 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / April 2006Why They Bash Israel & Ignore Sudan-Darfur
My humble perceptions: It's a propaganda/morality contest that the West & Israel are losing. Since the Moslem media generally de-emphasize reporting about the on-going alleged cruel/outrageous massive murdering & dis-placement being orchestrated/supported by Sudan against Darfur, the street of Araby & Persian is being warped/conditioned and thus being intellectually & morally insulted by the sin of reporting omission/suppression. And do I think they'd really hate Israel any less if Darfur were somehow actually exposed daily to them? No, but at the least there might be some better self-knowing or introspection, which could lead to less regress, or perhaps it wouldn't matter and they'd feel no shame/anger concerning the alleged genocide by Muslims against Muslim-Animists, reportedly sometimes accompanied with rapes & racist epithets by Janjaweed persecutors. Alleged quote by a candid, insightful Middle Eastern political scientist in NY TIMES article. "Israel is the best issue they can point to in order to mobilize their supporters," Mr. Zeidabadi said. "Israel has occupied part of the Islamic and Arab land and the West supports it. This way they can question the whole Western culture and say that what the West says about democracy and human rights are lies and therefore what we have is right. This argument gives legitimacy to the Iranian regime," he added. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/world/middleeast/14cnd-tehran.html?hp&ex=11450 73600&en=48f87dcb8a269e94&ei=5094&partner=homepage > My humble perceptions: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > intellectually & morally insulted by the sin of reporting > omission/suppression. I wonder who do you refer to by "Moslem media"? A quick search in the UK and US media indicates that the Darfur massacre gets frequent coverage. The Guardian had 36 articles on it in the last 3 and a half months. The Times had 22. The NY Times had 91 articles on the issue. The Washington Post had 50 articles in the last two months. regards Milan re: what is "Muslim media" By citing the secular media in Western Europe and North America, please tell me what you are implying: They're "Muslim media" because of their usual slants or political positionings(?). Okay, I think I get that rhetorical point ! To be less ambiguous & very serious: The "Christian media," in my definition, would be the media in Christian nations, or where the predominant religious affiliation is of the religion. Take this key Persian press service: http://www.irna.ir/en/ Search the "Islamic Republic News Service" of Iran, utilizing any combinations of "Darfur," "Sudan," "Chad," "genocide," "conflict," "United Nations," et cetera. You will also find the news media in the Arab countries are also generally silent about Darfur. The better-informed people--sort of an elite, well-educated class--about Darfur are not finding-out through the large circulation native newspapers of their own Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etal. I presume they may pass around some kinds of samizadt or newsletters or e-mails amongst themselves, or perhaps THE GUARDIAN itself etal. I'm now also curious about the reporting about Darfur in the major newspapers of: Indonesia Malaysia Pakistan Turkey Bangladesh and in the other predominantly Muslim countries Please let me know what you are finding. And please debunk what I'm herein claiming/holding as cynical reality. AL JAZEERA is both newspaper and tv. Around 2003, AL JAZEERA was arrested/run-out of Sudan. Why would you think AL JAZEERA would be treated so? Apparently, AL JAZEERA is courageously reporting on the internet about Darfur: I'd like to know if they're actually reporting about Darfur on television/radio and also in their street newspaper(?) I applaud them if they are. I also saw a brief item from a newspaper in Lebanon that's reporting the Darfur ugliness, "200,000-400,000" mass murderings, as I recall the item. I'm betting it's a Christian-population oriented newspaper, but I'm a cynic and want you to prove me wrong in what I'm claiming here. . > re: what is "Muslim media" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They're "Muslim media" because of their usual slants or political > positionings(?). Apologies. I misintepreted your post. There have been a number of posts that call the "liberal" Western media "Muslim media", implying that they are pro-Muslim, anti-Israel, etc. I assumed -incorrectly- that you were doing the same. My mistake. regards Milan > I applaud them if they are. That plus 89 cents will get you a cup of coffee. Of course, you could get the cup of coffee with just the 89 cents. When it comes to stopping genocide applause is pretty useless. > I also saw a brief item from a newspaper > in Lebanon that's reporting the Darfur ugliness, "200,000-400,000" mass > murderings, as I recall the item. I'm betting it's a > Christian-population oriented > newspaper, but I'm a cynic and want you to prove me wrong in what I'm > claiming here. I haven't done the first key word search for "Darfur" yet I already know it is under reported in the "Muslim" media. I know this because they do the exact same thing in the U. S. media -- just on different issues. So the problem isn't restricted to Darfur being under reported in the Muslim media but a lack of any rational basis to any coverage anywhere. Is there even ONE large media outlet anywhere that can state their issue coverage philosophy, how and why they hype some issues and bury others? The "important" flagburner issue really IS important. It's important for corp. and other monied interests to keep the public discussion off free speech on economic issues. Bret Cahill "I've been a civil libertarian for 18 years and things just keep getting worse. I've been working SOOOO hard to figger it out and I can't figger it out. Phew! Please send some more money so I can spend the next 18 years working hard at not figgering it out." -- dubious ACLU fund raising pitch >> My humble perceptions: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > regards > Milan Ive never heard of it.  Signature"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, & third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 > My humble perceptions: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/world/middleeast/14cnd-tehran.html?hp&ex=11450 73600&en=48f87dcb8a269e94&ei=5094&partner=homepage Because Israel sucks. Signature"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, & third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 Schopenhauer, the Dale Carneigie Pollyanna Julie Andrews enjoyer of ice skating shows-- because they're so nordic--states: "Ya know I really really like the way my incarnatee kilgore felicitates." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.