I don’t always agree with Andrew Exum but he nails Robert Fisk here:’Fisk’s column today is the result of what happens when an observer of conflict loses all moral perspective. Fisk does not excuse any atrocities or crimes. No, he does the opposite. For Fisk, all crimes of war are now for all intents and purposes equal, and all armies at war are criminal. This is a valid perspective, I guess, in
that one could make a moral argument in its favor. But unlike this [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-coalesce-into-a-fighting-force.html], it doesn’t tell me anything useful about what is taking place in Syria. If all acts of wars are crimes and they are all equal, I don’t need Robert Fisk’s first-hand observations, do I? They don’t tell me anything of substance.Among his peers, Fisk is arguably the least popular journalist covering either conflict or the Middle East today. That’s probably because in addition to the alleged fabulism and lack of any useful perspective, in Fisk’s narrative of conflict and conflicts, there is only room for one truly good man: and that man’s name is always “Robert Fisk.”‘
Posted by Robert Fisk on the Gulf 'ditching the dollar' in oil trade | The Commodity Code on September 26, 2012 at 12:40 am
[...] Fisk is getting worse and worse(bandannie.com) I don’t always agree with Andrew Exum but he nails Robert Fisk here:’Fisk’s column today is the result of what happens when an observer of conflict loses all moral perspective. Fisk does not excuse any atrocities or crimes. No, he does the opposite. For Fisk, all crimes of war are now for all intents and purposes equal, and all armies at war are… [...]