Another sacrifice for a senseless,useless,foolish war....
[quote]
We were discussing this incident at our offices today and one of our employees actually made an interesting point, similar to the Independant Newspapers article, stating that he finds it hard to grasp any Iraqi would be dumb enough to kill a high profile female such as Hassan aqnd jeopardise their position. Even Zarqawi said that she should be spared!
The bottom line is that if she is dead, then it's got to be someone who is to gain the most.
Any guesses?
[/quote]
Don't tell me you are trying to imply that it's the US who has killed this woman? If so...rolls eyes...let me tell you why your colleague is really silly... why you can't make deductions the way he he does...
ok, here i go... :D
if we were going to interpret everything that happens on the assumption that no one would ever do anything illogical or not to their benefit, then guess what? There would BE no insurgent war right now. The Iraqis would be cooperating with the Americans until the national infrastructure was rebuilt, schools revamped, power plants reconstructed (allowing electricity and communications everywhere), oil refineries reconstructed. And THEN and ONLY then, those who wanted the US out would start trying to kick the US out. Why? Because by waiting, if they then succeeded, they'd have a country in much better shape than it is right now, with many of the improvements paid for by the US. (I know your going to say oil here, but blah blah, the US IS pouring $$ into the country, and if there were no fighting, a lot more of that $$ would go to rebuilding the country, even if only -- assuming you believe US is oh so incredibly evil -- to make its only shady business dealings work more smoothly.) Now, by this fighting, all that's happening is more and more is being destroyed. Really, who can gain from THAT? NOT the Iraqi people (no matter who is in charge, Iraqis or US forces)! Only these crazy militants whose sole point is not to help iraqis but to cause as much trouble as possible for the US.
All this to say that this idea that everyone only acts in "smart" ways that they can gain by doesn't really work, huh. And NO I do NOT think Margaret Hassan was killed by the US!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think she was killed by some pagal murderers whose mothers should have spanked them the first time they set eyes on a gun!
Robert Fisk is a complete piece of crap who panders to ultra-lefties and Muslim readers. Invoking the "I'm smarter than you because I can think up a better conspiracy theory." is just hack journalism. He does not have a shred of proof, just pandering with implausible gyrations to keep loyal readers and demand "premiums" for his web site content. The worst journalist in the world.
But gullible Muslims just love him!
but thats just your opinion. Unlikes mr. fisk's, it doesnt really count.
Remember when Fisk made a visit to the Afghan refugee camp and they beat him up? I think its time for him to take a little trip to Iraq and spout his cr*p to some of the Iraqis working so very hard on the reconstruction of their country and preparing it for elections and democracy. We might even get to see a beheading done by the good guys.
Bite me. does that count?
Yes, where are the beheadings when you need them? Only wish they did him in instead of Margaret Hassam, the world would be a better place two ways....
Yes, Fisk in his infinite wisdom said something like, "If I had been them, I would have beaten me too!"
What a gurlee man....
So anything you dont agree with becomes crap. Truth hurts.
tsk tsk MV and OG, no biting in this thread please.
MV, the afghanis didnt beat him up for what he wrote, they beat him up because he represented the west and most likely america. If they had known what he actually stood for, it would been a different story. Maybe you should make a trip next time, and see how they welcome you. Please remember to take a camera...and OG.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ma Mooli: *
tsk tsk MV and OG, no biting in this thread please.
MV, the afghanis didnt beat him up for what he wrote, they beat him up because he represented the west and most likely america. If they had known what he actually stood for, it would been a different story. Maybe you should make a trip next time, and see how they welcome you. Please remember to take a camera...and OG.
[/QUOTE]
Oh Ma. Oh Ma Ma. Fisk would like to believe that they didn't beat him up for what he wrote. You too, I guess. They might very well have beaten the cr*p out of him fully knowing who he was and what he wrote. If he went to Kabul today, I bet an awful lot of Afghanis would beat him up again...and there would be no question it would be because of what he wrote and how he would be viewed as a Taliban appeaser. If guys like Fisk had gotten their way, the Taliban would still be stoning and whipping people in the stadium on a daily basis.
hardly, they dont get the independant over there you know. The talibans werent exactly known for thier international relations were they.
how about we test your theory? willing to go?
This almost deserves a new thread.
I love this article, “The Dangers of Fisking”
Just cracks me up…
The dangers of Fisking
In the www arena where the world speaks invisibly to itself, a new word has appeared: ‘fisking’, meaning the selection of evidence solely in order to bolster preconceptions and prejudices. Just as cardigans or mackintoshes are named after an inventive individual, so fisking derives from the work of Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent of the Independent, stationed these many years in Beirut.
The preconceptions and prejudices that are immortalising Fisk in the English language express an unqualified contempt for America. For him, most Americans are ignorant and arrogant, and their leaders mendacious and cynical power maniacs leading everyone to perdition. Everything wrong with the Middle East is particularly their fault. About a dozen times over the past year Fisk has written that in 1983 Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and this is enough to make the United States responsible for Saddam’s crimes. The corpses in the mass graves of Iraq are the result of ‘American encouragement of Saddam and treachery’. Supporting the military regime in Algeria, in another instance of their perfidy, the Americans must also be responsible for the 100,000 or more murdered there in the civil war.
Most unforgivably, they are also friends of Israel. Fisk has fits at the very idea of that. All administrations in Washington are bad, but, in the first place, President Bush and his men belong to the ‘failed lunatic Right’ and in the second place they have fallen into the hands of the Jews. Advisers such as Kenneth Adelman ‘have not vouchsafed their own religion’, but together with ‘the Perles and the Wolfowitzes and the Cohens’ they are ‘very sinister people hovering around Bush’. The whole lot of them drive what Fisk calls ‘the American–Israeli war’. For fear that their own soldiers will be arrested for what they do in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States shuns the International Criminal Court. By my count, in the course of the past year Fisk has called Ariel Sharon a war criminal in no fewer than seven articles. In about 15 articles over the past year, he further assures us that the Iraq war is really all about oil. How that squares with American–Israeli conspiracy is not clear.
Fellow leftists by the million paddle about in this swamp of unreason. What makes Fisk conspicuous is his self-righteousness. The content and style of his writing proclaim that in his own eyes he is not really a reporter but the repository of truth. Other journalists are not up to their task; they are ‘nasty little puffed-up fantasy colonels’, warmongering collaborators of the wicked American–Israelis. He alone has the calling and the courage to reveal the evil rampant everywhere. Woe, woe, saith the preacher. Fisking is evangelical missionary work.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/newdesign/article.php?id=4156&page=1
bah, who reads the spectator, no ones ever of heard of it. People are prepared to pay to read what fisk has to say, even online. This david joanes is an unknown entity trying to get cheap fame by hitting on fisk.
I remember when Fisk got his ass-whooped. I think it was in Peshawar?
Let me lay a little dime-store psychology on y'all.
I remember the tone with which he wrote about it. He is a white westerner besotted with guilt and a third world fetishist. I think this guy has a messianic complex. He was so forgiving, almost giddy about taking the beating. Actively, conciously and purposefully turning the other cheek as the sins of the west were partially cleansed with each blow.
The term "Fisking" didn't materialize for nothing. He is viewed obviously with great suspicion as to the balance in his reporting.
On the other hand it's possible he greatly embellished or even made it up to feed his messiah complex. In any case, his reporting seems very unbalanced.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
In any case, his reporting seems very unbalanced.
[/QUOTE]
Why, because it disagrees with Fox or what Savage have to say? Or maybe in denial of the truth....hmmmmmmm.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by skhan: *
Why, because it disagrees with Fox or what Savage have to say? Or maybe in denial of the truth....hmmmmmmm.
[/QUOTE]
Does Fisk's reporting represent the unvarnished truth?
Here is some more commentary on Fisk, and a special that was done on the Discovery Channel. I particularly like the part where he cut out portions of the interview that did not suit his purpose. The observation that he places himself at the center of the story is quite true, and not very journalistic.
"But Fisk prefers the florid anecdote. He dwells at length on the case of Mohammed Khatib, an Arab whose land has allegedly been stolen by Israel for a “settlement” near Jerusalem. Fisk’s camera sweeps across the skyline as he intones that “huge Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land are now cities. A ring of Israeli concrete around Jerusalem. It takes a brave Palestinian to hold out here, to cling onto his own land in the face of Israel’s expanding settlements. But in this little patch of orchard is a family that has refused to leave its land, despite an order to get out.” In a vivid shot he juxtaposes two Arabs in traditional dress against a backdrop of thunderous earth-moving machines.
On viewing the film Mickey Molad, an Israeli whom Fisk interviewed about the Khatib case, expressed astonishment at Fisk’s attempt to deceive viewers. Molad had explained on camera that most of the land taken by eminent domain for the development project in question was from Jewish owners, several of them wealthy and prominent, and that all owners were financially compensated. While Fisk emphasizes in emotional scenes the authenticity of Khatib’s claim to his land — implying the Israelis had disputed it and seized his property as a result — nothing of the sort occurred. Israel had not questioned his claims but had taken his land for public use just as it had taken the land of his mainly Jewish neighbors. Fisk smeared Israel by deleting Molad’s key remarks.
Historian David Pryce-Jones has written of Fisk’s uniformly anti-Western positions and intrusive self-dramatizing: The reporter “habitually places himself not at all on the edge of his story but at the centre of his story, not really reporting on others but on himself.” In the case of “Beirut to Bosnia” reporting on himself meant a ruthless promotion of his personal hostility toward Israel in films that were propaganda tracts, not documentaries. "
http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/ocdisc.html
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
Does Fisk's reporting represent the unvarnished truth?
[/QUOTE]
At the very least, it's not any further from the truth than the "mainstream" media.
Sometimes it helps to read side both sides' perspectives.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by skhan: *
At the very least, it's not any further from the truth than the "mainstream" media.
Sometimes it helps to read side both sides' perspectives.
[/QUOTE]
Right.
"Physician, heal thyself."
You learn something new everyday :)
oh my God. Its davidwhatshisface again!
‘Israel had not questioned his claims but had taken his land for public use just as it had taken the land of his mainly Jewish neighbors.’
i havent seen the interview, however this struck out as odd. If israel took land of jewish owners by their agreement and compensated them for it, obviously they’d have no qualms about it. If this khatib guy had an agreement and he was compensated for it, why would he still be complaining?
Most likely it was taken without his permission, just like the wall was used as a land grab, infact just like many of the other plaistinian landswere taken. Its not a new phenomenon. Mr. Jones is merely playing with words and mR. Fisk rules, once again. Obviously he’s not scared of speaking his mind, incase he’s labelled anti-semitic (in which case your responsible for the holocaust), which is more than i can say for alot of other journalists.
I’m a gonna go his way :k: I dont care if i get beat up.