Fisk does bring up some good questions, which are likely to be buried in a mountain of obfuscation.
Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11
Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11 - Independent Online Edition > Robert Fisk
sums up BushCo in a nutshellBush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality".
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Honestly, don't blow the article out of proportion. Fisk doesn't dispute 9/11, he just has a few questions which he's come across that seem a bit odd.
"few" and "a bit odd" ?Honestly, don't blow the article out of proportion. Fisk doesn't dispute 9/11, he just has a few questions which he's come across that seem a bit odd.
since Fisk questions why WTC 7 fell so neatly without being hit by any aircraft, I would expect the nay sayers on this board to be flooding his email with phrases like "paranoid", "loonie", etc.
Robert Fisk is one of the least objective 'journalists' ever.
Unfortunately, there isn't much to take issue with in that article since it isn't exactly developed, kind of a hodge podge of general objections.
Fisk claims not to be a conspiracy theorist but briefly restates lame conspiracy theories as if they haven't already been well-debunked. The rest is, to Fisk, "hearsay."
Unfortunately, there isn't much to take issue with in that article since it isn't exactly developed, kind of a hodge podge of general objections.
Fisk claims not to be a conspiracy theorist but briefly restates lame conspiracy theories as if they haven't already been well-debunked. The rest is, to Fisk, "hearsay."
No problem, Fish will make this idiocy believable, in yet another source-free opinion piece masquerading as journalism.My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?
That's the thing, he claims not to be in the same league as the loonies but he's skirting awfully close to being in the same camp. I'm going to put that down to ignorance and lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The unfortunate part is that a whole bunch of other people are going to jump on the loonie bandwagon because of this.Fisk claims not to be a conspiracy theorist but briefly restates lame conspiracy theories as if they haven't already been well-debunked. The rest is, to Fisk, "hearsay."
Robert Fisk seems to get a bad press over there. I can understand why it's the case in The Land of 'Freedom & Democracy' - he has the temerity to write pieces that offer another point of view of things Middle Eastern, a point of view that . But Canada?
He's considered a highly respected journalist here, but since he's not a right wing Zionist he'll always get pilloried. People line up ready and waiting to label him as anti-Semitic, a Jew-hater, a friend of the terrorist etc. whatever he writes, mainly because he has some sympathy for the plight of the ordinary Palestinian people. The spring-loaded anti-Fisk lobby is a wonder to behold.
Have any of you heard of Patrick Cockburn or Adrian Hamilton? These are two fellow journos who also dare to write pieces that are not in step with the world-view of the White House/Fox axis. Perhaps they should also be added to the mix.
What fun!
Edit: What's wrong with asking the questions he does in the piece quoted in the first post? Shhhh. Musn't talk about it? Bad man! Is that it? He doesn't offer his own conspiracy theories, after all.
He's considered a highly respected journalist here, but since he's not a right wing Zionist he'll always get pilloried. People line up ready and waiting to label him as anti-Semitic, a Jew-hater, a friend of the terrorist etc. whatever he writes, mainly because he has some sympathy for the plight of the ordinary Palestinian people. The spring-loaded anti-Fisk lobby is a wonder to behold.
Have any of you heard of Patrick Cockburn or Adrian Hamilton? These are two fellow journos who also dare to write pieces that are not in step with the world-view of the White House/Fox axis. Perhaps they should also be added to the mix.
What fun!
Edit: What's wrong with asking the questions he does in the piece quoted in the first post? Shhhh. Musn't talk about it? Bad man! Is that it? He doesn't offer his own conspiracy theories, after all.
Nobody says Fisk oughtn't to write his stuff, Quaffer--it's just that this particularly well-worn piece of 9/11 gobbledeygook has been trotted out by the tin hat crowd for the 20th time on EhMac. People are getting tired of it.
But what is it in Fisk's article that you don't like? Or that people are getting tired of (some people)? He seems to be as tired of the 'ravers' as he puts it, as you might be.
Dare we not continue to wonder, out loud even, about certain aspects of the whole sorry '9/11' tale? After all, it is '9/11' that seems to have sealed, with extreme prejudice, the fate of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. It ('9/11') is certainly quoted by some apologists for the continuing military debacle in those countries.
Dare we not continue to wonder, out loud even, about certain aspects of the whole sorry '9/11' tale? After all, it is '9/11' that seems to have sealed, with extreme prejudice, the fate of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. It ('9/11') is certainly quoted by some apologists for the continuing military debacle in those countries.
That should have been... "some" people are getting tired of it.People are getting tired of it.
Other's are saying bring on the popcorn.
No, what some of us are tired of is hearing the same arguments again as though there's been something fresh added to them. That Fisk begins to babble his own doubts aloud without additional facts/research does not constitute a fresh argument. Saying you're tired of the ravers while channeling them is a little disingenuous.But what is it in Fisk's article that you don't like? Or that people are getting tired of (some people)? He seems to be as tired of the 'ravers' as he puts it, as you might be.
Jonesy: I think it's fairly implicit that people refers to "some people." And if you consider the 98th repeat of your favourite episode of this particular sitcom as popcorn-worthy...why this is just the place for you!
MF takes offense at a journalist asking questions - go figure....
this probably explains HOWEVER's dismissal of Fisk;Robert Fisk is one of the least objective 'journalists' ever.
Unfortunately, there isn't much to take issue with in that article since it isn't exactly developed, kind of a hodge podge of general objections.
Fisk claims not to be a conspiracy theorist but briefly restates lame conspiracy theories as if they haven't already been well-debunked. The rest is, to Fisk, "hearsay."
No problem, Fish will make this idiocy believable, in yet another source-free opinion piece masquerading as journalism.
and who is CAMERA you may ask?The media watchdog CAMERA has criticised Fisk on a number of occasions for things he has written or said. In one case, they criticised Fisk for quoting an Israeli journalist to the effect that "[Israeli PM Menachem] Begin described [the Palestinians] in a speech in the Knesset as 'beasts walking on two legs'." According to CAMERA, Begin was not speaking about Palestinians in general but only about terrorists who harm Israeli children.
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is an American nonprofit, tax-exempt organization based in Boston which describes itself as a "media-monitoring, research and membership organization".[1] The organization was founded in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman in Washington, DC to respond to perceived anti-Israel bias in the Washington Post.[2]
News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel [3] and discuss the organization's mobilisation for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers [4], organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts. [5] Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases.
CAMERA created chapters in major cities, including New York, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and in 1988 a Boston chapter and office, founded and led by Andrea Levin; Charles Jacobs became deputy director of the Boston chapter.
In 1991, Levin succeeded Meiselman as executive director of CAMERA: "Under Ms. Levin’s leadership CAMERA’s membership grew within a few years from 1000 to over 20,000, and now numbers over 55,000, and besides the Boston headquarters the organization also has offices in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, and Israel."[6] The director of the Washington office of CAMERA is Eric Rozenman.[7]
On its official website, CAMERA is described as "a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East" which "fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media." CAMERA further presents itself as a "non-partisan organization" which "takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict."[8]
CAMERA is a member of the Israel Campus Roundtable, which includes the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Anti-Defamation League, The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership, and other pro-Israel organizations. As a member of this Campus Roundtable, CAMERA operates on college campuses to combat what it perceives as "propagandistic assaults on Israel . . . creating harmful misperceptions of Israel" and "publishes a student-focused magazine, CAMERA on Campus, containing specialized information useful in countering misinformation."[9]
Let's see: SPEC attributes HowEver's dismissal of Fisk's arguments to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America--an organization HowEver doesn't even mention--then destroys HowEver's unstated argument by "researching" a Wikipedia article that decries them.
I nominate this post for some sort of award.
I nominate this post for some sort of award.
The splinternet: it's a place where everybody wins.
I too am wary of some of the overblown and poorly conceived conspiracy theories. But I feel your comments on this article are open to the same criticisms you make of Fisk. It's often more useful to refute someone's arguments rather than simply criticize them.No, what some of us are tired of is hearing the same arguments again as though there's been something fresh added to them. That Fisk begins to babble his own doubts aloud without additional facts/research does not constitute a fresh argument. Saying you're tired of the ravers while channeling them is a little disingenuous.
To my reading Fisk acknowledges that some conspiracy therories are out to lunch. That still leaves some curiosities and unanswered questions. It is the calling of journalists to look at these things, and given that the events in question altered our little world, then they are worth asking. What you might want to consider is why you are able to complain about hearing the arguments again and again. If clear, concise answers were offered, and not placed in doubt by some very reasonable people, then the arguments would go away. It's not necessary to add anything fresh. It is sometimes necessary to refresh memories regarding unanswered things.
I find the theories weak, but some of the questions interesting. If answers were provided, it would all go away, except to those who are not qualified to question the answers but do so anyway.
CAMERA is not coming from HowEver, SPEC unfortunatly did not say where it comes from. SPEC is saying HowEver is getting the fact that Fisk being unreliable from SPECs quote with CAMERA.Let's see: SPEC attributes HowEver's dismissal of Fisk's arguments to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America--an organization HowEver doesn't even mention--then destroys HowEver's unstated argument by "researching" a Wikipedia article that decries them.
I nominate this post for some sort of award.
I give it the "CITATION REQUIRED" award.
It's like hearing the arguments about the "faked" moon mission. I don't want to listen to another person ask the same question about why the American flag is unfurled when there's no air or wind on the moon. The fact that the flag was wired is not a good enough answer for those who love to revisit the idea.What you might want to consider is why you are able to complain about hearing the arguments again and again. If clear, concise answers were offered, and not placed in doubt by some very reasonable people, then the arguments would go away. It's not necessary to add anything fresh. It is sometimes necessary to refresh memories regarding unanswered things.
Ah, yes. Unanswered questions about 911, whether or not they are related to conspiracy theories, are clearly on the same level. I don't seem to remember qualified, respected engineers questioning the moon mission.It's like hearing the arguments about the "faked" moon mission. I don't want to listen to another person ask the same question about why the American flag is unfurled when there's no air or wind on the moon. The fact that the flag was wired is not a good enough answer for those who love to revisit the idea.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac
A forum community dedicated to Canadian Mac owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, iOS, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
