« عرب سات » تضغط على لبنان لإقفال « الميادين » : : الصفحة الرئيسة | جريدة السفير
▻http://assafir.com/Article/1/454871
«عرب سات» تضغط على لبنان لإقفال «الميادين»
Le Liban risque d’être "sanctionné" par Arabsat à travers le transfert du relais terrestre du Liban à La Jordanie. Il s’agit en réalité pour les Saoudiens de punir les Libanais qui hébergent Al-Mayadeen, une chaîne TV ouvertement anti-saoudienne.
@gonzo : les audiences réalisées par al-Mayadeen en Syrie et au Liban sont-elles publiques ? Et celle de ses concurrentes, al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya et RT arabic ?
@Souriyâm (avé l’accent !) Secret jalousement gardé que ces audiences, seuls quelques publicitaires, et encore... Cela dit, je pense que les gens, de plus en plus, zappent au gré des chaînes et des circonstances. RT arabic, au doigt mouillé, n’a pas tellement de public (sauf peut-être en Syrie, surtout depuis quelque temps !) Mayadeen a fait son trou, pas immense, mais il existe (audience plutôt petites bourgeoises nationalistes intellos plus la touche confessionnelle bien entendu). Al-Jazeera a perdu du terrain... En tout cas, les audiences sont calculées certainement à l’ancienne, sur les temps de présence devant l’écran (formule Ipsos et Cie) alors que de plus en plus le visionnage via smartphones et ordi, surtout sur des séquences politiques (infos importantes, débats) gagne du terrain.
Et pas de #je_suis_Mayadeen à l’horizon, ce qui contraste avec l’autre « affaire » médiatique du moment au Liban : la plainte déposée par le Hezbollah contre Dima Sadeq pour diffamation, simple plainte au civil donc, mais dont les belles âmes s’émeuvent comme si la journaliste était muselée ou menacée de mort...
Saudi regime wants to close a TV station
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2015/11/saudi-regime-wants-to-close-tv-station.html
The Arabsat is an Arab League satellite project for the broadcast of Arab TV stations. But Saudi Arabia has the largest share (but less than 40%) so it uses its muscles to censor and repress and ban. This week it requested that the Lebanese government closes down Al-Mayadin because a guest on the TV station aired criticisms of Saudi regime, and it threatened to relocate Arabsat broadcast station from Lebanon to Amman. Kid you not. (Not in the US press, natürlich).
Abdel Bari Atwane en parle dans son édito du jour : ▻http://www.raialyoum.com/?p=340490
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب : Take One : how Human Rights Watch justified the placement of Alawite civilians in cages as human shields
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2015/11/take-one-how-human-rights-watch.html
Et cet autre commentaire n’est pas mal non plus, qui décortique le minable communiqué de HRW. Faut-il préciser qour ceux qui ne le lisent pas régulièrement, que l’auteur dénonce régulièrement les horreurs du gouvernement syrien ?
Take One: how Human Rights Watch justified the placement of Alawite civilians in cages as human shields
1) notice that the headline does not talk about human shields but provides justifications for the war crime: “Armed Groups Use Caged Hostages to Deter Attacks”.
2) Another justification for the war crime: “even if the purpose is to stop indiscriminate government attacks,” said Nadim Houry”.
3) Yet another justification of the practice: “Syrian government forces have repeatedly attacked residential areas and popular markets in Eastern Ghouta”. I defy you to find this: in all the many statements by Human Rights Watch about war crimes of the regime do they ever insert a sentence or a passage to the effect that Syrian rebels also target civilians? The sentence here is merely inserted to justify the war crimes and to engender sympathy for the rebels.
4) The statement then cites a to provide a further justification: “The Shaam video includes interviews with local residents who justify the use of the cages by arguing that this may deter further attacks.”. Imagine if a story by HRW about barrel bombs over Ghuta, from which Syrian rebels shell Damascus indiscriminately includes a statement by a pro-government source in which he/she says that the bombs may “deter further attacks”?
5) they then issue a list of attacks by the government on civilians, of course always based on their pro-rebel sources. Has HRW resorted to this methodology in all of its statements on war crimes by regime? Never.
6) They then provide this statement which has no pictorial evidence whatsoever except a claim on Facebook: imagine if the HRW accepts to rely on a Facebook page to document war crimes by the Syrian rebels: "On September 13, a Facebook page used to spread local news from Fua and Kefraya, two Shia towns in Idlib besieged by Jaysh al-Fateh, a coalition of opposition armed groups including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, posted images of a cage that they claimed contained detained Jaysh al-Fateh combatants that had been placed on top of a building in the besieged communities by fighters defending the towns." Notice that the HRW statement does not even bother to mention that the two towns of Fua and Kafrayyah are both held hostage by Syrian rebels for no reason except the sectarian affiliation of the residents.
This is one of the few times in which Western human rights organizations have helped and abetted and justified war crimes by rebels—in the case of Syria.
#clichés_arabes (hélas)
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب : Take Two : How New York Times justified the placement of Alawite civilians in cages to be used as human shields
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2015/11/take-two-how-new-york-times-justified.html
Take Two: How New York Times justified the placement of Alawite civilians in cages to be used as human shields
1) Typical of the New York Times: Alawite sect is always referred to as “Bashshar Al-Asad’s sect”, as if he is its prophet or as if he owns it. This is bigotry in the extreme and has provided justification and jubilation for war crimes by Syrian rebels. It would be disgusting anti-Semitism if one were to refer to Judaism as “the religion of Ariel Sharon” or to refer to Islam as “the religion of ISIS”.
2) Like the HRW statement (see below) the article immediately gives readers justification of the cage war crime: “Two days after Syrian government forces shelled a rebel-held suburb of the capital, Damascus, killing at least 40 people in a market”. That is it: the reader is immediately persuaded to sympathize with the war crimes of the rebel by telling them that the Syrian regime started this. Notice that New York Times has been doing this constantly and it is a propaganda service that the New York Times has never rendered except to Israeli occupation forces. You will look in vain to find any reference to a war crime by the regime in which a sentence is inserted to remind readers of a war crime by Syrian rebels.
3) Instead of condemning the act, the article in fact makes an effort to blatantly justifiies it and does not even refer to its practice as human shields: “apparently to shield the area from further bombardment”.
4) Wait: how were they able to capture “army officers” with their families? The officers were on the battle fields with their families? “the prisoners were captured army officers from President Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite sect and their families.” Another desperate attempt to provide justifications.
5) Joshua Landis is wrong: it is not uncommon for Syrian rebels to impose Sunni-style veiling on Alawite women: “Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma, suggested that some of the women appeared to be Sunni Muslims.”
6) The NYT even tries to present the leader of the group which committed those war crimes in a positive light: “The Army of Islam, a group with financial backing from Saudi Arabia, is led by Zahran Alloush, a Sunni commander who seemed to back away from sectarian anti-Alawite statements in an interview with an American journalist, Roy Gutman, in May.” That is all what it takes for NYT to be convinced that he is no more anti-Alawite? I am sure that Times would have been impressed with Ribbentrop statements in Nuremberg as well.
7) Obama’s administration is in contact with this war criminal: “Mr. Alloush, who said his faction had been in direct contact with Daniel Rubinstein, the Obama administration’s special envoy for Syria”.
8) Another attempt by Alewives to justify indiscriminate war crimes against all Alawites: “Alawites from the Assad family have ruled Syria for decades, even though most Syrians are Sunnis.” Imagine how the NYT would be outraged if an Arab were to insert a statement about the murder of Jews by Palestinians to the effect that: “Jews have ruled Palestine since 1948”: such a reference would be categorized as anti-Semitism in a sentence about violence.
9) Another justification in the same article for the cage war crime: “The rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta has been under intense bombardment since the insurgents managed to block the main northern entrance to Damascus”.
10) They managed to even Skyped with someone to give them another justification: ““It’s to protect the civilians,” Bilal Abu Salah, a media activist from Douma, said in a Skype interview on Sunday.” And by referring to this supporter of war crimes as “media activists” they only lend his voice credibility.
11) Then a medication justification for the cage war crime: “A paramedic from Douma who asked to be identified only by his first name, Ahmad, said the casualties of the recent strikes there “were women and kids mostly.””
12) Another justification: “said the Sunni Islamist group had copied the strategy of using “kidnapped people — including whole families — as human shields,” seen earlier in Alawite-majority towns seeking to deter shelling by insurgents.” Where did the Times correspondent see that in Alawite-majority towns? Why not name them and provide readers with pictures?
Excellente analyse de texte, en en l’occurrence un article du NYT, par Angry Arab. Pas suffisant malheureusement pour convaincre ceux qui s’obstinent encore à applaudir à la révolution syrienne.