Fisk Archived Message
Posted by Ian M on June 10, 2019, 3:34 pm, in reply to "the 2 comments at the Canary on this wholly supports your correct analysis:"
More trimming of his sails: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory-russia-a8927116.html 'Far more dangerous is that its act of censorship has provided an ocean of propaganda for the west’s opponents, for the Syrian regime and for the Russians. Russia Today has been regaling its viewers with tales of how Nato powers politically control the OPCW. American websites – pro-peace but also, alas, pro-conspiracy – are having a field day with the engineers’ conflicting report.' Far more dangerous? More dangerous than the bombing campaign it served to justify, murdering innocents, prolonging the conflict and playing chicken with a nuclear-armed state? Can you call it propaganda if it's based on simple truth? And 'pro-conspiracy' - but there obviously +has+ been a conspiracy which Fisk himself uncovered strongly implicating the white helmets in a staged gas panic! Why is he playing stupid with his own journalism? 'Just because the OPCW took the extraordinary decision to cover up some of its evidence in Douma does not mean that gas has not been used in Syria by the government or even by the Russians or by Isis and its fellow Islamists. Undoubtedly it has.' Undoubtedly??!? Ffs, what is wrong with him? He provides excellent reasons to doubt this particular claim of a gas attack, but then seems to have unshakeable certainty that some of the other ones were genuine. Evidence? Motive? Trustworthiness of 'rebel' or western intelligence sources? He seems happy to throw his critical faculties out the window just to throw a sop to his critics (and presumably his employer). jeers, I
|
|