Axis Of Evil Thinking

Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Poster

How much longer will the U.S. media — anesthetized by the past six years of U.S. foreign policy — continue to consider Arab countries and predominantly Muslim countries as one big “them?”

Beyond the written and spoken word, this tendency is radically dramatized and reinforced through pictures. Take this shot that ran last week with a NYT Week In Review article titled: Envisioning U.S. Talks With Iran and Syria.

The feature sketches the pros and cons of the U.S. opening a dialogue with Damascus and Tehran. Although the two countries are mostly discussed separately, the article’s point of departure is the fact that, up to now, those countries have been seen in the same constrained terms: as bad boys that can’t be reasoned with.

Toward the end of the write-up, the article cites “diplomatic analysts” who suggest “that this is a good time to recognize that differences [exist] between Iran’s and Syria’s positions….” Some advise that the U.S. play one country against the other, especially as their interests depart in relation to Hezbollah.

… Wait, what was that? The interests of Syria and Iran actually depart at some point in relation to Hezbollah!

Congratulations to The Times for indicating, if only briefly, that Assad, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah aren’t triplets, separated at birth, who spend weekends together playing dominoes behind the mosque. But then, how unfortunate the picture (which, along with the headline, is about as far as many viewers will get) still reinforces the diplomacy-vanquishing notion that “they’re all the same” and “in it together.”

To the same end, you’ve got to love the caption:

Syria and Iran feel emboldened; their leaders appeared with Hezbollah’s on a poster. What would they want, and what possible areas of agreement could there be?

Oops, there’s that they again. And then, what’s with the impression (given the ambiguous language) that the leaders appeared together, as opposed to the fact they came together on the screen of a poster-maker?

(image: Shawn Baldwin/The New York Times. Damascus. June 2006. nytimes.com)

« Prev

Going Begging

Showing Another Side

http://ruinsofempire.blogspot.com/ Rafael

Well you would not be the first to accuse the U.S. media of intellectual laziness. besides why complicate the minds of the American reader with semantic diferences?
crispy

Your article is at best naive and at worst propoganda. I cannot tell which (actually it doesnt matter)but just thought I should add a comment for you to read if you are open to free thought and your mind is not closed. It is all too easy to make throw away articles that polarise debate and let people believe what they want to. It is much harder to face the the truth of the situation. For yourself too by the way (this isn’t just for your audience as your article is so obviously written for). You obviously have some little axe to grind or you would not be writing in the way you do. Perhaps it’s just playing to the audience. Anyway here’s another point of view. A stone is a stone. Water is water. A duck is a duck. A muslim is a muslim. They are not interchangeable. All the supposed predjudice and subderfused power games are equally applicable to the muslim world as they are to Bush and the Christian West. If you are attempting to suggest (insincerely I might add) that there is some higher philosophy based on the equality and shared humanity of mankind, then you are a better man than Jesus, Muhammed, God (not a man) and all the saints put together. Good luck. But I sincerely doubt this is the case. You have taken this situation and place it in the realm of the higher philosophical realms and Gods, entirely out of context. If at the end of the day we can’t call a duck a duck then we really are in trouble. (I was going to sign my name but will just put, “it takes one to know one”. And..”You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the tme”. W.A.S.P
http://ruinsofempire.blogspot.com/ Rafael

*BLINK**BLINK*
Read article above, read response below.
What exactly are you talking about?
Then again, I think the response fits the article. Don’t try to slay sacred cows, because you will always end up in a bloddy mess.
hmmm

there are no sacred cows. They are just cows. errm. yes. I think so anyway!!??
http://molly.douthett.net momly

Wha—-?
Anyway, even if the NYT and other corporate media types lump all Arabic speaking nations together as a huge lumpy “they” the fact remains that “we” are screwed.
Man, it really sucks to have seen this coming from four years ago and been so damn powerless to do anything about it other than incur the wrath of my Republican family who will very not likely admit to the fact that I was right so I’ll just use the good nature of the poster on this forum to scream
I TOLD YOU SO!!!
Thank you for your patience.
http://ruinsofempire.blogspot.com/ Rafael

momly:
I feel you sister, I feel you.
Paul

They also try to place all Arabs into the same basket.
Which, any person watching Iraq for a minute would tell the observer that there are as many differences as any other cultural group.
I have given up reading Newspapers and don’t watch the News on TV. In fact I’ve completely given up on all the Main Stream Media (Corporate Media) and it’s one sided, biased presentation of World affairs and their pathetic “cats up trees” bullshit.
What has frustrated me from the very first mention of the Invasion of Iraq (Pre-emptive strike?…I still am amazed at the number of people who fell for that B.S.) is how the Politicians leading the charge have learned nothing from similar situations in recent history.
Blair knew from Northern Ireland, from the start that FORCE will NEVER get the people on your side, it will never get peace. Never has and never will. Peace was brought to Northern Ireland because of Diplomacy not the British Army.
The same can be said for Vietnam, the people of South Vietnam still refer to the Vietnam war as “America’s War”.
In their ignorance, arrogance and Greed Bush and the Neo-cons have not only caused an enormous amount of grief to so many people but they have literally De-stabilised the region and have given reason for the next generation of Iraqi’s to hate America. They may have disliked America’s Imperialism and heavy handed tactics before (not to mention the USA’s funding of Israels occupation and constant harassment [read Terrorism] of Palestine), but now, these people who would not have thought it in the past, now have real HATE in their Heart.
The people responsible for this ongoing Crusade should be made to live out their Fantasies from inside Abu Gharib or Guantanamo Bay and see how they like it!
Paul

Crispy said -
“Anyway here’s another point of view. A stone is a stone. Water is water. A duck is a duck. A Muslim is a Muslim. They are not interchangeable.”
If I read and interpreted your post correctly (which I admit, after reading it again I’m not sure if your ARE saying “An Arab is an Arab, a Muslim is a Muslim” or making some obscure point of how most people view the above mentioned),
But let’s get something clear here, and I believe this was the point of the article. There are many, many Arabs, all different. There are many many Muslims, all different. But the Newspapers and the Administration in the White House lump them all in together even though these people may be from completely different countries and cultures, but because there Muslim or Arab then they must all be the same.
Is an Indonesian Muslim the same as a Central African Muslim? Is someone from Singapore the same as someone from the Middle East?
This persons world view is what drives the catastrophic policy’s of the Republicans. They believe that all Muslims are the same, that all Arabs are the same.
As an example, in Europe you have 2 small countries next to each other (it could be Italy and France or Germany and Switzerland, both Christian, yet they speak different languages and have entirely different cultures. Do we lump them together and say they are all the same? Of course they aren’t. so, why should we lump Middle Eastern or Northern African countries in together? WHY? Because of Ignorance and a deliberate agenda.
Chris

Crispy’s comments are obviously ‘over my head’ as they make little to no sense to me. S/He seems to have an axis to grind. BTW…it rarely takes one to know one. No more truth to that than a belief that “he who smelt it dealt it.”
From the caption, “…their leaders appeared with Hezbollah’s on a poster.”
The wording makes it sound as if the three leaders appeared together at a photo op although we can plainly see that a less than stellar cut and paste job is responsible for their proximity to one another.
Assad is far less jovial than the other two. His expression gives the impression that he’s “smelt it” and the other two are having a laugh at his expense.
Chris

Oops…I got so caught up in my attempt at wit that I managed to lump Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah together as “the other two”. Although one might criticize such attention to detail as nit-picking I believe that we could all benefit from closer scrutiny of the words we speak and write as well as the those that make up our internal dialogues.
Some are likely to say that statements like “I believe; I feel; I think, etc.” are weak and wishy-washy but I find them to be very helpful. They indicate to me that the speaker/author is aware of the subjective nature of his or her worldview.
Despite the backlash against what has been labelled ‘Political Correctness’ it is my belief that the English language as it is commonly used constantly reinforces gender and racial inequality.
ummabdulla

I also noticed that whoever made the poster used an unusually stern picture of Assad, while Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah are smiling. And the picture is from last June; if the New York Times had to reach back months to find a picture like this, how significant is it? It’s also from Damascus; outside Syria, you might not find the Syrian President on a poster like this.
I’m not sure what “crispy”’s point was, but if it’s that all Muslims are the same, keep in mind that Ahmadinejad is a Persian Shia, Nasrallah is an Arab Shia, and Assad is an Arab Alawi, I think, which is a small minority sect that’s an offshoot of Shiism and is rejected even by many Shia scholars (and the majority of Syrians are Arab Sunnis). Aside from all that, Assad heads the Arab nationalist, secular Baath party, while the other two are religious. To the extent that they’re all allies, you can thank the Bush foreign policy.
Haven’t the Syrians always been open to talks and negotiations with the U.S.? Their main condition is that they get back the Golan Heights.
axiome

Crispys comments where so vauge it made me feel like i don’t know whats going on but it’s bad can i can’t comprehend it . I can’t think of one logical statement in his post for rejecting the bloggers comments except
‘it takes one to know one maybe , or a ‘duck is a duck’ .
GeorgeF

umabdulla hits the point: It is the blindfold policy, which throws all Muslims into the same baket, which made those three “allies”. It is not only thee difference of the belief. The Iranians are seen with great mistrust in the arab countries, they speak a completely different language. The Iraqis see themselves as the heirs of 6.000 years of urban culture and the “Arabs” as nomads in the deserts, who hardly can read and write. Syria also refers to over 2.000 years of an own history and culture – even under Turkish rule the province Syria played an own role. And had Bush and foremost Rummy forgotten that in 1990 the Syrians were allied in the common struggle to cut Saddam to size? The Iranians of course have never forgotten that it was the CIA, which toppled the national hero Mossadeq for only one reason: Mossadeq demanded a fair part of the oil to his people.