The Angry Arab - whose coverage of Syria is lousy - continues to plumb new depths in his pseudo-analysis of the Syrian revolution. You will remember, of course, his critique of the artistic merit of Syria's protest chants, saying that those in Egypt were far better. Then he said he didn't like the lines of Qashoush because that doesn't count as proper poetry. He has a point, seriously, because - you know -peasant revolutions are so vulgar. And you still want him to support this revolution?
I know he has recently slammed Amal Saad Ghorayeb's trashy pseudo-analysis on al-Akhbar, but lest we forget how lousy his coverage of Syria has been, here is a choice selection of his latest posts:
1. Commenting without commenting, the Angry Arab is told about some random guy on Twitter and feels compelled to share this with the world, "This Saudi Jihadi Fighter wants to die in Syria".
What does this have to do with anything?
2. His shrewd analysis continues here, where he says:
Why do supporters of the Syrian regime like to forget that the Asad regime had supported the Saudi military intervention in Bahrain? Why?To answer that question, maybe it is because its not true? To quote the Angry Arab, "I kid you not", the Syrian regime will fall, and its archives will show the regime were for the Bahraini revolution for sectarian reasons, and Bashar al Assad might write him a letter and tell him that he sympathised with the Bahraini revolution, and the Angry Arab will still insist that the Assad regime supported Saudi intervention in Bahrain. Because he said so, dammit, now somebody get him a falafel...
3. In this posting, he almost criticises the Assad regime unequivocally, but then seems to realise what he's done and adds:
PS The rest of the article in the Times is not very reliable, typically relying on rumors and unsubstantiated claims. But what do you expect: it is a Syria story, damn it. It talks about regime inciting sectarian tensions in jails but without explaining how. I mean, like the Ikhwan folks go to jail secular, and then due to sectarian incitement by the regime they suddenly become sectarian? How dumb are those articles in the Times these days.4. Now check out this posting:
I have it on good authority that something called Syrian Emergency Task Force in Washington, DC is enlisting the help of AIPAC to lobby the US government for military intervention in Syria.Why do some Syrians get the impression that the Angry Arab thinks the Syrian revolution is a Zionist conspiracy? Maybe it is because of such lousy insinuations. How different is this from when Qaradawi hypocritically denounces the Bahraini revolution as an Iranian conspiracy?
5. The Marxist Qaradawi explains his - lousy - coverage of Syria's revolution with the following post:
Some supporters of the Syrian opposition asked me yesterday about the reason for posting the picture of a man being tossed out of the window given my reluctance to post videos and pictures of the opposition. Answer: simple. I don't trust those videos or pictures from either side but sometimes I do. And there is a more important reason: I cover what is not being covered. Crimes of the regime (real and not real--in the sense that the exile Syrian opposition and its regional and international sponsors are the biggest fabricators and liars in the Syria story by far) are being covered widely everywhere so it is important that I provide some coverage of the crimes of the UnFree Syrian Army gangs as well.So he doesn't trust those videos or pictures from either side, but sometimes he does, and it is just a coincidence that in the times when he does, he does so for the Syrian regime. And he covers what is not being covered, because what is not being covered are the lies of the regime, which is one of the sides that he does not trust, therefore he will cover the side of one of the sides that he insists he equally mistrusts. You do understand, of course?
6. Here he tries to calm down those supporters of Assad who think the regime is a bastion of anti-imperialism. Ya shabab take it easy.
7. Here is the post where he covers what is not being covered.
8. And finally, some analysis:
No Arab or Muslim cause can be championed and supported by Western governments and media if that cause is not blessed and endorsed by the Zionists. There is no exception to this rule. From the struggle against communists in Afghanistan, to the Sudan war, to the Iraq war, and now to the Syrian war.No, I'm not talking about the Angry Arab's analysis of Syria - which is lousy. I'm talking about analysing the reason why he has just said what he said. It's a "Syrian war" in this Marxist Qaradawi's lexicon because he never wanted it to be a revolution and will never have called it a revolution. From the very start of this revolution, the anti-imperialists wanted it to be hijacked, to pontificate from their online thrones and wag their fingers. Now that it is a war, they will happily concede it is a war, and tell us - on good authority - that AIPAC, Mars and the Smurfs are all plotting against Assad. If Syria is mentioned, it is only in the context of a divided and weak opposition, a fragmented and disorganised "Free Syrian Army" versus the regime, but never, ever, those dirty villagers who don't read al Muttanabi or quote Byron for their revolutionary slogans, and who - shockingly - probably don't even know what constructivism or feminism means. Of course the Angry Arab will never support such a revolution or call it such, I mean, how could he?
Well done, Angry Arab, for the most graceful disgraceful moral ambiguity over Syria I have ever seen.