Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Quantifying "Muslim Rage"

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 25, 2012, 4:31 p.m. EST by LeoYo (4899)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Quantifying "Muslim Rage"

Tuesday, 25 September 2012 12:32 By Peter Hart, FAIR Blog | News Analysis

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11760-quantifying-muslim-rage

Sometimes very little can tell you a lot. Here's Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News, updating viewers on protests that are linked to that famous anti-Islamic video:

Overseas tonight, new and deadly retribution from that amateur Internet film that's enraged much of the Muslim world.

The "Muslim world" is, well, enormous–somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 billion people. A good question that doesn't get asked enough: How many Muslims are out protesting this video anyway? A helpful analysis comes from Dan Murphy at the Christian Science Monitor ("Is the Islamopocalypse Really Upon Us?," 9/17/12). He writes:

While sensational headlines have played up the story, the cumulative total of protesters so far in about 30 countries appears well under 100,000. At Tahrir Square on Friday, wide angle overhead shots (rather than the tight, ground shots favored by TV news producers) showed a sparse group reminiscent of Mubarak-era political protests (when people ran a major risk of going to jail for simply shouting slogans) and not the hundreds of thousands that have routinely come out to protest against their own government in the past year-and-a-half.

Murphy notes that the protests in Jakarta were tiny compared to the massive showing in 1998 that helped topple Indonesian dictator (and U.S. ally) Suharto. Protests in Egypt are tiny compared to the waves of protest we have seen over the past year.

And this does not even begin to consider the very sensible argument that some of these protests have very little to do with some hateful YouTube video.

The real question to ask is why U.S. corporate media decide to pay more attention to some protests than others. Tens of thousands of Americans protesting the Iraq War before it started? That was hardly news at all. But Tea Party gatherings of seemingly any size at all have been treated as big news. It would have been bizarre for journalists to have drawn sweeping conclusions about the prevailing political sentiment in the United States based on those gatherings, but implying–or outright stating–that the "Muslim world" is in a violent frenzy is acceptable.

This is a simple reminder that media choose to cover stories, and choose the ways in which they cover them. In so doing, they help form the impression that we have about the world we live in. As has been often noted, local TV news focuses so much on violent crime that you'd think it's dangerous to walk out your front door. And now, not the first time, Muslims the world over are in a violent rage about a religious insult.

It's not that people don't learn anything from watching television; they learn a lot. And what they learn is often completely wrong, and dangerous.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.

.

Just as McCarthyism Claimed to Fight Godless Communists, Boykinism Condones War on Idolatrous Muslims

Tuesday, 25 September 2012 09:54 By Andrew Bacevich, TomDispatch | News Analysis

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11753-boykinism-joe-mccarthy-would-understand

First came the hullaballoo over the “Mosque at Ground Zero.” Then there was Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida, grabbing headlines as he promoted “International Burn-a-Koran Day.” Most recently, we have an American posting a slanderous anti-Muslim video on the Internet with all the ensuing turmoil.

Throughout, the official U.S. position has remained fixed: the United States government condemns Islamophobia. Americans respect Islam as a religion of peace. Incidents suggesting otherwise are the work of a tiny minority -- whackos, hatemongers, and publicity-seekers. Among Muslims from Benghazi to Islamabad, the argument has proven to be a tough sell.

And not without reason:

.

"Whatever Is Left Is Just Pieces of Bodies and Cloth:" New Report Details the Horror of Living Under Drones

Tuesday, 25 September 2012 10:20 By John Knefel, Truthout | News Analysis

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11756-whatever-is-left-is-just-pieces-of-bodies-and-cloth-new-report-details-the-horror-of-living-under-drones

A new Stanford-NYU report, "Living Under Drones," details the devastation to civilians - and possible war crimes - resulting from US drone strikes in Pakistan.

On the morning of March 17, 2011, Ahmed Jan joined over 40 other people at a bus station in Datta Khel, North Waziristan in Pakistan to settle a community issue in a large meeting, or jirga. The group split up into two circles, about 12 feet apart from each other, and despite the drones buzzing overhead, those present later described feeling "secure and isolated" from the drones. It was a sanctioned meeting and Pakistani authorities had been made aware of it. Jan was sitting in one of those circles when he heard a "hissing sound." An instant later a drone-fired missile struck the middle of his group, sending his body flying and killing everyone around him. At least one more missile was fired, hitting the second group. Another witness, Idris Farid, said, "Everything was devastated. There were pieces - body pieces - lying around. There was lots of flesh and blood."

At least 42 people were killed that day, many of them civilians. The Obama administration claims, to this day, that all those killed were insurgents.

This information comes from a new report jointly released by human rights attorneys from Stanford and New York University (NYU) that details with disturbing clarity the horror that it is to live in a drone-patrolled region.

The report, which draws on over 130 interviews of Waziris the researchers conducted, is in many ways the clearest evidence yet that the US drone program is not the precise, limited, restrained program US citizens are meant to believe it is. Rather, those interviewed describe a panopticon in which simple acts like going to school, going to the market, even simply gathering in a group in someone's house, become life-threatening.

"The presence of drones and knowledge that drones can strike anywhere, at any moment, leads civilians to feel routinely anxious about potential strikes," said Professor Sarah Knuckey, a human rights lawyer at NYU, and former advisor to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, as well as one of the report's authors, in an interview with Truthout. "They feel helpless to protect themselves."

Weddings and especially funerals have become nearly impossible to attend. The US often targets funerals for drone strikes, one of many practices associated with the drone program that are very possibly in violation of international law, according to the report's authors. Those who do attend funerals for those killed by drones, report a nightmarish scene of anonymous body parts buried together because the bodies have been so completely blown apart. The report states, quoting Idris Farid again:

"The community had to collect [the victims'] body pieces and bones and then bury them like that," doing their best to "identify the pieces and the body parts" so that the relatives at the funeral would be satisfied they had "the right parts of the body and the right person."

Khalil Khan, who was at the bazaar when the strike occurred, said when he got to the scene he couldn't identify body parts. Unsure of what else to do, Khan said he "collect[ed] pieces of flesh and put them in a coffin."

The report also details the practice referred to as a "double tap," in which the same target is struck multiple times in quick succession. The result is that locals trying to provide help, and sometimes official humanitarian aid workers, are hit in the follow-up attacks. The authors conclude:

Evidence uncovered by our research team that humanitarian actors may not attend to strikes immediately because of second-strike fears is especially troubling. As UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Christof Heyns observed, "[I]f civilian 'rescuers' are indeed being intentionally targeted, there is no doubt about the law: Those strikes are a war crime...."

Pakistan has been the main country where drones have been used, though hardly the only one. Haykal Bafana, a lawyer in Yemen, described his two young daughters' reaction to seeing a drone. "My daughters were jumping up and down shouting, 'Aeroplane! Aeroplane!'" he said to me in an email. "I found that extremely disturbing, as I could picture the same scene in other parts of Yemen or Somalia, even as the drone fires a Hellfire missile. Terrifying thought."

For many in North Waziristan and Yemen, that terrifying thought is an inescapable part of life. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has reported that between 474 and 884 civilians have been killed as a result of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. Of those, 176 are children. The report quotes Feroz Ali Khan, whose father-in-law's home was hit, who described the aftermath of a missile strike: "Whatever is left is just little pieces of bodies and cloth." Drones are a bipartisan issue. You can't cast a vote for a viable candidate in 2012 who won't continue to - in the words of the report - "terrorize" the people of Pakistan, of Yemen, of Somalia, with flying robots. The ACLU has called the drone program the "centerpiece of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies." Mitt Romney has promised to continue the program on the off-chance he's elected, and has even gone so far as to say Pakistanis are "comfortable" with drones.

Beyond that, critics like Glenn Greenwald have argued that the establishment media has served primarily as a tool the Obama administration has used to display its so-called strength in going against accused terrorists. Greenwald and others have argued that nearly all that the public knows about the program comes from leaks that serve to show Obama's warrior power, while the CIA still refuses to acknowledge the program based on what they call national security grounds.

3 Comments

3 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by elf3 (2044) 1 year ago

"Murphy notes that the protests in Jakarta were tiny compared to the massive showing in 1998 that helped topple Indonesian dictator (and U.S. ally) Suharto. Protests in Egypt are tiny compared to the waves of protest we have seen over the past year.

And this does not even begin to consider the very sensible argument that some of these protests have very little to do with some hateful YouTube video.

The real question to ask is why U.S. corporate media decide to pay more attention to some protests than others. Tens of thousands of Americans protesting the Iraq War before it started? That was hardly news at all. But Tea Party gatherings of seemingly any size at all have been treated as big news. It would have been bizarre for journalists to have drawn sweeping conclusions about the prevailing political sentiment in the United States based on those gatherings, but implying–or outright stating–that the "Muslim world" is in a violent frenzy is acceptable.

This is a simple reminder that media choose to cover stories, and choose the ways in which they cover them. In so doing, they help form the impression that we have about the world we live in. As has been often noted, local TV news focuses so much on violent crime that you'd think it's dangerous to walk out your front door. And now, not the first time, Muslims the world over are in a violent rage about a religious insult."

You have read my thoughts today - if you start reading between the media lines I think their agendas have become clear to see. I was thinking about all of these things as I listened to the news today riding home from work. The media seems to be constructing something. Any thoughts on what that is? Again Leo Yo - thanks for posting this - you stated so perfectly what I was feeling and I do find it strange we were able to pick up on this and come to similar conclusions on the very same day. We are not imagining this. So then the question is what is their angle? why is the media slanting this?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2044) 1 year ago

Thanks for posting this before I even read the rest of the post all day hearing the news I had this icky pre-Iraq war feeling when I could hear the war drums pounding before they'd even finished investigating what occurred - I'm almost beginning to wonder if the American public is being deluded about the protests - are we being kept in the dark about something ? Diaries surface - arabs spring - are they really concerned with a stupid video (and if so how many?) are there more protests happening that don't have shittely squit to do with the film? I already question the American media and the government - they seem awfully upset about the release of the slain diplomats diary. Something doesn't feel right - glimpsing at your post I am very intrigued to see what your thoughts are here. They have occupiers pegged as savages who poop on cars and rape each other in tents - are we going to trust what they tell us about the rest of the world?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4899) 1 year ago

Government and big media owners are composed of the same social elite who have relatively the same social agendas. One is often a reflection of the other in what they portray to the public.