The “Conspiracy Theory” Label

Powerful Tool of Media Disinformation and Political Discourse

On March 18, 2014 Cass Sunstein released his latest collection of essays,Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas.[1] Like his other works geared toward a mainstream readership, the prominent Harvard law professor, former Obama administration regulatory czar, and NSA advisor [2] points to numerous alleged dangers posed by even “rational people” who are susceptible to adopting “crippled epistemologies.” What Sunstein fails to explain throughout his most recent medley of gentle authoritarianism is how the “conspiracy theory” term has received vigorous promotion from the editorial practices of certain major corporate news media.

“Conspiracy theory” is not merely a flippant or off-handed water cooler term, but rather a powerful tool of political discourse. “Deployed as a pejorative putdown,” political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith observes,

the label is a verbal defense mechanism used by political elites to suppress mass suspicions that inevitably arise when shocking political crimes benefit top leaders or play into their agendas, especially when those same officials are in control of agencies responsible for preventing events in question or for investigating them after they have occurred.[3]

Along these lines, “conspiracy theory” and its common variants, “assassination buff,” “crackpot,” “wacko,” and so on, were essentially interpolated into news reports and commentary in the late 1960s by CIA media assets as the agency maneuvered to bolster the Warren Commission’s “lone assassin” explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

When confronted in 2012, Sunstein does not “remember very well” co-authoring a 2008 paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” the namesake of his most recent book.

Only in the past forty years or so has the label become an especially salient discursive technique for channeling political dialogue and inquiry. From the late 1800s through the first half of the 1900s the phrase can seldom be found in news discourse. A search of the Historical New York Timesdatabase finds that “conspiracy theory” is used 30 times between 1870 and 1960, often in accounts of criminal court proceedings. Yet from 1960 to 1969 alone there are 46 instances of the term’s usage in Times articles. Since 1970, it is invoked in over 1,700 pieces, with a peak between 2000 and 2009 (728).[4]

Today the pejorative not only acts as a disciplinary measure–journalists and scholars alike fear such a trenchant smear–but also as a technique to shape information and analysis. It serves as a more-than-subtle way of saying, “Look here, not there,” thereby guiding readers and viewers to place their reasoning faculties in abeyance and adopt what are often uncritical and even misleading modes of substantiation and conclusion. While this phenomenon is clearly demonstrable in print news media, it is also widespread in US-based cable and broadcast news.

A LexisNexis search of news program transcripts for the dates March 1, 2011 to March 1, 2014 reveals 2,469 usages of the “conspiracy theory/theories” term. Probing the surveyed time span reveals CNN (586 transcripts) and MSNBC (382) as the foremost purveyors of the phrase, with Fox News (182) a distant third. The US government’s transcript service, US Federal News, comes in at fourth, suggesting persistent strategic usage of the label at federal government press conferences and similar functions to drive home official positions and dispel challenges to them. Programming on National Public Radio ranks fifth, with 115 instances.

The following is a breakdown of the cable or broadcast outlet/program referencing “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy theories” in transcript text within the aforementioned three-year span.

CNN Transcripts  -  586
Global Broadcast Database (local broadcast transcripts)  -  416
MSNBC  -  382
Fox News  -  182
US Federal News  -  144
National Public Radio  -  116
Australian Broadcasting Corporation  -  71
NBC News  -  67
Congressional Quarterly Transcripts  -  57
ABC News  -  55
CTV TV (Canada)  -  55
CBS News – 54
CNN International  -  48
Imus Simulcast  -  39
Financial Market Regulatory Wire  -  31
PBS News Hour  -  21
Bloomberg: Surveillance Show  -  17
Congressional Quarterly Testimony  -  16
The Charlie Rose Show  -  15
Follow the Money  -  14
Euro News  -  13
Lou Dobbs Tonight – 12
Cavuto – 8

To be more conclusive, the specific contexts in which the term is mobilized might be more fully examined and delineated. An argument may also be waged that this metric is not exactly proper given the dissimilar breadth of content produced by each outlet. After all, a 24-hour cable news channel such as CNN simply has far more “news hole” to fill than a daily one-hour broadcast likePBS News Hour or Charlie Rose.

Image: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (Wiki Commons)

Yet even here the variances are telling. For example, when comparing domestic CNN transcripts to those of the channel’s counterpart, CNN International, the former uses the term over twelve times as frequently. Such findings suggest the execution of a clear-cut editorial policy to fulfill certain propaganda-related ends–indeed, not unlike the Central Intelligence Agency’s usage of the term to combat alternative interpretations of President Kennedy’s assassination.

Along these lines, further examination of the data sample distinguishes how even news personalities’ bylines are correlated with frequent employment of the “conspiracy theory” label. Searching within the same data set, transcripts with CNN Anderson Cooper’s byline possess the highest incidence of the expression (81), with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton tied for second place (77), and Piers Morgan (38) ranking third. CNN’s Erin Burnett and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tie for fourth. Ostensibly conservative Fox News personalities Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity use the expression less frequently.

Anderson Cooper (CNN)  -  81
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC)  -  77
Al Sharpton (MSNBC)  -  77
Piers Morgan (CNN)  -  38
Erin Burnett (CNN)  -  31
Chris Hayes (MSNBC)  -  31
Sean Hannity (Fox News)  -  29
Bill O’Reilly (Fox News) – 19

Image: CNN’s Anderson Cooper (Wiki Commons)

With the exception of ABC (Australia) and CTV (Canada), all of the outlets are US-based, suggesting how the American population, well known for its limited historical comprehension and political sophistication, is expressly targeted with repeated usage of the “conspiracy theory” phrase. A population relying on sensation, caricature, and hearsay to understand national and world affairs has already forsaken its freedom.  It is perhaps ironic that CNN and MSNBC in particular cater to audiences that see themselves as open-minded and “liberal”–indeed, the opposite of cunning technocrats such as Sunstein. At the same time, if these two networks’ continually depressed ratings are any indication, the public is becoming more and more skeptical of how it is being patronized.[5]

A most profound political act any individual can undertake may involve adopting a basic regimen of intellectual self-defense that would include an increased awareness of the “conspiracy theory” label itself and a resolve to assess the term’s utilization vis-á-vis the context in which it is employed, in an effort to better determine what it seeks to obscure, legitimate, and redirect attention to.

Notes

[1] Cass Sunstein, Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2014.

[2] “America’s Joseph Goebbels to Serve on NSA Oversight Panel,” Liberty Blitzkrieg, August 25, 2013.

[3] Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013, 9.

[4] See also deHaven-Smith, 126-131.

[5] “Key Indicators in Media & News,” Pew Research Journalism Project, March 26, 2014.

(James F. Tracy)

American's Defend Muslims

This powerful social experiment set out to show us a glimpse of the disturbing discrimination many Muslims sadly face every day in America. I began watching this video thinking I would be left feeling disheartened and angry, but the words the soldier says at 5:05 are so powerful that I wish all people who held prejudice could hear him speak.

The Fallacy Of The Phrase, 'The Muslim World'

Western Media Reinforces Stereotypes By Reducing A Complex Set Of Causes To The Rage Into An Amorphous Mass.

On September 12, the day after the attacks on the US diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya, the New York Timesset out to explain what it called the "anguished relationship between the United States and the Muslim world". According to the Times, the "Muslim world" was prone to outbursts of violence, and the reaction to the 14-minute anti-Islam movie trailer The Innocence of Muslims was both baffling and predictable. "Once again, Muslims were furious," wrote reporter Robert F Worth, "and many in the West found themselves asking why Islam seems to routinely answer such desecrations with violence."

Other media outlets echoed the claim that "the Muslim world" was consumed by anger, and had long been so. TheAssociated Press offered a look back at "Five other incidents that inspired rage in the Muslim world", crediting over a billion people for the actions of a few thousand in their search for historical continuity. Others took a psychoanalytic approach. "Why is the Muslim world so easily offended?" asked Washington Post columnist Fouad Ajami. "Madness in the Muslim World: Help Me Understand," pleaded a blogger for the Houston Chronicle.

It is time to retire the phrase "the Muslim world" from the Western media. Using the phrase in the manner above disregards not only history and politics, but accurate reporting of contemporary events. The protests that took place around the world ranged in scale and intensity, in the participants' willingness to use violence, and in their rationales. The majority of the "Muslim world" did not participate in these protests, nor did all of the Muslims who protested the video advocate the bloodshed that took place in Libya.

By reducing a complex set of causes and conflicts to the rage of an amorphous mass, the Western media reinforce the very stereotype of a united, violent "Muslim world" that both the makers of the anti-Islam video and the Islamist instigators of the violence perpetuate.

Misleading Generalisations

Essentialist views of Islam and Muslims are nothing new. In Western media, Islam is often presented as a contagion, with Muslims as the afflicted, helpless to their own hostile impulses. What is different about the current crisis is that it comes in the aftermath of the "Arab Spring" - another series of intricate events depicted as interconnected and inevitable. Democracy would "spread" from one Muslim country to another, analysts argued, regardless of the unique historical trajectories of individual states. Some analysts went so far as to suggest it would spread to Central Asia, a region of largely isolationist dictatorships uninfluenced by Middle Eastern politics. The current protests are being portrayed as an "Arab Winter" - a simplistic reversal of a simplistic perception of success, with Muslims, undifferentiated, receiving the blame.

There is, of course, cohesion among Muslims, in the sense that there is cohesion among followers of any faith. The notion of the ummah is an essential part of Islamic doctrine. But the way the idea of "the Muslim world" is expressed within Islamic communities is different from the way it is expressed outside them. It is rare to hear the phrase "the Christian world" used in the English-language media, because doing so would generalise about the motives of over 2 billion people. No such respect applies to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Googling the phrase "the Christian world" yields 5.8 million results, while the phrase "the Muslim world" gives over 87 million results, many of them wondering what is "wrong" with the queried target. When the phrase "the Muslim world" is invoked, it is usually to reduce, denigrate or impugn.

The Western media's broad-stroke regionalism means that conflicts within individual Muslim-majority states become marginalised. Syrians posting on Twitter wondered how the world could give so much attention to a conflict that killed seven people while dozens of Syrians are killed by state security forces every day - documenting, as one commenternoted, their own demise in videos that receive far less attention than the bigoted pseudo-cinema of one American. Similarly, the violence at the diplomatic missions in Cairo and Benghazi was initially conflated, with "Muslim rage" being presented as a root cause for two distinct conflicts. The tendency to see "the Muslim world" as a problem in general means that specific problems within Muslim countries go unseen.


Dispelling Stereotypes

Soon after the destruction of the US embassy in Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans, a protest was held against the men who murdered them. Libyan citizens held English-language signs declaring "Benghazi is against terrorism" and "Sorry Americans this is not the behavior of our Islam and Profit [sic]". Photos of the protest, distributed by Libya Alhurra Livestream, went viral on Facebook and Twitter.

The Libyans protesting were aware that not only Libyans, but Muslims in general, would be blamed for the violence that took place, because the small group of Muslims who stormed the embassy would be seen as representative of all. They gave the rare apology that Western commentators often encourage Muslims to make on behalf of others who commit violence in the name of Islam. But while the sentiment of the protestors is appreciated by many Americans - and the photos likely assuaged some prejudices - such explanations should not be necessary. Ordinary people should not be assumed to share the beliefs of violent criminals who share their faith.

The Innocence of Muslims was made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian-American who hates Muslims. It was found on YouTube and put on Egyptian television by Sheikh Khaled Abdullah, a man trying to convince the world that Americans hate Muslims. This was a perfect storm of gross and deceitful parties depicting each other in the most vile terms, and then living up to each others' worst expectations.

The answer to such invective is not to reinforce it through media portrayals of "Muslims" as a collective. The media should instead pay more attention to individual states, conflicts and leaders, since dictatorship and factionalism have been as essential in shaping politics in Muslim-majority regions as has religion. The current crisis demonstrates how corrupt parties use religion as an incitement to violence and a means to political gain. The Western media should not play party to their prejudices.

Via: "Al-Jazeera"

On The Term "Islamist"

By Hossein Askari
Courtesy Of "Asia Times Online"

United States administrations have considered "Islamists" the biggest threat to US national security. Why? To US thinking, the rise of Islamists to power in two or three Arab countries could quickly spread across the entire Middle East as US supported dictators are swept aside by invigorated and emboldened popular movements under the liberating banner of Islam. 

This could be accompanied by political instability, unprecedented anti-US policies, overwhelming hostility towards Israel, oil supply disruptions and higher oil prices, withdrawal of financial assets from US financial institutions, and dumping of US government securities that would increase the cost of financing US national debt. 

The euphoria of Islamists could in time spread to the rest of the Muslim world and Islamists and the West would be confronting each other for decades, if not for centuries, to come. The only thing preventing this catastrophic scenario is a group of "friendly" dictators who "share" the US quest for peace and stability! 

They, the lesser of two evils, must be supported, as the Islamists must be undermined and defeated. Policy nonsense built on a pile of even more nonsense that will lead to centuries of conflict and pain. 

What is wrong with this received wisdom? How should the US change its thinking and its policies towards the Middle East and the Muslim world to usher better relations?

The popular Western linkage of "Islamists" with the Islam of the Koran is a myth that must be broken and dispelled. Islam preaches the world is one; sanctity of life; religious freedom and tolerance; justice in all its dimensions - political, social and economic; communal selections of government and rulers; condemnation of corruption, hoarding, opulence and poverty; the importance of honesty, education, hard work and charity; society's requirement for economic prosperity based on good institutions; and Allah's absolute ownership over creation and human obligation, as trustee, to share the bounty with every generation. 

With the elimination of the myth that the opposition in Middle East countries represents Islamic teachings, Middle East rulers, in turn, will find it more difficult to use the threat of "Islamists" or "fundamentalists" as their justification for dictatorial rule. The West will not see Islam as the enemy but instead will discover the real reason behind anti-Western sentiments, Western support for illegitimate and oppressive rulers. 

The world must cease referring to the opposition in Muslim countries, be they radicals, disenfranchised, fundamentalists, terrorists or whatever, as Islamists. Just this simple step will rob radicals of a potent weapon, namely "the West is waging war against Islam". 

A second popular myth promulgated by Western politicians, corporate interests and lobbyists is that Middle East family rulers, "strongmen" and assorted other dictators are necessary to maintain regional peace and stability and to keep the oil flowing at a reasonable price. And as to be expected, this is a myth that Middle East rulers have embraced and espoused at every opportunity to garner the support of their foreign backers. 

While it is true that US backing, sophisticated weaponries, outsized armed forces, brutal intelligence services, harsh rule and oil-financed subsidies (from oil that belongs to the people but rulers portray as their generosity) appear to keep the lid on dissent and pre-empt the open participation of popular parties, they also foment and fester even more hostility and radicalism, garner support for Mislamists and resentment for foreign supporters of tyrants. 

This affords short-run stability but with turmoil that is absolutely sure to follow, with the only question being when? And when chaos and anarchy ensue they are blamed on Islamists and the policy of supporting tyrants is further re-enforced in Western minds. 

It is as if the West is trying to create a cleavage between Muslims and the rest of the world. Just look at Iran, Libya and Egypt. Yes, president Jimmy Carter toasted the Shah of Iran as an "Island of stability in" a troubled Middle East but how long did the stability last? When the lid could no longer be kept on, mayhem followed. 

Libya and Egypt were "stable" too. But again, all of a sudden and with little warning mayhem followed. It need not have to be this way. In all these countries, if torture and the barrel of the gun had not stifled change for decades, change would have occurred more gradually, in spurts and with instability, but not with the explosion that will always come after decades of repression and deprivation. 
Gradual change accompanied by some instability that is normal has been compromised for short-run stability, which will always be followed by explosion, mayhem and more widespread suffering. 

Western support for tyrants naturally results in popular hatred for foreign governments that support these oppressors. The world should cease all manner of support for these tyrants, which would in turn allow political change to occur more gradually, reduce the attraction of radicals, starve anti-Western sentiments and usher better relations. 

A third myth is that Islamists will hold back, or disrupt, oil sales and increase oil prices. As we have said before, all these countries must sell their oil to finance their expenditures or to build an adequate financial fund for future generations, as oil is a depletable resource. 

Libya sold its oil to all takers, as did Iran. It was the buyers who didn't want to buy from them - introducing sanctions and the like. Yes, there might be temporary disruptions but these will occur no matter what, as in the case of the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait, the liberation of Libya and on and on - no matter what the form of rule. 

Simply said, the West has created a confrontation that should never have existed in this day and age. The West pursues policies that nurture Islamists and radicals to provide recruits for terrorists of all shapes and then fears Islam. These rulers - every single one of them - are not worth saving. As we have said many times before in this series, they are all corrupt. 

They have little interest in building good institutions and supporting the rule of law. If they do, they would be out of power in favor of accountable governments and rulers. They are compromising the lives of millions of people who deserve a better chance. These societies will be held back in every way - socially, politically and economically - and as long as they rule, progress will be limited and anti-Westernism will thrive. 

Their only interest is to accumulate vast fortunes for themselves from the country's oil revenues, their families and their cronies who support them. They or their descendants will in time meet a violent end with much of the fallout on the West. 

Muslims should have little need for opportunists to interpret their religion (they should study it on their own), to deny them elected leaders and governments, to rob them of their national wealth, to refuse them the right to justice and to preclude even the hope of human, political, social and economic progress in the future. The West, and especially the US, can support progress in these oil-exporting countries just by ceasing its support for tyrants. 

A Theologian’s Response To “Innocence Of Muslims”

Karen Leslie Hernandez writes,

As we are all aware, the recent outbreak of violence in many Arab-Muslim countries because of the film Innocence of Muslims, is on many people’s minds and hearts around the world.

With the deaths and injuries of several Americans since last week, and Al Qaeda using this film as an impetus for violence against Americans worldwide, it seems this crisis is far from over.

I am here to simply ask when this madness will stop—when is it enough? When do we stop killing each other? When every American is dead? When every Muslim is dead?

I am not denying that this film is incredibly blasphemous, and portrays the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in a less than favorable light. I am disgusted at the film maker’s message, which at the beginning of the film is sent with visionary images of Jesus situated in a humble, Christian home, as Muslims attack outside.

I am disgusted at the inaccurate use of scripture. I am disheartened at the incorrect, historical references to the Qur’an, to the downright wrong portrayal of historical events in Islamic exegesis. I am appalled that anyone would make such a film, with little regard about the group of people it is attacking.

As a Christian and as a Theologian, I condemn this film.

We have a lot of people here in the United States with this kind of agenda against Muslims.

Islamophobes who hold events such as Islamofacist Awareness Week, to books written by Americans entitled, Stop the Islamization of America, and much more. America is alive and well with fear and hate. However, what is important to note is that hate in America is not just directed at those who are Muslim.

Who faces hate, racism and intolerance here in the United States? Everyone! Who are the perpetrators of this intolerance? Everyone! This is to say that no one in America is capable of complete tolerance.

Complete tolerance of our fellow human beings is not something any human maintains, in any country, anywhere, because if we did have complete, even unconditional tolerance, we wouldn’t have war, poverty, and inequality worldwide.

Not Justified…

I must point out something to those who are enacting out their rage right now in Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan, and elsewhere. This film is atrocious, yes, but, in all sincerity, your actions are not justified.

For one, this film, if you have watched it, is so poorly made and acted, and the cinematography is that if a seven year old’s work. Two, this film is one of many that have depicted Islam and the Prophet in a negative light.

I understand how you must be insulted, but to hurt people, to pursue violence in the name of Islam, or to pursue violence in the name of any religion, is not condoned in any of our holy texts.

This brings me to my third point. In your religion of Islam, there are people who are considered Islamic extremists who have made other kinds of films which are just as derogatory and hurtful to people. Lest we not forget the film of Journalist, Danny Pearl, and his beheading, lest we also not forget the films made by other Islamic extremists such as Al Qaeda that illustrate hate and intolerance, and call for the death and destruction of Christians and Jews.

Extremism in All Religions

I also note here that there are religious extremists in every religion, whose agenda is to simply hurt people, in any way possible. No religion is immune from this type of ignorance and misunderstanding. This is important to recognize if we are ever going to coexist on this increasingly globalized planet of ours.

When I watched this film, I was also reminded that this type of rhetoric is not new. One can view films made by the Third Reich during World War II that illustrate the Jewish religion and those who practiced Judaism, as dirty and as rats. As well, during World War II, the United States put all Japanese Americans in internment camps—you can easily view photos online of how these American citizens were portrayed during that time in America.

It seems the film maker of Innocence of Muslims has not read his historical fact sheet on the Crusades, or the Rape of Nanking, or the Rwandan Genocide—all incidents of violence where women were mercilessly raped and millions were killed. It is a fact that in almost every war on our planet, religion and culture were the driving force.

My message here is simple. We must stop hating, because of hate. We must stop holding anger, because of anger. Have we not all had enough of this? Will inciting violence for violence solve these issues? Will making films such as Innocence of Muslims do any kind of good for our world? Will killing people because of an ignorantly made film, make anyone feel better?

What will, however, ease this sense of exclusivity, is a sense of viewing each other as humans first, with respect, wonder, and awe. Recognizing that we all are here on this planet, and we all must view each other through God’s lens and not our own lens, is imperative.

We must treat people as we want to be treated. The Golden Rule exists in almost every major faith in the world. 

In Judaism, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole of the Torah; all the rest of it is commentary.” Talmud, Shabbat, 31a.

In Christianity, “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12.

As well as in Islam, “Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”  Prophet Muhammad said in a Hadit.  (An-Nawawi)

This is easy: love each other, as God loves us. All of us!

Again, as a Christian and as a Theologian, I condemn the film, Innocence of Muslims. However, I also condemn hatred, violence, intolerance, retaliation, and anything that harms any person.

As a fellow human being, I implore you to reach beyond your self-made boundaries and I hope, regardless of what religion you are, what the color of your skin is, and what country you are from, you join me, and condemn not only this film, but religious intolerance all together.

Karen Leslie Hernandez is a Theologian with a focus on Christian-Muslim Understanding, as well as religious fundamentalism and extremism. She writes, teaches and lectures on Islam, Christian-Muslim relations worldwide (past and present), Jesus in the Qur’an, Al Qaeda, Islamophobia, and theological responses to terrorism.  Karen has a Master of Sacred Theology in Religion and Conflict Transformation, Boston University School of Theology; a Master of Theological Research in Christian-Muslim Understanding, Andover Newton Theological School; and a BA in Peace and Justice Studies with a concentration in Islam, Wellesley College.  

Via: "The American Muslim"

The only Surprise IsTthere Aren't More Violent Protests In The Middle East

The Muslim Eruption Reflects A Deep Popular Anger and Blowback From US Intervention In Both Libya and Afghanistan

Seumas Milne writes,

The US-British invasion of Afghanistan was of course launched in response to the 9/11 attacks: the poison fruit of US-led support for the Afghan mujahideen war against the Soviet Union. Why do they hate us, many Americans asked at the time, oblivious to their country's role in decades of coups, tyranny, sanctions regimes and occupations across the Middle East.

In the aftermath of the killing of the US ambassador to Libya and assault on the consulate in Benghazi, as protests against a virulently Islamophobic US-made video spread across the Muslim world, Hillary Clinton echoed the same sentiments. "How could this happen in a country we helped liberate?" she asked, "in a city we helped save from destruction?"

She was referring to Nato's decisive role in winning power for the Libyan rebels who first took up arms in Benghazi last year. But just as the mujahideen the US backed in Afghanistan later turned their guns on their imperial sponsor in the form of the Taliban and al-Qaida, so many of the Islamists and jihadists who fought against Gaddafi with Nato air cover have their own ideas for the future of their country.

This is the start of the blowback from US and western attempts to commandeer the Arab uprisings. 

Something similar is likely to happen in Syria. The invasion of Afghanistan more than a decade ago not only didn't destroy al-Qaida, it spread it into Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and north Africa, and today the flags of its offshoots are flying across the Arab world.

In Libya, Nato's intervention sharply escalated the death toll, triggered large-scale ethnic cleansing, spread war to Mali, and left thousands in jail without trial and the country in the control of multiple armed militias. 

But their man, a former Gaddafi minister, has now been defeated for the job of prime minister by an independent Islamist, while the British ambassador's convoy, the Red Cross and UN have been attacked and Sufi shrines destroyed. Meanwhile, the Nato-backed authorities are threatening military action against jihadists in Benghazi, as American warships and drones patrol Libya's coast and skies.

The fact that the attack on the US consulate, along with often violent protests that have spread across 20 countries, was apparently triggered by an obscure online video trailer concocted by US-based Christian fundamentalists and émigré Copts – even one portraying the prophet Muhammad as a fraud and paedophile – seems bafflingly disproportionate to outsiders.

But in the wake of the Rushdie affair and Danish cartoons controversy, it should be clear that insults to Muhammad are widely seen by Muslims as an attack on their collective identity and, as the Berkeley-based anthropologist Saba Mahmoud argues, a particular form of religiosity that elevates him as an ideal exemplar.

But it would be absurd not to recognise that the scale of the response isn't just about a repulsive video, or even reverence for the prophet. As is obvious from the slogans and targets, what set these protests alight is the fact that the injury to Muslims is seen once again to come from an arrogant hyperpower that has invaded, subjugated and humiliated the Arab and Muslim world for decades.

Since launching the war on terror, the US and its allies have attacked and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq; bombed Libya; killed thousands in drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; imposed devastating sanctions; backed Israel's occupation and dispossession of the Palestinians to the hilt; carried out large-scale torture, kidnapping and internment without trial; maintained multiple bases to protect client dictatorships throughout the region; and now threaten Iran with another act of illegal war.

The video is manifestly only the latest trigger for a deep popular anger in a region where opposition to imperial domination is now channelled mainly through the politics of Islam rather than nationalism. The idea that Arab and Muslim hostility to the US would have been assuaged because it intervened to commandeer Libya's uprising (an intervention most Arabs reject) is absurd.

About two-thirds of people in the Middle East and North Africa say they distrust the US, polling shows, rising to more than three-quarters in Pakistan. After 11 years of the war on terror, following decades of baleful intervention, the only surprise is that there aren't more violent anti-US and anti-western protests in the region.

Western war in the Muslim world has also fed a toxic tide of Islamophobia in Europe and the US. What is it about Muslims that makes them so easily offended, Europeans and Americans commonly demand to know – while Muslims point to cases such as the British 19-year-old who was convicted in Yorkshire last week of posting a "grossly offensive" Facebook message that British soldiers in Afghanistan "should die and go to hell", and ask why they're not afforded that protection.

The events of the last week are a reminder that an Arab world which has thrown off dictatorship will be more difficult for the western powers to hold in thrall. 

The Economist called the deadly assault on the US consulate in Libya an example of "Arab dysfunction" and urged the US not to retreat from the Middle East but go in deeper, including in Syria. As Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya have already shown, that would only bring disaster.

Via: "The Guardian"

Embassy Protests and Middle East Unrest In Context

Stephen Zunes writes,

It seems bizarre that right-wing pundits would be so desperate to use the recent anti-American protests in the Middle East—in most cases numbering only a few hundred people and (except for a peaceful Hezbollah-organized rally in Lebanon) in no cases numbering more than two or three thousand—as somehow indicative of why the United States should oppose greater democracy in the Middle East. 

Even more strangely, some media pundits are criticizing Arabs as being “ungrateful” for U.S. support of pro-democracy movements when, in reality, the United States initially opposed the popular movements that deposed Western-backed despots in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, and remains a preeminent backer of dictatorships in the region today.

For years, the Christian right ... sought to provoke extremism and hatred as part of an effort to seemingly validate the stereotypes.... 

As Hani Shukrallah remarked about the film in the leading Egyptian newspaperAl-Ahram, “The obvious, outward motive of such attempts is not difficult to discern: to show Muslims as irrational, violent, intolerant and barbaric, all of which are attributes profoundly inscribed into the racist anti-Muslim discourse in the West. And, it’s a very safe bet that there will be among us those who will readily oblige.”

last week’s tragedy in Libya should raise questions about the wisdom of backing such armed uprisings, even against a brutal dictator. In Egypt and Yemen, where dictatorships were overthrown largely through mass nonviolent action not supported by Washington, the worst damage protesters at the U.S. embassies could do was to seize parts of the grounds and burn the American flag. In Libya, where the dictator was overthrown in an armed revolution that wassupported by Washington, two consulate buildings were destroyed and four Americans were killed in a coordinated assault with automatic weapons, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades. Historically, autocratic regimes overthrown by armed struggle are far more likely to descend into violence and chaos (and/or a new dictatorship) than authoritarian regimes toppled through largely nonviolent methods.

In a country of barely 6 million people, more than 200,000 Libyans are armed members of militias outside the control of the Libyan government. Even though the recent Libyan elections appear to have been free and fair, and the winners largely consisted of moderates open to a democratic political system, the legacy of the war and the NATO intervention will likely remain a problem for some time to come.

In short, anti-democratic forces in both the United States and the Arab world want to discredit the pro-democracy struggles in the Middle East: on the one hand, Republicans and others who unconditionally support pro-Western dictatorships, U.S. interventionism, and the Israeli occupation; and, on the other extreme, radical Islamists who want to counter their increasing marginality. Fortunately, the reactions by these chauvinistic forces are more a relic of the past than they are a harbinger of the future.

In thinking about an appropriate U.S. response, it is important not to repeat the mistakes of U.S. policy in recent years. It is extremely unlikely that such vitriolic anti-American protests would have taken place were it not for decades of U.S. support, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, of allied dictatorships and the Israeli occupation, not to mention the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the ongoing military strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Indeed, interviews with demonstrators in Yemen and elsewhere not surprisingly found grievances towards the United States that went far beyond the film itself.

It is also noteworthy that the apparent producer of the offending film was a Coptic Christian immigrant who presumably developed his extreme hatred toward Muslims as a reaction to the persecution of his fellow Copts in his native Egypt. Much of that persecution was a direct result of the U.S.-backed Mubarak regime’s attempts to deliberately foment hatred and division between Egyptian Muslims and Christians. Despite the regime’s discrimination and oppression against the Copts—including the infamous 2010 bombing of a Coptic Church in Alexandria by agents from Mubarak’s Interior Ministry, which killed dozens—both Republican and Democratic administrations provided the Mubarak dictatorship with tens of billions of dollars’ worth of military and financial backing.

It is particularly tragic, then, that the victims of last week’s upsurge in violence included Ambassador Christopher Stevens, one of the United States’ most knowledgeable and respected diplomats. The outpouring of grief and remorse from Libyans and others indicates that most Arabs, despite their understandable resentment of U.S. policy, recognize that there can still be good individuals representing the United States abroad.

The best thing that can be done in the memory of Stevens and other victims, then, is to redouble efforts to end U.S. support for Arab dictatorships and Israeli occupation forces. Indeed, the best defense against extremists are political systems that honor people’s demands for freedom and justice.

The Prophet Muhammad faced worse defamation in his lifetime but refused to curse his enemies, following the words of the Qur’an to “Repel evil with something that is better, lovelier.”

Via: "Foreign Policy In Focus"

Free Speech Or Incitement?

French Magazine Runs Cartoons Of Mohammed

After a week of deadly international protests against an anti-Islam film, a French satirical magazine is pouring oil on the fiery debate between freedom of expression and offensive provocation.

The magazine Charlie Hebdo, which is known for outrageous humor, published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Mohammed on Wednesday.

The issue hit the stands eight days after a video mocking the Muslim prophet triggered angry protests, including one that led to the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault expressed his support for the freedom of press, but he said there are limits.

"We have a free press that can express itself right up to the point of caricature," Ayrault said Tuesday. "But there is also a question of responsibility."

The cartoons are provoking outrage among the French Muslim community, while other Muslims have accused the magazine of pandering for attention.

Wednesday's cartoons were published a day after hundreds of Muslims took to Twitter to satirize the U.S. magazine Newsweek's cover story on "Muslim Rage" in which the Somali-born writer and former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali said the recent protests represented mainstream Muslim opinion worldwide.

Muslims shot back with tongue-in-cheek tweets about what really enrages them, such as having a really good hair day but no one notices because they're wearing hijabs.

Hend Amry, who posted that tweet as @LibyaLiberty, said Charlie Hebdo's latest cartoons were a cynical attempt to inflate sales. She disputed the magazine's position that it just wants to provoke laughter and express its right to free speech.

"No it isn't. It's for ratings," she said.

"If we're going to chart it on the Muslim insult-o-meter, it is less inflammatory than the 'film' but does continue the East/West divide we see," she told CNN.

Tweeting as @oh_my_golly, she said: "Refuse to be a pawn in a game where people deliberately insult beliefs&wish to incite hate/anger/violence citing 'free speech'"

Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Grand Mosque in Paris, condemned the cartoons "in the strongest possible terms" and expressed surprise that the magazine was running new Mohammed cartoons after its offices were attacked the last time it did so.

"To repeat the same stupidity, the same idiocy and the same calumnies, the same ignominy seems to us to be nearly psychotic action," he said.

Via: "CNN"

Media Don't Get #MuslimRage

Dean Obeidallah writes in "CNN",

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is a political comedian and frequent commentator on various TV networks including CNN. He is the editor of the politics blog "The Dean's Report" and co-director of the upcoming documentary "
The Muslims Are Coming!" Follow him on Twitter: @deanofcomedy.

(CNN) -- Newsweek's cover story "Muslim Rage" has inspired a comedic rage.

The magazine's newest issue features an article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who purports to lecture the West on how to best handle Muslim rage. Newsweek, in an effort to promote the article, turned to Twitter, asking people to tweet their thoughts on the article, followed by the hashtag #MuslimRage.

What happened next was not what Newsweek or Ali could have anticipated or wanted. Instead of an academic discussion about the article, or hate-filled diatribes by Islamophobes, it turned into something extraordinary.

Thousands of tweets bearing the hashtag #MuslimRage filled Twitter, showcasing satire at its best -- the type, by definition, which uses "wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly."

The tweets -- posted mostly by Muslims it seems -- are a comedic roast of the specious proposition that was peddled to us by Newsweek and Ali. Here are just a few samples:

Danya Hajjaji ‏@DanyaHajjaji When everyone in history class turns to you once 9/11 is brought up. #MuslimRage

AidWorkerAfghanistan ‏@petey_jee

I told my shrink I was feeling suicidal and he reported me to the FBI #muslimrage

One of the most outrageous comments came from MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, who said on Monday that Muslims hate us because of the religion itself. Scarborough, to the deafening silence of his co-hosts, further commented, "If you gave every street vendor, from street vendor to prime minister in that region, a chance to throw a rock at the U.S. Embassy, they would."

How is this different from a radical Muslim cleric telling his followers that every American hates them -- from street vendors to the president -- because of their faith?

Scarborough would be right if a majority of Muslims in the world had been protesting. But that is far from the truth.

In Indonesia, a nation of over 200 million, several hundred people took part in protests. Just a few months ago, 50,000 Indonesians bought tickets to see a Lady Gaga concert before it was canceled. So, what does this say about Muslims in Indonesia?

In Egypt, a nation of over 80 million, about 2,000 people protested on Friday. Of those protesters, a few hundred were arrested by the police.

In Lebanon, no protests occurred until Monday. Why? Because the pope had been visiting the country, and the leader of Hezbollah, which the U.S. has labeled as a terrorist group, didn't want to do anything to interfere with the pope's historic three-day visit.

A small number of protesters should not define the entire Muslim population of over a billion. The media should know this and report the truth accordingly.

Reaction to anti-Islam film fuels debate on free speech versus hate speech

Let's look closer to home. Monday was the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It was marked by protests in a number of cities. In New York City alone there were over 1000 protesters, with 185 getting arrested. Do these protests imply that all Americans are protesting? Of course not.

And remember the Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day this summer, which was held to support the fast-food chain amid a debate over its president's opposition to same-sex marriage? It set sales records for the chain and attracted over 600,000 supporters on its Facebook event page. Would it be fair for a foreign news media outlet to report, "Americans rage against gay marriage"? No.

The U.S. media -- and we're not just talking about Newsweek or Joe Scarborough -- need to act in a more responsible way. It appears that our media are more focused on ratings than facts and accuracy. While the media jump on the story and then quickly move on to another story, their impact in defining a people and a culture can be lasting. Let's hope the wave of #MuslimRage responses prompts the media to think twice before they react.