Robert Fisk denied entry to US

by **Dreams End** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:11 pm

I simply don't know what the facts are like in that region. What I mean is, could a totally objective person go to the region, interview people and come to the conclusion that Bin Laden is a CIA operative and the whole thing is a charade? Or do many in the Middle East believe that Osama is as portrayed, with some maybe admiring that vision and others rejecting it. How aware are people of intel games? I think, as a small example, that even before the two british provocateurs were captured there were rumors and accounts of bombs' being planted by US and British forces. So, one question I'd have is, how easy is it to discern what we take as the truth in the middle of all that is happening in the region? Could Fisk simply have a mainstream view of these accounts and be allowed to publish because of this? Personally, if I rejected working with people who have a similar viewpoint to Fisk, I could never attend another anti-war event again. I don't think I've met anyone here locally who doesn't have the idea that bin Laden is simply a terrorist and that all the actions attributed to him are, in fact, authored by him. "We reject terrorism, but the US actions in the region are creating more terrorists and making us less safe." Isn't that the mainstream anti-war view? But there are things in proldic's posts that are disturbing. Are there REALLY so many foreign fighters in Iraq that an objective reporter would have no other choice but to report this fact? I always assumed that this was highly exaggerated to diminish the role of the local "insurgency" (the chutzpah of using that word...not really a conspiracy if they don't hide their intention, is it.). I honestly don't know. I never understood how they can tell a dead fighter is "foreign" in the first place. Are they branded? I was not surprised to see no conspiratorial slant...but that's kind of a tautology that doesn't tell me about Fisk's intentions. If he did express these views, he wouldn't be published. Or he'd be dead like so many journalists over there. This is true whether he holds these views or not. One can explain these quotes without need to completely trash Fisk. It is possible that he simply holds these views and therefore is allowed to publish. It may be why he is allowed access to bin Laden. Or he may simply be one of those guys who sort of does a "doublethink" exercise, where he may know the truth on one level but for reasons of career and also ideas of what the truth might unleash (bad from his point of view as part of the "anti-establishment establishment) he won't "go there." However, I don't like this theory since reporting or not reporting certain facts is one thing. It's all this analysis that bothers me...he doesn't actively have to support this much of the myth to be able still to do the reporting he thinks is important. I'd be curious on proldic's take on this. If we use this logic, I'd have to lose my appreciation of other journalistic icons such as Edward R. Murrow (broadcasting from ROOFTOPS during the German bombing raids of London, in WW2...contrast with that stupid CNN reporter who broadcast from under his hotel BED during Gulf Massacre 1, and of course, standing up to McCarthy...if you tell me that wasn't genuine I will simply hold my ears and sing to drown you out...a guy has to have some myths to live by.) or IF Stone...treated quite clearly in Schotz's book as someone who would simply not entertain ideas of JFK conspiracy. Does that discredit all of his work? In any event, whatever the content of Fisk's work, at least he demonstrates on a practical level what supporters are supposed to DO...that is, reject being "embedded" with military and get out in the field and talk to people. I'd hate to think that all of his reporting is simply more intel. I'll end with sad food for thought, however. I don't want to think this of Fisk, but in reference to Jeff's article about Ramsey Clark...some of the best and earliest reports of the destruction in Panama and in Iraq came from Ramsey. He was first on the ground in Iraq and got an NBC cameraman fired for the footage they brought back. But I'm convinced Ramsey is total intel. I don't know how people live that kind of double life, but I can't really think of any other explanation. Nothing else really fits, not even that he's unwitting. What's your take, here, proldic? How witting do you think Fisk is?

by **Qutb** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:19 pm

Kick in anticipation of proldic's reply <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> "Or do many in the Middle East believe that Osama is as portrayed, with some maybe admiring that vision and others rejecting it. How aware are people of intel games?" I've never been to the Middle East, though I've known a few MEers. The general impression I have is that the worldview of the "Arab street" is fairly conspiratorial... and of course the Zionists get blamed a lot. So it's not surprising that the Iraqis would suspect the US/UK of planting bombs, true or not (and I think it may be true, but it may also not be - I basically have no way of knowing, absent any proof of explosives in the SAS dudes' car, which would settle the question for me). But polls indicate that a substantial portion see Bin Laden as a "hero" - something like 70% in Kuwait shortly after 9/11, I remember reading in the mainstream press at the time (true or false?). The Middle Easterners I have talked with about Bin Laden have never voiced any doubts about the "mainstream story" of who Bin Laden is. But some say they don't think he was involved in 9/11, while others say he was. Those who think he's innocent generally believe the Mossad did it. Similarly, most Americans will tell you that George W. Bush is a "born again Christian", whether they support him or not. That doesn't mean it's true. I don't know of any Western journalist or author who knows the Arab or Muslim world intimately, mainstream or not, who publically entertains the kind of theories we do about Bin Laden or al-Qa'ida. Does anybody else? Peter D. Scott used to be a diplomat, but I don't know how well he knows the Arab world. And there's the English guy of Asian origin whose name I don't remember but who wrote "The War Against Freedom", which I'd like to read. He spoke at Cynthia McKinney's 9/11 hearing recently about the ties between America's allies in the Middle East and "al-Qa'ida". Others? Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:48 pm

Nevermind his politics..Orwell got a lot right in 1984. Mainly, the "enemy terrorist" Emmanuel Goldstein. Not only was Goldstein fake and completely the creation of the state, he was created specifically to offer a false opposition to both divert the energy of opposition figures and to spy on those same people. So, our hero, Winston Smith, finally wakes up to the reality of what's going on, musters up the courage to do something about it and ends up joining forces with a fictional opposition group that is wholly the creation of the state. He is thereby entrapped. So I think bin Laden is a similar figure and it does not surprise me that lots of people believe in him. He did (does?) actually exist as a person, so it makes things a little easier. I'm also thinking about the information about the "Muslim Brotherhood" sometime ago...wholly controlled tools of the West.

by **Watchful Citizen** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:57 pm

If Ramsey Clark is a COINTELPRO agent, then I'm not as averse to those agents as I used to be. (figure of speech, obviously, ok?) R. Clark got to the podium in DC and praised Aristide as being more democratically elected in Haiti than Bush will ever be in America, said Fallujah was today's Guernica, condemned Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and a few other White House crimes. With 'enemies' like Ramsey Clark, who needs friends? It does not make sense to consider the last twenty years of Clark's pointing vigorously at White House crimes as a trick to get us to....what? See White House crimes? I think he really turned against the killer cryptocracy and dedicated himself to opposing its actions but doesn't go directly up against the CIA. Why don't some of you consider the CIA dangerous and accept that some don't want to be targets for 'neutralizing?' I heard Jane Fonda interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air program when she was pushing her biography. When Fonda talked about the COINTELPRO focus on her, the fear in her voice was obvious. Really obvious. Terry could hardly get her to say who was breaking into her apartment and searching it. Fonda's voice cracked. The Mockingbird media still works for the War machine and ignores Ramsey Clark and anyone else who says "j'accuse." No, the real Clark to worry about is Wesley Clark. General Wesley Clark. Because he is being manuevered into the Democratic Party as the next figure head for US Military Virtue as the Reagan Revolution against the peaceful poor continues to erase the Woodstock Era and totally remilitarize American culture. And Jesse Jackson now recruits for the Pentagon as a jobs program for African Americans in return for large donations to the Rainbow-PUSH Coalition from weapons merchants like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. I know. I saw the corporate donor signs at a conference in Chicago. I met Jesse at one of his functions and gave him hell for doing this last year right after Abu Ghraib broke. He was friends of a friend and he said nothing to me in response and walked away with his security people looking back at me meaningfully. Now THAT is something to be wary of, not what Ramsey Clark does.

by **zangtang** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:57 pm

wholly controlled ? - or wholly coralled initially and then lost control of ?

by **Dreams End** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:23 am

I agree about Wesley..my first problem was just a creepiness factor. Clearly there's a sort of cult of Clark....(I don't mean an actual cult here, just rather glassy eyed followers) and his war criminal background makes it odd that so many take him seriously as an anti-war candidate. About Ramsey....I don't go around bashing him publicly or leafletting against him at events or anything. But THIS forum is for looking deeper. I keep thinking I've made the case that SOME types of agents will, in deep cover fashion, put out lots of good info. In fact, I think I brought up elsewhere that not only did Ramsey put out some of this info, but he was the first. First to document the destruction in Iraq in Gulf Massacre 1, for example...thought that info WOULD HAVE come out anyway. I'm not sure you get what COINTELPRO was up to. Much of what they did was to infiltrate groups to cause dissension. You can't infiltrate a communist organization by acting anti-communist...you need credibility. And for someone with Ramsey's background...you need LOTS of credibility because his COINTELPRO past is public record. Why do you think he chose to work exclusively with Worker's World Party, a fringe party that does nothing to enhance his credibility? Why is it that so many of these questionable folks came from that same, tiny party (Socialist Workers Party)? Larouche came from that background as well. And from what I've seen, SWP was one of the most infiltrated left groups in the 60's. In fact, in the time I've taken to write this, the SWP has probably split into three more factions. (joke) Ramsey is more in my question mark category than Larouche (Ramsey was Larouche's defense lawyer, and that was the first alarm bell that went off with me.) But just because he gives out anti-war info means nothing...and you'd expect nothing else if he was trying to make inroads in the left. What would the motivation be? Here are some possible reasons: 1. To control the anti-war movement and steer it in acceptable directions. You can't do that without anti-war credentials. 2. To split the movement as needed. The first anti-war march just before Gulf Massacre 1 was split right in two. IAC and Clark used the issue of whether or not to condemn Saddam's invasion of Kuwait as a wedge issue. therefore, in a move that made the anti-war movement look quite silly, TWO marches were held, one right after the other. 3. Record keeping. Who all is on their mailing list? What organizations are endorsing? Who are the leaders of those organizations? Who can now be outed as "hard left"? None of this proves anything about Ramsey...I'm just indicating why his anti-war investigations prove nothing about his intent. His background IS fair game and I'd like to see more direct evidence of his "conversion" from when he was fucking with the Panthers.

by **Qutb** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:43 am

Watchful That's very interesting about Jesse Jackson. And very sad. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

Robert Fisk denied entry to US

Re: get the point?

Re: get the point?

Emmanuel Goldstein

Ramsey Clark called Fallujah "the Guernica of our time.

real blowback?

Re: real blowback?

Re: Ramsey Clark called Fallujah "the Guernica of our t

Who is online