On the Lousy Coverage of Syria
The Angry Arab is ecstatic with protestors in the West Bank:
He was enthusiastically posting about a similar chant in Tahrir square in Egypt in February last year:
They chanted: ("O, Abbas, O Coward, O, you agent of the Americans"). (Of course, it rhymes in Arabic).
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: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:
يا مبارك يا جبان, يا عميل الأميركان
"o Mubarak, you coward. O agent of the Americans" (it rhymes in Arab
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.
7 comments:
Exactly. Angry Arab has to complain even if it means manufacturing a grievance. Last year he was saying that Syrian chants were uncreative, and yet we've seen those same chants emulated in Kuwait, Yemen, North America and now Palestine.
Ass'ad Abu Khalil lives off of contempt; contempt for the society that has sheltered him since 1983, contempt for all standards of academia, and contempt for his readership.
His visual vomit of a website is an expression of that contempt; he doesn't allow comments (like all Communists), he seems to be clueless about the concept of paragraphs, he never spell checks, and his website's design is a torturous eyesore that can easily be fixed with a template. If he cared enough about his readership to make the effort
Too often his links contradict what he says. For example, on July 14, he says Human Rights Watch used Al-Arabiyya as its source for a report on Iranian executions. He says the English version does not name Al-Arabiyya, but the Arabic does. So I click on the English version, and it does mention al-Arabiyya, not as the source for their report, but as the source of one statement of fact.
Apparently, he reads as carelessly as he writes.
One of the statistics the lovers of Angry Arab are keen to omit,is the number of times he mentions Thomas Friedman, even when Friedman has nothing to do with the story at hand. Friedman is an obsession of Ass'ad Abu Khalil's, so much so I'm starting to wonder whether Angry Arab was a spurned lover.
At one time the NYT had a wonderful story about tech entrepreneurs in Jordan, written by Friedman. This was too much for comrade Angryski; the object of his obsessions writing about one of his favorite hatreds, the country of Jordan? Abu Khalil's response was typical; what should have been an uplifting story which for once shined a bit of sunshine in a usually tragic region, was treated with venom by Angry Arab. He couldn't have sounded more hateful if the tech entrepreneurs in question were living in a West Bank settlement.
If impotent and needless anger was an energy source, Abu Khalil could power the whole of California. Whatever he may say when directly questioned in "interviews" (hahaha), the contempt he holds for the USA always seeps out in his posts.
In today's article in Al-Akhbar, comrade Angryski made the ludicrous claim that Saudi silence on the anti-Islamic film was due to the "Saudi-Israeli" alliance. Even though its been proven that the creator of the film was a Christian Copt, and that Israel had nothing to do with it. See people, this is the kind of ridiculous and absurd tin-foil hat stupidities that are the bread and butter of Angry Arab and his Leftist fanclub. I write more on his absurdities and casual racism on my blog.
Post a Comment