The Arab "Resistance" Crowd Will Ignore This
Here are the debating techniques of some of the pro-Assad debaters on the famous television debate "The Opposite Direction", on al Jazeera.
Of course Arab leftists and pro-"resistance" people are not interested in something like this, they are only interested in the Syrian National Council's supporters when they get rowdy. Of course they are and always will be against both the Syria National Council and the Syrian regime, but mainly the Syrian National Council, but also the regime, but mainly the Syrian National Council. And did I say that the resistance crowd will not be interested in Assad's thugs when they attack somebody? Of course they will fully condemn it, but they will not be interested in it, or bore us ad infinitum with silly sound bites condemning the Syrian National Council, which they are mainly against....though they also condemn Assad...but not mainly...
5 comments:
You should ask yourself what kind of debate is that when to defend the Syrian regime one seeks a Lebanese, and to defend the Syrian SNC one brings a clown. What kind of insight did this dumb SNC member express, that would make you so proud of him? At least to the point to accuse of cowardice those that don't back him or that lousy council that can't even filter out such shallow persona.
And by the way, it is totally legitimate to remind regime-supporters not to bash the heads of their opponents, but it is also out of intellectual courage [and not hesitation] to come forward and condemn "punitive" slaughtering and lynching of "suspected" people and their family [instead of pinning what does not fit into your narrative as a propaganda by regime thugs].
Crazy Bear,
I would hardly say that Faisal al Kasem "sought" anybody. If there were people willing and able to defend the regime on al Jazeera then he would have had them on there.
As for the SNC member, I did not say I was proud of him, where did you read that I was? Regardless of your opinion about him and his debating style, it is not acceptable that he should be physically attacked for that.
As for your claim about lynchings and abuses by some people who oppose the regime, if independent media report of abuses against any person then I will and do condemn it wholeheartedly. The problem is that the regime will only allow the international media insofar as they reinforce its narrative, and they are not allowed stay in the country and wander around without supervision.
Might I remind you that the Syrian regime channels did not, until fairly recently, admit there was even a revolution in the country, and have not once shown an anti-regime demonstration or exposed the brutality of the regime's security services, how can I accept its claims that there are these "lynchings" you speak of?
You must be fair and balanced in your accusations and not just blindly condemn anybody who disagrees with you.
Did you read your post. You clearly insinuated that leftist and pro-resistance don't take clear stance. The Evidence you brought that these circles give little importance to the action of this guest who attacks the other guest.
My response was to show you that another reading is to look at the irrelevance of a program that invites lousy men in the first place. To represent the Syrian opposition, this program invited
-a Lebanese Hariri stooge. watch?v=ffr7ZDm6njc
-Maamoun AlHafiz, a former Saddam supporter watch?v=84NPdsxvtIU
-Bassam J3arra friend of Mahmoud alzo3bi watch?v=_mIQgAFpLJw.
As for the call for Independent media, well they do not exist. Choosing the news to cover, the people to interview, the guests for a debate, the framing of a discussion, the questions that are submitted, all are subjective notions. Each media presents its truth by choosing facts that fits.
Crazy Bear,
I'm not sure where you are going with this or whether this justifies beating somebody up during a televised debate - regardless of their ideological view or their manner of discussion.
As for the subjective nature of the international media, well I'm not here to research that, there are plenty of people out there who do. What I won't accept is that there is some collusion between the international media to invent widespread repression and slaughter in Syria. It is clear to me that the regime is engaged in quite horrific acts in order to stay in power and to engage in semantics and ignore that would be silly and counterproductive.
What you said is clear to me, but it is also clear to me that the FSA affiliates are engaging in horrific acts to reach power.
Concerning this show, I am only saying that it is not a debate. In most cases it is a shouting exercise. And the beating makes me laugh even more. What really annoys me is that being fair is equated with giving each side 2 min to answer back and forth. A real debate would be fair to the viewers first by presenting the backgrounds of guests and at least addressing issues that we should know of in order to make an informed opinion. In a true debate, the host would ask the pro-Hariri dude to reflect on corruption in Syria and Lebanon. The host would also remind the viewers that the opposition dude was a benefiter from the regime, and leave him time to respond. He would ask the guests about his past support of Saddam too. Expressing outrage at street like behavior by guests while ignoring the flawed nature of the show is not productive either.
If I felt people "out there" care about this, I wouldn't have brought the issue. And if people "out there" subjected the opposition to such treatment, honest figures would have replaced these bigots.
Regards.
Post a Comment