Little Green Footballs

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Recommended Fisk

The Independent's Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk is a hated figure among neocons and LGFers (same difference) so he's always worth reading. Imagine my delight when I got copies of a two-volume collection of his articles dating between 1988 and 2008. Perfect for the beach! (even if the content isn't exactly what you want to be thinking about on holiday.)

These books (also available in one volume as 'The Age of the Warrior: Selected Writings') show that Fisk recognized coming trends in the Middle East (and elsewhere) years before anyone else did, and wrote about events that others didn't dare go near or purposefully ignored.

In wingnut circles Fisk has been accused of pursuing an anti-Israel agenda, and of supporting terrorists. While he certainly levels severe accusations at Israel, much of his ire is aimed at hypocritical Arab governments and the cruelty they permit in their own country.

One good example is this piece, about the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Algeria. If you don't think this is great journalism, you need your mind checked.


K said...

Insult to Injury

>>"That's a mild way of describing the procedure in which IDF soldiers first kill a young boy in the West Bank, and then go shoot nine people at his funeral. You also have to love Ha'aretz's way of describing these events."

Only in Israel...

Red Tulips said...

Fisk is the very man who said he understood the Taliban's anger when they kidnapped him. The Taliban is a group which led a campaign of Final Solution of the Hazara people of Afghanistan (at one point killing 8,000 in a single day), and which went around beating women for showing a little anger.

This is a man you rely upon as a source?

Says all you need to know, really.

Anonymous said...

"The Taliban" didn't kidnap Fisk.

In fact, Robert Fisk has never been kidnapped by anyone. Ever.

What you must be referring to is an incident in 2001, in which Fisk was beaten by Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

His assailants were a bit angry over American complicity in massacres occurring in their city, Mazar-i-Sharif.

Fisk wrote an article about it.

Anonymous said...

What a retard red tulips is.

Red Tulips said...


To be exactly accurate, the attackers were Taliban supporters. That is why they wre 'refugees.'

And yet Fisk has the audacity to defend the actions of the Taliban, by claiming that the US was the real evil.

This is a man you rely on for a source? A known anti-humanity polemacist?

Says it all, really. (not that he is any different from Norm Finkelstein and Sabbah, who LGF Watch links to)

The anti-humanity engine of LGF Watch is on full display.

X said...

"The anti-humanity engine"

I love it.

The Sphinx said...

" 'The anti-humanity engine'

I love it."

Yup, classic :D

Red Tulips said...

I note the total lack of anything resembling a reply, other than feigned 'amusement.'

To be a supporter of Fisk is to be a supporter of his propoganda in support of those waging a war against humanity. (which aptly describes the human butchers of the Taliban and others he has famously defended)

He also has made up so many 'facts' in his articles, his name has been made into a verb. To "Fisk" something means to go through an article and debunk every single line in the article.

This is the man you laud. Would be astonishing, if I did not see open Hizballah supporters amongst your links already.

X said...

Tulips, if you hate Fisk then that's your problem. I'm not here to convince you otherwise.

I think, though, that you've probably not read much of his work. If that's true then I suggest you pick up a copy of one of his books - not just a 'fisked' article on a blog - and read it from start to finish.

Anonymous said...

To be exactly accurate, the attackers were Taliban supporters. That is why they wre 'refugees.'

"To be exactly accurate", you're a tool and could care less what is "accurate."

Directly from the Fisk article, which of course you didn't read:

"...Afghan refugees, the very people I had been writing about for so long, the very dispossessed, mutilated people whom my own country –among others – was killing along, with the Taliban, just across the border"

Jamboeknee said...

K = you should know the young boy was killed as the IDF was confronting a violent mob.

The original story was omitted by Spinx.

Anon1: Yes you're right Fisk was attacked by an angry mob (whether the angry mob was Taliban supporters - I don't know, red tulips doesn't know and you don't know) - he was saved by another person in the mob -

Red Tuplis is correct though that he defended the people that tried to kill him and blamed USA. Talk about Stockholm syndrome. It takes incredible (yet strangely common) moral confusion to excuse one immorality (such as intentionally killing an innocent person) by saying that killer had a bad life.

Anon2: Not a very intelligent response.

X & Spinx: "Anti-Humanity" regime - what else would you call the Taliban? Where the repress all basic rights and freedoms, even ban simple things like music?

Why would you ridicoule an Anti-Taliban statement? Would an impartial observer conclude you are then a Taliban "sympathizer"?

X & Anon3: Here is all the evidence you need to realize Fisk is not entirely a "good source" - He is a truther.

And Red Tuplis is right - "Fisking" has become a term in itself. (See above link)

k said...

Charles links to a video satirizing entrepreneurial Christian Zionists (Hal Lindsay and the 'Left Behind' crew) and right-wing conspiracy theorists (that predicted, for example, that now-deceased Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini would be the Antichrist, according to Nostradamus and so forth).

Entertaining stuff:

The Sphinx said...


"X & Spinx: "Anti-Humanity" regime - what else would you call the Taliban? Where the repress all basic rights and freedoms, even ban simple things like music?"

You need to work a bit on your reading skills. She wasn't referring to the Taliban as being an anti-humanity regime (whereas we can agree that they are), but to LGF Watch as having an "anti-humanity engine" working at full pace. And that's nothing short of funny.

Jamboeknee said...


You're right - I did misinterpret RedTulips' comments. Thank you for the correction.

I went back and as a refrehsher - and discovered however that both corrections actually help my point even more!!!

I looked at exactly what was said:

tulips said:
"This is a man you rely on for a source? A known anti-humanity polemacist?

The anti-humanity engine of LGF Watch is on full display."

Looking at exactly what Fisk said about the "refugees" he did say

"("I couldn't blame them for what they were doing,") and said that, in his view, their "brutality was entirely the product of others, of us"

This made me realize that Fisk unfortunately could not be referring to anybody else other then the Taliban since it was the Taliban that allied with Osama Bin Laden and the CIA to fight the Russians!


So Red Tuplis, and apology - yes Fisk had no choice but to excuse Taliban members to as being 'driven to brutality' but no other then us and the West.

I would agree with Tuplis that anybody that would defend the Taliban and justify their actions is "anti-humanity" as you just agreed to as well here:

Spinx said:
(whereas we can agree that they are)

Given that we both agree that the Taliban is anti-humanity and that it's clear that Fisk is sympathetic to their cause (he justifies their actions by saying they are mistreated)


I would say Fisk is a poor choice in being a standard bearer of a point.

Now if as an owner of a blog I would use/quote/rely on Robert Fisk
somebody how has very clear anti-Israel, bias, sympathetic views toward so called 'freedom-fighters' and has gone as far as to question if 9/11 was an "inside" job - I wouldn't go as far and say that blog was anti-humanity - but I would definitely say it was a poor choice to pick somebody that did sympathize with anti-humanity groups such as the Taliban.

Here is a quote from Deputy Foreign Editor of the New York Times, called Fisk "most passionate and least informed about Israel," accusing him of pursuing an agenda "nearly to the exclusion of the pursuit of straight journalism

Nobody can deny New York Times is a liberal/left leaning publication as well.

So I agree with red tulips' Fisk is a Anti-Humanity Polemecist - and by LGF supporting him, by extension they are propagating that Anti-Humanity view....unfortunately.

Anonymous said...


I'm not going to hold your hand and explain everything from scratch.

Especially since I run the risk of not getting anything through to you.

Learn to read carefully. In response to K's post, you actually posted a news article that the blog post he linked to had directly addressed.

Anonymous said...

It's good to see yet another genius troll has joined red tulips here. Twisted logic, false assumptions, wikipedia citations, incomplete quotations, appeals to authority, not having even read the man's work: it's an impressive catalogue of ignorance.

People should read The Great War For Civilization before making any such judgement. Even an ignorant, cognitive-deficient moron couldn't fail to identify the humanity present in that book.

Red Tulips said...

To Anon,

You think I have failed to read Fisk's work? I have read his work. I even discussed his work in a media law class I took. Fisk's work is garbage, but I have read it, discussed it, and analyzed it. There is a reason people speak of 'fisking' something. It is because the man is known to literally pull facts out of his ass to prove 'points' he wants to make.

Fisk has about as much authority as other polemacists that LGF Watch link to, including Norm Finkelstein and Sabbah.

X said...

Tulips, why don't you have a go at the linked article and show us what Fisk got wrong?

Anonymous said...

Red Tulips never has anything of substance to say.

Why waste time with her?

stvip said...

Red Tulips: I would like to contact you privately. If agreed, please provide a means.

Red Tulips said...

Hi stvip,

My email is redtulips at gmail dot com.


Red Tulips