MovieChat Forums > Forbidden Lie$ (2009) Discussion > The 'impartial' 'award-winning' 'journal...

The 'impartial' 'award-winning' 'journalist' lost me when...

posted 15 years ago by DoctorStrangelove
28 replies | jump to latest

... she said, "... you had September 11th and the "evil" Arabs who killed 4000 or more Americans..." (making air quotes with her fingers).

I missed the first 15 minutes and I'm halfway through - and on the fence. But the Jordanian "journalist" (I feel compelled to put that in quotes of my own now) doesn't have the moral clarity to determine that 19 who murder thousands of innocents are not EVIL?!? Seriously? She has to put "evil" in quotes... why? Is this due to her own personal convictions or because she fears personal repercussions from higher authorities if she doesn't act as if the atrocity is questionable?

There's NO good answer to that question. Anyone who missed this little thing and thinks the author is a reprehensible liar needs to reexamine their conclusion, because any way you look at it, it puts the "truth-seeking" "journalist's" perspective and motive(s) in serious question.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

Another of her quotes: "If she has passion, she can come here and fight. Join us. If you have passion, you don't attack Muslims and Arabs. Why did Norma Khouri betray her country?"

What? This "reporter" actually thinks you can't bad-mouth people just because of their heritage?

Sorry, but she sounds more and more like a useful government stooge.

FYI, I haven't read the book and have virtually no preconceptions of Jordan. I have no dog in this fight; I'm just curious to see who's telling the truth, so I'm just giving my first impressions and gut reactions here.

EDIT: I just got to the point in the documentary where the director asks the guy in charge of medical records (murders in this case) why he thought someone would make up the information, and then he speculates that it MUST have been done for financial gain. UNBELIEVABLE! Is the director a rank amateur? Does she have no sense of honor - or logic? Asking someone to SPECULATE on the motivations of a total stranger is simply reprehensible. His testimony is worthless and serves only to make Khouri look terrible, and makes me wonder if the director wasn't out to do a smear job from the beginning.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

I realized all that during my viewing. And I can project my interpretation of what she probably means by what she's saying.... OR I can just hear exactly what she said, without projecting my values onto that. I choose the latter whenever possible, because it leads to actual understanding of those who grew up in different cultures.

My whole point was that speculation is NOT admissible in court... jurors who are found to have engaged in speculation, the way you described, in the absence of evidence, should be dismissed. IMO.

After finishing the film it became clear to me that Khouri is definitely damaged goods and most probably a total BS artist. Several times you can see her smirking at the camera: "I'm pulling this off!" It's creepy.

BUT.

Neither of those facts necessarily mean her *motive* for lying was impure, or that the filmmaker had pure motives at any time. Her getting the ME to speculate, as I said, was an eye-opening moment - anyone who stabbed me in the back like that would be on my list forever. The ME had zero evidence for his speculation (remember, he said her motive "must be" ONLY profit - pure crap, since I can think of a dozen other motives, including the possible pure one) and it's clear that his speculation was a pure emotional reaction... so yes, it was nothing but a smear job by him and the director.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

Yes, my only problem with the ME is that he said "only". Anytime anybody states that Person X could ONLY have done something for one reason, he's full of crap. A man of science should certainly know better and I'm embarassed for him. I'm surprised they left it in the film, but as I say, it definitely turned into a hit-piece on Khouri towards the end. (Not that I feel she didn't deserve it - but that still doesn't make the logic correct.)

I found the grifter charges debatable - why didn't they find Khouri's family and get their side of the story? The truth is probably somewhere in between hers and theirs. She MAY have bilked her neighbor out of thousands/millions, but all I saw in the video was opinions (from experts, I admit) but no HARD proof. Everyone hates her, that's clear... but did they hate her before she was outed as a writer of fiction? We don't know that. It's all muddled and I don't think she'd be convicted in a court of law. Others have gone free with more evidence against them. Plus, they had the chance to arrest her and didn't. Strange.

Again, I'm not defending her. But I don't condone the use of dishonesty to 'convict' people - even if they clearly deserve a karmic comeuppance.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

Certainly in a post-9/11 world we have discovered that one man's naming evil is another man's "simplistic stereotyping". Personally, I think willful blindness to evil puts one's soul at hazard.

I think your point speaks to my other post above - about her unwillingness to allow Arabs to be spoken of in the negative, no matter their atrocities. Ugh.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] The_Vapor 15 years ago

Certainly in a post-9/11 world we have discovered that one man's naming evil is another man's "simplistic stereotyping". Personally, I think willful blindness to evil puts one's soul at hazard.

I think your point speaks to my other post above - about her unwillingness to allow Arabs to be spoken of in the negative, no matter their atrocities. Ugh.

Are you therefore saying all Arabs are responsible for the actions of a few?

I certainly hope not...but if you aren't, then you have I think missed my point.

It is fine to refer to an Arab or even a group of Arabs as bad or evil or whatever based on their actions, but to call ALL Arabs evil is simply illogical.

Yes, willful blindness to evil is wrong. But so is labeling an entire group of people evil just because members of that group have done something wrong. I'm not standing up for Islam, or even Arabs. I'm standing up for logic. And if you paint an entire race or group of people with the same brush, you will miss the truly evil members of that race...which is the same as turning a blind eye to it.

I believe the reporter simply didn't like having her entire race branded evil. Who would?

My author website: http://www.seanpoindexter.com/

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

It's possible that her morals don't suck, but her English does. I'll grant you that.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] The_Vapor 15 years ago

I understood what she meant just fine.

My author website: http://www.seanpoindexter.com/

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

As did I.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] The_Vapor 15 years ago

That does not appear to be the case. It looks more like you've taken a rather innocent statement about the demonization of Arabs after 9/11 and turned it into a declaration of moral ambiguity regarding the SPECIFIC Arab men responsible for the terrible events of 9/11. The journalist was CLEARLY referencing the demonization of her ethnic group, NOT vindicating the 9/11 hijackers/terrorists.

You misunderstood. Her English did not "suck", it was clear as day.

My author website: http://www.seanpoindexter.com/

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

I agree. I believe it was clear as day. Thus this thread.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] The_Vapor 15 years ago

Glad you agree that you misunderstood. It takes a big person to admit to a mistake, especially to a stranger.

My author website: http://www.seanpoindexter.com/

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

Enough, man. We stated our cases. We disagree. Don't let's drag it out forever. Cheers.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_Vapor 15 years ago

She was referring to the artificial perception that all Arabs were evil AND responsible for 9/11 (or vice versa) rather than talking about those specific 19.

Also, she was not the journalist who initially exposed the lies.

And, she is in Jordan, one of our allies in the War on Terror. So, she would have more to fear by siding with the 9/11 terrorists than speaking out against them.

My author website: http://www.seanpoindexter.com/

[–] sdnjrjnds 10 years ago

Exactly! Exactly what I was thinking. OP is so thick it's laughable.

[–] badjuju_00 15 years ago

You obviously have a problem with basic comprehension.

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

Your argument is succinct yet stunning. I am astonished by your mental acuity and rhetorical clarity. You have swayed me, sir. I now realize the colossal error of my thinking. Bravo.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] The_Vapor 15 years ago

Your argument is succinct yet stunning. I am astonished by your mental acuity and rhetorical clarity. You have swayed me, sir. I now realize the colossal error of my thinking. Bravo.

In fairness, we did try logic and reason to point out how you were wrong and met with minimal success. I don't mean to blame the victim here, but at some point people do realize they're putting pearls before swine.

My author website: http://www.seanpoindexter.com/

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

So, months later, you're back and still sticking with your method of insult as a form of "debate". How'd it work out for you before? So why in God's name do you think it'll work now or in the future? And why do you not understand it is a fallacious and frowned-upon method of argument?

This discussion is long over. But here you are again, and trying the same failed technique. So... you're a masochist, right?

Unless you've got something new or positive to say, you really shouldn't respond. Unless you do, I won't.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] The_Vapor 15 years ago

Oh oh...I think someone got his feewings hurt :-(

So, months later, you're back

Yes, that's because I have a career and a life. I don't have time to check the IMDB message boards every day...every week...or even every month to see if someone has responded to my posts. I envy the carefree life you must have that allows you such a luxury. Some of us have more important things to do.

and still sticking with your method of insult as a form of "debate".

At no point in any of my posts previous to the one to which you now reply to have I insulted you. Not once. That is assuming you consider being likened to a swine ill-befitting of pearls was meant as an insult. Which, in point of fact, it was. However, some people like pigs and detest pearls so who knows; you may well consider it a compliment to be associated with the noble pearl-repellent porcine.

This discussion is long over. But here you are again, and trying the same failed technique. So... you're a masochist, right?

Once again, I had yet to insult you before tonight's post...which you promptly replied to in less that an hour. Do you have something you do besides lurk on this board?

Unless you've got something new or positive to say, you really shouldn't respond. Unless you do, I won't.

No, I clearly and distinctly proved why you were incorrect in my original posts. And while insults may be an ineffective debate tactic, lying most certainly is as well. And now that you have accused me of insulting you when that clearly was not the case, you have proven that you are a liar. Why should anyone here value anything you say?

You were wrong from the beginning because you made an unwarranted, irrational leap of interpretation based on what a reporter said (or, rather, what she didn't say) and make a wild and ridiculous inference about her intentions.

Here is what you would have us believe: that a noted reporter in an Arab country made a comment in support of Al Qaeda--which BTW may well be a crime in Jordan--and the interviewer didn't stop and ask "Hey, wait...are you saying Al Qaeda was right to do what they did?" despite the fact that it would have been an immediately sensational story? AND that this very famous, very noted female Arab reporter wouldn't have been castigated by the western world for such a statement if it was in fact her intent? AND that NO ONE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD ANYWHERE EVER has interpreted her rather plain and simple statement as a defense of Al Qaeda?

THESE are the assumptions you expect us to make in accepting your interpretation.

OR, we could apply Occam's Razor and conclude that she was simply pointing out the rush to judgement by many in America that all (or most) Arabs were evil and supported the attack.

What she said was obvious. I am right. You know it. At this point, you are simply refusing to concede the argument because of your pride.

My author website: http://www.seanpoindexter.com/

[–] raymondunc 9 years ago

Girls,

Give it a rest already!

Life is like Wikipedia: There are no Facts, Just Popular Opinion

[–] j72coburger 14 years ago

I noted her use of quotes for referencing evil Arabs too, but never for a minute thought that she was suggesting anything other than the point that the entire Arab world was lumped together and vilified by many people following the terrorists acts of 9/11. It never entered my mind that she was questioning whether those who carried out the attacks were truly evil. Perhaps she chose an unfortunate time to make such a point, considering the confusion it can cause among certain people.

This journalist was my favorite person in the whole story. She certainly doesn't seem like a person who fears authority to me.

Whadda ya hear, whadda ya say!

[–] shewasmyrushmore 13 years ago

I noted her use of quotes for referencing evil Arabs too, but never for a minute thought that she was suggesting anything other than the point that the entire Arab world was lumped together and vilified by many people following the terrorists acts of 9/11. It never entered my mind that she was questioning whether those who carried out the attacks were truly evil.

ditto - it was very clear actually.

this drstrangelove character saw what he wanted to see.

as for the director having an agenda to smear her, people should check out her video diary in the dvd extras.

she appears to sincerely want norma to be telling the truth - like most people she personally liked her, it is clear. she gave her every opportunity to prove facts and got nothing.

she asked the ME his opinion for a reason - after spending thousands of dollars to take norma plus security to jordan to finally get the truth, she was taken on a wild goose chase. on this chase she came across many people, including the ME, who have dedicated years to stopping honor killings.

it seems pretty appropriate to me to ask them how they feel about this person inventing a story which is filled with lies, and how they can only assume her motivation is money.

[–] forthesafetyofpuppies 11 years ago

"Evil" is a subjective term.

If the 19 men in question are "evil", then Mr. Bush and the U.S. bombers who murdered 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens must be equally so. No?

I realise I'm taking the thread to unnecessary places, but, you know.

___
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

[–] DoctorStrangelove 11 years ago

No, evil is not subjective.

In fact your own post proves it - since you posit that I (as well as most humans) can recognize evil despite which party commits it.

BTW, there is no reputable news organization that backs up the assertion (by terrorist media outlets) that the US forces murdered "hundreds of thousands" of innocents. Please.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] forthesafetyofpuppies 11 years ago

Okay, I'll downgrade. Tens of thousands.

Interesting, I seldom hear "most humans" classify what I mentioned in such extreme terms. Of course it's subjective, like anything.

___
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk