The Fisk transcript does not show Fisk stating that Dershowitz ever stated that questioning 9/11 was antisemitic. There has been no discussion between us regarding whether or not Dershowitz has ever called Fisk an antisemite.

Are you lying, halucinating, getting a flashback to an event you barely remember happening but are stupid enough to declare it a fact? All of the above?

By court standards, as seen in the Irving case, it shows that fisk is attempting to manipulating rather than report. That makes Fisk appear to be as manipulating as Irving. It does not condemn all journalists.

What you thought you heard and what you believe based on what you thought you heard has been discredited several timnes on this blog. i’m shocked to see you do it again.

It hasn;t stopped you and you have been discredited many more times than I have and to a much greater extent. You even deny that Fisk said Derrshowitz called him anti-Semtic, in piste of the MP3 and transcript.

Fisk appears to be guilty of reporting things that did not occur.

Appears? That's your trademarl way of lying is it not?

He sought to prove it did by the minute detail he provided.

Yuo referrign to his mistake about the Hellfire Missile model? Ny that statndards, does that mnot make every journalist a liar?

Finding that minute detail to be totally false, it leads to the assumption that Fisk is, like Irving, manipulating rather than reporting.

Soi therefore every journalist is like Irving.

Mar 22nd, 2006 at 7:54 am

Actually what i heard was that it was that Irving dared to raise this point at all that gopt him into trouble. I don’t believe his evidence was acutualyl challenged.

****************************************************

What you thought you heard and what you believe based on what you thought you heard has been discredited several timnes on this blog. i'm shocked to see you do it again.

The Irving trial over which he was discredited as a historian involved showing how his writing manipulated history rather than reported historical facts. Fisk appears to be guilty of reporting things that did not occur. He sought to prove it did by the minute detail he provided. Finding that minute detail to be totally false, it leads to the assumption that Fisk is, like Irving, manipulating rather than reporting.

What really upsets Fisk is that there are still Jews breathing.

But just as he did at Macquarie, Fisk goes on to explain how Israel is involved.

Please point to the sentence that says, Israel were involved in 911. Please quote it. I just re-read your quote and saw nothing of the kind.

I don't want to hear how he almost does it , or tries to do it, or about Eichman letters, or pubic hair, or bodily fluids, or Hellfire missiles, but where he actually states that Israel was responsible for 911. Either provide that statement that irrefutably states that Israel were responsible for 911 or be condemned as a liar and an Israeli propaghandist.

The only statement Fisk makes about Israel and 911 is the following:

No, Israel is not to blame for what happened last week. The culprits were Arabs, not Israelis.

See, I can read. Questino remains, can you?

Otherwise, you would have had the good sense to listen to the whole lecture.

Yes he talks about Israel's attack on the UN compound in Quana. That’s a non issue. It happened and he was there to report the story. Is there something wrong with that? He is a Middle Eastern correspondent. It's his job to report what is taking place. If Israel commits acts of aggression, then it is his job to report it. Is that wrong? Same thing for Palestinian aggression. Are you suggesting that he treat Israel in a particular way?

Now if you 'd hadn’t been so lazy and listened to the WHOLE of the presentation, you would have heard a great deal of time spent on Kosovo and his mentioning how he will be gong into detail about the Armenian genocide in his upcoming book.

Your ears seem particularly sensitive to the mention of Israel because you are indoctrinated to run to Israel’s defense without condition or thinking it through.

Fisk did not blame Israel foe 911. he didn’t say it, he didn’t hint at it and he made it clear he does not believe Israel were responsible.

I can read. It’s a fact that Fisk made no such statement. You are basing your lame argument on what he did NOT say, so reading wouldn’t help you anyway.

But just as he did at Macquarie, Fisk goes on to explain how Israel is involved. Israel, Israel, Israel. It all about the Jews.

Can't you read?

You can’t even understand very simple sentences.

It is you that appears tt be linguistically challenged here. He stated quite clearly in 2001 that:

No, Israel is not to blame for what happened last week. The culprits were Arabs, not Israelis.

And yet you somehow read this as an attempt to pin the blame for 911 on Israel.

You are not even basing your case on sentences. You are basing it on what he has NOT said. You also said earlier in this thread that most people in this forum diagreed with me, and I proved you wrong. See the problem? You are hearing or reading what you want to hear and read. Unfortunately, what you believe is clearly disconnected from reality.

He doesn't try to pin the blame at all. Fisk writes what he believes. A man who has had his life threatened and been beaten up is unlikely to be afraid of anyone, so if he believed Israel was responsible for 911, he would have said it.

NOTHING. Nothing he has said or written alludes to the notion that israel was responsible for 911. You won't be able to produce anything to that effect.

You may believe that repeating your flawed assertion often enough will make it true, but then again, they do say that the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome.

You can't even understand very simple sentences. Fisk tries to pin the blame…