Commentary by Brandon Martinez
America’s premier Islamic truther, Kevin Barrett, is always hot on the trail of every alleged “false-flag” terror event. His life is essentially committed to “debunking” every single act of terror or violence when the perpetrator is a Muslim. That’s all that he does. It’s likely he will go to his grave shouting, “the Muslims are innocent!”
His formula is always the same for each attack: speculate about timing, “cui bono” and other small details; point to some unverifiable use of Masonic Illuminati numerology supposedly present in the date, number of victims, etc.; accuse victims and witnesses of being “crisis actors” because they didn’t weep hard enough; and then declare the whole thing “just another” staged event.
He’s leaning heavily on the patently silly numerology angle with the latest Manchester bombing. Then he cites the logic of some random Twitter users and commenters who think it was a false-flag to back up his bias.
On the whole, his case for a false-flag in Manchester rests entirely on pure speculation about numerology, beneficiaries, and other small details. He provides no smoking guns for this one or any of the other recent attacks. Like all the others, he’s approaching this one from a preconceived conclusion that it was a false-flag, and then weaving his story accordingly to make it fit. So one day after the bombing Barrett’s marshalled together some speculative “evidence” and declared: “Bottom line: Abadi was very likely innocent.”
Who would take this unacademic wild theorizing seriously besides like-minded ideologues?
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog, Barrett and other false-flag obsessives have a clear Islamic or leftist agenda. In Barrett’s case, he’s a Koran-thumping Islamic missionary who wants to spread the faith and Islamize the world. He feels it’s his religious duty to defend the faith (and the faithful) from hostile infidel “accusers.” It’s therefore in his religious interest to “debunk” all instances of Islamic terrorism. During the migrant crisis of 2015, Barrett shockingly came out in support of the invasion on the basis that it will increase Islamic demographics on the continent and thereby make Europe more sympathetic with the Palestinians and other Muslim/Arab issues. So Europeans should just hand over their countries to weird foreigners so that “Palestine can be free from the river to the sea”? Yet he hypocritically condemns pro-Trump Americans for prioritizing the immigration issue over Palestine and other quagmires that Muslims care about.
Barrett is markedly engaged in little more than a counter-propaganda jihad for Islam. He calls his own activism a “truth jihad.” But in this case “truth” is whatever benefits Islam’s public image. This is his “response” to the war on terror: orating claims that the West and Zionists are behind all Islamic atrocities. He does what the Zionists do for their cause – scrupulously twisting everything to suit their tribal agenda and bias – but in reverse. He’s not particularly concerned with facts or evidence regarding these events. He even said that his approach is to assume every attack (involving Muslims) is a false-flag and demand the government prove that it’s not.
If you look at the Twitter feeds of some of these false-flaggers, like this nut job impersonating Paul Joseph Watson, it’s all the same repetitive stuff played over and over again. They are like automated bots blasting the same talking points about the Iraq war, 9/11, and Israel, 24/7. Nothing else matters to them as they endlessly pursue an impossible social justice crusade for the Middle East.
However, their narrative is convoluted and often self-contradictory. They’re quick to dismiss ISIS-related terror in the West as fake, but when evangelizing about the civil war in Syria, many of them actually claim ISIS and other Islamic rebel groups have conspired to stage “false-flag” chemical attacks to frame Assad. So how does this work? ISIS is being framed for “false-flags” in the West, but in Syria ISIS is doing the false-flags with the help of the West? So with Syria their false-flag formula is reversed, in that whenever Assad is blamed for an atrocity against civilians, the “truthers” come out with claims that it was really ISIS or other Islamist rebels that did it!
If Western governments are exclusively going after Assad, and are secretly helping ISIS as some claim, why would they constantly attack themselves and frame Assad’s enemies for it? Why wouldn’t they just frame Assad or Hezbollah? By doing so they’re actually generating sympathy for Assad, which is counter-intuitive to their supposed agenda of toppling him. And what would be the point of a continuous string of attacks in the West when the anti-ISIS coalition air war has been going on for three years now? Nothing much happens after these fresh attacks that hasn’t already been happening for years.
If these people are against ISIS in Syria/Iraq, why then would they want to shill for them in the West? The formula seems to be that when ISIS blows something up “over there,” it’s real, but if it’s done “over here,” it’s fake. Makes you wonder what the hell is the point of disproving one solitary act of terror blamed on ISIS when they’re simultaneously saying that the group is doing real terror elsewhere. They never question the terror “over there” because the target of that violence is their beloved Ba’athist strong-man, Assad.
Kevin Barrett is also contradictory on this. When he goes on Iranian PressTV he acts as a mouthpiece for Iran, Hezbollah and Assad in Syria (the Shiite bloc), blasting the “Takfiri” Muslims of ISIS and al-Qaeda as sell-outs. But elsewhere he essentially defends al-Qaeda and other Islamists as innocent patsies being framed for terrorism by Western intelligence agencies, largely denying Islamic extremism even exists. He has also philosophized in favour of establishing an Islamic caliphate, a goal shared with the more hardline Salafi Muslims rather than the Shiites who he propagandizes for on PressTV. It looks to me like he’s a chameleon, saying different (often contradictory) things depending on his audience.
So these people are zealously backing the Assad regime in its civil war with other Muslim factions and do not hesitate to label Assad’s opponents collectively as “terrorists.” So then what is the purpose of 9/11 truth? 9/11 was blamed on al-Qaeda, a group which forms a significant bloc battling the Assad regime and other dynastic dictatorships in the Middle East. Assad himself doesn’t dispute that narrative, saying numerous times that he’s “fighting the people that did 9/11.” This presents a problem for the “truthers,” who can’t decide what’s more important, proving 9/11 was an inside job (and thus letting al-Qaeda off the hook) or shilling for Assad (which requires al-Qaeda and Islamism in general to be discredited).
What it comes down to here is that these people are nihilistic anti-Western (and anti-white) leftists. So when Muslims are accused of terror against Westerners, they come to the defense of the Muslim regardless of that Muslim’s bent. But in the Middle East they shift the goal-posts a little bit, choosing sides with certain Muslim factions (usually the more secular ones, with the exception of Iran) over others. But even in the Middle East they posit that the “bad Muslims” are the ones working with the West and the “good Muslims” are those fighting the West. But what about when those “bad Muslims” are fighting the West, as ISIS and al-Qaeda have done at times, or when the “good Muslims” are working with the West (as Assad, Gaddafi and Hussein once did)? Will they suddenly start cheerleading for the “bad Muslims” and denouncing the “good Muslims”?
These biased dolts wail when the CIA sends a drone into Yemen or Pakistan to kill an al-Qaeda or Taliban chieftain, but then whip out their pom-poms and do a cheering routine when Russia does the same thing in Syria to take down the rebel leaders there. They moan about “civilian casualties” when it’s a Western coalition jet that caused the carnage, but dutifully sweep under the rug the thousands of civilians killed by Assad and the Russians. Selective outrage is typical of leftists who are only using “humanitarian” rhetoric in efforts to discredit their perceived enemies, while abandoning such arguments for regimes they support.
These hacks are clearly nothing more than war propagandists for anyone seemingly in opposition to “the West.” They’ll shill for any regime or group that says or does anything contrary to the agenda of Western powers. They’ve become prostitutes for tyrants and dictators on the sole basis that those despots are “anti-American” or “anti-Israel.”
For all their bluster about uncovering false-flags, they seem awfully uninterested in the likely one that brought Vladimir Putin to power in Russia. In fact, they don’t seem to scrutinize any terror events, even ones implicating Muslims, when the target is Russia. Again, that shows their highly selective “concern” and “outrage” about abuses of power by governments. If you’re a brutal regime situated outside the Western hemisphere, you can count on these despicable charlatans to whitewash your misdeeds.
And ultimately these self-destructive people give a bad name to decent researchers who have uncovered real false-flags (and there have been some real ones). But the whole field has become so inundated with skittish ideologues pursuing narrow political or religious agendas that it’s virtually useless at this point.