Fisk’s friends

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 6th, 2017 at 01:37 pm

Hey, US military! Want to capture one of the insurgency’s principal financial supporters? Robert Fisk can help:

In Iraq, as we all know now, they go for the jugular. The old, the young, pregnant women, infants, soldiers, gunmen, murderers. They all die violently, the innocent along with the guilty. One of the insurgents’ principal financial supporters – we had met in Amman, of course, not in Baghad – put it very succinctly to me. “A decision was made that we have to accept civilian casualties. If we attack the Americans, the innocent will die. We know that. What do you people call it when you kill women and children? Collateral damage?”

Of course, there’s always the chance Fisk was making this up.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/01/2007 at 10:02 AM
    1. O/T, and guarantee to be sent to the bastinado by Andrea, McCain just nominated for POTUS.

      A combo of him and Rudi Guilliani would be harder to beat than an armoured sadist with the only key to the whip cabinet.

      The Hildebeest may have to get used to correcting Bill, on a daily, maybe hourly basis, and no more than they both richly deserve.

      Posted by Habib on 2007 03 01 at 10:15 AM • permalink


    1. Habib, your OT comment could set off an entire OT storm. Andrea’s whip is near at hand.

      Collateral damage is accidental, Mr. Imaginary Insurgent Investor. Bombs in markets and mosques are purely intentional.

      Posted by Some0Seppo on 2007 03 01 at 10:21 AM • permalink


    1. “What do you people call it when you kill women and children? Collateral damage?”

      Collateral damage is the inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations.

      Setting off car bombs (as one small example) in the middle of a funeral is not a military operation, nor is it inadvertant.  Nor is kidnapping civilian workers off a bus and then murdering them.  And so on.

      Those are deliberate acts, not “inadvertant”.

      If the terrorists (“insurgents”, in Fisk’s alternate universe) targeted only military personnel (Iraqi or Coalition), this might be true.

      Otherwise this “principal financial supporter” (or Fisk, if he’s been hallucinating again) is supporting terrorism, and the outright murder of “[t]he old, the young, pregnant women, infants, [and] soldiers…”.

      Moral equivalence really sucks.  And Fisk, along with his terrorist buddies, suck at it as well.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 01 at 10:29 AM • permalink


    1. Robert Fisk is a lying sack-o-shat. I guarantee you he’s more familiar with Phatty’s intimate folds than he is with any insurgents’ principal financial supporters.  And it appears he knows less about what’s going on in Iraq than Phatty does (who hasn’t a clue, BTW). Is Fisky independently wealthy? Surely no one pays him to write this crap.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2007 03 01 at 10:36 AM • permalink


    1. “What do you people call it when you kill women and children? Collateral damage?”

      A hack screenwriter would blush to have written that bit of dialogue. Was the supposed interview on a dark and stormy night?

      Posted by JDB on 2007 03 01 at 10:50 AM • permalink


    1. Unfortunately such august publications as The Independent and The Guardian not only give the Fisktser oxygen, but paid contributions for his lame gibberish.

      Once fine organs, like the Age and the SMH, they are sad leftist dishrags that perpetuate the stupidity of the perpetually outraged, and reinforce their sad, forty-year-old outlook.

      Hippies were a larger blight than marxism- at least the commies wore uniforms.

      Posted by Habib on 2007 03 01 at 10:54 AM • permalink


    1. And habib, McCain just announced he was running for the nomination, not that he was nominated.  Just FYI.

      Question, if a guided missle struck a terrorist financial backer, and it killed only him and Robert Fisk, would there be any collateral damage?

      Posted by rbj1 on 2007 03 01 at 10:55 AM • permalink


    1. Only if a mortgaged house is hit in the process.

      Posted by Some0Seppo on 2007 03 01 at 11:15 AM • permalink


    1. Eighteen teenagers were killed on Monday at a football field east of Baghdad.

      Robert Fisk is incapable of writing anything halfway incoherent.  He accepts that “18 teenagers were killed”, and then goes on to write that nothing of the sort happened, or it might have happened, but nobody knows for sure, because “truth in Iraq is like water, often polluted”, and Western journalists no longer can investigate these matters (kind of hard to do anyway from a nice, comfy hotel room in the Green Zone), but still and all, the world is indifferent to the killing of those 18 teenagers.  Who maybe didn’t die.  But did.  Who pays this man, and don’t they bother to read what he allegedly writes?

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 03 01 at 11:57 AM • permalink


    1. #8 nice!

      It’s just kind of baffling. Is this meant to include attacks purely on Iraqi civilians, for which Americans aren’t targetted?

      The only Robert Fisk story I ever found remotely convincing was the one where those Afghani punks beat him up and I laughed for a week straight. Now THAT I can believe…

      Posted by Behemoth on 2007 03 01 at 12:00 PM • permalink


    1. #8 The house would then be a securitised area.

      Posted by Behemoth on 2007 03 01 at 12:01 PM • permalink


    1. Following Fisk around seems like just the job for some low-status minion.  Wonder where a man could find one of those…

      Posted by 68W40 on 2007 03 01 at 01:18 PM • permalink


    1. Fisk is either proof we don’t target journalists, or proof we’re smart enough to leave the self-destructing ones alone.

      Posted by MarkD on 2007 03 01 at 01:29 PM • permalink


    1. I suppose they met over say, dinner?  And he’s gonna……double the size of his financial support?

      This sounds like it came right out of American Pie…..“there was this one time, when I was at band camp….”

      Posted by Old Tanker on 2007 03 01 at 02:37 PM • permalink


    1. Does he have a point beyond nothing is knowable in Iraq? Deep.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 03 01 at 03:31 PM • permalink


    1. Fisk has marinated in ME culture for so long he has taken on its self-contradictory and self-defeating flavour.
      Iraq demonstrates how badly Middle-eastern societies break down, given a chance. Saddam knew the poisoned chalice defence would work. Nurturing democracy in that context is ambitious, and without border control probably impossible.
      There is no example to turn to of a properly functioning Arab (or Persian)society – perhaps a glimmer of hope in some smaller gulf states – the major ones are all either dysfunctional or held together by repressive force. The success story – Israel – is the one they all want to destroy.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 03 01 at 04:42 PM • permalink


    1. My sources tell me that Fisk is willing to divulge his sources only if he is beaten by a man in US military uniform.

      For further beatings he is willing to offer a healthy retainer.

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 01 at 05:38 PM • permalink


    1. It is not collateral damage when civilians are the target. Most Iraqis killed in the wanton bombings are not within coo-ee of an American. In fact, having American soldiers nearby seems to reduce the chance of being blown apart.

      But that is beside the point. It is another Fisk fabrication. He does it so often now he can’t write any other way.

      Posted by Contrail on 2007 03 01 at 06:27 PM • permalink


    1. #17 Margos Maid

      I think we could give a Digger a shot at it too

      well since Oz is doubling the size of their military maybe 2 Diggers……

      Posted by Old Tanker on 2007 03 01 at 06:30 PM • permalink


    1. Does he have a point beyond nothing is knowable in Iraq?

      We do know that Iraqi is not Bosnia, thanks to Fisk.

      Posted by PW on 2007 03 01 at 06:59 PM • permalink


    1. I believe Fisks’ every word.C’mon he’s an award winning journalist. My childhood spent within commuting distance of Disneyland has nothing to do with it.

      Posted by greene on 2007 03 01 at 07:30 PM • permalink


    1. As it is Friday and I am in a fair to middling mood, I am prepared to forego the offer of Fisk “Sucking My Nuts” in exchange for footage of Fisk been beaten to a pulp by a gang of Afghan kiddies.

      My offer is open until 16:00edst.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 03 01 at 08:24 PM • permalink


    1. #11 – and there would be pleanty of work for a mortgage aggregator.

      Posted by Razor on 2007 03 01 at 10:30 PM • permalink


    1. #4 Texas Bob

      Is Fisky independently wealthy? Surely no one pays him to write this crap.

      Sure they do. He met with one of the principal financial supporters just recently. In Amman of course. Not in Baghdad.

      Posted by geoff on 2007 03 01 at 10:48 PM • permalink


    1. Its probably not true, but wouldn’t the prospect of identifying a “principal financial supporter” of the insurgents warrant questioning this knob jockey?  I suggest the CIA buy him a one way ticket to Gitmo for a friendly chat.  No one needs to know – we’ll keep schtum.

      Posted by bondo on 2007 03 01 at 10:51 PM • permalink


    1. Why do these drooling rabid death monkeys always sound so reasonable, in a cool Bond villain sort of way, when interviewed by the Fiskmeister?

      Further, why is he the only Zionist Crusader infidel who can get within a dinner table of these guys and walk away with his head still attached?  Or do they just refuse to reach far enough up his ass to saw it off?

      Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 03 02 at 12:45 AM • permalink


    1. Does he have a point beyond nothing is knowable in Iraq? Deep.

      “It’s Chinatown, Fisk…”

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 03 02 at 02:08 AM • permalink


    1. I’m in the US so I don’t really know this Fisk character. Is it really possible in Oz to have a paying journalism job and not know the difference between “collataral damage” and the deliberate murder of women and kids in marketplaces?

      Posted by dean martin on 2007 03 02 at 04:03 AM • permalink


    1. the innocent along with the guilty

      OK I guess by Fisks’s lights that’s civilians along with the coalition soldiers. Odd way of putting it though.  Most people would give enemy soldiers the benefit of the doubt – in that they (the soldiers) might just be obeying orders, rather than being ideological adversaries.

      Fisk seems to be saying that individual soldiers in the COW are personnally guilty.

      That would be like me characterising the market place suicide bombers as murderers rather then victims of a Satanic death cult.

      Posted by PeterTB on 2007 03 02 at 07:01 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Login | Register | Member List