We all should've known this before...
December 4, 2004 11:16 AM Subscribe
Criticize Iran? Obviously, you're with the Mossad. As it turns out, Al Jazeera is run by Americans and Zionists bent on discrediting Islam in the West, heightening tensions among Islamic countries, and obstructing President Khatami's Dialogue Among Civilizations initiative. Tehran Times has the scoop.
for a good look at al jazeera, esp. their coverage of the iraq invasion, check out control room.
posted by scrim at 11:31 AM on December 4, 2004
posted by scrim at 11:31 AM on December 4, 2004
The rise of Islam in the sixth century led to the fall
of the Persian empire and its absorption into the emerging
Islamic empire. The later seventh century witnessed the
emergence of the Shiite sect, which was dominated and
influenced by the Persians. This was the first fragmentation
of the Islamic empire. There was also a new rise of the
consequential confrontations between the two rival factions,
the Shiites and the Sunnis.
shiites and sunnis, hatfields and mccoys.
posted by three blind mice at 12:01 PM on December 4, 2004
of the Persian empire and its absorption into the emerging
Islamic empire. The later seventh century witnessed the
emergence of the Shiite sect, which was dominated and
influenced by the Persians. This was the first fragmentation
of the Islamic empire. There was also a new rise of the
consequential confrontations between the two rival factions,
the Shiites and the Sunnis.
shiites and sunnis, hatfields and mccoys.
posted by three blind mice at 12:01 PM on December 4, 2004
This is so very similar to the Republicans in the United States. The facts got you down in the New York Times, NPR, etc? Well, it's all liberal propaganda anyway!
posted by orange clock at 12:26 PM on December 4, 2004
posted by orange clock at 12:26 PM on December 4, 2004
Wow, this link has no evidence of such a "scoop". Did you read your own link? Alleging a connection and backing it up with evidence are two different things. Watch something other than Fox News to learn how news is done in the real world.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:31 PM on December 4, 2004
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:31 PM on December 4, 2004
orange clock, I was just thinking you could run a search and replace on that article and you'd have Charles Johnson ranting about "al reuters".
posted by fleetmouse at 12:42 PM on December 4, 2004
posted by fleetmouse at 12:42 PM on December 4, 2004
This is so very similar to the Democrats or 'progressives' in the United States. The facts got you down in the "corporate" media? Well, it's all conservative propaganda anyway!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:01 PM on December 4, 2004
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:01 PM on December 4, 2004
Steve_at_Linnwood, I was just thinking you could run a search and replace on orange clock's post and you'd have a satire of a democrat mocking a republican. Or something.
posted by fleetmouse at 1:18 PM on December 4, 2004
posted by fleetmouse at 1:18 PM on December 4, 2004
I find it interesting that here in the US the pro-government types like to characterize Al Jazeera as "terrorist TV" and pretend that its pro-Osama. Meanwhile in Iran the pro-government types say that Al Jazeera is a tool of the West and pro-Zionist. If they're pissing off that many right wing religious fanatics they've got to be doing something right.
Of course, the obvious connection is that conservative pro-government types in the US really aren't that different from conservative pro-government types in Iran. Both want to outlaw homosexuality, keep women from getting too uppity, impose their religion on others via government power, etc. The only difference I can see is that in Iran they have already done those things, while in the US they're still trying to do those things. But is there a real difference between Pat Robertson's basic motives and beliefs and the average Iranian Mullah's motives and beliefs? Other than Jesus, I mean.
posted by sotonohito at 1:48 PM on December 4, 2004
Of course, the obvious connection is that conservative pro-government types in the US really aren't that different from conservative pro-government types in Iran. Both want to outlaw homosexuality, keep women from getting too uppity, impose their religion on others via government power, etc. The only difference I can see is that in Iran they have already done those things, while in the US they're still trying to do those things. But is there a real difference between Pat Robertson's basic motives and beliefs and the average Iranian Mullah's motives and beliefs? Other than Jesus, I mean.
posted by sotonohito at 1:48 PM on December 4, 2004
But is there a real difference between Pat Robertson's basic motives and beliefs and the average Iranian Mullah's motives and beliefs? Other than Jesus, I mean.
One is marketed and packaged by the President of the United States as kosher goods, while the other is despised as the words of a new evil empire.
As far as the real difference, I suppose it matters if you're in the scope of an American soldier's rifle because of this wonderful marketing scheme.
For 51% of the rest of those this affects, they'll keep buying the bullshit. Bullshit like this, for example.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:15 PM on December 4, 2004
One is marketed and packaged by the President of the United States as kosher goods, while the other is despised as the words of a new evil empire.
As far as the real difference, I suppose it matters if you're in the scope of an American soldier's rifle because of this wonderful marketing scheme.
For 51% of the rest of those this affects, they'll keep buying the bullshit. Bullshit like this, for example.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:15 PM on December 4, 2004
You know what? The topic in this thread really isn't American politics.
posted by coelecanth at 2:33 PM on December 4, 2004
posted by coelecanth at 2:33 PM on December 4, 2004
You know what? The topic in this thread really isn't American politics.
You're right, the topic is American and Iranian propaganda.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:37 PM on December 4, 2004
You're right, the topic is American and Iranian propaganda.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:37 PM on December 4, 2004
The left and right in the US aren't above seeing conspiracy theories in facts, as has been pointed out on this thread... but it sure seems like that proclivity is about 100 times worse in some other parts of the world-- that AIDS was invented in an American laboratory to keep Africa down, that Zionists run Al Jazeera. You wonder if the apparent absurdity of this article could shake even its intended audience into questioning some officially sponsored delusions about other countries and religious groups.
On preview, I guess I'm trying to make coelecanth's point less directly.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:42 PM on December 4, 2004
On preview, I guess I'm trying to make coelecanth's point less directly.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:42 PM on December 4, 2004
Well, considering that Iran is alleging that America controls Al Jazeera I'd argue that American politics are at least tangentially involved. However, you are also right. I derailed, we were discussing religious loons in Iran, not in the USA.
On topic then: The conservative religious right in Iran has obviously gone totally bonkers. Attempting to tie Al Jazeera to either the Mossad or the USA is preposterous on the face of things, and couldn't be concealed if it were true. When faced with criticism from Al Jazeera they have responded (as loons of all stripes, both liberal and conservative, both Iranian and American) frequently do: by accusing the critics of supporting their enemies even when such an accusation has no relation to objective reality.
Not much else to say, really. A fundamentalist religious pseudo-facism responds to critics in exactly the same way you'd expect them to.
posted by sotonohito at 2:42 PM on December 4, 2004
On topic then: The conservative religious right in Iran has obviously gone totally bonkers. Attempting to tie Al Jazeera to either the Mossad or the USA is preposterous on the face of things, and couldn't be concealed if it were true. When faced with criticism from Al Jazeera they have responded (as loons of all stripes, both liberal and conservative, both Iranian and American) frequently do: by accusing the critics of supporting their enemies even when such an accusation has no relation to objective reality.
Not much else to say, really. A fundamentalist religious pseudo-facism responds to critics in exactly the same way you'd expect them to.
posted by sotonohito at 2:42 PM on December 4, 2004
A fundamentalist religious pseudo-facism responds to critics in exactly the same way you'd expect them to.
That pretty much sums it up, I'd say. In a way it is a relief to see that Islamic fundamentalists detest the SCLM as much as our own mullahs do.
posted by nofundy at 3:51 PM on December 4, 2004
That pretty much sums it up, I'd say. In a way it is a relief to see that Islamic fundamentalists detest the SCLM as much as our own mullahs do.
posted by nofundy at 3:51 PM on December 4, 2004
An Islamic government using a state-controlled "news" organization in order to blame the US and Israel for its problems?
How surprising. Please, do go on.
posted by clevershark at 4:20 PM on December 4, 2004
How surprising. Please, do go on.
posted by clevershark at 4:20 PM on December 4, 2004
Not that I need to say this but
1) You don't need an arabic language news channel to divide Arab nations, because they were plenty well divided beforehand.
2) You don't need an arabic language news channel to give westerners a bad impression of Islam, because they either had a bad impression of Islam or were largely ignorant of it beforehand.
If you get a chance to see Iranian state broadcasts it's really worth it. Al-Alam did some great propaganda work during the Brit sailor hostage fiasco, saying they were elite special troops because they carried flags designating which unit they were from and special satellite mapping devices. I assume the latter were GPS units. The stated several times that the sailors were likely ferrying special forces units into Iran to scout for an upcoming invasion.
The stories coming from Iran state media were similiar in tone and perspective to an NYT article titled "9 Iraqi Militias Said to Approve Deal to Disband" or Fox New's rather impressive propaganda work during the Iraq invasion and occupation.
posted by raaka at 5:27 PM on December 4, 2004
1) You don't need an arabic language news channel to divide Arab nations, because they were plenty well divided beforehand.
2) You don't need an arabic language news channel to give westerners a bad impression of Islam, because they either had a bad impression of Islam or were largely ignorant of it beforehand.
If you get a chance to see Iranian state broadcasts it's really worth it. Al-Alam did some great propaganda work during the Brit sailor hostage fiasco, saying they were elite special troops because they carried flags designating which unit they were from and special satellite mapping devices. I assume the latter were GPS units. The stated several times that the sailors were likely ferrying special forces units into Iran to scout for an upcoming invasion.
The stories coming from Iran state media were similiar in tone and perspective to an NYT article titled "9 Iraqi Militias Said to Approve Deal to Disband" or Fox New's rather impressive propaganda work during the Iraq invasion and occupation.
posted by raaka at 5:27 PM on December 4, 2004
The facts got you down in the "corporate" media? Well, it's all conservative propaganda anyway!
yeah, the lib'rul media mentioned the fact that the Americans have found no WMD's in Iraq: it must be false treasonous propaganda. facts are weird things, damn them.
posted by matteo at 9:49 AM on December 5, 2004
yeah, the lib'rul media mentioned the fact that the Americans have found no WMD's in Iraq: it must be false treasonous propaganda. facts are weird things, damn them.
posted by matteo at 9:49 AM on December 5, 2004
Al Jazeera has come to be quite the whipping boy. Who else gets blasted by both Fox News and the Tehran Times? Well, I guess these "news organizations" are hardly that different.
posted by Bag Man at 10:39 AM on December 5, 2004
posted by Bag Man at 10:39 AM on December 5, 2004
What I find surprising is how well the article describes the offending cartoon. It's almost as if the paper is sneaking in criticism of the clerics in the guise of denouncing it.
In the cartoon, a cleric, who is the symbol of the Islamic Republic of Iran, indifferently passes by various scenes of the current problems in the Islamic world, but reacts strongly when he sees that the name of the Persian Gulf has been changed to the unacceptable “Arab Gulf”.
Maybe the Tehran Times is secretly controlled by the US and Israel?
/makes sure tinfoil hat has reflective side facing out
posted by haqspan at 12:37 PM on December 5, 2004
In the cartoon, a cleric, who is the symbol of the Islamic Republic of Iran, indifferently passes by various scenes of the current problems in the Islamic world, but reacts strongly when he sees that the name of the Persian Gulf has been changed to the unacceptable “Arab Gulf”.
Maybe the Tehran Times is secretly controlled by the US and Israel?
/makes sure tinfoil hat has reflective side facing out
posted by haqspan at 12:37 PM on December 5, 2004
« Older Free weather data via XML | Elvis is basically Shakin' Stevens writ large. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:29 AM on December 4, 2004