Adam Horowitz writes:
The summer between my junior and senior year in college 14 years ago, I had the honor of interning at a magazine called Lies of Our Times. I worked with Edward S. Herman; the magazine was an outgrowth of the analysis he and Noam Chomsky put forward in Manufacturing Consent. Here's how the mag described itself, "Devoted to the exposure of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in the major media. With over 150 correspondents, including Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Alexander Cockburn, Jessica Mitford, Edward Said, Holly Sklar, Jane Hunter, Ben Bagdikian, and many others." Nice lineup. The main article I worked actually ran in FAIR. It was a formative experience for me in understanding the systems and politics behind our news coverage.
I couldn't help but think back to those days as I read the Times this morning, and the article about UN rapporteur Richard Falk being expelled from Israel. In the fourth paragraph Isabel Kershner writes:
He has compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. Pointing to discrepancies between the official version of events and other versions, he recently wrote that "only willful ignorance can maintain that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book."
What
is the purpose of including Falk's comments about 9/11? How is
that relevant in any way? Why does this come before actually mentioning
the human rights abuses
Falk might be interested in exploring in Israel/Palestine? (these don't
get mentioned at all). Instead we learn (these are all quotes from the
article):
- A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Mr. Falk had been informed in advance that his entry would be barred.
- He has long been criticized in Israel for what many Israelis say are unfair and unpalatable views.
- Mr. Falk issued a statement this month describing Israel's embargo on Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, as a crime against humanity, while making only cursory reference to Hamas's rocket attacks against Israeli civilian centers. Israeli officials expressed outrage.
- When his appointment was announced by the Human Rights Council last spring, the Israeli representative said it was "impossible to believe that out of a list of 184 potential candidates," the members had made "the best possible choice for the post."
- The American and Canadian representatives also expressed concerns about Mr. Falk's possible bias.
- Israel objects to the mandate of the special rapporteur on grounds that it ignores all human rights violations by Palestinians, either against Israelis or against other Palestinians. More specifically, it objects to Mr. Falk.
- The Foreign Ministry noted that in the past three years, Israel welcomed visits by seven special rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council and two other senior United Nations representatives.
And the article ends with "Also on Monday, Israel released 224 Palestinian security prisoners from its jails as a gesture to the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas."
Um, this level of shilling for the Israeli Foreign Ministry is over the top even for the Times. But back to the odd 9/11 reference. The only role this can seem to play in my thinking is to make it clear to an average reader in the US, who might not know or care about Israel/Palestine, that this guy is not to be trusted. Not only does he hate Israel, but he also hates America. Hmmm, "misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in the major media" - this would seem to fit the bill.
Great stuff, Adam, keep it coming. Mind you, my mental arithmetic suggests you may be about the age that Jesus supposedly was when he was nailed to the wall by … whoever it was.
One point: I am pretty sure that the cycles of rocket firing from Gaza are never started by Hamas, but always by Islamic Jihad, and I have found that you really have to twist the arms of Haaretz etc to get them to mention that fact. My interpretation is as follows: Islamic Jihad (and the PFLP fraction in Gaza) are exercising a strategic veto over Hamas's policy decisions, presumably because they answer to different backers ba hutz la aretz.
unfair and unpalatable views
Unpalatable views.
Unpalatable.
I'm thinking that someone who expresses doubt about the official 911 stories gets, not loses, trust points thereby — but I agree that alluding to irrelevant cans of worms is not good journalism.
–
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
This is the kind of crap that makes me quite pleased with the pain that 'old' media are feeling. They were enablers to the twisted moral freaks who got us into this mess, frak'em.
I am reminded of a quote from Lucretius: "It is pleasant, when the seas are high and the wind dashes the waves about, to watch from the shore the struggles of another". I've got my lawn chair set up and a cold one popped. Drown old media, drown.
ITAR-Tass and Interfax have quoted Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr as saying that Russia has agreed to supply his country with 10 MiG-29 fighter jets. ITAR-Tass said the planes will be provided as aid. Murr spoke during Tuesday's talks in Moscow with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov.
Um, this level of shilling for the Israeli Foreign Ministry is over the top even for the Times.
Baby, you are right on.
But back to the odd 9/11 reference. The only role this can seem to play in my thinking is to make it clear to an average reader in the US, who might not know or care about Israel/Palestine, that this guy is not to be trusted.
Maybe, but as with Israel/Palestine, on the question of there being grounds for 9/11 skepticism, world opinion bears Falk out.
The official story appears to be bunk to large portions of the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, and to a certainly "unpalatable" percentage of people inside the U.S., as well.
But they're all crazy. "America haters," (nice one, Phil!).
Who knew there were so many fringe loonies out there?
There's the former president of Italy, who says that in intelligence agencies around the world, it's considered a well-known fact that the Mossad and/or CIA were somehow involved.
There's the former head of the Pakistani ISI, who says as much.
There's even Castro, who says he was wrong at first, and now believes the object that hit the Pentagon was probably not your typical 757.
I'd argue that a big part of what killed the media's credibility was selling 911 (not the official story, but the base mythology and all the aftermath).
Isabel Kershner is a fraud.
Obviously, she only included the 9/11 reference to make Falk look insane because anyone who even slightly doubt the events of 9/11 is deemed insane. It's just a subtle way of begging the question/planting that idea in the reader's mind.
GJ to Adam for dissecting the article.
Poll: Most Israelis oppose leaving West Bank for Arab world's recognition
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1047226.html
Why blame Arabs for the current and future bloodshed?
Zionists have consistently refused ANY and ALL Arab peace overtures.
OT:
He's back! The fucking stupidest guy on the planet is back writing in the WSJ!
He's part of something called the U.S.-India Defense Policy Group.
Wait–did something big happen in India recently?
To borrow a clever turn of phrase from an earlier thread, it looks like the Neocons haven't been Yes We Canned just yet.
Why is the question posed as:
Leave West Bank for Arab-world recognition
I wonder what the poll question really was. Either way, it's not like these studies needed to be done. Israelis never wanted peace. They wanted expansion.
It's disgusting that these people talk about democracy and blah blah blah.
Further proof that there is no justice in the world when criminals are cheaters prosper as long as they have money+guns.
My respect for Falk dropped immediately upon hearing that he is part of the 9/11 truth seekers movement. It is utterly insane. To deny that airplanes hit the WTC and the pentagon and to insist that the towers were brought down by explosives represents a total break with reality.
If supporting the Palestinian people in their struggle for independence requires one to accept the delusional thinking of the conspiracy nuts, then I would just as soon sit on the sidelines and watch the warring fanatics kill each other.
Might have something to do with Prof. Falk's recent book:
The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy
see
Expounding on the 9-11 reference:
I've never had much sympathy for the 9-11 Truth movement, in as much as I think giving attention to what we don't know just takes it away from what we do know, and plays into the hands of those who want no further investigation. Keep your eyes on the prize, people. Just look at what has not been covered up. For example, Fox News' 4-part series on the Israeli spy ring (yeah, I know … ironic) that was being rounded up shortly before 9-11, and the incredible rapidity with which they were whisked out of FBI control, and out of the country. This surely warrants further investigation. Exactly which Federal officials, including judges, were involved in this release? There should be a paper trail. Is it extant? Is it classified and buried until 2101? Inquiring minds want to know… Who gives a damn about disputes of the structural properties of steel at high temperatures when you have hard evidence that three Israeli's were laughing while filming the WTC buildings burning from the Jersey shore? Or that when pressed on the enormous numbers of spies arrested, the Israeli government claimed that they were 'engaged in training operations'. Training for WHAT?!?
Oh, and of course Carl Cameron's excellent clips were taken down from FN's website, although you can still find rips on Youtube. Indeed, it was my observation of the disappearance of news articles on Israeli espionage from online archives in the first year after 9-11 that first clued me in that not all was right in Smallsville. I begin to doubt innocent explanations after observing the fourth occurrence, and realizing that it was highly probable that I was missing more. The watershed for me was reading an article in some local Georgian paper about Israeli 'movers' trying to penetrate King's Bay, and then the next day …… it was gone. At least Fox News left a nice message at the link where the clips had been, stating that they had been removed. I can understand disputing the nature of the fire beneath all the smoke, but anyone who refuses to see that there is any smoke at all is just a pathetic mewling coward. Skeptics, I insist that you assume I am a raving lunatic, and that everything I say is wrong … AS LONG AS … you have stones enough to look for yourself. Don't belittle until you open your own eyes. If you see something different, I'm ready to listen. Until then, I spit with contempt at your cowardice.
A good place to start:
Colin Murray, I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, the truth seeker movement has so discredited any inquiry into the questions that you raise, as to make such an inquiry today impossible. Think about it. How would you structure an inquiry into the questions that you pose? It would turn into an instant zoo. Every nut (with the support of those forces behind Israeli intelligence actions) would be screaming for attention to their whacked out theories. It is sad, but this is a story that will likely never be revealed.
LD, you can see all the questions and results of the poll here:
Nice strawman, syvanen. Where did Falk say airplanes didn't hit the WTC towers? There are many witnesses and videos.
911 skepticism is warranted, as Colin Murray argues above, and becomes even moreso with every smug, dismissive establishment asskisser that comes along.
I don't know.
But the dancing Israelis caught filming the 9/11 disaster from the best spot available in NJ in a moving van owned by Jews who quickly
went back to Israel, and the subsequent Israeli TV spot where they
said they had been over in the USA to film "the event" does lead any
reasonable person to question how much was known about 9/11 before it happened. That's not conspiracy theory, it's just simple
rational questioning.
Also, it's reasonable to question why the 9/11 Commission's own
investigation on 9/11 motives involved Arab rage at USA rubber-stamping of Israel policy, which was reduced in the public finding
to an absraction–and even that redacted investigation and public
record was not followed up at all my the USA MSM.
There's a pattern here, e.g., the USS Liberty, Rachel Corrie…
"My respect for Falk dropped immediately upon hearing that he is part of the 9/11 truth seekers movement. "
That may be unfair. I don't know what Falk believes, but there are all sorts of ways one might be suspicious of the official story on 9/11 that don't involve denying that Al Qaeda members flew planes into buildings. One might suspect, for instance, that either the US or Israel or both knew more and allowed it to happen, or less seriously, knew enough so that they should have been able to prevent it, but flubbed up in ways that we still don't know about.
I didn't see Colin Murray's post before I sent mine. MIne seems to have disappeared, btw.
Anyway, aside from defending Falk, who may be saying the same things as Murray for all I know, what the NYT leaves out is that Falk co-authored two books that were specifically about the NYT and its horrifically bad coverage of the Iraq War and of–guess what?–the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It's really interesting that the NYT decides to mention his 9/11 views and yet says nothing about a book he wrote about Israeli human rights violations and how they are whitewashed by the NYT.
I have little doubt that American and Israel intelligence were aware of much more than they have revealed before 9/11. Unfortunately, today for anyone to say that they suspect the whole story has not been told, are automatically associated with the truth seekers and thereby branded as a nut ball. Falk should have had the political sense to avoid that association but he didn't.
Anybody who steps into Israel-Palestinian politics needs to have a squeaky clean background. If not the zionist will rip him a new one. And why is anybody surprised that the NY Times wouldn't play hard ball with a critic of Israel. It is disingenuous to think that they are not Israel's defender here in the US.
'This surely warrants further investigation. Exactly which Federal officials, including judges, were involved in this release? There should be a paper trail.'
The best people to ask would be Richard Armitage, who apparently lobbied hard for their release, and Alan Dershowitz, who 'stepped in as a negotiator to smooth out differences with the US government' – according to Christopher Ketcham.
http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Final%20PDF%20of%20CounterPunch%20article%20re%20Israelis%2001-29-07.pdf
Dershowitz declined to comment, which would have to be a first.
Hey Phil, your entire fan base seems united–they are all 9/11 Troofers. So, it's time to put the Question to you. Do you accept the 911 Commission's conclusions? Were the Twin Towers brought down by supposed airplanes, or by a controlled demolition?
Since when did questioning Israel's supposed knowledge of the 9/11 attacks become conflated with the belief that the attacks were an "inside job" done by Bush and co.? I find that rather despicable especially when there were MANY indications that certainly would lead any objective person to believe that Israel had intelligence prior to the attacks. That's not to say that the US did not have them either when there were repeated warnings about such an attack on home soil.
Stop the dissembling please: urging an investigation about Israel's possible knowledge about 9/11 is not anti-Semitic nor a belief that Jews rule the world. There were many discreptancies with Israeli spy activity and I for one would like to know everything about it.
For more about espionage and Israel, see Philip Giraldi's latest piece on Antiwar.com. (Funny how case-by-case seems to "disappear".)
It's a mistake to tie Israel's supposed role in 9/11 with conspiracy theories. NONE OF THIS concludes that Israel was responsible for any of the deaths. But such espionage makes many of us curious as to what they were doing.
Thanks for the link Glenn. I hadn't seen that one before. Since the CIA has been breaking American and European law anyway to 'snatch' people, it would have been considerate of them to bag and interrogate Armitage and Dershowitz, who would probably have proved far more useful in helping to identify the enemies of America behind the 9-11 attack than any hapless fools the CIA has picked up thus far. Where the hell are all these mythical CIA 'rogue' operations when we actually need one? A seven year window of opportunity pissed away… Good job guys, you suck. :Sigh: I guess it's back to being law-abiding with the new administration. Oh well, it's for the best. :)
You're a very stupid man, Gideon sword, or just a liar. I didn't support the 9/11 truthers– I think they're almost as foolish as you.
syvanen. I assume that you have at least clicked on a couple of generic '9/11 Truth' sites chosen at random before making your arrogant judgment. If you have, and you have emerged with the idea that a majority, or even a significant minority, of '9/11 Truth' sites claim that were no planes hit the Twin Towers, then you are so easy to deceive that I don't think the '9/11 Truth' movement would want you anyway.
The 'no planes hit the twin towers' people are all provocateurs or idiots. However, since all the eyewitness videos are pretty crappy, it is easy to claim they are fake, whether in fact any of them are or not.
As to the statement 'no plane hit the Pentagon', it refers to the fact expressed with delightful pungency by retired General Stubblebeamregarding the relative size of plane and hole: "IT. JUST. WILL. NOT. FIT." There is of course no video available of the pentagon impact, just four or five freeze-frames showing an undistinguishable white object, rather more resembling a missile, coming at ground level with a smoke plume. So please, make some effort to be convincing yourself, syvanen, before you accuse others.
Do you accept the 911 Commission's conclusions?
I do. Specifically, I accept that they produced no paper trail. That was their principal conclusion: we'd rather not know who financed this.
I also accept that Lee Hamilton himself admits the investigation was compromised by the administration's lack of cooperation.
(So obviously there are more productive conversations than the melting point of alloys and the magic airplane theory on WTC7.)
WILL.NOT.FIT.
OK, look, Fidel Castro isn't any admirer of the ruling parties in D.C.
But he also doesn't like to admit he was wrong about anything.
From 911-swallowing The Guardian no less:
The Cuban government originally condemned the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington hours after they occurred.
Within days it had organised a rally to express solidarity with Americans and Mr Castro said Cuba offered to donate blood.
…
"Only a projectile could have created the geometrically round orifice created by the alleged airplane," he said. "We were deceived as well as the rest of the planet's inhabitants," he said.
In fact, the remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
Look, my opinion is I don't know. Maybe sometimes a 757 is just a 757.
And if The Guardian has concluded that forensic investigations in the U.S. are incorruptible, well, that's certainly great news.
I tried to find a picture of one of the engines of the 757–The Guardian could've included one but I guess priority should go to trying to sell me a Le Creuset 24cm cast iron casserole with free 20cm non-stick omelette pan with iron handle.
From: £99.99
Great offers notwithstanding, 911 is a religion, and we know only true believers are allowed into the expert caste.
MM,
Does it concern you that you were unable to find a picture of one of the engines? Perhaps your failure to find a picture of one of the engines is due to the fact that none has EVER been released. I have serious doubts that a Rolls Royce engine of that size would just be consumed in a fireball of supposed jet-fuel.
"Look, my opinion is I don't know."
That's my opinion too, but it isn't stopping me from exercising doubt, skepticism, and asking more questions.
PM
Does it concern me? Not really, Paul. I'm trying to figure out how they can give away that great 24cm cast iron casserole and 20cm non-stick omelette pan SO CHEAP!!!
Remember what our commander in chief said when the nation was still traumatized over the attacks:
"Go shopping more."
I just have a simple question. After the five dancing israelis were given free pass back to Israel, they said on Israeli TV prime time that they had been sent over in the USA to "document the event."
Now, if they knew enough to go over and set up clear eyeball view of the impending 9l11 event as it happened, what does this mean?
This Israel is an American special friend?
Why are we supporting them?
They didn't say they were 'sent to document the event' (unless the audio hebrew record differs from the subtitles) – they merely said they were 'trying to document the event.' To claim otherwise is a major falsification of a very obvious and easily disproved natire, of the kind that reinforces the common Jewish claim that most anti-Semites are basically morons.