My apologies. I was referring to your comments directed at FinnAgain.
As far as Fisk being a truther goes: I saw him give a lecture when I was in college and tried to ask him a question about the prevalence of the belief in the Islamic world that Jews were responsible for September 11th. I think his entire response was “It’s all bullshit.” Unfortunately he assumed I thought that was true when I was just asking him about how many people believe it. So my impression is that he’s obnoxious but not a truther. Based on the article I’d say he’s ignorant of some of the specifics of what happened on September 11th and suspicious in general.
Just because someone thinks that it’s bullshit that “the Jews” were involved with 9/11 doesn’t mean that they aren’t a truther. The fact the Fisk’s quoted comments are all traditional Truther nonsense sure seems to support him either being one or playing one for his audience. If you check threads we’ve had in the board, his pattern matches up to a T. That he’s a Truther out of ignorance is hardly unique; most Truthers are hardly Truthers due to excess knowledge and understanding.
Er, exactly how did I insult him?
I said he was a truther and his remarks seem to indicate that he is.
Are you saying that the phrase “truther” is a pejorative that I shouldn’t use?
What’s next, if someone claims they agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or David Irving’s view of the Holocaust that we can’t refer to them as Holocaust deniers?
I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous?
He isn’t a truther because he doesn’t believe “the Jews” carried out 9/11?
Lots of truthers think the US government was behind 9/11 and Fisk’s moronic ramblings on the subject seem to indicate that he’s one of them.
Sounds to me like he dodged your question and was probably annoyed because he’s been dinged on it before. Like I said, if it quacks like a truther and walks like a truther, it’s probably not a duck…and he says all the standard things, including the ubiquitous ‘I’m only asking questions’ bit.
While some may say that this doesn’t discount his other insights, to me just being a truther is enough to through serious doubt on any analysis or insight someone like that might have. It’s simply hard to take such a person seriously. YMMV.
-XT
I was thinking of “please don’t tell me you’re one of those idiots,” not “Truther.”
Possibly. This was years before he published the article quoted upthread, but I don’t remember exactly when it was.
That’s true.
Fair enough. I assumed he wouldn’t be so dismissive of one conspiracy theory if he believes in another, but that’s not necessarily true. You can definitely recognize the JAQ technique in that piece.
Ad hom is only a fallacy when it doesn’t directly address someone’s credibility/analytic abilities. Pointing out that someone lacks credibility isn’t a rebuttal, either, it’s simply stating that they can’t be taken at their word and their claims have to be analyzed. Even a pathological liar, for example, is right if he claims that the sky is blue (unless it’s cloudy, naturally).
Edit: to be fair, Fisk’s CT seems not to be that the US government carried out 9/11, but something a little bit different (or perhaps just that Bush and his team weren’t in on the planning). To be fair, that’s somewhat typical Truther rhetoric. They don’t necessarily have any cohesive argument to offer in the place of what they’re trying to tear down, they’re Just Asking Questions about the Official Story.
I’ll point out here that I’ve moderated a couple of your posts in the last few days. Re-read the rules or be more judicious about what you post in this forum. With that, any further questions or comments about the rules should be taken out of this thread and into private messages or ATMB.
No, you are right…shouldn’t dismiss someone simply because of their stance on something unrelated. I just seriously dislike 9/11 Truthers in particular of all the CT types and I’m seriously prejudiced on the subject. I haven’t looked closely into his other supposed expertise, so I’ll bow out and let the actual questions asked in the OP proceed. My apologies.
-XT
By the way, on the “dancing Israelis” front, a quick search goes straight to the conspiracy site, whatreallyhappened.com. Its link that should go to “The Jewish weekly The Forward” goes to Counterpunch instead. The link right after that goes to ABC News.
What does ABC news point out?
[
](Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies? - ABC News)
Even Forward’s statement, reprinted here via conspiracy site since my google fu seems weak this afternoon, was (underlining mine):
[
](Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth - Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage)
So not that “the dancing Israelis” were Mossad agents, but that two of them were thought to be. IIRC while the Forward’s source was also from an unmamed source at the FBI, the FBI itself didn’t go on record making accusations. I await newcomer’s cite showing that’s incorrect, and that the FBI said they had anything, at all, to do with 9/11.
If we check out 9/11 Myths, for example,, we get bits like:
Cites are awaited from newcomer.
It’s wrong to use term “idiot” to describe people who believe the Mossad was behind 9/11?
I didn’t call newcomer an idiot.
Nah, don’t worry. We shouldn’t dismiss the guy out of hand, but we should feel quite free to point out that he’s shown that he has poor analytical skills and is overly credulous of conspiracy theories. When dealing with situations as complex as the Middle East, that does remove him as a go-to guy for factual analysis and does demand that any of his descriptions of events have to be, well, Fisked.
It did imply newcomer is an idiot, and I’m asking you to be careful about that so the discussion doesn’t degrade into insults. I’m not issuing a warning. And yes, Truthers are idiots.
Oh man, you are A piece of work.
It clearly states from the 20/20 transcript:
So let me break this down for you oh thee with superior analytical skills :
Their - referring to the guys arrested who were in the van
The Forward - a respected Jewish newspaper in New York :smack:
Concluded - means it is definitively established as a fact
At least two - means two for sure and for others it may not be conclusive; usually used when there`s more going on
Mossad operatives - agents of Israeli intelligence :smack:
That is undisputed fact. Now, come back and whine some more.
You mean, like I specifically cited and quoted, already?
Yah…
What do you think their being “Jewish” has to do with anything, at all? This is the second time you’ve brought that up. Why?
Er, no. That’d be “proven”. Concluded means to come to the conclusion that.
Again, we have a situation where an unnamed FBI official told Forward that it was concluded that two of the members were Mossad agents. The FBI never came out with a statement to that effect (still waiting for cites from you, newcomer). Even with that being the case, each and every single cite and source agrees that “the dancing Israelis” had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, so you citing them at all is weird.
Yet again, what exactly is your argument, and what logic are you using to support it. This is hardly an unreasonable set of requests.
Newcomer,
So then it’s safe to say that you believe that the Mossad was behind 9/11?
Sure, yeah because following is such a logical explanation:
Immature conduct :rolleyes:
I’ll answer this as soon as you explain to me surviving passports.