On the Lousy Coverage of Syria

The Angry Arab is ecstatic with protestors in the West Bank:

They chanted:  ("O, Abbas, O Coward, O, you agent of the Americans"). (Of course, it rhymes in Arabic).

He was enthusiastically posting about a similar chant in Tahrir square in Egypt in February last year:

Many Zionists are fooling themselves and saying that there are no foreign policy elements to the Egyptian Uprising. I am now listening to the mass rally in Tahriri Square live on Aljazeera (Aljazeera is saying the total number is 2 million if you add the people around the square).  And I can hear the chant:
يا مبارك يا جبان, يا عميل الأميركان
"o Mubarak, you coward. O agent of the Americans" (it rhymes in Arab

But when it came to Syria the Angry Arab was not so angry and not so interested. This was sung last year in peaceful protests, by unarmed men who were not part of any militias, who wanted to overthrow the regime, but of course back then the Angry Arab "didn't know who to believe" when it came to Syria:

The Angry Arab constantly tells us that he speaks Arabic, so I am sure he will understand what Qashoush says in 00:48 of the clip above...and people wonder why I insist that his coverage of Syria is lousier than a Fisk/Galloway debate on the Middle East. .

The "Angry" Arab

I read this and shook my head in despair. As'ad Abu Khalil, who is only really "angry" if Arabs are being killed by some countries and not others, refers sarcastically to the "Syrian Revolution". He's even got a name now for people who don't want Assad to rule the country anymore, "groupies". Can this man get any sillier?

But what is amusing is this: groupies of the "Syrian revolution" used to promote the articles by Fisk early in the uprising when they were very critical of the regime, and have in recent months declared him an official shabbih once his articles became sympathetic to the regime.  Consistency, Mr. Watson. Consistency. 

 Speaking of consistency, contrast his criticism of events in Bahrain with events in Syria, or compare his coverage of his posts last year for the revolution in Egypt with the start of the revolution in Syria. But who can blame him, it took him almost a year to put "Syrian Revolution" in quotation marks at least. Last year the best he could do was choose not to believe anything he heard about events in Syria.

Have you noticed another thing about the "Angry" Arab's coverage of events in Syria? He always qualifies his coverage of Syria with the mildest of chastisements to the Syrian regime before going out of his way to portray the Syrian revolution as a Salafist, Wahabi conspiracy, conveniently because his understanding of the Syrian revolution is limited to the Syrian National Council, the most extreme and insane fringe elements of the armed opposition to the regime, and the lunatic rants of Mamoun al Homsi.

Only recently the one year anniversary of the death of Ghiath Matar, murdered by the security services, was commemorated. But of course As'ad Abu Khalil has probably never heard of him, or if he has he conveniently ignores him, because people like Ghiath don't fit in with what the Angry Arab wants the Syrian revolution to be. .

So Iran wants a "political solution" in Syria?

OK, I'm going to stop reading the Guardian's CiF pieces for the day. They seem to really be scraping the barrel for commentators in Syria these days. I guess all we need now is to start seeing pieces by Lizzie Phellan or Sharmine Narwani on there. This poor chap thinks, "Iran is trying to broker a political  solution in Syria". This is like saying Nazi Germany was trying to broker a political solution in Republican Spain. He goes on:

Iran, though certainly intent on safeguarding its key regional ally, does not see its fundamental interest in a security crackdown, but rather in reform and serious dialogue between Assad and the opposition.

This is utter nonsense if we remember what was happening in Iran in 2009. The murder of Neda Agha-Sultan by a member of the Basij - Iranian shabiha - tells me everything I need to know about the political solutions that Tehran implements. We've had over fifteen thousand Neda Sultans in Syria for sixteen months now. I feel like I want to cry when I read things like this. Why is such rubbish being given this platform?

.

Tisdall on Turkey -

Simon Tisdall's piece, "Turkey Learns who its real friends are", is abysmal. So we are to understand that Turkey is not intervening in Syria because it's weakness has now become apparent? Or that it's foreign policy strategy is a failure? That is utter rubbish. Turkey's army can be in Damascus in six hours, and Assad knows that. Abdullah Ocalan is in a Turkish cell today precisely because the Turks had given Assad's father an ultimatum in 1998 - give up Ocalan or we will attack. If Assad's father, Hafez, didn't want to wake the Turkish war machine, then his politically inept son is even less likely to do so. For the love of all that's good, what would have compelled Assad to immediately say he wished the Turkish plane had never been shot down, and that he had no issues with Turkey as a people or a military? This was not the sound of a man who thinks Turkey is a weak country. I've never, in his eleven years of rule, seen the Syrian foreign ministry, let alone Assad, come out with statements so emphatically apologetic.

If Turkey is not responding immediately, or at all, to the shooting down of one of its jets, then that is a sign of restraint. The silence of the Turks should not be mistaken for inaction, and Tisdall isn't the only one who has made this mistake. I will state again and again, that Syria's political compass is going to start shifting from Tehran to Istanbul. Watch this space.

.

On Sami Ramadani's CiF Syria Piece

One scene in Muhammad al Maghout's famous play, "A Toast to the Nation", comes to mind often whenever I read some of the commentary surrounding Syria. In that scene, a man with a grievance against the state for the murder of his child is lectured about the suffering of people in Cambodia and Nicaragua, that imperialism comes in a thousand guises, and that what is his suffering compared to the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people in the Third World. Incredulously, the poor man asks the official if he really believes what he is saying, upon which the latter breaks down crying.

The same thing happens today when you broach the topic of Syria with certain writers in the West. They respond with slogans and dogma that belong to another time and place, as if we are living in the sixties or seventies, or as if we are still living in the days of the Cold War. Even the Iraq invasion was over ten years ago, and for those who know anything about politics, Iraq's occupation by the United States unofficially ended in 2008 and was replaced, equally unofficially, by Iran's. And yet, if you read Sami Ramadani's recent piece in the Guardian's CiF, you'd think that we are still in 2003 and that the last sixteen months never happened:

The 2003 occupation of Iraq, however, did not go according to plan, and Israel was defeated in Lebanon in 2006. The downfall of US-Saudi allies Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, raised more alarms, leading to the Nato bombing of Libya. Today's target is Syria, which is at the heart of what Jordan's King Abdullah called the "Shia crescent": Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

He effortlessly jumps from the 2006 war in Lebanon to Syria, and conveniently forgets that Gaddafi had become the West's best friend, and that Libya's oil was already being made available for the 'evil imperialist enemy'. But never mind that little inconvenient detail as Ramadani continues to lecture his readers that the great enemy is imperialism.

In the midst of this lecturing, Ramadani surprisingly finds the time to mention the violent crushing of the, "Bahraini people's uprising". No word is made of the violent crushing of the Syrian people's uprising, or of the tens of thousands of people who have been displaced, murdered or imprisoned by the Assad regime. In fact his entire article never mentions Assad's name once.

Ramadani feigns concerns for Syria's minorities, because he has a priori concluded that this is a Sunni revolution, bankrolled by the West, and yet made it clear in no uncertain terms that in Bahrain it was a  "people's uprising". He quotes uncritically from the pro-Iranian Press TV website, but also insists on ignoring the role that the Syrian regime had in allowing jihadists into Iraq following the American occupation of that country. The 2008 Sednaya prison massacre is widely believed to be a culling of some of these jihadists after their usefulness expired. On Syriacomment, you can find the text of Ghaith Abdul Ahad's report on Syria as a focal point for jihadists entering into Iraq. How could something have happened in pre-2011 Syria without permission from the Syrian regime, when each Imam's speech is vetted and monitored to ensure that they do not say anything subversive? And why was the Imam instrumental in this policy of encouraging jihadists into Iraq assassinated in 2007? And by whom? And what happened to his killers? The extent of the Syrian regime's involvement with the horrendous violence in occupied Iraq is something which is consistently ignored by such faux anti-imperialists. Because based on their flawed logic, the market bombings and decapitations that took place are not as bad as the fact that the United States had invaded the country. So it is today with Syria, and the fact that they ignore an entire country's revolt against dictatorship and brutality simply because it is not their priority, so busy are they with denouncing the 'Great Satan'.

Throughout this terrible piece, Ramadani's sympathies become very clear, and these sympathies do not lie with the Syrian people or with those who have been murdered so far. The big question is why the Guardian is starting to allow such one-sided writing on Syria from somebody who clearly has no idea about the country, and seems intent on peddling one particular view and ideology in his articles. Ramadani's nonsense would be better suited for Press TV or SANA. .

The Angry Arab Golden Blender Awards

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.


.

Sharmine Narwani and her "niggling feeling".

OK, this really has to stop, but on the other hand it's so funny! Sharmine Narwani - who now thinks she's Nancy Drew - says:

I had another niggling feeling that just wouldn’t quit: given the amount of regime-initiated violence and widespread popular dissent being reported in the mainstream media, why was the Syrian death toll so low after 10 months of alleged brutality?

And she thinks that the death toll is "so low"? Can you imagine what would happen if Narwani wrote that she thought the casualty figures in Iraq were "so low" and that she had a "niggling feeling" about that? Now do you blame me when I say that Arab anti-imperialists are a complete disaster? Arab anti-imperialists sound just like Arab Zionists did when Israel was bombing Gaza. .

Sharmine Narwani - Hear No Evil, See No Evil

I've been meaning to write a proper rebuttal to Sharmine Narwani's latest article on al Akhbar English. I'd previously critiqued an earlier piece she wrote, where she was accusing the so-called mainstream media of ignoring the fact that Syria's revolution also included an armed element. The biggest problem with that piece was that the mainstream media had, as a matter of fact, been reporting about the armed elements of the uprising, and the creation of the Free Syrian Army, pretty much as soon as it began to occur. So Narwani had basically constructed a straw man to use for her argument.

Narwani's latest piece is far more ambitious, and here she attempts to cast a light on the way that the casualty rate for Syria's uprising has been calculated and supposedly manipulated. The piece is problematic and here I will attempt to examine the foundations of her argument and see if they stand up to scrutiny. Some initial observations were made by a Lebanese blogger, Zak, about her piece, and they raise some valid concerns about Narwani's priorities in writing the piece.

The Syrian uprising has sharply divided Arab opinion, and the old fault lines between pro-Western and pro-"Resistance" camps have been altered severely. The pro-resistance narrative on Syria ranges from the sorrowful to one where the entire Syrian revolution is dismissed as a sham and the death toll is a lie. Naturally criticism of this camp has been extremely strong, and I had written a post criticising the hypocrisy of some of these anti-imperialists. It is in this context that I critique Narwani's latest article.

"Questioning the Syrian Casualty List"

Narwani claims to be interested with establishing the facts, and she finds it baffling that casualty figures can make it out of Syria and onto the lists of various international organisations in what is a very short period of time. Her first premise is an interview with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with a spokesman there by the name of Rupert Colville. Colville sums up by saying:

“The lists are clear – the question is whether we can fully endorse their accuracy,” he explains, citing the “higher numbers” as an obstacle to verification.

In no way can this be construed that the lists are false, or only partially true. It is just a human acknowledgement that the sheer scale of deaths makes the kind of detailed investigation needed much more difficult to carry out. Next is supposedly an up-close examination of the casualty lists, and Narwani finds, much to her surprise, not only that pro-regime Syrians are included in the list, but also  the names of Palestinians killed near the Golan Heights - on the Syrian side - over two days in June of last year. Narwani calls this a glaring error, but what she omits mentioning to her reader is the crucial context within which these Palestinians were killed. The Syrian regime had sent these protesters by bus to the borders, and encouraged them to attempt crossing the border. This move was widely seen by many Palestinians as a convenient ruse to distract from the domestic crisis engulfing Assad's regime. In fact there was protesting in the Palestinian areas against this manipulation by Assad's regime. This is a context that Narwani should have brought out to her readers, rather than just dismiss it as a "glaring error". These Palestinians might be seen as just as much a victim of Assad's regime as the Syrian people. It is not a judgement I will make, but again, this context is important for the reader if Narwani was as interested in the stories of the victims as she presents herself to be.

Narwani then presents us with a confusing bit of information. She finds references to pro-regime Syrians on the SOHR list, and cross-references that with YouTube clips of their funerals, but then she seems to leave that hanging in the abstract, and then begins quoting Nir Rosen about how there are casualties from both sides and that when the Homs massacre - where 260 people were mistakenly said to have been killed and the figures were later revised down to 55 - the numbers were unreliable. The two parts of her argument do not follow. If she is trying to say that nobody is talking about the deaths of pro-regime Syrians, then the SOHR lists, and Nir Rosen's account, as well as the Arab League monitor report she claims has been widely ignored by the mainstream media, all say otherwise. The reader is left  hanging, and her chain of thought is incomplete.

Surprisingly, Narwani seems to follow an entirely different chain of thought almost from the next sentence, and is now trying to tell the readers that, as well as the difficulty of confirming the numbers of those who have been killed, it is also difficult to know why and how those people were killed. Narwani says:

While the overwhelming perception of Syrian casualties thus far has been that they are primarily unarmed civilians deliberately targeted by government forces, it has become obvious these casualties are also likely to include: Civilians caught in the crossfire between government forces and opposition gunmen; victims of deliberate violence by armed groups; “dead opposition fighters” whose attire do not distinguish them from regular civilians; and members of the Syrian security forces, both on and off duty.

It is not clear why Narwani thinks that anything is now "obvious" about the Syrian crisis, especially when she is halfway through a piece that suggests the Syrian revolution and its casualties are anything but obvious. Of course when it comes to the Syrian regime's narrative, Narwani now pretends to apply the impartial lense of objectivity over the Syrian regime's account using principles of international law. Narwani makes reference to the two principles of Necessity and Proportionality.

Interestingly, she makes no reference to the principle of necessity, and immediately moves to discussing whether or not Assad and his forces could be accused, in a court of international law, of violating the principle of proportionality. Firstly, Narwani is clearly confused about the process involved before a case reaches the international court of law. The fact that the Syrian regime does not allow impartial and unfettered access to international organisations could be a bit problematic, especially since it is vital for corroborating witness statements without the fear of reprisals. Of course Narwani, armed with Google, the Arab League monitor's report in PDF, and access to Joshua Landis' Syria Comment blog, has dismissed any such talk, because - she claims - there were armed groups in Syria from the outset. Which brings us to the principle of necessity, was it necessary for Assad to use this force against protesters?

Let us answer simply that Narwani does not provide any evidence to back up her claim that the gunmen were attacking the Syrian regime from the start, and that this is what triggered the crisis. It is so simply because she says so. For somebody who is keen on the truth, it is interesting to see that her elaborate logical constructions are not rooted on any fixed premise at all, and simply based on her subjective whims, albeit emphasised in italics:

... in large part because opponents have been using weapons against security forces and pro-regime civilians almost since the onset of protests.

But let's move on, as I'm sure Narwani would like her readers to. The next bit is where Narwani seems confused about what proportionality means, and takes us on a merry-go-round of figures and rhetorical speculation. She says:

When you calculate the deaths of the government forces in the past 11 months, they amount to about six a day. Contrast that with frequent death toll totals of around 15+ each day disseminated by activists – many of whom are potentially neither civilian casualties nor victims of targeted violence – and there is close to enough parity to suggest a conflict where the acts of violence may be somewhat equal on both sides.

Narwani does not seem to understand that the principle of proportionality is concerned with whether the response was proportional to the threat posed, it is not about tit-for-tat killings and whether fifteen Syrian soldiers killed makes up for fifteen "others" killed. And it is interesting to note that the "other side" that Narwani speaks of is not an invading military force, but the Syrian people themselves - armed or otherwise. The point Narwani doesn't seem to understand is that, as a state, Assad's regime has at its disposal some formidable abilities. The fact that the regime has shelled parts of Homs to oblivion, based on a reporter who was himself on the ground in Syria, is way beyond the mark of any proportionality. In fact it is disproportional, which brings us again to the principle of necessity. Was this all necessary? Again, the glaring - and some might say convenient - omission by Narwani of whether the Syrian regime needed to use military might to crush the uprising at all, is painfully poignant. The acts of violence were there "from the outset" according to Narwani, and it is so because she says so.

The next point is over the issue of the gunmen and the defected soldiers. It is interesting to note that Narwani has not said whether she bothered cross-referencing the names of defected Syrian soldiers who are known to be dead with Youtube videos in the same diligent manner that she did for pro-regime Syrians. Otherwise, her question as to whether gunmen are included in the body count would have been answered. Narwani also decries the fact that the UN's reports do not mention the number of security services killed during the uprising. But that is a moot point, the fact is that nobody has disputed - as far as I have been able to find - the lists produced by the Syrian regime for its own dead. The entire point of the discussion about Syria's dead is that they are being killed by the Syrian regime, and that the Syrian regime should stop doing so and allow investigators in to verify this information. To say that something is because the Syrian regime says so is a circular argument, because it is the Syrian regime itself which has to be investigated, and its credibility verified. In a sense this is a bit like Narwani insisting that there was an armed element to Syria's uprising from the start, because she says so. You cannot say that A is A because of A, that is absurd.

The absurdity continues later in the article when Narwani claims to have met with a select few NGO's that "enjoyed rare access to all parts of the country". Her discussion with their spokespersons seemed to confirm that both the International Committee for the Red Cross, and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society, were only ever asked for assistance when the Palestinians were shot at the Golan - yes, those same Palestinians that were egged on by the Syrian regime to go to the border to distract attention from Assad's domestic crisis. Isn't that just a little bit too convenient? And wouldn't Narwani, on her shrewd ability to derive facts from fiction, have thought her readers would find this a little bit too suspicious? Of course, as we mentioned earlier, Narwani neglected to mention the context of the Palestinian deaths in the Golan, and perhaps now we know why this little bit of news would be inconvenient for the overall argument that she is trying to make.

Another NGO worker she spoke with tells her that the other side is "no better", which is odd because she just said that NGO workers from other organisations seem to think that nobody is getting killed. This NGO worker she spoke with over the phone gives her a useful definition of what constitutes a humanitarian crisis, and clearly it is inferred that Syria is not undergoing a humanitarian crisis. Thank you for that Narwani, that is very helpful as I hear the interviews of escaped wounded journalists who were trapped in Homs and who said that there is no food, water or any medical supplies available in any quantity that is helpful to the besieged people of that city.

Perception, and not facts, are what Narwani claims to be focused on, but ultimately it is Narwani's perception of the facts which should be called into question. Narwani concludes that there is some kind of hysteria involved with the casualty lists emerging from Syria and that rather than ask how many we should ask who these dead are and how these people were killed. The only hysteria I see is that which is coming from the author herself, as she uses a childlike approach to logic and the facts to do something we refer to in philosophy as, "denying the antecedent". In a joke, denying the antecedent would be highly amusing, but when the Syrian regime is murdering its own people, Narwani's formal fallacy and verbal gymnastics are as tragic as they are morally condemnable. .

Propaganda and Lies: A Collector's Guide

One of my pro-regime relatives has recently joined a group on Facebook called the "Algerian-Syrian Electronic Alliance". Apparently the group is there to coordinate the online efforts of the supporters of two fascist regimes, the generals of Algeria with the Assad regime in Syria. Apparently they warn other members of the dangerous channels (Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyah) on the air that spread "lies about their countries". Apart from the worry I have that I'm related to such morons, I despair that there are enough people out there who are stupid enough to think that dictatorship and corrupt authoritarianism are acceptable ways to govern a country.

Propaganda pictures for the Syrian regime are rife these days, and there are some choice and tasteful selections out there for the propaganda enthusiast. Here are some good ones I have collected so far:

This one is supposed to show the immortal leader as good with children (his future subjects). The message is that he's nice, friendly, approachable and a father figure. 

I call this one the philosopher/king photo-op. The translation to the phrase is "God, Syria, My People and that's it". His thoughtful pose in the background shows that he is a wise ruler, with a great burden on his shoulders. The waving, smiling face at the front is important to maintain the approachability of this great man.

The slogan here is "And have you asked why they call him the Lion of the Arabs?" It's supposed to show that whilst Mubarak is selling out to the Zionist enemy, Assad is turning his back to them. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the Syrian regime believes that stability in Israel depends on stability in Syria, or that Assad looks like he is searching for the lavatories.

This one is a bit simplistic, and it looks like it was designed by a twelve year old boy. A sword with the Syrian flag as an emblem is embedded into a zionist skull. Oooh, beware, enemies of Syria...from the twelve year old boy and his photoshop skills.

This is one of the photos that a retarded pro-regime cousin of mine allegedly paid two hundred dollars to obtain. Original and authentic photos of the glorious leader's brother, Maher, on some military exercise. I don't think it's the Golan Heights that he's looking at.

Here is the Generalissimo himself. My Latin American readers would find such pictures very familiar. As long as they were alive long enough to remember the fifties and sixties.

This one aims at showing the family man. It says "We are with you. We are all Bashar and Asma al Assad. We are all for you oh nation." These pictures are from the famous visit that Syria's royal family had to Paris a few years back. The designer clothes, the expensive restaurants. Perfect photo-opportunities. Lovely.

.

Bassam al Qadi - Again

Bassam al Qadi is a self-styled 'intellectual' who specialises in being daring with topics that he is allowed to speak about. In what seems like a life-time ago, I criticised his stupid position where he supported the so-called 'niqab ban' that the Syrian regime's education minister had put in place - at around the same time that France had put this law in place. On a side-note, at the time I was vehemently against the ban, but today - as I review some of my old comments - I'm quite startled with how differently I saw the Syrian regime last year. Then again the Syrian regime hadn't killed three thousand Syrian citizens yet. But that is another discussion for another time.

Anyhow, going back to Bassam al Qadi, apparently the guy has his own website now. Like most Syrian 'intellectuals', he uses his own name as the address (and "brand"). What a vain, ridiculous, man. Oh and he has written an article (linked above) where he mauls al "Arabiya" and al "Jazeera" for 'conspiring' against Syria. A very stupid article where it is very clear by now that he is a regime mouthpiece and a keyboard-for-hire sycophant. With hindsight, I am not surprised that this pseudo-secularist and pseudo-intellectual would have supported the regime's silly niqab ban as vehemently as he did last year. One of the things that I look forward to when this oafish regime collapses is to buy some balila from somebody like Bassam al Qadi, because in a free Syria where stupid people can no longer be put in charge of NGO's, government agencies or newspapers, he won't be able to find any other kind of useful employment. Did I say he's a silly man who is vain and ridiculous? What a silly man.

.

On Muhammad al Ar-Our

A few nights ago I had the misfortune of watching the Safa satellite channel that is broadcast from Saudi Arabia. It has shot to public attention because of the sensationalist Muhammad al Ar-Our, a televangelist kind of preacher whose speciality appears to be bashing the Shia. This is a trashy television station to the extreme and absolutely sectarian. The person I was visiting kept insisting we watch it; somebody I believed was quite intelligent and reasonable! Even more execrable than the programming were the comments from some of the viewers. Some of them would put: "Sunni and thank God" in brackets after whatever kind of sectarian drivel they wished to share with the world.

Thankfully such people really are a minority, though watching that kind of rubbish would have you think the entire world is awaiting the outcome of the channel's Sunni-Shia theological debates (if you can even call them that). This an example of the beneath-the-radar drivel that is funded by Saudi Arabia and encouraged passively. In this sense, at least, Iranian propaganda is much more sophisticated and intelligent. It plays the resistance-against-Israel-and-United States card, tugging at the emotions of Arabs and invoking a common Islamic identity. Of course today I am suspicious of both camps, and find them equally repulsive. Religious bigots and sectarian agitators are the same regardless of which side they come from. And no, there is not a chance in hell that this Ar-Our character or anybody like him will rule Syria. We've already had more than enough of sectarian clowns and their incompetent rule.

.

A word on the coverage of the riots in Tunisia

It is interesting to contrast the coverage of outlets such as CNN and the BBC for the riots in Tunisia with those that took place in Iran. Almost round the clock coverage, sympathetic montages of the protestors and in-depth analysis. Yet with Tunisia, the coverage by the BBC has mainly been focused around the 1500 British tourists there, with a spokesperson from ABTA coming on to give his views on the situation. On CNN, the issue was on for a few minutes only, as a passing concern amongst other issues in the Inside Africa programme. Even with newspapers, I distinctly recall pictures of the protestors who had died in the Iranian riots amalgamated into a picture of Neda Sultan, the girl with a photogenic face who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and became the posthumous poster-girl for the so-called "Green Revolution".

This difference in coverage is remarkable although certainly not surprising. What is slightly amusing is that people who cannot differentiate between the two approaches adopted by the Western media continue to use the language of "made for TV" revolutions which were the darling of America during the nineties and early noughties. I read one person describing what happened in Tunisia as a "Jasmine Revolution", but that adjective will not catch on because it has not been through the vetting process of the US State Department. "Velvet", "Orange" and "Cedar" became adjectives for revolutions which were given a blessing by America. Yet I think Obama is not very happy about what has happened in Tunisia, in spite of his statements calling on free and fair elections, which were too little and too late. To prematurely and naively add adjectives to a revolution that has not been blessed by the red, white and blue is what is colloquially described as "jumping the gun". I think it is also insulting to the memory of the people who died when you compare what happened in Tunisia with the sham riots that took place in Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon and Iran.

.

The Death of a Fool...

A West Vancouver freelancer, Khadija Abdul Qahaar - formerly Beverly Giesbrecht - and author of the pro-Taliban website "Jihad Unspun" appears to have died in Taliban captivity. I remember when she was first captured, I actually heard her voice on the phone of a person I knew who had worked with her. She had been putting his name as a contact and Canadian intelligence wanted to know if he could assist or something like that. He refused and didn't want to get involved, his relationship with her was a passing one of acquaintance, some brief query regarding one of his documentaries. I remembered feeling how strange it could be that two people on the same phone line could be so many worlds apart. We were sitting in a comfortable editing studio in Shepherd's Bush, London, whilst at that moment she was probably in some hell-hole in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Such a tragic end for somebody who could only be described as a lost soul. You can only swim out so far before it is impossible for anybody to help you.

.

The Health Hazards of Being a Rebel Without a Clue

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and if the news report I came across on the Guardian today is true, then one 19 year old Syrian bloggeress is in a world of hurt right now. There's no reason why I should or shouldn't believe the charges against her are true, although based on my experience of dealing with Syrian bloggers, especially female Syrian bloggers, then naivety rather than any malice is probably the cause of her predicament.

If I am against apartheid in South Africa that does not mean I would have been caught dead wandering into a township. Even though I support Hezbullah and the Resistance, and recently visited the South of Lebanon, I avoided Hezbullah checkpoints like the plague for reasons which are obvious to anybody who knows me personally. And just because I have Che Guevara's face printed on a mug in my study, that doesn't mean I would have gone off to the jungle to meet him as he would probably have hung me by the balls, or I would have died of malaria. What I mean by all this is that politics isn't a game and these people don't have a sense of humour, nor do they have time for starry-eyed Palestine groupies who talk too much. Poor thing.

.

Some people have too much time on their hands.

The importation of more stupid Western-style activism for the most ridiculous things continues. This time in Amman a woman staged a "lettuce-protest" in order to promote vegetarianism. Maybe next we'll hear about a branch of the Animal Liberation Front opening in Damascus or Baghdad.

.

Burqa Debates

The burqa debate that is "storming" the continent is a manufactured one but it has the potential to become quite serious. Sadly you still have some Arabs who think that the European "Englightenment" candle was the brightest the world has ever seen, and this makes them strut arrogantly like peacocks, with a misplaced confidence. See the delightful Mona al Tahawy who thinks she is a feminist (she also thinks that's a good thing) but then does the equivalent of diving into the water to avoid the rain. Yes, Ms. al Tahawy has taken the brave position of supporting a ban on the burqa by restricting a freedom to restrict a freedom which she thinks will restrict freedom. On another note, observe in this other interview how she does not have to tell the interviewer even once that she used to live in Israel. Did you know that Mona al Tahawy lived in Israel? She'll tell you if you didn't... That she lived in Israel...because she did...you know?

.

The Maysaloon guide to being a Syrian Intellectual

In Syria, 'intellectuals' have a ready made template of authors, musicians, poets and public personalities that are rolled out to show how civilized and sophisticated we are. The list usually includes:

Muhammad al Maghut
Nizar Qabbani
Lena Shamamyan
Malek Jandali
Gibran Khalil Gibran

There will also be pictures of obscure Syrian painters with awful abstract paintings that my neighbour's four year old might have come up with. Usually involving naked women with strange contorted bodies and sagging breasts - because that's what you do if you're an artist. You draw rubbish which is offensive to people.

"Intellectuals" from Syria usually lack any substance, so make a habit of only reading the titles and synopsis of books, or read books which have fancy titles but are utterly incomprehensible or useless. They are also very good at doing the things they think an intellectual should do. To be one, there are certain key things you must master. See the list below:

1. Chain smoking - you need to do this to show that you are obsessed about your work, your cause or your struggle. The more outlandish the brand the better. When in doubt, pick something with a Spanish or French name.

2. Alcohol - you need to drink this like a fish. Work hard and play hard and all of that. It's also anti-establishment and you can't be a rebel if you just prefer drinking green tea or liquorice juice.

3. Massive library of books - the older the better. Doesn't have to be about any particular knowledge. Just cram in the odd book about some French philosopher, some books about poetry, and some books by other intellectuals. Also, it helps to scribble notes in the pages. Again, any books about sex, sexuality or atheism give you a massive boost. On no account must you have a book about religion unless it is critical of it.

4. Manic depressive - this aspect gives you that "troubled genius" aura. Usually you can get a good start on this by owning a few books by French post-modernist philosophers. No need to actually read what they wrote. If you're too lazy to try and read them in full, then just get some used copies of the books, put them on your shelf and memorise the author's name. It helps to remember a basic synopsis of what its about, then use liberally in your discussions. Sprinkle with some lines by Abu Alaa al Ma'ari.

5. Find a regular haunt - preferrably some cafe in a rundown old district. Sit there every evening and, by this time you should have mastered points 1-4, wait for a Western journalist. When they come, you can do one of two things. Either the "I don't care what they do to me anymore" nihilist persona, or you can try the persecuted intellectual approach, looking nervously over your shoulder and whispering things.

Some final very important points - Western journalists love it when you talk about homosexuals. So throw that in for good measure, and sex. Always mention something about sex. The other thing to remember, and you will usually be prompted if you forget, is to talk about how oppressed women are in the Arab world. You've got to get the right balance between self-righteous indignation and despair. Usually this works well when you've sorted out the manic-depressive bit in step 4.

There you go, the Maysaloon 5 step guide to being a Syrian intellectual.

.

A word on culture vultures...

Last night I enjoyed a wonderful evening of poetry and oud playing where we looked at the works of two famous men, Omar al Khayyam and Abu Feras al Hamadani. Firstly I have to say that our discussion of Khayyam reinforced my earlier views of the poet but they also helped me glean a new found appreciation to the subtle meanings he was trying to convey. It was also wonderful to hear the poem sung, as Umm Kalthoum did, along with some brilliant oud playing.

Unfortunately evenings of culture such as this tend to attract the most idiotic of culture vultures and yesterday was no exception. Two Syrian girls had attended and as soon as they opened their mouths to speak I knew I didn't like them. The first was the kind of Syrian that insists on throwing in English phrases and words, with horribly contorted attempts at an Americanised accent, in her regular conversation. She then had the temerity to, in incredibly bad Arabic, explain the reasons for the decline in the appreciation of classical Arabic. She actually used the word 'coz, in the middle of her contribution to this discussion. This woman grew up in Syria and she's only lived in America for a few years whilst doing her degree...for Pete's sake.

The second one was by far the more dangerous kind of ignorant person. A pretty girl with a good figure, she was wearing a thin clinging dress which tended to expose a certain amount of cleavage when she leaned over the table to get biscuits, and I know for a fact that she was either wearing a thong, or no underwear, judging by the way the dress clung to her as she walked. The problem was that she kept pretending like she knew what she was talking about, or about how level headed she was, when she was anything but knowledgeable or cultured.

All this became apparent to me later when she went on a diatribe of how "our" Arab culture is today opposed to thought and philosophy. And of course she went on that favourite diatribe that people like her like to go on, the "establishment" that is frightening everyone with fire and brimstone. Yet she liked the fluffy sufism implied in the Rubaiyat even after, in the same breath, commending it on its materialism?!?! Really? She also made a point of closing her eyes with her hand clasping her head as the music played, as if she was entering a trance like state or deep concentration at the "profoundness" and "rich" cultural meaning of what she was listening to. What an idiot.

As everybody in the group introduced themselves, the two girls gleefully announced they were Syrian, what they were studying and so on. Tired yet cheerful at finishing my exams, and recognising the two rebels without a clue, I told the whole group that I was Syrian...but that I've been taking my pills and the doctor says I might get better soon. You could have heard a pin drop and I knew then and there that I was already on "clueless girl with shapely buttocks and no pants' " blacklist. Silly, silly girls.

.

I've come up with a new term for Arab liberals. The Coca-Cola Arabs...they are sensitive, touchy feely, politically correct and open minded. Here is one I found earlier.

.

"Miss USA" - a liberated Arab Muslim woman? Yes, according to some.

Faqih is the Arabic word for somebody who has deep knowledge of a subject, an expertise of sorts. At some stage in her family history, Rima Faqih had some great grandfather who was most likely extremely knowledgeable, probably about Islam, hence that is why the name would have stuck. At least that is my speculation on the origin of her surname based on what a reasonable person from the Middle East might assume. What he would have thought of her winning this beauty pageant in a far off land can only be speculation but there is no shortage of opinion on the internet.

Naturally there is much disapproval from many Muslims about her appearance and the meaning of all this, but there is also a vocal minority of Arabs who are quite happy she has won and consider this to be a form of progress of some sorts. I think these people are ignorant. I've spoken to a few on their blogs and I must say that so far their responses have been bordering on the hysterical in some occasions, though a few have been mildly civil yet their contempt could barely be contained.

The bottom line is that as a male, a Muslim and an Arab I am particularly not allowed to say anything but in utter adulation for her behaviour. If I don't then I am some neanderthal, a misogynist, a bigot or a fundamentalist. Yet in many cases I hadn't even mentioned the Q-word (Quran) or the A word (Allah) when asking them why they thought this was good for the Muslim world. But apparently we are not allowed to discuss Islam either. It is a "personal" thing to be interpreted subjectively. So, I can be a stripper but still be a Muslim (thankfully this is only hypothetical, I don't think my hirsute man-thighs would get me far in the business).

Well I guess these Arab liberals have got it all sussed out, let's all pack up the Qur'ans and start getting our morality from Cosmo or Hello! magazine. That is progress. These brave rebels are daring to challenge a status quo and stifling traditions by blazing a trail of glory with their independent thinking - photocopied straight from glossy magazines in the West.

Truly, as Imam Ali said, "I have yet to debate with an ignorant man and win, and I have yet to debate with a knowledgeable man and lose". Today I was soundly beaten.

.