:

This does not suggest I believe there is no government infiltration. I have no doubt there is more infiltration than in most movements. However, I agree with Sharp when he warns that the primary danger of police agents is not their lying or their spying, it is their ability to generate mistrust between genuine activists.

Out of the other side:

The sanctions I am considering against dc911truth.org include appearing at any and all their events with a sign or pack of leaflets asking why they won't discuss nonviolence. I am also prepared to escalate beyond these sanctions. Such sanctions could result in serious implications for the rest of the movement.

M-hm.

You are being "gradually disinvited" because frankly, you smell, Dave. Like a self-involved loose cannon or 'plant' who encourages the minions to look thoroughly in every crack and crevice....except the one where all the evidence lies.

(hint: the 'government infiltration' you speak of may not be the U.S. gov't)

One thing we "Truthers" have come to expect is for seemingly very involved and dedicated people to come along, purposely fall down at the ten yard line and act like they made some kind of a touchdown, then expect a pat on the back for wasting everyone's time.

The more evidence that emerges about this supposed "terror attack", the more Israel, some very well-placed and well-connected Israeli companies, 'Neocons' and the Mossad look to be involved.

How far are you willing to go down THAT road Dave....?
Realy nice blog
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT
Ein Großteil SocialBookmark-Portale speichern die Posts der Benutzer in einer frei zugänglichen Weboberfläche. Auf diese Weise können die Posts von Suchmaschinen ausgelesen wie auch mitgewertet werden. Da die Lesezeichen meist in Form eines Links abgespeichert werden, können auf diese Weise Backlinks erzeugt werden, welche der Suchmaschinenoptimierung dienen. Wie bei anderen Backlinks auch, ist hierbei die Auswahl der geeigneten Plattformen besonders wichtig. Portale die besonders oft von Spammern aufgesucht werden oder auch sehr schlecht im Netz verlinkt sind, sollten dabei vermieden werden. Nur so ist sichergestellt, dass es sich um qualitativ hochwertige Links handelt, die auch von Suchmaschinen erkannt werden. Für jeglichen einzelnen Bookmarkeintrag wird ein extra Account erstellt!
Realy nice blog
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT
Die Blumeninsel Madeira ist eher unscheinbar, aber trotzdem eines der empfehlenswerten Urlaubsorte in Europa. Üppig mit Natur in allen Farbnuancen ausgestattet, lockt die Insel vor allem Naturliebhaber und Freunde des Wanderns in ihren Bann. Das angenehme Klima im Jahresmittel auf Madeira wird gern von vielen Reisenden genutzt, meist im Wellness und SPA Bereich.
 Copyright © 2006 David Slesinger,  dslesinger@alum.mit.edu
 All comments, trademarks and copyrights on
 this page are owned by their respective owners.
Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Powered By Geeklog 
Created this page in 0.19 seconds 
Webmaster Contact