Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (19591)	2/22/2002 12:25:55 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 281500

Robert Fisk is what the old style Communists called a convenient fool and such fools were the first ones they threw off the top floor or sent to Siberia. He is the islamists' convenient fool. Fisk wouldn't know the truth if it either bit his arse or whacked him on the head. If he ever reported truth, it was an accident He doesn't report: he editorializes under the guise of reporting. Fisk is no fool - he's an exceptionally experienced journalist. Opinionated, certainly. He's one of the few hated (for telling the truth) by nearly every ME regime - Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese... by his enemies shall ye know him <g> Of course, he's no RW hawk. He's seen too much real life for that.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (19591)	2/22/2002 2:22:39 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Frank, That was my favorite reply of the morning! Very nicely written. Well reasoned and generally completely on the mark, as long as you regard me as a caricature of a leftist. However, assuming that I'm endorsing every link that litany of leftism is incorrect. I tend, like you, to regard Fisk as a fool. For gosh sakes, I'm tending to support Richard Riordan for Governor of California. Hardly a leftist's stance. <g> Re: In foreign policy realm if you find your analysis doesn't yield a plethora of motives (falsifiability) you have been ensorcelled. Say what? Run that by me one more time. My simple view is that foreign policy is always designed to serve a purpose, hidden or plainly stated. Please explain how I've been bewitched by regarding realpolitic as the basis of policy? I'm trying to follow your logic here, and it leads me to wonder if you want me to believe that we have foreign policy that is specious and has no basis in solving an underlying purpose or problem? That seems far-fetched to me. Cordially, Ray