That would be true if not for the blanket coverage all of these movements have received from Arab satellite news channels, to the point where Government's basically accused their coverage of instigating the movements themselves.
A people's Revolution
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That would be true if not for the blanket coverage all of these movements have received from Arab satellite news channels, to the point where Government's basically accused their coverage of instigating the movements themselves.
What I was referring to (and what I think Mike was too) was the coverage by the West, not by Arab News Networks which naturally operate differently.
Does the law indicate whether good human rights record invites international focus and complaints, or that the former is a result of that disproportionate focus?
Basically the better a country's human rights record, the easier it is for issues to be raised and investigated. Therefore investigations of violations and complaints are easier to run in countries with good records, which is why they have a disproportionate focus.
The UN Human Rights Committee won't (or rather can't) investigate North Korea as the witnesses tend to get sent to death and labour camps.
Yes I know you were. The point is that Arab networks have been covering the Arab on Arab story far more extensively than their western counterparts. There's no linkage between the rather balanced coverage by western outlets and a justification of military intervention.
The UN human rights council can not be treated seriously if its members include China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Lybia (to name a few). It's focus on some conflicts and not on others (intra or internationally) is not down to human rights records of the countries in question, with all due respect to Moynihan. I demand a revised law which includes an international interests component.
Well he is dead so that may be difficult, and it was a rule of thumb which I think holds true - the more oppressive the society, the less likely it is that we will know the details of any human rights violations that have occurred there.
There is obviously some substance in that law but I'd argue that there are a list of free and open societins that have been involved (to various extents) in atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. These haven't recieved half as much criticism as other countries have.
Did Moynihan mention an r^2 before he passed away?
Yugoslavia? Iraq? Libya? ....the west was suddenly keen to the portray the human rights offenses of those countries leading up to a military intervention, and in most cases these countries had already possessed a long history of human rights offenses while remaining on good terms with the West.
And as for 'rather balanced coverage', all I remember from the Iraq war was that at the time it was taboo to oppose the war or link it to economic interests which is more or less the accepted theory today. And let's not forget the journalists integrated within the armed forces to give us that wonderful 'balanced' coverage.
The same is happening in Libya today - even the sternest of Leftists will have supported an intervention of some sorts, though you can bet your buck that these same people will prop up in vocal opposition to the campaign a couple years down the line, claiming they had always been opposed to conflict.
Not that I know of. And yes, free societies do commit atrocities. Moynihan would respond that these would be much easier to document than what a closed society gets up to.
I would generally be considered a 'leftist' and I supported the international intervention in Libya and won't be claiming otherwise, no matter what the outcome. The same as how I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and still do.
I opposed going into Iraq at the time, and still do.
Free countries retaliate "disproportinally"- uproar in the West, even though this same West commits atrocities at the same time.
Not-so-free countries (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lybia) have the wrong person in charge or are in internal turmoil and they are getting raped by the West, yet other not-so-free countries commit atrocities and the West does not give two shits, because "it's tough getting a true picture of what's going on in there".
That's called politics.
Not-so-free countries (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lybia) have the wrong person in charge or are in internal turmoil and they are getting raped by the West, yet other not-so-free countries commit atrocities and the West does not give two shits, because "it's tough getting a true picture of what's going on in there".
That's called politics.
What do you feel is the right thing to do regarding Syria then?
I don't know enough about the situation, or whether international intervention is on the table, to be able to give an opinion.
Fair enough, but something tells me you don't represent the norm. I'm certain many who had initially supported the Libyan intervention will indefinitely change their minds a few years down the line, just as they had done so with Iraq and even Afghanistan.
Out of interest Mike, are you content with the direction this Libyan intervention is heading? Did you predict this conflict to stretch out as long as it has?
I'm not sure this is relevant to our discussion here though. A few of us argue that Western intervention has little to do with promoting democray or indeed concern for human rights. Decision makers in the West do know whether an international intervention is on the table, and I reckon they know enough about what's going on in Syria to make a decision. Let's assume they did not know more about Lybia 2-3 months ago than they do about Syria today. As the decisions they're making on the two issues are in sharp contradiciton I am still looking for a more consistent explanation to those suggested thus far.
We seem to be pushing hard to bring it to a conclusion, these things are never as easy as you'd like them to be, especially when we're a bit hamstrung by the 'no boots on the ground' clause. I wasn't sure how long it would last.
I'm not a naive idealist who thinks Western foreign policy is driven exclusively by those ideals, they generally take a back seat to self-interest and geo-political concerns.
As to why the action with regards to Syria doesn't mirror Libya, I imagine there are more things to consider. Can our armed forces manage another conflict? Do we have the plans to be able to engage in an intervention? Is there an international consensus? Would it alienate any of our allies in the region? Would it hinder any of our economic or political concerns? etc.
Muslims believe that Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) will descend on the white Eastern Minaret of Damascus. He will descend from the heavens with his hands resting on the shoulders of two angels.
I thought I'll just throw in that snippet of knowledge into the mix.
I thought I'll just throw in that snippet of knowledge into the mix.
Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leone... etc. Your point is what precisely ?
We're living in a different media construct in 2011 than in 03. Information is far more accessible via satellite channels and social media, and in many ways, we've learned from the post 9/11 overreaction of following the government line. The journalists "embedded" (not integrated) with the armed forces do so voluntarily, and use the added security to get into areas where they wouldn't ordinarily reach if not for the protection. Better access makes for better, more accurate stories.
The ancient Norse people believed that after Surtr's (Peace be upon him) flames have been sated, Odin's (Peace be upon him) sons Víðarr (Peace be upon him) and Váli (Peace be upon him) will live in the temples of the gods, and that Thor's (Peace be upon him) sons Móði (Peace be upon him) and Magni (Peace be upon him) will possess the hammer Mjolnir.
Just throwing it out there too.
You lot have been a shadow of the former mighty British Empire, but I'm sure you stretch your resources a little bit and at least call your ambassador in Syria back for "discussions".
More seriously, without knowing the full extent of the events in Syria, there must be a point where concern for human rights must mmove to the front even if it clashes with self-interest. Isn't that what the UN was founded for in the first place? What's the point in having that circus in NY if it gives a seemingly respectable platform for loons such as Ahmedinejad and does feck all when civilians are butchered by their own armed forces?
How did it transpire?
We're still waiting.
Basically what HR is saying we're a load of hypocrites in dealing with international problems. Which is true.
I thought Mike answered the question very eloquently.
I thought Mike answered the question very eloquently.
Mike said:
Do I need take precautions?
You should offer daily prayers to an idol of Thor and sacrifice an unclean beast fortnightly to be on the safe side.
Strange turn this thread has taken.
I'd rather die thanks.
Those countries you've mentioned received no where near as much coverage and interest as the Iraqs and Libyas of today. More importantly they received no military intervention either (well except for Sierra Leone, but that was solely British as Clinton steered well clear). Its not difficult to see why too, those countries provide very little reward in trying to gain a foothold in them....though considering events in Egypt, I wouldn't be surprised if the US tries to gain a foothold in Sudan, so don't be surprised if we start see unprecedented coverage of Sudanese atrocities.
Sorry I meant to say embedded, my inexperienced grasp of English let me down there. But regardless, despite what much of what you say is true doesn't take away the fact that much of the media remains hugely agenda-driven. Take the Murdoch media empire as an example - much of the offshoots of his media machine unsurprisingly all sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to covering foreign policy, and events in regions of interest such as the ME. Murdoch himself admitted his aspirations to creating a global media environment that complemented his own viewpoints.
Unfortunately you can't die as such and will be sent to ancient Norse 'Hel', ruled over by a feisty female of the same name. Tough luck.
I see you've put a lot of thought into this.
Sure, we all know about Murdoch. He's conservative (by American standards) and doesn't mind his various news divisions propagating conservative or senseationalist news. But this has little to do with the embedding of journalists in combat zones.
Erdogan getting a bit bolder after winning the elections, calling Bashar's handling of the situation 'inhumane'. Syrian pro-Assad protesters apparently 'attacked' Turkish embassies in Allepo and Damascus. According to Hurriyet there are 15000 new Syrian refugees close to the border and about to cross into Turkey.
Every step that Assad takes is going unwittingly accelerate his demise. System self organization theory unfolding before our eyes.
Without Turkey Assad now stands even more isolated. I wonder in what way he will finally self-destruct.
The hypocrite Erdogan, however, turns out to be quite a good populist. I'm waiting for his plans on sending a flotilla to Syria, just so to shock us all.
Watch: Syrians burn Iran, Hezbollah flags - Israel News, Ynetnews
Can anyone translate what else he's saying?
But it IS a case of 'might is right', arms, oil or profits.
Its just made much more convenient and easier to sell if there's a madman at the center of it all.
Its just made much more convenient and easier to sell if there's a madman at the center of it all.
FAO Avatar:
Any updates from a-tahrir square?
Any updates from a-tahrir square?
Haven't been back for a couple of months but the in-laws are Egyptian and am part Egyptian myself. They're relatively happy at how things are going so far.
The major argument so far seems to be regarding the recent referendum. The population voted yes, for those few changes to the constitution, for the election to be in September I think and for the new parliament to write the new constitution. This was, as far as I'm aware, counted correctly, with good debate on both sides out in the open.
The issue is, that the pro-democracy groups, which of course have just recently sprung up, feel that this doesn't give them enough time to organise their party apparatus enough to be able to run a good election campaign. And that it leaves the brotherhood free to get in and write the constitution as they wish. Not to mention that the brotherhood used their already widespread apparatus, mosques etc. to get people to vote yes in the referendum.
I'm not 100% sure what they want, I think some are calling for the election to be postponed until they're fully organised, some for the constitution to be written now, some for the army to guarantee a constitution which guarantees democracy whoever writes it.
Now, I'm no fan of the brotherhood but it was a referendum and the vote was yes. That's how democracy works.
People are also pissed off with the slow rate of trials of the former regime and policemen etc and some want the opposite of the above and want the army and Tantawi to step down now.
Basically, freedom of speech for a people that have been repressed for decades.
The major argument so far seems to be regarding the recent referendum. The population voted yes, for those few changes to the constitution, for the election to be in September I think and for the new parliament to write the new constitution. This was, as far as I'm aware, counted correctly, with good debate on both sides out in the open.
The issue is, that the pro-democracy groups, which of course have just recently sprung up, feel that this doesn't give them enough time to organise their party apparatus enough to be able to run a good election campaign. And that it leaves the brotherhood free to get in and write the constitution as they wish. Not to mention that the brotherhood used their already widespread apparatus, mosques etc. to get people to vote yes in the referendum.
I'm not 100% sure what they want, I think some are calling for the election to be postponed until they're fully organised, some for the constitution to be written now, some for the army to guarantee a constitution which guarantees democracy whoever writes it.
Now, I'm no fan of the brotherhood but it was a referendum and the vote was yes. That's how democracy works.
People are also pissed off with the slow rate of trials of the former regime and policemen etc and some want the opposite of the above and want the army and Tantawi to step down now.
Basically, freedom of speech for a people that have been repressed for decades.