http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4730Michelle Malkin tries to foment war with IranRight-wing propagandist misrepresents photographs of police violence
Guest Blogged by Joseph Cannon
Larisa Alexandrovna draws our attention to a piece by noted reactionary Michelle Malkin. In her blog, Malkin publishes some photos of Iranian police brutalizing four men, and adds these comments:
The innocent young men in the photos were beaten, humiliated, and arrested for wearing Western clothing and hairstyles. It is in the public interest to spread these photos far and wide. The images should be seared onto the global conscience...
Question: Will these photos be blared across the front pages of the international media with as much disgust and condemnation as the photos of Abu Ghraib or the manufactured Gitmo Koran-flushing riots?
As we'll see in a moment, Malkin hasn't quite told the truth about those photos. But even if we were to take her assertions at face value, Malkin has ignored what we may call the "Matthew 7:4 factor."
MORE
Here is my original post from about a day ago on the Larisa Alexandrovna posting at her site:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1177389&mesg_id=1177389Firedoglake.com also posted about Larisa's posting:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/25/late-nite-fdl-malkidinejad-gets-pwn3d/The blog of Ali Eteraz who comment to Larisa on her blog. Here he posts a sort of mea culpa:http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/new-york-times-neil-macfarquhar-gets-iran-dress-crackdown-story-wrong-my-lack-of-due-diligenceMalkin hypocritical in being selective in her outrage over human rights abuses. In addition, why is the word 'police' in English and not Farsi on the Iranian police uniforms? You have to read the entire posts to get a sense of the arguments, not just the parts I have excerpted for my post here. Although some of the comments left at her site miss this point, Larisa's posting to the atlargely.com site concerning Malkin's hypocrisy BRINGS MORE attention to the Iranian government's outrages. (ON EDIT: Iran photo links have been broken?) - H'spit
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/06/michelles-straw.html#c... http://www.atlargely.com/2007/06/michelles-straw.html#c... Michelle Malkin builds a human rights straw-man and feels no shame...
- snip -
Okay, I have to post about this. Michelle Malkin is busy building a moral straw man for some reason in order to declare something about the lack of Abu Ghraib type of outrage by the US media and US citizens over repression in Iran. She writes in her AEI mouth-piece blog as follows:
Question: Will these photos be blared across the front pages of the international media with as much disgust and condemnation as the photos of Abu Ghraib or the manufactured Gitmo Koran-flushing riots?
Answer: Fat chance.
Let me be the first to tell Ms. Malkin that being concerned for human rights, really and truly concerned does not depend on the color of the victim's skin or their religious background. It is an absolute moral position. This is not something Malkin can understand, because her outrage is purchased. However, the reason there was so much national outrage over Abu Ghraib is because in the pictures shown, there were not masked Iranian police committing atrocities, rather, they were US soldiers committing atrocities. People feel more culpable because they are directly contributing to this through their own money via taxes, and the horrors depicted are stunningly graphic and obscene on levels I cannot even comprehend. I hope she understand the difference, but that would be asking too much of her and her ilk.
Now, the other big issue I have with Malkin's usual noise festival is that the context for me suggests that in order to prove substantially outraged by Iranian repression, a person must support war against Iran.
ABOVE LINK FOR IRAN AND ABU GHRAIB PHOTOS POSTED BY LARISA ALEXANDROVNA
Here is what Malkin wrote about Abu Ghraib and the photos... a small collection of her concern for human rights... Again, the strange comparison:
Watching the news in my hotel room before my speech, I just saw CNN air a few of the new, highly inflammatory Abu Ghraib photos now making the rounds.
No pixelation of the nude prisoners in the photos. No disclaimers about paying respect to members of the US military who will be endangered by publication of the pics. The Washington Post used the opportunity to republish Abu Ghraib photos and video it obtained in April 2004.
Note please that Malkin is concerned that nude elements of the photos are visible...
From a
Comments response by Larisa:
Ali,
Thank you for thoughtful response. Let me be clear, I do not support the action of the Iranian regime at all. I agree completely that they violate human rights and civil liberties and while I am not a scholar of Islam, my opinion is not far from yours with regard to how the Iranian establishment has used Islam to justify their abuses. We appear to be in agreement sir. So I am not sure what it is that I wrote that would make you think otherwise.
- snip -
She is outraged at how these protesters are being treated. Right? She has no problem, however, defending Gitmo, she has no problem defending the bombing of Lebanon. In fact, Ms. Malkin has no problem with concentration camps for Japanese Americans during WWII. Clearly, Ms. Malkin has no problem with human rights abuses. So why this particular abuse? Why does this particular abuse send her screaming, when the likes of Abu Ghraib did not make her shake in horror all the while she complained of nudity being shown in the photos?
MORE