U.N. chief condemns rights expert's 9/11 comments
U.N. chief condemns rights expert's 9/11 comments -
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned "preposterous" comments by a U.N.-appointed expert on Palestinian rights that there was a cover-up over the September 11 attacks, Ban's chief of staff said on Monday. The official, Vijay Nambiar, said however that it was not up to Ban to fire the expert, U.S. academic Richard Falk, as demanded by UN Watch, a Geneva-based advocacy group. Falk wrote in a blog this month that there had been an "apparent cover-up" by U.S. authorities over the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which hijackers flew airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon near Washington. 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." In a letter to Ban last Thursday, UN Watch director Hillel Neuer called on the U.N. chief to "strongly condemn Mr. Falk's offensive remarks -- and ... immediately remove him from his post." A letter of reply from Nambiar said Ban "condemns (Falk's) remarks. He has repeatedly stated his view that any such suggestion is preposterous -- and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack." Nambiar said Falk and other rights experts were not appointed by Ban but by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, a 47-nation body created by the U.N. General Assembly in 2006. "Their continuance in their jobs is thus for the Council to decide," he added. 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. It supports U.N. goals but frequently criticizes the Human Rights Council, saying it constantly berates Israel but ignores many rights violations by developing countries. It has often targeted Falk, the council's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, for anti-Israeli comments. In a statement, Neuer welcomed Nambiar's letter but said the Human Rights Council could not be trusted to fire Falk. He said Ban and U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay had "the power and responsibility to play an influential and decisive role." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70O05O20110125?feedType=RSS&feedNa...
Now, I wonder because of this phrasing "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." (emphasis mine) if Falk is implying LIHOP. I wonder even more about 911Blogger user "SnowCrash" and his suddenly blossoming "jew hatred"... Are they preparing for a bit of theater over at blogger? "Shame, antisemite, shame! Victronix, bring your whip--he said the Jews did 9/11!!"
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
Whoa...
"Suddenly blossoming Jew hatred" is right -- complete with metaphorical dehumanization ("their tentacles").
it looks like "Israel did 9/11" is about to...
...go the way of "No Plane Hit the Pentagon".
And the LIHOP deception continues apace--pretty soon we'll hear that the explosives that brought down the towers were smuggoled aboard the flights on the hijackers' luggage!
for those who haven't been following along...
"SnowCrash" is most likely not expressing sincere beliefs he holds. What he is doing instead is playing a part, like an actor. His job is to act in a manner that will draw criticism from other people at 911Blogger, who will hold him up as an example of "one of the problems facing the truth movement." They will say that he has no proof that Israel had anything to do with 9/11 and suggest that his language (tenctacles, indeed, as in the classic anti-Jewish image of the octopus straddling the world) is evidence of "the real motivation" behind those who suggest Zionist complicity in 9/11. This way they can dismiss legitimate concerns along with the racist tripe put out by Eric Hufschmid, Christopher Bollyn and others.
Problem: ZIHOPpers/AA77 skeptics making the truth movement look bad
Reaction: outrage, indignation, pleas for the movement to "do something"
Solution: effectively ban those topics from discussion in "polite company"
Snowcrash: "Bush Let Israel Let Al Qaeda Do It On Purpose"
So, if I am to understand "Snowcrash"'s logic, he argues that
1) The hijackers were for realz
2) Israel did 9/11
Therefore:
Bush let Israel let it Happen on Purpose?
BLILIHOP?
Snowcrash is the only person I know of who insists that both Al Qaeda and Israel did 9/11...
so to recap...
Because the idea that a big plane didn't hit the Pentagon is absurd, it was AA77.
AND
Because the idea that Israel did 9/11 is antisemitic, it was in fact the Bush crime family and their Islamist lackeys.
AND
Because CIT and WTCD are rude to people who are rude to them, Jon Gold is a champion of Truth.
did I miss any?
Here is Falk's origional blog that caused the uproar
http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-ki...
I still don't like the "with no foreknowledge" wording but he does link to David Griffin...
Falk's response
http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/
well put by Falk
"What seems apparent from this incident, which is itself disturbing, is that any acknowledgement of doubt about the validity of the official version of the 9/11 events, while enjoying the legal protection of free speech, is denied the political and moral protection that are essential if an atmosphere of free speech worthy of a democracy is to be maintained. When high officials can brand someone who raises some doubts in the most cautious language as ‘an enemy of the people,’ then there are either things to hide or a defensive fury that is out of all proportion to the provocation. To seek further inquiry into the unanswered questions about 9/11 is surely not an unreasonable position."