Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by rich23
It certainly looks like you had already made your mind up, concerning Fintan Dunne's site.
No. It just didn't take me very long. I've been looking at this stuff for a while, and it's really obvious BS.
Why don't you present some of Fintan's research and detailed reasons for placing people like AJ on the list. Your "criteria" completely misses what Fintan uses as criteria.
I gave my criteria so people would see where I was coming from. The fact that my criteria are different from his is no surprise to me: however, I did point up the fact that he attacks plenty of people, other than Alex Jones, whose integrity I've learned to respect and whose journalistic efforts I trust.
Remember where I said in the OP that this is NOT a defence of AJ? I loathe emoticons, but I'm tempted to put in the "eyes rolling" one... no, can't sink that low.
I actually wasted 9 minutes of my time listening to the YouTube segment. It's an ad hominem attack on Jones, nothing more. Yes, AJ is a dreadful blowhard, I wish he'd stop shrieking, and, yes, sometimes he gets things wrong. That doesn't make him a disinfo agent. If you think that amounts to any kind of serious attack on Jones' intentions, then you need to radically upgrade your ability to distinguish logical argument from ad hom attacks.
What makes Dunne, for me, almost certainly a disinfo agent, is his trashing of many, many trustworthy people in the area, not just of 9/11, but of alternative news generally. Have you actually looked at the list of sites he says are disinfo sources? As someone else has pointed out, Hopsicker is one of the few proper journos around, and the fact that he comes in for singular attention tells me that Dunne is almost certainly a disinfo guy. This is NOT something I say frequently or lightly.
The truth is that the document does exist.
The lie is that the document does not claim that those people are terrorists.
This is a typical disinformation scenario- lies based upon some truths.
It's boring to keep appearing to defend AJ when I'm not that keen on him myself. I think he's not that bright but his heart's in the right place, I wish he weren't so shouty. What you've shown, however, is that AJ made a mistake. It's an error, not a lie, and it's one I can see him making out of misplaced enthusiasm. As for it being a "typical disinformation scenario", it isn't. Dunne's trashing of Hopsicker's work is, however, as is Dunne's trashing of AJ, which, for all you've posted, is simply an ad hominem attack.
One other site I've found very useful over the years is www.informationclearinghouse.info - a fantastic site that pulls together a lot of news wire information that the MSM bypasses completely. This is another thing that tells me Dunne is disinfo. If he can trash a site like that, there's something VERY fishy going on.
And AlJazeera a CIA front? Come on!
As to truth in advertising, you should have included Fintan's explanation of what he considers a CIA fake:
No, not really. It's nothing new, it's nothing exclusive to Dunne, it's nothing special.
Personally, I have no skin in this game. However, I find it hard to believe that one day after finding out about his site, you can make a call that he is a disinformation agent.
Why? I've been looking at this stuff for a long time. Most of the sources I've learned to trust are on his list. His attacks don't use logic, they're a combination of appeal to authority and ad hominem, as far as I can see.
Easy. Disinfo. Obvious.
You say:
and all the information the editor, Finian Dunne, posts, treats government pronouncement like Holy Writ. It's pathetic.
and yet, in his site, he states:
Given the number of assets deployed in support of the 9/11 operation, and the operational requirements of the 9/11 attacks themselves, their origin is now clear. 9/11 was not carried out by some 'rogue group,' nor was it a fully official US Government-sanctioned operation. But it was orchestrated by the highest levels of the US Military and military-industrial complex; on behalf of the national and international politicians, corporates, and moneyed interests. It had, and still has the full support of the US Military/intelligence apparatus -who control much of the alternative media and the 9/11 movement.
The purpose of this kind of disinfo is, as Dunne himself states (and as I quoted in the OP) to fracture the movement and to get people to reject sources of information that TPTB find inconvenient. Of course that kind of rhetoric will be there, but what is he actually doing? Is he going out and interviewing people to flesh out the true events of 9/11, like Daniel Hopsicker? Not as far as I can see. Is he pulling disparate information into one place to make it available conveniently, like Tom Feely of information clearing house? No.
He's attacking those people.
There are plenty of people out there who espouse theories I don't much care for. The whole "no-planes" business, for example, strikes me as far-fetched. Because I think those kinds of claims can make the whole 9/11 business seem even more ridiculous to the average sleepyhead, I do think that some of those people might be disinfo agents. I don't know, and I'll never go after those people, because it just sows dissension within the ranks of people who need to pull together if there's to be any progress.
However, when I see a site like this, that exists simply to trash the work of other, better people, I have no problem at all calling it disinfo. No problem at all.
That certainly doesn't sound like he is accepting the government explanation of 9/11 as "holy writ", does it?
No, it doesn't sound like that at all... but when you look at what he's actually doing on the site, you can see it's BS.
Another person Dunne "exposes" as a CIA disinfo agent is Mike Ruppert. In case you didn't know, he was a cop who eventually realised that the reason that the people he was going after for drug dealing, particularly those high up the food chain, were getting away with it because they were protected by the CIA. His original website, copvcia.com, was brilliant and a good source of info on CIA drug deals. After he got into the 9/11 thing, a planted "volunteer" in the small organisation he was developing ruined his life and he was pretty much hounded out of the reporting business. For a little pipsqueak like Dunne to call this man a disinfo agent is, frankly, intolerable.
As I say, I've been looking at this stuff for a long time. And I'm usually prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, but Dunne is disinfo, I'd put good money (not that you can find any these days) on it.
