I do not normally rely on Enlgish or French lang. but there are some. Istara can provide some of the Gulf sourcing however they are very expat oriented in general.
As far as I can tell since discovering this newly added feature, they translate select articles from the prior day’s Arabic edition. Frankly I usually read the hard copies as the online editions are a pain to read. For some reason Arabic fonts online are weeny. Bloody pain to read.
As such, I have not rigorously compared the two to see if there is “selectivity” in translated articles, although so far it seems well done and fairly balanced.
All this said, during the war Arab speaking colleagues would often translate for me headlines and political cartoons from Arabic language newspapers. The sentiment in those newspaper is far, far stronger than in the English language ones.
And Brutus - the issue here is not whether the Arab reaction is justified or appropriate, but what that reaction is. And at least in my experience, as someone who lives in a (fairly westernised) Arab country, working for an Arab news organisation with (often very westernised) Arab colleagues - Coll’s analysis is far more accurate than Sam’s.
You can estimate for yourselves how more different still opinion will be in less western-exposed countries.
I do not deny Sam may well have read and heard the opinions he cites in Arab newspapers, but I question whether those newspapers are expat Arab newspapers, and whether they really represent the mainstream Arab view, given so much evidence here to the contrary.
Anyone with practical experience care to speculate on the extent to which low-level combatants (like the poor schmucks who were captured by the Iraqis) are held responsible by various sectors of Middle East society for the actions of the Bush administration? I know there’s a fair amount of recognition on this side that many Iraqis who were in the military weren’t exactly there by choice.
I know we have a volunteer army, so the situation is different, but is there a conception that all Americans were out for blood in some sort of fanatical way, or is there any understanding that a lot of these poor schmos joined the Army for college tuition or whatever, thinking they’d never see combat?
I recall hearing from people, when they are not agitated, expressions of pity for the American soldiers sent to do other’s bidding, or things along those lines.
I do not believe Am. force structure is widely understood or known. The usual presumption is that they are conscripts just like in Arab armies. Lack of information.
Now Torben has a little rant accusing me of bias. Perhaps he will take the time to point out what specifically was “almost embarrassingly biased” and give rationales therefore.
Or perhaps he just wants to hear happy, self confirming news?
Nice smartass response (stands up and applauds)! Does it froth more over there when you’re an idiot? I wouldn’t know, the people I talked over there were actually intelligent. I spent a number of years studying in Israel and spent quite awhile in Saudi Arabia.
Nobody thought that Iraq could put up much of a fight. This suggestion came solely from the White House and the Fox New Channel as an attempt to lower public expectations and thereby make the invasion look more “succesful” by contrast.
I doubt it. Our technology wins our battles for us not our soldiers.
This does not amount to “respect” for Bush. He was not respected before the invasion and he is not respected now. He may be more feared because he has demonstrated a self-serving recklessness, a willingness to lie and trump up reasons for aggression and an arrogant disregard for the international community but that is hardly the same as respect. If anything he has made himself even more into the stereotype of a gun toting, stupid, Yosemite Sam, cartoon cowboy.
In short, I don’t think that Arab opinions of the US have changed, they’ve only been reinforced. Now the US is not just an arrogant bully, but an arrogant bully with a president who is ccompletely unrestrained by reason, intellect or ethics.
Collounsbury: Your entire response to me was simply a long ad-hominem attack. You didn’t refute a thing I had to say. Your response to each one of my points was, “You’re an idiot”.
I’m done with this thread. I have no desire to put up with the likes of you.
Before I go, I’m not going to let your major straw-man stand.
I said that Arabs were surprised at the speed of U.S. victory. I said that even Russian Generals were surprised. You responded with a bunch of insults of course, then added that no one expected the U.S. to lose. And you said that the Russian comments came from Gulf War I.
In fact, you are refuting something I never said. I never said the Arab World thought the U.S. would lose. I said they were surprised by the speed of victory. They thought there would be a great conflagration, and Arab nationalism would cause the people of Iraq to rise up and fight. The people would rally around Saddam and fight with him, and he’d go down in a blast of glory after taking many Americans with him. Instead, the Americans cut through the Iraqis like butter, and Saddam ran like a jackrabbit. The people turned against him, the military fought only when it had to, and surrendered when it had the chance. THAT was the wakeup call, “Collounsbury my man”.
Not that I expect this to make any difference. In case some of you aren’t on to Collounsbury’s schtick yet, here’s how it works - if you agree with him, you’re clever and intuitive. You have good insights. You’ll get a nice pat on the head and a biscuit. Your sources don’t matter, your education doesn’t matter. Nothing matters, except that you agree with Collounsbury. On the other hand, if you disagree with him all your sources are garbage, you’re an idiot, and the only people who have a right to an opinion are those who live in the Middle East and speak Arabic fluently. Everyone else is a moron, and fair game for ad-hominem attacks, insults, and derision.
And the mods still let it go on. Because, after all, Collounsbury’s opinions are so valuable, it’s worth allowing him to insult and bully the members of the Straight Dope Board. After all, it’s for our own good.
There was another Arab news editorial that was an attempt at self introspection and confusion/humiliation at the speed of the Coalition win over Iraq.
As the dust settles over Iraq and the cacophony of excited voices on our television screens dies down, the Arab world has begun to stir from the confusion into which the swift fall of Baghdad had thrown it, to take a good look at itself and take stock.
The political repercussions, as ever in the Arab world, are not easy to ascertain, but the fallout for the media is all too evident. To put it bluntly: A great many journalists and media outlets have been left with egg on their face. From accepting the wild claims of Iraqi minister of information Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf, to wildly predicting a jihad among the Iraqi people, very little the Arab media speculated on had, when push came to shove, anything to do with reality.
Sam, I usually respect you even when I disagree with you, but this is bullshit. Col has not called anyone “idiot” on this thread. He pointed out that your sources are bad. His implication is that quoting the expatriot and ivory tower Arabs that play to the U.S. interests or their own closed group does not provide any insight into the actual opinions and beliefs on the street. One can challenge his claims by pointing out that one’s sources are, indeed, representative of mainstream Arab or MENA opinion, of course. However, despite corroborating testimony from two other current inhabitants of the Middle East for Col’s position, you are choosing, instead, to simply whine that he claims one is stupid for not agreeing with him.
If you have evidence that the people you are quoting are, indeed, representative of the people they claim to speak for, then provide it. Hurling insults at Col does not make your case. (If I quote Richard Cohen and Zainab Bahrani opposing U.S. policy, have I established that those are the common views of Jewish-American or MENA-American people? Or have I simply found anti-administration columnists in the American press?)
Calculus: “This is why i try to stay out of middle east discussions on SDMB now. Too much hero worship and assholishness.”
Personally, I stay out of most middle east discussions because I know far less than some others who are contributing to these discussions.
Collounsbury gets caught up in the heat of debate and sometimes comes off as snide, arrogant, and obnoxious. For that matter Sam is not absent his own way of provoking the passions, examples of which I could pull out from this thread. I’ve had the personal experience of arguing with both of them, so I hope you won’t chalk me up as one more Collounsbury disciple: depending on the subject at hand our positions have often been vehemently at odds.
As to implying that tomndebb worships Collounsbury as his hero, that’s just ridiculous. Although he is no more my buddy than Collounsbury is, tomndebb always thinks for himself, is very level-headed, and does not seem to worship anyone as far as I can tell.
So if you’re trying to let Collounsbury know that you think he’s coming on too strong you’re going about it in the wrong way.
Sam, I never declared that Col was polite. You claimed that “On the other hand, if you disagree with him all your sources are garbage, you’re an idiot, . . .” If you have evidence that your sources are mainstream, then provide them. However, running off claiming that Col is being unnecessarily dismissive of your point of view is doing exactly what you attribute to him.
I don’t have a problem with Tomndebb, never have. i just fail to see how he/she could miss 13 insults calling Stone an idiot in one post by Collounsbury. Seems when Col is called out for being an ass people always come to his aid. Which isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, but to ignore 14 insults (13 in one post) in order to do it does say something about the nature of the relationship.
As far as Col, the way i see it he is educated, but there are people with more education and more credibility agree with him and there are people with more education and more credibility that disagree with him. He is just a moderately credible/educated voice on mid east issues IMO, and a very obnoxious one at that.