Having only heard Griffin's U of W speech, and not yet read his book, I can't comment on what kind of speculations he makes about governmet involvement in 9/11. His evidence is compelling though, and deserves to be viewed on its merits. Muwakkil's argument is a simple an ad hominem attack. Griffin was once an admired and respected theologian, but now "what happened to him?" he's just a "conspiracy theorist." This is a crafty dismissal of compelling evidence without actually addressing the points Griffin makes. Sure Terry Allen came to the same conclusion, but what are the "plausible explanations" she came …
All 2 comments by...
katiez
-
-
Your comments are quite insightful, AD. Muwakkil may simply be repeating the official ITT mantra. It does seem strange that he would praise Griffin in the first part of the article and then suddenly switch to labeling and dismissing him. He makes only vague, incomplete arguments to support his change of view. It doesn't add up. Perhaps the article once had a different conclusion and an editor at ITT retooled the end, adding quotes from herself in the process. Or maybe Muwakkil is afraid of being labeled a conspiracist himself, and is engaged in cognitive dissonance. Do not be concerned about …
Posted to What's the 411 on 9/11?
- Joined December 21, 2005
- Last Visit December 22, 2005
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Ignoring Outrage, Obama Set to Expand Pentagon Presence in Colombia
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed