9/11 Comments Condemned By UN Chief

UN Watch,a Geneva based advocacy group, has demanded that the UN fire Richard Falk, a Palestinian rights expert, for statements he made on his blog questioning the events of 9/11. While stopping short of firing Mr. Falk, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned his comments as "preposterous".
What did Mr.Falk say that caused such an uproar?

He said mainstream media had been "unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials."

Who or what is this advocacy group that Mr. Falk drew the ire of with his comments?

UN Watch says on its website it is a non-governmental organization, accredited with the United Nations and affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, that aims to monitor U.N. performance against the yardstick of the U.N. Charter.

Source for quotes:
www.reuters.com...:+reute rs/topNews+(News+/+US+/+Top+News)
Richard A. Falk on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...
UN Watch link:
blog.unwatch.org...
NYDailyNews OP-ED piece:
www.nydailynews.com...
I think these events go a long way in showing how the media portray anyone who questions the official 9/11 story. Why do they do this?
What did George Orwell say in his novel 1984?

crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."

Here's another:

crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

source:
www.newspeakdictionary.com...

reply to post by jlv70


Why do "they" do this?
Because the comments are preposterous?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It is a good sign that such things are even being publicly discussed as such levels. Disbelief is generally a common reaction when confronted with such news and have not seen the evidence. After viewing the evidence it does alter a lot of things. Interesting times.

reply to post by hooper


If you're ignorant to cigars then yes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by hooper

 

If you're ignorant to cigars then yes, a cigar is just a cigar.

edit on 25-1-2011 by mayabong because: (no reason given)

I am hoping that you know I am quoting Sigmond Freud. He was commenting on the idea that sometimes analysis is not required, things are simply that way that they appear. That is to say, sometime a cigar image in a dream is not a phallic symbol, but simply a cigar.

Originally posted by hooper

I am hoping that you know I am quoting Sigmond Freud. He was commenting on the idea that sometimes analysis is not required, things are simply that way that they appear. That is to say, sometime a cigar image in a dream is not a phallic symbol, but simply a cigar.

Quite true. However what about the other times?
Should everyone just sit idly by and allow lies and cover-ups be regurgitated as truth?
Should we allow our brains to become mush and all turn to sheep that believes every statement that our hierarchy spoon feeds us as gospel?
To bring it further, should we as humans, quit using our common sense, intelligence and gut instincts...all in the name of obedience?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes it is a phallic symbol. And sometimes a cigar is petrified sh!t.

Well let me give all intrested couple of new videos on 9/11. These video will be on topic and actually are some of the best attack footage, plus the science and the proof 9/11 was an inside job. These are high quality documentry type videos. They are worth your time.

I think these events go a long way in showing how the media portray anyone who questions the official 9/11 story

They portray conspiracy theorists as conspiracy theorists, what do you feel, specifically, is an unfair representation? Honestly, this topic goes a long way in showing how you view anyone who questions your own conspiracy beliefs more than anything.

crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."

Sounds a lot like conspiracy theorists, just replace Ingsoc with "personal conspiracy beliefs".

To be more on topic, being a 9/11 truther says a lot about an individual, and may hint at that individual being an unfit choice for the position he is currently appointed to.

Yup....the demonisation of anybody that dares question the 9/11 Fairytale continues....

..including from the cronies on here...

reply to post by Whyhi

To be more on topic, being a 9/11 truther says a lot about an individual, and may hint at that individual being an unfit choice for the position he is currently appointed to.

People that believe the Governments version of 9/11 are now in the minority..

Seems the proportion of "unfit" people is growing....

reply to post by backinblack

People that believe the Governments version of 9/11 are now in the minority..

Unlikely, but even if it were true, that changes nothing. Facts are facts, just because people don't believe in them does not change them. This isn't a popularity contest, it's about critical thinking, reasoning, and skepticism, among others, none of which are on the side of an "inside job".

I enjoy your use of the word government there too, as if you were trying to degrade the facts about 9/11 on the basis of them being 'from the government'. Quite funny.

Seems the proportion of "unfit" people is growing....

That statement possesses more truth to it than you're aware of I'm afraid.

reply to post by Whyhi

Unlikely, but even if it were true, that changes nothing. Facts are facts, just because people don't believe in them does not change them. This isn't a popularity contest, it's about critical thinking, reasoning, and skepticism, among others, none of which are on the side of an "inside job".

I enjoy your use of the word government there too, as if you were trying to degrade the facts about 9/11 on the basis of them being 'from the government'. Quite funny.

The 9/11 report was VERY light on FACTS..
It was more assumptions and optical illusions..

You don't find it odd that the majority of people that wrote the report actually will NOT stand by it??

Unlikely, but even if it were true, that changes nothing. Facts are facts, just because people don't believe in them does not change them. This isn't a popularity contest, it's about critical thinking, reasoning, and skepticism, among others, none of which are on the side of an "inside job".

Apply that same standard of analytical discernment to the official steaming pile of BS we're expected to believe.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by backinblack

 

People that believe the Governments version of 9/11 are now in the minority..

Unlikely, but even if it were true, that changes nothing. Facts are facts, just because people don't believe in them does not change them. This isn't a popularity contest, it's about critical thinking, reasoning, and skepticism, among others, none of which are on the side of an "inside job".

I enjoy your use of the word government there too, as if you were trying to degrade the facts about 9/11 on the basis of them being 'from the government'. Quite funny.

Seems the proportion of "unfit" people is growing....

That statement possesses more truth to it than you're aware of I'm afraid.

Actually facts point away from an outside job, starting with cui bono. And is it tinfoil wearing conspiracy theorists who oppose the official story? No. The tinfoil wearing conspiracy theorists do believe in some crazy plot where a former CIA asset turned rouge on their creators for some reason and hid out in those high tech caves they sketched out for us.

It is the PH.Ds, the uniforms which question the official conspiracy theory. The tinfoil hat crowd is supporting the official story and is in the minority, as always. The tinfoil hat crowd is always the minority.