Riots in Tunisia (and throughout the Middle-East)

[axordil]

Ax, in times of war it is not so much the line various media choose to take, it is how the Pentagon (and I'm sure their counterparts in the East) grants access to the show. Say the wrong things, or neglect to say the right kind of things, and it is all "Access Denied." It is established, that from top to bottom, everyone in media self censors. The effect is as if some dictator is in control of it all. Of course in some cases the state transparently controls media... but we digress.

I'm not sure the Pentagon has anything to say about granting access to any show currently going on in Syria.

You would be surprised then. The self censorship that occurs in times of war extends to all matters relating to foreign policy. If your agency wants to maintain its access (for instance as embedded media) you have to toe the line at all other times as well. Losing embedded status during a conflict happens. Getting on the not invited list happens based on your behaviour (what you publish or fail to publish) at all other times.

And every news organization on the planet not working for Syria, Iran, China or Russia is unwilling to buck that? Every last one? But they're willing to buck other party line issues?

My credulity is strained, not because I don't believe what you describe happens, but because I do believe there are such things as independent journalists who don't care about official access. I refuse to accept "well our side makes up stuff and their side makes up stuff, so we have no way of knowing what is happening and may as well look the other way until it's over."

That's head in the sand bullshit, and as usual with head in the sand bullshit, if always favors the status quo.

[SirDennis]

Well that's not where I was going with this. I happen to believe that a civil war is in progress in Syria with the state being the prime agitator. However, the point that GbG made about Western media remains true.

You are right, there are independent journalists who, when not wasting their time trying to convince people that mainstream media are liars, do manage to bring accurate reports to the table. They are not who the masses are exposed to.

It is right to be sceptical is my point.

Look at what is happening in Egypt. The interim government, the military who sided with the people, are now, if Western media have it right, the oppressors. Was this by design? Is what's going on in Syria part of some elaborate design that is not obvious at street level?

[axordil]

Actually, it was pretty clear to me in Egypt that the military had thrown Mubarek under the bus to avoid, or at least postpone, civil war. It's also not clear to me that *any* of the uprisings/civil wars in the region over the past couple of years have been in any way pro-Western or pro-Israel or any of the usual suspects. In more than one case they've merely complicated matters by taking the devil we know off stage and replacing him with unknowns.

I fully believe in skepticism, but not ineffability.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Of course, because al-akhbar is a left wing organisation affiliated to Hizbullah, it is immediately disbarred as a reliable news resource... right?

The "affiliated to Hizbullah" party certain limits their credibility to my mind. Not to say that I trust everything that the "Western media" has to say about this or any other issue, but there are different degrees of uncredibility. There is little doubt in my mind that the Syrian government is waging war on its own people. The extent that less than savory forces are using that as cover for their own nefarious purposes remains unclear to me. That's about as much as I am willing to say.

Except for one thing. It would be better if you presented al-akhbar as "left wing organization affiliated to Hizbullah" in the first place, rather than as an independent Lebanese media organization. Such subterfuge limits your own credibility.

I think that's a bit harsh. Al-akhbar reports independently of the msm. It is Lebanese, and it is a media organisation. When quoting the BBC, I don't preface their identification as "mouthpiece of the British establishment", even though that is what they are. Now, al-akhbar also happens to be a left-wing affiliate to Hizbullah. Hizbullah has been designated a terrorist organisation because... it opposes Israel and by extension the USA. Hizbullah resists, and its members are called terrorists. The "Syrian Free Army" resists, and its members are "activists". That reads like propaganda to me.
I remember when I first read Noam Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle". It had quite an impact on me, especially in highlighting how incredibly lopsided the reporting of actions in Lebanon were, and are. For example, the October 1983 bombing of the American Marines' Beirut barracks that resulted in the deaths of 241 American servicemen is rightly infamous. But who recalls the CIA assassination attempt against Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah on March 8, 1985? An enormous car bomb blast killed 83 people, mainly school girls, women and children, and wounded 283. Only a fortuitous detention saved the intended target.
This selective memoria really is symptomatic of a wider information malaise. Hizbullah would naturally favour the reporting of the assassination attempt, and al-akhbar would broadcast such bias. CNN would focus on the barracks bombing by Islamic Jihad, and may well not report the assassination attempt at all. Whose agenda would CNN be following?
Voronwë, you imply there is something inherently incredible about Hizbullah (or affiliate) reportage. On what basis?
Furthermore, in response to a sentiment axordil expressed, I'd take RT over ABC, and press tv over Fox News any time. Superior propaganda both!

I think you are right in that the Syrian government is waging war on its own people. It is the way of states when threatened. If the August rioters in London had been armed as the Free Syrian Army is, I wonder what H M Govt's response would have been...

[River]

Were they armed before or after the Syrian government started using force?

[Holbytla]

Of course, because al-akhbar is a left wing organisation affiliated to Hizbullah, it is immediately disbarred as a reliable news resource... right?

The "affiliated to Hizbullah" party certain limits their credibility to my mind. Not to say that I trust everything that the "Western media" has to say about this or any other issue, but there are different degrees of uncredibility. There is little doubt in my mind that the Syrian government is waging war on its own people. The extent that less than savory forces are using that as cover for their own nefarious purposes remains unclear to me. That's about as much as I am willing to say.

Except for one thing. It would be better if you presented al-akhbar as "left wing organization affiliated to Hizbullah" in the first place, rather than as an independent Lebanese media organization. Such subterfuge limits your own credibility.

I think that's a bit harsh. Al-akhbar reports independently of the msm. It is Lebanese, and it is a media organisation. When quoting the BBC, I don't preface their identification as "mouthpiece of the British establishment", even though that is what they are. Now, al-akhbar also happens to be a left-wing affiliate to Hizbullah. Hizbullah has been designated a terrorist organisation because... it opposes Israel and by extension the USA. Hizbullah resists, and its members are called terrorists. The "Syrian Free Army" resists, and its members are "activists". That reads like propaganda to me.
I remember when I first read Noam Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle". It had quite an impact on me, especially in highlighting how incredibly lopsided the reporting of actions in Lebanon were, and are. For example, the October 1983 bombing of the American Marines' Beirut barracks that resulted in the deaths of 241 American servicemen is rightly infamous. But who recalls the CIA assassination attempt against Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah on March 8, 1985? An enormous car bomb blast killed 83 people, mainly school girls, women and children, and wounded 283. Only a fortuitous detention saved the intended target.
This selective memoria really is symptomatic of a wider information malaise. Hizbullah would naturally favour the reporting of the assassination attempt, and al-akhbar would broadcast such bias. CNN would focus on the barracks bombing by Islamic Jihad, and may well not report the assassination attempt at all. Whose agenda would CNN be following?
Voronwë, you imply there is something inherently incredible about Hizbullah (or affiliate) reportage. On what basis?
Furthermore, in response to a sentiment axordil expressed, I'd take RT over ABC, and press tv over Fox News any time. Superior propaganda both!

I think you are right in that the Syrian government is waging war on its own people. It is the way of states when threatened. If the August rioters in London had been armed as the Free Syrian Army is, I wonder what H M Govt's response would have been...

This isn't meant to be insensitive, disrespectful or inflammatory. This is how I feel about that post;

I have read more compelling arguments in UFO weekly, Star magazine and the National Enquirer as to why aliens built the pyramids of Egypt. You have as much credibility as Rush Limbaugh and the inane one-sided diatribes aren't furthering any conversation but only are serving as your own personal little soap box to further your wind.

Engage in intelligent discussion and point out whatever flaws you see inherent in any system, but please stop trying to paint the world in one color. It doesn't work here. Perhaps the National Enquirer messageboard has the appetite for such thinly veiled toxic diatribe, but you aren't fooling anyone here.

[SirDennis]

Were they armed before or after the Syrian government started using force?

A salient point, no mistake.

ETA: Holby your post seems most unhelpful just now. Granted I perhaps lack perspective when it comes to others' behaviour since the beginning of time at HoF. However GbG's post is not as unreasonable (if it is at all) as you make out.

It is worth keeping in mind that propaganda is only effective if consumers are unaware that it is propaganda.

[Túrin Turambar]

I have a few observations on the recent rounds of rioting triggered by the American-made anti-Muslim video The Innocence of Muslims.

1) First things first, I watched a few minutes of the movie in question and it is really, really bad. A story that was apparently indicipherable told through terrible acting, a poor script script and weak special effects. I understand that it was made by a California-based Egyptian Copt. Surely he must realise that this sort of thing is hardly going to help his co-religionists in Egypt.

2) I rarely find myself praising the Pope, although I do respect his sincerity, but his call to root-out fundamentalism in all religions is dead-on. Particularly appropriate that it was made from Lebanon.

3) I was happy to ignore this until a riot broke out in Sydney. Needless to say, no matter what, I take a very dim view of people who brandish signs calling for killing in the name of religion in my country. Shame on them. And good on the man who called them out on it, although it was far from the wisest thing to do.

[anthriel]

It's just so hard for me to accept that a video has such power. Really, any idiot with a telephone recorder can cause global rioting?

[Túrin Turambar]

It's just so hard for me to accept that a video has such power. Really, any idiot with a telephone recorder can cause global rioting?

Pretty much.

Plus there are those who don't consider cordial relations between the Islamic world and the west to be a desireable thing. You can guarantee, as with the Mohammed cartoons crisis, that as soon as something that they can use to throw petrol on the embers appears they'll grab it and run with it.

[Holbytla]

The video may have been the catalyst, but this was a planned attack by some faction or other. Generally, protesters don't carry around rockets.

[axordil]

I agree with Holby AND L_M. The attack on the embassy in Libya used the video as cover. The protests in other countries weren't of the same degree of bloody-mindedness. And yes, anyone who has something to lose by tensions decreasing has a stake in fanning the flames. That's on all sides.

It's revealing that the videos of the protests show their demographics to be identical to those of football hooligans or the people who burn cars to "celebrate" sports victories in the US: overwhelmingly young, overwhelmingly male, and probably mostly unemployed.

The other thing I find nasty about this business is that the Egyptian Copt expatriate who seems responsible tried to pin the blame on Jews/Israelis.

[River]

It's just so hard for me to accept that a video has such power. Really, any idiot with a telephone recorder can cause global rioting?

In the age of YouTube and other social media, absolutely. Though I think that the movie in question was more of an excuse than a cause. There's a lot of anti-Western and especially anti-American feeling the Mideast still. Our support for Israel, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, our history of backing the dictators...all these things are working against us and have been working against us for decades. Furthermore, I rather suspect that some of those governments would rather have their people rioting at us than at them...

I'm sure it does not help that in many of those countries, the people have never actually experienced free speech and may not fully understand what it means to have it. It's possible they think that this movie, like the Mohammed cartoons, was made with the blessing of a government. Some very public statements made by some very public American officials no doubt color that perception. It's a huge culture clash and there are elements on both sides that really get off on that.

[Erunáme]

I'm sure it does not help that in many of those countries, the people have never actually experienced free speech and may not fully understand what it means to have it. It's possible they think that this movie, like the Mohammed cartoons, was made with the blessing of a government. Some very public statements made by some very public American officials no doubt color that perception. It's a huge culture clash and there are elements on both sides that really get off on that.

A friend posted an article that talked about that:

A major obstacle here is that domestic politics suffuses every pixel of this picture. Morsi and the other Muslim leaders are in a bit of a bind. The militants form a segment of their constituencies; many others may oppose the militants’ action but regard the American-made anti-Islamic movie that inspired the protest as more repellent still. Morsi issued a statement demanding that the U.S. government prosecute those who made the movie. Obviously, this is not going to happen. It is very hard to convince foreigners, especially those who grew up under authoritarian regimes, that America is not a monolithic society. The notion that some idiots and ideologues can make and release a movie without getting some stamp of approval from the government strikes them as literally unbelievable.

link

[vison]

I agree with those observers who state that the attack in Libya was preplanned and meant to mark the anniversary of 9/11. One of my reasons for thinking so is the fact that the Canadian government, that week, took the extreme action of closing our Iranian embassy and chucking Iranian diplomats out of Canada. They knew something. Maybe the intelligence went astray or was a deliberate ploy. I think our government is or was expecting an Israeli or American attack on Iran and probably still is.

As for the stupid movie, well, we Westerners have a different world view than the protesters. We would like to think that people can be rational, but people can't always be rational. Our mindsets, of using science and being tolerant, are very new in this world. This gives these men a focus, a point upon which to fasten their hatrred, resentment, and envy. Yes, they are angry over the perceived insult to Islam, of course they are. It's what they are taught.

Those protesters are almost all uneducated and unemployed young men. They are the 3rd or 4th generation of their cultures brought up under vile dictators and resenting American influence (propping these brutes up) in their nations *while at and the same time* envying the US and longing to get there. These are not stupid people. They have suffered, as I said, decades of oppression. The US, trumpeting freedom and democracy, still always found it convenient to pay men like Hussein and the Saudis and Gaddafi: oil rules. OIL is the reason.

What benefit do these young men get from it? Nothing, that's what they get. Oppression and misery and unfulfilled aspirations.

Not only that, but in most of these countries there are hundreds of thousands of guns in private hands, many areas of many countries are not at all in the control of "the government". The fantasy of a democratic Iraq or Afghanistan is pathetic. In a few years or a few days there will be a new Hussein. And all those beautiful Americans and other Westerners have died for NOTHING. Never mind the Iraqis or Afghanis.

I don't think Americans are evil or wicked. I think the US does what it thinks it has to do. But since 9/11 it seems to me it has done everything wrong, and has made matters worse, not better.

[Holbytla]

I agree with a lot of that. There won't ever be what we would consider any kind of democracies in those countries for very long if at all.
It is about oil, or rather control when it comes right down to it, and even if nobody is saying so, I'm pretty sure the US realizes that.

The alternatives scare me as much as current course does though.
People who rationalize killing someone because a movie was made in their country that they didn't like, aren't the ones I want controlling the fate of the planet either. There is no justification for wanton murder, and people are stupid if they believe there is.

I can't bring myself to believe that every ounce of instinct has been eradicated from every zealot out there, regardless of how they have been taught. It's brainwashing for generations by imbeciles that accomplishes that.

If we could eradicate the dependency on oil and religion, there would be far fewer problems in the world.

[vison]

Holbytla, they are more the norm than we are. I think that's what westerners don't understand.

"Instinct" is what they are operating on, as much as anything.

Most of the rioters will not have seen the movie. They will perhaps have some vague idea of it and no more.

While it may not be useful to point it out, remember that only a couple of centuries ago Christians were burning other Christians at the stake for denying the virginity of Mary or the real bodily presence in communion. It's a long time to you or me, but it's not in historical terms.

The Americas were once populated by a whole, huge, interesting culture that was erased by Christianity. Deliberately and heartlessly.

If these young Islamic men had education and jobs, if their governments had THEIR interests at heart instead of BP or ESSO's, the world would be a different place.

I'm not sticking up for them. I think it's criminally wicked to kill in the name of religion - but then, I think religion is basically criminally wicked.

[Holbytla]

More the norm? More numerous for sure, and I guess maybe more commonplace, but normal is not an adjective I would use for that behavior. Regardless of what century we are in.

It takes quite an effort to ignore thousands of years of history and feel that there is remote justification. If what you say is true, than that type of person is more akin to the kill or be killed mentality of the animal kingdom than 21st century man.

[vison]

Not the 21st century man, just "the man". We ARE the animal kingdom, we are one animal among others. Different in some ways but not in all.

We over here tend to think we are the correct or moral or ethical or proper sort of person. We may be. But that isn't a truth universally acknowledged.

There are too many of us. We are experiencing what always happens when an animal outgrows its habitat. Not only that, we are not "just" animals and we keep trying to evade the laws of nature.

Part of that is our insane refusal to accept the laws of prudent finance, as well.

Like, you know? What goes up must come down? If it seems too good to be true it probably is? Outgo cannot exceed income for long? Debt kills?

As I've said a number of times before: ideology trumps reason.

[Holbytla]

Well we agree then.
Despite our supposed "enlightenment", we are still animals, and what we perceive as knowledge is mostly just hooey. The true animals had it right all along. Animal instinct is vastly superior to human knowledge.