In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, the mainstream media uncritically repeats government claims, defends expansive state power, and scapegoats Muslims.
Democracy Now! — In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, media coverage has seen familiar patterns: uncritically repeat government claims, defend expansive state power, and blame the Muslim community for the acts of a few. We discuss media fearmongering, anti-Muslim scapegoating, ISIL’s roots, and war profiteering with Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and co-founder of The Intercept. “Every time there’s a terrorist attack, Western leaders exploit that attack to do more wars,” Greenwald says. “Which in turn means they transfer huge amounts of taxpayer money to these corporations that sell arms. And so investors are fully aware that the main people who are going to benefit from this escalation as a result of Paris are not the American people or the people of the West — and certainly not the people of Syria — it is essentially the military-industrial complex.”
Snowden is not to blame, that’s OK. But saying there is a campaign to scapegoate mainstream muslims is ridiculously absurd. Sure, the EDL, FN and other mainiacs may be doing this but saying mainstream media is blaming ordinary muslims for the recent ISIS attacks must be aiming for straw-man of the year. Islamism is 100% based on Islam and Jihad is partially based on Islamism. This does not mean – as opposed to what Mr Greenwald seems to believe – that people who have to repeat this over and over are racists or bigots who exploit any opportunity to smear all muslims and say Islam is the sole cause of all the world’s evil. What it actually means is that the shady parts of the Islamic doctrine may be used to radicalise estranged youth or justify vile acts on the global stage. If Greenwald cannot face this truth, then I am amazed at how he is able to get dressed in the morning.
Edit: Spelling
Jihad, Emil, is used in the West as a derogatory term which bears no relationship to the actual Arabic meaning.
In Arabic, Jihad is a very general expression used to describe the endeavor required to become a better person, Jihad certainly does not encompass fanatical religious terrorism, as is portrayed in the West.
In the Middle East a derogatory and insulting word for the people of the West is “Crusader”, and it`s used by Christian and Jewish Arabs, not just Muslim Arabs! I suppose it`s human nature to insult what is disliked no matter who we are.
What I do find alarming in the Western media, is an emphasis on a religion rather than to examine the causes.
An easy analogy is the way The Crusades is depicted as a struggle between Christianity and Islam. Certainly Pope Urban emphasised the Christian duty to “Fight the Islamic threat”, go on a Crusade and all your sins were forgiven!
Yet the surviving 11th century and late 13th century Levant tax records support the fact that at that time the Levant had a Christian majority, indeed today, The Lebanon population is still 45% Christian.
Saladin refused to use Islam as a means to attract Arab soldiers to fight the Crusaders, who were regarded first and foremost as foreign invaders of Arab land. The Crusaders would have been opposed had they been Druids.
Western media does emphasise the Islamic threat to world security, yet conveniently ignores the Christian conducted WW1 (30 million dead) and the Christian conducted WW2 (60 million dead).
I suppose attitudes all depend on where you live, and the conditional bias we all are subjected to!
Good post, Mike. I am the first to denounce Chrisitanity as a driving force for unfathomable evils throughout European and world history. However, if you want to blame the Holocaust and WW1 on Christian beliefs (no doubt they were contrbuting factors) then you cannot rule out Islam as a driving force for the evils we see in the world today. That is having your cake and eating it too.
As for the word Jihad, it can be taken to mean ‘inner struggle’ and I’m sure that’s how almost every Muslim thinks about (if they bother at all, which I doubt). But, there is nothing in Islam which prevents calcualting evil characters like Anjem Choudary or the crazies in ISIS from using it to justify extreme violence. (Obvously, the Quran denounces violence, but no religous text is without glaring contradictions.) I disagree with the conclusions you draw from this. Yes, there are newspapers which tend do write about Islamic terrorism as though we should all point our fingers at Muslim communities throughout Europe. But many newspapers,like The Guardian, avoid pointing out the connection between extreme Islamist beliefs and terrorism to a point beyond embarrassment.
Good post, Mike. I am the first to denounce Chrisitanity as a driving force for unfathomable evils throughout European and world history. However, if you want to blame the Holocaust and WW1 on Christian beliefs (I don’t doubt they were contrbuting factors) then you cannot rule out Islam as a driving force for the evils we see in the world today. That is having your cake and eating it too.
As for the word Jihad, it can be taken to mean ‘inner struggle’ and I’m sure that’s how almost every Muslim thinks about (if they bother with such things at all, which I doubt). But, there is nothing in Islam which prevents calcualting evil characters like Anjem Choudary or the crazies in ISIS from using the religious meaning of Jihad to justify extreme violence. (Obvously, sections in the Quran denounces violence, but no religous text is without glaring contradictions.)
Yes, there are newspapers which tend do write about Islamic terrorism as though we should all point our fingers at Muslim communities throughout Europe. But many newspapers,like The Guardian, avoid pointing out the connection between extreme Islamist beliefs and terrorism to a point beyond embarrassment. As Maajid Nawaz says, no progress will be made until the overly sensitive regressive left realises/admits that Islamist beliefs must be challenged as the dangerous ideas they are. The political right (like Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) needs to be more clear and emphasise that the problem is extreme beliefs which are derived from Islam and not Islam or Muslims as such.
I think this is what is required to have a sensible conversation in which Muslims and the European left and right can finally begin to isolate extreme Islamist beliefs like those of Mr Chodary and sadly millions more, as the malevolent, anachronistic and accorss-the-board destructive ideas they are.
Thanks for your response Emil.
Sorry for the delay in responding, I had the W/E away (In high winds and monsoon rain (but my Soccer team won, so It was great!).
I did not want to give the impression that Christianity was to blame for WW1 & 2, or the Holocaust, I was simply attempting to show that it would be possible to make that claim.
It seems that Hitler was a Catholic, born in a time when it was normal to conform to Christian observances, without doubt he would have attended Christian services.
The figure of 6 million Jews exterminated in Hitlers Holocaust was first provided at the Nuremberg War trials, as was the total of 14 million Holocaust victims, which included, mentally and physically handicapped, political opponents, communists, Gypsies and Slav`s. If we accept these figures, then 8 million Christians were also exterminated, yet the public impression is that only Jews suffered (It`s only my impression, but I suspect both figures are exaggerations, that said, Soviet Russia claimed 20 million Russians died during WW2).
All Politicians are bias! They make their statements which are headlines by the media who present it to the “public” who in the main, accept and don`t look behind the headlines (hence my “Conditional Bias” comment). The Internet, and websites such as F.P.J. provides an opportunity for people to debate from differing perspectives which, in my opinion, is the best chance “humanity” has (Here, you are allowed to think “pretentious twat”!).
As for the M.E. WW1 brought to an end some 600 years of Ottoman rule which had a border-less region with areas of influence based on Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mosul and Basra, all with representative seats in the Turkish Parliament. Not a perfect system, but one that has evolved with the approval of “The People”
All ripped apart by the British who imposed the current artificial borders (France in the case of Lebanon) and installed collaborating Arab Governments, it was resented then, and it`s resented now.
Zionist Israel is an obvious example, but the Hejaz is probably just as valid.
The dominant Hejaz family was the Hashemite dynasty, Abdullah and Fizal fought with the British (Lawrence of Arabis) against the Turks, they were given Syria, Transjordan, then Iraq (as Kingdoms).
Later (1930`s) oil was discovered in Hijaz, Britain (with US encouragement) installed the secondary Hijaz family, the Saudi`s, as “Kings” with the name “Saudi Arabia”. The Hashemite dynasty still claim what is now Saudi Arabia.
The chaos in the M.E. is a result of Western interests, the Arab Spring is now an Arab revolution, much the same as the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, and just as bloody!
I.S. is no doubt lead by religious Islamic fanatics (Messianic Bigots) yet I.S. is also a populist movement, and like the Genie escaping from the bottle, it`s going to be very very difficult getting it back in.
Sorry to ramble on so, but the M.E. situation is highly complicated and highly confusing, and would be it the people there were all Christian, or pagan, or Hindu!
It`s good to talk Emil.
.