OT: Al Ahram

Possum · #1 October 12th, 2006, 08:36 PM

If anybody here is really interested in what people in the Middle East think, there's a better source than American "Old Media".

Check out Al Ahram, and get it straight from the source.

dogscoff · #2 October 13th, 2006, 07:11 AM

Very interesting. It's quite startling (although it shouldn't be) that those articles take certain things for granted that are in complete contradiction of the things perceived as "undeniable truth" here in the West. Almost humbling. Their take on the ecenomic and political situation around N.Korea is interesting too, particularly as regards sanctions.

Definitely worth a read for *anyone* with an interest in current affairs.

Possum · #3 October 13th, 2006, 05:51 PM

dogscoff, I love you

Thank you for cutting straight to the one and only reason for reading something like Al Ahram.

We may disagree with everything they say and believe, but any insight into the thinking of our enemies is always valuable.

AMF · #4 October 13th, 2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Possum said:
We may disagree with everything they say and believe, but any insight into the thinking of our enemies is always valuable.

As far as I can tell, Al-Ahram is a regional egyptian paper whose audeince is people in the middle east. I would therefore caution that these people are not "our enemies" per se - taking "we" to mean the US and it's allies in the Global War on Terror, then our enemies are most certainly NOT the entire people of the middle east - rather, our enemies are Osama Bin Laden, and various other terrorists and people like him around the world. The people we are most desperately trying to make into our friends are, in fact, the moderate Arabs in the region.

A minor point that probably didn't need to be made explicit, but it is an important distinction nonetheless.

Puke · #5 October 13th, 2006, 08:09 PM

well, i dont have a personal opinion on the topic, i'm not religious, and im an ill-bred mut with no particular cultural heritage. but i WILL play devil's advocate.

The Persians fell to Alexander. Constantinople fell to the Turks. The Iberian Pinensula fell to Mohamadeans which were in turn pushed out by the Spaniards who continued to purge them for the next hunderd years through an inquisition. The Ottoman empire was carved up by Allied powers after WWI. currently one of the largest sources of instability in Europe is continued friction between Islamics and Christians.

If any two groups of people could be said to be "enemies" through the entirety of their history, it would be Western Europe and the Middle East. Even the French and English made ammends. Even the Brittons and Saxons... bred each other out... you get the idea.

So there you go. Refute it. Convince me of the universal brotherhood of man.

Baron Munchausen · #6 October 14th, 2006, 06:20 PM

The Brits and the French "made up" because they had common enemies. The Russians, the Germans, etc. Europe as a whole has been decidely violent and fractious from the Medieval period right down to the present day. It was only the overwhelmingly huge confrontation between the US/NATO and USSR/Warsaw Pact that seemed to settle things for a while by polarizing Europe. As soon as the 'Cold War' ended Europe started resuming its nationalistic ways with the disintegration of Yugoslavia and some pretty strong resistance to further integration of the EU. While it doesn't look like it's going to come apart, it also doesn't look like any nation wants to give up its individual identity and sovereignity to the 'super state'. (The Crusades had a similar effect to the Cold War -- temporary suppression of local conflicts in favor of a larger one.)

And in the 'Islamic World' there are also plenty of rivalries and outright hatreds. Arabs and Persians actually have a history of quite a bit of strife, for example. Saddam was trying to exploit that with his attack on Iran in the 80s. He was hoping to rally other Arab nations to join up with him. There are all sorts of ethnicities in North Africa, the Middle East, India and Southeast Asia that hate each other even though they are all 'Islamic' (and then there is the Hindu-Muslim tension in India itself). But just like 'Christian' Europe, the 'Islamic world' would also occasionally unite to fight a common enemy.

It's not that 'Christianity' and 'Islam' are inherently enemies. It is that people in general tend to need an enemy of some sort. The two largest religions of the world happen to have originated from nearly the same place and are located in adjacent regions, so they naturally come to strife now and then. We just tend to remember the larger 'epic' conflicts and forget the common strife between close neighbors.

Atrocities · #7 October 14th, 2006, 09:28 PM

I want to see the movie My Country My Country. ( I think that is the name of it. I think its going to be on public broadcasting soon.)

Possum · #8 October 15th, 2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

AMF said:

Quote:

Possum said:
We may disagree with everything they say and believe, but any insight into the thinking of our enemies is always valuable.

As far as I can tell, Al-Ahram is a regional egyptian paper whose audeince is people in the middle east. I would therefore caution that these people are not "our enemies" per se - taking "we" to mean the US and it's allies in the Global War on Terror, then our enemies are most certainly NOT the entire people of the middle east - rather, our enemies are Osama Bin Laden, and various other terrorists and people like him around the world. The people we are most desperately trying to make into our friends are, in fact, the moderate Arabs in the region.

A minor point that probably didn't need to be made explicit, but it is an important distinction nonetheless.

AMF, I see the point you're trying to make, but let's not delude ourselves with PC-ness here.

How much of Al-Ahram did you read?

I've been reading it semi-regularly for 2 years now, since I was shown this weekly special back in October 2004.

The basic editorial stance of Al Ahram is -

1. Hatred of the US and all US citizens.

2. Hatred of Israel and all jews.

3. Dedication to the extermination of the modern state of Israel.

4. Support for all anti-US and anti-Israel terrorists.

If that doesn't make them our enemies, then what does it take?

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:20

AMF · #9 October 16th, 2006, 02:37 AM

WE're talking past each other here.

I said: "our enemies are most certainly NOT the entire people of the middle east - rather, our enemies are Osama Bin Laden, and various other terrorists and people like him around the world. The people we are most desperately trying to make into our friends are, in fact, the moderate Arabs in the region."

I said this becuase you said: "If anybody here is really interested in what people in the Middle East think...Check out Al Ahram...[and]...any insight into the thinking of our enemies is always valuable"

Implying that the entire people of the middle east are our enemies. Which is totally wrong.

Now, whether or not Al Ahram represents "the mainstream" or "fundamentalists" or, indeed, whether those are in fact the same things, are different questions (and one's that I'm not really qualified to answer at the moment).

Possum · #10 October 16th, 2006, 09:30 PM

I disagree.

When it comes to any conflict between "infidels" (that's you and me) and any islamic state, other islamics will support the islamic state against the infidel every time.

It doesn't matter whether we were right or wrong to invade Iraq (I tend to think the latter myself); the mere fact that we are occupying Iraq makes all islamic people hate us.

IMO, the entire middle east outside of Israel and possibly Turkey are our de facto enemies, regardless of the diplomatic niceties.

The problem with your position is the phrase "moderate islamics". There ain't no such thing, bro, there just ain't no such thing.