  |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Cartoon Protests Stoked by DictatorsPosted on Feb 9, 2006
By Tyler Golson Update: Cilck here for a Truthdig primer on who has, and who hasn’t re-published the controversial cartoons Many Western media organizations have portrayed the recent wave of riots and protests surrounding the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as some kind of spontaneous, instinctual war cry among aggrieved Muslims. But when you take a closer look at the social and political contexts of these collective expressions of rage, certain patterns emerge that suggest a more manufactured phenomenon. Syria is a perfect example, and the one that I know best, having spent the past year living and studying there. This is a country where absolutely nothing happens in public without the express authorization of the government. That’s what makes life in Syria both incredibly safe—it has one of the lowest crime rates in the Middle East and almost no domestic terrorism problems—and incredibly oppressive. Any time there’s a “demonstration” or a “rally,” or even a picnic involving more than one person, the government bureaucracy has to sign off on it. So how was a gang of youths able to congregate on one of the premier avenues of the capital, destroy the Danish and Norwegian embassies and trash several other Western-owned buildings in the course of a long day? Damascus is a remarkably well-policed city, with government security drones (Mukhabarat) stationed on nearly every street corner, automatic rifles slung across their shoulders. These guards especially cluster around foreign embassies and the fashionable Abu Roumaneh district, where most of the destruction occurred; yet no clashes between protesters and guards have been reported. We are left with two possible explanations: either all of Damascus’ top-priority guard posts were abandoned at the same time—all of the Mukhabarat stepped out for a daylong cigarette break—or the guards were complicit in the demonstrations-turned-riots. In light of the Asad regime’s proven readiness to defy the international community in the most blunt fashion, one could further presume that Syria’s security agents were not only complicit in this violence but actually helped coordinate it, focus it and contain it from behind the scenes to achieve some higher policy goal. Apparently the U.S. State Department has come to the same conclusion. What policy goal might President Bashar Asad be pursuing by stoking a riot inside his own capital? Why would government henchmen work to cultivate a reputation for Syria as a nation on the brink of barbarity? For the very cynical reason that it makes the stable, secular Baath regime seem like the only bulwark against a restless religious population. The constant, muted oppression of Asad’s police state seems tame in comparison to the raw, explosive rage of the Muslim masses. It’s an old trick, used by many of the most brutal regimes in the region: “Don’t depose us,” they say, “because look at how crazy our Islamist replacements are.” This argument has been put forward again and again by Arab and Muslim autocrats and seconded by our own Western governments, and up until Hamas’ landslide victory in the recent Palestinian parliamentary elections it had been a very effective way of shutting Islamist voices out of the debate. The rationale behind Syria’s sanctioning of the Islamic riots in Damascus also explains Palestinian Authority leaders’ refusal to form a coalition government with Hamas. If you put your Islamic radicals up front where everyone can see them, goes the logic, then when they inevitably do something stupid the world will acknowledge how much better your corrupt, impotent but secular regime really is. The spreading of the riots across the mountains to Beirut, which led to the same kind of targeted destruction of Western embassies, was probably engineered by the same government forces that allowed the “protest demonstrations” in Syria. Despite the withdrawal of Syria’s military from Lebanon last year, it is an open secret that Syrian security forces and intelligence networks still operate freely on the ground throughout Lebanon, and still wield considerable power over internal Lebanese affairs. Lebanon, like Syria, is a nation that is tightly controlled in terms of most kinds of public expression. The massive marches and protests that took place after the slaying of Rafik Hariri, for example, while often described in the news as “spontaneous” outpourings of sentiment and sure signs that the reform movement was at last standing on its own feet, were in fact a highly managed campaign authorized and funded by political elites. The recent riots in Beirut are no exception. They undoubtedly required some measure of authorization, if not material support, in order to effectively mobilize in tandem with the riots in Damascus. It is doubtful that any of the existing Lebanese parties, with the possible exception of (Syria-allied) Hezbollah, would facilitate these kinds of demonstrations--which inherently threaten the delicate sectarian balance that has prevailed since the county emerged from its 15-year civil war. Again, only one party comes to mind that would (a) benefit from destabilizing Lebanon, (b) seek to blame it on radical Muslims and (c) have the operational and logistical resources necessary to carry out such an effective mass demonstration on short notice. The Lebanese interior minister himself blamed a core of “infiltrators” for stirring up the riots—an obvious reference to Lebanon’s meddling eastern neighbor. A final piece of this (too) well-orchestrated series of demonstrations and riots is the role of Saudi Arabia. A Saudi blogger ("The Religious Policeman") reported on Jan. 27—before the spread of violence—that the Saudi government’s recently instituted boycott of Danish and Norwegian goods and media campaign against the two nations had come curiously on the heels of a crisis that the Saudi government desperately needed a way out of. Saudi Arabia was under fire from Muslims around the world for its very public mismanagement of the annual hajj pilgrimage, in which 350 pilgrims from mostly poor nations were trampled to death. This incident was huge news—front page in all the Arab papers for several days—and all blame was being put on the Saudi government because an almost identical tragedy (with a slightly lower death toll) had occurred in 2004 and the Saudis afterward had taken none of the promised preventive measures. In a transparent attempt to divert domestic and international attention away from its second massively fatal mismanagement of Islamic affairs in two years, the Saudi government seized on a then relatively unremarkable piece of news about a controversy surrounding the reprinting of several cartoons insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Virtually overnight, according to “The Religious Policeman,” there were “simultaneous Saudi Government statements, Saudi newspaper articles, and sermons in all Saudi mosques, suddenly appearing four months after the original cartoons were published.” Daily Kos wrote:
In the Middle East, context is everything. Thousands upon thousands of Muslims do not one day wake up, see several cartoons and then become so enraged at the cartoons’ content that they organize themselves into torch-bearing, authority-evading, sign-waving mobs. Just as among Christians, Jews, atheists and people of every other persuasion, collective acts of violence among Muslims require prodding, and usually some form of outside management. It takes irresponsible guidance and a lot of material support to translate raw emotions into destructive activism, especially in countries as tightly regulated as those of the Muslim world today. This is not in any way to absolve or defend the criminals who participated in these acts of destruction and chose to interpret their faith in a manner so inconsistent with the vast majority of their community. Rather, a fuller understanding of the social and political context in which the most violent of these “demonstrations” occurred indicates that we ought not to be so quick to condemn the overt perpetrators of these acts that we leave the pushers, the enablers and the demagogues off the hook. Previous item: Take From the Poor, Give to the Military Next item: The Cure for Executive Excess Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Washington’s Overrated ‘Old Hands’
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Gary, February 26, 2006 at 3:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mr. Abdallah, instead of personal opinion and interpretation, why not let your book speak for you:
Report thisThe Cow 2:216-"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it”
The ‘Imrans 3:19-"The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam”
The ‘Imrans 3:26-"Let not believers make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful”
The ‘Imrans 3:118-"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin”
The ‘Imrans 3:156-"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and his mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass”
The ‘Imrans 3:183-"the life of this world is nothing but a fleeting vanity”
Women 4:75-"The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan”
Women 4:91-Regarding disbelievers, “If these do not keep their distance from you, if they neither offer you peace nor cease their hostilities against you, lay hold of them and kill them wherever you find them”
Women 4:158-Because of their iniquity, We forbade the Jews wholesome things which were formerly allowed them; because time after time they have debarred others from the path of God, because they practiced usury and cheat others of their possessions”
The Table 5:51-"Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends”
The Spoils 8:12-"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn you backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except for tactical reasons, or to join another band, he shall incur the wrath of God and hell shall be his home: An evil fate”
Repentance 9:121-"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous”
Muhammad 47:3-"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly”
Victory 48:29-"Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another”
The Hypocrites 64:12-"Your wealth and your children are but a temptation”
These are just a few passages of the Koran.
Anyone who takes the time to read the Koran, as well the Bible will find that they are both extremely violent, unbelievable documents. Regarding the Koran, The Cow begins it all with “This Book is not to be doubted”, therefore Muslims don’t. The rest of the world has a problem right off.
It’s way past time for critical thinking individuals to read these books, and ask serious questions.
By R. A. Earl, February 24, 2006 at 2:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
In #3149, Abdallah wrote: “Believe me, even now, if I happened to come face to face with the evil caroonist who drew them or the publisher who published them, I would punch him or her in the face, even if I might go to prison for that, and that would be my mild way of exercising my right to be offended!”
No one is interfering with your right to be offended. “Our” (non-Muslim) problem with your attitude and potential behavior has to do with what you assume to be your RIGHT to ASSAULT others (to put it mildly) because you’ve had your sensibilities smacked.
I’m aware that it’s not really your fault that you harbour this attitude… you’re TAUGHT it from birth by your religion… that you have a DUTY to do whatever it takes to “eliminate” all those who don’t accept and revere Allah and Muhammad as you do.
I guess that’s the basis for the eternal conflict between us. Do you really think non-Muslims are just going to stand around while devout Muslims hack off our heads (figuratively or literally)? Of course we aren’t… so we have eternal war. You really can’t expect us to respect YOUR life when you don’t respect ours, do you?
Now remember… it is YOU who are THREATENING US, not the other way around (at least since the Crusades). And since Islam’s doctrines seem particularly flexible, depending on who’s doing the interpretation, why not just find a senior cleric to issue a “recall” on the bit about killing all non-believers (like, for starters, the amendments that have been done to the rules about having the right to own and stone to death a woman in public, or to marrying and forcing pre-pubescent females to submit to intercourse?)
If your fundamentalists and fanatics would just stop trying to blow us up, (you know… “kill the infidels,") I’ll bet many of our “problems” with each other would just disappear overnight!
How about it, eh? Give it a try. But, nah. It won’t work. How can we reason with a group of people that won’t even acknowledge that it’s SUICIDE to strap a load of explosive to your body and push the button?
You believe it’s MARTYRDOM when it’s in the name of Allah - and that you’re going directly to Paradise with an endless supply of Virgins when you die trying to take as many other innocent non-believers with you as you can.
That’s INSANITY in every code of conduct and behavior on the planet… EXCEPT ISLAM. But even then, if you would just blow yourselves up and go to Paradise, no one on “our” side would object very much. But we do have an aversion to having our lives ended because SOME WACKO MUSLIM WANTS TO GET LAID!
Report thisBy Fadel Abdallah, February 16, 2006 at 7:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Though I might partially agree with Tyler Gloson’s assessment of the Syrian situation in relation to the reaction to the Prophet Muhammad’s defaming cartoons, I belive that his piece is an over-simplification of a very complex issue and situation that a non-Muslim secular person like Golson fails to understand, despite his claim to spending one year studying and living in Syria. Gloson’s piece is only a case study of Syria, yet he makes it the basis for a sweeping generalization of all the Muslim countries.
Report thisThe most violent reaction to the caroon took place in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where several people were actually killed. Theoretically, Afghanistan is an American- installed “democracy”, unless one considers Karzai a dictator installed by the USA. Though I believe that Musharraf is a semi-dictaor, nevertheless he is an American ally, or stooge, who offered the invadors of Iraq and Afghanistan the greatest services, and Mr. Gloson does not even mention these two countries.
My response to Gloson’s piece could be very lengthy indeed with much factual details. Instead, I would rather tell you my personal feelings in reaction to the cartoons. Though I am a very moderate, highly educated Muslim, who is believed by other more strict Muslims to be almost a secularist, my blood did boil at the news of this hateful propaganda and defamation, dressed in the freedom of expression garb. Believe me, even now, if I happened to come face to face with the evil caroonist who drew them or the publisher who published them, I would punch him or her in the face, even if I might go to prison for that, and that would be my mild way of exercising my right to be offended!
By nate, February 10, 2006 at 9:16 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ha, I checked back to see if my comment was posted, and upon re-reading the article I noticed that I misread your final paragraph. Sorry to imply that you suggested holding back condemnation of violent protestors. However, I’m still frustrated with your editorializing: you suggest we hold the Arab dictators who provoke these actions accountable, but don’t offer any suggestions as to how we can do that. Certainly we can all agree that a lack of free expression and an open economy is killing many Arab socieites, but what can the west do help? Simply stay out of the region? It’s the charge of those who have experience with the region to offer solutions, not simply analysis. I think Iraq would have been a success at this very moment if we had more international support. Truly, most of the criticism of the war focuses on the lack of troops and general will to enforce stability in the country. You also neglect to address the protests in London, a scene of much savagery, that was surely not planned by the Blair government as a spectacle to raise support for his rule.
Report thisBy Sid, February 10, 2006 at 8:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
No Danish Treatment for an Egyptian Newspaper (with pictures).
Report thishttp://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egypti an-newspaper-pictures-that.html
By Tom, February 10, 2006 at 1:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Basically then...” comments typically are followed by numbskull remarks like above. “Basically then...” are over-simplifications to larger issues which escape the mental capacity of the many. “Basically then...” in ANY governing body means removing information for purposes of manipulation. So Mr. “Basically Then...” please turn inward as your comments speak more like our republican leader’s in west own words.
Your article is top notch. Good work. Thank you.
TOM, USA
Report thisBy Nate, February 10, 2006 at 9:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have no problems quickly condemning any group that burns down foreign embassies. Let’s not forget that the last time we gave one of the Arab dictators the “hook,” and no one in the world supported it, and now we have a disgusting mess in Iraq.
Report thisBy UC, February 9, 2006 at 9:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Very good litt’l nephew!
Report thisBy Jay, February 9, 2006 at 1:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’d like to think you’re right, but I think Sam Harris’ post is more convincing. In any case, we’ll be able to see which is right once the planned protests in England go off.
Report thishttp://tinyurl.com/a6lld
If the protests are peacefull and benign then you may be right. If they aren’t, we wont be able to blame the dictators.
By Pankaj Seth, February 9, 2006 at 10:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Tyler Golson, this is commendable reporting and analysis. Cynical exploitation is all too often behind acts of violence. I am pleased to see on Trughdig, a viewpoint that does not stoke the fires of hate. Your analysis is a welcome balance to the polemic by Sam Harris on the front page of this website.
Let’s have more well researched, well thought out and bridge building dialogue. Thanks again.
Report thisBy C. M. Baxter, February 9, 2006 at 10:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Since we’re advancing “theories” (used in the colloquial sense of course), Here’s mine. It will consist of a few facts, a question, an answer and a conclusion.
It is a fact that the offending cartoons were actually published several mounts ago and received only minor responses from Muslim leaders.
It is a fact that the present international “cartoon” incident has been initiated and sustained by governments and terrorist groups hostile to the west.
It is a fact that, of late, terrorist organizations have been losing popularity, especially in Iraq because of the increasing surge toward self-governance and the toll of civilian deaths from terrorist suicide bombings.
It is a fact that it took Al Qaeda several years to orchestrate and carry out the 9/11 attacks.
Question:
If the present cartoon incident had happened just prior to 9/11, what additional advantage would Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have gained?
Answer:
An illusion of immediate retaliatory capabilities.
Conclusion:
The cartoon furor may be a cunning prelude to a major terrorist offensive.
Report thisBy ReasonedRadical, February 9, 2006 at 9:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Much more sober analysis of the Cartoon Crisis than the post by Sam Harris. Anyway to get this posted higher on Truthdig’s main page?
Report thisBy John Putnam, February 9, 2006 at 9:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I take issue with putting Atheists in the same category as Christians, Jews etc.
Faith is a problem, not Atheism per se.
If we do not get our terminology straight then we minimize the basis for the philosophical debate and discussion the world so sorely needs.
The more acute our observations can be, and the more rational our interpretation of the chaos unfolding before our eyes can be, then the better our chances for survival are.
Report thisWe found your article an important contribution to the very huge problem at hand.
By J, February 9, 2006 at 9:18 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
basically then, according to your description, these countries are run exactly the same as the republican party propaganda machine.
Report this