I understand 'the rule of law' well enough.
Clearly you don't, hence the continuing debate. Please see below.
When it comes to protest about America and Israel. What laws are there regarding mass demonstrations where muslims chant 'Death to America'? If there are no laws against chanting 'Death to America' the next question is should there be?
These statements are the same as Rush Limbaugh or John McCain singing "Bomb, bomb Iran". Of course, these are well-dressed Westerners, so we must not call it fundamentalist hate mongering. Those terms are reserved for people who oppose Western interests.
We can see what happened in Iran as indicative that if there is a mass demonstration by the people who demand some form of 'Death' to the current regime they are living under, no doubt the muslim government at that time will waste no time in executing the law that ban any call for revolution. In that, muslim governments are quite diligent.
The Iranians are amateurs. They should learn from the Western governments and label these people as "terrorist sympathizers" and a threat to "national security". Magic words. Then they can squirrel away these people and dispose of them through kangaroo courts and dubious trials with secret "evidence".
Are you saying that neither Iraq nor Iran have no such people roaming the corridors of their governments?
Irrelevant what Iran or Iraq has. You were painting the Muslim mobs as a bunch of fanatical warmongers. I pointed out the presence of fanatical warmongers in the Western media and political discourse. And these Western warmongers are far more influential in their impact on government policies than the occasional Muslim hothead venting in the streets.
Or how about some of them in clerical garbs who, in their exhortations to muslims to smite us infidels, peppered their orations with verses from holy scriptures? You think imams do not have PR people working for them?
Imams don't
need PR people working for them because, to the faithful, they are the voice of God.
No...Your arguments felled apart a while ago.
No, the only thing that fell apart was your professed expertise of media dynamics. You were unaware of that most basic of media principles: influencing perceptions.
The Western media is under no obligations to report anything under anyone's or any group's dictates.
At issue is not obligations but credibility. A free media can do whatever it wants, but it will lose credibility if it continues to provide biased coverage. In the domestic American market, Fox News exploited this credibility gap and made a name for itself as the voice of the conservative right.
Normalcy do not generate excitement and interests.
Exactly. The media goes for sensationalism and a simple narrative, devoid of nuances and complexities.
The Western media is obliged to report any event, especially when the event carry such a clear and unequivocal message, that constitute a threat to peaceful lives.
Not clear why you keep bringing up this point, since I have always maintained the media's right and responsibility to highlight these actions. Perhaps you like the picture.
No...What I proved was that the Western media are far more aware of their freedoms and obligations than the cowed muslim media, whose cowardliness contributed to those not very positive perceptions of muslims. Like I said earlier, it is a delicious irony that only in the West do muslims are able to express their opinions, their satisfactions and discontents, and their threats to violence to the very society that guaranteed their basic human rights.
Yawn.
The same old canard again. I already refuted your nonsensical, overly generalized assertion, and even game you examples of non-Arab media who are very much critical of the state.
Perhaps you feel threatened to acknowledge that freedom of thought and expression is not the sole purview of Western nations, since it would diminsh your self-righteously inflated sense of superiority.
For US, we have Holocaust denial organizations that publishes their tripe under the First Amendment right. This goes back to the many 'brands' under the 'Western media' umbrella.
How many
mainstream Western media outlets debate Holocaust denial as a scholarly dispute? We are not talking about fringe media here.
No...You used Fox News simply because it is a convenient rhetorical tool.
Possibly true. Even within the US, Fox News is a joke punchline. It is practically synonymous with parochial jingoism and right wing lunacy.
As for my 'monolithic' view of the Islamic world...Show me a single country in the ME, awash with oil wealth, that is a functional democracy that guarantee you the right to call its leader vile names.
Once again with the ME? The fact that you continue to harp on about the Middle East,
which only accounts for 20% of Muslims, to try and stereotype all 1.2 billion Muslims robs your arguments of any credibility.
Ever seen that dance bit by the American actor James Carey on the television show In Living Color where he parodied President Bill Clinton on his sexual escapades? What Carey did was crude and would be personally insulting to anyone. But also in the same world are serious discussions about the moral responsibilities of a leader and why it is important that Clinton should (or not) be impeached. The range of disagreements to a President of the US is clear, from respectful discussions to sexually offensive parodies. If you cannot show me a pattern of independence of the public from its government, and 'the media' is part of that public, then try to understand that the lack of whatever we take for granted contributed to this 'monolithic' view of the Islamic world.
You won't understand the language (I don't in the second one), but it gets the point across.
No need to go into details about women's issues or scientific progress or several others.
Indeed. Going off-topic is only indicative of lack of rebuttal.
Is that it? THAT is a sign that the US has a national law regarding muslim head covering? The crucial difference that make the US case different than France's law and merit serious discussions is this...
A police officer is not merely a representative, or a bureaucrat, from the government but an ARMED AGENT of a government. Governments are naturally coercive and when a representative of the government carries a weapon, has the power of arrest and display a religious preference, it can be perceived that the government has a clear and unequivocal biased towards a particular religion at its most extreme -- armed coercion.
Police settle Orthodox Jew's lawsuit over yarmulke - News - ReviewJournal.com
A year later, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt concluded that the department's no-beard policy violated Riback's First Amendment right of religious freedom.
It will be interesting to see how the judge rules on the yarmulka itself.
We can now see how pervasive this victimhood mentality is in the ummah when you did not bother to even try to see if this local authority's policy has any merit and comparative value to France's law.
On the contrary, I debunked your claim that the US has no laws restricting the use of the headscarf.
You are comparing an
opinion piece to news coverage?
Perhaps you can invest more effort next time to provide a credible rebuttal.
You can dismiss this if you want but it is already clear that even though the contents of any of 'the media' article may not be to your liking, the US and the Western media at large is far more diverse in reportage in one year than any of your muslim media in ten, including ME issues and the LA Times is a nationally known newspaper, in print and electronics. Also, there is no shortage of dissenters who are more than willing to criticize Israel and the US on behalf of the Palestinians, even when one of them is a Jew like the article above. It is further difficult to swallow your claim in this Internet age when there are plenty of support for the Palestinians at counterpunch or democraticunderground.
counterpunch?
counterpunch?
You are comparing multinational media conflomerates like News Corp. and Viacom with
counterpunch?
Hang on. I can't stop laughing yet...
The Saudis fund the education of Wahabism in Asia to the point that on many of the Asian forums I frequent, the 'Arabization of Asia' is a serious discussion among Asians and Asian-Americans.
So, in other words, you are largely ignorant of non-Arab media in the Muslim world.
