More Arab Media Follies

[redman]

You gotta love the arab media. Here's a report from Arab News, a Saudi English language publication, that's talking about Arab volunteers from other countries fighting with the Iraqis. What nationality do they very carefully omit reference to? Saudis of course! And I can assure you that it ain't because there are no Saudis there fighting.

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24830

Arabs Fight US Troops Near Baghdad

Ned Parker, AFP

NEAR BAGHDAD, 7 April 2003 — Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians are fighting alongside Iraqi troops against US forces moving on Baghdad, using tactics including suicide bombings which left two Marines dead, US officers said yesterday.

One officer with the 1st Marine Division told AFP US troops fought a 10-hour battle with hundreds of such fighters southeast of Baghdad on Friday.

“We were ambushed twice, and there were four suicide car bombings against tanks,” the officer said.

“There were nine casualties, including two Marines killed.”

The officer said contact was initially with some 150 black-clad fighters, but by the end of the battle around midnight 300 to 400 had been killed. “They kept bringing them in by the busload,” he said. “It’s a whole conglomerate of freedom fighters.”

From prisoners, they were revealed to be Egyptians and Syrians, the officer said.

Another officer, Maj. Rod Legowski, First Marine Division liaison to the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, said, “Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians are in the fight alongside Iraqis,” as well as other nationalities he did not name.

The US military said yesterday it had captured and killed a number of other foreign fighters during clashes in Iraq.

“Some of these fighters come from Sudan, Egypt, other places and we have killed a number of them and captured a number of them,” Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a briefing at Central Command in Qatar.

Brooks said there was evidence of military “training activities” inside Iraq that increased the likelihood of links between Iraq and “terrorist organizations.”

Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said Tuesday that more than 6,000 volunteers had reached Iraq from the Arab world, while senior Iraqi officials made similar statements last weekend. While it is difficult to confirm these figures, reports have come in from Cairo to Stockholm of Arabs volunteering to join the battle in Iraq.

As well as the nationalities given by US officers, Lebanese, Palestinians, Algerians and Moroccans have also been cited, while on Thursday dozens of Yemenis were detained as they tried to leave Sanaa on a flight to Damascus, with one-way tickets paid for by the opposition Baghdad-linked Baath Party of Yemen.

But while the volunteers head for the fray, Iraqi troops, including members of the elite Republican Guards, have been voting with their feet. As the 1st Marine Division headed for Baghdad hundreds of young men wearing civilian clothing but also tell-tale military black boots were seen walking in the opposite direction.

Along the way, the US troops kept coming across piles of military uniforms and equipment, including gas masks. Most of the deserters were being left to go on their way. Burned out Iraqi tanks and gun positions were seen, as well as abandoned bunkers and trenches but few bodies, an indication of mass desertion, according to the US military. Maj. Dan Broton, 39, of the division’s 5th Regiment command, said after inspecting Republican Guard bunkers: “They are rat-infested, with green and moldy bread on the ground, and limited medical supplies. “The conditions they were living under, it’s no wonder why they were crumbling in the face of our advance and taking off their uniforms and going home.”

We really need to reassess who our friends are in the world. This stuff is ridiculuous, and isn't nearly as heinous as the regular reporting the arab media does about Jews and Christians, and about the supposed attrocities like "genocide" being committed by the coalition in this war.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

The Arab media is frickin riddiculous and spits propaganda for no reason. Yet they whine about the lack of free speech they get from their governments.

[TennesseeCarl]

Great call, Redman! Saudi Arabia is the culprit behind much of the Islamic world's terrorism. I believe bin Laden is back in his homeland and they are protecting him.

[redman]

And if you want a taste of the fallout from the crap the arab media puts out, look no further than today's USA Today:

Arabs appalled by U.S. troops in Baghdad

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Arabs throughout the Mideast were dismayed by television images of American tanks rolling through the heart of Baghdad and some rushed to sign up for holy war against U.S.-led forces.

Arab farmers protest the U.S.-led war with Iraq Monday in Damascus, Syria.

By Louai Beshara, AFP

Few Arabs believed the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could hold out indefinitely against an allied onslaught, but many had expected Baghdad to put up a bloody fight.

Over croissant and coffee at a cafe, Saudi accounting instructor Haitham al-Bawardi, 30, said he was skeptical about the reports.

"How can we know this is for real and not just coalition propaganda?" he said. "We had hoped Saddam would inflict as many casualties on the invaders as possible to teach them a lesson and make them think twice before striking another Arab country."

In Cairo, some were even more determined to join a jihad, or holy war, alongside the Iraqis. The Lawyers' Syndicate, known for organizing fighters for the war in Iraq, began filling up with volunteers shortly after the news was broadcast.

"As Arabs, we cannot see this and not move," said a man in his early 30s, who would not give his name for fear of government retribution. "We are selling ourselves for a higher cost, for God, not for Saddam."

Another volunteer, Abdelfattah, 41, a worker in a regional city council, said the reports were "all lies."

"It is a psychological war," Abdelfattah said. "If it is true, then it is only a military strategy, to lure the American forces into a trap."

Abdelfattah insisted that Saddam will fight to the end. "He will remain standing until he dies while fighting for Iraq," Abdelfattah said.

Amjad Mohammed, a 23-year-old Syrian hairdresser, was "very sad."

"The Americans can never stay in Baghdad," Mohammed said. "Baghdad is noble Arab land."

Ali Oqla Orsan, head of the Arab Writers' Union, described the U.S. incursion as a "propaganda parade," and said he hoped the allied troops would face "total defeat."

"They are practicing terrorism against a sovereign country," said Orsan, a Syrian. "If the allied forces occupy Iraq, it would signal the beginning of a liberation war against the colonialists."

In Muscat, Oman, scores of men grew angry as they watched the news from Baghdad. One shouted, "Where is your army, Saddam?" Another was skeptical about the report, grumbling, "These Americans are relying on false propaganda!"

In Iran, state-run Tehran radio referred to the "beginning of the end of Saddam's regime."

Sona Maralani, 28, said she was happy to see Saddam falling.

"Iraqis are now paying for invading Iran in 1980," Maralani said. "Iranians will never forget when Iraqis were killing our children and using chemical weapons against our troops and people."

But Mohammad Abdolghani, 36, an Afghan worker in Iran, said the United States, despite its claims, would not help rebuild Iraq.

"Americans didn't do anything good in our country after toppling the Taliban. Now, I think they will not do also anything for the Iraqi people," he said. "Americans are arrogant. I hope they suffer heavy casualties so that they will not invade other countries."

In Lebanon, most citizens stayed close to their TV sets or radios to follow the news. Many refused to believe the reports, opting instead for Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf's version of events, in which he denied that Americans had entered the capital.

"The Americans have been lying a lot since the beginning of this campaign so I don't believe them," said Hisham Moniyyeh, 27, who runs a currency exchange shop in the southern port city of Sidon.

Merhej Shamma, a 39-year-old Lebanese architect, was shocked at how easily the Americans entered Baghdad. "I thought some of the fiercest fighting was supposed to take place in Baghdad. Where are the Republican Guards?" he asked.

"I hope they are preparing for a counter attack that would turn the tables once again," he said.

A Saudi university student insisted Saddam would prevail.

"The Iraqi people will resist and turn Baghdad into another Vietnam for the Americans, a trap from which they will not emerge alive," said Saleh al-Nuaim.

And we wonder, for example, how some people can deny that the Holocaust occurred.

[TennesseeCarl]

Jeez...is there any point whatever in trying to win these folks over?

And are we even trying to? I know we used the repressive Taliban and the repressive Baathist regimes as reasons to invade, but if the Arabs don't care, why should we?

Dealing with anything in the Middle East just seems hopeless, doesn't it?

[Rabblerouser]

All I'd like to say to them is, "Cmon down". Saves us the trouble of dealing and looking for them later.

[redman]

Here's another perspective, and frankly one that is all too rare. It's a Saudi editor for an English-language publication bashing the arab coverage of the war. From WorldNetDaily.com:

Arab media slammed

over war coverage

Editor of Saudi daily says reporters lying to try to bolster morale

Posted: April 7, 2003

5:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The editor in chief of a London-based Saudi newspaper has criticized Arab media coverage of the war in Iraq, saying most of the Arab press simply act as a mouthpiece for Saddam and censor everything that doesn't fit established opinion.

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed of the daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat presented his views in three recent editorials translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

"When we examine the Arab media, [we find] that little has changed since the previous century," he wrote. "It seems as if today's wars are no different than those of 40 years ago. At that time, the Arab media jumped ahead of the Arab armies by making false predictions. They assumed that publishing a headline about downing 100 Israeli warplanes in the war of 1967 would build self-confidence and may even come true in the future. However, those who doze off and wake up in front of Arab TV will not forgive the [Arab] media [for] its lies when the smoke clears up and the truth is seen in full."

Al-Rashed gives his peers a lesson in journalism, charging them with using emotion in reporting the news.

"I [understand] the feelings of my colleagues, the Arab journalists, who deal with events emotionally rather than reasonably. They collect fragments of news reports that suit their hopes. But professionally, a journalist who stays within the limits of the news he has, and does that impartially, renders the best service to his readers and viewers, who will thus be able to see reality as it really is," wrote Al-Rashed.

The editor then takes on the prevalent attitude in Arab media that lying in reporting is somehow an honorable act.

Wrote Al-Rashed: "I know that adopting an impartial stand in the [Arab] media world is akin to suicide, because there are many who push the media into extremes and take 'nationalistic' positions and maintain that whoever thinks differently is committing treason against the [national] cause. [They maintain] that lying for the sake of the cause is moral and honorable. The Arab media [of today], in these hard times, is slowly turning into the 1967 media; at that time, radio announcers, analysts and journalists exaggerated acts of courage and covered up defeats, which – historically – became a mockery."

He says Arab media reports rarely have anything to do with reality, charging his TV colleagues with "replicating the old media, despite the fact that it is broadcasting in color and using electronic technologies. ..."

Summarized Al-Rashed: "The best service that [the Arab media] can provide to the public is the truth. This way it will save its reputation that was tarnished in the past, to the point that it became the twin-sister of the inferior political regimes."

In a follow-up article a few days later, Al-Rashed responded to criticisms of his previous editorial, claiming Arab media censor anything that doesn't fit their ideologies:

"... The Arab media intentionally censored the proposals of the Iraqi opposition, although it represents segments of the Iraqi people. ... More importantly, they censored any reports that contradicted their [ideological] positions, such as the reports about Iraqi secret service units firing on Iraqis who were trying to escape. [instead], the Arab media published stories reminiscent of the adventures of Sindibad, such as the story about the one farmer who downed an Apache helicopter with an old rifle. Some of the Arab media highlighted reports that the coalition forces used chemical weapons, a claim that even the Iraqi information minister did not make. Tens of stories were axed just because they contradicted what Baghdad was saying, or because their sources were American.

"The question is then, how do we know the truth when a journalist turns himself into a biased censor?" Al-Rashed asked rhetorically.

"Today, it is a battle of information just like 1967. Every editor sits with his scissors and tells the people: This is what you are going to see, and this is what you are not allowed to hear because it features an Iraqi as Washington's supporter, or it describes the defeat of the brave [iraqi] troops, or it looks like a propaganda campaign. There is a difference between a media tool that acts like a sifter and one that acts as a distributor. The later is better."

The Saudi editor says Arab reporters should take a tip from Western journalists:

"Notice the difference in press conferences on both sides. In the West, journalists are not satisfied with listening. They probe, express opposing opinions and expose lies. In our media, anything [the Iraqi Information Minister] Al-Sahhaf says is broadcast as if he was a Friday preacher in a mosque. ..."

There needs to be lot more of this if the Arabs are to amount to anything more than members of a loosely affiliated gang that is united only in its hatred of the United States.

[redman]

Here's more of the same crap, from the Baltimore Sun:

By Todd Richissin

Sun Foreign Staff

Originally published April 8, 2003

KUWAIT CITY - Pictures of American troops in the center of Baghdad, and then speculation that Saddam Hussein himself had been bombed, gave the unmistakable impression yesterday that the end of the war in Iraq has drawn considerably closer.

Arab television stations, however, have been presenting another impression about the fighting, this one being beamed throughout the Middle East.

The image of Saddam Hussein has been largely transformed from brutal tormenter of fellow Muslims to noble warrior taking on the monster that is the United States, the country that kills innocent children.

As shown on Arab television stations, the war in Iraq has little to do with saving the world from terrorism or even Iraqis from a dictator of well-documented brutality. Instead, the war is presented as part of an age-old plot to grab the oil of the Middle East, Iraq being only the first stop and innocent civilians being no hindrance.

Clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinians in the occupied territories are packaged as part of the war coverage.

The words and images being broadcast underscore the challenge the Bush administration faces in convincing the Arab world of the United States' desire to be friend rather than foe, that the war has been waged not as an attack for oil but as a defensive measure to ensure peace, that the country can be trusted to be evenhanded with all parties in the Middle East.

While American television stations focused last night on whether Hussein and his sons had been killed, on the possible discovery of weapons of mass destruction and on coalition troops swooping into Basra and Baghdad, Arab television repeatedly told of the bravery and effectiveness of Iraqi soldiers.

And the stations showed a more definitive product of the war: bloodied old men in hospital beds, weeping women in bombed-out homes, small children who have lost limbs, a teddy bear atop a pile of rubble.

Graphic videos

While U.S. and British stations acknowledge that civilians have been killed and injured, the Arab stations devote large parts of their newscasts to pictures proving it, often with the most graphic of video footage.

American and British officials have played down problems, such as the security of troops along supply lines. They have exaggerated successes, such as announcing the "capture" of southern cities while fighting inside them raged.

But in many cases, the news yesterday as presented on Arab television was far different than spin. It was not merely slanted but was contrary to reports from virtually all independent Western reporters in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

This was true on state-controlled stations in such countries as Egypt and Jordan - allies of the Untied States - and on independent stations such as the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera, which broadcasts in Arabic to 45 million people.

"Images can be more powerful than words and such pictures can be difficult to overcome," said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "A quick end to the war and a quick move to addressing the Israel-Palestine problem could do quite a bit, but as long as either goes unsettled, those pictures will linger."

Striking contrasts

The contrast between Western and Arab broadcasts was striking in the coverage earlier yesterday from Baghdad. CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp. broadcast images of U.S. troops rooting through one of Hussein's Baghdad palaces, and Chris Tomlinson, an Associated Press reporter, described in detail the interior of the building.

Some of those reports were filed early in the morning Iraq time, but at 8:02 p.m. local time, Al-Jazeera - which had a reporter in Baghdad - was reporting no sign of U.S. troops in the capital. Other Arab stations reported "confusion" about whether Americans had set foot in Baghdad, giving equal weight to Iraqi claims that they had not and television video that seemed to confirm they had. (At 8:12 p.m. yesterday, Al-Jazeera announced it had unconfirmed reports that Americans had entered Baghdad.)

Americans might have seen as ridiculous, even darkly comical, the comments of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the Iraqi information minister, who insisted yesterday that Baghdad was unscathed, even as the city burned around him. He proclaimed that Americans were being "slaughtered" by the scores, with hundreds "committing suicide," thanks to the bravery of the Republican Guard.

But most reports on Arab television reported his comments unchallenged by videos to the contrary or the reports from print journalists.

In cases in which video was shown, apparently undermining his claims, he was nevertheless supported by commentary from television personalities presented as experts.

"The Iraqis control the war," said a retired military general on Jordan Television. "The Americans keep entering the cities but they are quickly driven out."

Of the video, he said: "Americans are fighting with their minds, trying to make Iraqis believe the war is lost. It is all propaganda."

The interviewer nodded in apparent agreement.

The lead story on Egypt's Video Cairo began with, "Strong resistance to Americans south of Baghdad." It made no mention of Hussein's palace.

On Arabic Network News from Libya, a commentator said Iraq was right where it wanted to be in the war. The Republican Guard had suckered the coalition forces into the area surrounding - but not within - Baghdad, said the commentator, identified as a retired general.

"The Americans and British have seen only civilians fighting them, and so they think they are winning the war," he said. "Now they will see what a fighting force is like. To this, credit Saddam, who has planned brilliantly."

Similar footage

The next story was from the Gaza Strip, with pictures that looked strikingly similar to footage previously described as scenes from the desert of Iraq.

When Al-Jazeera broadcast a story about Ali Hassan al-Majid, the Iraqi cousin of Hussein dubbed "Chemical Ali," who British military officials said was killed in Basra, it began with Iraqi denials that he was dead. It closed with, "British officials have not been able to offer proof of their claim."

The images, though, more than any of the reporting, is what most differentiates the Arab television pictures from those in the United States or on Britain's most-watched news stations, the British Broadcasting Corp. and Sky News.

U.S. and British television focus heavily on troops in the field, with many images of gunbattles and bombs falling in Baghdad and elsewhere.

Arab television spends at least as much time broadcasting footage from hospitals and showing the scene at bombing sites, documenting the toll on civilians.

At no time during the broadcasts are the differences more pronounced than in their first minutes, when the news shows are introduced.

Most of the Arab stations intersperse images of civilian victims of the war with pictures of U.S. planes dropping bombs and coalition soldiers firing their weapons, the relationship clear.

On Qatar Television yesterday, a newscast began with pictures of an Arab boy, perhaps 7 years old, lying on a hospital bed, gauze around his head holding a heavy bandage over his eye. A tear flowed from the eye that was unbandaged. A microphone was placed inches from his lips. They trembled.

"The Americans came," he said, his voice shaking, "and my father is dead."