Apr 29 2007

J’Accuse Kevin Potvin

Published by at 6:32 pm under 9/11,politics,Vancouver

Vancouver-Kingsway’s most infamous Islamic terrorist sympathizer and recently-punted Green party candidate, Kevin Potvin, evidently believes that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

After being raked in what he calls the “corporate” (read: neocon, Zionist-controlled, Satanic) media for an article written by him in his own publication, The Republic, stating directly that he cheered for Osama bin Ladin on 9/11, Potvin is striking back in a curious way: he now claims that journalists and society as a whole have been cowed by relentless, shadowy pressure from their corporate masters to show an appropriate level of sympathy for those slaughtered on that day and condemnation for their killers.

I didn’t cheer on 9/11. I certainly didn’t feel a lump of love in my heart for the people who did it. And as much as Potvin has attempted to tell himself otherwise, the vast majority of clear-thinking and moral citizens in our part of the world didn’t, either.

But Potvin seems to have found a home, quite literally on the political fringe. Work Less Party cofounder Condrad Schmidt says of Potvin: “He’s a smart man, and he’s intelligent. You couldn’t ask for a better candidate. And we’ll run him in Kingsway–where else?”

As a related aside, the video above shows leftist icon Noam Chomsky dismissing the possibility of a neocon conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

15 responses so far

15 Responses to “J’Accuse Kevin Potvin”

  1. on 29 Apr 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Actually I read Potvin orginal article that started all this nonsense.
    It only became an issue when he was declared a candidate for the Greens.Until that day(years later)there was no outcry.
    This moral outrage is just pathetic.Potvin was not cheering the deaths of innocent people.He was basically saying yeah,the bully (USA) finally got a bloody nose.
    Like many many Canadians said that day.It was not a celebration of the death of innocent victims.
    Potvin also made that very clear in his article published years ago.
    SO please stop with the moralizing god enough all ready…
    read what he said!

  2. on 29 Apr 2007 at 11:39 pm

    Two days before he was outed, he discussed 9/11 conspiracy theories on the radio. I feel sorry for him, I think he needs help. The radio show can be heard here.

  3. on 30 Apr 2007 at 2:49 am

    “It only became an issue when he was declared a candidate for the Greens.”
    Precisely. We have freedom of speech in this country, so if someone wants to say things that make them sound stupid, we let them.

    And when they try to become our democratically elected representatives, we bust them. Nobody said anything about Potvin’s comments before because he was a nobody.

    “Potvin was not cheering the deaths of innocent people.” Actually, if you read the original article in full, you’ll see that he has.

    Potvin: “I have a terrible confession to make. When I saw the first tower cascade down into that enormous plume of dust and paper, there was a little voice inside me that said, “Yeah!” When the second tower came down the same way, that little voice said, “Beautiful!” When the visage of the Pentagon appeared on the TV with a gaping and smoking hole in its side, that little voice had nearly taken me over, and I felt an urge to pump my fist in the air.

    Potvin wasn’t cheering because the buildings were empty.

  4. on 30 Apr 2007 at 4:23 am

    The building were targeted because they represented the financial centre of globalism, not specifically to cause mass death. That could have been done by crashing into a nuclear reactor, which are curiously still unprotected in the so-called war on terror. Potvin was cheering the symbol. He was cheering Blowback.

    He was also questioning why 3000 deaths were used to create more deaths. Why nobody cared when 1 million Iraqis died after the first Gulf War. Why nobody cared when Clinton bombed Sudan, wiping out the countries vaccines. Why millions of Rwandans are slaughtered due to the West squabbling over semantics.

    But this is just too gray to fit into your black and white world. Good vs. Evil.

  5. on 30 Apr 2007 at 4:55 am

    “The building were targeted because they represented the financial centre of globalism, not specifically to cause mass death.”

    Sean, this statement shows how far off the planet your mind-bending rationalizations have brought you. If I shot a Starbucks employee in the face, society wouldn’t assume that I was fighting the good fight against symbols of market globalization, even if that were my ultimate motive, described lovingly in numerous editorials. They would call me out for the thug and psycho that I was and lock me away.

    In the same way, Osama and his co-conspirators need to be called out for the monsters that they are and dealt with in the way that human beings have always dealt with monsters.

    I didn’t cheer when Clinton bombed Sudan. I didn’t cheer when millions of Rwandans were slaughtered, not because of Western squabbling but because of Chinese and Arab support for the Sudan regime.
    But Kevin Potvin did cheer when terrorists murdered 3,000 people. That makes him a creep, not a martyr.

  6. on 30 Apr 2007 at 7:26 am

    “If I shot a Starbucks employee in the face, society wouldn’t assume that I was fighting the good fight against symbols of market globalization, even if that were my ultimate motive, described lovingly in numerous editorials”

    No, but Osama didn’t go and shoot World Trade Centre employees in the face, he created a world wide media spectacle because he knew that was the best way to get attention.

    I can’t believe you lured me into this trap. But yes, he should have been dealt with as a criminal. Instead your man Dubya turned it a clash of fundamentalisms. The US has been playing chess with the middle east for decades. I could go into more detail But I don’t want to confuse you again:

    “I didn’t cheer when millions of Rwandans were slaughtered, not because of Western squabbling but because of Chinese and Arab support for the Sudan regime.”

    The Arabs were responsible for Rwanda? Thats a new one.

  7. on 30 Apr 2007 at 2:33 pm

    “The Arabs were responsible for Rwanda? Thats a new one.”

    Oops. Had Darfur on the brain, since I was at the rally downtown yesterday. My point stands, though. I didn’t cheer during the Rwandan genocide. But Potvin cheered when terrorists killed thousands of people.

    “No, but Osama didn’t go and shoot World Trade Centre employees in the face, he created a world wide media spectacle…”

    Yes, he created a spectacle by killing a whole lot of innocent people, which made Potvin want to pump his fist in the air. Nice.

    “I can’t believe you lured me into this trap. But yes, he should have been dealt with as a criminal. Instead your man Dubya turned it a clash of fundamentalisms.”

    What trap? And why exactly do you think that I’m a fan of George Bush Jr.? Is it just a desperate slur on your part by someone who is starting to see the underpinnings of his whole ideological framework start to fall apart? I sincerely hope so.

  8. on 01 May 2007 at 8:51 am

    Sorry, I just assumed that you were a supporter of the war on terror.

    And I don’t really want to be defending Potvin, so any concession I give is not a sign that “the underpinnings of my whole ideological framework are starting to fall apart”.

    I’m just saying that its too easy to call him an Al Qaeda stooge and it betrays objectivity. It just falls into the whole “with us or against us” jingoism.

  9. on 01 May 2007 at 3:57 pm

    Sean: Well, I’m glad we got that sorted out.

    I am not a Bush supporter.
    But I did support the invasion of Afghanistan and its ongoing mission, which is UN-authorized and has the objective of ridding a country of a thuggish, fascist group that provided haven and material support for Al Queda, which did carry out the 9/11 attacks.

    My calling Potvin an Al Queda stooge doesn’t mean that I think Potvin is a terrorist. Obviously, he isn’t.

    I’m using the definition of stooge in line with the American Heritage Dictionary as follows: “One who allows oneself to be used for another’s profit or advantage; a puppet.”

    I believe that someone who shows sympathy for the 9/11 attacks, casts doubt on the very existence of Al Queda or its role in that attack and seems to be far more concerned with the evils of Western imperialism than with the very real threat that Islamic fanatacism and terrorism pose to our own society, is allowing themselves to be used by Al Queda, affiliated groups and their supporters.

    People in this part of the world ought not to feel pleased when terrorists attack us. Potvin did. I’m glad you’ve decided to stop wasting your time defending him. The left is better off without him.

    When conspiracy-theorists and reflexive anti-Western demagogues like Potvin are no longer seen as the true face of the left in the West, you will see a huge rise in this country in participation by the majority of the population against the Iraq war and related issues.

  10. on 02 May 2007 at 6:50 am

    “far more concerned with the evils of Western imperialism than with the very real threat that Islamic fanatacism and terrorism”

    But the two are not mutually exclusive. The latter is a result of the former.

  11. on 02 May 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Islamic terror is not purely or even mostly a reaction to Western imperialism. By making such statements, you condemn Muslims as nihilistic automatons without free will, self-control or their own moral compass.

  12. on 02 May 2007 at 9:12 pm

    Kevin Potvin has managed to rise up from a nobody to become a recoginized ass well deserving of the derision heaped upon him.

    He would be wise to consider going back to being a faceless nobody who is perfectly free to revel in his own nonsense but have the decency not to annoy others with it.

    As for the debate between Jonathon and Sean, Jonathon is batting a 1000 while as for Sean….well he is not even in the ball park.

  13. on 03 May 2007 at 1:33 am

    Was there Islamic terrorism before the West carved out the middle east?

  14. on 03 May 2007 at 1:48 am

    Um… Thanks, dad. Oh, dear, this is awkward. Sean, meet my dad. Dad,this is Sean…

  15. on 03 May 2007 at 6:02 am

    Sean, I really hope – for your sake – that you are not suggesting that Al Queda’s attack on 9/11 is legitimate payback for the Crusades.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply