The Middle East in their own words... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Slims · 02-11-2007, 07:59 AM

If you haven't heard of it, you may be interested in www.memritv.org

They have video clips and interviews with many religious, academic, and government leaders in the middle east. All with english subtitles. I use it for class, but the topics and viewpoints are fascinating.

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=11#

I particularly recommend any interview with Iyad Jamal Al-Din He is an Iraqi MP and a very vocal Shia Leader, I believe he is the youngest Imam right now, but I am not positive. Interviews # 1285 and 1351 are interesting and not in the least anti-american. Others are, very much so.

Edit: Feel free to discuss anything off the sight or others like it in this thread.

host · 02-11-2007, 09:31 AM

You probably like what al-Din has to say, primarily because it reinforces your belief system....

I cannot be impressed with, or rely on videos about the "Arab street" selected and produced by folks so heavily represented by Israeli military intelligence, Likud, and others with strong zionist sentiment, so memritv.org is not a site for me:

Quote:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/isra...ound-this.html

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Israeli-Arab News Cycle

I found <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050127040637/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/531436.html">this Haaretz article</a> too complicated too follow. So the Israeli Army has a psy-ops unit that used to be very active but has been less so recently, and is now being revived. This psy-ops unit plants articles in the Arab press about groups like Lebanon's Hizbullah, painting them as vicious terrorists. Then it comes to Israeli newspaper like Haaretz with translations, and urges that the pieces be written up for Israeli and Western audiences. But of course the pieces are reported as originating in the Arab press:

' The unit's activities have been controversial for years. In October 1999, Aluf Benn revealed in Haaretz that members of the unit used the Israeli media to emphasize reports initiated by the unit that it managed to place in the Arab press. He reported that the news reports focused on Iranian and Hezbollah involvement in terror activity. '

So is MEMRI, which translates articles from the Arabic press into English for thousands of US subscribers, in any way involved in all this? Its director formerly served in . . . Israeli military intelligence. How much of what we "know" from "Arab sources" about "Hizbullah terrorism" was simply made up by this fantasy factory in Tel Aviv?

As someone who reads the Arabic press quite a lot, this sort of revelation is extremely disturbing.

I also saw an allegation that British military intelligence had planted stories in the US press about Saddam's Iraq.

You begin to wonder how much of what you think you know is just propaganda manufactured by some bored colonel. No wonder post-Baath Iraq looks nothing like what we were led to to expect by the press, including the Arab press!

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...773258,00.html
Selective Memri

Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems

Monday August 12, 2002
Guardian Unlimited

....The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease.

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."

Memri might, of course, argue that it is seeking to encourage moderation by highlighting the blatant examples of intolerance and extremism. But if so, one would expect it - for the sake of non-partisanship - t o publicise extremist articles in the Hebrew media too.

Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any.

Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel".

That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives.
http://web.archive.org/web/199812022...org/index.html

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian.

Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as "America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges".

The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees.

Ms Wurmser is the author of an academic paper entitled Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism? in which she argues that leftwing Israeli intellectuals pose "more than a passing threat" to the state of Israel, undermining its soul and reducing its will for self-defence.

In addition, Ms Wurmser is a highly qualified, internationally recognised, inspiring and knowledgeable speaker on the Middle East whose presence would make any "event, radio or television show a unique one" - according to Benador Associates, a public relations company which touts her services.

Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output.....

Quote:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH15Aa01.html
Front Page
Aug 15, 2003
The Andean condor among the hawks
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - When historians look back on the United States war in Iraq, they will almost certainly be struck by how a small group of mainly neo-conservative analysts and activists outside the administration were able to shape the US media debate in ways that made the drive to war so much easier than it might have been.

Part of their success, of course, is attributable to their own close ties to the administration. Some, such as former Central Intelligence Agency chief James Woolsey, and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) fellow Richard Perle, for example, used their access as members of the Defense Policy Board (DPB) to enhance their credibility as players with inside information.

And many of the same group could credit their polish and polemical skills with dominating the talk shows on television and radio and the opinion pages in the nation's major newspapers.

It also no doubt helped that most of the group had known each other for many years, often worked with the same organizations and think tanks, and subscribed to the same basic ideology that had a clear and consistent story line: Saddam Hussein is evil and dangerous; the US is good and benign; and if we don't get him first, he will try to kill us.

The simplicity and consistency of that message - however questionable the evidence to support it may turn out to be - were appealing in themselves, particularly to television, on which about 80 percent of the public relies for their international news.

But historians would be negligent if they ignored the day-to-day work of one person who, as much as anyone outside the administration, made their media ubiquity possible.

Meet Eleana Benador, the Peruvian-born publicist for Perle, Woolsey, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and a dozen other prominent neo-conservatives whose hawkish opinions proved very hard to avoid for anyone who watched news talk shows or read the op-ed pages of major newspapers over the past 20 months.

Also found among her client list are other major war-boosters, including former New York Times executive editor and now New York Daily News columnist, A M Rosenthal; Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer; the Council on Foreign Relations' resident imperialist, Max Boot; and Victor Davis Hanson, a blood-and-guts classicist and one of Vice President Dick Cheney's favorite dinner guests.

Aside from her success in getting her clients distributed all over the television dial at critical moments in the march to war, what is particularly remarkable about Benador is the speed with which she has built what is obviously a thriving business, based on 17 to 18-hour work days, the personal attention she gives to both her clients and her media contacts, and her conviction that what her clients say is true and right.

"In general, I do agree with their views," Benador told Inter Press Service during an interview this week in the plush lobby of what is Washington's only grand hotel in the European style, the Willard. "So when I represent them, I can really convince another person."

New York-based Benador Associates is less than two years old, but has a star-studded client roster of 38 people, most of them Middle East specialists. Benador estimates that she arranges for her clients each week between 15 and 30 interviews on US and foreign television. In the same period, she places an average of about five op-eds by them in the most influential newspapers, such as the Times, the Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. And none of that includes what she considers her main responsibility - to get her clients influential and, if possible, lucrative speaking engagements.

She downplays her achievements and importance, noting that media demand for prominent neo-conservatives was spurred "not because of Eleana Benador, but because of the long overdue need to address the threat of terrorism".

Benador was born in Lima, where she was crippled by polio while very young. At the age of seven she moved with her family to Paris, where she remained when they returned to Peru when she was 16. She attended the Sorbonne in Paris and the Catholic University in Lille and later studied and worked in Vienna and Geneva, where she met her husband, a Swiss art dealer. After nine years of raising their now 14-year-old son, Benador returned to work, dividing her time between "anti-terrorism" and art history.

She then joined the Middle East Forum (MEF), a Philadelphia-based think tank headed by neo-con Daniel Pipes, whose recent nomination by President George W Bush to the board of the US Institute for Peace has stalled as a result of strong criticism from Arab-American, Muslim and civil-rights groups, who accuse him of inciting hatred against Muslims.

Benador left the MEF in October 2001 to create Benador Associates, and credits Woolsey and Rosenthal, in particular, with helping her get started. "Woolsey really opened his doors for his other friends," she said. Woolsey has long been close to Perle, who has his own network of neo-cons based at AEI, including Ledeen, Hillel Fradkin, Michael Rubin, Meyrav Wurmser and Laurie Mylroie, all of whom have been outspoken and influential hawks on Iraq. And all are Benador clients.

Her client list also includes a number of Muslims, such as Amir Taheri, Ismail Cem, Fereydoun Hoveyda, Tashbih Sayyed and Mansoor Ijaz, all of whom supported the war and have called for Bush to extend the "war on terrorism" to other Middle Eastern countries. Another prominent Muslim represented by Benador, Shaykh Kabbani, created an uproar in the Muslim community in 1999 by charging that most US mosques were preaching extremist views.

Benador also represents two controversial Iraqis - Kanan Makiya and Khidhir Hamza - associated with the Iraqi National Congress led by Ahmad Chalabi, who has been strongly supported by neo-conservatives in the administration and the DPB. Hamza, a former nuclear scientist, has been especially controversial due to his repeated warnings in the media about Iraq's alleged reconstitution of a nuclear-weapons program. Hamza and Makiya, says Benador, are "really my most powerful voices right now".

The publicist says that she sees her work as "more of a mission than a business", a mission in which her Muslim clients play a key role. "I'm totally convinced that in our world to get peace we need to make peace with moderate Muslims," according to Benador. "If they are not our allies, we will never have peace. They are the ones who can defeat their own extremists, and they are the first victims of Muslim extremists. This is something I'm very firmly fighting for."

Nor are all her clients dyed-in-the-wool neo-cons. She also represents columnist Arnaud de Borchgrave, a right-winger who has opposed the neo-cons' Mideast policy as tilted too far toward Israeli interests.

Benador says that she is now trying to work more with companies that are investing in the Middle East and need up-to-date analysis of the situation there from her clients. She has also launched an effort to present programs on "anti-Americanism" on US university campuses using her clients as featured speakers.

....and posts at freerepublic.com link to memritv.org videos a little too often for my taste:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...om&btnG=Search

Slims · 02-11-2007, 09:53 AM

I haven't put this sight forward as truth or claimed that there is no agenda behind it. But you can learn a lot even from biased sources. Their news clips come from many arab channels and they are not unusual...I watch a lot of Dubai TV, Al Jazeera, and broadcast from several other gulf states and egypt, and I don't think Memritv is showing the 'worst' at all. They do, however, show interviews where somone takes essentially a pro-west point of view.

People with no agenda would not have any reason to take selected interviews and translate them into english. So if you want access to translations you have to take what you can get.

I don't avoid liberal media outlets simply because they don't agree with my own point of view...To do so is to put on blinders to the possibility that you may be wrong.

Why do you care that the free republic links to memri? I cold give two shits if the democratic underground likes a particular souce.

host · 02-11-2007, 10:44 AM

Greg700, I took your effort to start a thread where you opened the OP with what seemed like an endorsement of memritv.org, as an endorsement of MEMRI, especially since you did not mention the controversy surrounding MEMRI, because of it founders, management, and former explicit endorsement of zionism.

I don't understand your reference to democratic underground, in response to my comment referencing what appears to be an endorsement of memritv.org by numerous freerepublic.com contributors.

freerepublic seems to be a "fringe" site, endorsing specifically, anti UN, anti progressive income tax, anti social safety net, anti modern federal government reforms....it specifically disavows a political party affiliation

....and democratic underground seems to be a main stream site for democrats, with a disclaimer that it "is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole".

Why did you use democratic underground as an example of an opposite to this?:

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/about.htm

Free Republic is not affiliated with any political party, news source, government agency or any other entity.

What is our mission? Free Republic is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic. Listed below are some of the issues we feel strongly about.

Basically, we believe that the Founders designed our system of government in the form of a constitutionally limited republic, with maximum freedom intended for the people and minimum government control or interference into our personal lives and business affairs.

The united states of America was intended to be a federation of sovereign states, each with its own constitution and state government. Governments at all levels -- federal, state and local -- were to be controlled by the people. Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights. This is to ensure that the real power remains close to home, with the states, the local governments and always in the hands of the people.

We the People have granted our federal government limited powers to oversee certain things, such as national defense, interstate commerce, the postal service, the coining of money, and the operation of a court system. Most other powers now in the hands of the federal government were illegally usurped from the states and from the people.

Somehow, over the years, our guiding principles of law, as set forth in the Constitution, have been eroded to the point that the federal government now has total control -- leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people.

We at Free Republic are determined to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the land as the Founders intended.

It is not necessary for everyone to hold the same views to be members of Free Republic, however, many of us do share many of the following as common beliefs and goals:

# The preservation and complete restoration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with special emphasis on the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth amendments and, of course, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- free of government intervention.

# We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers. This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states.

# We call for the repeal of the 16th amendment and to abolish the income tax and the IRS. Revenues to the federal government should come from excise taxes and tariffs.

# We call for the repeal of the Emergency and War Powers Acts, an end to all national emergencies and a ban on the unilateral creation of law by Presidential edict. We are also working for the repeal all laws created by unconstitutional and extraconstitutional devices, such as Executive Order or Presidential Directive.

Repeal of the war and emergency powers acts and the various states of national emergencies will allow the abolishing of all unconstitutional federal law, agencies and departments. This will return us to a Federalist system of government and return many responsibilities to the States and personal rights to the citizens.

A return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment. The Tenth Amendment will again be in effect, which will bar all federal attempts at legislating social issues. This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed. So too, will most federal subsidies.

# We further call for the rescinding of all treaties and/or International Agreements which are not in perfect agreement with the federal government’s Constitutionally mandated task of protecting the rights of the people.

# We believe that the United States should disassociate itself from the U.N. and that the U.N. should be forced to leave the United States. Furthermore, we demand that the federal government refrain from meddling in the business and squabbles of foreign nations, unless there is an imminent threat to the people of the United States.

# We also call for the strengthening of our military and defenses; the effective control over illegal immigration and smuggling; the paying down the national debt; and strict control over federal agencies like the CIA and the FBI.

Quote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html
About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.....

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court. We address the right in harsh terms, and we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive. In that spirit, DU has already gained countrywide notoriety as the originator of the weekly Top Ten Conservative Idiots list, which is published (almost) every Monday.

Slims · 02-11-2007, 11:13 AM

I used the democratic underground as an example because in my opinion it is equally extreme. They are as far left in many aspects as the sight you mentioned is right.

What few encounters I have had with the democratic underground have all been unpleasant. In my experience every attempt at a debate ends in unwarranted personal attacks and absurdist arguments. I am aware that the majority of the people on that sight are not like that, but those who are drown out the rest unless you are in-line with their point of view.

I don't consider a lot of what you just suggested ("anti UN, anti progressive income tax, anti social safety net, anti modern federal government reforms") as being particularly radical. Not nearly as radical as the position of the democratic underground that the presidency of George Bush is illegitimate. He was elected fairly under our current electoral system. Everybody has known for a long time how our system works, and it could just as easily have given gore enough electoral votes to gain the presidency even without the popular vote. If the system was broken it should have been fixed long ago but nobody complained until an election didn't go their way.

Furthermore, I don't think the actions of a 'fringe' group should have any impact on what you think of a third party. To allow them to influence your opinions either for or against something is to become bound to their ideas. A good example of this is Al-Qaeda's attempts to disrupt our system by endorsing democratic candidates...They should just be ignored.

host · 02-11-2007, 11:37 AM

Greg700, you and I come from two different worlds....we speak the same language, but we will not come to any mutual agreement about the politics that envelope us in the present era....

You view "terrorism" as the problem....the threat. I view the recent reaction to it, by our elected officials, and too many of our fellow countrymen, as the far more ominous threat to "our freedom".

We are in living in the midst of a "horror show", that began on Jan. 20, 2001. I suspect that you disagree. Here is an account that supports my conclusion:
http://gtmodocuments.blogspot.com/20...as-lawyer.html

Slims · 02-11-2007, 01:16 PM

I don't have to agree with you nor do I need to believe in my ability to convince you of my opinions in order for debate to be mutually enlightening. I don't expect we will ever really agree, but at least we can force each other to refine our point of view.

Irregardless of the current situation, I still say Memritv is fascinating. At least click on a few of the clips before you come to a conclusion. I won't say that they are not politically loaded...they most certainly are, but even propaganda has to be structured in a format that it's intended audience will accept. As such, you can learn a lot about everyone involved.

Furthermore, Memritv is relatively tame compared to what is aired by a lot of arab states. Many of the basic points that are brought up (particularly by the guy I mentioned above) are relevant regardless of political subtleties.

Edit: And if you take the time to listen to a few clips, I suspect you can find videos which support your views. If not on that sight, then elsewhere.

loquitur · 02-13-2007, 09:35 AM

Host, I believe the issue comes down to the difference between "accurate" and "complete." My impression of MEMRI is that, although it is generally accurate in what it does present, it selects out items that it finds particularly "telling" and leaves others out. Bottom line, even though MEMRI's stuff is accurate, the issue is whether the picture thereby presented is complete. For that, you'd need a comparable news aggregator/translator from a different viewpoint. I'm not aware of one (Juan Cole is a commentator, which is a different sort of exercise, though yes, he will occasionally present stuff from Middle Eastern media). Maybe this is a niche you can fill?

02-11-2007, 07:59 AM	#1 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	The Middle East in their own words... If you haven't heard of it, you may be interested in www.memritv.org They have video clips and interviews with many religious, academic, and government leaders in the middle east. All with english subtitles. I use it for class, but the topics and viewpoints are fascinating. http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=11# I particularly recommend any interview with Iyad Jamal Al-Din He is an Iraqi MP and a very vocal Shia Leader, I believe he is the youngest Imam right now, but I am not positive. Interviews # 1285 and 1351 are interesting and not in the least anti-american. Others are, very much so. Edit: Feel free to discuss anything off the sight or others like it in this thread. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

02-11-2007, 09:53 AM	#3 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I haven't put this sight forward as truth or claimed that there is no agenda behind it. But you can learn a lot even from biased sources. Their news clips come from many arab channels and they are not unusual...I watch a lot of Dubai TV, Al Jazeera, and broadcast from several other gulf states and egypt, and I don't think Memritv is showing the 'worst' at all. They do, however, show interviews where somone takes essentially a pro-west point of view. People with no agenda would not have any reason to take selected interviews and translate them into english. So if you want access to translations you have to take what you can get. I don't avoid liberal media outlets simply because they don't agree with my own point of view...To do so is to put on blinders to the possibility that you may be wrong. Why do you care that the free republic links to memri? I cold give two shits if the democratic underground likes a particular souce. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

02-11-2007, 11:13 AM	#5 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I used the democratic underground as an example because in my opinion it is equally extreme. They are as far left in many aspects as the sight you mentioned is right. What few encounters I have had with the democratic underground have all been unpleasant. In my experience every attempt at a debate ends in unwarranted personal attacks and absurdist arguments. I am aware that the majority of the people on that sight are not like that, but those who are drown out the rest unless you are in-line with their point of view. I don't consider a lot of what you just suggested ("anti UN, anti progressive income tax, anti social safety net, anti modern federal government reforms") as being particularly radical. Not nearly as radical as the position of the democratic underground that the presidency of George Bush is illegitimate. He was elected fairly under our current electoral system. Everybody has known for a long time how our system works, and it could just as easily have given gore enough electoral votes to gain the presidency even without the popular vote. If the system was broken it should have been fixed long ago but nobody complained until an election didn't go their way. Furthermore, I don't think the actions of a 'fringe' group should have any impact on what you think of a third party. To allow them to influence your opinions either for or against something is to become bound to their ideas. A good example of this is Al-Qaeda's attempts to disrupt our system by endorsing democratic candidates...They should just be ignored. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

02-11-2007, 01:16 PM	#7 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I don't have to agree with you nor do I need to believe in my ability to convince you of my opinions in order for debate to be mutually enlightening. I don't expect we will ever really agree, but at least we can force each other to refine our point of view. Irregardless of the current situation, I still say Memritv is fascinating. At least click on a few of the clips before you come to a conclusion. I won't say that they are not politically loaded...they most certainly are, but even propaganda has to be structured in a format that it's intended audience will accept. As such, you can learn a lot about everyone involved. Furthermore, Memritv is relatively tame compared to what is aired by a lot of arab states. Many of the basic points that are brought up (particularly by the guy I mentioned above) are relevant regardless of political subtleties. Edit: And if you take the time to listen to a few clips, I suspect you can find videos which support your views. If not on that sight, then elsewhere. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

02-13-2007, 09:35 AM	#8 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, I believe the issue comes down to the difference between "accurate" and "complete." My impression of MEMRI is that, although it is generally accurate in what it does present, it selects out items that it finds particularly "telling" and leaves others out. Bottom line, even though MEMRI's stuff is <i>accurate</i>, the issue is whether the picture thereby presented is <i>complete</i>. For that, you'd need a comparable news aggregator/translator from a different viewpoint. I'm not aware of one (Juan Cole is a commentator, which is a different sort of exercise, though yes, he will occasionally present stuff from Middle Eastern media). Maybe this is a niche you can fill?

02-11-2007, 11:37 AM	#6 (permalink)
host Banned	Greg700, you and I come from two different worlds....we speak the same language, but we will not come to any mutual agreement about the politics that envelope us in the present era.... You view "terrorism" as the problem....the threat. I view the recent reaction to it, by our elected officials, and too many of our fellow countrymen, as the far more ominous threat to "our freedom". We are in living in the midst of a "horror show", that began on Jan. 20, 2001. I suspect that you disagree. Here is an account that supports my conclusion: http://gtmodocuments.blogspot.com/20...as-lawyer.html