Cockburn ridicules Castro regarding his doubts about the US government’s official version of 9/11. There are numerous US and international scientists, engineers, and writers who have raised very important questions about the validity of the government’s version. David Ray Griffin’s article, “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”, contains extensive factual information and analyses in this regard (Web link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039).
Here is the article. The link is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21185
Counterpunch and 9/11 and Alexander Cockburn: From exposing the truth to complete 9/11 censorship and insults...in just 2 years
The alternative media has been hijacked, conquered, by forces that will not allow the truth of 911 to even be discussed. What in the world has happened? Here is one example.
In 2002, Counterpunch runs an article deeply questioning the official story, one that could be found on 911 blogger, with information that shows clearly that something is wrong with the official 911 story.
In 2004, Counterpunch runs a story that insults the 911 movement, calling us "conspiracy nuts", and never again runs any story at all that has any of the mounting and well documented evidence that shows the official story to be at least conflicted.
What happened during the years from 2002 to 2004? Alexander Cockburn was the editor throughout it all. Was he threatened, or convinced of something, or did he receive some kind of support from foundations that would ultimately not want the real truth to come out?
The exact same thing happened with Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com. In fact, Raimondo even sold a book about the Israeli connection to 911. And then he went mum, except to also insult 9/11 truthers.
Something is going on, and I wish someone would come forward with what it could possibly be.
and 4 years later . . .
I missed this bit of excellent writing a week ago, but it is definitely worth reading. I wish all journalists would take a look at it. Great points here.
|September 20, 2010 at 18:52:14 |
Memo to Journalists: Stop Mocking The Campaign For 9/11 Truth And Accountability
Just noticed this advertisement in Counterpunch.org for its print edition. Sort of a shocking headline, and it got my attention because Counterpunch has never presented any 9/11 truth at all, ever. In fact, I remember Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch being downright insulting of the entire 9/11 movement. Like almost all other alternative media, Counterpunch has felt the need, for some still unknown reason, to censor the most proven and well documented evidence provided by the 9/11 truth movement proving the official 9/11 story to be untrue.
And yet, here is this ad. Seems odd to me, but I will not again pay the $35 to get the print edition and find that the truth is censored on this media outlet like so many others. My money is better spent on organizations that support the truth, no matter how unappealing.
If any of you do get this print edition, please tell us where they are going with this ad.
CounterPunch Print Edition Exclusive!
By Paul Craig Roberts
March 24, 2010
There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.
Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.
Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”
Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.
Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.
Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.
This was my quick (under 300 word) response to Alexander Cockburn's tsktsking of Fidel Castro for "9-11 conspiracism" in a larger piece about Alan Greenspan in the Nation magazine:
"Cockburn's Still Got the Wrong Conspiracy Theory"
Alexander Cockburn refuses to miss any opportunity to slander the 9-11 Truth Movement. While addressing Greenspan’s role in the very real global conspiracy to create an economy “exceptional” for oligarchs by a race to the bottom, Cockburn should’ve heeded his own warning to Castro of not giving in to conspiracism. But, Cockburn has clearly decided to hand his powers of reason over to the state-sponsored variety of 9-11 conspiracism.
Instead of an entire paragraph on some childish theory regarding Flight 77, Cockburn could have opened the space for real thought by appropriately mentioning some history, such as Operation Northwoods, a very real plan put to JFK by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to use CIA-directed, false-flag terror in instigating a confrontation with Cuba.
Caught this on Counterpunch this morning, and started reading, but then its core dishonesty became tiresome, so I thought I would offer it for dismantling and public response (his email address is at the bottom).
Britain's 9/11 "Truth Movement": Who's Responsible?
By ALEX DOCHERTY
As the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks passes the 9/11 conspiracy industry shows no sign of decline. While most adherents to the various conspiracy theories reside in the United States and the Middle East, the conspiracy circus - or "the 9/11 truth movement" as it styles itself - is an increasingly visible presence in the UK. Initially an internet based affair, the UK conspiracy advocates have developed national and local campaigning groups who organize public meetings, teach-ins and film showings and they have become a visible and vocal presence at anti-war demonstrations. Their most high-profile supporter and organizer in the UK is David Shayler, the former MI5 operative and recent converts to the cause include the journalist Robert Fisk and gay rights and anti-war activist Peter Tatchell.
June 13, 2007
The Conspiracy Widens
By George Monbiot
[ZNet editors note: see related debate between Cockburn, Monbiot and others here http://www.zmag.org/debatesglobalwarming.html]
So at last, and after only seven requests, we have some references. And, to no gasps of surprise, they reveal that the "papers" on which Alexander Cockburn bases his claim that carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In fact they have not been published at all.
Cockburn appears not to understand the implications of this. Aware that I might as well argue with a tree stump, let me explain - again and for the last time - what it means. If these papers have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they are not science. They carry no more scientific weight than an article in the National Enquirer.
Thankfully, this article has a comments section.
Alexander Cockburn's climate change adventure
The Nation columnist goes through the global warming looking glass, and comes out looking like a 9/11 "truther."
May. 04, 2007 | The dose of Alexander Cockburn's global warming skepticism included in the recent special issue of the Nation on Cuba (and available in full from ZNet) elicited immediate derision in the enviroblogosphere. But no single rebuttal has been as amusing as the one by George Monbiot, the environmental bomb-throwing columnist for the Guardian, who, with all the precision and attention to detail of a brain surgeon, demonstrates how Cockburn has neatly relegated himself to a loony bin full of conspiracy theorists who look remarkably similar to people Cockburn has previously ridiculed. It's simply too good not to pass along, and thanks much to Grist for bringing it to our attention.
In reference to my first post's mixed-message comment on CounterPunch and 9/11, I thought I'd include the letters I wrote to them on that subject.
After reading this article by Alex Cockburn,
I wrote the following reply:
Dear Counterpunch and Alex Cockburn,
As a long-time fan and paying subscriber to Counterpunch, I am dismayed by the ad-hominem attack on myself and my friends as "nuts" because we are deeply suspicious of the Bush administration's claims as to the events on 9/11/01.
His hyperbolic piece would almost be amusing in its shrillness if it weren't covering such a serious topic.
His refutation arguments are very weak, and he tars with guilt by association with unrelated conspiracy controversies anyone who suspects that the "official" 9/11 story is a bunch of baloney.
His statement: "One characteristic of the nuts is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous belief in American efficiency, thus many of them start with the racist premise that “Arabs in caves” weren’t capable of the mission." completely misses the point and uses the vague "many" to call most of us "racist" because we believe that the 19 names "found" in "Mohammad Atta's" car in the Portland, ME airport are (by the ever-reliable FBI) nothing approaching a definitive list of the operatives involved.
In brief, this is a new article refuting some of our leading left gatekeepers, especially Alexander Cockburn's dismissal of our movement.
Ten Questions For 9/11 Coincidence Theorists
by Andres Karger
I often visit the CounterPunch.org site because I enjoy reading the many interesting articles I find there. However, on my last visit, I was somewhat surprised to see Alexander Cockburn’s article on “The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts,” which is a brutal assault on those who believe in the complicity of the Bush administration in the 9/11 attacks.
Not that I hadn't run across the “our-President-would-never-do-that” viewpoint before (which I do not claim are exactly Mr. Cockburn’s words). It’s just that the gullibility  of Alexander Cockburn and other such folks, and even more importantly, their total lack of inquisitiveness, about these criminal attacks are always a source of amazement to me.
[Continues at website.]
This post is cross-posted at indoctriNATION.
I received an email earlier today from a reader suggesting that I balance TheFilter.ca’s coverage of 9/11 with an Alex Cockburn article posted to Znet called “The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts: How They Let the Guilty Parties of 9/11 Slip Off the Hook”
I thought I would post my response, simply because it expresses some of the frustration I’ve had over the last week with much of the alternative media’s coverage of the fifth anniversary of 9/11.
Thanks for your interest in the site, and your story suggestion.
I had actually read Cockburn’s article when it was put up on Counterpunch, and some similar pieces from other Big Alternative sites, and decided to pass on posting them. Reading Cockburn’s again, I felt the same way I did about it the first time around: disappointed, but not surprised.
The article is one of the most hollow, dishonest outbursts that I’ve seen in a long time on an alternative news site and frankly, it really knocks Counterpunch, Znet, and the Nation (who also published it), down a few pegs on the integrity board.